Erfworld 135 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 122

[teratorn]

I'm very curious to see if Charlie will ask Parson for another calculation for the upcoming battle rounds. Vinny's (and Jillian's) reactions to charlescom forces ought to be interesting also.

Also note that Wanda does not say 'you can't take all the money', just 'you can't take the money', implying (though I admit, not proving) that money cannot be physically moved from one locale to another (but rather, it seems to have a nebulous non-physical existence, as in many games).

Sizemore seems to carry money with him. Jillian carries a purse. (ok, I admit we don't see the money).

[Walpurgisborn]

I missed any part of your reply with a point, sorry. You listed a bunch of things but you didn't explain what if any relevance you felt those things conveyed.

Mea culpa, I was responding to the "no hints" statement. In point of fact, there are hints, although I do agree with you that deciding it was Ansom in Faq with the lead pipe would be pure speculation.

[DevilDan]

Re: A warlord with schmuckers can survive after a ruler falls
Stanley couldn't take the treasury with him. If the overlord can't take the treasury, surely a mere warlord cannot either. Also note that Wanda does not say 'you can't take all the money', just 'you can't take the money', implying (though I admit, not proving) that money cannot be physically moved from one locale to another (but rather, it seems to have a nebulous non-physical existence, as in many games).

Actually, I understood Wanda's comments as meaning that he couldn't take all of it. not that he couldn't take any of it. If Jillian is a mercenary without a city, she must be able to receive payment in some portable form

Re: 'natural' barbarians:
units are produced by cities, and take time to do so
Neutral cities freeze in time
Therefore neutral cities cannot pop units.

I think that that's probably true. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for neutral or frozen cities to pop units, just that those units can't do anything either.

On the other hand, 'barbarians' could be a city-less side, like the gobwins. However, we have not seen any indication that there are 'human' city-less sides. Further, Jillian refers to herself as becoming a barbarian when Faq fell.

I would think that a human without a side is by definition a barbarian. The fact that Jillian was not assumed to have been an "heir" suggests that there are other barbarians running around along with witches, elf brands, and marbits.

[Lamech]

I would like to argue that speculating on the economy (as in shmucker-gathering and spending), and how units are popped is fairly pointless right now.

Sure units are popped by cities but... casters make units, and sides that lack cities. And those "cityless sides" erm... well not always cityless, so do we even know they are super differant? We really don't know how shmuckers can all be gained, how they can be spent or anything really. So far we have only really seen the combat part of erfworld. Nothing with city management or unit production.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute. For that matter, prove that Duty and Loyalty necessarily (and to be clear, I'm using 'necessarily' in the context of modal logic) exist in Erfworld, and that they aren't simply theories that Erflings created to explain free will in the context of their world, in which things like 'move' and 'hits' are observable and verifiable attributes. I'll give you a hint: it can't be done. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I am a reasonable person and will admit when I am wrong.

Ok, I'll bite. I can't prove anything at all to a person who is willing to run off into speculation about revealed rules of the Erfworld being simply fantasies made up by the inhabitants. The authors have given the readers insufficient information for the proof you desire, and even if the authors came out and said in the context of the strip "These things exist, it is a certainty" (which they have done via the context of the discussion between Parson and Maggy) you would still be able to equivocate based on your theory that the Erfians are all deluded by a mere belief system not founded in reality. With your desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God (is in, the authors state in some non-strip context that this is their intent and thus it is so) or refusal to accept any other theory than your own, you'll be able to cling to your beliefs as long as you like without any worry that even clear and evident events in the comic could possible conflict with that theory. Congratulations.

However, I can come to some logically drawn conclusions based on those clear and evident events, if I refrain from the wild-eyed and unfounded hypothesis you appear to prefer.

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.
Since we don't know all of the rules, we can't say with certainty why both stats need to exist even with the limitation on Duty that it only applies to Commanders. It would be easy enough to say that Loyalty applies further restrictions and obligations upon Commander rank units, those compelling the use of their initiative and the forbidding of withholding information or conspiring. I suspect that the authors are not game designers, and chose a poor set of mechanics.

As to your proposition that Duty and Loyalty do not exist, but are fabrications of Erfworld inhabitants, this is not likely at all. These stats are grouped with the ability of a scouting unit to send back intel (and possibly other abilities) and with Obedience in the class of Natural Thinkamancy.

While it's possible that the inhabitants might have come to lump clearly demonstrable abilities together (scouting units do send intel, disobediant units do sometimes disband) with non-demonstrable abilities (no one can see a Loyalty score, and while it is not stated Duty may also be hidden) they are not intuitive things to group into the same set. Something makes the Erfers group these dissimilar things together, and the most logical conclusion is that Thinkamancers are aware of these things as a result of their specialty.

[Lamech]

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.

No. Commanders have loyalty... captured warlords have low-loyalty (Klog 12). More importantly it DOES matter. If it didn't matter low-loyalty wouldn't be an issue, for Parson. And Wanda not being under loyalty spells wouldn't matter. (Page 95). So, no that doesn't explain loyalty's existance and importance for commanders.

[BillyJimBoBob]

No. Commanders have loyalty... captured warlords have low-loyalty (Klog 12).

Thanks for clearing that up. So Commanders having both Loyalty and Duty is indeed confirmed.

So, no that doesn't explain loyalty's existance and importance for commanders.

I did indeed explain it: Non-Commanders do not have Duty. So, they have Loyalty. For Commanders, Duty is a layer over or in addition to Loyalty, with some specific demands on Commanders.

I also offered up the hypothesis that Loyalty alone would serve, at least as far as we know about it, and that the authors are simply not experienced game designers.

Parson is also a bit of a special case, as the summoning spell also compels him to serve. We don't know if this is because he has no innate Loyalty and/or Duty, not being from Erf and others not being able to see his stats. Or it is possible that since the Natural Thinkamancy Loyalty can be broken that a reinforcement was built into the spell to cover just such a contingent sumonee as Parson. It is a rather potent spell, after all.

[fendrin]

Ok, I'll bite. I can't prove anything at all to a person who is willing to run off into speculation about revealed rules of the Erfworld being simply fantasies made up by the inhabitants. The authors have given the readers insufficient information for the proof you desire, and even if the authors came out and said in the context of the strip "These things exist, it is a certainty" (which they have done via the context of the discussion between Parson and Maggy) you would still be able to equivocate based on your theory that the Erfians are all deluded by a mere belief system not founded in reality. With your desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God (is in, the authors state in some non-strip context that this is their intent and thus it is so) or refusal to accept any other theory than your own, you'll be able to cling to your beliefs as long as you like without any worry that even clear and evident events in the comic could possible conflict with that theory. Congratulations.

It would not be difficult for Rob & Jamie to prove Loyalty and/or Duty exist in the context of the comic. For Loyalty, there is no reason that the loyalty stat could not be listed in the stat block (along with hits, move, etc. as seen here), but with question marks or something similar in the place of a value. Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it. For instance, If Duty compelled Wanda to croak Jillian, but we see her fighting it, trying to resist doing her Duty.

I don't think they should though, even though they could. The ambiguity about free will is a running thread in the comic, and I like it. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to your assertion that Duty is absolute.

So no, I do not "desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God ... or refusal to accept any other theory than your own" as you put it. So far, however, all we have are subjective reports of these things. I think that is intentional on Rob and Jamie's part. I applaud them for it.

However, I can come to some logically drawn conclusions based on those clear and evident events, if I refrain from the wild-eyed and unfounded hypothesis you appear to prefer.

Ad hominem attacks are about as effective as the 'I'm right you're wrong' approach. I would also like to point out that while I posited that it is possible that Loyalty and Duty do not exist, I did not state I think that is the case (I believe Duty does exist, but is non-absolute; I am on the fence about the existence of Loyalty)

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.
Since we don't know all of the rules, we can't say with certainty why both stats need to exist even with the limitation on Duty that it only applies to Commanders. It would be easy enough to say that Loyalty applies further restrictions and obligations upon Commander rank units, those compelling the use of their initiative and the forbidding of withholding information or conspiring. I suspect that the authors are not game designers, and chose a poor set of mechanics.

As lamech pointed out, warlords DO have Loyalty (or at least as much so as any unit). If Duty was absolute, why wouldn't warlords be captured instead of croaked? Yet, they are not. Further evidence that Duty is not absolute.

As to your proposition that Duty and Loyalty do not exist, but are fabrications of Erfworld inhabitants, this is not likely at all. These stats are grouped with the ability of a scouting unit to send back intel (and possibly other abilities) and with Obedience in the class of Natural Thinkamancy.

While it's possible that the inhabitants might have come to lump clearly demonstrable abilities together (scouting units do send intel, disobediant units do sometimes disband) with non-demonstrable abilities (no one can see a Loyalty score, and while it is not stated Duty may also be hidden) they are not intuitive things to group into the same set. Something makes the Erfers group these dissimilar things together, and the most logical conclusion is that Thinkamancers are aware of these things as a result of their specialty.

This is very much similar to the debate in the philosophy of language about kinds and natural kinds. Interesting stuff (to me, anyway), though hard to wrap your head around.

There is one very obvious reason to group these things together, and it is implied by the title: Natural Thinkamancy. So these things are all thinkamancies (or believed to be thinkamancies) which are not unnatural in origin. That means no one cast a spell or anything like that.

So let's look at Loyalty. If it exists it is clearly thinkamancy as opposed to any of the other magic types. Further, if it exists, it does so without being the product of a spell, so it must be natural. Hence, Natural Thinkamancy. The same applies to Duty. I find it VERY intuitive.

Parson is also a bit of a special case, as the summoning spell also compels him to serve. We don't know if this is because he has no innate Loyalty and/or Duty, not being from Erf and others not being able to see his stats. Or it is possible that since the Natural Thinkamancy Loyalty can be broken that a reinforcement was built into the spell to cover just such a contingent sumonee as Parson. It is a rather potent spell, after all.

If Duty is absolute there is no reason to reinforce Parson's Loyalty, as Duty is (according to your conception of it) 'above and beyond' Loyalty. As Chief Warlord Parson would be subject to Duty. And thus, in your own words:

He may have a Loyalty score, but is it relevant?

[BillyJimBoBob]

It would not be difficult for Rob & Jamie to prove Loyalty and/or Duty exist in the context of the comic. For Loyalty, there is no reason that the loyalty stat could not be listed in the stat block (along with hits, move, etc. as seen here), but with question marks or something similar in the place of a value. Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it. For instance, If Duty compelled Wanda to croak Jillian, but we see her fighting it, trying to resist doing her Duty.

Both have been demonstrated. Loyalty is a hidden stat, as your link clearly shows. Showing it with <???> after both citing that it was a hidden stat it in the clog and demonstrating it via a comic panel would be a very poor way of proving Loyalty exited. Wanda was compelled/allowed by her Duty to disobey an order and refused to promote a pretty boy from the ranks to the position of Chief Warlord. She had to or was able to do what was best for Stanley even in violation of his orders. She either wanted or was compelled to seek his continued best interests.

If Duty is absolute there is no reason to reinforce Parson's Loyalty, as Duty is (according to your conception of it) 'above and beyond' Loyalty. As Chief Warlord Parson would be subject to Duty.

Except that Parson is, as I noted, a special case. Don't ignore the entire argument just to pick apart a few sentences, please.

I've suggested before that the authors hadn't given the design enough thought, and might be poor game designers (if excellent artists!). I may have been too hasty in that assessment. If Loyalty and Duty are not separate, then a low Loyalty would also mean a low Duty. That would be intolerable to a conquering Ruler, and all captured Casters and other Commander rank units would be croaked. Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not.

[SteveMB]

Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not.

That fits the descriptions we've been given, and implies that Loyalty determines the likelihood that a unit can violate Duty.

(Of course, this assumes that Loyalty and Duty actually exist. It's entirely possible that Erfworlders, noting that visible stats govern certain aspects of their lives, invented invisible ones to explain other aspects. If so, Loyalty and Duty might have no more real existence in Erfworld than epicycles and phlogiston do in the real world.)

(EDIT: I can't help but wonder if Parson's comparison of the grid of magic types to "that crap about the four basic elements that people believed for centuries just because Aristotle said it" is a hint in that direction....)

[Aquillion]

Sizemore seems to carry money with him. Jillian carries a purse. (ok, I admit we don't see the money).

Since Sizemore talks about 'Rands' and not shmuckers, some people have speculated that that's a separate currency for units. Another possibility, of course, is that it's a small fractional unit or something, and units get a tiny percentage of their faction's upkeep for their own use, with the remainder going to the nebulous treasury.

In any case, the fact that Jillian is alive, has units of her own, was able to pay for a Thinkagram, and is capable of working as a mercenary clearly she can hold money to some extent, even without a city.

[DevilDan]

Since Sizemore talks about 'Rands' and not shmuckers, some people have speculated that that's a separate currency for units. Another possibility, of course, is that it's a small fractional unit or something, and units get a tiny percentage of their faction's upkeep for their own use, with the remainder going to the nebulous treasury.

To be fair, those could be funds provided specifically from the treasury with permission from Stanley, who, after all, encourages his followers to indulge in their hobbies.

[Starwaster]

I wouldn't exactly call this a Win for Ansom, considering what he had to sign over to Charlie for help. I have a feeling it's everything short of his soul and/or pants.

Hmmm, must be a thread about the new contract around here already... I'm betting that Parson and his Mathamancy artifact are in there. How carefully did Ansom read that contract?

I wonder if there's mention of the Arkenpliers in it

[Lamech]

(Of course, this assumes that Loyalty and Duty actually exist. It's entirely possible that Erfworlders, noting that visible stats govern certain aspects of their lives, invented invisible ones to explain other aspects. If so, Loyalty and Duty might have no more real existence in Erfworld than epicycles and phlogiston do in the real world.)

I suspect that since commanders have it and others don't, duty exists in someway. Maybe not exactly what erfworlders think it is, maybe all commanders have an in-born sense of duty* to there overlord, that includes being forthright, and not conspiring.

*As in the conventional English sense of the word, not the conventional Erfworld sense of the word.

[SteveMB]

I suspect that since commanders have it and others don't, duty exists in someway. Maybe not exactly what erfworlders think it is, maybe all commanders have an in-born sense of duty* to there overlord, that includes being forthright, and not conspiring.

*As in the conventional English sense of the word, not the conventional Erfworld sense of the word.

Well, of course some of them have "duty" and "loyalty" in the real-world sense of those terms. The question is whether the mechanics described by Parson (after they were described to him by Maggie) actually exist, or whether they're how Erflings see those personality traits through the prism of the known mechanics of their world.

[fendrin]

Both have been demonstrated.

Please link to a demonstration of either in which it is clear that they are being demonstrated. As I said before, it cannot be done. Neither are demonstrated (though there are events that we can analyze in the context of Loyalty and Duty, there is nothing that suggests they exist any more or less than free will).

Loyalty is a hidden stat, as your link clearly shows. Showing it with <???> after both citing that it was a hidden stat it in the clog and demonstrating it via a comic panel would be a very poor way of proving Loyalty exited.

Actually, it would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist. The klog is vague on how exactly it is 'unknowable'. It could mean 'unknowable' in that no one can prove it exists or it could be 'unknowable' in that one cannot know it's value. The latter allows for proof of the existence of the stat, the former precludes that possibility.

Wanda was compelled/allowed by her Duty to disobey an order and refused to promote a pretty boy from the ranks to the position of Chief Warlord. She had to or was able to do what was best for Stanley even in violation of his orders. She either wanted or was compelled to seek his continued best interests.

This is a great example of a case that can be analyzed in terms of Loyalty and Duty, but does not demonstrate that they exist. We readers understood what was happening in that page before it was suggested that Wanda has no free will.

Except that Parson is, as I noted, a special case. Don't ignore the entire argument just to pick apart a few sentences, please.

Your statement was that he is special case in that he is also bound by the spell. I was pointing out that that would be pointless If duty was absolute. I didn't ignore anything. If Duty was absolute, then the creators of the spell would not have had any reason to suspect that the subject of the spell might violate their Duty. They would, in fact, have no concept of violating Duty. Therefore by reinforcing Loyalty, it is revealed that the creators of the spell do have a concept of violating Duty, which means they must understand that it is a possibility, which means that it has to have been a possibility before they created the spell, which means it has to be possible for native Erfling warlords.

I've suggested before that the authors hadn't given the design enough thought, and might be poor game designers (if excellent artists!). I may have been too hasty in that assessment.

I try to look for explanations other than 'the authors screwed up'. I figure that if I have to assume the authors made a fundamental mistake in order to make my speculations work, then my speculations are probably wrong.

If Loyalty and Duty are not separate, then a low Loyalty would also mean a low Duty. That would be intolerable to a conquering Ruler, and all captured Casters and other Commander rank units would be croaked. Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not.

They are separate. There is no reason to think that they are not separate. As described in that klog, Duty influences (not controls) the behavior of Commander/Warlord/Chief Warlord. Loyalty is a stat that, if low, can (amongst other things) allow commanders and so forth to ignore Duty.

One could (and in fact I have) consider Loyalty to have an inverse relationship with free will; Low loyalty means more freedom, high loyalty means less freedom.

What does that mean? It means that Duty is not absolute and thus Stanley could have arranged for the Gobwins to kill Saline IV (that's what this has all been about, in case you don't remember...).

[Decius]

Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it.

It's been done.

Shut up! Shut up until you're ordered to speak! You don't know anything!

That was Stanley to Parson, not me to you. No offense is intended, that's just the best example I could find of duty.

[dr pepper]

I think the best example is when Sizemore says "...i think i have to hate you." He's going to do as ordered, but only because of Duty.

[SeraphRainy]

ahahahahaha yeeeeees

For everyone who wanted wanda to grabthe piers and win the day I have to say an extra haha. Because it is so much BOOPING cooler for us to have a massive battle scene led by Parson. And oddly enough I realy don't care to discus symantics about the comic right now because Im stoked. LULZ

For those who are about to pwnzor we solute you.

Did I mention itll be cool to see parson get his gameface on to wade through the munchkins of death.

[fendrin]

Shut up! Shut up until you're ordered to speak! You don't know anything!

That was Stanley to Parson, not me to you. No offense is intended, that's just the best example I could find of duty.

That would be Obedience, not Duty.

I think the best example is when Sizemore says "...i think i have to hate you." He's going to do as ordered, but only because of Duty.

That is perhaps the best example, but it still does not prove the existence of Duty. The events on that page are perfectly feasible without Duty existing. Perhaps I was too hasty in declaring that Duty could be proven. Even if Sizemore said 'I will do my Duty, but I hate you for it', he would be referring to his own belief in Duty, which is not a proof of it's existence.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Actually, it [showing a unit with Loyalty listed with ??] would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist.

No, it would be a horrible way to go about it, because they have already shown unit stats and no Loyalty was listed. Consistency counts when you're trying to tell a story.

Your statement was that he is special case in that he is also bound by the spell. I was pointing out that that would be pointless If duty was absolute. I didn't ignore anything. If Duty was absolute, then the creators of the spell would not have had any reason to suspect that the subject of the spell might violate their Duty. They would, in fact, have no concept of violating Duty. Therefore by reinforcing Loyalty, it is revealed that the creators of the spell do have a concept of violating Duty, which means they must understand that it is a possibility, which means that it has to have been a possibility before they created the spell, which means it has to be possible for native Erfling warlords.

No, fendrin, you're doing it again. My statement was that Stanley can not see Parson's stats, and therefore he is a huge mystery. If he doesn't show his stats, he might not have them (I'm aware that his Leadership can be observed indirectly, but that does not invalidate the point). If he doesn't have them, he might not have a Loyalty or a Duty, either. And so the summoning spell, since it can summon even such a radically different type of being imposes its own Loyalty commitment upon the person summoned.

They [Loyalty and Duty] are separate. There is no reason to think that they are not separate. As described in that klog, Duty influences (not controls) the behavior of Commander/Warlord/Chief Warlord. Loyalty is a stat that, if low, can (amongst other things) allow commanders and so forth to ignore Duty.

You're a funny kind of person, you know that? On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please.

What does that mean? It means that Duty is not absolute and thus Stanley could have arranged for the Gobwins to kill Saline IV (that's what this has all been about, in case you don't remember...).

When you say Duty, are you referring to the fiction imagined by the Erfians, or to the rule of Duty? Just trying to figure out which personality I'm talking to here...

Stanley was Saline's Chief Warlord. It's been stated categorically in the comic that Duty prevents conspiring against the Ruler. Unless shown by the authors how this restriction could be overcome (and overcome without conspiring) or how Parson got it wrong (something he has never done previously, it in fact his best strength to grasp rules quickly and thoroughly and to understand all the implications of those rules), Stanley had best not be revealed to have been responsible for Saline's death. You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line. So your speculation is wonderful, but it is not supported by anything rational within the story.

[BillyJimBoBob]

Hmmm, must be a thread about the new contract around here already... I'm betting that Parson and his Mathamancy artifact are in there. How carefully did Ansom read that contract?

I wonder if there's mention of the Arkenpliers in it

He had read the contract previously, but decided not to accept the terms. He only needed to see the amendments. His reaction on seeing them was "Outrageous!", but he choose to accept anyway. We don't know how carefully he was able to read the amendments, but the implication was that he read them, was outraged, but decided that they were more acceptable than death or capture and GK getting the Arcenpliers.

[SteveMB]

Actually, it [showing a unit with Loyalty listed with ??] would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist.

No, it would be a horrible way to go about it, because they have already shown unit stats and no Loyalty was listed. Consistency counts when you're trying to tell a story.

I think the idea was that if the authors wanted to show that Loyalty was like the known stats of Move, Hits, etc, it would have been done that way from the beginning. The implication is that the authors didn't want that.

No, fendrin, you're doing it again. My statement was that Stanley can not see Parson's stats, and therefore he is a huge mystery. If he doesn't show his stats, he might not have them (I'm aware that his Leadership can be observed indirectly, but that does not invalidate the point). If he doesn't have them, he might not have a Loyalty or a Duty, either. And so the summoning spell, since it can summon even such a radically different type of being imposes its own Loyalty commitment upon the person summoned.

Except that the spell, magical compulsions and all, was crafted before anybody had any notion that it might summon a warlord without visible stats.

(Well, maybe a wizard Predictamancer did that part....)

You're a funny kind of person, you know that? On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please.

"Loyalty" and "Duty" certainly exist as concepts understood by Erflings, whether or not they actually exist as attributes of their world. To reuse an earlier analogy, I can tell that "epicycles" and "phlogiston" are two different things, even though neither is actually a real thing at all.

Stanley was Saline's Chief Warlord. It's been stated categorically in the comic that Duty prevents conspiring against the Ruler.

It was stated categorically by Parson that that's what Maggie had explained to him. That doesn't prove that she's correct. (The simplest assumption is to provisionally assume that she is, and that the Klog is describing another feature of Erfworld. However, I have a hunch that the assumption may turn out to be faulty, and that the issue of what free will Erflings and Parson do and do not have will be revisited.)

Unless shown by the authors how this restriction could be overcome (and overcome without conspiring) or how Parson got it wrong (something he has never done previously, it in fact his best strength to grasp rules quickly and thoroughly and to understand all the implications of those rules), Stanley had best not be revealed to have been responsible for Saline's death

There's no suggestion that Parson might have gotten wrong what Maggie explained. There's just the question of whether Maggie's explanation corresponds with reality.

You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line.

Yes, we have. We saw that they've organized the known types of magic into categories -- and, perhaps significantly, we've seen Parson express skepticism as to whether their beliefs about how their world works are really accurate.

[DevilDan]

This has probably been mentioned before, but if Loyalty where a visible number, then an Overlord would immediately be able to tell if one of his commanders was starting to entertain disloyal thoughts.

[fendrin]

...

Uh, what SteveMB said. I have a few things to say beyond what he already said (thanks for saving me the effort, Steve!), but not much.

You're a funny kind of person, you know that?

Yes, yes I do. I take that as a compliment, though I have a feeling it was intended as an ad hominem.

On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please.

You have this a little backwards. If they exist as expressed to us in the Klog they are separate. If they do not exist at all, they are still separate concepts (SteveMB used the comparison of phlogiston and epicycles, I was thinking of phlogiston and ether... all different things, all not existing).

When you say Duty, are you referring to the fiction imagined by the Erfians, or to the rule of Duty? Just trying to figure out which personality I'm talking to here...

Both. Like my personalities, they are in fact the same thing. If it helps, you can add "(if it actually exists)" after the word 'Duty'. For more on the concept of objects that may or may not exist, I recommend Alexius Meinong's theory of objects, though I myself an not a Meinongian.

You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line. So your speculation is wonderful, but it is not supported by anything rational within the story.

I figure that Erf has it's own version of science (empirical studies of magic, or some such). Otherwise where would all the info on magic come from (Sizemore clearly didn;t have it all form the moment of popping)? Science attempts to figure out how things work, but occasionally 'figures out' something that is false. For instance, ether.

This has probably been mentioned before, but if Loyalty where a visible number, then an Overlord would immediately be able to tell if one of his commanders was starting to entertain disloyal thoughts.

That is indeed a good explanation for why the value of the stat should be hidden, but the value could have been hidden without hiding the existence of the stat.

[BillyJimBoBob]

I think the idea was that if the authors wanted to show that Loyalty was like the known stats of Move, Hits, etc, it would have been done that way from the beginning. The implication is that the authors didn't want that.

I think you're right, but I don't see your point beyond that.

Except that the spell, magical compulsions and all, was crafted before anybody had any notion that it might summon a warlord without visible stats.

(Well, maybe a wizard Predictamancer did that part....)

When you craft a spell which can summon someone "from anywhere in all existence" the implication is that you know something about all of existence, and that includes the fact that some beings in other parts of existence don't have visible stats.

Yes, we have. We saw that they've organized the known types of magic into categories -- and, perhaps significantly, we've seen Parson express skepticism as to whether their beliefs about how their world works are really accurate.

The organization of magic is based upon observable effects: "In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast." This categorizing has zero to do with elevating mundane concepts like loyalty and duty to the same degree as Attack and Move, other observable effects. There has been no indication of any kind that Erfians would imagine things to apply to units which did not either apply or exist.

If it helps, you can add "(if it actually exists)" after the word 'Duty'.

I won't be doing that, and it would not help. Duty exists, as presented to the readers by the authors. To entertain theories to the contrary without any evidence at all has little merit.

[Godskook]

I won't be doing that, and it would not help. Duty exists, as presented to the readers by the authors. To entertain theories to the contrary without any evidence at all has little merit.

What about the fact that Parson doesn't believe it?

[BillyJimBoBob]

What about the fact that Parson doesn't believe it?

Taken in a vacuum, that's a rational point. But factored in with the fact that Parson thinks he might be in a stroke induced coma, that he's trying to come to grips with a world which operates contrary to "real time", etc. and I believe we see a reasonable doubt on his part which is natural given his circumstances. But not any evidence that things which have been explained to him as fact are incorrect. The authors need to establish the facts of this world via the narrative. They need to have that narrative be accurate, or it opens up too many doubts to allow them to obtain willing suspension of disbelief. If things which they explain via the narrative often or even occasionally resolve as "Parson understood it wrong" or "the Erfians didn't understand it correctly" then the entire plot line becomes open to this kind of "it was all a dream" resolution in the end. Which would make for a very unsatisfactory plot line. I have better faith in the authors then that.