Erfworld Thread VII: No Consensus, Left Unsealed

[Felius]

Sigh... I love Erfworld and all, but really, they really need to reduce the amount of (wall of) text updates. It feels like it's being used as a crutch, and not even any close to well at that. Mind you, I'm not a fan of "decompressed comics" either, but right now Erfworld feels like a great story being told in "mediocrely written Light Novel" format.

Just had to vent a bit about it, with the recent continual text updates...

[Kornaki]

Any chance Caesar can just turn Parson into a vampire spawn? Cut out the need for the turnamancet?

[Narkis]

Not likely. We haven't seen any indication about that in the comic, and the vampire's blood sucking has already been mentioned as an intimidation tactic.

And Ceasar looks awesome in the last panel. Very... Overlord-y.

[Killer Angel]

Vampires should excel in spy games. You know, The Masquerade, and all that jazz...

[guttering flame]

Does Transilvito have a Brutus warlord? Or the king's upcoming heir will be called that?

If I was Parson, my advise to Ceasar would be to change his name to Augustus.

(Unless Ceasar is a reference to Renaissance-Ceasar?)

[-D-]

Well parts of that were particularly relevant to the conversation at hand.

Attacking under truce. Such a convention, much abiding. It seems putting your pinky up when drinking tea is a stronger.

Sigh... I love Erfworld and all, but really, they really need to reduce the amount of (wall of) text updates. It feels like it's being used as a crutch, and not even any close to well at that.

Just had to vent a bit about it, with the recent continual text updates...

I feel ya. I felt that ever since Lauri came on board. With such superb art and coloring, you can really see in stark contrast how bad writing is. Book 3 is so far my least favorite.

Every time Rob posts a text wall, pacing gets hit in the kneecaps.

[Jasdoif]

We agree on this. I'm not sure what the disagreement is, if there is one, but it's probably not worth teasing out.

Probably some fine point between "interpretation of Fate that is meaningless" and "interpretation of Fate that, if accurate, makes Fate meaningless". But since we're already on the same page, I agree there's no distinction to be drawn.


In the interests of the original topic....I think the issue is rather the opposite: There's a very narrow band where Fate shoves the things it has an interest in. It's most prevalent with Parson, but I've also seen the pattern with Jillian, Wanda, Lilith, Stanley....: They get shoved into odds that should be insurmountable. They execute a plan that works against the odds anyway, just for things to suddenly turn against them when their failure becomes improbable. And then some previously-unknown or external factor gets involved to turn the failure into a narrow victory, at a personal cost. Fate seems intent on throwing them through dangerous circumstances intact, but stops them from personally coming out ahead in the aftermath.

That's not just a simple nebulous force, tweaking numbers in a beneficial fashion. It's not even a stretch that Jojo personifies Fate, as an entity that can be negotiated with. But therein lies the complication: We effectively have another character, with an interest in preserving its toys while also keeping those toys from establishing independence, that can cause precise circumstances wherever it sees fit. Entire disciplines of magic are dedicated to dealing with it, yet we've never actually "met" this Fate character...who really seems to be the deciding factor in any conflicts it chooses to get involved with, without regard to whatever the people directly in the conflict might want to say about it.

It worked out fine in Book 1. Because it makes sense that a spell capable of bringing someone into another reality would enforce the "compelled to obey Ruler" aspect of that reality to get Parson involved, the whole point of the coalition was to crush Gobwin Knob with numbers so the odds of unlucky breaks were already high, and Parson ultimately did come up with Operation Zombvolcano on his own. From then on though, where Fate drops debris or raises protective bubbles or whatever...well, it seems Erfworld is currently at its most interesting as a setting for other stories, because the main story centers on characters that Fate routinely deprives of the costs and benefits of their actions. The comic even talks about this sort of thing itself.

Maybe this is all a big setup for a huge sundering of Fate itself down the road. Maybe the direct intervention of Fate is supposed to cut down on the time spent between important/interesting scenes, compared to setting up more natural explanations (a dangerous tradeoff if you ask me). Maybe a force capable of interfering with any sequence of events serves as the plot equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card. Maybe it simply isn't as big a deal as it looks like. I can't say. What I can say, is that it's really hard to fault anyone for feeling that Fate undercuts the story by undercutting the characters in the story.

[Landis963]

Does Transilvito have a Brutus warlord? Or the king's upcoming heir will be called that?

If I was Parson, my advise to Ceasar would be to change his name to Augustus.

(Unless Ceasar is a reference to Renaissance-Ceasar?)

Caesar Borgata is undoubtedly a reference to Cesare Borgia (Otherwise known as the Big Bad of AC: Brotherhood).

[Anteros]

Attacking under truce. Such a convention, much abiding. It seems putting your pinky up when drinking tea is a stronger.

I pretty much feel like Rob deliberately put that in to deflect a common criticism of how crappy a person Parson is, but whatever. If he says it's incredibly common in Erfworld despite all previous indications of other sides being horrified by their behavior then he's the creator and we'll roll with it.

[Douglas]

I pretty much feel like Rob deliberately put that in to deflect a common criticism of how crappy a person Parson is, but whatever. If he says it's incredibly common in Erfworld despite all previous indications of other sides being horrified by their behavior then he's the creator and we'll roll with it.

Erfworld rulers engaging in rampant hypocrisy on the subject would not surprise me. The distinction between "a clever tactic" and "a despicable honorless betrayal" could all too easily be in who did it, not in what was done.

[eschmenk]

Erfworld rulers engaging in rampant hypocrisy on the subject would not surprise me. The distinction between "a clever tactic" and "a despicable honorless betrayal" could all too easily be in who did it, not in what was done.

That's what I would expect, too. In particular, the Lord Crush story seems to be consistent with treachery being normal historically, according to the books in the libraries.

[Aquillion]

I pretty much feel like Rob deliberately put that in to deflect a common criticism of how crappy a person Parson is, but whatever. If he says it's incredibly common in Erfworld despite all previous indications of other sides being horrified by their behavior then he's the creator and we'll roll with it.

Have other sides been horrified by it, though?

The only side that was really upset seems to have been Jetstone, who is hardly in a position to be neutral; and even then, Tremannis' reaction seems to be "I know how you are now, so I'll be cautious" rather than "AAARGH TRAITOROUS SCUM, DIE." Translyvito seems to be more pissed about the end results of Parson's actions (killing allies) rather than the means. The Magic Kingdom is mostly pissed that the violations of its neutrality risk people there getting killed (which is, as we've seen, an entirely reasonable thing to be upset about.)

Likewise, Jillian only cares when they're killing people she cares about. Charlie doesn't seem to care (though of course he does worse). Nobody within Gobwin Knob has suggested that it's particularly shocking or unusual (aside from Sizemore protesting the violation of the Magic Kingdom's neutrality, which, as we've seen, was partially because he personally had a huge amount to lose there; and partially because, as he said, that one was genuinely unprecedented.)

Erfworld is a game-based world, as Jack (implicitly) points out, and backstabbing and treachery are common in those games. It doesn't make the other players trust you, but most players react more like Tremannis ("that sucked, I'm going to be more cautious with you in the future") than anything else. In a diplomacy-based strategy game, responding to a betrayal with irrational levels of hatred and refusing to ever deal with the offender again is an easy way to lose, because it means you'll miss opportunities that could have let you recover.

[Kornaki]

In book 0, Goodminton was screwed over by both Haffaton and its other enemies during truce. Caesar is planning to take out FAQ while they are allies. Charlie we have seen is equally willing to take out Gobwin Knob during truce. Wanda threw her own side under the bus at FAQ. These all seem to be actions that are on the same order as what Parson has done.

[Razade]

Doesn't look we're going to settle the Fate discussion, the civilians one however I can put to rest because I asked Rob, or who ever runs their twitter, specifically. The answer was such.

There is a type of noncombatant unit called Courtier but they're still a valid strategic target because they help the side.

[Anteros]

Doesn't look we're going to settle the Fate discussion, the civilians one however I can put to rest because I asked Rob, or who ever runs their twitter, specifically. The answer was such.

Kinda like saying that bombing a factory or hospital isn't attacking civilians since they serve a purpose for their side. I'm not sure I want to go down the road of equating morality with strategic convenience.

Still, we seem to have Rob's view on this that Parson isn't any worse than other sides in erfworld so that's probably enough to table the conversation for now.

[DigoDragon]

Sigh... I love Erfworld and all, but really, they really need to reduce the amount of (wall of) text updates. It feels like it's being used as a crutch, and not even any close to well at that. Mind you, I'm not a fan of "decompressed comics" either, but right now Erfworld feels like a great story being told in "mediocrely written Light Novel" format.

Yeah, they are getting pretty text heavy. I'd like to see more art.

[Aquillion]

You know... It's far far too late for this now, but you know what GK should have done?

They should have offered to buy corpses from other sides. You bring them a corpse through the Magic Kingdom, they pay you a flat fee, no questions asked. They could buy corpses from anyone anywhere in the world! Obviously having to bring corpses back to your portal would be a problem, but plenty of distant sides who have no other interactions with Gobwin Knob would probably be happy to sell them corpses (especially enemy corpses!)

[Razade]

You know... It's far far too late for this now, but you know what GK should have done?

They should have offered to buy corpses from other sides. You bring them a corpse through the Magic Kingdom, they pay you a flat fee, no questions asked. They could buy corpses from anyone anywhere in the world! Obviously having to bring corpses back to your portal would be a problem, but plenty of distant sides who have no other interactions with Gobwin Knob would probably be happy to sell them corpses (especially enemy corpses!)

Don't corpses depop at the end of their owners turn?

Kinda like saying that bombing a factory or hospital isn't attacking civilians since they serve a purpose for their side. I'm not sure I want to go down the road of equating morality with strategic convenience.

Still, we seem to have Rob's view on this that Parson isn't any worse than other sides in erfworld so that's probably enough to table the conversation for now.

It's not a road we need to go down. Erfworld is not Stupid World. The rules are different and I don't just mean the Rules of Engagement but the Rules of Reality. Applying Stupid World Rules on Erfworld is absurd. Applying Stupid World Morality to Erfworld is absurd. But yes, we've got Rob's personal and direct response not just via twitter but also via comic it would seem.

[SZbNAhL]

Don't corpses depop at the end of their owners turn?

Not if somebody moves them.

[eschmenk]

Don't corpses depop at the end of their owners turn?

The ones that aren't claimed and used for something else depop at the start of the side's next turn. It's the same time as when they would have been healed and cleaned had they survived.

[Anteros]

Don't corpses depop at the end of their owners turn?



It's not a road we need to go down. Erfworld is not Stupid World. The rules are different and I don't just mean the Rules of Engagement but the Rules of Reality. Applying Stupid World Rules on Erfworld is absurd. Applying Stupid World Morality to Erfworld is absurd. But yes, we've got Rob's personal and direct response not just via twitter but also via comic it would seem.

I don't get this argument. Parson is from our world. If you travel to some other place, do you change your morality to fit? If you somehow got transported to ancient Rome would you feel justified in owning slaves? Or pillaging your way across the countryside? Or whatever horrible thing you can think of another culture doing?

Parson applying his own views and rules onto Erfworld is the entire point of the story.

[SZbNAhL]

If you somehow got transported to ancient Rome would you feel justified in owning slaves? Or pillaging your way across the countryside? Or whatever horrible thing you can think of another culture doing?

You mean doing as the Romans do when in Rome? I believe that's actually a rather common piece of advice.

[Anteros]

You mean doing as the Romans do when in Rome? I believe that's actually a rather common piece of advice.

Hurr durr. Hilarious. That's a saying stating you should try to fit in to the culture around you. Its not meant to excuse every tiny moral failing on the basis of peer pressure.

Could you imagine someone visiting Darfur, taking part in the systemic genocides being comitted, and then coming home and using the excuse "Everyone was doing it! When in Rome, lol!" Apply some common sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

I can perfectly imagine that because things like that have actually happened. Not all people are moral paragons; in terms of Kohlberg's morsl theory, half of humans never get past stage 3, and stage 3 is practically defined by caving under peer pressure.

[-D-]

Hurr durr. Hilarious. That's a saying stating you should try to fit in to the culture around you. Its not meant to excuse every tiny moral failing on the basis of peer pressure.

Kinda. Depends on your goal in life.

In ancient Rome you wouldn't be considered, Anteros the wise, but as that one poor(no slaves, does stuff manually) preachy guy, with bad oral hygiene.

Also in cannibalistic tribes, you'd probably be "the skinny one we ate during famine, once he got sickly looking".

Not participating in the genocide would probably earn you a 9 caliber tattoo, since you could demoralize other, or be a snitch.

[Razade]

I don't get this argument. Parson is from our world. If you travel to some other place, do you change your morality to fit? If you somehow got transported to ancient Rome would you feel justified in owning slaves? Or pillaging your way across the countryside? Or whatever horrible thing you can think of another culture doing?

Parson applying his own views and rules onto Erfworld is the entire point of the story.

Parson is from our world, him applying his views to Erfworld is one of, not the entire, point of the story we agree. However.

Could you imagine someone visiting Darfur, taking part in the systemic genocides being committed, and then coming home and using the excuse "Everyone was doing it! When in Rome, lol!" Apply some common sense.

Your premise fails I'm afraid because Darfur exists in our world. So did Ancient Rome. Erfworld is not our world and not only their culture but their entire moral system are not tied to the evolution of society that we as a species shares collectively with one another. It is an alien world and its laws and rules are not ours. I'm not saying whether I think Parson is immoral. I'm saying he's not immoral to Erfworld and that in the course of the story is what matters.

[Lethologica]

I don't get this argument. Parson is from our world. If you travel to some other place, do you change your morality to fit? If you somehow got transported to ancient Rome would you feel justified in owning slaves? Or pillaging your way across the countryside? Or whatever horrible thing you can think of another culture doing?

Parson applying his own views and rules onto Erfworld is the entire point of the story.

Morality is often contextual--which isn't the same as saying that one should fit one's morality to the place you're in. So I agree that we can't simply apply Erfworld's morality to Parson to determine how we should judge Parson. But we also can't ignore the fact that Parson is in a very different world, where the differences in expected behavior extend right down to the world's very bones, and so simply applying Stupidworld morality to Parson's Erfworld behavior doesn't necessarily work either. If treachery is the norm in Erfworld, for example, how much weight can Parson afford to put on the agreements he makes?

I agree that Parson applying his views and rules onto Erfworld is a major theme of the story. But that doesn't mean everything is applied completely and harmoniously from the get-go. Parson applied his ingenuity to save Gobwin Knob (or at least the side), but that same ingenuity trapped him (to some degree) from simply escaping at the end. Of course, the comic also tells us Parson wanted, on some level, to cause that catastrophe. Is that because he's a terrible person? Maybe. Because another notable theme of the comic is the conflict between Parson's intellect and his morality.

[SuperPanda]

In the case of this story - Parson's morality is important and erfworld's is less so.

Parson seemed genuinely interested in Jannis's goal of world peace. Charlie (pre-dish) was apparently very similar to Parson (making our rogue thinkamancer's concern that Parson in victory could be just as dangerous as Charlie a very strongly founded concern).

The comic has had lots of fun with signamancy, even to the point of lampshading that Parson is on (and enjoys being on) the traditionally "evil" side and fights against the traditionally "good" side.

I can't even think of any Charlie forms charlie has taken that aren't from "stupid-world" good-guy sides.
Charlie Brown - protagonist, all around good guy.
Street Fighter Charie - one of the heroes fighting against M.Bison.
Charles Xavier - mentor of the heroes, moral compass of the team
Charles DeGaulle - Allied military leader in WWII
Charlie's Angels - hidden benevolent leader.
The Wizard of OZ - debatable (especially from the point of view of Wicked) - but we also have Dorthy as a heroin and the "wicked witches" as actual opposing sides. Charlie "the Wizard" was presented as sympathetic, kind, clever, and seeking a peaceful world (and really really similar to Parson).

Now Charlie has the power to control how he is seen (though I think there is at least one Charlie Brown signamancy that was in real world - not thinkspace) so him projecting himself as a hero makes sense.

Conflict wise we have:
Charlie vs. Parson - not very interesting in itself. Charlie has near limitless resources, near limitless information, and has a near limitless number of surprises. Parson has Fate on his side and from what we've seen so far that means he will win even if he does't want to. This brings us to:

Parson vs Fate - Back at the end of Book 1, Parson declared war on the rules of Erfworld when he threw away his sword and managed to curse despite "not being able to." While this has been largely forgotten since - it was a huge moment in his character. The bit with Janis's warlord to end all wars suggests he might declare war on "fate" eventually and that would be a very interesting fight. Our personifications of Fate have been Delphie, Olive, Wanda, and Ansom - all three shown as negative when speaking about Fate. Those who fight against Fate have been Wanda (as a hero), Jillian, Charlie, Jo-jo, and Parson (briefly before he forgot about it).

The Great Minds vs Charlie - The GMs are basically Charlie 2.0. Secretive, powerful, interested in control for its own sake. Self-righteous. One of the GMs see Parson as a Charlie level threat because he A) knows too much and B) is a very capable warlord whose plans might not allign with their own. The GMs have no interest in conflicts at a "lower" level than their own - no interest in peace - no interest in helping anyone.

Jannis vs War - This has been teased a few times but without much development. It would tie in nicely to Parson vs Fate though.

The Signamancy seems to always fall with "Fate" being the "bad-guy" and by extension the erfworld morality is the "bad-guy." Parson embracing "Fate" would make him the villain of the story when I think most of us are interested in seeing him grow into a hero.

I think Jack wants that too. Jack is from the court of FAQ - (the one place in Erfworld which developed "stupid world" morality). He's very much modeled on Shakespearian fools who were usually the wisest people in the story and the only ones to speak in hard-truths. Jack seems to be trying to get Parson to equate his own "immoral" behaviors with erf-world in general. The questions is: Is Jack doing this to make Parson immoral and therefore a better warlord or is he doing this to make Parson think more about what he wants his impact on erfworld to be. Both are possible - but I think Jack might be trying to use Parson's disgust to show him that he still has a chance to make a name for himself as "a better man."

[The Glyphstone]

Have any of Charlie Sheen's roles been 'good guys'? That was his persona in the last update we saw of him.

[Landis963]

Also, the scene with Clone Slately had him taking all sorts of bad-guy roles: Palpatine and the Joker come to mind immediately, but I know there are others.