Erfworld 151 - tBfGK - 138

[Sarissofoi]

That's cute, but can I get you to sign this SINDY Club(*) membership card?

*: Scarlet Is Not Yet Dead Club.

Sure thing.
Then Proud member Scarlet Is Not Yet Dead Club.

[MattR]

Maybe it's the red lava goodies turning her that color? I would assume that since she looks like Wilma Flintstone, she must be Jetstone.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...68#post5951368


NOT Jetstone :)

[Green and Red]

Why are so many people missing Vinnie's hand in that final panel? i mean its RIGHT THERE *point* lookie!

To me it looks more like Ceasars hand... it isnt really clear though

[Kreistor]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html
Specifically, the "Overlord sets production orders for all cities" bit.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0032.html
The second panel where Stanley says, "I can end you with a thought, y'know."

Together they imply that when an Overlord directly disbands a unit, the unit in question ceases to exist rather than becoming a Barbarian. I get the odd feeling that its said more explicitly in the comic somewhere, but I don't feel like looking any further.

Tey might, except that Parson was summoned by spell. He has already been told that if he disobeys orders, he will be destroyed utterly. Wanda can disobey without being destroyed. Any example that uses effects Parson suffers from is inherently suspect.

Note that Wanda tells Parson he will be destroyed, not disbanded. Disbanded is, then, not a euphemism for disbanded. Wanda is not aware of the differences between Parson's language and her own, so if disbanded meant destroyed, she would have used it.

Stanley is, if anything, not subtle. He would say destroyed if he meant destroyed. He says disbanded. More importantly, he says, "There's no point in disbanding you." It's clear he's talking to all three -- Sizemore, Wanda, and Parson. But there is a point to destroying them. Capturing is reserved for powerful casters -- Wanda is a Master Necromancer, and Sizemore is clearly no slouch as a Dirtamancer. Captured, they are a prize for the enemy. If they are merely released from service, then they can be captured. So, destroying them prevents them from falling into enemy hands as a prize while releasing them benefits the enemy. That tells us that for "disbanding" to have no point, it has to be identical to them remeaining in service and being captured. Thus, disbanding means released from service for everyone... except maybe for Parson, who is different because of the spell that summoned him.

[HandofShadows]

She's a barbarian. :P

Nah, I can understand. She has a bit of a tomboy-like personality, but a lot of people might react like that under the circumstances. ... except for the whole knife thing and venting on an ally (even a rude and skeptical one)...

Ally? WHAT ally? The RCC is dissolved, and even before the RCC dissolved Ceaser never intended to even fight Stanley, TV was after the Faq sites and lied about it Jillian. And when she wants to go after Stanely (the whole purpose of the RCC) she is stopped from doing so and holding her against her will (and contract). This is called betrayal and that means TV is no ally to Jillian, they are the enemy.

And why do I get the feeling that before the end of this Jillain is going to be working with Parson and company?

[Sarissofoi]

I dont know Kreistor.
In some games if you diband units they case to exist not gain independence.
In some games they are free independent and can be hired recruited by another ruler.
Anyway in Erfworld are two(or more) type of units. Units whose were produced by cities and units from neutral forces(like Marbit or Gobwin) and mercenaries(like barbarian or troops from other kingdoms).
First type if disbanded propably case to exist, second type can go home or whatewer.

[MattR]

To me it looks more like Ceasars hand... it isnt really clear though

You could be right. I mean there is that slight tilt to his left shoulder as if his arm is raised AND in the 10th panel his arms are already raised so it makes stopping the attack fairly easy... I think its the *snag* making me believe its Vinnie. When I read the word i was thinking of clothes catching on something as you move past =/

Either way its not some mystic defence mechanism.. it's simply a hand halting the attack.

[Kreistor]

I dont know Kreistor.
In some games if you diband units they case to exist not gain independence.
In some games they are free independent and can be hired recruited by another ruler.
Anyway in Erfworld are two(or more) type of units. Units whose were produced by cities and units from neutral forces(like Marbit or Gobwin) and mercenaries(like barbarian or troops from other kingdoms).
First type if disbanded propably case to exist, second type can go home or whatewer.

When Faq falls, Jillian goes barbarian. When GK falls, Vinnie says Stanley will go barbarian with Jack. Why differentiate between disbanding and losing your side? The simplest resolution seems to me to be that when you are disbanded, no matter the reason, you go barbarian. But auto-destruction on merely having your upkeep taken away? If true, that should happen to everyone, regardless of reason why, and we know that it doesn't happen in some situations. Parson is the exception, and a 350000 schmucker exception at that. Wanda tells him that the spell will destroy him if he disobeys... the spell, not Natural Thinkomancy. Stanley can destroy Parson merely by giving him an order that Parson cannot obey, like "I order you not to lie. I order you to tell me your name is Mud." Parson can't do it because he can't lie, and bang, gone. That's how Stanley can destroy him with a thought, without resorting to disbanding.

[Eirik the Red]

Count me in on the "Scarlet Is Not Dead Yet" club.

How could Scarlet survive? From Caesar's remarks, it's virtually certain that everything in the volcano's hex and perhaps all six of the hexes surrounding it have been totally destroyed. So to survive, Scarlet has to move from being right on top of the volcano to at least two hexes away from the volcano in a very short amount of time.

The pliers aren't going to fly her out of there.

But Ansom's flying carpet will. It's still unaccounted for, and as far as I know, it's the only thing that could get her or anyone else out of there. Indeed, I would be a bit surprised if nobody escaped using it.

[Arssanguinus]

A big difference between Ansom cheating and Parson cheating: one of those two characters is an outsider who perceive Erfworld and its rules as a game; the other character has lived there all his life and perceive everything as fully normal; plus it's shown he has a strong traditionalist slant.

So when one thinks outside the box and come up with the unexpected, it's fully in-character for Parson but out of character for Ansom.


1. Parson has never been depicted as being a nice human being. He's introduced as a lardass loser who simply doesn't care about life and would rather live in an escapist fantasy. And he gets his wish fulfilled.
2. Snapping from the strain? The easiest way to deal with having to kill enemies is to dehumanize them. That's why the military uses euphemisms such as "collateral damage" rather than "civilian deaths" or "casualty" rather than "kill".
3. The Erfling's lack of free will plays a big role. Bogroll's answer stunned Parson and was a turning point for him to get back to treating Erflings as units rather than as people.*
4. Ruthlessness.

* You commented about violence in media; you have surely noticed that it's always more okay to kill clones, robots or zombies -- people who, no matter how human they might look, aren't real humans -- than to kill normal people? That was the whole point of the Stormtroopers' voices being retconned into being the same as Jango Fett after the prequels were made, so that you'd know they're merely clones and thus not real humans so it's okay if the good guys slaughter them by the thousands.

You can bet there were much more people living onboard the Death Star than crewing the Rebel base on Yavin IV's moon. The moral choice for Luke would have to let the Empire win so that fewer people would end up orphan/widow/widower this day.

I disagree. In a very recent page, units have been croaked by a 4chan bomb. If that's not a punchline, I don't know what is. And in a very early page, you have a poignant moment with a big patchwork teddy bear mourning his dead comrade.

You've got cute little people looking like children's toys that kill each other gruesomely and it's sometime funny, sometime not. That has been there since the beginning.

HUGE problem with your star Wars example: How many people died on Alderaan and how does that dwarf the people on the death star? ANd how many future Alderaans would the death star have destroyed? That isn't even a remotely good example.

Its a weapon that was DESIGNED to kill planets, specificly populated Planets. HAS KILLED populated planets and is controlled by people who obviously ARE WILLING to kill FUTURE planets and almost certainly will. Under those circumstances its absolutely criminal not to destroy it no matter how many people are on board.

[Norsesmithy]

HUGE problem with your star Wars example: How many people died on Alderaan and how does that dwarf the people on the death star? ANd how many future Alderaans would the death star have destroyed? That isn't even a remotely good example.

Its a weapon that was DESIGNED to kill planets, specificly populated Planets. HAS KILLED populated planets and is controlled by people who obviously ARE WILLING to kill FUTURE planets and almost certainly will. Under those circumstances its absolutely criminal not to destroy it no matter how many people are on board.

Beyond that, the idea that it is more moral to let someone kill you than it is to act in self defense is hooey. The lives and actions of those who would do evil are not worth a single life.

[El_Chupachichis]

Red didn't survive, because if she had, then efdup would have changed hands. There would have to be some wierd mechanic for a combat unit to not capture an undefended city.

GK is Defended. By an Uncroaked Volcano.

[Farmerbob]

When Faq falls, Jillian goes barbarian. When GK falls, Vinnie says Stanley will go barbarian with Jack. Why differentiate between disbanding and losing your side? The simplest resolution seems to me to be that when you are disbanded, no matter the reason, you go barbarian. But auto-destruction on merely having your upkeep taken away? If true, that should happen to everyone, regardless of reason why, and we know that it doesn't happen in some situations. Parson is the exception, and a 350000 schmucker exception at that. Wanda tells him that the spell will destroy him if he disobeys... the spell, not Natural Thinkomancy. Stanley can destroy Parson merely by giving him an order that Parson cannot obey, like "I order you not to lie. I order you to tell me your name is Mud." Parson can't do it because he can't lie, and bang, gone. That's how Stanley can destroy him with a thought, without resorting to disbanding.

I think you are missing the fact that Parson is an extra-planar summon, and not a created or hired unit. In most systems when such summons are dismissed, the unit returns to its home.

On the foreshadowing, I haven't seen mention of Parson's Klog #3, where he discusses victory options. The volcano is the obvious super-weapon present.

[Gez]

HUGE problem with your star Wars example: How many people died on Alderaan and how does that dwarf the people on the death star? ANd how many future Alderaans would the death star have destroyed? That isn't even a remotely good example.

Its a weapon that was DESIGNED to kill planets, specificly populated Planets. HAS KILLED populated planets and is controlled by people who obviously ARE WILLING to kill FUTURE planets and almost certainly will. Under those circumstances its absolutely criminal not to destroy it no matter how many people are on board.

I don't want to debate Star Wars, so:
How many of Stanley's gobwins have died to Ansom's column when the TEN previous cities were lost? (And you know that capture is reserved for valuable casters. Every other unit is croaked.)

Parson had to obliterate the enemy for his side to survive. That's what he did, and at great cost. Now Star Wars is a fully manichean universe with bad guys who are bad guys and good guys who are good guys, there's no room left for moral ambiguity. (Even though it is sometimes debatable, such as the case that killing stormtroopers is okay because they're clones, not humans...)

Beyond that, the idea that it is more moral to let someone kill you than it is to act in self defense is hooey. The lives and actions of those who would do evil are not worth a single life.

Right! And what was Parson's situation again? He was, through no fault of his own, made the warlord of a besieged nation about to be annihilated, and magically unable to defect or desert. So what was the non-hooey thing for him to do? Win. Win as a requirement for survival.

[Hatu]

Why else would her hand cross to that side of her body? that's not the normal posture of someone just taking a step forward.

I agree, it's an awkward pose if she's just striding. But her hand is not actually reaching to a scabbard, and for that matter there's more evidence of a scabbard on her right hip than there is on her left. It's hard to say either way from this panel alone.

She's not brandishing it, but the hand that is holding the weapon isn't visible in panel 10 at all, which is interesting because in the next panel she has the knife in hand... considering the pose with her reaching across her body earlier on I'd say it is pretty clear she unsheathed the knife in panel 9.

I disagree. As I said, no one else reacts as though Jillian has just drawn a weapon on them; by contrast, they are clearly alarmed in panel 12. Given that they distrust her already, that seems a notable omission.

Second, Jillian's stance is all wrong if she's supposed to be holding a weapon in her right hand. You hold a weapon in front of you if you want to defend yourself, but her right hand is behind her body. Not only that, but her right shoulder is actually forward, so she's specifically twisting her theoretical weapon hand backwards, and must be holding the blade downward (since we can't see it). That's not a good position from which to launch an attack with a dagger held pommel up.

And again, I think her dialog in panel 10 is wrong if she's supposed to be doubting Caesar's story. She isn't questioning, and she isn't sarcastic. She utters a single word and then her voice trails off flatly. To me, that implies that she believes his story enough that she wants to ask about Ansom, but cannot fully articulate her concern.

I think the best explanation is that Jillian draws the dagger from her right hip between panels 10 and 11. That would also explain why she's holding it "upside down" in her lunge.

Sorry you werent convinced, you are a renowned skeptic tho so im not surprised :)

Seems to me she has a problem with what he's saying... and like you said she kills problems :)

You make it sound like I'm looking for objections. If I weren't enjoying Erfworld, I'd stop reading it. I found the end of this strip confusing, and the proposed explanations unsatisfying.

Jillian is not someone who attacks people at the drop of a hat, but that seems to happen here. I think the end of this strip could be improved.

Read back through the comic, check http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0057.html She pulled a weapon on Webinar when she didn't like hearing what he had to say. Her actions now aren't a surprise at all.

I read that comic before I made my first post. Honestly, I don't think that comic shows what you say it does at all.

She did not pull a sword on Webinar just because she didn't like what she was hearing. He twice tried to order her (his superior) into doing something he wanted, then claimed she ignored Ansom's orders as well. She responded to all of that only by derisively reminding Webinar that she was his superior. It was only when Webinar directly accused her of treason that she drew her sword.

Furthermore, while she drew her sword with much vigor, the blade stopped before it struck Webinar. She then re-sheathed her sword, and allowed Webinar to reclaim the hat without any further action. How on earth am I supposed to read this as Jillian being a ticking time bomb of violence? After repeated insults and insubordination, she merely threatened violence, and that only as a show of her loyalty.

Jillian is not some rampaging Klingon extra, she's a very focused person. She doesn't waste violence on people who merely annoy her. I can believe that she would be devastated by the news that Ansom is dead, but I cannot believe that her response to that news would be to draw a weapon and assault the messenger.

If she doesn't buy Caesar's story, she would have called him on it. Probably in a threatening manner, but she would still have expressed her skepticism in no uncertain terms. But if she does believe him, then there's no reason to attack him; however much she might hate Caesar, he's irrelevant to her problem right now.

-H

EDIT:

The other possibility, that I've mischaracterized Mr. Balder's writing entirely and that we were meant to hate the RCC, has been suggested, but I don't really believe it. That old "Let's make the good guys into the bad guys and then we'll seem edgey!" schtick is old hat and a little amateurish for Erfworld, which has proven to be a surprisingly layered and complex story.

I very much agree with this sentiment, and with TamLin's entire analysis of the two sides. Other than Wanda, I've found just about every major charatcer in Erflword to be surprisingly sympathetic. Even Ansom was able to show some depth, thanks to his interactions with Jillian and Vinny.

[Ragn Charran]

Silly question.
Uncroaked volcano. It is classified as unit or not?
I think that it is unit like any uncroaked thing or golems made from dirtomancy.
Then even if all golems and garnison units are dead and Red survived Gobwin Koob is untakable.
You must first deafet Uncroaked Volcano ot wait as it degenerated and die.
If UV is unit then Stanley still control Gobwin Koob.
And control treasury and have incom (propably small or almost zero but still).
Also until UV is dead any of Coalition unit dont have chance to take city.
This is possible I think.

Proud member Red isnt dead yet Club.

I disagree, the volcano has now specifically be referred to as a "trap" by people who know in-game terms in a conversation that seemed very in-game rule heavy. In a lot of games, including D&D and some RTS and TBS, traps are specific items and distinct from units.

Also, even "inanimate" units seem to still have personalities and some form of intelligence. We have seen uncroaked Manpower wanting pie, an uncroaked trooper show terror as the tunnels collapsed, and heavy metal golems showing pleasure at smashing things, going so far as to give an AWESOME! pose after the QUERN with Parson. About the only thing I can see suggesting "personality" in the volcano was the interpretation that the fireball is flipping off the RCC at the bottom of #150/page 139.

I think trap is an in-game rule term, and the volcano is such.

[Gamebird]

I tuned out on page 5, but at least until then no one had explained what "FUF" means. The bats are forming that word over and over in the background of the last panel. Obviously threatening, but what's it mean? I assume an acronym that starts with Fouled Up F___, but with a different F word than Foul and I don't know the last word.

Another thing no one had mentioned to that point is that the volcano is now an uncroaked unit under the control of Stanley's forces. Even if we count it as a unit the croakamancer didn't have enough time to make durable, it will still stick around for at least a turn or two like the mass uncroaked infantry recruited out of the tunnels when Webinar attacked. When Stanley shows up at the beginning of his turn, he'll see this huge unit on his side, hanging around where his city used to be. And probably some pliers laying there. As the guy in charge, he should be able to order the unit to do whatever it is he wants it to do, at least for a round or two until it falls apart, assuming it does fall apart. (I can easily imagine that it counts as having had enough attention from the croakamancer to make it permanent, since she was focused on one creature and had her power increased by the linkup.)

Just imagine what Stanley might do with a walking volcano (assuming it is capable of move) at his disposal.

[SteveD]

Count me in on the "Scarlet Is Not Dead Yet" club.

How could Scarlet survive? From Caesar's remarks, it's virtually certain that everything in the volcano's hex and perhaps all six of the hexes surrounding it have been totally destroyed. So to survive, Scarlet has to move from being right on top of the volcano to at least two hexes away from the volcano in a very short amount of time.

The pliers aren't going to fly her out of there.

But Ansom's flying carpet will. It's still unaccounted for, and as far as I know, it's the only thing that could get her or anyone else out of there. Indeed, I would be a bit surprised if nobody escaped using it.

Ansom's carpet was probably burnt to a crisp (we know artefacts can be destroyed; Wana's staff was broken through impact).

But I agree that Scarlet is likely still alive. I can't see why the writers would have shown her these past few strips otherwise. But there is one last point no one else has considered yet...it's a shot in the dark, but did Scarlet just attune to the pliers?

[fendrin]

Jillian's actions in the second to last panel are in character. That being said, it still seems very strange, and it definitely it strains the credulity of many readers.

The problem, I believe, is yet another example of poor word choice.

Jillian hears the news and thinks: "No, Ansom can't be dead. Caesar is lying." Then she attacks him, and it makes (some) sense that she'd try to knife him for lying to her. That is, I'm assuming this is why shes attacking him, its the only reasonable explanation I can come up with. If this is the case, instead of saying 'No!', she should be saying 'Liar!'.

Because of the context, using the word 'No' in this instance is inappropriate. If Caesar said, "I'm going to kill Ansom," Jillian could respond with 'No' and attack him. That would make sense because the word in that case repudiates both the action and the person responsible for it.

In the strip, however, Caesar is merely reporting a fact: Ansom is dead. Jillian's response of 'No' should lead to depression, not her going for the throat. Her attacking Caesar is from a new line of thought beyond denial of Ansom's death and - as a favor to the reader, lets say - it requires more expressive, and accurate, diction.

I respectfully disagree.
First, Jillian is not an articulate person. ("Mealy-mouthed mercenary... er, ...moths")
Second, I'm fairly sure she is rejecting the entire situation. In other words:
"No, I won't let you take Faq!"
"No, we can;t let Stanley get away!"
"No, the coalition can't have failed!"
"No, Ansom can't be dead!"
all rolled up into a single monosyllabic response.

So, just found this comic; it's great.

Anyways, read most of this thread, and there's something I don't think anyone has mentioned yet.

I think that it is entirely possible that in the latest page, Jillian is not about to stab Caesar, but rather herself. The evidence is mostly ambiguous, but if you look at the picture where she's yelling, the "speed lines" seem to indicate she's rushing forward. however, if you look at her body posture, that doesn't seem to be the case. I think that this is a top-down shot of her yelling upwards.

Also, the vampires. If you look at the last panel, you may notice that in comparison to the seventh panel, Caesar seems to have moved away from the other vampires. Towards Jillian, in fact.

The body language is all wrong. In panels 9 (when drawing the dagger) and 10, she is in an aggressive stance (looks like a left-forward bow stance to me). In panel 11, her legs have switched places. Clearly she launched with her left leg and has her right leg forward to land on/step again.

Also, Ceasar stepped away from the other vamps to talk to Vinny and Jillian, as can be seen in panel 10.

GK is Defended. By an Uncroaked Volcano.

The volcano is considered a trap, not a unit. One shot deal, I presume, and no self-awareness or consciousness.

You could be right. I mean there is that slight tilt to his left shoulder as if his arm is raised AND in the 10th panel his arms are already raised so it makes stopping the attack fairly easy... I think its the *snag* making me believe its Vinnie. When I read the word i was thinking of clothes catching on something as you move past =/

Vinny's back is turned, he couldn't see it coming. Also if you look carefully, you can see a bit of Caesar's upturned arm just to the left of Jillian's head.

I agree, it's an awkward pose if she's just striding. But her hand is not actually reaching to a scabbard, and for that matter there's more evidence of a scabbard on her right hip than there is on her left. It's hard to say either way from this panel alone.

That details in that panel are too fuzzy to see if she has a small knife scabbard on the left. We have seen the knife before, though, back when she was about to get croaked by Manpower. There was some discussion at that point about whether or not she could re-size her sword into a dagger. I don't recall what the outcome of that discussion was...

I disagree. As I said, no one else reacts as though Jillian has just drawn a weapon on them; by contrast, they are clearly alarmed in panel 12. Given that they distrust her already, that seems a notable omission.

When she drew it, Caesar was primarily in conversation with Vinny. It's a bit of a stretch, but maybe no one was really paying much attention to her. She's not in her battle gear, so maybe they don't consider her to be much of a threat at the moment.

Second, Jillian's stance is all wrong if she's supposed to be holding a weapon in her right hand. You hold a weapon in front of you if you want to defend yourself, but her right hand is behind her body. Not only that, but her right shoulder is actually forward, so she's specifically twisting her theoretical weapon hand backwards, and must be holding the blade downward (since we can't see it). That's not a good position from which to launch an attack with a dagger held pommel up.

Ah, but it's right if you are hiding a blade...

I think the best explanation is that Jillian draws the dagger from her right hip between panels 10 and 11. That would also explain why she's holding it "upside down" in her lunge.

From the link I posted above, I think we can conclude that she prefers a blade-down grip, whether or not it is more effective.

EDIT:

I tuned out on page 5, but at least until then no one had explained what "FUF" means. The bats are forming that word over and over in the background of the last panel. Obviously threatening, but what's it mean? I assume an acronym that starts with Fouled Up F___, but with a different F word than Foul and I don't know the last word.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I think it is onomatopoeic of the sound of the bats flapping their wings.

[teratorn]

But there is one last point no one else has considered yet...it's a shot in the dark, but did Scarlet just attune to the pliers?

???????? No one? Probably no less than 10 people suggested that.

[El_Chupachichis]

I disagree, the volcano has now specifically be referred to as a "trap" by people who know in-game terms in a conversation that seemed very in-game rule heavy. In a lot of games, including D&D and some RTS and TBS, traps are specific items and distinct from units.

Which is -- to me -- exactly why the question is still up in the air. They didn't even recognize it as a volcano, suggesting that there'd never been an eruption in the recorded history of Erfworld.

I'd think that they'd assume that the volcano went active on its own, or by the will of the Titans, if they knew what it was. The reports back would have been, "The GK volcano erupted and wiped out all parties" not, "A massive multihex Dirtamancer trap went off."

That all suggests that they don't know how to read what they saw. And I suspect the largest non-Titan unit is nowhere near the size of a city, so they couldn't possibly wrap their minds around the concept of a city-sized unit.

If it is a unit, it has move zero (garrison), a ton of HP, an attack with supermassive damage and very high To-Hit (99+%). Also has Area effect and does damage friendlies with no apparent target discrimination. No apparent method of communication or control possible to those viewing it. All of those can be easily confused with a trap.

One thing in your theroy's favor, though: If Thinkamancers have the equivalent capability of reporting unit status, perhaps their read was something like "Dirtamancer trap #^&@$ sprung, hit all units for drops a bucket of 20 siders damage." Odd thing, why would it be only classified as Dirtamancer, and not Thinkamancer-Croakamancer-Dirtamancer trap?

[El_Chupachichis]

Heh, threadjack:

I always loved DM'ing games and doing supermassive damage. Had a cup of dice for just the occasion.

Oh, you just ran over the orcs in your wagon going top speed? Ok, that's drops a cup of dice ... oh, about that much damage.

[PePe QuiCoSE]

my 2 cents.

First time i read the comic i had the impression that Vinny was the one holding Jillian's arm since from the fingers it seems to be held by a right hand. Then i see Caesar's shoulder and either it could be a mistake or that he is using his left hand thumb down (pretty uncomfortable).

And from this page i get the impression that you need a royal or chief warlord to claim cities, not just a regular one. I doubt that Red could claim GK if she survived (which i don't believe she did)

[Architect]

Well, it's ambiguous, isn't it? Parson's job wasn't neccesarily to win the battle, just to do everything possible to win the battle. Would he have been disbanded if it had turned out that surrender was the only feasible option after all other resources had been extinguished? It's not clear.

Parson's job is to serve the one who summoned him. Ostensibly, that would be Stanley, but I would argue that it was Wanda, as a free-willed unit, that summoned him, though. All of the spell's effects would still fit, so long as she willingly serves Stanley.

But ah, you might say, we know thanks to the outcome of the battle that victory was NOT impossible (and in fact, Parson could have "won" the way he did pretty much anytime he wanted to, or at least anytime after he had a rudimentary grasp of how Erfworld magic worked). But we also know that Parson basically cheated to win (or at least abused the rules. This volcano trick is the sort of thing that would get banned from competitive play if Erfworld were a real game). But the enchantment was something that operated within the rules. Would the enchantment then punish him for not trying to cheat to win? It seems unlikely, but then, I suppose it's possible, since Parson's very presence in Erfworld shows that the Summon Perfect Warlord spell does not work the same way normal spells do, so who knows what crazy **** it might do.

Within the rules of the real world, nuclear fission works. The problem is how you work within the rules in order to obtain the desired results. To someone unfamiliar with the detailed rules of physics, it would appear that scientists "broke the rules." The same might very well be true on Erf. The volcano is dead/croaked. Croakamancy deals with reanimating/uncroaking dead things. To uncroak something, you have to understand how it works. Sizemore is a dirtamancer. He understand how the volcano works. Maggie is the thinkamancer, she can project their powers to bring this about. Together, they share enough power to pull it off. (Sidenote: GK's volcano is not extinct as it still has a full magma chamber. That means that it is only dormant, much easier to uncroak.)

So it wasn't a sure thing one way or the other. But this is less about what Parson did or did not have to do and more abot how he felt about it. As I've mentioned, the story clearly offers a moral crisis, but Parson never seemed to let that matter cross his mind, even when he saw Sizemore struggling with it. Misty's death impressed on him the very real consequences of "gaming" in Erfworld (btw, is it obnoxious when I keep using quotation marks like that? It feels like it might be), but even thereafter he never seems to think about the consequences of his actions, the people who die as a result of his orders. Of course, as is always the case in war, pragmatism and a "Them or me" mentality pushes him to act regardless of how he feels, but I would think that he would at least once be depicted hesistating, weighing the consequences, showing something resembling remorse or regret. Normal people aren't built to handle the horrors of war or the terrible responsibilities of command, they often strain and snap when faced with the irrevocability of death. But Parson doesn't.

I completely disagree. Normal people are Civilians. Soldiers were civilians. The differences between a Soldier and a Civilian are simply training and values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage). These don't make you an unfeeling killing machine, they help you survive. You see, death is easy. Surviving is hard. What strains and breaks us is when those with whom we've formed bonds with, our brothers-in-arms, are killed--often in front of us. Could I have done something different? Is it my fault? Who is next? Will it be me? All of this runs in your head, but you keep on going. You follow the creed: Mission first. Never accept defeat. Never quit. Never leave a buddy.

From Parson's Klog 13:
"What he said about "ending the lives of others." Well, now we've done it. I never killed anything bigger than a spider before this day and now I've caused the deaths of a couple of thousand enemy units. People. Couple thousand people.

I should feel horrible. The only thing I really feel about it is that I'm worried it wasn't enough.

How could I explain that to Sizemore? It's not my problem to think about! You know? We're being attacked. I'm in command. My responsibility is for the lives of the people under my command, no matter how many enemies have to destroy to protect them. And even if I have to sacrifice some to save most. That's how war works.

He wouldn't want to hear it though. I don't even like saying it. I know it's true, it's just...

I don't know. This is feeling less and less like a dream. But if it is, there's this one thought I keep coming back to. How did Dorothy get out of Oz?

Short answer? By killing."

How does a Soldier survive? You know the answer. "Parson" knows the answer. If I hesitate, I'll die or a fellow Soldier will die. If I quit, I'll die or a fellow Soldier will die.

And what about Parson? Is he a part of the game, a pawn just like the others, or is he one of the higher powers (notice the ambiguity of whether he is or is not Erfworld's creator via his homebrew wargame)? Does he lead the fight because he's forced to, because it's his competitive nature, or because he's the Chief Warlord, and he's filling his role in the game just like anyone? Does one interpretation or the other change our perception of the morality of his actions? These are the kinds of questions that Erfworld poses on a thematic level.

So long as Parson is magically compelled, he's a pawn, a slave. It doesn't matter if he's the creator of Erfworld. He is trapped in his own creation. Maybe he can free himself from the rules that bind him. He's Special, after all.

But didn't he just kill everyone on his side except the casters anyway? I may be wrong, but it seems that that volcano wiped out his few remaining troops just as thoroughly as everything else in the hex (something else he doesn't seem to mind).

Only the casters would be preserved by the opposing side. Only the casters can use the portal (as far as Parson knows). The casters are therefore the only ones he can save. He chose to save them. He chose to be the last person to leave and even that wasn't guaranteed. So, he was in fact prioritizing. Triage: save those that you can with the resources on hand. Even if he didn't express grief, his actions showed that he cared.

I was thinking the same thing. Since I'm also interested in the fan response, which was weighted heavily in favor of GK, I would pose this question too:

Does Parson's indifference to the fates of the RCC characters also account for the board fans' indifference?

Like I said earlier (waaaaay the **** up there), it seems like the urge to identify with Parson just outweighed all the other factors in the majority of people's minds. So does the spill over into these thorny moral questions too?

Now of course, I realize that by analyzing people's reactions I'm playing with fire more than usual. Someone is going to respond with a "Hey, I don't care about Ansom and the Coalition because they were douches and because I just like Parson, why is that so ****ing hard to understand?" And yeah, people's individual reactions and opinions are of course subjective and ephemeral. But this is less about individual people and more about the broad trends and the marked popularity of some characters over others. When a majority of people overwhelmingly feel one way instead of the other, there's got to be a reason for that. "Ansom was a douche" doesn't account for it, because, well, so was Stanley, but Stanley seems the more popular character, so why?

Actually, I sympathized with the RCC rank and file. They were just obeying their commanders, some of whom were "douches". Nevertheless, it was war.

Oh right, the ruthless thing, I forgot about that. Still, that doesn't clear up everything, we have no idea what that even meant. Was it some kind of spell? What was the extent of it? Is it something every Warlord has? Does it work the same for everyone, or does it have something to do with the subject's base personality? These questions dont' seem to have any answers, the point is just that intentional ambiguity was left in the comic.

Nobody blinked an eye at Parson's "support". That's how things work in Erfworld. Those items were really special and made specifically for Parson. Parson's presence is due to the Summon Spell. A special 350,000 shmuckers summon spell designed to summon The Perfect Warlod. Parson wasn't the Perfect Warlord, so the spell began "fixing" the imperfect Perfect Warlord.

From the Luckamancy Charms box:
"Hey Kids! Help the Summon Spell fix its goof by getting Parson everything he was missing... and make him The Perfect Warlord!(tm)

Glasses
See unit stats!

Bracer
Calculate odds!

Sword - 3 in 1!
Leadership!
Combat!
Ruthlessness!

When Parson has collected all of his items, the spell will finally be complete! Yay!"

Parson became The Perfect Warlord with the last piece of the sword, created through the magic of the Summon Spell. The magic items gave him the attributes that he did not have. Ruthlessness, the lack of pity, was an attribute that he did not have. Now, because of the magic sword, he has it.

You're right that none of this is unusual in the context of war, but war isn't something Parson is used to. A lot of people in his position would have done the same thing, but most of the would have felt worse about it than he seems to.

"Seems" is the operative word. Parson is The Perfect Warlord. He might "seem" heartless or cruel, but he isn't. He undoubtedly knows that he should feel bad, but he doesn't. The magic sword fixed that.

One final thought: Unless the pliers weird magic has caused them to fly or teleport to some unexpected locale (which wouldn't be that surprising), they're shortly going to be buried under a quarter mile or so of lava rock. Probably gonna need a good Dirtamancer to find them and dig them out again...

Quite possibly. However, it's hard to say what the Pliers' purpose is.

[Kholdstare]

I very much doubt Scarlet is at all alive. If the Archons were burned to a crisp then I really doubt she could have gotten away. Then there is the issue of people already being on fire when she was shown.

Right now I wonder what will happen to Faq and Parson. That and I want to see what remains of Stanley himself. Level 1 city or not city at all with just a few dragons and possibly a new Arken tool. Tremendous loss or a major step in his crusade for the tools paid with the right price?

[MattR]

She did not pull a sword on Webinar just because she didn't like what she was hearing. He twice tried to order her (his superior) into doing something he wanted, then claimed she ignored Ansom's orders as well. She responded to all of that only by derisively reminding Webinar that she was his superior. It was only when Webinar directly accused her of treason that she drew her sword.

*scratches head* every stimulus for pulling her sword you just listed was verbal, so clearly she DID just draw her sword because she didnt like what she was hearing.

My interpretation of the strip was different from yours in that i believe she would have stabbed Webinar in rage and it was only the word traitor and the reminder she'd be breaking the alliance that stopped her. Her face in panel 5 is not the face of someone in control and cleverly pulling a sword to intimidate someone.

After repeated insults and insubordination, she merely threatened violence, and that only as a show of her loyalty.

Sorry, but i dont see how pulling a sword on an ally show's her loyalty at all. The act of resheathing it was, keeping the sword in its sheath in the first place would have proven her loyalty the best really.


FUF - meaning of ...

My money is on this, No. 15:http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...age=3&term=FUF

[SteveD]

???????? No one? Probably no less than 10 people suggested that.

Fine. No one else has considered that in this thread.

(go on, find me a quote. I dare you to scour all seven pages).

[HandofShadows]

But I agree that Scarlet is likely still alive. I can't see why the writers would have shown her these past few strips otherwise. But there is one last point no one else has considered yet...it's a shot in the dark, but did Scarlet just attune to the pliers?

DId you consider that the writer & artist was not showing Scarlet so much, but showing the disposition of the Archenpliers? Someone has to have them and the logical choice for that (very SHORT) duty would the highest ranking warlord still alive. And we know Scarlet is the leader of her factions forces localy and many of the other warlords where croaked.

Pround Founding Member of the "She's Dead Jim" Club.

[fendrin]

DId you consider that the writer & artist was not showing Scarlet so much, but showing the disposition of the Archenpliers? Someone has to have them and the logical choice for that (very SHORT) duty would the highest ranking warlord still alive. And we know Scarlet is the leader of her factions forces localy and many of the other warlords where croaked.

Pround Founding Member of the "She's Dead Jim" Club.

While I too am a member of the SDJC (love the name, btw), Jamie could have made it clearer if, for instance, Scarlett was bathed in flames like the others, or a charred husk with 'pliers in hand, etc.

Of course, doing so might make the look of horror on her face be mistaken for a look of pain... which to be blunt would have far less impact. By having her there unhurt, we empathize with her and feel the horror of the events ourselves.

I think there is a comparison to be made to the air defenses.
There are many similarities between the two.

Of course, that could be an argument for Scarlett to survive the volcano the way Jillian survived the air attack. However, there were MANY plot reasons for Jillian to survive, and no hints that she croaked (though no evidence to the contrary to for a couple pages either). Scarlett does not have any obvious plot threads to resolve, and we have gotten some (unconfirmed) information indicating she has croaked.

[chefsotero]

When Faq falls, Jillian goes barbarian. When GK falls, Vinnie says Stanley will go barbarian with Jack. Why differentiate between disbanding and losing your side? The simplest resolution seems to me to be that when you are disbanded, no matter the reason, you go barbarian. But auto-destruction on merely having your upkeep taken away? If true, that should happen to everyone, regardless of reason why, and we know that it doesn't happen in some situations. Parson is the exception, and a 350000 schmucker exception at that. Wanda tells him that the spell will destroy him if he disobeys... the spell, not Natural Thinkomancy. Stanley can destroy Parson merely by giving him an order that Parson cannot obey, like "I order you not to lie. I order you to tell me your name is Mud." Parson can't do it because he can't lie, and bang, gone. That's how Stanley can destroy him with a thought, without resorting to disbanding.

Well we did learn earlier in the comic that an unit w/out an capital but still with an overlord is an barbarian

We also learn that an capital w/out an overlord does not goes barbarian, it goes neutral and cant act unless in response to someones action.

*Edit - And that indicates that having or not an Overlord or a Chief Warlord backing one up does change your status/situation

And I read (I'm infering here, but I do not belive there is any direct proof or disproof of that) in Sizemore's face an fear of been disbanded greater than the fear of being croaked or captured. And I took so as an indicative of disband = ceasing to exist. And it make some sense gamewise, If u were an overlord and u don't want anymore an unit that may have knowledg of your defenses an attack capabilyties, would you like to have it lose in the field to other sides recruitment agency? Charlie would love to have one of those

But yes thats all just an hypotesis, I would love to have that clear in the rules section of the book (And Guys Amazon delivers in Brazil, keep that in mind )


PS: About the order:

Stanley - "I order you not to lie. I order you to tell me your name is Mud."
Parson - "As ordered I must say to you: your name is Mud, regardless of anyones given name been or not Mud"

I would say that is not lying and following the orther to the letter, ignoring of course any meaning, but hey we all learn something from charlie right? (and maybe someone with a better english than mine may put it in a better way but I think u got the idea)