Ok, so what's so bad about.....

[Corwin Weber]

I believe we've found the problem.

The original post is running on the assumption that everyone in the alliance believes that Stanley is, indeed, a monster, which is not quite the case here.

Ansom is involved because of the Royalty thing. The attunement thing doesn't help matters.

Jillian believes that he is, indeed, a monster. So far as I've found, she's the only one to refer to him as Stanley the Worm.

Nearly everyone else is responding to attacks.

Charlie is getting paid.

Charlie's a pure mercenary, yes. Arguably so was Jillian initially. The rest I'm not so sure about, and the longer I think about it the more concerned or disturbed I get at Ansom's involvement. The others I don't think we've seen enough of to make much of a call on.... Vinnie seems to be involved because Ansom is. They're friends, Vinnie has Ansom's back. The rest, honestly I don't know.

[teratorn]

Jillian believes that he is, indeed, a monster. So far as I've found, she's the only one to refer to him as Stanley the Worm.

You need to work on your finding skills

You work... for Stanley the Worm!

[lamguin]

Good catch there.

But my point still stands.

Ansom hates him for the previously stated royalty thing (and probably the attunement thing), and Jillian hates him for quite a few reasons which have been stated already.

[SteveMB]

Good catch there.

But my point still stands.

Ansom hates him for the previously stated royalty thing (and probably the attunement thing), and Jillian hates him for quite a few reasons which have been stated already.

Other than Ansom and Jillian, there's no real indication that other members of the Coalition have the level of raw hatred for Stanley implied by the term "monster". For them, it's just ordinary reprisal for Stanley attacking them, or just providing mercenary services, or perhaps just helping an ally who's in the fight for one of the other reasons or just getting in on the winning side to get a cut of the spoils.

[Corwin Weber]

or just providing mercenary services, or perhaps just helping an ally who's in the fight for one of the other reasons or just getting in on the winning side to get a cut of the spoils.

Honestly, these aren't terribly sympathetic reasons either..... not really any better than Stanley's.

[slayerx]

Again, these reasons would be?

We haven't seen them, nor have we had any reports from anyone who has. Stanley has attacked some other nations and defeated them.... in an environment where this happens all the time.

This is the point you don't seem to be getting.

Erf is a wargame. Conquest is part of life there in a way that it simply isn't in the real world. All units have combat stats. There are few if any noncombatant units in Erf. Units which do not normally fight are still entirely capable of it.

We're dealing with a world where not only are there arguably no innocents, but the concept of an innocent is itself foreign. There are no children. Women and men both fight and have combat ratings. Combat and leveling are referred to as fun. The only apparent noncombatant units are the resource gatherers, (such as the gobwins) and even they're actually combat capable and are considered to be at least irregular or light combat units in their own right. This is a situation that simply doesn't happen in the real world.

And you jumping to far to many conclusions about erfworld.

Where does it say that erfworlders view combat and leveling up as fun? Jillian yes, but that's ONE character... what about Sizemore? or Banhammer? neither of them sounded like they enjoy fighting much; hell, from Sizemore reaction to his golems attacks it doesn't sound like he's all that used to fighting. And Banhammer was a philosopher type who ran a mostly pacifist country... the only fighting he ever did was merc work for when there was no other way to boost up the treasury... other than that he NEVER had his whole nation attack another and keep his country isolated... Hell considering how his nation fell "instantly" and yet was made up of 3 properous cities, it sounds like his city was full on non-combatants, or those too weak to use in a fight...

And what of the magic kingdom... they seem to be neutral in this whole war... i can only imagine where the hippimancers usually stand.

We have seen VERY little of erfworld... the only nations we have gotten any details about would be GK who is a militaristic nation dedicated to conquest and Faq who kept it's war involvement to an absolute minimum. We have not seen a single detail about how the other nations are run and it's wrong to assume anything of them. You got NOTHING that says that while the great western conflict is going on all other nations in the world are have their own wars and that these wars are done "for fun"

They live in a wargame world, but they treat war more like war and less like game or sport. There is nothing saying the nations fight just for the hell of it, to kill time, or that they like entering into new wars... each nation in this western struggle has an actual reason for fighting; some better than others. Stanely wants to fullfill the will of the titans and rule; Ansom wants to maintain the status of the royals, Vinnie and most other sides are fighting because they were attacked by Stanely or want to end his evil attacks. and Charlie is in it for the money... Hell Vinnie bascially says that he thinks everyone needs a reason to fight when he questions jetstones role in the fight; as in, if he was in their shoes he might have chose to sit this battle out... from what we've seen, the nations fight for a reason, not because they think it's fun.

There is absolutey nothing that says that if Stanely were not around to start up a fight that say Jetstone and Sofaking would fight for no reason what so ever; just for the hell of it or for fun.

Hell, the ONLY reason their world is as a historybooks full of wars could be that erfworld naturally produces evil or ambitious rulers to keep the fights going... but again, this does not mean the good erfworlders have grown to tolerate war and that they do not wish for an end to the evil rulers.

y'know, thinking about it, i think most of what you said that makes erfwolrd a "wargame" world, can in a sense be translated over to real world terms... thinking about it, Erfworld sounds like it does have a lot in common with our world...

[Corwin Weber]

The character who's referring to combat and leveling up as 'fun' is in fact the same character who's referring to Stanley as a monster. Sizemore is perfectly willing to fight, he's just rather more concerned about the state of his own ass than is typical in Erf. (We haven't really seen anybody else that's that worried about it, and for that matter both Vinnie and Ansom have sacrificed units in this campaign with little more than a 'sorry but we had to do it.') Faq appears to be a very strange case.... due largely to the fact that they didn't level their fighters much.... and even then, while they may not have initiated combat on their own, they were more than willing to pad their treasury by hiring out as mercs.

There are some comparisons between Erf and reality, sure... but war does seem to be far more like a game to them. The stakes are real, sure.... much more real than in a wargame.... but the original point stands. I'm really not seeing what makes Stanley a monster rather than just an aggressive general. I'm also not seeing anything that makes Ansom to be some noble hero rather than just a prettyboy with some rather disturbing political and religious biases.

[Dacia Brabant]

She explains it away by assuming that Wanda is under a loyalty spell, and thus everything bad that happens can be blamed on Stanley rather than Wanda. Thus, her resentment of any mistreatment at Wanda's hands is transferred to Stanley -- on top of her perfectly reasonable anger at him for destroying Faq, that makes him a "monster" in her eyes. The rationalization is somewhat self-reinforcing -- the more blame she transfers to Stanley, the more of a "monster" he becomes, and the less believable it is that (her idealized mental image of) Wanda would follow him voluntarily.

I hadn't thought of blame transferrence but yeah, that's a really good point now that you mention it and I think that, combined with the destruction of FAQ, would go a long way toward Jillian's feelings of raw hatred for Stanley.

And that really is the heart of the matter, much of the rest of this has gotten far afield of the subject--remember, it's Jillian who calls Stanley a "monster" so we can only take the source of the comment into consideration. War as way of life in Erfworld, whether Stanley was responsible for the overthrow of Saline IV, Ansom's monomania, etc., that's all good stuff for discussion but it's ancillary to the "monster" statement.

Absent any clear, definitive Rape the Dog moments on the Tool's part, and knowing she doesn't care about royalty I think we have to assume Jillian's calling him that is entirely about personal-level hatred. And the only things that we've seen that could inspire that are the destruction of FAQ and Jillian's presumption that Wanda was corrupted/controlled by Stanley.

[teratorn]

Stanley acknowledges that he rules by fear and violence. He claims others are also like that, but we know that at least FAQ wasn't.

One thing we don't know about this world is their view on stuff like croakamancy.

[Corwin Weber]

Stanley acknowledges that he rules by fear and violence. He claims others are also like that, but we know that at least FAQ wasn't.

One thing we don't know about this world is their view on stuff like croakamancy.

One of the archons basically implies that she finds the uncroaked themselves distasteful..... but you're right. We don't know if there's an equivalent view between necromancy in our (or most fantasy) worlds and croakamancy in Erf.

[TigerHunter]

One thing we don't know about this world is their view on stuff like croakamancy.

They probably view it as unpleasant, but I doubt they have any strong taboos. Wanda is seen here, in Faq, with a skull in her hair. I interpret this to mean that she already practiced Croakamancy in Faq, a fairly un-warlike nation. Plus, they don't seem to have the same feelings about bodies as we do: Sizemore thinks that Parson's batboop craz for going to the trouble of burying Misty.

[Corwin Weber]

They probably view it as unpleasant, but I doubt they have any strong taboos. Wanda is seen here, in Faq, with a skull in her hair. I interpret this to mean that she already practiced Croakamancy in Faq, a fairly un-warlike nation. Plus, they don't seem to have the same feelings about bodies as we do: Sizemore thinks that Parson's batboop craz for going to the trouble of burying Misty.

Actually.... yeah. I forgot about that. Bodies disappear at the end of the turn, don't they. Or the beginning. I lose track. Anyway, yeah, good point. :)

[El_Chupacabra]

Kinda skimmed the posts here; bear with me if I'm repeating someone else.

I would think that the main reason that Stanley is a "monster" as opposed to a standard enemy is that he apparently has a history of destroying cities as opposed to capturing them. I suspect he did this rather than trying to hold them for the basic reason that they were too cumbersome to manage. He is rather simple-minded when it comes to leadership, after all; perhaps he thought it easier to manage an empire where captured cities "fed the furnace."

I'd even go so far as to suggest that Wanda, with the greater strategic mind, was the reason he even had the 8 cities he had (assuming he did not inherit them when he became Overlord). I could see her suggesting that he might be able to squeeze them for resources a bit better if they were not smoldering husks.

[Arkenputtyknife]

They probably view it as unpleasant, but I doubt they have any strong taboos. Wanda is seen here, in Faq, with a skull in her hair. I interpret this to mean that she already practiced Croakamancy in Faq, a fairly un-warlike nation. Plus, they don't seem to have the same feelings about bodies as we do: Sizemore thinks that Parson's batboop craz for going to the trouble of burying Misty.

Well… we wouldn't bury our dead either, if we knew the body would completely vanish within 24 hours. Sizemore was essentially right: no matter how well-intentioned Parson's gesture was, it was no more than a gesture, and shows that Parson's head still isn't quite in Erfworld.

[TigerHunter]

Well… we wouldn't bury our dead either, if we knew the body would completely vanish within 24 hours. Sizemore was essentially right: no matter how well-intentioned Parson's gesture was, it was no more than a gesture, and shows that Parson's head still isn't quite in Erfworld.

True, the main point of burying the body is to get rid of it so you don't have a corpse stinking up your living room. But pretty much every culture has developed a ritual that accompanies the burying/burning of the dead. Sizemore's reaction seemed more like "Meh, just throw her in the corner until next turn. She'll go away on her own."

[Arkenputtyknife]

True, the main point of burying the body is to get rid of it so you don't have a corpse stinking up your living room.

Actually, the main point of burying the dead is to put off scavengers. The stinking up bit could be accomplished by simply tossing the corpse outside.

But pretty much every culture has developed a ritual that accompanies the burying/burning of the dead. Sizemore's reaction seemed more like "Meh, just throw her in the corner until next turn. She'll go away on her own."

Which orifice did you pull that out of? As far as I know, all we have on the subject is Parson's klog entry, in which he told us that Sizemore thought he was “batboop crazy”—a pretty reasonable reaction to insisting on burying a corpse that's going to vanish within a day. Everything else is unwarranted speculation.

Saying prayers over her, standing vigil until the corpse vanishes—those things would have been perfectly reasonable, and there's nothing in the comic or the klog that says Sizemore and company didn't do or wouldn't have done such things. But burial? Sizemore was right: Parson wasn't thinking straight.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

...Stanley?

"She'd never follow that monster out of her own free will." - Jillian, from the most recent comic.

There have been other references as well... do we have any idea what makes Stanley a monster?

Parson...the character most like the reader...for one recognizes that Stanley has all the bad monsters...undead, dragons, crap golems...I mean *crap* golems can't be good...rock hurling giant teddy bear golems are good...and Parsons sees that most everyone else is allied against Stanley.

When Parson calls Stanley on it at the very beginning, his being the Big Bad Evil Guy, Stanley gets really angry. Not angry like Ansom "How dare you angry!" or angry like Jillian or Wanda "Grrrrlllll angry!" but "OBEY ME OR DIE NOW!" angry. When the mentally injured Foolamancer annoys him, Stanley chokes him. And when Parson and Wanda's strategy fall apart he suspects them all of treachery...something we know as the readers is not the case...a little projection from Stanley perhaps?

Now in general Stanley is jerk...a lovably cute jerk for the reader...but a "Tool" for any who work for him including his most loyal aide. But it's actually worse. He treats his underlings really bad. It's not just forgetting Sizemore or the Foolamancer's names or not caring about strategy. It's knowingy allowing, even encouraging, Wanda to practice torture and mind control.

It's forcing Misty and Maggie and the Foolamancer into a magic trance which can permanently dissolve their personal identities...Maggies self-protection can be understood as just that. After Stanley order the break up of the trio in order to get the one he needs to escape, Mist dies and the Foolamancer goes insane.

Stanley's disregard for his underlings includes agreeing with Wanda to pull an unwilling Parson from another universe to be bound to Stanley's will at the risk of being disbanded...whatever that means.

Stanley's disregard for his troops goes so far that he abandons his own troops to whatever fate awaits them...which is something that pompous Ansom would never do...and this is something that he told Wanda way at the beginning that he was willing to do.

Known history paints Stanley little better. Wanda first admits that Stanley started the current war. Vinny also admits that Parson is bad because he destroyed at least one clan of elves. Sizemore hints that Stanley may (or may not) have committed regicide. Jillian thinks Stanley cost her her kingdom.

Ah yes but Stanley thinks he's working for the Titans...that paints him in an even worse light or should. Stanley is not just dedicated to his cause but a fanatic zealot. He has not shred of doubt that whatever he does is right.

Certainly Ansom's "I'm better than you because I'm noble" POV strikes a dissonant chord with readers...and he ticks off Parson and other Erfwolders too. But Stanley strikes no sympathy with anyone within the story at all. Not a single one.

His own troops think they are evil and working for evil overlords. The guard outside the cell where Jillian is tortured praises Wanda's eeevilness.

So in the end, Stanley is a single minded zealot who is convinced the gods of his world have picked for a purpose, that he can do no wrong, that he is destined to rule the world, who thinks nothing of anyone else but himself and his own interest, who is willing to sacrifice anything and anyone to get his way and is willing to use any means necessary no matter how manipulative, vile, hurtful or disgusting it is, who uses minions some of whom feel the same way, and who is hated, feared and ridiculed at every opportunity by every single character in the story...

...but he's not evil oh no...

The funny thing is that this is an expected reaction. It's like Belkar or Miko or Redcloak...or Wile E. Coyote.

When you paint someone as the bad guy, some readers are going to pull for him so much that they are going to believe that the guy is not evil...Hmm I wonder if this is already a trope? The "He's not evil evil" trope?

Don't get me wrong. Stanley is evil...but I like it.

[teratorn]

Stanley's disregard for his underlings includes agreeing with Wanda to pull an unwilling Parson from another universe to be bound to Stanley's will at the risk of being disbanded...whatever that means.

Unwhat? "Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned."

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Heh...tvtropes has a Stanley quote in the What Is Evil? trope alongsde a quote by Voldemort...which one of you did that

But both quotes refer to the in-story argument.

In the out-of-story discussion, 99% of people would see Voldemort as pure evil...like a Xykon. Sure you could role-play them but you are role-playing evil...big evil...no Dr. Evil campiness.

Stanley out-of-story is like a conflicted evil...he generates a response like Redcloak.

Is it just the motive I wonder? Get the right motive and change the response.

Stanley seems to have the democratic motive...Down with the rich!...like Redcloak.

Voldemort and Xykon just seem out for themselves (to the readers).

Hmm...Democratize Voldemort, make him want to give magic, dangerously, to muggles...

Democratize Ansom...make him the one who rose from the ranks...hmm...

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Unwhat? "Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned."

That does not take the basic nature of the spell...it's compulsion...away.

True, Stanley did say that...at the last minute. That did not have to be a requirement. It was not on Stanley's mind until the last minute. It's something that Stanley added late..along with all the other last minute requirements...look what he got.

And true Parson said before that he'd love nothing more than to escape and live life in a game...but did he really mean it...totally...was it a completely free and intelligent choice...

Did he mean he wanted his will subverted to someone else?

Did he really want to question his sanity?

Again?

And again?

Did he want to face death?

Or face his own?

[Wender]

And true Parson said before that he'd love nothing more than to escape and live life in a game...but did he really mean it...totally...was it a completely free and intelligent choice...

Did he mean he wanted his will subverted to someone else?

Did he really want to question his sanity?

Again?

And again?

Did he want to face death?

Or face his own?

Knowing what he knew about the nature of war and strategy games, could he reasonably expect not to do any of the above? Granted, he seems not to really grok his choice until Misty dies, but it wouldn't take that much reflection to figure out.

His mistake was assuming that, as a referee, he would appear as a faction leader. But in history and in games, the leader is not necessarily the master strategist.

[Kasavin]

What cracks me up about the spell was the biting heads off of gwiffons and eating marbits for breakfast. Technically, Parson did both, just not the marbits and gwiffons Stanley had in mind.

As for the "want to be summoned," the way Stanley says it suggests he was less concerned about the summoned feelings and was in a rare moment practical. To have your perfect war lord crying about loosing his family would be inconvient, even if the spell compels him to obey. Better to have some one all gung ho about working for me.

[SteveMB]

I hadn't thought of blame transferrence but yeah, that's a really good point now that you mention it and I think that, combined with the destruction of FAQ, would go a long way toward Jillian's feelings of raw hatred for Stanley.

And that really is the heart of the matter, much of the rest of this has gotten far afield of the subject--remember, it's Jillian who calls Stanley a "monster" so we can only take the source of the comment into consideration. War as way of life in Erfworld, whether Stanley was responsible for the overthrow of Saline IV, Ansom's monomania, etc., that's all good stuff for discussion but it's ancillary to the "monster" statement.

Absent any clear, definitive Rape the Dog moments on the Tool's part, and knowing she doesn't care about royalty I think we have to assume Jillian's calling him that is entirely about personal-level hatred. And the only things that we've seen that could inspire that are the destruction of FAQ and Jillian's presumption that Wanda was corrupted/controlled by Stanley.

That raises an interesting question about Jillian's future reactions. She has realized that Wanda's actions "went too far", gotten angry about it, and (after a bit of initial hesitation) confronted Wanda about it (including telling her that she prefers Ansom, who might be annoying but who trusts her and lets her make her own decisions when push comes to shove). However, she clings to the belief that Wanda was not responsible for those actions -- in her view, Stanley has Wanda under a compulsion, and thus it's really his fault.

If this incident changes Jillian's mind on that last point, what then? She'd still have cause to go after Stanley (the destruction of Faq, her promise to Ansom), but it might feel less satisfying, even a bit hollow, if it won't (as she now expects) resolve the displaced blame for Wanda's abusive behavior.

[teratorn]

However, she clings to the belief that Wanda was not responsible for those actions -- in her view, Stanley has Wanda under a compulsion, and thus it's really his fault.

Yes, Wanda might be the real "monster": uncroaked, torture, etc. And if, as some have suggested, it was Wanda behind FAQ's demise, Jillian's private war should be with Wanda, not Stanley.

[Corwin Weber]

...but he's not evil oh no...

The funny thing is that this is an expected reaction. It's like Belkar or Miko or Redcloak...or Wile E. Coyote.

When you paint someone as the bad guy, some readers are going to pull for him so much that they are going to believe that the guy is not evil...Hmm I wonder if this is already a trope? The "He's not evil evil" trope?

Don't get me wrong. Stanley is evil...but I like it.

Have you actually read the thread?

We're all pretty much in agreement here that Stanley is no saint. The point is that he's not a Redcloak or a Xykon. He's a general. He's ruthless. Evil? Somewhat, yes. But he's far more a Patton or Grant (neither of whom were saints either) than he is a Hitler or a Torquemada.

Would I want to work for him? Hell no. Would I work for him given the choice between him and Redcloak? In a heartbeat.

[Twisted Otaku]

Hell I don't like Stanley either. He's a twit. But that's a far cry from looking at him as the next incarnation of Chengis Khan or something.

The only person who really seems to have a crazy bad problem with stanley is Ansom, and that's just because the royalty thing. I honestly don't know what the rest of the higher ranking people on the alliance side think. Vinne calls Ansom out on why he hates him so much, but Vinnie seems to be in on this whole thing because he's Ansoms friend more than anything. And yeah Jillian did lose her kingdom to him, at least that's what she says. It could have been Saline's orders to wipe out FAQ before he got croaked. Jillian is still.... I dunno, a loose plot thread to me. Anyways, I think alot of people don't like Stanley for some of the same reason democrats don't like George Bush : p

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Have you actually read the thread?

Many times before...

We're all pretty much in agreement here that Stanley is no saint. The point is that he's not a Redcloak or a Xykon.

But then there's people who say Redcloak is no Xykon...

He's a general. He's ruthless. Evil? Somewhat, yes. But he's far more a Patton or Grant (neither of whom were saints either) than he is a Hitler or a Torquemada.

Well Patton and Grant are a bit of a reach for out lovable little tyrant don't you think? Now in your first post you said

Redcloak's a monster. The difference is, I can point to atrocities he's committed, a fair number of them in panel. (Torture, genocide, etc.) Stanley just seems to have had a string of military victories in a world that seems to be based on a wargame. Unlike OOtS, there are no children in Erf for Stanley to have murdered, for that matter there seem to be very few if any noncombantant units at all. Sooooo.....

The funny thing is that there are readers on the other forum that would argue with you that Redcloak is not a monster.

Yet I point out where we have in Erfworld that Stanley has sanctioned torture, that he "rubbed out the Milquetoast clan", that he destroyed Faq... Are these the equivalent of Erfworld genocide? ...that he has his evil-is-not-evil moment just like Redcloak when he threatens Parson from atop the dwagon.

So it seems to me that Stanley is pretty much in the same role, namely the Big Bad Evil Guy. And he should be...he started the the whole damn thing...he started the war that led to the coalition, he was the cause of Jillian loosing her kingdom and finding Ansom and Wanda and the calling of Parson. Heck that is pretty much what Big Bad Evil Guys are supposed to do functionally in a story, namely get the conflict moving.

So, first, I am saying that Stanley's character is playing a role, the evil guy. He is the source of strife in the story. Second, I'm also saying he's also evil in-story. They go together though it's subtle differnce.

At the same time we can use the word 'evil' to make a moral evaluation in-story.

It does not seem like Erfworlders don't care about what is happening in-story. Parson and the readers see them as cute and comically game-like but to them it's not a game. Some love and care for each other...even the cloth golems mourn. Now this is important because this helps suspension of disbelief, well at least for me. That is that the characters in Erf seem to suffer. That is to say, in my suspension of disbelief, the characters are not just automatons in a game but are '3 dimensional'.

The fact that you take objection to Stanley being called a monster and hated by Ansom and Jillian in-story indicates a certain level of involvement in the story...a level I share and I think most readers share...though we may disagree with what we think is happening in the story.

That is, you object to Stanley being called evil in-story. You compare him to real-world (our in-story world) figures like Grant and Patton or to a ruthless general. You say

Would I want to work for him? Hell no. Would I work for him given the choice between him and Redcloak? In a heartbeat.

What kind of choice is that? It's not a real choice but an evaluation. A moral evaluation of the character in the story. No? That in itself implies that you want the in-story world to be consistent for you and Stanley does not fit what you think is evil.

Now for me, I have a different point of view. Given how Erf has been revealed to work so far, I have no problem calling Stanley evil in-story. That is I do not buy Stanley's argument that he is the same as Ansom. Ansom may have a stick up his boop but he deals differently with the challenges of Erf. He does not rule by fear but rather seems to inspire real loyalty. Heck even Wanda seems to have more 'human' feelings for others than Stanley does. She begs for Jillian's life when Jillian fights the dwagons. She's seems hurt at Wanda's rejection. Stanley on the other hand seems to be, for lack of a better term, a sociopath. He does not care about anyone else. Combine that with his actions, shadowy as they may be, and that adds up to evil, Xykon level evil, at least for me.

And that's why both Xykon and Stanley are my favorite characters in their respective comics. Not because they are evil sociopaths in their respective stories but in spite of the fact. And that's a shows the quality in the writing.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

The only person who really seems to have a crazy bad problem with stanley is Ansom, and that's just because the royalty thing.

And all the tribes Stanley hit that joined up with Ansom to fight Stanley...

And all the tribes Stanley did no hit that joined up with Ansom to fight Stanley...

I honestly don't know what the rest of the higher ranking people on the alliance side think. Vinne calls Ansom out on why he hates him so much, but Vinnie seems to be in on this whole thing because he's Ansoms friend more than anything.

In that same convo, page 34, it is Vinny who says Stanley is "bad news" and "has to be stopped"...

It could have been Saline's orders to wipe out FAQ before he got croaked. Jillian is still.... I dunno, a loose plot thread to me. Anyways, I think alot of people don't like Stanley for some of the same reason democrats don't like George Bush : p

It would be more like a lot of people don't like George Bush because of the way he attacked their country...

Stanley is feared by his own tribes...feared as in "OBEY ME OR DIE!" fear not as in feared because "I can't believe he just vetoed that bill!". He is hated by other tribes because he attacked them. Jillian says she ran into lots of them before she suspected Stanley of the attack on Faq on page 83. Vinny lists Stanley's attacks on at least 4 different groups on page 34.

...I guess it's an emotional reaction. Whether you think Stanley is evil or not is just that...how you feel it.

[SteveMB]

My read on the original question is that it isn't simply "Why does just about everybody consider Stanley to be a bad guy?". That much is fairly clear (e.g. his attacks on various sides). It goes beyond that, to "Why does he elicit the level of raw personal hatred (above and beyond simply being an enemy) that makes him a 'monster'?".

For instance, Vinny's "Yeah, he's bad news." comment is an example of the former -- Vinny recognizes that, yes, there are good reasons to fight Stanley, but still questions why it's such a big deal that a marginally involved side like Jetstone would put forth a great effort and lead a coalition against him. The latter, more intense, reaction seems to be particular to Ansom and Jillian, for various reasons (some of them clearly established, and possibly others that can be read between the lines -- see previous posts this thread).

[Twisted Otaku]

And all the tribes Stanley hit that joined up with Ansom to fight Stanley...

And all the tribes Stanley did no hit that joined up with Ansom to fight Stanley...

Not necessarily. Remember WWI. The reason it got to the 'World' status was because of a series of alliances. Austria-Hungary and the kingdom of Serbia got into it, and then their allies and then their allies allies. Same with WWII. Hitler's forces marches through Belgium, Britain declares war. I'm pretty sure not everybody is there because they want to squash stanley. Probably just because they want to show support for their ally. Also, since Stanley became king, I don't remember the comic showing him winning any battles. I know attacking somebody and still losing is still an act of war. But nothing like a rampaging monster who can't be stopped. True, he won alot of battles during the reign of Saline, but shouldn't they tribes he hit be more upset at saline for either ordering the attack or letting it go? Not that it matters since he's dead, perhaps that's just one other thing Stanley inherited.

In that same convo, page 34, it is Vinny who says Stanley is "bad news" and "has to be stopped"....

Yes, however Vinny is either just very much more level-headed than Ansom or he just knows he has a job that needs to get done. Remember war is everywhere in Erf. It may be that there's never been a period of peace. The same sentiment could apply to anybody who's at war with somebody else, not because he's a 'monster'

Stanley is feared by his own tribes...feared as in "OBEY ME OR DIE!" fear not as in feared because "I can't believe he just vetoed that bill!".

Actually I think for Stanley's troops, it's more like, "OBEY ME, THEN DIE, THEN GET UNCROAKED SO I DON'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH FOR UPKEEP!"

He is hated by other tribes because he attacked them.

A natural reaction to anybody that has been attacked by somebody else. Although the genocide of the Milquetoast clan (though with that name I wonder how they lasted so long) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milquetoast

Jillian says she ran into lots of them before she suspected Stanley of the attack on Faq on page 83. Vinny lists Stanley's attacks on at least 4 different groups on page 34.

Jillian also said it took her a long time until she found alot. Who know's if Faq was just an earlier pit stop on his quest for dominion. The 'long' time may have been when he was attacking other people and they (AND their allies) were attacking back, though not in such force until the Jetstones arrive.

...I guess it's an emotional reaction. Whether you think Stanley is evil or not is just that...how you feel it.

Agreed, it depends on what you're willing to call an 'evil' act. and whether or not you believe in aboslutes.