Is Ansom good ?

[Yogi]

Big differences between that and what's happening here...
For one thing, numbers, comparing a few THOUSAND to a few... not a few thousand, not a few hundred, but a few.

A few "units" which usually mean more than one.

Second, the offcial Declaration of War is a BIG deal, especially when you didn't do anything to earn their ire. The open declaration of war in short means more attacks WILL come, that peace is NOT an option, and because of those two, you essentially have NO choice but to fight, because if you don't you WILL die/be taken over. The enemy has already taken everything into consideration and is now willing to fight you even if you done nothing to deserve it.

Which is pretty much the situation with Stanley, considering that he thinks he's God's Chosen One and is still trying to fight even with 25:1 (adj. 3:1) odds. Besides, Stanley wants Arkentools. Ansom has an Arkentool. Connect the dots.

While attacking just one soldier can be considered an act of war, it is not an open declaration of war. So long as war isn't declared their are still options left. For one thing, it is possible to convince the enemy to not continue this course, making them realize that war is stupid. Second, because their is no declaration of war, it's is possibly that the country will not continue to attack you IF you choose not to retaliate with full force. In the case of Erfworld, Stanely had many other enemies to deal with, saying that the first attack was the prelude to a full war against the jetstones would have been a strong jump to conclusion; at that point, Stanely had other nations things to worry about. If you don't show that you are a direct threat, then he may very well focus his attention away from you... one option you may explore is minor retaliation, such as sending troops and supplies to your enemies enemy... your helping defeat him indirectly, but you are not at FULL war. Your "allies" take the majority of the work, while you sit back knowing that your not a primary target... however, when it looks bad, then it's time to step up your role and considering going full war to stop the enemy.

Once again: Stanley wants Arkentools. Ansom has Arkentool. Stanley's method for asking for things usually involve pointy things.

Of course, this assumes that allowing other people to do your work for you is actually better. There's no reason to think that will be a Good option, expecially since you KNOW that you'll eventually be a target. An alliance can finish the fight much quicker and with less overall casualties than a long drawn out wars with splintered elements.

*similar points snipped*

HOWEVER, that point is moot in regards to Ansom... If it were the case that Ansom feared more attacks from Gobwinknob and thus feared for his people, THAT would have been his answer to Vinnie's question. If that was the honest reason for him to drop everything to wipe out Stanely then he would have replied something like "... Knowing Gobwinknob, i felt it was obvious they would commit furthar attacks against us and thus choose to fight back and stop them before they could"... if it was the honest reason, then there was no reason for him NOT to give it to Vinnie and be confident in that reason... as For, fighting to destroy Evil, if it really was what Ansom believed, then he would have been able to say it with Courage and conviction, instead of the questioning and worried tone that he gave vinnie.

Several reasons why he woudln't say that.

1) He might actually, *gasp* be thinking of the greater good. Of course the greater good involves benefiting his own country as well, but saying "the greater good" sounds better.

2) The other countries may not really care about Jetstone and be in the alliance for other reasons. Hence saying that it's for Jetstone, it may come across as "I'm using your troops for cannon fodder to protect my country."

[slayerx]

Which is pretty much the situation with Stanley, considering that he thinks he's God's Chosen One and is still trying to fight even with 25:1 (adj. 3:1) odds. Besides, Stanley wants Arkentools. Ansom has an Arkentool. Connect the dots.
Once again: Stanley wants Arkentools. Ansom has Arkentool. Stanley's method for asking for things usually involve pointy things.

Of course, this assumes that allowing other people to do your work for you is actually better. There's no reason to think that will be a Good option, expecially since you KNOW that you'll eventually be a target. An alliance can finish the fight much quicker and with less overall casualties than a long drawn out wars with splintered elements.
Several reasons why he woudln't say that.

1) He might actually, *gasp* be thinking of the greater good. Of course the greater good involves benefiting his own country as well, but saying "the greater good" sounds better.

And once again, i ask, why doesn't Ansom gives these things as his reason for going to war...
why didn't Ansom say:
1) "Stanely is after the arkentools, and i have the arkenpliers... i knew he would come after them and since i could not surrender such a thing to him, i choose to fight him before he came after me"
2) "You know how bad stanely is, it was only a matter of time before he came attacked jetstone again, so i choose to join the alliance and finish him here and now, instead of waiting"
3) "I just want to end a great evil" (but said with confidence and conviction, NOT in the questioning and uneasy tone he gave Vinnie; Confidence is a sign that you truly believe what you are saying, Uneasiness is a sign that you are unsure in your own words)

ALL of these answers are ones that Ansom COULD have given Vinnie that would allude to exactly what you are saying. There is no shame in giving these Answers to Vinnie, espeically when Vinnie says he will follow Ansom no matter what the answer was. If these were Ansom's honest reasons for fighting, then there is NO REASON why he should hide such answers.

I do stand corrected, with some reasoning you could indeed go to full war over a minor attack... a declaration of war isn't nessasary to tell you that you going to be attacked again and again.... When it comes to Vinnie, perhaps he's just more caustious about these things and thus will avoid War as much as possible, and knowing what happened to Ansom felt that it was not reason enough to go to FULL war; Send some aid to the other nations, maybe, but not go to FULL war...

But, in the end, there are ways that Ansom could have answered that question that would have been a reasonable reason for going to war after a very minor attack, but these were NOT the reasons Ansom gave... He replied with "can't it be that i just want to end a great evil", but said it with an uneasy tone that shows no conviction in his answer thus showing he is unsure of the answer and it's not his TRUE reason, that his true reason is one he is hiding or denying... ofcourse, the only reason i can see him hiding/denying would be a reason that's less then "good", such as not liking commoners in ruling positions

Vinnie kind of sums it up rather Nicely when he answers "It COULD be. But..."
There are good reason Ansom could have used, but he isn't using them... you are basically putting words into his mouth...

2) The other countries may not really care about Jetstone and be in the alliance for other reasons. Hence saying that it's for Jetstone, it may come across as "I'm using your troops for cannon fodder to protect my country."

Isn't that exactly why EVERYONE else in the alliance is pretty much there, To protect their own country and nothing else?... the alliance's only purpose is to make that job all the easier for each answer... they are all using eachother to lessen their own losses and increase their chances of success... In other words, there's nothing wrong with Ansom saying that it is for the protection of Jetstone (not to mention, again, that Vinnie said that he would Follow Ansom no matter what his answer was, and Vinnie was the ONLY person he was answering to at the moment; it's not like he was talking to the whole alliance)

[Yogi]

And once again, i ask, why doesn't Ansom gives these things as his reason for going to war...
why didn't Ansom say:
1) "Stanely is after the arkentools, and i have the arkenpliers... i knew he would come after them and since i could not surrender such a thing to him, i choose to fight him before he came after me"
2) "You know how bad stanely is, it was only a matter of time before he came attacked jetstone again, so i choose to join the alliance and finish him here and now, instead of waiting"
3) "I just want to end a great evil" (but said with confidence and conviction, NOT in the questioning and uneasy tone he gave Vinnie; Confidence is a sign that you truly believe what you are saying, Uneasiness is a sign that you are unsure in your own words)

ALL of these answers are ones that Ansom COULD have given Vinnie that would allude to exactly what you are saying. There is no shame in giving these Answers to Vinnie, espeically when Vinnie says he will follow Ansom no matter what the answer was. If these were Ansom's honest reasons for fighting, then there is NO REASON why he should hide such answers.

Hey, right back at you! If Anson really had his panties in a bunch about Stanley being a commoner, there's no reason for him to hide that either.

In essence: Because Ansom didn't proudly declare that he was doing it for the greater good, that proves he isn't really doing it for the greater good. However, because Ansom didn't firmly deny that he's doing it because of Stanley's [lack of] rank, that proves that it's his real motivation. That's a clear double standard.

Ansom doesn't have to have only one reason for Stanley, and despite what your allies may say, you still have to be diplomatic.

I do stand corrected, with some reasoning you could indeed go to full war over a minor attack... a declaration of war isn't nessasary to tell you that you going to be attacked again and again.... When it comes to Vinnie, perhaps he's just more caustious about these things and thus will avoid War as much as possible, and knowing what happened to Ansom felt that it was not reason enough to go to FULL war; Send some aid to the other nations, maybe, but not go to FULL war...

But, in the end, there are ways that Ansom could have answered that question that would have been a reasonable reason for going to war after a very minor attack, but these were NOT the reasons Ansom gave... He replied with "can't it be that i just want to end a great evil", but said it with an uneasy tone that shows no conviction in his answer thus showing he is unsure of the answer and it's not his TRUE reason, that his true reason is one he is hiding or denying... ofcourse, the only reason i can see him hiding/denying would be a reason that's less then "good", such as not liking commoners in ruling positions

Vinnie kind of sums it up rather Nicely when he answers "It COULD be. But..."
There are good reason Ansom could have used, but he isn't using them... you are basically putting words into his mouth...

I'm putting words in his mouth. You're saying things like "quavering unsure tone of voice" with no evidence whatsoever.

Ansom has to have good diplomacy skills to hold together the alliance and he showed he was willing to compromise with Jillian, but still have backup plans. He's being cautious with his response because he knows that Vinnie is fishing for an answer. He must have given his "Greater Good" speech several times (at least once) and so he knows from that, and from Vinnie's continued insistence, that Vinnie doesn't really believe that. Saying "Can't it be that I just want to get rid of a great evil." is inviting Vinnie to say why not. He's also right, Vinnie doesn't believe him and just continuously denying won't help. Vinnie didn't invent that reason out of thin air. Ansom must have done or said things in the past that would lead Vinnie to this conclusion, thus he tries to clarify his position.

Isn't that exactly why EVERYONE else in the alliance is pretty much there, To protect their own country and nothing else?... the alliance's only purpose is to make that job all the easier for each answer... they are all using eachother to lessen their own losses and increase their chances of success... In other words, there's nothing wrong with Ansom saying that it is for the protection of Jetstone (not to mention, again, that Vinnie said that he would Follow Ansom no matter what his answer was, and Vinnie was the ONLY person he was answering to at the moment; it's not like he was talking to the whole alliance)

First, as I said, "the greater good" sound better than "for myself" and both are true.

Second, once again, Ansom is a very careful person. Even if someone says that they won't be offended, being careful with your words is always good policy.

[slayerx]

Hey, right back at you! If Anson really had his panties in a bunch about Stanley being a commoner, there's no reason for him to hide that either.

How can you not see the difference... the answers i gave were are perfectly reasonable answers, any ally would find them more than excepting to hear. By being both exceptable and honest answers, there is NO reason to hide them

However, Having a problem with Stanely being a commoner is far different. That is not something everyone thinks is a good thing and certainly not something an ally would want to here is their leader's biggest gripe is... it's a very weak reason to want to go to war... as YOU said, Ansom needs to be diplomatic and thus can't be quick to give reponsce that can easily be taken negativly by your allies. So yes, there is plenty of reason for him not want to be quick to give such a answer.

However, he does start to defend his position when Vinnie reveals he's already on to Ansom and starts critiziing the view...

I'm putting words in his mouth. You're saying things like "quavering unsure tone of voice" with no evidence whatsoever

Just look at the panel, and look at the expression of his face. It's a rather uneasy expression and shows how he's feeling, couple that with his question for an answer, and you get an unsure tone of voice

Ansom has to have good diplomacy skills to hold together the alliance and he showed he was willing to compromise with Jillian, but still have backup plans. He's being cautious with his response because he knows that Vinnie is fishing for an answer. He must have given his "Greater Good" speech several times (at least once) and so he knows from that, and from Vinnie's continued insistence, that Vinnie doesn't really believe that. Saying "Can't it be that I just want to get rid of a great evil." is inviting Vinnie to say why not. He's also right, Vinnie doesn't believe him and just continuously denying won't help. Vinnie didn't invent that reason out of thin air. Ansom must have done or said things in the past that would lead Vinnie to this conclusion, thus he tries to clarify his position.

How the rest of the conversation does not agree with this...
Vinnie continues on and accusing of Ansom discrimating against Stanely because he was a commoner... instead of saying that it has nothing to do with it he tries to defend the view that Stanely isn't a noble and that's a bad thing... now, if he was just fighting for the greater good, wouldn't he just say that "Stanely's hertiage has nothing to do with it, he's evil and that's all there is to it" or something like that... why continue in a conversation if the conversation as nothing to do with Ansom's beliefs... clearly Vinnie was indeed onto something in his accusations... if Vinnie just had indeed somekind of misunderstanding and it wasn't true, Ansom would have responded differently

First, as I said, "the greater good" sound better than "for myself" and both are true.

For myself, and for my country are two very different things... no shame in a leader wnating to do what is best for his country, that's what there are supposed to do... prefectly acceptable answer for an ally question, and it's one that sounds very honest. Hell and answer of "it's for my country" would have done well to satisfy Vinnie's curiosity.

And again, Ansom did not say either of those things in reply to Vinnie... Instead of giving him the answer of "its for the greater good" or "it's for my country" with confidence and conviction, he gave him a very questioning and uncertain version of that reason.

[Earendill]

And once again, i ask, why doesn't Ansom gives these things as his reason for going to war...
why didn't Ansom say:
1) "Stanely is after the arkentools, and i have the arkenpliers... i knew he would come after them and since i could not surrender such a thing to him, i choose to fight him before he came after me"
2) "You know how bad stanely is, it was only a matter of time before he came attacked jetstone again, so i choose to join the alliance and finish him here and now, instead of waiting"
3) "I just want to end a great evil" (but said with confidence and conviction, NOT in the questioning and uneasy tone he gave Vinnie; Confidence is a sign that you truly believe what you are saying, Uneasiness is a sign that you are unsure in your own words)

But, in the end, there are ways that Ansom could have answered that question that would have been a reasonable reason for going to war after a very minor attack, but these were NOT the reasons Ansom gave... He replied with "can't it be that i just want to end a great evil", but said it with an uneasy tone that shows no conviction in his answer thus showing he is unsure of the answer and it's not his TRUE reason, that his true reason is one he is hiding or denying... ofcourse, the only reason i can see him hiding/denying would be a reason that's less then "good", such as not liking commoners in ruling positions

Vinnie kind of sums it up rather Nicely when he answers "It COULD be. But..."
There are good reason Ansom could have used, but he isn't using them... you are basically putting words into his mouth...

Try fitting all those words in a strip speech bubble when you are constantly interrupted. And in fact...

- "How can you even ask me that ? You have seen what Stanley has done"
This is basically point 2 and 3 in your list in a condensed form.

- "Can't it be that I just want to end a great evil ?" that's exactly point 3 on your list. However, you base your whole reasoning on "Ansom says that with an uneasy tone, no conviction and no confidence". While this is a possibility there is absolutely no objective indication in the strip. You don't have the sound version to evaluate his tone. He does not look elsewhere or hide his eyes. You are saying "Ansom says A but in fact this means the opposite because of his tone and confidence that I personally know (without any objective indication)". Not convincing. And then you're doing the same with Vinnie: "Vinnie says It could be which in fact means It is not, because of his tone (I assume)" And then you go accussing Yogi of putting words in his mouth...Go figure. You are totally twisting their word based on your "feeelings" about their level of conviction.

ALL of these answers are ones that Ansom COULD have given Vinnie that would allude to exactly what you are saying. There is no shame in giving these Answers to Vinnie, espeically when Vinnie says he will follow Ansom no matter what the answer was. If these were Ansom's honest reasons for fighting, then there is NO REASON why he should hide such answers.

Who says he was hiding ? He was just being diplomatic with an ally (his main strenght in his bio). He offered twice answers based on "Stanley is evil and deserves it), yet Vinnie rejected them (you cant be sure Vinnie is right either,) then he was going to give another answer on the nobility issue when he is interrupted. Not like he avoided answering just that he had not enough time.

I do stand corrected, with some reasoning you could indeed go to full war over a minor attack... a declaration of war isn't nessasary to tell you that you going to be attacked again and again.... When it comes to Vinnie, perhaps he's just more caustious about these things and thus will avoid War as much as possible, and knowing what happened to Ansom felt that it was not reason enough to go to FULL war; Send some aid to the other nations, maybe, but not go to FULL war...

Most Real Life wars started with minor incidents as trigger, after a long tension build up. In most strategy game, a minor aggressive act against one ally troop means a war declaration. Going to full war or not is a political and military decision that takes into account many issues (if you let Stanley win, what are the odds he'll attack you next to get the Pliers ? very high IMO. If you make a full world alliance in an unavoidable war, will my casualties be lower than if I wait ? etc). Vinnie may not have all the info (and strategic thinking) that the jetstone had and well, despite looking cool, Vinnie could be wrong too in his assumptions you know ? like everyone else.

You keep using "Ansom could have said that yet he did not which means he admits to Vinnie's". It's not a strong argument. He offered his official version twice then was about to continue when he was interrupted.

[Yogi]

How can you not see the difference... the answers i gave were are perfectly reasonable answers, any ally would find them more than excepting to hear. By being both exceptable and honest answers, there is NO reason to hide them

However, Having a problem with Stanely being a commoner is far different. That is not something everyone thinks is a good thing and certainly not something an ally would want to here is their leader's biggest gripe is... it's a very weak reason to want to go to war... as YOU said, Ansom needs to be diplomatic and thus can't be quick to give reponsce that can easily be taken negativly by your allies. So yes, there is plenty of reason for him not want to be quick to give such a answer.

So Ansom's diplomacy level is juuuust the exact level needed to support your theory. Right.

Just look at the panel, and look at the expression of his face. It's a rather uneasy expression and shows how he's feeling, couple that with his question for an answer, and you get an unsure tone of voice

I did. No evidence whatsoever. Ansom's previous line was "How can you say that . . . " which implies an indignant tone of voice, though his face is the same neutral expression thought the conversation, though he appears to be a little bit angry when he says "That's not strictly fair." which further reinforced the "indignant" tone of voice. So the dialog implies indignant, his face is neutral, where does "unsure" come in again?

How the rest of the conversation does not agree with this...
Vinnie continues on and accusing of Ansom discrimating against Stanely because he was a commoner... instead of saying that it has nothing to do with it he tries to defend the view that Stanely isn't a noble and that's a bad thing... now, if he was just fighting for the greater good, wouldn't he just say that "Stanely's hertiage has nothing to do with it, he's evil and that's all there is to it" or something like that... why continue in a conversation if the conversation as nothing to do with Ansom's beliefs... clearly Vinnie was indeed onto something in his accusations... if Vinnie just had indeed somekind of misunderstanding and it wasn't true, Ansom would have responded differently

Ansom already did. Vinnie didn't believe him, so why should Ansom try more of the same? So he switches tactics and tries to clarify his position.

For myself, and for my country are two very different things... *splitting of hairs snipped*

You know what I meant.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I think Ansom is a parody of a stereotypical good guy. He's arrogant, dashing, and needs no real reason to hate the bad guy. Think Prince Charming in Shrek 2. He looks a little like him as well. Stanley's comment about ruling by violence is, I think, mostly hyperbole. It's like the old story of the homeless guy and the rich man. The homeless guy asks the rich man where his land came from and the rich man says it is his inheritance. Long story short, the homeless guy keeps pressing back furthur and furthur ancestors until the rich man says that is great great etc. something was given it by Charlemagne who conquered it from the Romans. The homeless guy says "Come out here and I'll fight you for it, then". Anyway, I had a point somewhere, didn't I? Oh yes. Ruling by violence, as far as Stanley is concerned, doesn't need to be secret police reporting thoughtcrimes to the brutal dictator. Stanley could just be likening normal royalty with such a thing because, ultimately, doesn't all political power come from violence somehow?

But like I said, Ansom is a parody. A lampoon. Genre tradition states that he's good, yet he has vices. And Stanley is "evil" yet he's a protagonist (of sorts). It's intended to turn the system on its head, and make you wonder whether good and evil really exist. If anyone knows what Ruddigore is, Stanley is Sir Despard and Ansom is Richard Dauntless (this comparison isn't quite apt, as Despard and Stanley are very different characters (Ansom and Richard, not so much). However, they are both arbitrarily defined as "evil" by the plot without much good reason. Perhaps Ruthven would be a better comparison).

[Gitman00]

Ansom's previous line was "How can you say that . . . " which implies an indignant tone of voice, though his face is the same neutral expression thought the conversation, though he appears to be a little bit angry when he says "That's not strictly fair." which further reinforced the "indignant" tone of voice. So the dialog implies indignant, his face is neutral, where does "unsure" come in again?

Ansom already did. Vinnie didn't believe him, so why should Ansom try more of the same? So he switches tactics and tries to clarify his position.

The switching of tactics is itself a sign of uncertainty. I agree with you that Ansom's expression isn't very readable in that strip, but I tend to agree with slayerx's interpretation anyway. Ansom strikes me as the consummate politician. Ansom COULD have had any of the altruistic, noble (in the moral sense) motives for his actions, but then why didn't he say so? As Earendill mentioned, Ansom gave the "official" (read: propaganda) version to him. He gave it in question form. Forget the facial expressions for now. The question is what convinces me. If you're confident of a point you're making, you don't phrase it as a question. If he really believed that was the reason, he would have phrased his response more like, "I don't need another reason. Stanley is evil and has to be stopped." Instead, he said, "Can't it be that I just want to end a great evil?" Vinnie called him out, and he got defensive. Were he sure of his motives, there would be no reason to be defensive.

Furthermore, that Vinnie questions him in the first place is telling. From Vinnie's comments, it's reasonable to assume that he has solid grounds for the accusations he makes. You don't accuse someone - especially your leader - of a serious character flaw if you don't have a reason for it. If he were wrong in his accusations, Ansom would have said something like, "It has nothing to do with that," or, "What are you talking about? This is Stanley the Plaid we're dealing with. He's a psychotic megalomaniac."

All this suggests that Vinnie isn't far off the mark in his assessment of Ansom's motives.

[SteveMB]

The switching of tactics is itself a sign of uncertainty. I agree with you that Ansom's expression isn't very readable in that strip, but I tend to agree with slayerx's interpretation anyway. Ansom strikes me as the consummate politician. Ansom COULD have had any of the altruistic, noble (in the moral sense) motives for his actions, but then why didn't he say so? As Earendill mentioned, Ansom gave the "official" (read: propaganda) version to him. He gave it in question form. Forget the facial expressions for now. The question is what convinces me. If you're confident of a point you're making, you don't phrase it as a question. If he really believed that was the reason, he would have phrased his response more like, "I don't need another reason. Stanley is evil and has to be stopped." Instead, he said, "Can't it be that I just want to end a great evil?" Vinnie called him out, and he got defensive. Were he sure of his motives, there would be no reason to be defensive.

Furthermore, that Vinnie questions him in the first place is telling. From Vinnie's comments, it's reasonable to assume that he has solid grounds for the accusations he makes. You don't accuse someone - especially your leader - of a serious character flaw if you don't have a reason for it. If he were wrong in his accusations, Ansom would have said something like, "It has nothing to do with that," or, "What are you talking about? This is Stanley the Plaid we're dealing with. He's a psychotic megalomaniac."

All this suggests that Vinnie isn't far off the mark in his assessment of Ansom's motives.

I generally agree, with one caveat. I don't think that Ansom being motivated by a belief that commoners seizing power is "wrong" or dangerous to society is "a serious character flaw". (Heck, he could cite Stanley as the poster boy for the accuracy of that belief.) Bringing out that mindset does -- the first word that comes to mind is "deconstruct", but using that term makes me feel like I should be wearing a beret and smoking a clove cigarette through a holder -- dissect the stereotype of the Dashing and Noble (in both senses) Prince[tm].

For that matter, I don't think Vinnie considers it a serious character flaw, either -- he, viewing things through a more "realpolitik" outlook, just doesn't get it, and not understanding Ansom's motivations bothers him (perhaps because he's accustomed to knowing why people do what they do, and feels just a tad bit insecure when dealing with someone where that understanding is lacking). I think he would have been perfectly comfortable if Ansom had simply agreed that, yes, Stanley's common origin bothered him -- that would make more sense to him than an abstract noble (in the moral sense) crusade.

Edit: It occurs to me that this is another reason for supposing Ansom to be rather defensive -- if he were more secure, he might have argued the evidence ("Yes, and look what happens when a commoner seizes power....") rather than falling back on common assumptions ("You're a Count. You should know--").

[Jorkens]

The assumption "in medieval fantasy based game worlds there is usually a clear good/evil distinction" is also easy to defend (regardless of Erfworld).

Is this the case for wargames? In terms of how the sides behave, good and evil in wargames tend to be defined by the colour schemes and flavour text rather than by what the players actually do...

[Machiara]

Isn't anyone else of the opinion that Ansom is in this battle because of Jillian? Vinnie implies that Jillian "has something against" Stanley, but he doesn't know what that something is. If Jillian has made it a crusade to take down Stanley, couldn't Ansom be participating simply because he wants to do something for Jillian?

This would make Ansom's responses to Vinnie make perfect sense, as he can't really come out and say "look, I'm doing all this for a girl."

[Earendill]

Is this the case for wargames? In terms of how the sides behave, good and evil in wargames tend to be defined by the colour schemes and flavour text rather than by what the players actually do...

Taking TBSs official campaigns.

HoMM - there is a visble goodd vs evil (angels vs devils)
Starcraft - saying that zergs could be "not evil" is stretching it. And even inside Terrans you have good and evil factions.

From what I remember, Age of wonders, Disciples, Fantasy General and other TBS fantasy games also had good and evil in their campaigns.

Of course, in PvP there are a lot less good vs evil issue


And yes, Machiara, I also said that Ansom's secret agenda is helping/protecting Jillian.

[Trisk]

...Ansom rearranged is Mason FYI.

Case nobody else got that.

Probably unrelated anyway.

[Scientivore]

Now that you mention it, it's also Moans, FYTMI.

[Earendill]

...Ansom rearranged is Mason FYI.

Case nobody else got that.

Probably unrelated anyway.

I think that Prince Handsome is more likely the origin. Fits the Wanda Firebaugh (Wand of Firebolts) and Jillian Zamussels (Zillion of Muscles) model better.

And referring to my previous post - Starcraft is neither TBS nore Fantasy based. I plead temporary insanity on that one.

[SteveMB]

Isn't anyone else of the opinion that Ansom is in this battle because of Jillian? Vinnie implies that Jillian "has something against" Stanley, but he doesn't know what that something is. If Jillian has made it a crusade to take down Stanley, couldn't Ansom be participating simply because he wants to do something for Jillian?

This would make Ansom's responses to Vinnie make perfect sense, as he can't really come out and say "look, I'm doing all this for a girl."

I'm sure that's part of it. He certainly can't use it as a public reason, clearly doesn't want to admit it to Vinnie, and may not have admitted it to himself.

[Dark]

I'd like to add my two cents here.

- It's possible that in Erfworld it's true that nobility is better suited to rule, for whatever reason. Maybe a country's magic goes bad if there is no rightful king? There could be any number of reasons. Disapproving of commoners as rulers need not be a prejudice. In any case it need not be Evil. Lots of fantasy countries are ruled by kings who are Good despite being absolute rulers with a divine mandate :)

- Vinnie was clearly fishing for something. Possibly something that he hoped wasn't true. I think it's normal that Ansom would be very careful with his answers until he figures out what it is, since a careless answer could easily be misinterpreted in such a situation. It would be a stupid way to lose an ally. So this doesn't indicate deceit. I think there's a turning point at "Vinnie..." (which suggests exasperation; have they had this conversation before?) after which he's much freer with his words.

[Moechi_Vill]

Torture isn't evil. It's a tool of information extraction based on pain. It's seen as evil due to humanist values these days. In the past it would often be seen as a neutral thing, like killing someone, something you had to do. As long as the victim is a form of combatant in a form of conflict and it is not used recklessly due to the high human cost it inflicts I don't see any problem with it.
But I do have a rather medieval outlook on such issues.

Either way, Stanley seems to be a religious fanatic. Wheter he is evil or not would depend on wheter his religion is true and if he is truly serving it which would mean his acts aren't evil but in the service of good. Of course, most people are disinclined to believe in a religion, or at the very least it's follower words when it's most fervent follower is killing people left and right, it does seem quite dark. I'm saying Stanley's actions are based on a narrow set of presupposed facts that if all true would excuse his actions.

[Gitman00]

Torture isn't evil. It's a tool of information extraction based on pain.

And operating under the assumption that it's acceptable to cause sapient beings pain for the purpose of information extraction. This is evil, any way you slice it. Whether it is seen as evil by a given society has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, objectively evil. We couldn't make judgments about the morality of a given society's practice of torture unless there was an absolute standard against which to measure it.

At any rate, the point is moot. Stanley approves of torture as Wanda's hobby, not just as a pragmatic information-gathering tool.

[Moral Wiz]

Ok. I'm not sure who to argue with, so I'll argue all the points I can find. (Nothing like these forums for stress relief)

Evidance that Ansom is good

1 Shiny armour: Ansom's army is formed of traditionally good creatures. Since Erfworld is based on a turn based stratagy, it's probable that that means he is indeed good.

Counter: What's that got to do with it? This comic strip appears to be going in for character develoupment. No 2d guys here. A good guy must actually be a good guy. Not just have shiny armour

2 Weibner: Clearly believes in what Jetstone stands for. How can he if it's a tyranny

Counter: Weibner commands Ansom's finest troops. Thus he is probably an officer of some sort. And most officers in a monarchy were Nobles. Nobles are unlikly to dislike the status quo, as they are at the top(Well, a rung below, but most would be satisfied at that).

3 Stanly's manner towards Vinnie: when Vinnie asks Stanly why he's doing this, he dosn't throw him in the scorpian pit.In fact he is quite well mannered towards him. Ergo, he is good.

Counter: Manners= Good:? smalleek: That makes me Evil. Seriously, Vinnie is not only another noble, but he commands the Doombats, which are going to be important as a counter against the Dwagons(Even Jill can't solo them all). Therefor Ansom has to stay on his good side.

Points for Ansom being evil

Troop sacrifice. He has proven willing to sacrifice troops when he could avoid this. Insted of sending in the elves, he shold have sent in his finest units. That is how you are supposed to take a breach(A general should know that). Insted, he's using the elves as cannon foder to moderate the dangers(and just being link look-alikes does not make them strong. They may be, but as we also have the luckless and shmeil elves, I rather doubt it) Why?

Only reason I can think of- they're not Jetstone fources. Ansom would sooner a load of elves die, than one of his Royal guard (They cost a load to replace after all)


Is only waging war, cos Stanly's a commoner/ Stanlys "Dictator" speech

Counter:Irrelevant, as we don't know the circumstances. Could be a power grap, could be a rightous Revolution. However, a disdain for the common people would make it seem like Stanly has a point(I'm sorry, but I can find no other possible thing Ansom could have been about to say that could mean anything else)

Points for Stanly being evil

Necromancy, nough said

Counter: Ever read Planer Factions? (Can't find my copy right now) Anyway , It details a group of holy warriors who use Necromancy to fight evil. Granted, that was D&D, and this is turn based stratagy, but the principle still holds. Our seeing Necromany as Evil is mainly a cultural thing. Killing guys just so as to animate them, a la Xykon, is evil, but just using the bodies is not.

Approves of touture for fun

No counter as far as I can see. However, is it not possible that the tool does know the facts between the two? (He looks, and acts foolish. That dosn't meen for sure he is) He'd keep it in the dark, for fear of morale problems, but would play along as it being interrogation.

Granted, this is pure speculation, but it shows my point, vis, that his approval of torture, whirls strongly hinted at, might well not be genuine

Stanly is an abnoxious *insert adjective*

Counter: Having an unplesent personality does not make one evil.

Evidence that Stanly is good

Arkenhammer

It activated for him, which implies some degree of divine approval. And it is not a case of "Arkentool will activate for any Shmoe", or else how come Ansom can't activate his? Admitantly, we don't know that much about the Arkentools yet, but it is sugestive."Wanda outright admits that it is divine, so I'm guessing that they have somthing that stops guys the Titans don't like from using them, Viz Ansom

So, that's it

Ahh, I feel better alredy. These forums are far better for stress relief than any spa.

[Scientivore]

And operating under the assumption that it's acceptable to cause sapient beings pain for the purpose of information extraction. This is evil, any way you slice it. Whether it is seen as evil by a given society has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, objectively evil. We couldn't make judgments about the morality of a given society's practice of torture unless there was an absolute standard against which to measure it.

I strongly disagree with the notion that we're incapable of making subjective judgements. Indeed, I believe that we can't make any other kind, since an objective judgement requires an objective judge and we're not one. If you meant that we're not allowed to make subjective judgements, who's going to stop us and with what army?

I assert that our own needs, values and strengths are quite sufficient as a basis for stating approval or condemnation of whatever and for backing up our judgement with forceful action if we wish. If God, the Universe or some other objective entity has a perspective on the matter then I shall let It express Itself, and not presume to speak for It.

[SteveMB]

1 Shiny armour: Ansom's army is formed of traditionally good creatures. Since Erfworld is based on a turn based stratagy, it's probable that that means he is indeed good.

Counter: What's that got to do with it? This comic strip appears to be going in for character develoupment. No 2d guys here. A good guy must actually be a good guy. Not just have shiny armour

Obviously, trappings can be misleading.

As for the "traditionally good creatures", Vinnie Doombats is a bit of an exception on the surface... or, taking the opposite view, he could reflect the "good-guy vampire" trope that is (at best) in danger of becoming something of a cliche.

2 Weibner: Clearly believes in what Jetstone stands for. How can he if it's a tyranny

Counter: Weibner commands Ansom's finest troops. Thus he is probably an officer of some sort. And most officers in a monarchy were Nobles. Nobles are unlikly to dislike the status quo, as they are at the top(Well, a rung below, but most would be satisfied at that).

More fundamentally, people can be highly dedicated to a cause whether the cause is good, evil, or anywhere in between.

Stanly's manner towards Vinnie: when Vinnie asks Stanly why he's doing this, he dosn't throw him in the scorpian pit.In fact he is quite well mannered towards him. Ergo, he is good.

Counter: Manners= Good? That makes me Evil. Seriously, Vinnie is not only another noble, but he commands the Doombats, which are going to be important as a counter against the Dwagons(Even Jill can't solo them all). Therefor Ansom has to stay on his good side.

It's possible that Ansom is being politic for purely pragmatic reasons, but even so he exhibits more self-control than Stanley (who rants at Parson even though he arguably needs Parson a lot more than Ansom needs Vinnie). That said, self-control can be put in the service of whatever good or evil cause one chooses to advance.

Troop sacrifice. He has proven willing to sacrifice troops when he could avoid this. Insted of sending in the elves, he shold have sent in his finest units. That is how you are supposed to take a breach(A general should know that). Insted, he's using the elves as cannon foder to moderate the dangers(and just being link look-alikes does not make them strong. They may be, but as we also have the luckless and shmeil elves, I rather doubt it) Why?

Only reason I can think of- they're not Jetstone fources. Ansom would sooner a load of elves die, than one of his Royal guard (They cost a load to replace after all)

Without knowing more about the way war works in Erfworld, it's hard to tell whether Ansom's mass-wave approach is a regrettable necessity or shows lack of concern for casualties.

Approves of torture for fun

No counter as far as I can see. However, is it not possible that the tool does know the facts between the two? (He looks, and acts foolish. That dosn't meen for sure he is) He'd keep it in the dark, for fear of morale problems, but would play along as it being interrogation.

The fact that Stanley doesn't know all the details isn't relevant -- he believes that interrogation and torture are Wanda's "hobbies" (i.e. pursued for pleasure, not just out of necessity), and is clearly OK with that.

(One of the speculations for why Wanda erased Mung's memories of everything but "the screams for mercy" is that she wants him and anyone he might report to (the Tool?) to think of her as an enthusiastic torturer, out of concern that the "good cop" portions of a properly conducted interrogation would seem like a show of weakness. If so, that would reflect an evil outlook on Stanley's side.)