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

[Sisqui]

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.

Actually, I posted (can't remember which thread) that Parson might have written out a scenario in which his players were to save the "evil" side from the cutesies...... but thanks for the thought!

Edit- Silly me. That was this thread!

[Enlong]

Yes, Gobwin Knob and definately Stanley the Plaid are the badguys of the game.

[Joxer]

Have any of you DM'd before? Do you know how frustrating it is to have specific players try to thwart your best laid plans over and over? So Parson is in charge of the evil city, that's what DM's are in charge of 99% of the time. Maybe for once the DM gets to take it to the goodie goodies.

/rant
hates the 'wizard' players that have the damn monster manual memorized...
Him: "Its a Bodak, don't look at it"
Me: "...your character doesn't know that without a knowledge check...roll"
Him: "i'm a powergamer and don't have knowledge skills"
Me: "looks like you'll need to be making that fortitude save then"
/end rant

[Erk]

Have any of you DM'd before? Do you know how frustrating it is to have specific players try to thwart your best laid plans over and over? So Parson is in charge of the evil city, that's what DM's are in charge of 99% of the time. Maybe for once the DM gets to take it to the goodie goodies.

/rant
hates the 'wizard' players that have the damn monster manual memorized...
Him: "Its a Bodak, don't look at it"
Me: "...your character doesn't know that without a knowledge check...roll"
Him: "i'm a powergamer and don't have knowledge skills"
Me: "looks like you'll need to be making that fortitude save then"
/end rant

For the first, your players clearly have more critical thinking skills than mine, or your plots are more straightforward. I usually need a mary-sue just to keep my players from killing themselves. Wanting to thwart them is not the problem, wanting to keep them from thwarting themselves is. (cringes at a team of four level 2 characters peeing on a sleeping owlbear)

For the second, just don't use the default MM skills and powers. Twist them around slightly to mess with your players. If you get the hang of it and do it as a standard fare system, they will stop assuming they know the monsters you throw at them just because they look like ones from the manual.

Anyway, it seems totally out of character for Parson to describe Stanley's forces as "unspeakable". It seems far more likely that the Cute and Plush would be unspeakable forces. Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?

[slayerx]

Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?

How about when the DM is so good he has already figured out how defeat such a force? Players start out thinking it's gonna be easy, then a few strong strategic defensive moves later and players start finding themselves on the run, desperatly needing to recover.

[Tokiko Mima]

Stanley's side encourages the use of torture, uses croakamancy and legions of croaked troops that likely aren't getting paid, and enslaves dwagons to fight for them. Stanley's side is clearly evil, but Ansom's side could very well be either good or evil. The only sign we have is that it appears Ansom's followers are fighting with him willingly, so he seems good so far.

[Scudboy]

I can't believe some of the responses here. I appreciate the desire not to rush to judgment, but "tortures for fun" pretty much codes as "evil" where I come from.

Interestingly, there don't seem to be any civilians on Erfworld, which makes part of the moral dilemma Parson is going to find himself in a bit less interesting.

[Strengfellow]

Well who cares if Tool Stanley et al are evil.
Look at it like this, would it not be a refreshing change for evil to prevail?
It would certainly be a damn sight more interesting than the standard sword and sorcery fare, filled as it is with innumerate write by number pastiches and sadly lacking in many fresh voices.

More power to the respective elbows of Rob Balder and Jamie Noguchi.

This rant was produced with the assistance of nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

[pendell]

Some thoughts:

1) It SEEMS likely that Stanley & Co. are Evil with a capital E, based on their use of Gobwins, Dwagons, and unCroaked.

2) That said -- things are not always what they seem. It may be that the situation is reversed. Or it may be that Stanley & Co. are evil but still less evil than whoever Handsome is who runs the show for the good guys. IIRC, Sauron in the Silmarrillion was able to put on a fair guise and appear to be a 'good guy' up until the events of Akallabeth.

It is by no means unknown in fiction, or in myth.

So we shouldn't judge by first appearances.

3) What's-her-name has hobbies of torture and interrogation.
While true, this does not mean the OTHER side doesn't use these methods. Up until the 20th century, torture was a standard part of interrogation in pretty much every army in existence.

4) Even if these guys are Evil, that doesn't mean Parson won't support them, for two reasons:

4A) He thinks this is a dream. So to him fighting for the bad guys in a dream has no more reality than any other dream; do what you like, there are no consequences and it may be useful in his real-life game.

4B) Even if he knows it's real -- and that's something we, the audience, don't necessarily know -- where is it written that Parson is a *good* character? He might gladly support Evil. For some people, Evil is a small price to pay if it carries with it significance and importance. "Better reign in hell than serve in Heaven", as Milton says.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Querzis]

I'm sure Stanley is evil. After all he started a war just to get another artifact. There is also his «Quest for ultimate power», those quest are never good. But that doesnt mean all his soldiers and Wanda are evil. After all, if Parson needs to follow Stanley orders or he die then maybe its the same thing for everyone else in Stanley army. But if Wanda really like to torture people then yes, she is also evil but we dont know if thats true.

By the way, its true that many countries used torture before or are still using it. Sometimes its not evil but most of the time it is, especially if they actually enjoy torturing people.

[SteveMB]

But if Wanda really like to torture people then yes, she is also evil but we dont know if thats true.

We do know that Stanley assumes it to be true, and is down with it, which makes it pretty clear that he's an evil little tool.

[Demented]

Maybe trapped and tormented souls have been infused into the fluff of those cloth golems.
You never know.

Though, closing one's eyes and assuming what one believes to be true usually works nine out of ten times in fantasy.

[Erk]

Gobwin Knob is clearly not good, I don't think anyone has really claimed it is. I don't know if torturing a military prisoner in a medieval society can really be called evil though. It is just too darned commonplace. I'm not arguing moral relativity here, but that morals change over time. In war and in older times, torture was simply not seen as evil or wrong. Now, that doesn't mean Stanley is a paragon of virtue, but that alone is not really enough reason to call him and the gobwins the darkest of the dark.

[fractal]

That's a good point. Stanley's team is definitely painted as the "evil" side, while Ansom appears to be "good". That said, neither of them really seems very nice.

Furthermore, while the female characters are more sympathetic, one enjoys raising the dead and torture, while the other... well, we know she's violent at least. I guess if that's all we have to condemn her for, Jillian has behaved pretty reasonably for a miniature.

I haven't seen anything in Parson's nature to indicate that he would mind the challenge of directing the outnumbered "evil" side to victory.

[Corolinth]

Moral relativism is a pretty debunked philosophy

This explains the vast gulf of differences between the religions of the world.

[InfernalistGame]

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.

Actually, according to the propoganda given out by the Empire, and supposedly to the crews involved in non-critical systems... the "Death Star" project was a mobile terraforming device, able to alter critical environmental factors such as atmospheric temperature... the Alliance hijacked it, overloaded it and blew up Alderaan.

Spin control. Gotta love it.

[InfernalistGame]

For the first, your players clearly have more critical thinking skills than mine, or your plots are more straightforward. I usually need a mary-sue just to keep my players from killing themselves. Wanting to thwart them is not the problem, wanting to keep them from thwarting themselves is. (cringes at a team of four level 2 characters peeing on a sleeping owlbear)

For the second, just don't use the default MM skills and powers. Twist them around slightly to mess with your players. If you get the hang of it and do it as a standard fare system, they will stop assuming they know the monsters you throw at them just because they look like ones from the manual.

Anyway, it seems totally out of character for Parson to describe Stanley's forces as "unspeakable". It seems far more likely that the Cute and Plush would be unspeakable forces. Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?

If they decide to piss on an owlbear, let it eat them. Do that long enough, and they usually clean up. I have a simple rule "Dice eat fools. Try to keep your head in the moment, and there may be mercy at bad luck. Screw around, and you chew your botches and villain crits."

[ichthus]

I don't see where necromancy (croakamancy) is so wrong. It's good use of your current resources. Sure, a Zombie doesn't have the speed or accuracy of a living soldier, but if your living soldier dies, does that mean you can't still use them as a resource?

Reduce. Reuse. Reanimate.

This post sponsored by: Necromancers for a Better Tomorrow.

[Sisqui]

Gobwin Knob is clearly not good, I don't think anyone has really claimed it is. I don't know if torturing a military prisoner in a medieval society can really be called evil though. It is just too darned commonplace. I'm not arguing moral relativity here, but that morals change over time. In war and in older times, torture was simply not seen as evil or wrong. Now, that doesn't mean Stanley is a paragon of virtue, but that alone is not really enough reason to call him and the gobwins the darkest of the dark.

I don't think torture during warfare is necessarily evil even in modern times, provided the torture is for the purpose of obtaining information that will keep your troops/civilians alive. It may be horrific, but wars are not won by the faint of heart and you have to do what is necessary to protect the lives you are entrusted with. However, torturing someone just for kicks, that is evil. If Wanda is a torturer because she has to be, I can understand it even if I don't like it. If she tortures people for fun, I am going to have to start seriously disliking her.......

[FelixZ]

So is Stanley stupid enough to let him make all of the decisions?

What do you think?

[Jorkens]

If Wanda is a torturer because she has to be, I can understand it even if I don't like it. If she tortures people for fun, I am going to have to start seriously disliking her.......

Or at least believing that she's evil - as the OotS forums show, being unneccesarily cruel and sadistic is no obstacle to getting love from da fans...

[Sisqui]

Or at least believing that she's evil - as the OotS forums show, being unneccesarily cruel and sadistic is no obstacle to getting love from da fans...

QFT!

[Rocheforte]

Stanley's side encourages the use of torture, uses croakamancy and legions of croaked troops that likely aren't getting paid, and enslaves dwagons to fight for them. Stanley's side is clearly evil, but Ansom's side could very well be either good or evil. The only sign we have is that it appears Ansom's followers are fighting with him willingly, so he seems good so far.

OK, the other points are pretty standard fantasy-genre "define the bad guys" criteria, but are you seriously saying that beyond merely having uncroaked troops, Stanley's forces are evil because those zombies aren't drawing paychecks?

We'll see how Ansom treats his prisoners, if he ever gets any.

[Calemyr]

Well, the imagery has certainly put Gobwin Knob on the dark side of things, using unCroaked, dwagons, spiders, and the like. Ansom, on the other hand, has vampires and bats in his alliance - rarely considered the sign of great virtue. Then again... vamps do fit the profile of Ansom's Alliance: right there are all the things a cynical man like Parson would likely despise: lame internet memes, handsome male leads, goth-poser-vampires, and everything that is so sugary sweet and innocent that it rots teeth at a thousand paces.

Now, whether Stanley himself is evil, well... he encourages croakamancy, torture, and conquests for ultimate power, but what really cinches it for me is how he communicates over that book. "need u 2 uncroak him"? *Shudder*

As for Parson himself, I don't think he'd really care which side is which. All that really matters is that he's got a very challenging ordeal ahead of him and his own life is part of the stakes. Once he gets going, this might be the most fun he's ever had.

[FelixZ]

Look at it this way: Hitler had thousands upon thousands of loyal followers that willingly killed themselves for him. However, did that make him good?

On the same side, thousands of nobles went riding to thier deaths during the crusades. Did that make the pope evil?

[Erk]

I don't think we have any reason yet to know that croakamancy is evil. Just because necromancy is portrayed as evil in a lot of fiction doesn't mean it is, and we don't even know for sure if croakamancy is the same thing yet.

[Rainspattered]

I missed the step in your logical explanatio nwhere undead=evil.
Unless you're just using racism in a fantasy context to judge an entire species with a certain morality, of course.

[Sisqui]

I don't think we have any reason yet to know that croakamancy is evil. Just because necromancy is portrayed as evil in a lot of fiction doesn't mean it is, and we don't even know for sure if croakamancy is the same thing yet.

True. Necromancy is usually portrayed as evil when it is believed that 1)The soul is still attached to the body and cannot move on to the afterlife or
2)There is some type of societal taboo on disturbing the remains of the dead.
As there is no indication that either is true in Erfworld, it is entirely possible that croakamancy isn't evil.

[Lord Zentei]

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.

Must... resist... temptation... to invoke... Godwin...


EDIT: Heh, actually it would not be an invokation of Godwin, since the infamous psycho with the silly little mustache never held this view.

But, seriously, extreme moral relativism of this kind is bad mojo. Differences of opinion are one thing, but not all philosophical positions are equally valid.

[Tokiko Mima]

OK, the other points are pretty standard fantasy-genre "define the bad guys" criteria, but are you seriously saying that beyond merely having uncroaked troops, Stanley's forces are evil because those zombies aren't drawing paychecks?

It was a bit of a point of humor, and to contrast having a willing fighting force, versus a force that has no choice but to fight for you (i.e. you don't have to pay them.) But yes, I think it says something when you have troops that you can make die (re-croak?) for you, but you don't have to reward or compensate them in any way.

You'll also notice that I did give two other reasons. I could give more, but I consider those sufficient.