Erfworld 151 - tBfGK - 138

[Estelindis]

First, Parson was granted ruthlessness through the magic of Erfworld. Second, we don't know what was going on inside Parson's head when he ordered uncroaking the volcano. Third, loss of life on a huge scale is not exactly unusual in war, but I suppose that according to your criteria, Eisenhower was a "villain-protagonist". [shrug] Finally, as has been discussed, in Parson's situation there wasn't much of a choice, no happy ending that would have preserved GK's forces.

First, Parson was granted ruthlessness - but was it up to him whether to use it or not? This may be a non sequitur, as a truly ruthless person would not refrain from "using" ruthlessness, but they would not need to be granted it in the first place, as they would already have it. For someone who was not ruthless to begin with? Well, such overwriting of personality, if indeed it occurred, would surely deepen the questions that this comic provokes about individual free will.

Second: yes, we don't know what was going on inside his head at that point, though of course we can guess. However, I fail to see the point at which I claimed otherwise.

Thirdly, the precise question of whether or not war in Erfworld is analogous to war in real life is what is up for debate here, so your analogy must be suspended pending resolution of that question. However, even if there was no need to suspend it on this account, your particular choice of a military leader with which to compare Parson is by no means unproblematic. Your suppositions about my criteria are unnecessary.

Violence is a natural form of expression for Jillian. It was not an unexpected reaction.

No - the swiftness and particular focus of that violence were unexpected by me.

[fendrin]

First, Parson was granted ruthlessness - but was it up to him whether to use it or not? This may be a non sequitur, as a truly ruthless person would not refrain from "using" ruthlessness, but they would not need to be granted it in the first place, as they would already have it. For someone who was not ruthless to begin with? Well, such overwriting of personality, if indeed it occurred, would surely deepen the questions that this comic provokes about individual free will.

Second: yes, we don't know what was going on inside his head at that point, though of course we can guess. However, I fail to see the point at which I claimed otherwise.

Related to these two is the notion that the 'ruthlessness' granted by the sword is nothing more than a placebo effect.

No - the swiftness and particular focus of that violence were unexpected by me.

But really, who else could she have focused her violence on?

[Estelindis]

Related to these two is the notion that the 'ruthlessness' granted by the sword is nothing more than a placebo effect.

Good point. That hadn't occurred to me, but now that you mention it I quite like the idea.

But really, who else could she have focused her violence on?

Another good point... Jillian doesn't really seem to be one for taking out her rage on inanimate objects or just screaming to the sky.

[Kreistor]

But those very air defenses were also set off when it wasn't Parson's turn, so obviously you can use magic to attack/defend (or at least defend in this case). People are just generalizing from a specific case of not being able to cast a veil on a hex which no caster was in when it wasn't their turn. If one was to generalize from that, it is that casters can't cast spell on other hexes when it isn't their turn. This is consistent with the reaction of Jillian in the last comic that a multiple hex dirtamancer trap should be impossible.

From the Blooper thread (stickied)...

For the record, the rule is actually pretty simple and I am amazed it's been such a sticking point for people.

* You can move only on your turn, and you can cast only on your turn.
* When an enemy comes to you on their turn, you can engage, and you can cast. This includes when they are attacking your city.

There's no generalizing anymore. the author has spoken, so we know what Parson was saying, and why we were confused. You can't cast on someone else's turn, except to defend yourself. No one noticed the correlation of casting on someone else's turn.

[Arssanguinus]

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...)



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.

On your side as far as Parson. . . .

With Stormtroopers: You don't need to invent it being OK because they are clones. They are enemy soldiers who are trying to kill you. One would think that is generally enough. . .

[Architect]

First, Parson was granted ruthlessness - but was it up to him whether to use it or not? This may be a non sequitur, as a truly ruthless person would not refrain from "using" ruthlessness, but they would not need to be granted it in the first place, as they would already have it. For someone who was not ruthless to begin with? Well, such overwriting of personality, if indeed it occurred, would surely deepen the questions that this comic provokes about individual free will.

The items that he received are probable artifact-level. Certainly the bracers are. When such an item is personality-affecting, it is unlikely to be voluntary. As for questions regarding free-will, players might B&M regarding the personality effects of magic items, but it's never been considered thought-provoking.

Second: yes, we don't know what was going on inside his head at that point, though of course we can guess. However, I fail to see the point at which I claimed otherwise.

Hence my focusing on the usage of "seemed". Your inference was based upon facts not in evidence. That's why I refer to Parson's Klog 13.

Thirdly, the precise question of whether or not war in Erfworld is analogous to war in real life is what is up for debate here, so your analogy must be suspended pending resolution of that question. However, even if there was no need to suspend it on this account, your particular choice of a military leader with which to compare Parson is by no means unproblematic. Your suppositions about my criteria are unnecessary.

The point is that when it comes to the sacrificing of your men in order to kill the enemy (e.g. times when military commanders bombed or bombarded their own forces' positions when they were being overrun), Parson would by no means be exceptional.

No - the swiftness and particular focus of that violence were unexpected by me.

Her temper is pretty explosive, considering the situation with Webinar.

[reignofevil]

/nerdon
Actually, by the fourth film, most of the storm troopers were NOT clones, as it was simply less expensive to recruit from the already HUGE population.
/nerdoff

[Eirik the Red]

Units ca-cannot m-move at ni-night.

It's dark outside.


Because carpets are far more fireproof than people..

Wait.. no, no that's not right.

Is it really nighttime already in #150? The giant black ash clouds in panel 4 are obscuring any certain signs, whether sunlight or stars. Perhaps the carpet did burn, but I find the carpet to be an infinitely more plausible means of Scarlet's survival than the pliers. Otherwise, one would have to assert that attunement to the pliers offers resistance to WMD. (The volcano may count as uncroaked, whatever that might mean for a volcano, but I think its ash, rocks, and lava would count as ordinary projectile weapons or fire or similar.)

Scarlet may very well be burnt to a cinder. But if she is indeed dead, then I think we will get some interesting "fog of war" results out of this. Namely, that there will be no eyewitness survivors to the carnage, other than Charlie (who isn't likely to talk) and Parson & company (who will likely be in hiding, if possible).

No one to tell how Ansom was croaked in a fake truce and that the Archons failed to warn anyone about the Twoll, or any of the details of the battle. All the coalition members will be completely in the dark, knowing nothing other than that the volcano went off. Plot-wise, it would make for some interesting conflicts if the details of the battle became know to at least one of the coalition sides (besides Charlie).

Regardless, I think it's quite likely that everyone (or nearly everyone) will believe Parson is dead, that absolutely no one at GK survived, period. Parson's smart enough to know to encourage that belief, if possible. Indeed, how many people of the coalition are left alive who actually know that Parson even existed? Charlie, Vinny and Jillian, of course. But does anyone else know?

***

On a different note, My brother's opinion is that in book 2, Parson will probably become an Overlord of his own side / city. I quite like the idea that Parson will be working for himself.

In that regard, I think both him and Stanley have full, independent barbarian status at this point, and the debate over who now controls GK is moot, as it's been utterly obliterated. The side now completely ceases to exist. Stanely won't have control over anything more than the units in his own hex. Parson, having a choice now, certainly won't willingly choose to work for Stanley anymore. Parson won't be alone, as I think it is certain that at least one of the casters with him, if not all three, will readily choose to work with him.

[Architect]

Related to these two is the notion that the 'ruthlessness' granted by the sword is nothing more than a placebo effect.

Anything is possible, but it's unlikely that a red glowing effect on Parson, including his eyes, would be considered to be indication of a placebo as he would probably not see it.

[SteveMB]

Frankly, why they are insisting on her assistance is beyond me. They've got every unit they need to do it in one turn without her. The only reason to include her is to punish her if Faq doesn't exist. But if it doesn't, she was still right about Stanley.

Some people speculated that they intended to croak her when they no longer need her as a guide. However, she is a fairly powerful warlord -- IMO an employment offer too good to refuse would be more likely.

[SteveMB]

Indeed, how many people of the coalition are left alive who actually know that Parson even existed? Charlie, Vinny and Jillian, of course. But does anyone else know?

And all Vinny knows (more accurately, guesses) is that Stanley found himself somebody more clever than usual. We don't know exactly how much Wanda told Jillian about the summoning, so that's fairly open (though she has no more reason than anyone else to think that anybody, summoned warlords included, survived).

[Hatu]

She's just a girl who likes to pluck out eyeballs with shrimp forks.

A nice girl who you'd like to take home to meet mother.... if you want her to kill mother, at least.

You do realize that she doesn't actually tear people's eyes out on a regular basis, right? That her example might just possibly be very slightly hyperbolic?

I feel like I'm talking to myself. Jillian is not a violent neanderthal. She doesn't throw people into shark pits when they displease her. She doesn't look for an excuse to murder everyone around her. She may talk about how much she loves the freedom of combat, but she is actually capable of intuiting the idea that she can interact with people without dismembering them.

I seriously cannot believe that I have to defend the possibility that it might be out of character for Jillian to attack someone.

-H

[teratorn]

Some people speculated that they intended to croak her when they no longer need her as a guide. However, she is a fairly powerful warlord -- IMO an employment offer too good to refuse would be more likely.

We don't know if Ansom informed Jetstone or Charlie about the cities. TV might want to keep them sort of a secret. Jillian is not reliable, she gets captured too often. And the don doesn't like to pay for things he'd rather not.

[fendrin]

Anything is possible, but it's unlikely that a red glowing effect on Parson, including his eyes, would be considered to be indication of a placebo as he would probably not see it.

Ah, but can we be sure that the glow wasn't a manifestation of the leadership and/or combat effects?

To be clear, I consider the 'ruthlessness' to be in the same category as Leadership and Duty natural thinkamancies: things that the characters believe exist that we have no way to prove or disprove. Belief in something can cause effects similar to that something actually existing, so to a certain extent whether or not it exists is irrelevant. Where it becomes an interesting concept to explore is in the context of free will. Intentionally or otherwise, this comic delves deep into the notion of free will, and I firmly believe that the creators are intentionally vague on whether or not these things actually exist.

For that matter it's not clear that we have free will... [/philosophize]

I seriously cannot believe that I have to defend the possibility that it might be out of character for Jillian to attack someone.

For me, at least, it's not that it's in character for Jillian to attack anybody and everybody, but in my interpretation of Jillian it is very in character for her to attack Caesar in this circumstance.

[Architect]

Ah, but can we be sure that the glow wasn't a manifestation of the leadership and/or combat effects?

Occam's Razor: The box of Luckamancy Charms was true like the other things that popped and the items work as advertised. For the degree of power and cost of the spell, is it likely for corners to be cut when it's far more reliable to provide the attributes?

To be clear, I consider the 'ruthlessness' to be in the same category as Leadership and Duty natural thinkamancies: things that the characters believe exist that we have no way to prove or disprove. Belief in something can cause effects similar to that something actually existing, so to a certain extent whether or not it exists is irrelevant. Where it becomes an interesting concept to explore is in the context of free will. Intentionally or otherwise, this comic delves deep into the notion of free will, and I firmly believe that the creators are intentionally vague on whether or not these things actually exist.

These abstract values affect the real world. It's not a stretch for these to be be more tangible attributes in Erfworld.

For that matter it's not clear that we have free will... [/philosophize]

Does it matter? Seriously. Does it change our perceived reality if our choices and outcomes are predestined or not?

Re: Parson's Ruthlessness
I thought it was clear that he didn't want to do it in 147 (p. 134), that at some level the consequences were negative to him. Nevertheless, he did it.

[Kreistor]

Some people speculated that they intended to croak her when they no longer need her as a guide. However, she is a fairly powerful warlord -- IMO an employment offer too good to refuse would be more likely.

Can't be. Caesar always intended to capture those cities, if they existed, but Ansom was still alive when he made the decision to force Jillina to help him. Killing Jillian would have set Transylvito against Jetstone: Vinnie would have ensured Caesar knew that when he suggested forcing her to do anything. The only way to keep Faq secret is to kill Ansom, too, and Caesar wasn't in position for that. And Caesar would have had to believe that Ansom hadn't told Jetstone. He can't make that assumption. Vinnie might think Ansom wouldn't take Faq as long as Jillian was alive, but I have to wonder if he wouldn't point out that Ansom might move to take it if Jillian wound up with him, as Ansom hoped.

As for hiring her, well, her loyalty was seriously in question, and her killing of the dwagons didn't end that entirely. Ansom may have instinctively trusted her, but that was the lust talking... others unaffected by that attraction wouldn't have shifted gears that quickly. After the attack on Staneley, there's little doubt about her, but that happened after Caesar decided to head for Faq to seize it. Jetstone might conceivably get her, but no one else, and especially not a Transylvito that underhandedly forces her to reveal Faq's cities. She may not exactly want her cities, but she wouldn't want that reminder around all the time. She's a free bird, and would not allow herself to be caged, and I'm pretty certain Vinnie knows that very well.

[dr pepper]

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.

I disagree. "Cheating" as in doing something that's not allowed by the rules is impossible. In a real game, you can physically pick up units when no one is looking and place them in other hexes to better advantage. In Erf, you can only move on your own turn, even if you teleport.

But think of Erf as a real game.

1. It's a hidden terrain game so what a player sees is a field of hexes turned over to show only blanks. The ones occupied by their own units are turned up. When they move into a new hex it is turned over. Terrain is exposed, along with any special conditions. Scouting and lookamancy modify this.

2. Erflings know what dead volcanoes are which means they know what live volcanoes are. That means that volcanoes can happen. In game terms that would be an event.

EVENT: Volcanic Eruption. All units in hex and adjacent hexes killed. Units in next hexes out must save or they are also killed. If eruption takes place in a city, it too is destroyed. Affected hexes may not be entered for 1D6 turns. Terrain Type changed to Rocky. Draw new Mineral cards. Any Artifact present will remain on the surface.

3. The scope of the various schools of magic is defined, as is the synergic effect of linking. Magicians have control over the specific effects of spells.

4. So in game terms we have:

I am linking the thinkamancer, dirtamancer, and croakamancer

That's insane, there's no benefit to a link like that!

The rules say i can link casters, so i'm linking them

You wanna waste your resources, it's your call. Roll it!

Rolling-- success!

Ok, the psychic, the necromancer, and the earth elementalist are merged into one creature, what do you want it to do, Doctor Frankenstein?

They're going to reach down deep into the ground and set off the volcano

Say what?

Let's call it an uncroaking

Right-- we'll need a ruling

So there's no cheating, just a judgement call for the GM.

[Jon Pander]

Is it really nighttime already in #150? The giant black ash clouds in panel 4 are obscuring any certain signs, whether sunlight or stars.

Well it's definitely night in Strip #151, so it's likely that it's also night in #150.

Perhaps the carpet did burn,

Good. I win the argument. Lets have cake.

but I find the carpet to be an infinitely more plausible means of Scarlet's survival than the pliers. Otherwise, one would have to assert that attunement to the pliers offers resistance to WMD.

Occam's razor dictates that the most obvious answer is probably the right one. If Stanley can conceivably be killed while having the hammer then Scarlet (a weaker character who may or may not be attuned, being faced with a far more deadly encounter than anything Stanley's ever faced) is almost certainly dead.

BTW, if you respond to me with a TV trope on this, I will have to hurt you.

(The volcano may count as uncroaked, whatever that might mean for a volcano, but I think its ash, rocks, and lava would count as ordinary projectile weapons or fire or similar.)

It only counts as uncroaked in the sense that volcanos are either active or dead. They are never actually 'alive' so they can never be considered 'undead'. The volcano was dead (or 'croaked', since apparently in Erfworld they never say DEAD). So Parson used semantics to say 'well heck if anything croaked can be uncroaked, it also will apply to a non-living thing in the first place that happens to now be dead (ie, croaked).

Hence, just as the volcano was never alive in the first place, it isn't uncroaked now - uncroaking just led to the only one of two possible things which a volcano can be - dead (croaked), or ACTIVE. It's no longer croaked, so now it's active.

Scarlet may very well be burnt to a cinder.

Good. Break out the cake.

But if she is indeed dead, then I think we will get some interesting "fog of war" results out of this. Namely, that there will be no eyewitness survivors to the carnage, other than Charlie (who isn't likely to talk) and Parson & company (who will likely be in hiding, if possible).

Sort of the whole point of 'fog of war.' :)

No one to tell how Ansom was croaked in a fake truce and that the Archons failed to warn anyone about the Twoll, or any of the details of the battle.

Unless different sides' thinkamancers were told this before the big annihilation occured.

All the coalition members will be completely in the dark, knowing nothing other than that the volcano went off. Plot-wise, it would make for some interesting conflicts if the details of the battle became know to at least one of the coalition sides (besides Charlie).

Possible, but not the only possible outcome that still says that Scarlett/Red/Miss Pliers-be-happy is dead.

Regardless, I think it's quite likely that everyone (or nearly everyone) will believe Parson is dead, that absolutely no one at GK survived, period.

Stanley might know he's still alive if he finds that he's still paying his upkeep from his now meager purse.

"Boop! GK is destroyed... Hey what the heck, it's been just one turn and 1000 shmuckers has disappeared from my purse!"

Parson's smart enough to know to encourage that belief, if possible. Indeed, how many people of the coalition are left alive who actually know that Parson even existed? Charlie, Vinny and Jillian, of course. But does anyone else know?

Depends on if the thinkamancers were in any sort of contact with the unit commanders off camera.

[Jon Pander]

You do realize that she doesn't actually tear people's eyes out on a regular basis, right? That her example might just possibly be very slightly hyperbolic?

She doesn't exactly describe me as being 'deep' with layers and layers. She's a barbarian.

Thog like hit things. Make them fall down. They go splat. Thog happy.

I think the only reason she doesn't pluck out eyeballs with shrimp forks on a regular basis is because it's hard to find shrimp forks in most settings she finds herself in.

I feel like I'm talking to myself. Jillian is not a violent neanderthal.

The girl is PMS personified.

She doesn't throw people into shark pits when they displease her.

1) There are no sharks available.
2) She's a more hands-on type of barbarian.

She doesn't look for an excuse to murder everyone around her.

Doesn't her character sheet description pretty much devolve into STABBITY STABBITY HACK HACK SLASH! if I remember correctly?

Nah, she's not violent at all. :)

She may talk about how much she loves the freedom of combat, but she is actually capable of intuiting the idea that she can interact with people without dismembering them.

Long as they don't piss her off too much.

]I seriously cannot believe that I have to defend the possibility that it might be out of character for Jillian to attack someone.

It's not out of character for Jillian to attack someone who pisses her off. Heck if Vinny didn't start crying and make her feel like she wasn't alone, she'd probably have punched him in the face too.

- JP

[TamLin]

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.

True, but of course, whenever Ansom did something, it was something that really was "In the box," it was just a part of the box that we the reader didn't know was there (does that make a speck of sense?). It gets pretty meta because we can only interpret the events of the comic based on what we know (because we're all outsiders too). So Parson cheating by going outside the rules and Ansom "cheating" by doing something crazy that was apparently within the rules but we didn't know it amounts, in many ways, to the same thing to us.

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.

Well, I think we're supposed to identify with Parson, because he's the fish out of water, and because he's the everyman (or "everygamer"?). Even if we don't like him, there's a differfence between being a loser and being a sociopath.

Of course, for all we know the next page will show Parson curled up in a fetal position, weeping and berating himself with the haunting faces of dead Erfrlings hovering before his eyes. Okay, probably not, but you get what I'm saying.

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".

Or pretend it's a game. I've heard actual soldiers use that term.

On a related note, I didn't notice this the first time I read it, but the first panel on the second to last row of page 136 appears to show both gobwins and coalition soldiers trying to escape from the tunnels (or hold up the walls?). It's a nice touch.

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.*

Don't get me started on the free will thing again, I'll go on for pages. Of course, we do know that units in the game have some degree of free will; there are coups and betrayals. These are governed by a mechanic, but it's mysterious and difficult to understand. So there's a constant tug-of-war going on behind the scenes about how much (if any) freedom these people have.

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.

I have indeed noticed that, as I'm sure everyone has (Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" has one of my favorite comments on this phenomena in movies), and actually I've brought it up in regards to Erfworld before, how in earlier comics we were more likely to see inhuman creatures like spidews and dwagons killed off and there was less violence directed at things recognizable as "people".

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.

Of course, he had the advantage of being in a movie where morality was (for the most part) clear-cut. Real war, and Erfworld, are more complicated.

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.

Yep, and even when Webinar got offed, you at least had the "PK" joke. But, and I hate to be argumentative here, I'm still holding to the coceit that things got grittier as it went on. This emerges in even more subtle ways: Look at strip 50. We see dwagons torching the towers, and we see little erflings bailing out of them and burning or falling to their deaths. It's not particularly funny and it's pretty intensely violent. But it's all at a distance, and not much more intense than you'd see in a PG movie. Compare that with the last panel of page 108. Here's the same thing, erflings on fire, but now it's not at a distance. It's up close, and we can see them burning, we can hear them screaming, and in fact we just saw these people alive a second ago. We don't have that protective, sanitizing distance anymore. I agree it's a matter of degrees of distinction, but I think it's like a line graph; there are dips and there are spikes, but the broad trend still goes in one recognizable direction over times.

Btw, I'm glad you brought up that image of the cloth golem "mourning" the other one back in that old strip, because I'd totally forgotten about that. To me, it's not clear in that strip whether the bear is actually mourning over its dead comrade or just picking up the remains (having no facial expression or dialogue, it's tough to tell). This touches on another thing I've wondered about these war scenes, which is whether these non-humanoid creatures like dwagons and spidews are intelligent and thinking creatures or whether they're just basically big animals. They don't seem capable of speech, but this is a fantasy world and anything's possible.

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.

Yeah, but it was established early on that the spell gives Stanley total control over Parson (getting him to laugh on command and then striking him mute, for example).

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.)

But by Parson's admission the whole point of his plan is to "Break the rules and win". He comes to the conclusion that only a plan that breaks the rules will succeed, since that's how his wargame was designed (Parson seems like kind of a **** DM, in that sense). This leads me to believe that the volcano trick is not something that's really supposed to happen within the rules of Erfworld (otherwise it would have failed).

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: Missionfirst. Never accept defeat. Never quit. Never leave a buddy.

But Parson isn't a soldier, he's a gamer. He's a web cartoonist, not Patton. Sizemore, on the other hand, IS a soldier (in the loose sense, at least, that he serves in a military society). But Sizemore has an attack of conscience and Parson doesn't (even when, as you point out, he speculates that he should).

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 care.

Well that's what I was saying. The point was made that if he had surrendered, he might have killed off all of the units except probably the casters, but that's what ended up happening anyway. In fact, since his plan was to have the casters flee the city if he lost rather than be captured, he could theoreticall have gotten a few more people out too (Bogroll, for example).

"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.

Of course, he killed off some people before he got the sword too. But however he might feel, it hasn't come across in the comic. But, as I said already, I guess it's not over yet.

First, Parson was granted ruthlessness - but was it up to him whether to use it or not? This may be a non sequitur, as a truly ruthless person would not refrain from "using" ruthlessness, but they would not need to be granted it in the first place, as they would already have it. For someone who was not ruthless to begin with? Well, such overwriting of personality, if indeed it occurred, would surely deepen the questions that this comic provokes about individual free will.

DING-DING! I like that line of thought. I even speculated, mentally, that the "ruthless" thing may have been nothing more than a placebo influence; something designed to help Parson disassociate from his actions when it might not, in fact, have had any real effect at all.

*scrolls down:*

Related to these two is the notion that the 'ruthlessness' granted by the sword is nothing more than a placebo effect.

Damn, beat me to it! But I suppose this isn't the first time it's been suggested.

Ah, but can we be sure that the glow wasn't a manifestation of the leadership and/or combat effects?

Or just a rhetorical flourish to make him (and us) believe there's a real psychological effect.

Alas, there's no way to say one way or the other, but the magic sword certainly does serve as an effective "weasel" to make it pretty much impossible to pin down Parson's motives or mindset in the last stretch of the comic.

I disagree. "Cheating" as in doing something that's not allowed by the rules is impossible. In a real game, you can physically pick up units when no one is looking and place them in other hexes to better advantage. In Erf, you can only move on your own turn, even if you teleport. [...] So there's no cheating, just a judgement call for the GM.

I see your point, but even Parson believes that he's cheating. And further, he believes that cheating is the only thing that will work.

[Starwaster]

She doesn't exactly describe me as being 'deep' with layers and layers. She's a barbarian.

Thog like hit things. Make them fall down. They go splat. Thog happy.

Yay! Now ice cream!

I think the only reason she doesn't pluck out eyeballs with shrimp forks on a regular basis is because it's hard to find shrimp forks in most settings she finds herself in.

Actually, the reason she doesn't pluck out eyeballs with shrimp forks is because that task is reserved for the salad fork.

[seans23]

Occam's razor dictates that the most obvious answer is probably the right one. If Stanley can conceivably be killed while having the hammer then Scarlet (a weaker character who may or may not be attuned, being faced with a far more deadly encounter than anything Stanley's ever faced) is almost certainly dead.

The hammer has different powers than the pliers. The pliers might protect you from getting croaked.

[abb3w]

Actually, the reason she doesn't pluck out eyeballs with shrimp forks is because that task is reserved for the salad fork.

Yeah, the shrimp fork is for ripping off fingernails.

[DevilDan]

I disagree. "Cheating" as in doing something that's not allowed by the rules is impossible. In a real game, you can physically pick up units when no one is looking and place them in other hexes to better advantage. In Erf, you can only move on your own turn, even if you teleport.

But think of Erf as a real game.

There was an indescribably cool thread a while back about how to use magic to animate an entire planet. It all followed existing rules, of course. Suffice it to say that most solutions involved something akin to von Neumann machines or even crazier stunts involving legions of extra-planar creatures.

Parson did what he wanted his own players to have to do in his table-top game.