Is Ansom good ?

[Earendill]

....And I don't mean a charming lovable person but more likely, is he Stereotypically good ? Was he built as the champion of "cute and plushness", perfectly good opponent to another Stereotypically Bad Stanley ?

The two foes look like they were designed from the start to be opposites, kinda' like some child story characters. They are stereotypes. However, Erfworld has a history of twisting stereotypes, with dark becoming cute (see the dwagons, twolls and goblins) and cute becoming Dark (poor cloth golem....so many were sad when he died)

This is a thread for bringing arguments for or against this supposition. And remember, you can admit to him being "good" without having to like him :)

Here is a list of arguments for his potentially stereotypical "goodness":

1. He's....well....Handsome :)
2. He wears white, gold and a cape.
3. The description strenghts: leadership, coalition building. Even his weaknesses could be interpreted as somehow qualities - he lacks caution then he could be brave (pages 21-22 show him fighting in the frontline, unlike for instance, Manpower the Temporary who tries, unsuccessfully, to stay behind the lines)
4. He seem to be in love with Jillian, while not imposing his love and mostly trying to protect her from herself (this sort of love is usually associated to "good" characters)
5. He seems to care about his troops (the "Please be careful" to Webinar in page 10) and respect them (the discussion with Vinnie - Vinnie somehow insinuates in his last bubble that Ansom is too show off about his title and Ansom's answer is just "that's not strictly fair" - remember what Stanley did in a similar situation ?)
6. He is...well...a prince :)
7. His troops and allies seem to appreciate him, from the lowest servant to Vinnie. They seem to act more out of devotion than fear. The "My life for Jetstone" from Sir Webinar seems to suggest it.
8. The troops on his side seem more associated with the idea of good, or cute at least. Stuffed bears, giraffes and elephants, elves, gwiffons....The only (debatable) exceptions are Vinnie's doombats and Orlies :)

Suggestions ? Comments ?

[Luvlein]

No, I do not think so. I suspect he started a war because of personal issues. I think he is better than Stanley, but not good.

[Ave]

A question, why the Plaid tribe is almost extinct?

[chionophile]

No, I do not think so. I suspect he started a war because of personal issues. I think he is better than Stanley, but not good.

I got the impression that this war was going to start regardless of Ansom. Ansom is involved because of personal issues and he seems to have the most power of the various clans allied on his side, so he is in charge, but I don't think he was directly responsible for starting the war.

Besides, getting involved in a war because of personal issues isn't necessarily a bad thing if the other guy deserves it, which Stanley seems to.

I think Ansom is Good, if a little shallow (the whole nobility\royalty thing).

[Assassinfox]

I think Ansom is a stuck up bigot who just can't stand the thought of a commoner gaining power and is using "Goodness" as an excuse to put Stanley down.

[Zanaril]

The way the plot's going, instead of being black and white, it turning out to be more like grey and grey.

I think the reason that the two sides seem to be clearly defined as good and bad is that we're supposed to think that so we get a supprise later when we find out that maybe Ansom's not so good after all.

Maybe he killed the rest of Stanly's tribe for some reason that (at least to Stanly) was not justified? This would explain why the Plaid tribe is "nearly lost". What if after lost the rest of his tribe, he came across the Arkenhammer, and believing that this must be his destiny, determedly clawed his way up to his current position so he could avenge his tribe?

Who knows, we'll just have to wait and see.

[factotum]

A question, why the Plaid tribe is almost extinct?

Possibly because Stanley keeps getting them killed? Wanda said they had fewer than 200 living men among their forces, and assuming Stanley's tribe were PART of those forces, there can't be many of them left!

[Querzis]

Possibly because Stanley keeps getting them killed? Wanda said they had fewer than 200 living men among their forces, and assuming Stanley's tribe were PART of those forces, there can't be many of them left!

True that, anyway I'm not sure if Ansom is good but he definitly isnt evil. Maybe he is neutral, maybe he his good, I dont know we didnt saw enough of him to be sure but «Thats not strictly fair» sure is a good answer to someone who just clearly insulted him and his honor (as opposed to say, Stanley). Still, he could be neutral but I dont think it matter that much, Stanley is evil, a bit stupid but he know what he want, ambitious and self-righteous, in other word, he is a danger for everyone, even his own troops.

By the way I still cant believe so many people believe what Stanley said. Since everybody say he is evil, he say «There is no evil» and thats supposed to mean hes a good guy?

By the way go read page 34 panel 4 and 5, its quite obvious that Stanley attacked them first.

[Assassinfox]

By the way I still cant believe so many people believe what Stanley said. Since everybody say he is evil, he say «There is no evil» and thats supposed to mean hes a good guy?

I agree. When he flipped out at being called a bad guy, I thought he'd have some story about how he actually has the people's best interests in mind, but no! He throws a temper tantrum and tries to pull a Neo with "There is no evil!"

[Caledonian]

Look at how much the "good" guys care about their people being killed in the Vinnie and Ansom discussion - the loss of some field units is seen as almost inconsequential.

It's like they're playing Heroes of Might and Magic.

[Earendill]

I was expecting this reaction. Ansom is not good. He has some hidden agenda.....We don't have proof he is not evil etc.

Arguments are totally lacking or worse.

Stanley's Plaid tribe is totally extinct so that must be because Ansom killed them (why isn't Stanley saying anything about this during his speech about good and evil ?)

Then, he wants to kill Stanley to take his Hammer - not confirmed anywhere in the strip - on the contrary, talking (with humility) about the Arkenpliers he says - "Fate magic is powerless in my case". The only reason he would take the hammer from Stanley would be to prevent him from doing harm since he probably won't be using it anyway).

Then you have Vinnie, a vampire with a mobster mentality that insists there should be some hidden reason for Ansoms personal involvment, besides the "too obvious and too simple" version: Stanley had to be stopped, he attacked and killed many, including Jetstone troops so Ansom decided to stop him for the better good of everyone. This is the first explanation that Ansom offers. The mobster did not buy it mostly because in a mob world it doesnt work like this - people have hidden motives. Then Vinnie suggests the "nobility" thing - Ansom never agrees to this ! all he says is - Stanley is not noble, as in there is no nobility in his actions.

This discussion is the raw material for all of Stanley's fans - look Ansom is evil! While the whole strip is made only of Vinnie's speculations, none confirmed by Ansom who tries to handle him gently ("That's not strictly fair"). Ansom's hidden agenda is simple - he loves Jillian, who has a personal thing against Stanley so he came with the hope to protect and support her. He will not admit this to Vinnie that's sure.

Anyway - by saying Ansom is good I'm not saying he is likeable - he is just a prototype of the good prince charming wearing shiny gold/white armor, leading his troops in battle and crying over the dead body of a soldier. As character he is extreme, on the good side, just as Stanley is extreme on the evil side. This kind of unrealistic characters are what kid stories are made of - just watch Disney cartoons. And there is a lot of kid related stuff in erfworld.

[Glome]

Then you have Vinnie, a vampire with a mobster mentality that insists there should be some hidden reason for Ansoms personal involvment, besides the "too obvious and too simple" version: Stanley had to be stopped, he attacked and killed many, including Jetstone troops so Ansom decided to stop him for the better good of everyone. This is the first explanation that Ansom offers. The mobster did not buy it mostly because in a mob world it doesnt work like this - people have hidden motives. Then Vinnie suggests the "nobility" thing - Ansom never agrees to this ! all he says is - Stanley is not noble, as in there is no nobility in his actions.

First off, Vinnie for the most part is right, I can hardly think of the last time the US for example got involved a war which they waged solely to get rid of a great 'evil' which didn't attack our territory, whatever their claims to the public may have been.

Also, Ansom doesn't just say Stanley is not noble, the second sentence precludes that meaning. When he says to Vinnie, 'your a count, you should know', he's clearly stating that it's upbringing/bloodline that is the problem, not his actions. If Ansom really thought Vinnie was a noble person and he should know what he was talking about(doubtful considering that he's a mobster vampire), he would have said 'your noble, you should know'. The fact that he said count would preclude any interpretation but to say that it Stanley's heritage that was the problem.

Ansom also had no reason to be really gentle when handling the question, considering that Vinnie went to great lengths to point out that whatever his answer would have no effect on their relationship or their alliance in any way. Also, Vinnie would undoubtly appreciate a blunt answer, nor does Ansom seem the person who couldn't answer such a question straightly if he was really doing it for a noble purpose. If he was waging the war just to eliminate an evil from the world, he would have told Vinnie to boop off after suggesting an ulterior motive. The fact that didn't is just further proof that such a motive is there.

Also, in Erfworld 8, Ansom calls Jillian a barbarian, which is to further supply evidence that his character has class issues.

Finally, why would this strip even exist if it was just to confirm a cliche which everyone assumed in the first place? The strip obviously was to parallel the previous strip which went into Stanley's motive for war. However, there were a thousands of way that it could have been written to make it clear that Ansoms motive was to eliminate an evil. There were also plenty of ways he could have gave clues that he was going to war to chase Jillian, but that wasn't even hinted at.

The way it was written though however was one of the few ways that it could have written where Ansom reveals that he has an ulterior motive while staying true to character. After all, how many people really reveal there ulterior motives to anyone? People are always going to put the best public face on their actions, especially when it comes to policy decisions. Why would you expect Ansom to specific state his prejudice any more then you would expect Stanley to state that he's an evil bastard?

I also don't see this as being a kids story. Yes, it dressed up in a kid friendly tone mostly for humor sake. However, the motivations of the individuals involved are very adult oriented despite who they appear to be on the outside. Certainly I have trouble reconciling this being a real kids comic with their being torture scenes. I actually like the concept behind it too, of making an adult story using childrens language and imagery.

When all that's said that done though, the fact that Ansom is going to war for less then enlightened reasons doesn't make Ansom evil or even a bad person. It's a character flaw that's driving his decision to destroy Stanley and wipe out the Plaid tribe. Good and Evil are oversimplifications when it comes to people and becomes even more meaningless when it comes to state of anarchy that's natural to international relations. I think the authors are avoiding taking the lazy way of saying it's good vs. evil and are instead creating complex motivations behind both sides actions, which is usually how things work in the real world.

[Luvlein]

Ansom's hidden agenda is simple - he loves Jillian, who has a personal thing against Stanley so he came with the hope to protect and support her. He will not admit this to Vinnie that's sure.

Sure, getting people killed by thousands because of a vague love affair is teh utmost good and noble thing I can think of.
Your interpretation of Ansom's use of nobility is totally lacking or worse. Vinnie never used the word, btw.

[Rainspattered]

Well, to begin with, I'm of the opinion that no foram leader, especially one of hereditary, autocratic power, is inherently good. Stereotypically, mayhap, but the "Steryeotype" of good differs from culture to culture. So, he may or may not fit any given sterotype's culture of Good. He's certainly against my beliefs of "Good."
That said, I find your arguments about his morality highly closed-minded, Earendill. You leave out the fact that none of the points that haven't been confirmed by the script haven't, in fact, been denied by it, either. The points you bring up, also, for his goodness (aside from his appearance) have been neither confirmed nor denied. You say Ansom cries over soldiers, yet he explains that Orlies are "expendable." One could, of course, defend this as him being blinded by love, and they are expendable compared to this woman he loves. However, you'er then surmising from the facts, just as you criticize others for doing.
While the comic has stated he wants to jump Jenny's bones, no love on the level you're speaking of has ever been evidenced. Indeed, especially the use of Jenny as a motivation is much, much less directly stated in the comics than the nobility source. You criticize them for taking something Ansom doesn't technically say and assuming it when it is a much smaller logical jump from the presented information.
That said, morality hasn't yet been determined in Erfworld, really. We're only 35 pages in. It's going to be longer than that. If all plot threads and character personalities were revealed now, there would be no point in the strip not ending right here, other than a dull, lifeless plot finish with no twists and no development.
So, right now, Ansom is clearly being set up as the physical stereotype for good, as, largely, is his army. However, Erfworld takes joy in crossing stereotypes around, so he may not be a stereotype for good in actuality. It remains to be seen.
In my personal morality, of course, he's already not "good," strictly. The only remotely sympathetic characters are Jenny, Vinnie, and a few of the golems on Stanley's side.

[Tokiko Mima]

I think you can make a good argument for Stanley being Evil. For Ansom, you really don't know enough about his circumstances to gauge one way or another. I mean, if he's telling the truth, he's putting himself on the line for a bunch of elves and vampires because he feels it's the right thing to do. But also he doesn't like the way Stanley ascended to power, and the fact that he's a commoner wielding an Arkentool which is a little elitist and judgemental.

So on Ansom virtue/lack of virtue, I really couldn't say. Evil is allowed to fight evil, though, so just by vitue of Stanley's badness does not make Ansom good. Maybe we'll find out more in the comic today?

[Lizard Lord]

Nah I think he is more lawful neutral. His isn't good, because he is only at war to put a commoner back in his place. However, inspite of this, he still doesn't seem quite evil yet. Maybe if Stanley was a good and well loved leader the nobility thing wouldn't be an issue to Ansom, but who knows.

[sethdarkwater]

I'm going with Stanley with this one, there is really no such thing as good and evil, just perspective. From my perspective I kinda like ansem but he has such impure motives.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Ansom isn't good, he's someone raised in the mold of being good. I doubt he has an alterior motive, he's just a biggot who acts the way his mommy told his to. He's a noble who likes to think of himself as good but he's not directly serving any higher power. Possibly a LG fighter rather than a Paladin in that he believes in law and goodness but he doesn't suffer if he doesn't act lawful or good.

I don't think he loves Jillian, he just like's asserting his sexuality.

[Earendill]

First off, Vinnie for the most part is right, I can hardly think of the last time the US for example got involved a war which they waged solely to get rid of a great 'evil' which didn't attack our territory, whatever their claims to the public may have been.

I don't want to go into politics - just to say that this is not real life - it's a multi level fantasy story with Dwagons and Mages. Perfectly good and perfectly evil characters are cliches that exist in such stories. Arguments from real life like moral relativism are of limited use.

Also, Ansom doesn't just say Stanley is not noble, the second sentence precludes that meaning. When he says to Vinnie, 'your a count, you should know', he's clearly stating that it's upbringing/bloodline that is the problem, not his actions. If Ansom really thought Vinnie was a noble person and he should know what he was talking about(doubtful considering that he's a mobster vampire), he would have said 'your noble, you should know'. The fact that he said count would preclude any interpretation but to say that it Stanley's heritage that was the problem.

The phrase "you're a count - you should know" is the only remote form of Ansom admitting to Vinnie's interpretation. And it is open to a (pointless without more information) debate, since it is not 100% clear.

Ansom also had no reason to be really gentle when handling the question, considering that Vinnie went to great lengths to point out that whatever his answer would have no effect on their relationship or their alliance in any way. Also, Vinnie would undoubtly appreciate a blunt answer, nor does Ansom seem the person who couldn't answer such a question straightly if he was really doing it for a noble purpose. If he was waging the war just to eliminate an evil from the world, he would have told Vinnie to boop off after suggesting an ulterior motive. The fact that didn't is just further proof that such a motive is there.

Ansom did not tell Vinnie to boop off even when Vinnie clearly accused him of flashing his title. He just said "That's not strictly fair". Does this automatically imply that Ansom is flashing his title ? Ansom was never rude to any of his troops. He says to Sir Webinar - "please be careful". Why would he be rude to Vinnie who looks like an old and devoted friend ?

Also, in Erfworld 8, Ansom calls Jillian a barbarian, which is to further supply evidence that his character has class issues.

He says Barbarian. Proudly. Seems more like admiration to me then superiority. Also note they way he is describing Jillian’s role to the warcouncil.

Finally, why would this strip even exist if it was just to confirm a cliche which everyone assumed in the first place? The strip obviously was to parallel the previous strip which went into Stanley's motive for war. However, there were a thousands of way that it could have been written to make it clear that Ansoms motive was to eliminate an evil. There were also plenty of ways he could have gave clues that he was going to war to chase Jillian, but that wasn't even hinted at.

Take a look at the last three panels. When he activates the hat (knowing it would bring him news of Jillian) he says "Please Titans" - and that's not the magic formula. When he finds out that Jillian has been captured he makes a very worried face and decides to cancel his all his previous military orders and do whatever he can to save her....sounds like a good hint to me

I also don't see this as being a kids story. Yes, it dressed up in a kid friendly tone mostly for humor sake. However, the motivations of the individuals involved are very adult oriented despite who they appear to be on the outside. Certainly I have trouble reconciling this being a real kids comic with their being torture scenes. I actually like the concept behind it too, of making an adult story using childrens language and imagery.

I completely agree with you. It’s an adult story using child language and imagery. The good charming prince that comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress is a part of child imagery. Just like you I trust that the authors will take a less traveled road in deciding what to do with him (maybe a horrible less than honorable death ? :) ). I said in my first post - the comic has a history of twisting stereotypes. However, initially, Ansom is a cliché, a protoype of good since he is a little kid’s version of a hero..

To Luvlein – the war of everyone vs Stanley was probably there with or without Ansom and was unavoidable (because of Stanley’s actions) with or without Jillian.

[SteveMB]

Look at how much the "good" guys care about their people being killed in the Vinnie and Ansom discussion - the loss of some field units is seen as almost inconsequential.

I see that as Vinnie taking a hard-nosed realpolitik view -- it just doesn't make sense to launch a major war over relatively minor incidents. (For that matter, it makes even less sense from the point of view of caring about the lives of your troops -- it gets lots more of them killed. Admittedly, at some point it becomes necessary to slap down someone who repeatedly and systematically pin-pricks at you to make him quit, but Vinnie's opinion is that what Stanley did to Jetstone's people falls well short of that.)

[the_tick_rules]

i'm betting this will end up being where there's really two bad sides. One is just open about it and the other poses as noble.

[Gez]

Stanley isn't evil. Sure, he uses undead and stuff like that, but despite having the stereotypical attributes of the evil warlord (army of undead, trolls, and goblins, even though they have cutesy names), he's never engaging in a stereotypical evil activity. And see 17:5 where he says he doesn't want a morale case. If he were evil, would he care about what his future warlord could want?

He's certainly childish, but really evil? Nah.

[taraxia]

Stanley isn't evil. Sure, he uses undead and stuff like that, but despite having the stereotypical attributes of the evil warlord (army of undead, trolls, and goblins, even though they have cutesy names), he's never engaging in a stereotypical evil activity. And see 17:5 where he says he doesn't want a morale case. If he were evil, would he care about what his future warlord could want?

He phrases it in terms of "morale". He doesn't want a warlord whose mind won't be in top shape because he's constantly pining for home. That's a pragmatic concern, not a moral one. He certainly doesn't seem to give a boop about all the warlords who've lost their lives on his behalf in the past.

[SteveMB]

Stanley isn't evil. Sure, he uses undead and stuff like that, but despite having the stereotypical attributes of the evil warlord (army of undead, trolls, and goblins, even though they have cutesy names), he's never engaging in a stereotypical evil activity. And see 17:5 where he says he doesn't want a morale case. If he were evil, would he care about what his future warlord could want?

He's certainly childish, but really evil? Nah.

Well, there is his evident approval of Wanda's hobbies....

[Golem]

Well, there is his evident approval of Wanda's hobbies....

That's neither here nor there. It IS a time of war, and perhaps she's given useful information from him before. Stanley strikes me more as the sort of aggressive leader--childish in temprament, yes, but his multiple demands during the summoning make it clear he wants one thing more than anyhting else: advantage.

[Glome]

After seeing that some people can't admit that Belkar is evil after the enormous amount of clear evidence that such is a case, there is no way I'm going to get suckered into debating whether Stanley is evil. This is especially true since as far as we've seen, good and evil aren't game mechanics that have any real effects on their world unlike in DnD. Plus, good and evil seem to mean different things to different people, so often people end up talking past each when they define things in different ways.

I will say that Stanley is driven by his ambition, such that he really has very few moral boundaries as to what is unacceptable if it will help him achieve his goal. Where you want to label on the good-evil access doesn't influence the fact that he is a real threat to anyone who stands between him and achieving his ambition.

Stanley also shows little real concern for those under him. This can be demonstrated by his suggestion of just escaping a potentially doomed Gobwin Knob with his Arkenhammer. If he could have escaped with his money, it's seems like he would have never spent all of it even if it could have saved Gobwin Knob.

[Xiander]

This discussion seems to be a bit of key to me, since a lot of different claims about who is good and who is evil has been made, but i havent yet seen any really exhausting argument about why a certain action makes Ansom good or evil. Sure he has an ulterior motive that is pretty well proven, but is that evil? Is it even not good?

In my opinion it seems what we really need in order to get at least a closer idea is a definition of good and evil (i am purposefully leaving out neutral since i believe that it exists only in D&D).
I took the time to find the direct meaning of both words in a dictionary
here is what i found:
Good: Which has beneficial effects. This is the broadest meaning of the word good, which alows it to be used about almost everything, as oposed to the narower definition that is only concerned with ethics (to flesh out the ethical meaning of good would require a very long philosofical discussion and i do not have the time). But let us asume that a good deed is a deed which has beneficial results for now.
Evil: Which purposefully does harm. This is a lot easier to work with, since it is a lot narower than the meaning of good.

To use this piece of terminology on the erfworld discussion, i would not say Ansom is evil. He has shown no signs of cruelty or a will to harm people without a good reason (even if the reason he claims to have, is only a political coverup for dethroning a person he personally finds unfit due to lacking bloodline). Of course this is a rather mild use of the term, but if i used it much stricter, i would make everyone in the strip evil, since they are all part of a war, and thus deliberately harming people every now and then.
As to wether Ansom is good, this is also hard to say, since we would have to decide if hi has beneficial properties to give a final verdict. He is leading an aliance to rid the world of what he percieves as a great evil, this is not good or beneficial in itself, since there is no guarantee that what he percieves is correct. Also he is not necesarily doing it only to improve the world, he might be doing it to make certain the noble get to rule (i will not enter the noble vs royal discussion here). Then you might say that from ansoms own perspective, what he is doing is the only right thing, the question is if that is important, because he might as well be wrong might he not?

I do not have time or energy to write a complete discussion of every relevant topic here, so i will conclude rather vaguely that it is not possible to say for certain wheter Ansom is good or evil (the samething goes for stanly actually, though i, personally, would never call him good)

[Assassinfox]

i'm betting this will end up being where there's really two bad sides. One is just open about it and the other poses as noble.

I second that!

[Glome]

I completely agree with you. It’s an adult story using child language and imagery. The good charming prince that comes to the rescue of the damsel in distress is a part of child imagery. Just like you I trust that the authors will take a less traveled road in deciding what to do with him (maybe a horrible less than honorable death ? :) ). I said in my first post - the comic has a history of twisting stereotypes. However, initially, Ansom is a cliché, a protoype of good since he is a little kid’s version of a hero..

Yet I think our disagreement is how far these cliches extend. I don't believe that they extend all the way through the characters motivations. Prince Ansom in this case mostly follows through on the good stereotype except he's a bigot. Look at Wanda for another example of a character that's more then a simple cliche. The evil Sorceroress who hates her boss but enjoys torturing people but also has a friendly relationship with one of her frequent victims after doing her job doesn't follow any children's cliche that I know of.

I don't want to go into politics - just to say that this is not real life - it's a multi level fantasy story with Dwagons and Mages. Perfectly good and perfectly evil characters are cliches that exist in such stories. Arguments from real life like moral relativism are of limited use.

I brought it up because I believe the characters have motivations as in depth as in the real world, so analogies from the real world aren't completely out of question. But yeah, I don't want to get into a detailed political discussion. I just want to point out here that I'm not talking about moral relativism. I am saying though that pragmaticism is the usually state of affairs when it comes to foreign policy for most nations throughout history. The ones who didn't follow at least a somewhat pragmatic approach tended to have fairly short life-spans.

Ansom did not tell Vinnie to boop off even when Vinnie clearly accused him of flashing his title. He just said "That's not strictly fair". Does this automatically imply that Ansom is flashing his title ? Ansom was never rude to any of his troops. He says to Sir Webinar - "please be careful". Why would he be rude to Vinnie who looks like an old and devoted friend ?

His defensive answer seems to indicate that this is the case. I'm exaggerating when I said he'd tell him to boop off, your right that he's more polite then that. However, that doesn't preclude a stronger response, even a simple 'that's not true' would have sufficed. Instead, I got the impression that the 'that's not strictly fair' would have been followed by an explanation as to why he has to hit people over his head with his title instead of a denial of that fact had their conversation continued.

I also don't think the authors are in way trying to deceive us in this particular strip, but are honestly trying to put forth the characters motivation. This means that you may even be partially right in that one reason that Ansom stays involved in this war is because of Jillian. However, I seriously doubt that's the reason he involved himself in the conflict in the first place.

My impression is that Ansom only knows Jillian because their mutual involvement in their alliance against Stanley. That through Jillian's actions and her constant contact Ansom has grown to respect and show concern for Jillian's well being, and obviously wants to sleep with her as well. There's nothing in the comic to indicate though that their relationship goes any further back then the war.

He says Barbarian. Proudly. Seems more like admiration to me then superiority. Also note they way he is describing Jillian’s role to the warcouncil.

It's not very clear whose speaking here, but I took it to mean that Ansom said 'Barbarian', and Jillian replied 'Proudly'. Certainly if the same person was speaking it would have made more sense to use the same box.

[Querzis]

Oh my god, not the Stanley isnt evil again:
1) He is on a quest for ultimate power and he want all of the Arkentool...and if you still think he want to have them peacefully from other people then you are really naive.

2) He started those war, Vinnie specifically said: «Yeah he is bad news, I got that. He attacked us, he hit the elves, he rubbed out the Milquetoast clan.» «Croaked a few field unit? And suddenly you stop everything to wipe him out?» So Stanley attacked first everytime, even if he didnt killed much of Ansom soldiers.

3) Torture. You can say whatever you want but torture is evil, especially when you like it and anyway, its totally useless to get answers, especially true answers. Even if someone dont know anything, you can be sure hes gonna say something false just to stop the torture. And yes, I do realize that I'm basically saying Georges Bush is evil, so what? Its not like he would be a good guy even if he didnt approved torture.

4) The «There is no evil speech». He didnt even tried to prove he wasnt evil mainly because I'm sure even Stanley know its true. Seriously, only evil people can have a dumb speech like that.

5) He almost killed Parson just because he said he was evil. He specifically said: «And maybe I need you to do that. So you'll get to live for now.»

6) «I thought everyone in the world was coming to kill us.» «This alone is a sign of greatness. When everyone is out to get you, you must be doing something right.» Beep, wrong answer. Try again.

7) «Ansom and people like him like to put on airs. Nobility. Like they're not ruling by violence and fear.» Well yes, Ansom doesnt rule by violence and fear. His troops are ready to die for him willfully «For the Jetstone» and even when Vinnie insult him, he just said «Thats not strictly fair» The only things «Like they're not ruling by violence and fear» mean is that Stanley rule by violence and fear and he actually know it!

8) «I'm curious, Hamster... What makes you think we are the Bad guys» Well, firstly, good guys dont intimidate people with their dragons when they are called bad guys. And they especially dont say right after that: «I can end you with a thought, y'know. It'd be so much easier than educating you».

9) He is on a freaking quest for Ultimate power, could you tell me one time where that sort of thing turned out right?

As for Ansom, hes done nothing especially evil by now and he did nothing especially good. For now I would say LN, maybe LG, I dunno. But seriously, why the hell does saying «that he isnt noble Vinnie» automatically totally exclude what he said before that. Beside I'm still not even sure that he meant noble as «nobility» or noble actions. After all, Vinnie didnt let him finish his sentence (and once again, Ansom had a really good reaction to someone who had just clearly insulted him). Anyway, Jillian is a mercenary barbarian, she isnt noble but he doesnt seems to have a problem with it.

I personnaly think that the real reason they decided to help the elves and vampires was because they learned that Stanley was after the Arkentool so, obviously, he is going to attack them next. I could be wrong about that one though. By the way, Ansom is a prince so isnt it his father, you know the King, that really started this war? I dunno, we really didnt saw enough of him.