The Big Switch

[Arameus]

See if anyone is with me on this idea. I can only hope no one's already done a thread on this, as some of you readers are very astute.

There are many laws of all plot from which stories, even great ones, rarely deviate. The good guy always wins, the hero always gets the girl, that damned submarine will never, ever, ever get away. This has led me to consider what seems like an inevitability for Erfworld: Parson changing sides to Ansom.

Let's review. Stanley has one city, and barely enough of an army to defend it even with frickin' dwagons and a million natural advantages the city itself has for the defender. Even if Stanley/Parson wins the Battle for Gobwin Knob, there is little if anything that they can do in the way of re-expansion. The treasury is almost empty, the city alone won't produce nearly enough units for an invasion fleet, and if Ansom is defeated here, he (or, Titans forbid, his replacement) will certainly not make the mistake of underestimating his enemy twice, even given his Heroic Flaw of hubris. Ansom's alliance certainly doesn't seem to be hurting for units, and even if the siege experiences catastrophic failure, they can still stop Stanley at any city he might try and take just by virtue of sheer numbers.

The only kink in this is that Parson is, apparently, unbeatable. Even with the threadbare knowledge he has about his new home, he has performed swimmingly at every turn. The siege is already seriously threatened and has sustained not a small amount of damage. With Hamster on his side, Stanley has to win. Period. And this cannot occur.

It's the oldest line in cinema: The good guy always wins. This is for several reasons. Does "Bad guy gains ultimate power and rules world, The End" sound like a good story to you? Not to me. There is NO story if Stanley wins, at least if he wins permanently. That is why it seems that the only option is for Parson to switch sides.

If Hamster gets on Ansom's side, he would have to overcome the challenges that he himself had set in place for Ansom's army. I imagine that at the point in the story at which this could happen, Ansom's army would be fairly devastated, with Gobwin Knob (or at leasts its so-called leadership) having gained tremendous advantages and insights. Under these challenges, especially with the dramatic irony of having to endure his self-wrought crucible, he would once again overcome all odds and destroy the bad guy, once and for all. Now THERE is story. And if he switches, would, could Ansom accept the service of a man who had so vexed and bedeviled him, and likely caused the death of not only countless troops of his but also a few of his best friends and companions? If that isn't story, I'll tear out my eyes and ears and never take in media again.

The circumstances under which this switch could take place are very open-ended, but here are a couple of my favorite scenarios.

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.

1b: Alternately, this conviction leads him to engineer events that cause Stanley's downfall without actually defecting. Even so, he is still Stanley's enemy at this juncture, and I can just bet he won't be able to help rooting for Ansom, the enemy of his enemy.

2: Much less likely is that he is simply captured and made part of Ansom's force. This would could happen two ways: Physically captured or magically captured. If physical, it would mean that Parson would have to be either taken from the castle or in a battle. The former would mean that the city has been successfully sieged and is thus a moot point. And I don't really see Parson heading out to the front at any near juncture. Magical capture could mean that the castle is infiltrated covertly, which could almsot certainly only be accomplished magically (although we have yet to learn about any sort of stealth capabilities for units aside from cloaking, which nI don't think would work in this situation), perhaps to try and investigate Stanley's miraculous new groove on the field of battle. This is the only feasible method I can see of a capture, although I can certainly envision a few certainly-doomed alternatives.

Parson defecting, in addition to being the only way forward I can see at this moment, adds too many exciting possibilities to pass up, especially when compared with the simple, dreary (and, in my opinion, boring) alternative. If/when he does defect (I'm almost certain it would happen as a defection), I would be very excited to see who, if anyone, comes with him. After all, Stanley has essentially gained one of Ansom's troops, and a great one at that; why shouldn't Ansom grab another one of his, especially considering the fact that not a few of Stanley's subjects are overjoyed to be where and with whom they are. Sizemore is the likeliest possibility, followed by Bogroll. I would love to see the repercussions of a defection by Wanda, but I view this as an essential impossibility for a few reasons I won't mention now.

The only Arkenwrench in the machine, and it's a doozy, is that whole thing about Parson's disobedience equalling Parson's instantaneous death. The easiest way around this would be Stanley's own death, which I could definitely see happening. But if that were the case, Wanda would take over Gobwin Knob, and, as much as I like her character, she is evil to the core, and unlike his Toolness she has the mind to back it up. Now THAT's story. And, indeed, if Stanley croaks, it may be that Parson's force obedience would not disappear but merely change masters: Stanley to Wanda. Now THAT's story, too.

Even beyond all of this, there is that great looming unknown with which we all must contend. We, like Parson, simply don't know jack squat about Erfworld. And although this fact makes it nigh-impossible to nail down particulars, I still can't help but feeling certain that Parson will change sides. The idead just resonates with me.

I look forward to having my entire theory ripped apart by all of you. Be gentle.

[jindra34]

Who said Ansom was (in the long run) the good guy?
And who said the Alliance/Coalition could take a big defeat at the last second?

[SteveMB]

It's the oldest line in cinema: The good guy always wins. This is for several reasons. Does "Bad guy gains ultimate power and rules world, The End" sound like a good story to you?

"Good guy destroys bad guy and lives happily ever after" doesn't sound like a good first chapter for a potentially ongoing story, either.

However, a victory for either side needn't be as simple as that....

There is NO story if Stanley wins, at least if he wins permanently.

Sure there is -- "wins" in the context of the current chapter boils down to "survives" (or, if everything goes very well for Stanley, "obtains the Arkenpliers"). That leaves plenty of scope for additional conflict in the future. While you argue, with some valid points, that reconquering his empire would be an uphill struggle, Stanley is almost certain to start attempting it if he wins the current battle -- there's surely plenty of story potential there.

[ag30476]

The only kink in this is that Parson is, apparently, unbeatable. Even with the threadbare knowledge he has about his new home, he has performed swimmingly at every turn. The siege is already seriously threatened and has sustained not a small amount of damage. With Hamster on his side, Stanley has to win. Period. And this cannot occur.

Yeah that's pretty much my view, that Parson has to win but can't let Stanley get his way. See this thread. The only thing I would disagree is that Parson has to defect. There can be many resolutions to this "Parson's dilemna".

[Midgititp]

To be honest, I don't see things as being so inevitable. The Coalition is probably a lot stronger than you give it credit for and even if Parson wins this battle, he must retake all the cities that Stanley lost, cities undoubtably heavily defended.

Besides, I actually don't see either side as being 'good' or 'bad'. Stanley, in a rare moment of brilliance, pointed this out. Stanley is brutal and a megalomaniac, but Ansom is royally arrogant and despises Stanley not for his brutality, but because he is not of noble lineage.

Parson will see this i agree and probably have a big moral crisis but I think that if he was to switch sides to Ansom then it would truly be a cakewalk.

[Arameus]

When I say he wins permanently, ultimately, I mean just that: He obtains the four Arkentools and conquers all Erworld. Which, with Hamster by his side, is nearly a certainty.

It does appear that Ansom has a few ulterior motives. But even at that, they aren't especially devious and are quite understandable. If I were trying to stop a fiendish Overlord from obtaining ultimate sovereignty of the world, I certainly hope you recognize me as the good guy. Ansom is a good person who is loyal to his friends and seems to believe in his cause and is true to his stated purpose: to free the world from the danger of Stanley the Plaid. His only X-factor is a possible capacity for rage that has a small chance of changing this. I personally don't see it happening.

Keep in mind, I'm not merely talking about the first chapter. This is long-run thinking, and thus there are many abstracts involved with which I will do my best to clarify my stance on. The alliance won't be able to rally their army if they take a big defeat, but afterwards when Stanley will without doubt begin retaking his empire (and then some) the factions that form the coalition will likely not have changed their stance on Stanley and, with their sheer number in mind, will probably not take very long to amass a sizable force to combat Stanley's offensive campaign.

Again, in the long-run view I'm trying to take, it wouldn't surprise me if Stanley were to get three or even all of the Arkentools before Parson somehow had to face him. It's certainly a dramatic possibility, made better by the fact that it would certainly be a match for Parson's genius to fight someone who essentially had limitless power.

I remember now that someone pointed out that the Arkenpliers looked too big for anyone but Parson. That was a brilliant observation. As the tools attune themselves to their wielder by choice, it seems highly likely that the Arkenpliers would attune themselves to Hamster, who is the only person they actually could be wielded by as anything more than an overpowered bludgeoning/plying weapon. After all, the Arkenhammer certainly fits Stanley, both in size and in its rather ridiculous (yet powerful) nature.

If, after acquiring the Arkenpliers, they attuned to Hamster and not Stanley, it would cause quite a reaction indeed for his Toolship that could very possibly lead in the direction in which my theory points.

As always, I must stress that any particulars I state about method, time, or circumstances are at best the wild speculations of someone perhaps a bit oversaturated with book and movie experience. The only thing I will stick to unflinchingly is my most basic assertion: that Parson will someday leave Stanley, and probably face (and beat) him.

The good guy always winning is certainly a cliche. But it's what almost all stories of this nature eventually come to, and although some stories take long and fascinating while to get there, it's an outcome that you can nearly always count on. After all, those poor little hobbits took a good many beatings before killing that there ring, but they done it. It's all a matter of time.

[Scientivore]

I agree that Parson hung a lampshade on the exaggerated "bad guy" symbolism of Stanley's side. If we're going to trot out tropes here, [spoilery spec]

Spoiler

Show

Parson's gaming group smells an awful lot like an unfired Chekhov's gun. The alliance has many capitals so it needs many Chief Warlords. Also, it was revealed at some point that his full name is Parson A. Gotti so he's only "a" protagonist, not necessarily "the" protagonist. I think that it's more likely that the alliance members would just summon their own Perfect Warlords who specifically know how Parson thinks (when they figure out what happened) then that they'd try to turn someone else's Chief Warlord. Besides, he's already on the kind of side that he likes to play, complete with outfit and accessories.

If that's the case, I'm looking forward to it. Now that some sympathetic perspectives have been established on Stanley's side, adding some even more sympathetic perspectives to the side with the exaggerated "good guy" symbolism would essentially be a double subversion of the color-coding that was subverted by Parson's summoning.

[sihnfahl]

Parson changing sides to Ansom.

Difficult to do while Stanley's alive. Parson, as a summoned unit, is bound to Stanley. If he disobeys Stanley in any way, he gets sent back. If Stanley orders Parson to leave, he's gone.

Let's review. Stanley has one city, and barely enough of an army to defend it even with frickin' dwagons and a million natural advantages the city itself has for the defender. Even if Stanley/Parson wins the Battle for Gobwin Knob, there is little if anything that they can do in the way of re-expansion.

At the moment.

The treasury is almost empty

I wouldn't count 150,000+ schmuckers as almost empty...

the city alone won't produce nearly enough units for an invasion fleet

It can, but it would presumably take a number of turns to do so; Stanley would still have an income. With Parson 'assisting' the unit build criteria, he could piece together something.

if Ansom is defeated here, he (or, Titans forbid, his replacement) will certainly not make the mistake of underestimating his enemy twice, even given his Heroic Flaw of hubris. Ansom's alliance certainly doesn't seem to be hurting for units, and even if the siege experiences catastrophic failure, they can still stop Stanley at any city he might try and take just by virtue of sheer numbers.

If they know where he's going; remember, Ansom's side has no lookamancers and relies upon scouts to know where Stanley's units are. Parson can out-maneuver until he gets to the city he wants.

The only kink in this is that Parson is, apparently, unbeatable.

No, he's not unbeatable - he's just a different strategist than Ansom's side is used to facing. He's bringing new ideas into Erfworld.

Even with the threadbare knowledge he has about his new home, he has performed swimmingly at every turn. The siege is already seriously threatened and has sustained not a small amount of damage. With Hamster on his side, Stanley has to win. Period. And this cannot occur.

Actually, for story purposes, it needs to occur.
And Parson's only successes are due to the fact that Ansom's side, again, is not used to Parson's tactics being employed. Under the conventional tactics of Erfworld, Ansom's column was strong enough to take care of itself; otherwise, why would he not worry too much if he pulled away the air cover to save Jillian (unless, of course, you're arguing Ansom is an idiot since he took away his defenses on critical units when in range of the opponent's most powerful units)? Under Parson's tactics of hit-and-run, though, their conventional defense doesn't work.

It's the oldest line in cinema: The good guy always wins. This is for several reasons. Does "Bad guy gains ultimate power and rules world, The End" sound like a good story to you? Not to me. There is NO story if Stanley wins, at least if he wins permanently. That is why it seems that the only option is for Parson to switch sides.

A win for GK, right now, is not a permanent win. It just means that Parson can keep running the war for GK. It doesn't destroy the Jetstone tribe, it doesn't defeat all the elven tribes, it doesn't stop all the other groups still out there. And, as you pointed out, Stanley only has 1 city, where he used to have 11. Presumably Ansom's side has a lot more cities, in different territories. There's a story behind capturing those again; also, the other Arkentools are still out there. Stanley will command Parson to start getting expeditions together to find them.

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.

He cannot defect. As I said, one command from Stanley, and Parson is returned to Earth.

1b: Alternately, this conviction leads him to engineer events that cause Stanley's downfall without actually defecting. Even so, he is still Stanley's enemy at this juncture, and I can just bet he won't be able to help rooting for Ansom, the enemy of his enemy.

Which leads to him being sent back, the summoning spell having bound him to Stanley.

It's the inescapable part. Parson's continued existance in Erfworld relies upon Stanley; no Stanley, no Parson.

Oh, and Midgit...

He must retake all the cities that Stanley lost, cities undoubtably heavily defended.

A nice story behind that, don't you think? Also, what if Parson's friends get summoned in.

Ansom: We lost! To Stanley!?
Jillian: Well, I think I overheard they summoned a new warlord.
Ansom: Then let's go to the Magic Kingdom and summon a warlord who's faced this new warlord in battle and has beaten him...

[Arameus]

I like the way you think. Although I wouldn't be knocked out of my shoes by seeing his ring brought in, I do consider it unlikely, at least in the short run. And if they enter the world as Parson's enemies, it makes it more likely in my mind that Parson would no longer be able to cope with the side he's on. Which, come to think of it, would make for some pretty great internal conflict as he is forced to fight, and possibly kill, his own best friends because he may have no other option. If anything will make Erfwolrd 'real' to him and activate his inner goodness, it's the presence of his friends. After all, I've rooted for the villian plenty of times. I bet you have, too. But would YOU kill your friends? Are YOU evil for it? I sure hope not, and I don't think Parson is, either.

I don't think Rob would do that whole 'they all get summoned with the same spell' thing, though, and that's the bottom line for me. Even though they were pretty conspicuously introduced, to have this awesome, superbad, earth-shaking spell used that many more times would not only cheapen it, but is simply bad writing. I mean, honestly, that's a classic staple of anime corn.
"I have to get this super-awesome supermove over the course of several episodes! Now I use it every episode! Now it's boring!" Rob can do better than to lift a cliche from generic action animes.

Thanks for the input, Scientivore, pretty thought-provoking.

I've already addressed some of your points already, sinfahl, leastwise the way I see it I have. But there are a few I'd like to address. First of all, it's splitting hairs, but I think Hamster dies if he disobeys, not just gets sent back. Again, we don't know how the spell will be changed if, indeed, Stanley dies. It could terminate completely or it could merely shift masters. Or you could be right and he is disbanded, one way or another.

Although you raise a fine point about Stanley's rebuilding capabilities, anything at all he can muster can't possibly match what the Alliance could in the same time, especially considering they probably already have standing armies that could contribute.

And, keep in mind, they can't really be thinking about ways to counter Hamster specifically because they are unaware of his existence, or even of the existence of a new warlord, although I'm pretty sure they'll catch on to the latter. But as I said to Scientivore, I would really hate to see the writer have to revert to using that Perfect Warlord Summon again, it's just too disingenuous.

As is showing, in any great detail, Parson leading the struggle to take back eleven cities. At the current pace of Erfworld, that would take about fifteen years worth of strips, gove or take a decade's worth of klogs, filler, and unforeseen absences. It would be neat to see the re-expanditure of Stanley's empire, but this would either take one heck of a blitz or a massive change in the pacing of the strip to pull off.

[sihnfahl]

I like the way you think. Although I wouldn't be knocked out of my shoes by seeing his ring brought in, I do consider it unlikely, at least in the short run. And if they enter the world as Parson's enemies, it makes it more likely in my mind that Parson would no longer be able to cope with the side he's on. Which, come to think of it, would make for some pretty great internal conflict as he is forced to fight, and possibly kill, his own best friends because he may have no other option. If anything will make Erfwolrd 'real' to him and activate his inner goodness, it's the presence of his friends. After all, I've rooted for the villian plenty of times. I bet you have, too. But would YOU kill your friends? Are YOU evil for it? I sure hope not, and I don't think Parson is, either.

Makes for a fun storyboard.

I don't think Rob would do that whole 'they all get summoned with the same spell' thing, though, and that's the bottom line for me <snip> Rob can do better than to lift a cliche from generic action animes.

Course, we are talking about a comic where there are pop culture references left and right... SRSLY!

I think Hamster dies if he disobeys, not just gets sent back. Again, we don't know how the spell will be changed if, indeed, Stanley dies. It could terminate completely or it could merely shift masters. Or you could be right and he is disbanded, one way or another.

I'd hope that he wouldn't die if he disobeyed, just sent back.

Although you raise a fine point about Stanley's rebuilding capabilities, anything at all he can muster can't possibly match what the Alliance could in the same time, especially considering they probably already have standing armies that could contribute.

Course, then they have the issues of actually getting close to GK; when we started the Comic, Ansom was waiting 2 turns for the other elves to join up on the column. It was at least another 5 turns from that point due to the low move of the siege. And since this was in the field, I'm thinking that the closest town is 10 or more turns away for your average siege unit.
Also, it's no guarantee that the Alliance will remain intact; some may take a look at the outcome of BFGK and decide that an attempt on GK just isn't worth the effort.

And, keep in mind, they can't really be thinking about ways to counter Hamster specifically because they are unaware of his existence, or even of the existence of a new warlord, although I'm pretty sure they'll catch on to the latter.

At current, no, they don't know about a new warlord (although Vinny probably suspects now due to the change in tactics). All they need is a little hint from someone, even the folks at the Magic Kingdom, as to how Stanley got to where he is now.

As is showing, in any great detail, Parson leading the struggle to take back eleven cities. At the current pace of Erfworld, that would take about fifteen years worth of strips, gove or take a decade's worth of klogs, filler, and unforeseen absences. It would be neat to see the re-expanditure of Stanley's empire, but this would either take one heck of a blitz or a massive change in the pacing of the strip to pull off.

Or just a montage of some of the more 'entertaining' fights. Doesn't have to go over every single one, just the ones that would be ... thought provoking. Like when Stanley orders Parson to make an attempt on Spacerock...

[SteveMB]

I'd hope that he wouldn't die if he disobeyed, just sent back.

The description "if you refuse an order, the spell which summoned you will end your existence entirely" sounds distinctly fatal to me.

Admittedly, it's possible that Wanda's description is inaccurate (either mistaken or dissembling). Parson doesn't seem inclined to take that chance.

At current, no, they don't know about a new warlord (although Vinny probably suspects now due to the change in tactics). All they need is a little hint from someone, even the folks at the Magic Kingdom, as to how Stanley got to where he is now.

The interesting question is how much Jillian knows (i.e. did Wanda describe the result of the "monstrous, combination Findamancy/Lookamancy... thing", and if so does Jillian remember?) and how much she will reveal if she does (i.e. will Wanda's influence and/or the awkward question "How do you know that?" cause her to keep mum?)

[Arameus]

I, too, have been wondering about Jillian's knowledge of Parson. It seems as though if she remembered it, she would be impelled to speak of it; after all, Wanda's control over her is not powerful or direct enough to stop her from doing so, not by a long shot, and she seems to resent the implications of treachery sincerely from insult, and not as a way to maintain a cover as she doesn't know there's any cover to keep in the first place. But we can't be sure, as we can't with so many other things.

Although there are a whole gamut of pop-culture references, the much larger scale of looking at it is not at all silly, and has the complexity you expect from class-A work. Even if they make a reference to anime in a character's appearance or weapon-of-choice, I can't see them putting that kind of plot in just to be making a reference. That's not their method, at least not from what I've seen, and I'm glad it's not.

Showing only a highlight reel is exactly what I mean by an outrageous change of pace. Although I see no reason why this would NOT happen, I can also see no reason they WOULD do this. Even though they do skip a few bits, the story has essentially progressed day-by-day, I believe. This is done not only to give an intimate look at all the goings-on, but because the circadian rhythm is extremely important to this turned based society. Truth be told, I'd hate too see this broken, as so much can happen in one turn as you all have borne witness to!

As to whether or not Wanda was being entirely truthful to Parson (and, indeed, the Tool himself) about the spell's conditions is something at which w can only guess. On one hand, she seems to be rather benevolent towards Parson, if only because I think he is, if not her equal, her immediate subordinate and, more importantly, their only chance in hell. She has, after all, gone out of her way (WAY out of her way) to help him in the past and seems to be at least tolerant and at most casual in conversation with him. On the other hand, Wanda is a sadist and a sick, sick woman with a heart of darkest pitch. I rather like her character and look forward to the moment she changes her ways or maybe even dies (But I really don't want to get into THAT, it's another debate entirely and is only my fancy rather than having a bit of backing like my defection idea). Lying to Parson in a matter that would essentially cripple him in a way that ensures his loyalty to saving her city AND keeping him in constant terror, with every sentence and troop movement a chance to be literally annihilated would be exactly the kind of thing I can see her doing. So there's always that line of speculation: the banishment may not even be real, as all we have is the word of a complete sociopathand torturist.

Initially, my theory has met with a rather cold reception. I don't pretend to be a better prognosticator than any of you, but I stick firmly with my theory of a switch of Parson's allegiance by one route or another. Only time will tell, although it does do me well to have all these outside opinions brought in against which to judge my theory.

[sihnfahl]

Initially, my theory has met with a rather cold reception.

Actually, I'd say it was pretty warm.

You're writing to a bunch of gamers. The best reception you get is folks playing Devil's Advocate, picking at your ideas to better flesh them out, or advancing their own, counter, ideas and trying to better flesh them out.

Cold would be outright flaming.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Originally Posted by Arameus
Initially, my theory has met with a rather cold reception.

Actually, I'd say it was pretty warm.

You're writing to a bunch of gamers. The best reception you get is folks playing Devil's Advocate, picking at your ideas to better flesh them out, or advancing their own, counter, ideas and trying to better flesh them out.

Cold would be outright flaming.

Yep. People develop their own strategies, and try to promote them while waiting on the next strip to see if they got it right, or why they might have gotten them wrong.

I'm convinced that Jillian and the Archons are about to stage an infiltration attack on Gobwin Knob to force Stanley to pull back the dwagons, while most of the others on the board think Jillian and the Archons are about to beat the stuffing (literally!) out of the dwagons flying a holding pattern over the lake hex.

Discussions on this board give people something to do while waiting...

[fangthane]

Actually, I'd say it was pretty warm.

You're writing to a bunch of gamers. The best reception you get is folks playing Devil's Advocate, picking at your ideas to better flesh them out, or advancing their own, counter, ideas and trying to better flesh them out.

Cold would be outright flaming.

Agh!... Chilly is warm... Flames are cold... MY BRAIN HURTS!!!!

But yeah, I don't think we're going to see Parson switch sides any time soon. As others have said, Parson enjoys being on the side of moral ambiguity, and frankly I think he's quite enjoying being in the small-dog seat and fighting a good asymmetric fight.

As to a victory here being conclusive, I very much doubt it. As to the ability to win being predicated on Parson, definitely untrue (thus far at least). Thus far we've seen some very good warlording from him, but he hasn't been perfect; that has to wait on his more complete understanding of the complete world/game mechanics. What we have seen, however, is that he's very much capable of making use of his advantages effectively, the Trimancer and air superiority in particular. Now, a win in GK with the status quo remaining unchanged - little or no intel for Ansom, near-perfect intelligence for Parson, and a big flock of dwagons to (ab)use the intelligence - would unbalance things in Parson's favour, to the extent he wouldn't need to be more than a good warlord with flashes of excellence.

This is why I believe the Trimancer has to be shot, eventually, by the rifle Parson left on the stage when he spoke to Misty. In fact, odds are good that it'll be soon (my bet's on the next couple turns telling the tale). Otherwise, it's trivial for Parson to have them scan the enemy forces, build a good base of low-move defenders at the Knob (even potentially taking down another invasion force, if it takes a while) and beginning to selectively assault weak targets. Ansom sallies forces from one city to try to join with others, and they get nailed because Parson knows where they are while they need to scout. If he scares Ansom into keeping the forces at home, it again becomes a question of selective assault with little or no warning.

Half-orc - You could be correct in that, but it's iffy; Parson mentioned that the dwagons would be able to make it back to the Knob next turn after their attack on the siege but not this turn, which tends to indicate that it's probably in the range of 40-50 hexes away (given that the dwagons seemed to be around 55-ish median move), possibly as little as 30. In neither case does that mean that 24-move gwiffins will be able to reach the target. No, I think that Jillian got orders to search every forest hex within X distance, and is going to execute those orders. Or that she got orders to search more generally, decided to split her forces "to search more effectively (and get toadface out of her hair)" and may end up being captured by the big stack as she attempts to flee (so as to actually report the find) due to lack of support.

Arameus - In the absence of any information to the contrary, I'm assuming Jillian was treated like a shroom whilst at GK. Keep her in the dark and the prisoner can't reveal any of our secrets to the enemy should she 'escape.' Even moreso when you're the one planning said escape. In fact, letting Jillian believe that Stanley is beating them helps to drive the wedge between the Alliance's forces through second-guessing and recrimination*, so I'm betting that's part of Wanda's design.
*Jillian, if she believes Ansom is being regularly bested by Stanley, whom (through Mistress Wanda) she "knows" is every bit the hapless moron Ansom believes him to be, will naturally become ever more frustrated and reckless, thus leading to accusations such as Webinar's, and so forth.

[ag30476]

Initially, my theory has met with a rather cold reception. I don't pretend to be a better prognosticator than any of you, but I stick firmly with my theory of a switch of Parson's allegiance by one route or another. Only time will tell, although it does do me well to have all these outside opinions brought in against which to judge my theory.

Actually I like your theory. All I said essentially was that I think your

1b: Alternately, this conviction leads him to engineer events that cause Stanley's downfall without actually defecting.

is the most likely outcome IMHO.

[Radar]

Well... i've seen this idea quite a few times here: Stanley is bad, Parson is The Good Guy so he must switch sides.
IMO it's a wrong way of thinking. Bad guy is allways loosing is just a cliche that nobody gets tired of, but is not a rule for any story. People just like to read about Good Guys that win rather then getting killed or something. Also one can make a good story about an archetypical Evil Overlord coming to power and completing his task. I can even imagine a well written story about such Overlord ruling the world.

Second important thing is that we shouldn't mark sides with good/evil badges. It's war - nobody is good here and nobody has to be inherently evil. Yes, Stanley is on a Quest for Ultimate Power, but it still doesn't make him outright evil (it is bound with beeing evil in most known stories though). The same way goblins, trolls, orks etc. don't have to be evil and bloodthirsty creatures (see Goblins comics for a good example).

Last but not least: forcing Parson to switch sides for the sake of a cliche is a weak argument. It's higly unlikely if we take the story "as is" rather then think how it should end up so Good Guys could eventualy win.

Stereotypes die hard or hardly never.

[Arameus]

Actually, I'd say it was pretty warm.

You're writing to a bunch of gamers. The best reception you get is folks playing Devil's Advocate, picking at your ideas to better flesh them out, or advancing their own, counter, ideas and trying to better flesh them out.

Cold would be outright flaming.

It's the same way with writers. "Hmm, so you're taking that approach? That could get you a Pulitzer prize if every other book this decade is written by semi-brain-dead stroke victims. So good luck with that!"

What I meant was that no one has really taken my side yet. I'll admit that my belief in the eventual switch comes much more from my vast knowledge of cinema and literature than any specific knowledge of Erfworld, although I do use that as well, and I seem to make a few things fit, even if only in my eyes.

So far, I've been entirely on the defense, and on my own, against some very good thinkers and people who seem to remember every sentence and frame of the comic (I odn't know what I'm going to do if Scientivore takes a mind to start tearing my theory's guts out, the guy is pretty unstoppable). A tough place to be, if enjoyable in its own way. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for the day someone will start colluding with me on the possible ways it will happen, rather than exploring why it could or couldn't.

Agh!... Chilly is warm... Flames are cold... MY BRAIN HURTS!!!!

But yeah, I don't think we're going to see Parson switch sides any time soon. As others have said, Parson enjoys being on the side of moral ambiguity, and frankly I think he's quite enjoying being in the small-dog seat and fighting a good asymmetric fight.

Soon? Good Lord I hope not! I believe Parson will win the BFGK, if not easily then at least well enough to win him his position as Chief Warlord for ages hence. I've begun to adopt the thinking that Parson won't switch until Stanley has been made nearly unstoppable. This would make for great dramatic action as it would continually raise his challenge, going from trying to conquer the world/gain the Tools with Stanley to trying to undo his own excellence with a devastated Alliance.

The Trimancer being taken out is certainly possible, but will Parson do it? I really can't see any way that can happen. I mean, what's he going to do to get away with it? Johnny Cochran isn't in Erfworld, even if Wanda could uncroak him, and I doubt Parson has the 1 Million Shmuckers for a Summon Perfect Attorney spell, much less his legal fees. Parson certainly feels for the Trimancer's components, principally Misty, but I doubt he would put them out of their misery under any circumstances. And I certainly don't know who else could be the triggerman either, as the fine folk of Gobwin Knob probably don't give a crap golem about the Trimancer components' plight and they kinda sorta need them.

Whether or not Parson is perfect or just good with his advantages is rather moot. He is the Protagonist and, more importantly, The Good Guy. Which means, naturally, he will win at the last. And that Stanley, although he is on the Protagonist's side right now, is the Bad Guy. (Do NOT start arguing with me on these points about Good Guy and Bad Guy; You'd have to be some sort of frickin' idiot not to think this. People think Belkar isn't evil, for crying out loud).

The inmost core of my theory is that The Good Guy, Parson, must win, and the Bad Guy, Stanley, must lose. And these two things cannot occur at the last unless something happens to set them against one another.

[Radar]

(...)
People think Belkar isn't evil, for crying out loud).

The inmost core of my theory is that The Good Guy, Parson, must win, and the Bad Guy, Stanley, must lose. And these two things cannot occur at the last unless something happens to set them against one another.

And this theory goes about an unbreakable cliche seen in too many films and books. It would by quite refreshing to see things going the other side at least just once. I am far from judging outcome of any good story by characters aligment.

As for Belkar being evil: he definetly is and he still belongs to Protagonists. More of it, he is unlikely to leave them. So Good Guys can have someone evil among them too. People who want to see Belkar as good, seek the same cliche you do - the black & white world in which Good allways wins. Protagonist in such black & white point of view have to be inherently good - period.

For an alternative scenario (so that Stanley won't be an Evil Overlord): Parson learns to steer Stanley and prevents him from being that evil. Possible war between Parson and Wanda occuring behind the scenes highly possible in such scenario.

[fangthane]

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.

[ag30476]

Well... i've seen this idea quite a few times here: Stanley is bad, Parson is The Good Guy so he must switch sides.
IMO it's a wrong way of thinking. Bad guy is allways loosing is just a cliche that nobody gets tired of, but is not a rule for any story. People just like to read about Good Guys that win rather then getting killed or something. Also one can make a good story about an archetypical Evil Overlord coming to power and completing his task. I can even imagine a well written story about such Overlord ruling the world.

When you make such a story make it so that we actually want the evil guys to win. There are plenty of stories like that. I like 'em. For ex, the recent War of the Spider Queen series. Wasn't bad. Fast reads. Likeable evil characters all. The problem here is that Parson is not evil and he's the guy most people want to see win.

Second important thing is that we shouldn't mark sides with good/evil badges. It's war - nobody is good here and nobody has to be inherently evil.

Srsly? What's wrong with the words "good" and "evil"? Sure you can debate the application of the terms in the real world but you can't use the words "good" and "evil" in a fantasy story? Should Jillian be called an emotionally enabled physical manipulator of potentially dangerous objects instead of barbarian just because you want to be PC? For heaven's sake, even Stanley's own troops use the not-nice word (last panel)

Yes, Stanley is on a Quest for Ultimate Power, but it still doesn't make him outright evil (it is bound with beeing evil in most known stories though).

So is he or isn't he?

The same way goblins, trolls, orks etc. don't have to be evil and bloodthirsty creatures (see Goblins comics for a good example).

Look this is an equal opportunity comic. Bogroll the twoll and Vinny the vampire are good. Stanley and Wanda are bad. Lord Manpower is hungry. Next you'll be saying that drow should not be typecast as chaotic evil spider worshipers. Instead we should typecast them chaotic good, dual sword wielding outsiders who battle against the stereotype of their race.

Last but not least: forcing Parson to switch sides for the sake of a cliche is a weak argument. It's higly unlikely if we take the story "as is" rather then think how it should end up so Good Guys could eventualy win.

Stereotypes die hard or hardly never.

Cliches and stereotypes are not necessarily bad if the story is good. The story is in the details not in the outline of the story arc. Conversely, identification of the overall arc in story does not take away from the suspense. It may even add to it. Or do you read mystery novels without trying to figure out the killer or romance stories without wondering whether the guy gets the girl at the end?

The "Stanley is bad, Parson is The Good Guy." crowd of which I'm part are just stating the boundaries of a broad story arc.

[ag30476]

So far, I've been entirely on the defense, and on my own, against some very good thinkers and people who seem to remember every sentence and frame of the comic. A tough place to be, if enjoyable in its own way.

Welcome to Usenet...er webcomic forum.

I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for the day someone will start colluding with me on the possible ways it will happen, rather than exploring why it could or couldn't.

What gate?

[ag30476]

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

Belkar?

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.

Belkar?

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.

Belkar?

[Arameus]

You raise a good point. Belkar is indeed a Protagonist. However, OoTS is a very different comic. OoTS is not really 'about' any singular person, rather it is about the group of people after which it is named. But Erfworld is most certainly Parson's story. Relative to the story of Erfworld, Stanley is definitely a protagonist, even though he does act as Antagonist to Parson himself, even if they are on the same side. On the other hand, Ansom is an Antagonist in both occasions despite being a good guy.

It's a very odd distinction to make. Belkar is evil and yet, since he doesn't antagonize the rest of the Order, he is actually a Good Guy! Wanda is certainly evil, but she is a protagonist relative to Parson, which, strangely, makes her a good girl at the moment. But, as I said, this story is relative to Parson A. Gotti. He is THE Good Guy, not just a good guy. It's pretty complicated, as it should be. If it were clean cut, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.

When we go see a movie or read a novel, we don't say "I'm going to be SO PISSED OFF if the Good Guy wins again, what a cliche!" But it almost always happens, and if it doesn't, it's usually an installment of something and not really over (or written by Russians. Crazy Tartars!). And it doesn't make the story any worse for not having followed that formula and is often better for it. Would you have been happy if Frodo died and Sauron gets the Ring and conquers Middle Earth? Maybe some would have been, but they smell funny and we don't like them.

Parson can't lose in the end because it just doesn't make any sense. Even if he dies, he'll still have at least won the conflict, and even if not that, he would have Learned A Valuable Lesson, as hollow as that is. Which he will anyway, I think. His character is begging for it.

And even if with bringing that admittedly good point in about OoTS, do you really think the Order will lose catastrophically at the end? That they'll all die and Xykon or Nale unleashes the Snarl and destroys all existence? No. Even with their leader dead and in full retreat from the vast army of the Bad Guy, they may as well look across that orange myriad and laugh in Xykon's bony face, because we know good and well that he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell. And I don't mind that, because it's all in how they get where they're going.

And Parson is going to get there by leaving Stanley's side. I'm sure of it.

Edit: Great I did what I DIDN'T want to do and people are arguing who is what alignment. Please ignore them entirely, this is a grown-up discussion.

What gate?

HA! HAHAHA! HAHA!!

[ag30476]

You raise a good point. Belkar is indeed a Protagonist.

Actually, I was just thinking that Belkar had posted that previous message.

However, OoTS is a very different comic. OoTS is not really 'about' any singular person, rather it is about the group of people after which it is named. But Erfworld is most certainly Parson's story. Relative to the story of Erfworld, Stanley is definitely a protagonist, even though he does act as Antagonist to Parson himself, even if they are on the same side. On the other hand, Ansom is an Antagonist in both occasions despite being a good guy.

Agreed

It's a very odd distinction to make. Belkar is evil and yet, since he doesn't antagonize the rest of the Order, he is actually a Good Guy! Wanda is certainly evil, but she is a protagonist relative to Parson, which, strangely, makes her a good girl at the moment. But, as I said, this story is relative to Parson A. Gotti. He is THE Good Guy, not just a good guy. It's pretty complicated, as it should be. If it were clean cut, it wouldn't be nearly as exciting.

Agreed!

When we go see a movie or read a novel, we don't say "I'm going to be SO PISSED OFF if the Good Guy wins again, what a cliche!"

Welll..someone like Belkar would be.

But it almost always happens, and if it doesn't, it's usually an installment of something and not really over (or written by Russians. Crazy Tartars!). And it doesn't make the story any worse for not having followed that formula and is often better for it. Would you have been happy if Frodo died and Sauron gets the Ring and conquers Middle Earth? Maybe some would have been, but they smell funny and we don't like them.

Agreed 'cept for the part about smelling funny...plenty of Frodo fans smell funny too.

Parson can't lose in the end because it just doesn't make any sense. Even if he dies, he'll still have at least won the conflict, and even if not that, he would have Learned A Valuable Lesson, as hollow as that is. Which he will anyway, I think. His character is begging for it.

Agreed...he's practically wearing a pink mini skirt and high heels that say PLOT me.

And even if with bringing that admittedly good point in about OoTS, do you really think the Order will lose catastrophically at the end? That they'll all die and Xykon or Nale unleashes the Snarl and destroys all existence? No. Even with their leader dead and in full retreat from the vast army of the Bad Guy, they may as well look across that orange myriad and laugh in Xykon's bony face, because we know good and well that the he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell. And I don't mind that, because it's all in how they get where they're going.

And Parson is going to get there by leaving Stanley's side. I'm sure of it.

Abso-booping-lutely!

[Arameus]

*gasp!* Is that support?! *gasp!* Is this a short post?! Unprecedented both!

[ag30476]

*gasp!* Is that support?! *gasp!* Is this a short post?! Unprecedented both!

It's the pigeonhole principle...you can't disagree with all of the people all of the time...

The only disgreement I have is that when Parson turns, he probly can't turn against Stanley outright. The Perfect Warlord spell keeps him bound to Stanley. But that does not mean Parson can't manipulate events so that Stanley wins but doesn't win. I think you're 1b option is the most likely story outcome.

[Arameus]

I agree. That is, after all, why I presented it as an option! And it does seem likely that he would have to rebel quietly due to that spell.

That accursed spell is the only thing standing in my way, from my point of view. It makes that which must happen very, very difficult. That's why I keep looking for ways around it, ie, Stanley getting croaked (which may have no effect or even catastrophic effect) or perhaps maybe the effect is completely Wanda's ficiton, both events I admit are unlikely.

But passive/aggressive ruin from the interior is Jillian's role, not Parson's. I just don't want to see that as his recourse. Parson leads armies. That is what he does. That's what I want to see happen. To lead a force to an ultimate victory, horde against horde, a desperate struggle for survival between all that is [I]noble[I] /and decent... and all that is vile and unholy, not to mention unspeakable. It seems to be the fitting climax, doesn't it?I can already see the panel of Parson towering over the conquered, cowering figure of Stanley. It seems to be the fitting climax, doesn't it?

[fangthane]

It's the pigeonhole principle...you can't disagree with all of the people all of the time...

I know, I know... I've tried but it always ends badly.

To respond to the earlier stuff... I do identify strongly with certain aspects of Belkar's character, I admit - though to be honest, I suspect we've all had our days. I'm constrained to live in the Real World, however, so while I've a tendency to be somewhat of a bad person, it's heavily tempered by my desire not to go to jail or trigger retribution which might hurt me and mine. Doesn't stop me from leaving boot-prints (inches deep, one time; dusty, in most cases) in the fender of non-handicap tagged cars left in handicapped spaces though.

What I liked about Traffic, by the way, (and sort of liked in 300) is this... (spoiler for the movies, not Erf)

Spoiler

Show

I liked the fact that it ended the way it began. Precisely. Action drives reaction drives counter-reaction and things end up in exactly the same shape, with characters in different positions than the start - some of whom would have told you, at the movie's start, that there was no chance of their occupying that role. 300 would have been better had it ended with the sacrifice, rather than the feel-good "let's beat up some Persians" bit.

I guess I just took to heart the concept that art should hold up a mirror to life; a mirror which only reflects the happier half of the story is pretty piss-poor.

[Scientivore]

So, to revisit, summarize and expand: Gobwin Knob has been color-coded for our convenience. That trope was subverted by Parson's summoning. We've also learned that the color-coded Bad Guy sees it as Holy vs. Unholy and that the color-coded Good Guy sees it as Noble vs. Ignoble. So, the author could just [1] leave it single-subverted with Stanley as an antivillain, Parson as an antihero and everyone else as foils. Else he could double-subvert that trope, either by [2] the aforementioned spoilery spec, by [3] having Parson do a face/heel turn to the Dark Side and promoting Ansom to hero, by [4] having Parson defect, or even by [5] = [2] + [3]. Of course, I'm partial; I focused on [2] in my other post because that's the option that I like the best.

The main problem that I have with [4] the defection scenario isn't the threat to Parson's existence (though that's probably his biggest problem with it). Wanda could've been lying or even mistaken. A divine artifact might be able to override a mortal spell, Parson's already wearing one magic item powerful enough to possibly qualify and there's plenty of time for Parson to get his hands on an geniune Arkentool before Stanley has them all and...what, I don't know, becomes unstoppable?

No, it's that I don't see anybody like Ansom on Stanley's side who would make a capable antagonist for Parson. So, in order for defection to sound like an interesting story to me, it would have to come after Stanley is in such a strong position -- with the Noble Alliance as such hopeless underdogs -- that any random infantry promoted to GK's Chief Warlord would make a credible opponent for Parson. (Even if Jillian defected, I wouldn't want her in charge of my military, y'know? Girl's got issues.) It's hard for me to picture how that would happen and it's easy for me to picture it taking years IRL for the story to reach that point.

There isn't any way to know for sure which one of those paths the story will take because the tropes are already being subverted. (That's why I haven't made lots of textual references in this thread like I sometimes do.) The question now is, "To what extent and in what ways will the tropes be subverted?" Rob and Jamie are probably the only people who could say.