game/not a game

[DDL]

And just what conclusion did I reach?


So you are saying that so far Parson is treating all this as a game in VIOLENT AGREEMENT agreement with me. LOL

*sigh*

So when you said:

Absolutely not. What's shown in the comic is that he is the only commander on his side that does not treat his underlings as mere pawns.

You were arguing with yourself?

Now I'm confused as you apparently are as to what conclusion you've reached. In fact, re-reading the thread, you appear to change the thrust of your argument several times, without apparent irony.

[ag30476]

*sigh*
So when you said

"Absolutely not. What's shown in the comic is that he is the only commander on his side that does not treat his underlings as mere pawns. "

You were arguing with yourself?

Er...no. I was arguing with Marbit-Chow who if you recall said

He treats the units under his command as pawns, not as living creatures.

Now what commmader in any type of battle does not treat his units as pawns...units if you will. But Marbit-Chow's statement implies that Parson ONLY treats his units as units. However I pointed out that he does not ONLY treat his units as such. He has shown kindness in various degrees to his twoll servant, to Sizemore and even Misty. So I said

What's shown in the comic is that he is the only commander on his side that does not treat his underlings as mere pawns.

You will notice the qualification 'mere' in my statement. Even though it is not HIGHLIGHTED, it's still there.

Now I'm confused as you apparently are as to what conclusion you've reached. In fact, re-reading the thread, you appear to change the thrust of your argument several times, without apparent irony.

Have I? Where have I changed my point of view? I originally wrote in the first post in this thread

So Parson's goal, though he does not realize it yet, is to win the game - defeat Ansom as required by the Perfect Warlord spell - but not let Stanley win for that would let Stanley's evil rule over Erfworld.

In other words, Parson must win the game but not treat Erfworld like it was just another one of his games. Parson must learn to care about Erfworld like he should have cared about his "real world".

That is why I said we were in agreement when you said

Look, parson has just spend a turn butchering loads of battlebears and siege-engine riding marbits..."for an opener". He's treating this very very much as a game, I would guess: I don't know about you, but I would feel..uncomfortable about bringing about so many deaths, even if they were on "the other side".

What I said in this thread from the beginning is not what will happen in the story in detail. All I said is it looks like other stories we are familiar with, for example Thomas Covenant. So we know in the end Parson will win but Stanley won't. Excuse me for criticizing myself but my conclusion is as obvious and as threatening as saying that Harry Potter will win and Voldemort will loose.

[ag30476]

For starters, that Stanley is "the Big Bad Guy" who "Started this war."

Correct. Though that's hardly a conclusion as much as it is a restatement of what the main characters have said. Honestly, I like Stanley as the BBEG. Geez, it's like you think I was insulting the character.

So let's examine the evidence.

If we must.

Like Parson in his famous "everybody in the word" is at war with him you act as if that fact alone proves that Stanley is "Evil." But answer me this: Where, in fact, does anyone, from either side, make the claim that Stanley did in fact "start" this war?

Er...Vinny says it. I'll post the exact page later.

Vinny implies Stanley started the war after attacking several groups
An alliance of different groups is organized against Stanley
Wanda impies Stanley's quest for arkentools started war

War is a way of life in Erfworld. The way of life, as is to be expected if this entire world is a "wargame" brought to life. Consider:
1) Ansom, addressing the coalition leaders: "We are all courageous and competent warlords"
Where did they get that competence? -playing parlor games like Parson? Doubtful. The very word "Game" in such a context is unfamiliar to Stanley. Making war on each other since the dawn of time? Oh yeah, that I can see.

2) Stanley himself, in response to Parson's "we're the bad guys":
"Ansom and people like him... [Pretend] Like they're they're not ruling by violence and fear. Pshah."

3) When Vinny and Ansom discuss the matter, we are told that Stanley "attacked us [Vinny]", "hit the Elves," and "rubbed out the Milqetoast tribe." Nowhere however is it assertted that those events were anything other then the normal course of action in Erfworld, nor that they were "unprovoked." Indeed the clear only mention of a seemingly unprovoked (or insufficiently provoked) action is Ansom's own. We are told only that Stanley "croaked a few field units" of Jetstone. We don't even know how or where that took place. And this is justification for launching total war? It's as if saying some "advisors" got caught in the crossfire of a brushfire war elsewhere, (a not unlikely scenario) and all of a sudden it's World War III time.

Yeah so in a "wargame come to life" we can't have "good" and "evil"?

No, while Ansom says gives one possible reason "I just want to end a great evil" but even his chief advisor is not convinced by that. Instead he proposes, if obliquely, a much better reason - that Stanley was a threat to Jetsone's own plans to rule all, and must therefore be taken out of the picture. We get a hint of another possible reason from Wanda: Stanley's realm only seems to have began to crumble since he began questing for the Arkentools. Jetstone has an Arkentool, and really wants to keep it. Reason enough by itself perhaps to pull together all of the other factions they've been sqabbling with, and lead them against this "madman" who seeks to bring an end to their own happy little 'games'.

Sounds to me very much like "The <insert group of choice> are the enemy! They have always been the enemy! They must be exterminated!"

Hey to each his own...I kind of like to think of funny little guys with big egos who everyone hates who throw their power around and care about noone as evil. And I think of holier than though guys who seem to have at least some respect and have some feelings for thier troops but may have ulterior motives for his actions which may include jealousy as...well not as evil.

[Marbit-Chow]

But Marbit-Chow statement implies that Parson ONLY treats his units as units. However I pointed out that does not ONLY treat his units as such. He has shown kindness in various deegrees to his twoll servant, to Sizemore and even Misty. So I said You will notice the qualification 'mere' in my statement. Even though it is not, it's still there.

You're right - he hasn't treated them as "mere" resources. He's also treated them as sources of information. But I fail to see where he's shown actual kindness. He's acting just like anyone who's thrust into a strange situation behaves: he's getting to know the people around him. That doesn't prove that he's either good or evil; that proves that he has basic survival instincts.

So we know in the end Parson will win but Stanley won't. Excuse me for criticizing myself but my conclusion is as obvious and as threatening as saying that Harry Potter will win and Voldemort will loose.

And here's where I beg to differ: we don't know that Parson will "win". We don't know that Stanley will "lose". We don't know for certain that Stanley is, in fact, the "villain" of the piece.

And maybe that's part of the point of all of this. Parson sees the world as a game: everything is in black and white, us vs. them. But the characters aren't that simple. We don't know that Stanley is "evil" - in fact, he reacts strongly to the accusation. We don't know that Prince Ansom is "good"; just that he's competent and a member of the nobility.

Is this story about the dangers of wish-fulfillment? (Parson gets what he truly wished for, and now has to suffer the consequences...) Is it a story about Parson growing beyond his childish view of the world and accepting responsibility for his own actions? ("My life sucks" - but instead of making an effort to change it, he retreats into fantasy worlds of his own invention...) Or is the story more like a Tolkien epic, good vs. evil in conflict for the ultimate fate of the world? That's been hinted at as well.

So, until we know for certain the true nature of the story, any speculation on our part is just random guesswork. That's why we're arguing with your conclusion. It's not that your conclusion is necessarily wrong - it's that I think your assumptions are.

[Arameus]

I wouldn't say Ansom is jealous at all. I do know what you mean, though: That he wants to crush Stanley, not because he murdered to gain power, but that he murdered royalty. Which I can identify with. If you let some short, ugly startup go around killing whomever they want to take a throne and they just kind of get away with it, everyone will start doing it. Not a good thing if you, yourself are a royal sovereign.

Even with this as his ulterior motive, though, I do believe he holds a genuine concern for the nations that are endangered by Stanley's quest for power, and that he is, indeed, fighting Stanley for the purpose of ridding the world of that danger. And if he gets to scratch his knave-whacking itch in doing so, that's fine by me and I don't think that destroys his image as a good guy.

Honestly, Stanley's little babble about moral relativity seems to have turned a lot of you into would-be philosophers. Get over it: the little nut bent on possessing all the world's most powerful artifacts , for no other reason than that he wants them, even if that means slaughtering, pillaging, and raping every man, woman, and horse between here and there, is evil. Of course he'll claim he isn't. That's what makes it so evil.

Don't overthink this. Let me ask a quick question. If you were zapped into a crazy phantasy world a la Parson, and on one side of you there was a dashing prince in white armor leading an army of cutesy teddy bears and elves and whatnot, and on the other side you saw a cackling guy with dragons and zombies, about to engage in battle right there and then where you're standing, which side would you immediately know to run to?

"I'm gonna run to the zombies, I don't know if they started it or not and their actions in a thousand turns may vindicate them and---- AAAAAAAGHH!!! My brains and my key lime pie!! NOOOO!!!"

[ChowGuy]

Honestly, Stanley's little babble about moral relativity seems to have turned a lot of you into would-be philosophers. Get over it: the little nut bent on possessing all the world's most powerful artifacts , for no other reason than that he wants them, even if that means slaughtering, pillaging, and raping every man, woman, and horse between here and there, is evil. Of course he'll claim he isn't. That's what makes it so evil.

Hmm... maybe you're right. Maybe we should all just think in terms of trite, Hollywood-esque clichés of children's tales, rather then looking for deeper meaning. And by "Hollywood-esque" I mean Boop like sticking an "It was all a dream" ending on Baum's "Wizard of Oz." Clue: in the book, Dorothy is not dreaming, does not set out (or even want) to "save the world" and does not want to stick around to see things made right. All she (or the sham Wizard for that matter) want is to save their own skin until they can Get the Boop out of there (and not because she was "unhappy" with her life at home either.) But in the best Victorian tradition, think about such things is "unsuitable" for children, so let's clean it up and throw in a "there's no place like home" lesson at the end. Boop that.

Don't overthink this. Let me ask a quick question. If you were zapped into a crazy phantasy world a la Parson, and on one side of you there was a dashing prince in white armor leading an army of cutesy teddy bears and elves and whatnot, and on the other side you saw a cackling guy with dragons and zombies, about to engage in battle right there and then where you're standing, which side would you immediately know to run to?

So we should all just base our thinking on stereotypes and appearances then? Judge someone as "Good" or "Evil" because they look the way we've been conditioned to think. Uh-huh. Oh look, there's a guy with slanty eyes! Put him in a concentration camp. There's someone wearing a turban! He must be a terrorist! No, I would not expect Parson to think for a second about it, mainly because as we've seen he does think exactly that way. But Rob is the writer, and is that the point Rob is trying to reinforce here?

Now let me ask [i]you a question. Have you ever read Rob's other comic, "Partially Clips'? The one subtitled "a webcomic for grownups" ? And by "for grownups" he doesn't mean "Adult" enertainment, he means a comic for thinking readers. Since we're on the subbject of clichés anyway, this one from a few days back is a good place to start.

[ChowGuy]

Honestly, Stanley's little babble about moral relativity seems to have turned a lot of you into would-be philosophers. Get over it: the little nut bent on possessing all the world's most powerful artifacts , for no other reason than that he wants them, even if that means slaughtering, pillaging, and raping every man, woman, and horse between here and there, is evil. Of course he'll claim he isn't. That's what makes it so evil.

Hmm... maybe you're right. Maybe we should all just think in terms of trite, Hollywood-esque clichés of children's tales, rather then looking for deeper meaning. And by "Hollywood-esque" I mean Boop like sticking an "It was all a dream" ending on Baum's "Wizard of Oz." Clue: in the book, Dorothy is not dreaming, does not set out (or even want) to "save the world" and does not want to stick around to see things made right. All she (or the sham Wizard for that matter) want is to save their own skin until they can Get the Boop out of there (and not because she was "unhappy" with her life at home either.) And if, to do that, she has to take down a "Wicked Witch" - the only one left in Oz who can challenge the Wiz's one=man rule by showing him up for the sham he is - then that's what she'll do.(1) But in the best Victorian tradition, "thinking too much" about such things is "unsuitable" for children, so let's clean it up and throw in a "there's no place like home" lesson at the end. Boop that.

Don't overthink this. Let me ask a quick question.

Don't overthink this. Let me ask a quick question. If you were zapped into a crazy phantasy world a la Parson, and on one side of you there was a dashing prince in white armor leading an army of cutesy teddy bears and elves and whatnot, and on the other side you saw a cackling guy with dragons and zombies, about to engage in battle right there and then where you're standing, which side would you immediately know to run to?[/quote]
So we should all just base our thinking on stereotypes and appearances then? Judge someone as "Good" or "Evil" because they look the way we've been conditioned to think. Uh-huh. Oh look, there's a guy with slanty eyes! Put him in a concentration camp. There's someone wearing a turban! He must be a terrorist! There's a charismatic guy a in smart uniform, talking about how we need to rebuild our nation! Sieg heil!

No, I would not expect Parson to think for a second about it, mainly because as we've seen he does think exactly that way. But Rob is the writer, and is that the point Rob is trying to reinforce here?

Now let me ask [i]you a question. Have you ever read Rob's other comic, "Partially Clips'? The one subtitled "a webcomic for grownups" ? And by "for grownups" he doesn't mean "Adult" entertainment, he means a comic for thinking readers. Since we're on the subject of clichés anyway, this one from a few days back is a good place to start.

(1) Did you know that everyone in Emerald city is required by law to wear sunglasses? They're locked on at the gates, and can only be removed when you leave. The reason they tell you is that "It's so brilliant here, it would blind you!" but when Dorothy leaves, she notices rather off-handedly that "her pretty green dress" - green like everything else in the "Emerald" City - has suddenly turned white. Mind control, much?

[jindra34]

Don't overthink this. Let me ask a quick question. If you were zapped into a crazy phantasy world a la Parson, and on one side of you there was a dashing prince in white armor leading an army of cutesy teddy bears and elves and whatnot, and on the other side you saw a cackling guy with dragons and zombies, about to engage in battle right there and then where you're standing, which side would you immediately know to run to?

The guy with the dragons.

[ag30476]

You're right - he hasn't treated them as "mere" resources. He's also treated them as sources of information. But I fail to see where he's shown actual kindness. He's acting just like anyone who's thrust into a strange situation behaves: he's getting to know the people around him. That doesn't prove that he's either good or evil; that proves that he has basic survival instincts.

Survival instincts are not the same as niceness. Stanley is the example of that. Let's see evidence of Parson being a nice guy...
His friend Ashan shows concern about his well being
Makes friends with the one Stanley calls "the turd guy" - calls him by name
Thanks the turd guy - twice
Laughs at Bogrolls honest mistake - and laughs at himself in the process
Tells Bogroll to get some sleep
Apologies to terrified underling - and asks for her name - then tells her she can go back to sleep
Thinks that a Lookmancer loosing one's will to a psychic link is a "downside"

And here's where I beg to differ: we don't know that Parson will "win". We don't know that Stanley will "lose".

Yes we do because Stanley is TEH HERO

We don't know for certain that Stanley is, in fact, the "villain" of the piece.

Yes we do. He's TEH VILLIAN. He's the guy everyone hates. Even Wanda and Parson hate him. If the villian is not the guy everyone hates in-story, who is? But just because in-story he is hated doesn't mean readers have to hate him. I like Stanley but he did start the war for his own purposes:
Vinny implies Stanley started the war after attacking several groups
An alliance of different groups is organized against Stanley
Wanda impies Stanley's quest for arkentools started war

And maybe that's part of the point of all of this. Parson sees the world as a game: everything is in black and white, us vs. them.

No the main problem with thinking Erfworld is a game is that he doesn't have to care about the people of Erfworld at all.

But the characters aren't that simple. We don't know that Stanley is "evil" - in fact, he reacts strongly to the accusation. We don't know that Prince Ansom is "good"; just that he's competent and a member of the nobility.

Look you got a problem with words "good" and "evil". Somehow you think that just because there are good guys and bad guys means it's a simple world. Obviously not. There are betrayers (Jillian), leaders with ulterior personal motives (Ansom), the simply power-hungry (Stanley), the sadistic-but-what-is-her-real-game (Wanda), the naive-genius (Parson), reluctant lackeys(Sizemore), mercenaries (the Archons), loyal sidekicks (Vinny), and overzealous followers (Webinar).

Is this story about the dangers of wish-fulfillment? (Parson gets what he truly wished for, and now has to suffer the consequences...) Is it a story about Parson growing beyond his childish view of the world and accepting responsibility for his own actions? ("My life sucks" - but instead of making an effort to change it, he retreats into fantasy worlds of his own invention...) Or is the story more like a Tolkien epic, good vs. evil in conflict for the ultimate fate of the world? That's been hinted at as well.

It's all three...but Tolkien is just another hack good vs. evil writer no?

So, until we know for certain the true nature of the story, any speculation on our part is just random guesswork. That's why we're arguing with your conclusion. It's not that your conclusion is necessarily wrong - it's that I think your assumptions are.

My conclusion was simply the nature of the story, eg is it a western hero gets the girl story, a child saves the world from evil wizard story etc. My assumptions are just what is presented in the comic so far.

Notice what I said in my first post in this thread

The usual thing in this common-man-transported-to-an-alternate-universe-where-he-becomes-the-reluctant-hero type story is that the hero must learn to care about the fate of the alternate universe and in the process grows up or becomes a better person (Narnia, Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever).

Would you argue that this is not a story about a common man transported to an alternate universe where he becomes the reluctant hero?

Then I said

Parson is more than willing to win the game for Stanley.

Obviously Parson is not willing to win the battle.

The "assumptions" you take issue with are

But Stanley is the Big Bad Evil Guy. And Parson's nature, as revealed so far, is essentially good. For example, Parson, unlike Stanley or Wanda, has shown compassion for his underlings (Bogroll, Sizemore, Misty the Lookamancer).

These are not assumptions as much as observations. If you want to deny that Stanley is the villian and that Parson is a nice guy, that's up to you. I calls 'em as I see 'em.

So Parson's goal, though he does not realize it yet, is to win the game - defeat Ansom as required by the Perfect Warlord spell - but not let Stanley win for that would let Stanley's evil rule over Erfworld.

In other words, Parson must win the game but not treat Erfworld like it was just another one of his games. Parson must learn to care about Erfworld like he should have cared about his "real world".

Cliched? No. It's just good storytelling. Love it so far.

My "conclusions" of the nature of the story though is surprisingly (or un-surprisingly?) similar to the "labels" you aply to the story

Is this story about the dangers of wish-fulfillment? (Parson gets what he truly wished for, and now has to suffer the consequences...) Is it a story about Parson growing beyond his childish view of the world and accepting responsibility for his own actions? ("My life sucks" - but instead of making an effort to change it, he retreats into fantasy worlds of his own invention...) Or is the story more like a Tolkien epic, good vs. evil in conflict for the ultimate fate of the world? That's been hinted at as well.

So what exactly are you arguing?

It seems to me you just have a problem with me calling Stanley a villian and Parson a nice guy. And these you claim are "bad assumptions" that make "my conclusion" just some "random guesswork".

Erfworld may be a Tolkienesque epic story of good vs evil or a simplistic tale that divides a make believe world into "good" vs "evil" but this argument has gotten to epic levels of ridiculous vs silly. I'll be the nice guy though and let you have the last word.

[ag30476]

The guy with the dragons.

That's just evil.

[ag30476]

I wouldn't say Ansom is jealous at all. I do know what you mean, though: That he wants to crush Stanley, not because he murdered to gain power, but that he murdered royalty. Which I can identify with. If you let some short, ugly startup go around killing whomever they want to take a throne and they just kind of get away with it, everyone will start doing it. Not a good thing if you, yourself are a royal sovereign.

Even with this as his ulterior motive, though, I do believe he holds a genuine concern for the nations that are endangered by Stanley's quest for power, and that he is, indeed, fighting Stanley for the purpose of ridding the world of that danger. And if he gets to scratch his knave-whacking itch in doing so, that's fine by me and I don't think that destroys his image as a good guy.

I agree that Ansom does want to help fight against Stanley. When asked by Vinny why Ansom joined the fight, Ansom answers "Can't it just be that I want to end a great evil?" Vinny then presses him on the nobility issue which I'm also sure is a factor in Ansom's thinking. But I've always felt that there was yet another reason and it has to do with Ansom being in love with Jillian.

[TheTurnipKing]

Parson can't supplant Stanley. The Tool will just go Vaarsuvius on the fat slob.

"Aha! My troops outnumber yours a thousand to one, Stanley! Bow to my might!"

"Dismissal!"

*PLOT*

That's the way it usually works for units from Erfworld, but we don't know what effect disbanding will actually have on Parson. It could send him home, it COULD just set him loose as an unaffiliated unit, or it could just destroy him uttery by removing him from the game, but the game not having any way to handle something which isn't an existing unit type.

[Maurog]

Some observations:
- Any comment involving "Tolkienesque" view of the world is only two steps away from invoking Godwin's Law.
- "Good" and "Bad" are very relative terms (remember Wicked), so in terms of any story, goodness is in the eye of the protagonist. And we all know who that is.

[doliemaster]

Generally I don't think Parson will EVER be the 'good' guy. Generally I see parson as leading stanleys forces to victory over Ansom brilliantly led forces.

Also I run towards the guy with goblins, dragons, and zombies, just because it seems like the side that would better work with my ideas.

[ag30476]

Some observations:
- Any comment involving "Tolkienesque" view of the world is only two steps away from invoking Godwin's Law.

Yes but he started it.

- "Good" and "Bad" are very relative terms (remember Wicked), so in terms of any story, goodness is in the eye of the protagonist. And we all know who that is.

How come every web comic discussion has to devolve into some kind of philosophical argument? First, just because there are different points of view on "goodness" and "badness" doesn't mean there are different "goodness"-es and "badness"-es. I'm sure that if you took a poll of major villians in and out of fiction, a significant number would answer "No" to the question "Do you consider yourself evil?" (And I know I'm skirting Godwin's law on that one but how can you not?)

But aside all that, there are only two point of view that count in the story towards determine the "good" and the "bad", the author's and the reader's. In that light, character POV's are a means of communication.

[jindra34]

Yes but he started it.


How come every web comic discussion has to devolve into some kind of philosophical argument? First, just because there are different points of view on "goodness" and "badness" doesn't mean there are different "goodness"-es and "badness"-es. I'm sure that if you took a poll of major villians in and out of fiction, a significant number would answer "No" to the question "Do you consider yourself evil?" (And I know I'm skirting Godwin's law on that one but how can you not?)

But aside all that, there are only two point of view that count in the story towards determine the "good" and the "bad", the author's and the reader's. In that light, character POV's are a means of communication.

Actually the two POV's that matter are Rob and Jamie's. Our views are interpretive. Their views are defining.

[ag30476]

Actually the two POV's that matter are Rob and Jamie's. Our views are interpretive. Their views are defining.

Of course. But if the reader's interpretive POV did not matter at all, then the whole exercise in communication would be rather...boring. For ex, a 1000 years from now, some Internet archeaologist stumbling across Erfworld in the then long the forgotten .com domain could still engage Rob and Jamie through its AI's interpretive POV.

[SteveMB]

Of course. But if the reader's interpretive POV did not matter at all, then the whole exercise in communication would be rather...boring. For ex, a 1000 years from now, some Internet archeaologist stumbling across Erfworld in the then long the forgotten .com domain could still engage Rob and Jamie through its AI's interpretive POV.

One hopes for the interpreter's sake that Net references describing millenium-old pop-culture references have not been deleted for lacking sufficient notability....

[ag30476]

One hopes for the interpreter's sake that Net references describing millenium-old pop-culture references have not been deleted for lacking sufficient notability....

Archeological Unit 97019111 reporting: With 95% certainty, the webcomic Erfworld was the hero-myth of a cult hamster worshippers...

[fangthane]

Some thoughts...

1. Unless it's carried forward to other media, there will be no sign in 100 years, let alone 1000, that Erfworld ever existed as a concept. It'll be low-priority for internet storage within a few decades. This, of course, assumes the internet continues to exist. If we nuke ourselves or a dino-killer hits, it won't outlast the Big One by more than a year tops. But CDs last about a decade or two, hard drives less, and any other storage (other than etching 101110101 into titanium) is generally less reliable still.

2. Game. All the rules are game-related. The denizens of Erf may not see it as a game since it's their life and livelihood, but as external observers we can see that its ground rules are effectively similar to those of a game. That said, it's presented similarly to something like an immersive simulation despite its (apparently) relatively simple rules. Essentially, it's one hell of a virtual interface on a game with what seems a fairly simple wargame rule set. If only Ansom had Ventrilo or Teamspeak.

3. Parson is just like Paladin (MK:FS/S - T. Brooks). And the Ringthane (CoTCtU 1/2/3 - S. R. Donaldson). And almost every realistic, well-written "catapulted to another world" protagonist. Which means that until and unless he's convinced of Erf's solidity and reality, he'll continue to treat it (consciously or not) as a game-world, and will treat loss of troops (and battle successes) in the abstract rather than contemplating them as sentient deaths.

4. The Arkentools. Who's to say that anyone but a Titan could attune more than one? Perhaps, for all Stanley's grandiose ambitions to unite the Arkentools, he's going to require trustworthy underlings to handle the others? Perhaps, for all the displayed power of the Hammer, other tools will turn out to be more powerful or filled with rule-breaking goodness. If anything, I suspect that Parson's freedom is more likely to come through the Arkentools than any other avenue, even if it's indirect.

[ag30476]

Some thoughts...

1. Unless it's carried forward to other media, there will be no sign in 100 years, let alone 1000, that Erfworld ever existed as a concept. It'll be low-priority for internet storage within a few decades. This, of course, assumes the internet continues to exist. If we nuke ourselves or a dino-killer hits, it won't outlast the Big One by more than a year tops. But CDs last about a decade or two, hard drives less, and any other storage (other than etching 101110101 into titanium) is generally less reliable still.

And how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

3. Parson is just like Paladin (MK:FS/S - T. Brooks). And the Ringthane (CoTCtU 1/2/3 - S. R. Donaldson). And almost every realistic, well-written "catapulted to another world" protagonist. Which means that until and unless he's convinced of Erf's solidity and reality, he'll continue to treat it (consciously or not) as a game-world, and will treat loss of troops (and battle successes) in the abstract rather than contemplating them as sentient deaths.

Wait aren't you the guy who said

This assumption that good must triumph and evil lose is offensive. Part of why I thought Traffic was a particularly good movie, and why I thought 300 was good but would have been better if it were about 5 minutes shorter.

Part of it is that it sets up an unrealistic expectation among adolescents, who 'go postal' when they find out Real Life don't work that way. Part of it is that I identify with a lot of traits typically labeled as "evil" and I'd like to see my boys do well in the late-game rather than losing with front-loaded successes.

4. The Arkentools. Who's to say that anyone but a Titan could attune more than one? Perhaps, for all Stanley's grandiose ambitions to unite the Arkentools, he's going to require trustworthy underlings to handle the others? Perhaps, for all the displayed power of the Hammer, other tools will turn out to be more powerful or filled with rule-breaking goodness. If anything, I suspect that Parson's freedom is more likely to come through the Arkentools than any other avenue, even if it's indirect.

On that we can agree.

[fangthane]

And how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Oooookaaaaay... I presume you disagree in some manner with my assertion that there will be no future architects digging through electronic-form media from our era and reconstituting them? Based on the lifespan of the devices we use to store data, relative to the condition in which we find thousand-year-old artifacts, unless someone laminates the whole thing it's not lasting long enough for architects to find. If you disagree, g'head - but how about doing so concisely, rather than posting silly questions about small mammals?

(my stuff about Parson seeing Erf as a delusion until he's unequivocally convinced of its reality)
Wait aren't you the guy who said
(my stuff from the other thread, about how offensive good-always-wins plotlines are)

Yes... Yes, I did. I presume from your having mentioned it that you either find something particularly suitable about the juxtaposition, or something particularly jarring or ironic in some way, or you wouldn't have mentioned the two quotes without context. So what does the concept of being offended by simplistic, good-always-triumphs plotlines have to do with the notion that a well-written, realistic protagonist in a transfer-between-worlds plot will generally see game-like or fantasy-like referents as justification for the "new" world's unreality? I'd have thought they'd be unrelated notions.

On that we can agree.

It's good to see that we can at least agree on the idea that the Tools are one of the primary wild-cards; and of course, given that they're the only "in-game" mechanism likely to permit rules to be broken, they may have the power, if used correctly, to accomplish any number of "escapes" for Parson from his servitude.

[ag30476]

Oooookaaaaay... I presume you disagree in some manner with my assertion that there will be no future architects digging through electronic-form media from our era and reconstituting them? Based on the lifespan of the devices we use to store data, relative to the condition in which we find thousand-year-old artifacts, unless someone laminates the whole thing it's not lasting long enough for architects to find. If you disagree, g'head - but how about doing so concisely, rather than posting silly questions about small mammals?

No I just meant that my supposition about the future of the Internet was just a dumb joke: a facetious example to my point that a reader's point of view is valid even if the writer's point of view is lost in time, that there is always a communication between reader and writer and that's what's important, not just the author's POV. Now as an someone who has worked in IT for 15 years or more, I'm fully aware of the problems with preserving data especially the massive amounts that are generated on the Internet. My furry comment was just my abrasive way of saying "Why should we talk about such a complex and dry topic like long term data preservation on this forum?"

Yes... Yes, I did. I presume from your having mentioned it that you either find something particularly suitable about the juxtaposition, or something particularly jarring or ironic in some way, or you wouldn't have mentioned the two quotes without context. So what does the concept of being offended by simplistic, good-always-triumphs plotlines have to do with the notion that a well-written, realistic protagonist in a transfer-between-worlds plot will generally see game-like or fantasy-like referents as justification for the "new" world's unreality? I'd have thought they'd be unrelated notions.

Except that, first, the two are related...by you...You say

This assumption that good must triumph and evil lose is offensive.

But you also say

Parson is just like Paladin (MK:FS/S - T. Brooks). And the Ringthane (CoTCtU 1/2/3 - S. R. Donaldson). And almost every realistic, well-written "catapulted to another world" protagonist. Which means that until and unless he's convinced of Erf's solidity and reality, he'll continue to treat it (consciously or not) as a game-world, and will treat loss of troops (and battle successes) in the abstract rather than contemplating them as sentient deaths.

Now a usual way to interpret "contemplating ... sentient deaths" is "caring" or "good-heartedness" or to put it tritely as being "good".

You see no juxtaposition in what you wrote?

And second you wrote sorry to quote again

Parson is just like Paladin (MK:FS/S - T. Brooks). And the Ringthane (CoTCtU 1/2/3 - S. R. Donaldson). And almost every realistic, well-written "catapulted to another world" protagonist. Which means that until and unless he's convinced of Erf's solidity and reality, he'll continue to treat it (consciously or not) as a game-world, and will treat loss of troops (and battle successes) in the abstract rather than contemplating them as sentient deaths.

In the first post in this thread, I wrote

In other words, Parson must win the game but not treat Erfworld like it was just another one of his games. Parson must learn to care about Erfworld like he should have cared about his "real world".

In the first post in the thread started by Arameus, he writes

1a: Parson, despite his stated preference of playing as the bad guy, must eventually face the terrors of Stanley's tyranny and the cruelty his reign entails, except this time not in the form of a mere game, but in a world and among people he has come to accept as real. Thus he defects, unable to bear the burden of furthering such a state of affairs.

You see no similarity in what we all wrote?

Yet you came in after Arameus posted "The inmost core of my theory is that The Good Guy, Parson, must win, and the Bad Guy, Stanley, must lose." The implication then in that thread is that you were against Aramerus original proposition not just his views on good and evil.

It's good to see that we can at least agree on the idea that the Tools are one of the primary wild-cards; and of course, given that they're the only "in-game" mechanism likely to permit rules to be broken, they may have the power, if used correctly, to accomplish any number of "escapes" for Parson from his servitude.

Agreeing with someone else does not have to be a black and white proposition.

But the arkentools can be McGuffins or plot devices as best serve the story. That's the great thing about fantasy/sci-fi objects. The real wild card IMHO is Jillian. Which side is she really on?

[fangthane]

Gotcha - I've worked in IT for a while too so when I saw what seemed to be a foolish assumption that ephemeral data would persist... Well, you know.

I see now what you missed, or about which I wasn't clear enough, or whatever the case may be...

I don't see Parson as being a particularly good guy. He's antisocial, probably borderline sociopathic, hates his Real Life, and enjoys playing the bad guy. I guess I see enough of myself in that (not that I hate my life, but it could always be better) to have assumed that he's got a fair bit of moral ambiguity about him. Understanding that the 'game losses' entail dead sentient beings is a starting point to elaborate upon that ambiguity, because until he does there's no real way to find out whether he'd be willing to throw away units to achieve a sufficiently valuable objective. Or whether he'd be willing to risk his own neck to reduce casualties, or any number of other options.

I just don't necessarily agree that his kindnesses to individual units (Bogroll, Misty, etc) indicate goodness per se, more than they indicate a general desire to display good manners and 'go along to get along.' I note that despite the notion that Misty being subsumed within the Trimancer, he agrees not to perturb the trio again. That in itself says that he's not convinced of the units' reality to the extent he'd be willing to risk his own life (or, more likely from his perspective at the moment, his sanity) to 'right a wrong' in any case. His acceptance that Erf is real, once it comes, will herald the beginning of the end for that ambiguity; how he reacts to what he believes are game tokens does not. Even Ned Flanders could contemplate removing game pieces with equanimity. Well, okay, almost anyone else, anyhow - after all, he's a bit hypersensitive. What matters to notions of 'good' or 'evil' is how people react when they know (or believe, deep down) those are not game pieces but real people.

[ag30476]

Gotcha - I've worked in IT for a while too

I'm glad one of us escaped. But it's too late for me...leave me...go on and save yourself...

I don't see Parson as being a particularly good guy. He's antisocial, probably borderline sociopathic, hates his Real Life, and enjoys playing the bad guy. I guess I see enough of myself in that (not that I hate my life, but it could always be better) to have assumed that he's got a fair bit of moral ambiguity about him. Understanding that the 'game losses' entail dead sentient beings is a starting point to elaborate upon that ambiguity, because until he does there's no real way to find out whether he'd be willing to throw away units to achieve a sufficiently valuable objective. Or whether he'd be willing to risk his own neck to reduce casualties, or any number of other options.

I just don't necessarily agree that his kindnesses to individual units (Bogroll, Misty, etc) indicate goodness per se, more than they indicate a general desire to display good manners and 'go along to get along.' I note that despite the notion that Misty being subsumed within the Trimancer, he agrees not to perturb the trio again. That in itself says that he's not convinced of the units' reality to the extent he'd be willing to risk his own life (or, more likely from his perspective at the moment, his sanity) to 'right a wrong' in any case. His acceptance that Erf is real, once it comes, will herald the beginning of the end for that ambiguity; how he reacts to what he believes are game tokens does not. Even Ned Flanders could contemplate removing game pieces with equanimity. Well, okay, almost anyone else, anyhow - after all, he's a bit hypersensitive. What matters to notions of 'good' or 'evil' is how people react when they know (or believe, deep down) those are not game pieces but real people.

Amazingly now it seems we are in almost perfect and civil agreement.

[SteveMB]

I just don't necessarily agree that his kindnesses to individual units (Bogroll, Misty, etc) indicate goodness per se, more than they indicate a general desire to display good manners and 'go along to get along.' I note that despite the notion that Misty being subsumed within the Trimancer, he agrees not to perturb the trio again.

To be fair, he was told that a possible consequence of disturbing them was that it "may croak the casters" (or "leave them useless", which under Stanley's rule is probably the same thing -- he isn't going to keep paying their upkeep if they aren't doing him any good).

[Lamech]

I'm guessing that if the eyemancer's were left useless they would be sent out to the front lines like Stanley was going to do with Parson. Also I'm assuming that the link might be undone after the eyemancers link wasn't nessacary because of making enough magic items or conquering the world. If I agreed to join in a link up and it was broken and left me useless I would be really really mad.

[Arameus]

On ephemeral data: About twenty years ago, The Domesday Book commissioned by William the Conqueror was recorded to computer, along with a myriad of pictures, interviews, video, and all manner of media to discuss the importance of this book and about the book itself.

The format in which all this data was stored is now obsolete and entirely unreadable, to the horror of those who preserved it. It may as well never have existed. By contrast, the Domesday Book itself, written in 1086, can be found and read at the British National Archives.

Moving on. Erfworld is definitely not a game. Something must have physically happened to Parson in the real world, as his disappearance was viewed by his friends. That may have been a hallucination by him, however the comic also shows the events in his house after he disappears, including the magic's blue aftereffect, a scene of which Parson should have no memory even if he is hallucinating. If he remembered this scene, he would realize he shouldn't have knowledge of it and know it IS a dream. On then other hand, since he can't, it proves that events occur independently of Parson's point of view even after he has left the world, meaning that he really must have disappeared.

Parson will soon realize/accept that Erfworld is indeed real. He will develop ties and relationships to the people around him and this will instill in him a sense of reality that will probably be finalized when something major happens that affects these developed emotions, ie, he sees Wanda's sadism or Stanley's ambition expressed in a way that just can't sit right with him.

[Scientivore]

On ephemeral data: About twenty years ago, The Domesday Book commissioned by William the Conqueror was recorded to computer, along with a myriad of pictures, interviews, video, and all manner of media to discuss the importance of this book and about the book itself.

The format in which all this data was stored is now obsolete and entirely unreadable, to the horror of those who preserved it. It may as well never have existed. By contrast, the Domesday Book itself, written in 1086, can be found and read at the British National Archives.

That sounded interesting so I looked it up. Although the 1986 BBC Domesday Project is cited as an example of "digital obsolescence", I think that it would be better described as an example of "hybrid fragility".

If it had been purely digital -- like the new version of the Community disc, or like the new searchable text and page scans of the books themselves -- then it would've been easily copied and translated into new formats. If it had been purely analog -- like the videotape masters that were fortunately still available for making the new version, or like the physical books -- then it would've been less format-dependent in the first place. The BBC's hybrid design tied the proper presentation of the end product to the exact specifications of customized equipment.

Basically, it was the kind of mistake that would've only been made by people with more money than sense. I use the past tense because now only people with more money than sanity would design an interactive video presentation for the general public so that it requires custom electronics.

[ralphmerridew]

I'm not so sure that http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html says Stanley started the war.

I'm reading "Since you began questing for the other Arkentools, we have not won a battle." as "We had won battles early on, but since you prioritized the Arkentools over ________, we haven't won any since."