Is Ansom good ?

[SmartAlec]

But no, a few field units isn't worth risking the lives of so many of your own poeple. If your a Smart leader you will play it smart and respond with much more caution to reduce the risk to your own poeple.

You're thinking in terms of the Real World, national politics etc. In other words, you're overthinking this. In many turn-based strategy games, attacking in strength with as many alliances as possible and while your opponent is already engaged is one well-documented way to win.

And Erfworld is very much a world that works like a turn-based strategy game.

His first and last responces were weak... His first response "just ridding the world of evil" was very uneasy.

I felt his responses were more 'genteel' than uneasy. Any hesitation and strange turns of phrase on Ansom's part are not because he is thinking through what he says so as to decieve Vinnie and himself, but because he is thinking through everything he says to ensure that it sounds suitably heroic, measured and respectful.

"Can it be that I just want to rid the world of a great evil?" may not be weak; simply poetic. "That isn't strictly fair." may not be weak; simply a way to tell someone they are wrong without seeming belligerent or contrary. It's a reply designed to open up the question into a discussion, rather than a simple yes I am/no you're not.

Vinnie is giving Ansom a hard time, perhaps, because VINNIE is uneasy about his own part in the alliance and is looking to Ansom for reassurance that what they are doing is what it seems to be. He clearly respects Ansom; but I wonder if Vinnie completely understands Ansom. Vinnie may be projecting his own hard-nosed view of the world onto Ansom's more altruistic motives.

[Erk]

I see. Then I suppose you will no longer be posting in this thread since you believe that it is ultimately a pointless endeavor. Not a problem, no one has time to debate everything on the Internet. Just walk away and never look back.

Bzzt!! Wrong!!

Logic 101: A --> B does not imply B --> A.

"If it's ice cream, it's cold." doesn't mean "If it's cold, it's ice cream."
"If it's water, it's wet." doesn't mean "If it's wet, it's water."
"If someone's of high birth, he must be good." doesn't mean "If someone is good, he must be of high birth."

Thank you for playing.

Wow! I can't believe how rapidly you rocketed to my surprisingly short list of "people whose internet social skills are so poor that they are not worth talking to". For the sake of backing up SteveMB who seems fine and friendly, as does everyone else in this thread, though:

I thought he was pointing out that Vinnie, unlike Stanley, has a sense of noblesse oblige.

If so, his assumption that a sense of nobless oblige is a trait to be expected of those born to the nobility ("You're a Count. You should know--") tends to support my interpretation.

By using Vinnie's rank as a Count to demonstrate that Vinnie should understand noblesse oblige, Ansom would therefore be implying that noblesse oblige is a trait found in all nobles. He is therefore saying exactly what Steve said, namely that "nobless oblige is a trait to be expected of those born to the nobility", which shows a very definite prejudice on Ansom's part. It doesn't mean he doesn't think commoners are incapable of having the same ethics, but it does mean he thinks all nobles have it, while only some commoners have it, else the reference to Vinnie's class would be meaningless.

However, it is also a logical stretch. Ansom said "He's not noble. You're a count, you should know". That very clearly refers to noble birth; there isn't a lot of room for interpretation. Even assuming he meant nobility of spirit or noblesse oblige is pushing it pretty hard.

Let's see if perhaps you can reply in a friendly, civil way. Try to remember it's a comic, and most of us read it for fun and debate it for fun... "fun" is a great thing you ought to try out. If you really can't hack the idea though, I'll be happy to not bother including you in my own end of debates in the future.

[Earendill]

By using Vinnie's rank as a Count to demonstrate that Vinnie should understand noblesse oblige, Ansom would therefore be implying that noblesse oblige is a trait found in all nobles. He is therefore saying exactly what Steve said, namely that "nobless oblige is a trait to be expected of those born to the nobility", which shows a very definite prejudice on Ansom's part. It doesn't mean he doesn't think commoners are incapable of having the same ethics, but it does mean he thinks all nobles have it, while only some commoners have it, else the reference to Vinnie's class would be meaningless.

However, it is also a logical stretch. Ansom said "He's not noble. You're a count, you should know". That very clearly refers to noble birth; there isn't a lot of room for interpretation. Even assuming he meant nobility of spirit or noblesse oblige is pushing it pretty hard.

I personally think there is room for interpretation. Vinnie never lets him finish his sentence.

"But your beef is he's not royal, right ?"
"That he isn't noble Vinnie. You're a Count. You should know -" then he gets cut before finishing.

(note - he opposes noble - can be interpreted as character trait - to royal)

While you all seem to think he would continue with something like
"that nobles are superior" or
"that a commoner should not rule" or others (in fact I'd like to hear your proposed continuations of this sentence).

There are though other options (speculations of course - yet plausible):

" ..that a noble is defined by his actions not by his title"
" ..that there are nobles that are jerks."
" ..there is more to nobility that just the title."
" ..that Stanley's actions are not noble in character."
" ..what acting as a noble means"

etc...

The "you are a Count" does not mean 100% that Ansom despises commoners. It is a possiblity but even there there is (legitimate) room for interpretation.

[SteveMB]

The "you are a Count" does not mean 100% that Ansom despises commoners. It is a possiblity but even there there is (legitimate) room for interpretation.

I don't think that Ansom despises commoners per se -- he certainly doesn't despise Jillian, who is presumably a commoner given that Ansom, who is punctilious about such things, didn't address her by a hereditary title.

Personally, my guess is that if Ansom has finished his sentence, it would have been something about the importance of maintaining the established social order and/or the dangers of upending it.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I love that if Ansom had a bad motivation for one thing, he's suddenly a bad guy. He seems to be a brave, upstanding guy otherwise. Suddenly, he may hate the bad guy for the wrong reason, and he's evil?

[SteveMB]

I love that if Ansom had a bad motivation for one thing, he's suddenly a bad guy. He seems to be a brave, upstanding guy otherwise. Suddenly, he may hate the bad guy for the wrong reason, and he's evil?

I don't think anybody is asserting that -- just that he isn't quite as purely good as the surface image of the dashing prince would suggest.

[slayerx]

You're thinking in terms of the Real World, national politics etc. In other words, you're overthinking this. In many turn-based strategy games, attacking in strength with as many alliances as possible and while your opponent is already engaged is one well-documented way to win.

And Erfworld is very much a world that works like a turn-based strategy game.

Well apparently Vinnie is also overthinking this...
Remember, Erfworld is a mix of the real world and the game world. In the game world, lives have little to no value. You can always make more troops so the number of lives your willing to throw away doesn't matter one bit. Also in the game world, making peace or ignoring your enemy is not an option, you MUST wipe them out in order to win the game. In short, in a turnbased game, you pretty much have NO CHOICE but to fight... and if you have no choice but to fight and you don't care about how many troops you loose, then you might aswell go all out to destory the enemy; hell in a game you barely need any incentive to go after the enemy... afterall, in the game world as winning is the only thing that matters, you could loose everything in battle, but as long as you win it don't matter

However, Erfworld as real world elements. The warriors and citzens involved have lives and value; maybe not as much as real world poeple, but more then game world poeple, who have zero value. There are politics and so forth involved. Unlike the game world whee your not given a choice, Erfworlders actually have the power to choose NOT to fight. Given that the poeples' lives actually have some value and you have options beyond all out war, an Erfworlder would take serious considteration before going all out... Erfworlders won't aim to just win, they'll aim to win with as few losses as humanly possible.

"Can it be that I just want to rid the world of a great evil?" may not be weak; simply poetic. "That isn't strictly fair." may not be weak; simply a way to tell someone they are wrong without seeming belligerent or contrary. It's a reply designed to open up the question into a discussion, rather than a simple yes I am/no you're not.

It's not just WHAT you say, it's also about HOW you say it. Look at the expression that Ansom has on his face when he says those things. It's not expressions used by someone who is confident or comfortable, they are expressions that show that Ansom feels very uneasy about the questions asked and is uneasy in his reply. Even if ansom was just trying to be poetic, his physical expressions and mannerism would reflect that... he certainly wouldn't have a worried or questioning expression on his face

Vinnie is giving Ansom a hard time, perhaps, because VINNIE is uneasy about his own part in the alliance and is looking to Ansom for reassurance that what they are doing is what it seems to be. He clearly respects Ansom; but I wonder if Vinnie completely understands Ansom. Vinnie may be projecting his own hard-nosed view of the world onto Ansom's more altruistic motives.

Vinnie is the one who seems very sure of why he's there. He was attacked, harder than ansom as was implied, The way he talks is far more confident and certain. What he doesn't know is why Ansom is there... he would be here whether Ansom was here or not. all things considered, Vinnie seems to be the more honest and true of the two of them.

Vinnie is pushing his views on Ansom, the view that Nobles shouldn't act like they are above the commoners. Vinnie Acknowledges that one can go to war for selfless reasons and can except that possibility, but he's looking hard into Ansome and seeing that those are NOT the reasons Ansom is doing these things. If i had to guess, Vinnie has known Ansom for quite some time and has probably seen Ansom act in a manner that makes seem like he beleives nobles are better and should be in place of rule, and commoners are not so much; thu allowing Vinnie more easily dedeuce the reason why Ansom is so egar to fight this battle

There are though other options (speculations of course - yet plausible):

" ..that a noble is defined by his actions not by his title"
" ..that there are nobles that are jerks."
" ..there is more to nobility that just the title."
" ..that Stanley's actions are not noble in character."
" ..what acting as a noble means"

this doesn't disprove what we are saying...
By saying "your a count" thing before any of these things, Ansom is imply that he believes that being of noble birth alone is enough to give you an inate knowledge ot these things. However, each of those things are stuff anyone can learn or end up not learning... being noble has nothing to do with it.
Nobles are just as human as commoners, anything a noble can know a commoner can know, and anything a commoner can be ignorant about a noble can be ignorant about.

Ansom is saying that because he and Vinnie are upperclass they are the same and should underand eachother, and because Stanely is a commoner he is different

The "you are a Count" does not mean 100% that Ansom despises commoners. It is a possiblity but even there there is (legitimate) room for interpretation

No it doesn't, and we never said it did... despise is a very strong word. Ansom certainly hasn't shown hatred for commoners, it's not like we are saying he treats them like insects or like dirt. However, he does think that the upperclass are better and are the ones who should be ruling... He may like the commoners well enough, but believes that they are unsuited for leadership; that only those of noble birth as the right to rule

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

I don't think anybody is asserting that -- just that he isn't quite as purely good as the surface image of the dashing prince would suggest.

I guess this would have been an instance where reading would have been better then skimming.

Still, I think he constitutes as a good guy. That being said, its still all speculative.

[Rumpus]

Saying, "That's not strictly fair" is probably another way of saying, "Well, that's true, but you're leaving out important mitigating elements." It's definitely not a denial, gentle or otherwise.

Ansom doesn't think commoners are worthless, but he clearly thinks nobles are superior, which would be normal for pretty much any noble in the Middle Ages. Nobility can move up and become royalty (usually by marrying into it), but a commoner hardly ever moves up into the nobility (barring heroism in service to the crown or absurd amounts of money), and NEVER direclty into Royalty.

Also, the whole Good/Neutral/Evil debate may not apply: we don't know how Erfworld's alignment system works. We can debate it in D&D terms, but if the world isn't built around D&D rules (a la OotS), it may be a moot point. The answer to the OP is looking like, "As good as any noble could be if judged by modern liberal democratic standards". Or he could turn out to be a total scumbag, we haven't actually seen him in action yet, so as far as ACTION in the strip is concerned, we have no data upon which to base a conclusion.

[Moral Wiz]

Ok, I'm going to try and sum up what we've got so far

Ansome leads the coilition. They are fighting Stanly.

that's it. That is all the evidence we have so far. That's all the stuf we know for sure

Here is what we can suspect. Keep in mind that none of this stuff is certian, but it does seem to me to be the most likely conclusion

Ansom dosn't believe in the idea of democracy. (I'm sorry, but there is no other resonable way of looking at his words, his refering to Vinne as a count, rater than just calling him "A good guy" prety much clinches this) Couple this with Stanly's line about"ruling thru violence and fear, and it does start to look like Ansom might be enfourcing a dictatorship.

Stanly attacked first (Proves nothing as we don't know why he did so)

He approves of wanda touturing a prisoner (In Middle ages, touture was commonplace. Besides, the city has almost falen. He's going to be happy at any chance to get infomation.)

That's about it. Everything else is debatable

So in sumery, we don't know for sure, but it is starting to look like Ansom is evil. Personally, i think the tool is prety much the good guy (if not a plesnt one to spend time with) But I can not deny it is open for debate.

Also, for all of you that quote, Ansom loves Jill, so he must be good

A; Evil is capable of love

B: he needs jill to comand the battle against stanly's "Greatest remaining threat" You can see why he might be concerned.

[SteveMB]

Keep in mind that none of this stuff is certian, but it does seem to me to be the most likely conclusion

Fair enough....

Ansom dosn't believe in the idea of democracy. (I'm sorry, but there is no other resonable way of looking at his words, his refering to Vinne as a count, rater than just calling him "A good guy" prety much clinches this) Couple this with Stanly's line about "ruling thru violence and fear, and it does start to look like Ansom might be enfourcing a dictatorship.

Stanly attacked first (Proves nothing as we don't know why he did so)

He approves of wanda touturing a prisoner (In Middle ages, touture was commonplace. Besides, the city has almost falen. He's going to be happy at any chance to get infomation.)

That's about it. Everything else is debatable

So in sumery, we don't know for sure, but it is starting to look like Ansom is evil. Personally, i think the tool is prety much the good guy (if not a plesnt one to spend time with) But I can not deny it is open for debate.

To coin a phrase, I think it's "not strictly fair" to cite the fact that torture was once commonplace as a mitigating factor for Stanley's attitude without citing the fact that rule by hereditary elites was once commonplace as an equally mitigating factor for Ansom's attitude.

In any case, I don't think that attitude makes Ansom "evil" -- it just makes him a bit more complex and gray-area than the stereotypical dashing prince.

Also, for all of you that quote, Ansom loves Jill, so he must be good

A; Evil is capable of love

Agreed that Ansom's attraction to Jillian is irrelevant to the question of whether he's a "good guy".

B: he needs jill to comand the battle against stanly's "Greatest remaining threat" You can see why he might be concerned.

Actually, I don't think he's concerned about Jillian's going MIA on a purely pragmatic level -- he still has an overwhelming advantage in forces. He's worried about her personally, yes, but he isn't worried that losing her aid is going to make a difference in the battle.

[Darth Paradox]

Actually, I don't think he's concerned about Jillian's going MIA on a purely pragmatic level -- he still has an overwhelming advantage in forces. He's worried about her personally, yes, but he isn't worried that losing her aid is going to make a difference in the battle.

I disagree. She was already going to have the hardest part in the battle, handling the dwagons. Without her, the Gwiffon units are going to have a tougher time - if they're even usable at all, without a commander - and it'll pretty much be up to Vinnie and his doombats to handle the dwagons. That's a significant hole in Ansom's plan - I suspect the dwagons are going to overrun the doombats easily and wreak havoc on Ansom's lines from behind.

[slayerx]

Ansom dosn't believe in the idea of democracy. (I'm sorry, but there is no other resonable way of looking at his words, his refering to Vinne as a count, rater than just calling him "A good guy" prety much clinches this) Couple this with Stanly's line about"ruling thru violence and fear, and it does start to look like Ansom might be enfourcing a dictatorship.

Well, considering how his serves under KING Stately, this leads to a very strong chances that it is a monarchy, and what he said to Vinnie also throws in a good possibility of a social class systems... However, Monarchy and social class system are not at all considered evil, it's just a different kind of government... So your probably right about democracy, but that ain't a bad thing

As for Stanely's comment about ruling through fear and violence is a debatable one, the question is, where exactly does that comment come from? Does Stanely actually know for certain the kind of kingdoms Ansom and such Lead, or is he jumping to conclusions based on his views of nobles? A situation i can easily see is the former ruler of GobwinKnob being a ruler who put on the guise of Nobility like Ansom, but in turn was a cruel and wrothless dictator... In otherwords, Stanely ends up knowing full well that noble =/= good, and thus is willing to jump to conclusions about his enemies. Also, another thing we can kinda get from that statement is Stanely admiting to ruling through fear and violence, as if with this comment he is trying to say "if they do it, then it should be fine if i do it"

Your most likly conclusion of Ansom running a dictarship is a very debatable one

He approves of wanda touturing a prisoner (In Middle ages, touture was commonplace. Besides, the city has almost falen. He's going to be happy at any chance to get infomation.)

Just because something is commonplace does not mean it is good... At best, Torture of prisoners during war is a Neutral act... Afterall, it is seen as a NESSASARY method of gathering info, especially during times of war... It's not-good, but not entirely evil

HOWEVER, Torture can be seen as a neutral act IF it is done ONLY out of nessasity. What Stanely has shown us is that he approves of torture out of PLEASURE. Approve torture out of pleasure is a very evil act in my book

So in sumery, we don't know for sure, but it is starting to look like Ansom is evil. Personally, i think the tool is prety much the good guy (if not a plesnt one to spend time with) But I can not deny it is open for debate.

Very debatable at that... So far, Ansom has shown himself to be the good guy in this fight, a few flaws such as thinking nobles are better than commoners is not enough to classify him as evil... all it means that he isn't pure good... So far that;s what it seems to me to be, he is a good guy with a couple of poor points... the rest of your assertions about Ansom as i have pointed out, are strong uncertainties

Stanely on the other hand has done much more to show himself as evil... Approving of torture for pleasure, using fear and threats to make his points, so far looking like the one who started the war and struck first, being considered such a problem that multiple nations allied agaisnt him and not a single one sided with him, and having flaws such as ego, displaying selfishness and greed, ... Hell some poeple mentioned that during his speech to Parson, they expected him to reveal something that shows he's actually the good guy, but he dissappointed them... So far he definatly seems like the evil one in this fight.

Really when it comes to negative vs possitive points... Stanely is weighing rather heavy on the negative point while Ansom is very light, and visa versa for poitive points... Only time you can flip that around is using what sounds to me like very bold speculation

I disagree. She was already going to have the hardest part in the battle, handling the dwagons. Without her, the Gwiffon units are going to have a tougher time - if they're even usable at all, without a commander - and it'll pretty much be up to Vinnie and his doombats to handle the dwagons. That's a significant hole in Ansom's plan - I suspect the dwagons are going to overrun the doombats easily and wreak havoc on Ansom's lines from behind.

I think your overestimating the dwagons (note: we are taking Parson's genius planning out of the equation since Ansom does not know about him)... I mean, the dwagons being the greatest remaining threat only means that they can do the most damage to thier forces; it by all means does not mean they are strong enough to win this for Stanely... however, with 25:1 odds it is HIGHLY unlikely that they alone could turn the tide of the battle... Loosing Jillian will allow the dwagons to wreak more havoc then they normally would, but they are still going to be beaten in the end... afterall, In addition to having flying troops of his own, Ansom also has long range troops such as archers who can attack the dwagons (though fliers are probably more effective), not to mention Ansom's forces only have to last long enough for them to reach Stanely, which normally wouldn't take that long with 25:1 odds

[Moral Wiz]

To coin a phrase, I think it's "not strictly fair" to cite the fact that torture was once commonplace as a mitigating factor for Stanley's attitude without citing the fact that rule by hereditary elites was once commonplace as an equally mitigating factor for Ansom's attitude.

In any case, I don't think that attitude makes Ansom "evil" -- it just makes him a bit more complex and gray-area than the stereotypical dashing prince.

Well, considering how his serves under KING Stately, this leads to a very strong chances that it is a monarchy, and what he said to Vinnie also throws in a good possibility of a social class systems... However, Monarchy and social class system are not at all considered evil, it's just a different kind of government... So your probably right about democracy, but that ain't a bad thing

We don't know that it's a monarchy. We don't yet know anything about Jetstone, apart from Stanly's comment. Even if it is, a dictatorship could call itself a monarchy. If the people of a country wish to overthrow the king, but he keeps them in check by violence and fear, it's a dictatorship, with fancy titles.

As for Stanely's comment about ruling through fear and violence is a debatable one, the question is, where exactly does that comment come from? Does Stanely actually know for certain the kind of kingdoms Ansom and such Lead, or is he jumping to conclusions based on his views of nobles? A situation i can easily see is the former ruler of GobwinKnob being a ruler who put on the guise of Nobility like Ansom, but in turn was a cruel and wrothless dictator... In otherwords, Stanely ends up knowing full well that noble =/= good, and thus is willing to jump to conclusions about his enemies. Also, another thing we can kinda get from that statement is Stanely admiting to ruling through fear and violence, as if with this comment he is trying to say "if they do it, then it should be fine if i do it"

Your most likly conclusion of Ansom running a dictarship is a very debatable one

That is making a lot of assumptions. We have seen nouthing that would sugest this , but nothing that would sugest anything else either. So let that pass.

Very debatable at that... So far, Ansom has shown himself to be the good guy in this fight, a few flaws such as thinking nobles are better than commoners is not enough to classify him as evil... all it means that he isn't pure good... So far that;s what it seems to me to be, he is a good guy with a couple of poor points... the rest of your assertions about Ansom as i have pointed out, are strong uncertainties

How the hell has Ansom shown himself to be a good guy? I have yet to find one good thing that Ansom has done(The closest you can come to it is fighting this war, but that is very debatable) .

Stanely on the other hand has done much more to show himself as evil... Approving of torture for pleasure, using fear and threats to make his points, so far looking like the one who started the war and struck first, being considered such a problem that multiple nations allied agaisnt him and not a single one sided with him, and having flaws such as ego, displaying selfishness and greed, ... Hell some poeple mentioned that during his speech to Parson, they expected him to reveal something that shows he's actually the good guy, but he dissappointed them... So far he definatly seems like the evil one in this fight.

There is no Good side, remember? Anyway, most of the stuff there (except tourture, see below) is not greatly evil. Most of it is just neutral, acts that might be taken by any ruler, given the right circumstances.

Where does it say he approves of touture for pleasure? He approves of tourture,(which, it could be argued, is no worse than killing people, and thus no worse than war) and getting Infomation from it, but it never says he approves of it directly. Even if he hated the very idea, he'd probably go along with it, and try to sound cheerful (However badly he may treet her, Stanly really can't aford to loose wanda, or even have her morale low)

Just because something is commonplace does not mean it is good... At best, Torture of prisoners during war is a Neutral act... Afterall, it is seen as a NESSASARY method of gathering info, especially during times of war... It's not-good, but not entirely evil

HOWEVER, Torture can be seen as a neutral act IF it is done ONLY out of nessasity. What Stanely has shown us is that he approves of torture out of PLEASURE. Approve torture out of pleasure is a very evil act in my book

See above

Really when it comes to negative vs possitive points... Stanely is weighing rather heavy on the negative point while Ansom is very light, and visa versa for poitive points... Only time you can flip that around is using what sounds to me like very bold speculation

Both sides are speculating. We don't have enough evidence yet. This is all guesswork.

I think your overestimating the dwagons (note: we are taking Parson's genius planning out of the equation since Ansom does not know about him)... I mean, the dwagons being the greatest remaining threat only means that they can do the most damage to thier forces; it by all means does not mean they are strong enough to win this for Stanely... however, with 25:1 odds it is HIGHLY unlikely that they alone could turn the tide of the battle... Loosing Jillian will allow the dwagons to wreak more havoc then they normally would, but they are still going to be beaten in the end... afterall, In addition to having flying troops of his own, Ansom also has long range troops such as archers who can attack the dwagons (though fliers are probably more effective), not to mention Ansom's forces only have to last long enough for them to reach Stanely, which normally wouldn't take that long with 25:1 odds

Actually, I don't think he's concerned about Jillian's going MIA on a purely pragmatic level -- he still has an overwhelming advantage in forces. He's worried about her personally, yes, but he isn't worried that losing her aid is going to make a difference in the battle.

Yay, points from the opposition

If he just dosen't care for his troops, just using them as cannon fodder (which is sugested by the strip where he picks the most incompetent fources to go in first.) then he is evil. Throwing lives away in that fashon is evil. (and Stanly's many dead warlords don't count, he didn't intend to have them all die)

[SteveMB]

We don't know that it's a monarchy. We don't yet know anything about Jetstone, apart from Stanly's comment. Even if it is, a dictatorship could call itself a monarchy. If the people of a country wish to overthrow the king, but he keeps them in check by violence and fear, it's a dictatorship, with fancy titles.

True, a monarchy could be a dictatorship with fancy titles, but we have no evidence (other than Stanley's assertion) that it is so in Jetstone's case. For one thing, I don't think a prince accustomed to wielding power in a tyrannical way would be so reasonable about taking no for an answer or listening to criticism.

How the hell has Ansom shown himself to be a good guy? I have yet to find one good thing that Ansom has done (The closest you can come to it is fighting this war, but that is very debatable).

Well, if we want to compare Ansom's character with Stanley's, contrast Ansom's reaction to being told something he doesn't want to hear with Stanley's reaction.

There is no Good side, remember?

I expect that both sides will turn out to be drawn in shades of gray, but that doesn't change the fact that Stanley was ranting, not offering a rational argument.

Where does it say he approves of touture for pleasure? He approves of tourture,(which, it could be argued, is no worse than killing people, and thus no worse than war) and getting Infomation from it, but it never says he approves of it directly. Even if he hated the very idea, he'd probably go along with it, and try to sound cheerful (However badly he may treet her, Stanly really can't aford to loose wanda, or even have her morale low)

Stanley's rather flippant comments ("A surprise treat for my favorite caster", "I encourage my people to pursue their hobbies", "Kid's got some talent, too.") just don't fit that interpretation -- Stanley is clearly approving of Wanda's "hobbies", not simply tolerant of them as pragmatic necessities.

f he just dosen't care for his troops, just using them as cannon fodder (which is sugested by the strip where he picks the most incompetent fources to go in first.) then he is evil. Throwing lives away in that fashon is evil. (and Stanly's many dead warlords don't count, he didn't intend to have them all die)

You do have a point about Ansom's strategy of sending in cannon fodder at certain points in the attack; there was quite a bit of comment on that when that page was first posted.

[Querzis]

If he just dosen't care for his troops, just using them as cannon fodder (which is sugested by the strip where he picks the most incompetent fources to go in first.) then he is evil. Throwing lives away in that fashon is evil. (and Stanly's many dead warlords don't count, he didn't intend to have them all die)

Ok first off, someone need to go in first so no matter what happen, someone is going to be cannon fodder. Thats war. That being said, the Eager elves actually want to go in first and the Luckless elves were just, well, unlucky. I dont know what schlemiel mean (I'm french) but they are the third line anyway so its really not that bad, especially with 25/1 odd. Hell, if the eager elves actually manage to enter, its kinda game over for Stanley. Especially if Link lead the Eager elves.

Anyway, there is actually good evidence Ansom is quite good (or at least neutral) and I already listed the reasons why Stanley is quite obviously evil. For Ansom, its quite evident that he doesnt rule through fear.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0010.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0025.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0034.html

Not only thats not how a dictator treat his soldier but the said soldier usually dont yell :«my life for the Jetstone» if they are dictators. And of course there is also the fact that he is very calm, polite and passive with a subordinate who just clearly insulted and interupted him (as opposed to, say, Stanley). Hell, if he woudnt need Parson, he would have just killed him, he said so himself.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0033.html

[Earendill]

There are facts - things explicitely described in the strip ("Jillian was captured and freed/or escaped several times")

There are interpretations - things that are strongly supported by facts ("Stanley is evil - his actions, his words, the whole situation says it")

There are speculations - things that are possible, more or less plausible and somehow remotely related to facts but not fully supported by them.("The Arkenpliers will get attuned to Parsons/Wanda/Sizemore etc...") ("The king that Stanley killed was an evil king")

There is a fourth category that I can't/won't name - things that are not plausible close to impossible, go against the facts, yet people will still say them cause they sound funny - "Miko was right in killing Shojo and the twelve gods were in fact tricked by Xykon/the Snarl into removing her paladinhood", "Stanley's tribe is extinct so its probably Ansom who commited genocide by killing them", "Belkar is in fact Good but he's hiding his goodness".

Let's try and keep our debates open minded.

We don't know that it's a monarchy. We don't yet know anything about Jetstone, apart from Stanly's comment. Even if it is, a dictatorship could call itself a monarchy. If the people of a country wish to overthrow the king, but he keeps them in check by violence and fear, it's a dictatorship, with fancy titles.

We do know that it's a Monarchy. You are in a Medieval/Feudal time. You have a King, a Prince, Counts. People address Ansom with "your highness". Jillian speaks of "Royal radishes". This is a solid interpretation, close to a fact.

The way the King treats his subjects has nothing to do with it. A Monarchy does not need to be a dictatorship to treat it's subjects badly - plenty of monarchies did that in the history.

Your affirmation that Ansom/Slately are actually treating their subjects with violence and fear have only one supporting fact: Stanley's words. Those words have a very limited value since Stanley is using them as a justification for his own actions and does not offer any further support. Stanley is evil (according to his own speech about holy and unholy, to his overall lack of consideration for human lives, including his followers and to his selfish ultimate objectives) - why would we believe his claims on Ansom ?

On the other hand, we have Ansom saying "Please be careful" to troops he sends into war, we have those troops that shout "My life for Jetstone" while fighting, Ansom's charisma (he did manage to convince all those tribes to ally), Ansom fighting on the front line and other minor details like these.

Then he sends some troops as front line of the attack - and that makes him evil ? - Major speculation if not worse. As said before by others - some of those troops were actually "eager" to go while the others were simply unlucky to get picked. Ansom does provide archery support and healing support to the attack and that's, well, everything he can do short of completely canceling the attack.

There is no Good side, remember? Anyway, most of the stuff there (except tourture, see below) is not greatly evil. Most of it is just neutral, acts that might be taken by any ruler, given the right circumstances.

When you say "There is no Good side" it could mean two things -

- you actually bought Stanley's version of "There is no good and evil. There is holy and unholy. And I am holy". If so ignore this post and forget I ever answered. I'll definetely stop since there would be no point.

- you`re thinking in terms of real world moral relativism. I`ll say it again. Erfworld is not the Real World you and me are living it. It's a fantasy world, mixture of a child fairytale and a turn based wargame in a medieval fantasy setting. Good and evil do exist in such worlds. It's their trademark. You have Dwagons, Goblins, Necromancers and Gwyffins. You cannot use real world morality relativism in there.

Also if you consider Stanley's acts as "neutral" then we really have few chances of convincing each other. He makes jokes on how undead troops are less expensive to support then living ones since they don't eat.That's evil enough for me, right near Xykon and his attitude towards goblins.

Where does it say he approves of touture for pleasure? He approves of tourture,(which, it could be argued, is no worse than killing people, and thus no worse than war) and getting Infomation from it, but it never says he approves of it directly. Even if he hated the very idea, he'd probably go along with it, and try to sound cheerful (However badly he may treet her, Stanly really can't aford to loose wanda, or even have her morale low)

Let me rephrase your version: Actually Stanley hates torture but he goes along with it and tries to look cheerful because Wanda loves it and he doesn't want to lose her.... Oh man ....that hardly qualifies even as speculation. For sure he has shown his consideration towards Wanda's feelings many times before (see strips 6 and 18 for examples). As for - "torture is no worse than war"....I rest my case.

[SteveMB]

I dont know what schlemiel mean (I'm french)

It's Yiddish, and is defined as "a dolt who is a habitual bungler". (There is another term, "schlimazel", which is sort of synonymous with "luckless" -- the joke is that the schlemiel is the guy who always spills the soup, and the schlimazel is the guy he always spills it on.)

Edit Addendum:

And of course there is also the fact that he is very calm, polite and passive with a subordinate who just clearly insulted and interupted him (as opposed to, say, Stanley).

Additionally, Ansom is willing to change his mind in response to a reasonable argument from a subordinate.
/Edit Addendum

We do know that it's a Monarchy. You are in a Medieval/Feudal time. You have a King, a Prince, Counts. People address Ansom with "your highness". Jillian speaks of "Royal radishes". This is a solid interpretation, close to a fact.

The way the King treats his subjects has nothing to do with it. A Monarchy does not need to be a dictatorship to treat it's subjects badly - plenty of monarchies did that in the history.

My inference was that Moral Wiz was using "dictatorship" to mean "tyranny" (a common usage, though the two are not really synonymous).

Also if you consider Stanley's acts as "neutral" then we really have few chances of convincing each other. He makes jokes on how undead troops are less expensive to support then living ones since they don't eat.That's evil enough for me, right near Xykon and his attitude towards goblins.

Taken in isolation, such jokes could be dismissed as gallows humor, but in combination with Stanley's other actions, I agree with your interpretation.

Let me rephrase your version: Actually Stanley hates torture but he goes along with it and tries to look cheerful because Wanda loves it and he doesn't want to lose her.... Oh man ....that hardly qualifies even as speculation. For sure he has shown his consideration towards Wanda's feelings many times before (see strips 6 and 18 for examples).

Judging from the record, Stanley will be benevolent in superficial ways when things are going well for him (e.g. making a big show of presenting "a treat for my favorite caster" when he gets reason to hope that Parson actually might be the warlord who can pull his fat out of the fire). However, things get ugly when he has to deal with bad news (e.g. your examples of his blowing off Wanda's advice when told he needs to spend all his remaining money on one last gamble, and denouncing her as "useless" when the results of the summoning initially look unpromising).

[Scientivore]

There are facts - things explicitely described in the strip ("Jillian was captured and freed/or escaped several times")

There are interpretations - things that are strongly supported by facts ("Stanley is evil - his actions, his words, the whole situation says it")

There are speculations - things that are possible, more or less plausible and somehow remotely related to facts but not fully supported by them.("The Arkenpliers will get attuned to Parsons/Wanda/Sizemore etc...") ("The king that Stanley killed was an evil king")

There is a fourth category that I can't/won't name - things that are not plausible close to impossible, go against the facts, yet people will still say them cause they sound funny - "Miko was right in killing Shojo and the twelve gods were in fact tricked by Xykon/the Snarl into removing her paladinhood", "Stanley's tribe is extinct so its probably Ansom who commited genocide by killing them", "Belkar is in fact Good but he's hiding his goodness".

...

I`ll say it again. Erfworld is not the Real World you and me are living it. It's a fantasy world, mixture of a child fairytale and a turn based wargame in a medieval fantasy setting. Good and evil do exist in such worlds. It's their trademark. You have Dwagons, Goblins, Necromancers and Gwyffins. You cannot use real world morality relativism in there.

Erfworld is not a generic fantasy story randomly pulled out of a hat. It's written by Rob Balder of PartiallyClips. I judge your claim that "real world morality relativism" doesn't apply to Erfworld as belonging to your third category (speculations), but only because you don't appear to be joking.

[Earendill]

Erfworld is not a generic fantasy story randomly pulled out of a hat. It's written by Rob Balder of PartiallyClips. I judge your claim that "real world morality relativism" doesn't apply to Erfworld as belonging to your third category (speculations), but only because you don't appear to be joking.

I think the "this is not the real world but a medieval fantasy based, turn based wargame world with Dwagons, Gwyffins and Mages" is almost a fact. The world where Parsons was taken from was the real world.

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

You're saying "this might be a medieval fantasy based game world, but it's an unusual one and because of that moral relativism (there is no absolute good or evil, it all depends on perspective) can apply". While I'm not claiming this to be false, I find that the task of finding facts confirming it (preferably facts from the strip itself) is yours not mine. So far the only argument you have brought is that one of the authors has another webcomic (this argument needs develloping).

[SmartAlec]

You do have a point about Ansom's strategy of sending in cannon fodder at certain points in the attack; there was quite a bit of comment on that when that page was first posted.

That's the way turn-based warfare works against a defended position, unfortunately. There just isn't any other way to do it.

I might be wrong, but warfare, life and death in Erfworld may be completely different to our world and our notion of war. Heroes may never die permanently, or are simply captured, unless their capital cities are taken. Regular units that are trained may in fact be created out of nothing, as they are in strategy games; the faction simply pays the cost of a soldier and *bing*, there they are.

If that is the case - if Erfworld really does resemble a strategy game on that level - then sacrificing the lives of field units isn't callous or evil at all, because that's essentially what they're created for. It would be a world where rank and file soldiery don't have names or identities, they're all alike, they have no purpose beyond fighting and dying and no personality beyond their troop type and their statistics.

It turns the whole idea of morality in war on its' head.

[Jayabalard]

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.

You do realize when they say he became overlord by regicide, that means he killed the king to take his power? That seems kind of evil to me.

[SmartAlec]

I get the feeling that if their positions were reversed, and it was Stanley's giant army marching on Jetstone that was bravely defended by Ansom, we'd have no problem thinking of Stanley as 'Evil' and Ansom as 'Good'.

[slayerx]

He makes jokes on how undead troops are less expensive to support then living ones since they don't eat.That's evil enough for me, right near Xykon and his attitude towards goblins.

Gotta disagree with ya there... the joke doesn't seem evil and it's certainly not like Xykon. I mean, it's not we've seen Stanely actually go and Kill his normal troops in order to bolster his uncroaked forces just so that he save money on food... now if we saw him do something like that, THEN you would have a point

You do realize when they say he became overlord by regicide, that means he killed the king to take his power? That seems kind of evil to me.

Not nessasarily...
If the previous ruler was a tyrant who was cruel and merciless... the killing and dethorning him of him would easily been seen as a good act... So regicide on it's own is not actually evil if the ruler was himself evil.

Grant it though, Intent would play a role in in the good vs evil arguement... If the intent was for purly selfish reasons, then while the act can be seen as good, it by all means does not make the person who commited the act good by any means; it's like trading one tyrant for another... So regicide can be a good act if the previous ruler was evil and the act was one done out of selflessness.

I get the feeling that if their positions were reversed, and it was Stanley's giant army marching on Jetstone that was bravely defended by Ansom, we'd have no problem thinking of Stanley as 'Evil' and Ansom as 'Good'.

If the situation of "who is marching on who" was the ONLY thing that changed, then yes... Who is currently attacking who doesn't really do ANYTHING for the "good vs evil" arguement... I mean, the thing that really ends up labeling them as good and evil is their personalities and actions.

In fact, the current situation is ALREADY a reversal of what we normally see in storylines. Normally it is the 'evil' army who is marching to wipe out the forces of 'Good'. the evil army vastly outnumbers the forces of good and the forces of Good must find a way to overcome. This is what we normamly see (battle of Helm's deep, battle of Azure city =p)... but instead we got a reversal of the 'evil' forces being the ones at their last stand.

Now, if you were talking about a more indepth reversal, as in have Ansom be the orginal agessor, be the one to apporve torture for pleasure, use fear and threats to run his minions, and come off as an arrogant, selfish, greedy bastard... Then we be talking about something different... even if Ansom kept his good looks, and his army of stuff animals we would be able to see underneth all those things and see he's rotten to the core (though considering how there's poeple debating that Stanely isn't evil, their would still exist a debate over that)

[Querzis]

Not nessasarily...
If the previous ruler was a tyrant who was cruel and merciless... the killing and dethorning him of him would easily been seen as a good act... So regicide on it's own is not actually evil if the ruler was himself evil.

Grant it though, Intent would play a role in in the good vs evil arguement... If the intent was for purly selfish reasons, then while the act can be seen as good, it by all means does not make the person who commited the act good by any means; it's like trading one tyrant for another... So regicide can be a good act if the previous ruler was evil and the act was one done out of selflessness.

I'm tired of hearing that one, killing is NEVER a good act, it can be a neutral act, as the regicide of a tyrant would be, but thats not good. Its always just trading an evil for another. Killing in self-delfense or destroying a greater evil are neutral act but the guy who try to save his enemies and capture evil peoples instead of killing them now thats good.

[Estelindis]

Just to take another angle on this...

Personally, I believe that Stanley is wrong in universal terms: there is such a thing as real, objective evil (of course, there are subjective elements too). But maybe, in Erfworld, he's somewhat right. Allow me to explain.

Now, I've played and run a lot of rpgs, and I've found it very rare to come across someone who genuinely enjoys playing an evil character. (Maybe lots of people here would claim otherwise, but it's not my experience.) Of course, there's a lot of fun to be had in playing a character who has a dark side, or various intriguing moral flaws - but out and out evil just isn't fun. However, this comic seems to be based on rts/wargaming, and none of my friends who play wargames (I'm not a wargamer myself) seem to base their enjoyment of the games on the morality of their army or faction. From what I've seen, there is a lot of genuine pleasure to be had from running an evil army - same for a good or neutral one, or along any other moral (or, indeed, cultural) axis. The fun is to be found in flavour - the units with cool powers, the backstory, the strategy. The pleasure is in playing, strategising, bluffing, and winning - morality doesn't really come into it. (There are rules that have to be followed, of course, but they're just a neutral framework for the game, not moral laws.)

So, maybe when Stanley says there's no such thing as good and evil, it's more of a commentary on wargaming. It's obvious that he (and Wanda) have done some pretty awful things - but I bet both of their stat cards would be awesome. In terms of game experience (which seems to be the metaphysics that Erfworld is based on), maybe this is the most important thing.

[Timberwolf]

His armour is all shiny though...

[Yogi]

Re: Perhaps XYZ is different in Erfworld than it is in the real world.

One cannot arbitrarily declare something is different without any proof. While certain things are obviously different, unless there is some evidence to back up the fact, Erfworld should behave like the real world. Otherwise one could say "Perhaps torture is Good and caring for people is Evil in Erfworld!!" which effectively stops the ability to have a logical discussion.

Re: Well XYZ is different in a Turn Based Strategy Game / Medieval Society.

Erfworld is NOT actually a Turn Based Strategy Game or a Medieval Society. It's an entirely different universe altogether which, so far, resembles a Turn Based Strategy Game set in Medieval Society. While much of it is the same, there are enough subtle differences to make any assumptions highly unreliable.

Re: Torture was different in Medieval Society. It wasn't considered to be evil.

Yes, and Medieval Society also considered illness to be caused by an imbalance of humors. However we know now that illness is not caused by an imbalance of humors and torture is not acceptable.

Re: Being attacked is not justification to go to war.

I think World War II is far back enough to dodge the prohibition against politics. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed less than 3,000 people. In the retaliation, America killed 80,000 with one A-bomb alone. The important part of Pearl Harbor wasn't the number of people killed, it was because it was a sign of war. Once war starts, all gloves are off. Heck, Mussolini never attacked American soil, but once he declared war it was fair game for America to attack him until he surrendered. Not responding would just have invited more attacks.

[slayerx]

Re: Being attacked is not justification to go to war.

I think World War II is far back enough to dodge the prohibition against politics. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed less than 3,000 people. In the retaliation, America killed 80,000 with one A-bomb alone. The important part of Pearl Harbor wasn't the number of people killed, it was because it was a sign of war. Once war starts, all gloves are off. Heck, Mussolini never attacked American soil, but once he declared war it was fair game for America to attack him until he surrendered. Not responding would just have invited more attacks.

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.

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.

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.

In short, without that declaration of war, Ansom had other options than going to total war... Going to total war puts millions of your own poeple at serious risk and will cost the lives of thousands... Minor war, will keep you from being a primary target/put far fewer of your own citizens at risk an troops at risk, thus lowering your own losses... if possible, total war should be avoided...

So ya... a "few field units" =/= Open declaration of war
few field units = total war is avoidable, may want to persue peace, or only minor retaliation (to fight, but not be a primeary target)
Open declaration of war = total war is unavoidable... unless you want to be ruled

And yes you could claim something like, that those few troops were enough to give a nation reason to fear furthar attack and that after seirously thinking it over that it was best to go to full war... that is a possible conclusion, even more possible than "wanting to stop a great evil"... after all, that's what the declaration of war works on, you fight out of fear of being furthar attacked and conquered...

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.

[Scientivore]

I think the "this is not the real world but a medieval fantasy based, turn based wargame world with Dwagons, Gwyffins and Mages" is almost a fact. The world where Parsons was taken from was the real world.

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

You're saying "this might be a medieval fantasy based game world, but it's an unusual one and because of that moral relativism (there is no absolute good or evil, it all depends on perspective) can apply". While I'm not claiming this to be false, I find that the task of finding facts confirming it (preferably facts from the strip itself) is yours not mine. So far the only argument you have brought is that one of the authors has another webcomic (this argument needs develloping).

Very well. All I have to do is point out that Rob wrote Stanley's speech. That is evidence within the text of an awareness (on the part of at least one character, not just the writer) of the philosophy that our understandings[1] of good and evil are necessarily subjective mortal constructs.

Cheers!

[1] I've noticed that the opponents of moral relativism typically attack the proposition that the categories of good and evil do not exist, or the proposition that nothing can be placed in them. Those propositions are easy to attack, nonsense on the face of it. I believe that they are misrepresentations of the philosophy. Try this instead: I assert that even if a transcendental immortal of universal scope (i.e. God) told us how to use the categories of good and evil, we would be forced to form our understandings of its instructions from our flawed, finite, mortal, subjective perspectives. We cannot escape our nature. So, the humility of honesty requires us to admit that we might be doing it wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should stop doing it; it just means that confidence in one's own goodness (or someone else's evilness) is a sign of dangerous naivete.

Personally, I find it more useful to categorize things in terms of desirable vs. undesirable. I think that it's really the same thing, just more honest.