Erfworld 144 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 131

[abb3w]

I don't know. I enjoyed the page, but a little part of my brain is still wondering:
:why Ansom, who has been hit with one unusual attack after another, isn't a LOT more cautious approaching a large armed opponent.

Easy.

Strengths: Leadership, Planning, Coalition Building
Weaknesses: Caution, Humility, Ability to Seal the Deal

(By the way, the cast page seems to be broken at the moment....)

[sun_tzu]

Actually, one of the most interesting storylines in the Star Wars franchise is when Darth Sidious revived and forced Luke to the dark side.

You say "interesting", I say "lame".

You guys talking about lame-ass morals need to quit before you ruin it for for the rest of us. Seriously, stop it. Haven't any of you seen Spaceballs? Good is dumb. Is Parson the only one who gets that?

I have rarely seen so much stuff I disagree with packed into so few words.

[DoctorJest]

Why do you want or expect Parson to be a hero? Parson is a gamer. Gaming, other than perhaps role playing, is all about winning. At any cost.

Further, why does everyone expect Parson to be a "hero" when he knows he's working for the 'bad guys' and says he actually prefers that?

[Avilan the Grey]

That raises the question of whether Parson is introducing real changes to the art of war as it is practiced in Erfworld. It may be that one reason Ansom fell for the ruse is that this sort of treachery is truly unprecedented.

If so, and all sides had formerly abided by "honorable" restrictions that will break down as a result of Parson's innovations, then the effect could be to make Erfworld a darker place.

Well at some point all armies are bound to stop wearing bright clothing and shoot at each other across a field. Even if a lot of nobles complain that it is a cowardly thing to do, all that camouflaging and stuff. And in the long run casualties will actually go down because of the change, too.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have rarely seen so much stuff I disagree with packed into so few words.

I only disagree with the phrase "Lame ass morals". Morals are not "lame", but if I was to be eradicated by a supreme invading force, sure hope my commanding officers decided to throw "honor" and "morals" out the window and crush the enemy with everything possible so that I might live. Honor is something you can afford when you are on the moral high ground and has the substantial stronger force.

[ishnar]

You say "interesting", I say "lame".

I'm a sucker for redemption themes.

I have rarely seen so much stuff I disagree with packed into so few words.

Please do me a favor and attribute quotes properly when you cite multiple posts. You make it look like the second quote was mine too.

[Wixit]

Snipped.

Uhh...

It seems I wasn't clear. [i/In general[/i], regardless of this particular comic, people go to watch movies where John Wayne, Luke Skywalker, Neo et al fight the good fight and make the small town/galaxy/world a better place. They don't go to see how an evil mastermind overlord butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens. While there could be a few exceptions who just love seeing decapitations for the hell of it, I'm sure that in general, you'd agree with me.

All I'm saying is how we, who would mostly go root for various heroes pretending to be good and righteous, are now actively rooting for someone who's... bending the rules. No need to blow that simple statement out of proportion into a PhD thesis. I'm not saying Ansom is the good guy, or that Parson is the bad guy, I'm saying that a projection of real world morality on this situation puts Parson's ruse into a morally gray area, and that we don't mind. Note that I'm using "we", not "you" or "they".

The Internet is indeed an inhospitable place...

[Sieggy]

[QUOTE=Wixit;5849695]Uhh...

It seems I wasn't clear. [i/In general[/i], regardless of this particular comic, people go to watch movies where John Wayne, Luke Skywalker, Neo et al fight the good fight and make the small town/galaxy/world a better place. They don't go to see how an evil mastermind overlord butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens. While there could be a few exceptions who just love seeing decapitations for the hell of it, I'm sure that in general, you'd agree with me.

EL SNIPPO GRANDO

QUOTE]

I dunno . . . I've alway though a great movie plot would be the classic 'Evil Genius has device that will blow up the world' meme, where the EG has the Hero helpless and ready to be killed, and the Hero does the obligatory "but before you kill me, I just want to know . . .". To which the EG replies "ummmm . . . no." and kills the Hero.

EG then actually succeeds in taking over the world, and the rest of the movie follows his frustrated descent into despair as he discovers that wanting to take over the world and actually trying to run the great bloody furball are two entirely different things. I mean, if he blows up the world, he goes too. And the maniacs out there hate each other more than they fear him, so he unleashes his Ruthless Underlings to bring order to the world. Which they do, but badly.

He winds up orchestrating a revolution against himself (he is a genius, mind you), fakes his own death, and sneaks off to live a life of peace and quiet as a pot farmer outside of Yakima, Wa. After, of course, setting it up so his RUs take the fall for everything, and he is remembered as the Man Who Brought Peace To The World, only to be betrayed by said RUs.

I see Rowan Atkinson as the lead . . .

[Quincunx]

Sieggy, if you want to dabble with this, report to Media Discussions and find some willing sympathizers. If you're serious--and it sounds workable to me--Get. A. Scriptwriter. Immediately. (Try PMing Bor the Barbarian Monk.) I want to see this. Yes, with Rowan Atkinson if available.

If someone needs the difference between Lawful and Neutral acts pointed out to them in future, I'll refer them back to the archons here, and Jaclyn for Chaotic.

[Avilan the Grey]

Great idea snipped

Well personally I have always wanted to either see that, or a situation where the Evil Overlord turns out to be a good ruler. I'll imagine, for example, that Scorpio would be a good one (my favorite Simpson episode ever...). Basically the idea would be that following the Evil Overlord list, and common sense, the Evil Overlord realizes that the best way to stay in power and avoid assassination attempts etc is to be efficient, not oppress people too much and maybe even achieve popularity among the masses...

[sun_tzu]

I'm a sucker for redemption themes.

So am I, actually...as long as they're written reasonably well. "Dark Empire" was...well, let's just say I'd rather ignore it.

Well personally I have always wanted to either see that, or a situation where the Evil Overlord turns out to be a good ruler. I'll imagine, for example, that Scorpio would be a good one (my favorite Simpson episode ever...). Basically the idea would be that following the Evil Overlord list, and common sense, the Evil Overlord realizes that the best way to stay in power and avoid assassination attempts etc is to be efficient, not oppress people too much and maybe even achieve popularity among the masses...

Well, there's baron Klaus Wulfenbach from "Girl Genius". Sure, he's a mad scientist who's conquered most of steampunk Europe and rules it with an iron-fist...but it's pretty clear he's only doing it because he knows he's better than the alternative. To quote him, "I CAN be ruthless, but I TRY to be fair."

[galdon]

Damnit, I wanna see Ansom kick some ass here. Whatever happened to competent enemies? It's no fun to watch the villain (or in this case, the hero) turn into someone who almost literally hands his enemy his most prized possession. Doesn't he have goons for that purpose?

As much of a bighead as Ansom is, it breaks the versimilitude a bit, for him to be duped by Parson time and time again and still make such critical assumption errors.

Are you serious? outside of parson manipulating him with his one character flaw; pride, ansem has been nothing BUT competent. pride is his character flaw, he will naturally make mistakes related to that flaw, its also the hardest flaw to break because he would have to admit he has a character flaw, and that would hurt his pride.

aside from that, he's had parson on a losing battle constantly, wrecked a lot of parson's plans, turned out to be an epic level dancefighter, enough to make up for his entire army's lack of skill. he broke the wall and took the court, and got a message from charlescom saying parson was going to surrender, a mix between his pride and knowing how bad a situation parson is in combined to make him blind to the attack.

[CaptC]

Well, there's baron Klaus Wulfenbach from "Girl Genius". Sure, he's a mad scientist who's conquered most of steampunk Europe and rules it with an iron-fist...but it's pretty clear he's only doing it because he knows he's better than the alternative. To quote him, "I CAN be ruthless, but I TRY to be fair."

Don't forget Lord Vetinari.

Si non confectus, non reficiat (If it ain't broke, don't fix it).

[Aquillion]

Uhh...

It seems I wasn't clear. In general, regardless of this particular comic, people go to watch movies where John Wayne, Luke Skywalker, Neo et al fight the good fight and make the small town/galaxy/world a better place. They don't go to see how an evil mastermind overlord butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens. While there could be a few exceptions who just love seeing decapitations for the hell of it, I'm sure that in general, you'd agree with me.

All I'm saying is how we, who would mostly go root for various heroes pretending to be good and righteous, are now actively rooting for someone who's... bending the rules. No need to blow that simple statement out of proportion into a PhD thesis. I'm not saying Ansom is the good guy, or that Parson is the bad guy, I'm saying that a projection of real world morality on this situation puts Parson's ruse into a morally gray area, and that we don't mind. Note that I'm using "we", not "you" or "they".

Yes... but they also go to see Han Solo shoot first. Cynical heroes who bend the rules aren't something new or amazing; honestly, they're more popular nowadays than the spaghetti western John Wayne types. And, honestly, Han Solo aside, most of the sorts of movies you mentioned are noted for being aimed at kids and having simplified black-and-white morality. Most modern movies or books are closer to this sort of realistic depth rather than John Wayne white-hats-vs-black-hats.

So it just seems sort of odd that you'd be so surprised that we're willing to root for a hero who would kick below the belt -- I mean, yeah, if it was an audience of twelve-year-olds, it might be surprising, but I think most people here are mature enough to realize that, yes, there are times when it's right and acceptable to throw a dirty punch.

Also, "an evil mastermind overlord who butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens?" Seriously, what the boop?

Erfworld isn't a John Wayne spaghetti western, and saying its morality isn't black-and-white isn't just saying (as you seem to think) that there's some clear obvious bright lines set by rules that define "White", "Black", and then a magic "grey area" parson just entered. "Bending the rules" does not make someone 'more' evil, and Parson didn't get closer to being a kitten-butcherer when he did it.

He's made hard decisions (although, as I said earlier, I think the only really hard decision he made was to fight in the first place -- this ruse does not and should not hang on his conscience compared to that, and I disagree with you that it is even any more 'morally gray' than anything else we've seen him do.) But complicated morality means that a world's morality can't be codified in a set of simple Spaghetti-western white-hat-black-hat rules; making a decision that is hard, doing something that is dishonorable or objectionable, can still ultimately be the right thing to do. Not everyone is always going to agree with you, because they have their own ways of looking at things, but boop them, it's between Parson and his conscience.

As I said, though, I don't think what he did today will hang on his conscience. He killed 3000 people yesterday, at least partially because he couldn't stand the thought of 'losing' to Ansom, and I think that that's something that will likely stay with him for a long time. Compared to that? The warrior-code honor that people are talking about here just doesn't seem like something Parson will care about at all. Yeah, sure, he broke one of Ansom's precious rules, and if he were a character in a John Wayne movie he'd have to wear a black hat for that. Fortunately for him, he isn't and he doesn't, and I don't think he thought twice about what he did here.

[ralphmerridew]

An example would be the American war of independence. It was a very vicious war, fought in ways that 18th century armies considered most unfair and unchivalrous. "Terrorist" is not an unfair description of some of the things done by the eventual winners.

Unchivalrously on both sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ledyard

[Decius]

Well, if we're going by 18th century standards, most of what Parson has done has been immoral: Hit and run tactics on the siege, hiding, attacking enemy leadership x4 (Jillian, Ansom on the wall, Crap golems, and Bogroll v Ansom, using traps, violating a truce. (off of the top of my head, I'm sure there's more)

If that's your standard of morality for fantasy warfare, that's fine- I disagree.

[Fjolnir]

Honestly Han shooting first does more to set up his character development in the movies than anything else in the first film (with the exception of shooting Vader in the ass on the death star run) NONE of the other characters in that scene on the "good guys" team would have shot first (Obi would probably have tried to subtly influence his mind but not kill him, Luke is simply a naive bumpkin at this point in the story) Han starts as a character with purely greedy motivations and a me first attitude but he eventually turns in his own way into one of the noble characters in the series (one can argue that in film 6 he might not have, in fact shot first)

That being said, this is different in Erfworld the rules of engagement are simple: Win or Die, losing will leave your group either neutral (frozen in time until interacted with) or disbanded/croaked (Dead) neither of these are options you want to end up with, and the ONLY people who have a chance to survive are: Nobles (see: Jillian) and Casters (see: Maggie) everyone else falls into the other two categories and is most likely slain where they stand, and in this situation, with the tool not engaged in combat and not at GK, the only option is Croaked, so Ansom is on a genocidal mission here, parson is responding with total warfare, honestly the only option he has is to turn ansom's victory into either a pyrrhic victory (after which he will lose to a returning tool if parson dies or is captured) OR a complete loss (IE: total slaughter of every RCC unit in their territory, or at least as many as they can get before they run faster than the move of parson's rapidly expanding uncroaked army) in this situation, sucker punching ansom is required because if you don't the majority of the units (not parson, wanda, maggie or sizemore) will die as their blood cakes the volcanic soil of their home city

[Bongos]

You know, I don't know if really Charlie has enough forces to take Gobwin Knob. Gobwin Knob might be stronger now than when Parson did those calculations. Parson has all those uncwoaked now, including the fliers and the infantry, and I think they might still have some of those spells and scrolls that Parson discovered later, those also were not included in his mathamancy calculations.
Parson might also be thinking about where Stanley is heading with those dwagons, he was able to communicate a bit with the Foolamancer, and Parson told him to get Stanley to come back, Parson knows Stanley isn't cwoaked yet.
The move by Bogroll? Sheer brilliance. Can't wait to see what happens next.

[fendrin]

You know, I don't know if really Charlie has enough forces to take Gobwin Knob. Gobwin Knob might be stronger now than when Parson did those calculations. Parson has all those uncwoaked now, including the fliers and the infantry, and I think they might still have some of those spells and scrolls that Parson discovered later, those also were not included in his mathamancy calculations.
Parson might also be thinking about where Stanley is heading with those dwagons, he was able to communicate a bit with the Foolamancer, and Parson told him to get Stanley to come back, Parson knows Stanley isn't cwoaked yet.
The move by Bogroll? Sheer brilliance. Can't wait to see what happens next.

The important thing is that Charlie thinks that he has enough forces to take GK. Remember, he prefers to play games that don't even have a losing outcome.

Charlie's big mistake is assuming that Parson's information was complete and accurate when he asked how many Archons would be needed.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

[QUOTE=Sieggy;5849788]

Uhh...

It seems I wasn't clear. [i/In general[/i], regardless of this particular comic, people go to watch movies where John Wayne, Luke Skywalker, Neo et al fight the good fight and make the small town/galaxy/world a better place. They don't go to see how an evil mastermind overlord butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens. While there could be a few exceptions who just love seeing decapitations for the hell of it, I'm sure that in general, you'd agree with me.

EL SNIPPO GRANDO

QUOTE]

I dunno . . . I've alway though a great movie plot would be the classic 'Evil Genius has device that will blow up the world' meme, where the EG has the Hero helpless and ready to be killed, and the Hero does the obligatory "but before you kill me, I just want to know . . .". To which the EG replies "ummmm . . . no." and kills the Hero.

EG then actually succeeds in taking over the world, and the rest of the movie follows his frustrated descent into despair as he discovers that wanting to take over the world and actually trying to run the great bloody furball are two entirely different things. I mean, if he blows up the world, he goes too. And the maniacs out there hate each other more than they fear him, so he unleashes his Ruthless Underlings to bring order to the world. Which they do, but badly.

He winds up orchestrating a revolution against himself (he is a genius, mind you), fakes his own death, and sneaks off to live a life of peace and quiet as a pot farmer outside of Yakima, Wa. After, of course, setting it up so his RUs take the fall for everything, and he is remembered as the Man Who Brought Peace To The World, only to be betrayed by said RUs.

I see Rowan Atkinson as the lead . . .

Actually, at least one version of this exists that I know of. Justice League, animated series, Ep 45-46 titled 'The Hereafter'. Vandal Savage built a device that pretty much destroyed the world, then killed the Justice League. he tried to make up for what he caused by rediscovering as much human history and technology as he could in the ages that he lived. He then teamed up with Superman to send him back and stop his younger self to prevent that future from becoming reality.

I'm sure some other medium has also hosted a similar story...OOh...Babylon 5...Londo Molari. He did make a deal with the devil, and worked hard the rest of the series to make up for his crimes...even accepting his eventual death so he could do what he needed to do.

That kind of redemption tale is often told, though the ones who get screwed are never actually toted as being the 'hero' of the story since...obviously...they just die. Now that I think about it...there have been several stories where a character does something 'bad' and the rest of the story is them dealing with the fallout. The current season of Heroes is another good example...Nathan opened the box of worms and started the snowball rolling...now things might be going wonky to the extreme...oops. As of the past few episodes he has been doing his damnedest to stop his out of control subordinates from killing everyone without them knowing he is helping.

------------------

As far as Parson though...I'm not sure if he is actually the 'hero' of this story...protaganist of the first chapter yes...and a main charater...the focal point of most of the story...but the 'heroes' i think are still to come.

[Kender Wizard]

Aquillion, very well put. Incidentally, this betrayal of a truce might not hurt Parson at all. Consider: Charlie knows perfectly well what happened, as does Ansom. Somehow, I just don't see Charlie giving that information out. We didn't see Ansom saying anything to anyone about where he was going when he flew up to that tower. Even if they do live, the other warlords most likely have no idea what exactly went on. Lastly, there is no guarantee that they (or any non-charlescomm units) will live to get out of the city. Remember, Parsons current plan is to kill as many units as possible now, so that he may uncroak them on his turn. The more units he has, the more force he has to bring to bear on Charlie. A lot depends on whether or not sizemore is capable of removing the rest of the leadership with Ansom likely incapacitated. This goes double if Wanda get ahold of and attunes to the arkenpliers.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, if we're going by 18th century standards, most of what Parson has done has been immoral: Hit and run tactics on the siege, hiding, attacking enemy leadership x4 (Jillian, Ansom on the wall, Crap golems, and Bogroll v Ansom, using traps, violating a truce. (off of the top of my head, I'm sure there's more)

If that's your standard of morality for fantasy warfare, that's fine- I disagree.

Funny, that. It sounds just like wars used to be fought in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century. Being a citizen of the "winner" of the 30 year war (Sweden) and moderately knowledgeable about history, makes me fully aware of all the backstabbing, plundering, robbing, raping and pillaging going on. On all sides. All the time.

As for attacking the leadership stacks: Since our king at the time was attacked and killed when he got lost in the heavy fogs at Lützen... I don't really have a problem with the idea of targeting enemy leaders.

Add to that the constant civilian-occupying troops "relationship" (Civilians attacking and ambushing enemy troops, butchering them, then having their farms burned down and being executed for doing so, and then rinse-and-repeat). In fact, since armies marched on their stomachs, and actual field battles was very rare, this is what most wars consisted of: zigzagging the countryside, plundering farms, burning villages, and getting out of the way before the enemy got his troops to the area to defend it. This is why scorched earth tactics were so good, and commonly used, against invading forces in Russia and other areas with very large distances between villages (it did not work as well in the rest of Europe, since the place is cramped and has been so since before the fall of Rome).
This tactic was always used; even when besieging a town or city a good one third of the force was often out plundering and foraging. If the area could not sustain the occupying force anymore they had to leave, which was, next to being rescued by own troops, what the besieged always hoped would happen.

War is hell, it has always been hell, and it will always be hell.

[Xondoure]

Charlie saw it coming. Why did he let it happen?

If the RCC wins, Charlie has everything he wants. (Parson and the device.) But now Parson has a chance to win, and in that case Charlie gets paid but doesn't get his ultimate warlord or artifact.

I'm nonplussed. Bad strategy on Charlie's part.

No one really knows what Charlie's ultimate goals are.
He may be planning to take control of the RCC after Ansom is dead for all we know. Or he could have a goal that hasn't even been thought of. Or he could just be being absolutely neutral because that is his nature.

[Xondoure]

It's interesting to note our reactions here. Most of us have chosen our side (that is, Parson's side) and we're rooting for them. I'm going to assume the majority of readers are of the "I want the good guys to win" variety, which implies they're good and/or follow most of the laws. Our side aren't really the good guys here, and we go out of our way to explain and rationalize our leader's actions, however morally gray they may be. If Parson was the antagonist, we'd be appaled at this dishonourable, backstabbing ruse, but as is we're saying "it's ok, his back is against the wall, he does what he must" etc.

That is because ansom is a no good cocky idiot. I think this is more intellect versus stupidity than good versus evil.

[Xondoure]

Damnit, I wanna see Ansom kick some ass here. Whatever happened to competent enemies? It's no fun to watch the villain (or in this case, the hero) turn into someone who almost literally hands his enemy his most prized possession. Doesn't he have goons for that purpose?

As much of a bighead as Ansom is, it breaks the versimilitude a bit, for him to be duped by Parson time and time again and still make such critical assumption errors.

I would prefer seeing parson kick ass which is exactly what is happening. He has not had enough successful strategies for the "Ultimate strategist".

[Avilan the Grey]

That is because ansom is a no good cocky idiot. I think this is more intellect versus stupidity than good versus evil.

Agreed. He is also an enormous hypocrite.

[glissle]

That may be enough to force them to retreat (so that Bogroll's remains can be recovered) and end turn.

Possibly enabling the uncroaking of Bogroll - now that would be richly painful for Parson!

By the way, if the coalition is smart, they would recognize that GK will seek to stave off Charlie by "recruiting" an uncroaked army at their expense, so it may be worth a high cost to croak Wanda now while they are within GK's walls. Come to think of it, a croakamancer would be very valuable in a mercenary force - instead of committing expensive archons to rescue a side in danger of losing, you could uncroak the side's own casualties.

It's ironic that Sizemore may have a higher profile with the coalition forces than Wanda. Ansom may be the only warlord who has seen Wanda in operation (since the dancefighting forces were leaderless), while Sizemore made a memorable cameo in their midst. I say ironic because Sizemore is much more effective at defending GK than he would be at supporting invasions (except for the final siege operations of the enemy cities, if one were inclined to risk him at the front lines), while Wanda may be key to making GK a threat to its neighbors (depending on how easy it is to acquire dwagons).

EG then actually succeeds in taking over the world, and the rest of the movie follows his frustrated descent into despair as he discovers that wanting to take over the world and actually trying to run the great bloody furball are two entirely different things.

You might be interested in the film The Emperor and the Assassin, though it doesn't have the rest of the plot you describe and the victor of the inevitable confrontation is undecided for most of the running time of the film (unless you know the history). And there's no redemption, though the plot in Sieggy's post actually wasn't as redemptive as what subsequent posters described - in Sieggy's post, the world gets pretty messed up by infighting; the EG just escapes blame.

[Fishman]

No. Even in war, there are often rules. That's why there's such a thing as "war crimes". Those rules exist to prevent the whole thing from becoming even more atrocious than it already is.

The fact of the matter is that only losers are ever punished for "war crimes". You can get away with practically any atrocity as long as it leads to VICTORY. The "rules" only exist to discourage unnecessary atrocities: it is simply codified vengeance, because losers who have committed atrocities have always been harshly punished. Such rules primarily exist for the benefit of the winning side: By offering the losing side clemency if they do not resort to atrocity, the system hopes to encourage a reduction in unnecessary atrocities: You can fight "clean" and be defeated and not be horribly punished for it, or you can fight "dirty" and get the stick afterwards, but as we all know, history is written by the victors. If you win, you can get away with just about anything. In war, there is nothing more honorable than victory.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

If Jaclyn had followed the rules about paying for magical protection, maybe she'd be alive now. Just saying.

Maybe if Jillian hadn't risked her air units, maybe Jaclyn would have been around to warn Anson. Just sayin.

[pendell]

[QUOTE=Sieggy;5849788]

Uhh...

It seems I wasn't clear. [i/In general[/i], regardless of this particular comic, people go to watch movies where John Wayne, Luke Skywalker, Neo et al fight the good fight and make the small town/galaxy/world a better place. They don't go to see how an evil mastermind overlord butchers mankind and stands victorious, gloating over the would-be-heroes corpses while eating live kittens. While there could be a few exceptions who just love seeing decapitations for the hell of it, I'm sure that in general, you'd agree with me.

EL SNIPPO GRANDO

QUOTE]

I dunno . . . I've alway though a great movie plot would be the classic 'Evil Genius has device that will blow up the world' meme, where the EG has the Hero helpless and ready to be killed, and the Hero does the obligatory "but before you kill me, I just want to know . . .". To which the EG replies "ummmm . . . no." and kills the Hero.

EG then actually succeeds in taking over the world, and the rest of the movie follows his frustrated descent into despair as he discovers that wanting to take over the world and actually trying to run the great bloody furball are two entirely different things. I mean, if he blows up the world, he goes too. And the maniacs out there hate each other more than they fear him, so he unleashes his Ruthless Underlings to bring order to the world. Which they do, but badly.

He winds up orchestrating a revolution against himself (he is a genius, mind you), fakes his own death, and sneaks off to live a life of peace and quiet as a pot farmer outside of Yakima, Wa. After, of course, setting it up so his RUs take the fall for everything, and he is remembered as the Man Who Brought Peace To The World, only to be betrayed by said RUs.

I see Rowan Atkinson as the lead . . .

Siggy,

Recommend you review the 'Bio of a Space Tyrant' series by Piers Antony. Especially Volume 4: Executive

Spoiler

Show

Where the protaganist is both the tyrant and a leader of the resistance against same. There is a good reason for both roles

I guess the fact there is a 5th book in the series -- Statesman -- means it isn't a spoiler to acknowledge that the Tyrant is removed from power and eventually goes on to be a spokesman for the new government.

Respectfully,

Brian P.