Am I just really thick, or is Gobwin Knob evil?

[mockingbyrd7]

Did I miss something? It sure seems like Gobwin Knob is an evil city - uses mostly Undead (uncroaked) soldiers, uses Croakamancy, uses torture... it just seems like a kind of an evil nation. Oh, and they're facing the Fluffy Teddy-Bear Legion. What do you think??

P.S. I find the comic pretty hard to follow for some reason... I don't know why. I follow stuff more complex than this, but something about the way the dialogue goes and the angles it's shot at often confuses me.

[Emanick1]

That is intriguing. I wonder how Parson will escape (which he obviously will) if you're right. Though it would be interesting to see Parson and Stanley and Wanda and all...fall...(sing that five times fast), I doubt that that would happen, with Parson anyway. The "good guy" siding with the "bad guy" the whole plotline through, however unwillingly, just never happens. I suppose that Stanley will escape and join the "good side," possibly along with Wanda, or with her help, once Gobwin Knob is the vastly superior force. Somehow. (Stanley will probably just swell the ranks of the Uncroaked with teddy bears. Somehow.)
What puzzles me is how that will happen if Stanley controls Parson. I suppose Wanda will have to undo that, which proves that she is not evil if Stanley is.
P.S. This confuses me too, though also like you I manage to follow things more complicated (some of them, anyway). Possibly because everyone has a staggering level of keen observance, like seeing the stuffed animal in comic #16.

[Maerad of Pellinor]

Yea, I think it probably is....

Which makes me wonder, will Parson plan the battle for Gobwin Knob to lose? Because he's obviously the equivalent of the DM in his game, and so he was planning the battle for him to lose and the PC's to win....So is Stanley stupid enough to let him make all of the decisions?

[Sisqui]

I thought Parson might have made the game for the PC's to help the evil side win against the overwhelming force of cutesies...... He might not want to be a slave to Stanley and therefore try to get the cutesies to win in spite of himself but I really see Parson originally setting up an anti-hero type of game for his players.

That is, of course, assuming that it actually is the game he was working on........

[Yendal]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.

Just because a certain side embraces a particular type of -mancer, doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'evil'.

[the_tick_rules]

well remember Parson kinda seems them all as tools. So if it's not real is it really evil?

[TinSoldier]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.

Heh. Even though I don't usually go in for moral relativism I think you have a point.

But mainly your post reminded me of the movie Clerks where Randall was talking to Dante about all of the innocent contractors who may have died when the second Death Star was destroyed.

[Lord Zentei]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.

Just because a certain side embraces a particular type of -mancer, doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'evil'.

To an extent it can; particularly if they also use torture.

And when they are led by a megalomanic midget who is after Ultimate Power(TM).

Heh. Even though I don't usually go in for moral relativism I think you have a point.

But mainly your post reminded me of the movie Clerks where Randall was talking to Dante about all of the innocent contractors who may have died when the second Death Star was destroyed.

Well, they knew what they were building, and what it was for. Millitary indistries are a legitimate target in times of war, so "innocent" is stretching it a mite.

More relevant is what happened to Endor and its ecosystem after such a colossal battlestation exploded in low orbit. Suffice to say that the Ewoks would have to find a new home.

[slayerx]

This seems an a lot like the discussion over in this thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33521

You can't make immediate judgements based off of the appearances of a side... i mean, Ansom may have an army of plush, but he also is working with shady elves, and vampire-like guy who leads a legion of DOOMbats; not exactly looks like good guys. What this means is that we should not judge by appearances alone nore by our pre-existing perceptions. I mean, the only reason we call Goblins, undead and doombats evil is because of what we allways thought about them(their almost always on the evil side)... but for all we know, in this world they could be the goodguys, which would be quite the twist considering that would make the plush evil...

I think the best way to look at it at first is to think of the armies themselves as neutral, not good or evil... we then look at how each side conducts themselves(are they greedy, honorable, hateful, kind?) and THEN start making our conclusions. I mean, even when i put my pre-existing opinions about goblins and undead aside, Stanely to me comes off as more of a selfish, powerhungry, tyrant (thus his side being the bad side)

Well, they knew what they were building, and what it was for. Millitary indistries are a legitimate target in times of war, so "innocent" is stretching it a mite.

well, then you need to question whether they WANTED to help build the second death star, or if they were forced into the job... if they were forced, then they were pretty innocent

[Aquillion]

You also have to ask yourself whether Parson is going to take any of this seriously at all. I mean, as far as he's concerned, this is a game world, right? Even to the characters in that world themselves, things like death and warfare seem to seem partially comical, partially cute and game-like.

He's commanded the forces of evil before. As far as he's concerned, it just means you paint your units black-and-gold and get to laugh manically if you win.

[Erk]

As a previous poster said, I would think from Parson's demonstrated personality in Hamstard that he would intend for the players to help the forces of dark, cool zombehs and sadistic sexy sorceresses and potty humour and overweight trolly things to overthrow the unspeakable forces of... ugh. Candyland and fluffybunny. I have had at least one GM with that exact sense of humour before. He kinda looked like Parson too, but was nowhere near as good a GM. I digress.

Aside from the cosmetic we have no reason to assume Ansom is a kindhearted soul. His strategy is a very high-loss scenario, relying on throwing thousands of his allied soldiers to the death simply because he has enough troops to get away with it. He's basing it on their personalities, taking advantage of the eager elves' tendency to agree to anything ("woo!") and tossing away his most useless allies as cannon fodder. Now, these are not unusual strategies in a real military campaign, but neither is interrogation. War is nasty stuff, and both sides do atrocious work to win it. So far, we have no reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's... in fact, given that Stanley seems to be fighting a losing defensive battle while he focuses on non-war-related things, it seems to me Ansom is far more likely the aggressor. Time will tell.

[random11]

I hate D&D typed alignment.
What I hope, is for static alignment issues to be totaly ignored in this comic.

[Setra]

Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.

That about sums my thoughts up

[Sisqui]

Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.

No offense, but I think that is the most naive thing I have ever read.......

[Maurog]

I like how you support the quote by a seemingly opposed statement. Sly!

[Chummer]

You can ask yourself what defines good and evil any nuber of times as you want but its darn hard to explain But i dont find Prins Ansom or jillian on the side of good She is too war hungry and he is too self centered much like the common villan he thinks him self better then others and even unbeateble...
its parsons game allright and who says all them Cute things are good anyway
most of them so anoying we all have thought about a teletubby in a petrole fire ! .....who wouldent want to slay the caere baeres to be rid of yet a themesong ?

[Sewer_Bandito]

I'm sure even in today's world, a majority of the world's nations use to find out what they want to know, if bribery and blackmail don't work out for them first. Does that make all of those nations evil? It depends on your point of view.

And just because they use undead doesn't make them evil either, I mean, what else are you supposed to fight with when everyone else is ?

[Hephaestus]

Jillian mercilessly slaughtered a Twoll and some uncroaked, and she's on the good side. I don't think either side is good or evil, just two groups at war with one another.

[Sisqui]

I like how you support the quote by a seemingly opposed statement. Sly!

I have no doubt there are many different perspectives on issues but to say
there are no good sides or bad sides is just plain ridiculous.

[Radar]

Well... it doesn't matter, weather Gobwin knob is an evil city or not. Hadn't you ever played on the evil side in a RPG or a strategic game? I assume, that most of us did, because it wasn't real. It was just a game - nothing more to it. And for Parson it is just a weird dream about a game.
What is more importent, it is a strategical problem, he was investigating for a few months. I think, he will lead the batlle to win it just to prove himself as a strategist and to see weather his ideas about unballanced warfare were correct.

Besides: uncroaking is just like recycling applied to your troops
And why trolls have to be evil, just because they are smelly? Bogroll seems to be a realy kind humanoid.

[Firestar27]

Parson will not intentionally make Stanley lose because he is "evil". You can't base that on the fact that "Parson was going to try to lose so that the PCs could win" in his RL game. You can't do that because he wasn't DMing. He wasn't playing an RPG in his RL game. He was playing a wargame like Warhammer.

[Om]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception.

In the real world. Parson can no longer be counted as an inhabitant of this.

[Sisqui]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception.

Ye gods, please tell me that was a joke. Maybe not a funny one, but still a joke........
Try saying "Evil can sometimes be just a matter of perception."

[mikeejimbo]

Ye gods, please tell me that was a joke. Maybe not a funny one, but still a joke........
Try saying "Evil can sometimes be just a matter of perception."

Sadly, I have to agree with the statement that "Evil is a matter of perception." In the real world, 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrarily-defined human concepts.

[Lemur]

It's fairly clear that Stanley is a major bad guy. He attacks various people in order to gain the tools of the titans, in what appears in all respects to be a desire for personal power. I doubt that he has some other, more noble purpose for it that conveniently hasn't been mentioned yet.

Furthermore, the opposing forces, appear more like stereotypical heroes. Of course, in a comic like this, that doesn't mean a much, but it is clear that Stanley has alienated most of Erfworld with his actions, seeing as they've formed an alliance of multiple otherwise separate peoples who feel that the world will be better off without Stanley.

I think that this is supposed to be one of the twists in the comic- Parson, who isn't your typical "hero from modern day Earth teleported to another world in order to save it" has been brought in to help the antagonists instead of the good guys. Most likely, this is meant to be ironically appropriate, since if Erfworld was the battle Parson was going to play with his friends, he probably would have been playing the bad guys defending the city (the role of the game master is usually to play the bad guys the heroes have to defeat, after all) while his four friends played the forces of good trying to invade the capital.

[Sisqui]

Sadly, I have to agree with the statement that "Evil is a matter of perception." In the real world, 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrarily-defined human concepts.

Even if you had an infinite number of shades of gray that still would not negate the fact that there is still a black and a white.

However broad the spectrum of things debatably good/evil is, there are some things which are absolutely in one camp or the other. I would post some examples but I think I might get scrubbed if I did.

As for them being human concepts, well, of course they are. Good and evil are both based on intent. Since humans are the only animals capable of a thought process complex enough to conceive of good and evil, they would belong exclusively to us. That does not negate their existence!

[mikeejimbo]

Since humans are the only animals capable of a thought process complex enough to conceive of good and evil, they would belong exclusively to us. That does not negate their existence!

Oh, no, of course not. They exist, but they only exist because we're here to perceive them, aye?

[Om]

The whole moral/philosophical argument regarding good and evil is better dealt with elsewhere.

[Sisqui]

Oh, no, of course not. They exist, but they only exist because we're here to perceive them, aye?

Deleted by me

Om is right, this is not the place for a good/evil discussion or a debate on existentialism. Too bad...

[Erk]

It's not the end of the world, sisqui, just head out and continue in an appropriate section of the forum. Moral relativism is a pretty debunked philosophy, but in Erfworld we really have no concrete reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's, and therefore no reason to argue that "stanley's side is good because they think they are doing the right thing, while ansoms is good for the same reason". It's all in the air right now, we hardly know anything about either side.

There is no evidence that uncroaking troops is immoral, yet... simply because necromancy is considered evil in standard fantasy is not enough. The only actual bad thing we have therefore seen from Stanley is that he is impetuous and self-centered, but we have also seen that Ansom is bellicose and self-centered. The only argument anyone really has for the Cute and Plush being good, then, is that they are Cute and Plush. That is a superficial and rather silly argument.