Erfworld 114, Page 102

[Albatross]

As for practicality, I still feel diplomacy, if not surrender, was an avenue that was never explored. The whole conflict has the pungent aroma of needlessness.

Do we even know this is possible? As was previously stated, Neutral units (what happens if the leader of a faction is eliminated) are usually butchered wholesale except for useful casters, who may or may not be taken on depending on their usefulness due to their bottomed-out Loyalty rating. Even if it is possible to give another Player (and I prefer to use this term since it is more fitting to a world that is a wargame) one's units, there's no guarantee they would have any other effect other than being at the bottom of the loyalty scale.

We don't even know if surrendering and negotiations are possible in the current situation or within the game world's mechanics. Furthermore, who is he going to surrender to, Ansom? The one who he has driven to bouts of blind rage on more than one occaision while tricking him into doing something foolish at every opportunity? That is, unfortunately, the only person he knows as a leader short of Charles, and that situation would be iffy at best since Charles is supposed to be a dependable mercenary.

---

I would state that even being on guard against the problem does not eliminate it.

No, but show me a problem of this nature (ie: crime) that has been completely and totally eliminated using any sort of policy. What matters is not whether or not such thing will happen (because they will) but the frequency and tendency of such.... as wel as the military's response to such. Most Western ones harshly punish those in their midst who have criminal inclinations or perform clearly wrong acts, exactly as they should.

---

Ego, bravado, and the inability to deal with personal problems? Those don't exist in any gamers I've ever met...

Ego, bravado, and the inability to deal with personal problems? Those don't exist in any sapient beings I've ever met. /sarc off

---

And, now, to defend one of my favorite movies...

Tony Stark isn't allowed to wonder whether there's an element of moral culpability for the weapons he sells to DoD.

Sure he is. It just occurs offscreen and is explained fairly early. "Dad did it." He clearly likes and emulates his father in several ways and carries on the family tradition. It's generally assumed he's worked over any such moral culpability at earlier points in his life, else he wouldn't be there.

All of the villainy in the movie resides with malevolent swarthy foreign men with accents and impenetrable motives (and one duplicitous businessman who loses his boop and literally goes ballistic).

Right. Except that one 'duplicitous businessman' you listed happens to be the primary villain and antogonist of the movie. The BBEG, as it were. Furthermore, the inclusion of the 'malevolent swarthy foreign men' fits in both with current events as well as remaining true to the source material. Observe the symbol on their vehicles and crates, that of ten interlocking circles forming a larger circle. That's the insignia of the Ten Rings, the organization created by the Mandarin, Iron Man's chief nemesis. This is further supported when you see the 'lead' malevolent foreign man twirling that oversized ring on his finger... it's one of the Mandargin's ten rings of power, most likely the one that allows him to see through a willing servant's eyes (if it had been, say, the one that fires ice rays or disintegration beams, it likely would have seen direct use). Their motives aren't impenetrable--they are doing the Mandarin's will, and the intrusion of Stark Industries and its representative's betrayal of the Ten Rings. This sets up future conflict between Iron Man and Mandarin... the Mandarin knows Stark Industries betrayed his minions, and will blame it on Tony. No doubt, in the intervening time between the current Iron Man movies and the sequel, the Mandarin will be preparing for conflict against an unsuspecting Stark. Just as the eventual appearance of War Machine was hinted at with little subtlety, so is the groundwork set down for the next movie.

[quote=Pclips]But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis[/quote
I fail to see this. He had numerous moral crises in the movie about whether or not to share the technology he had developed. Even when it came out that the 'bad guys' (Ten Rings) were getting ahold of his weapons, he didn't arrange for some special way to give it to the DoD alone... he cut weapons production entirely, across the board, rather than put anyone at risk... while he risked putting one of the biggest companies in the (fictional) world into bankruptcy. He had to rethink everything. Furthermore, this is true to the source material as well, as Stark Industries was producing technologies for SHIELD and ceased for a similar reason (although, of course, in the movie SHIELD was still in un-acryonym'd form).

Fortunately, in your case, you don't have any 'source material' to have to remain true to, since you are, in fact, the source.

[The Old Hack]

No, but show me a problem of this nature (ie: crime) that has been completely and totally eliminated using any sort of policy. What matters is not whether or not such thing will happen (because they will) but the frequency and tendency of such.... as wel as the military's response to such. Most Western ones harshly punish those in their midst who have criminal inclinations or perform clearly wrong acts, exactly as they should.

Err, the original issue was whether it would be realistic to claim that soldiers in the real world experience that they are placed in a role they are expected to fill whether they want to or not, regardless whether they are fit for it, and no-one caring if they are not. I still feel that this may be said to be the case. Of course someone may be extremely unfit for a position and in that case certainly should be removed from it, and the best armies do have fairly good safeguards against such situations. Even so, in all too many cases the mismatch may not be that obvious, in which case the response is all too often to use a hammer to make the square peg fit in a round hole.

[Kindle]

Not sure we can fault Sizemore for being a hypocrite. Under Erfworld rules, you either obey orders or risk death via disbandment. At best, it seems like we could "fault" Sizemore for not having the conviction to die for his principles - but unless you've been in a similar situation it's hard to throw the first stone, ya know?

Speculation:

Spoiler

Show

I'm wondering though, if being forced into a combat role is lowering Sizemore's loyalty rating... lowering it enough so that when the time comes to initiate Parson's plan, Sizemore simply chooses to defect rather than kill Jetstone's tunnel invaders. Such an act might force Parson to realize the situation is now 100% completely unwinnable and force him to try and surender to Jetstone, thereby preventing casualties on both sides. Looks like win-win for Sizemore there - IF Ansom is still even willing to consider a surrender at this point.

[SteveMB]

Do we even know this is possible? As was previously stated, Neutral units (what happens if the leader of a faction is eliminated) are usually butchered wholesale except for useful casters, who may or may not be taken on depending on their usefulness due to their bottomed-out Loyalty rating.

Specifically, Parson notes that "turned and captured units have a notoriously low loyalty to their new side, unless you put a spell on them".

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit) is not under a loyalty spell even more interesting. I'd been interpreting Jillian's refusal to believe that as a rationalization that makes Wanda not really responsible for her actions, but it may also be a perfectly rational assumption that an ruler who bothered to capture valuable enemy units would take such precautions.

[Kindle]

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit) is not under a loyalty spell even more interesting.

More speculation:

Spoiler

Show

Seems to me that Wanda betrayed Faq to Stanley. Not sure how or why, but it fits. It would take someone on the inside to know how to get to Faq, and when their defense force was out on a mission and unable to defend. Plus, the fact that Wanda stayed with Stanley with no loyalty spell indicates that she joined his side willingly, and not on a "join-us-or-die" sort of basis.

[Zolem]

Because of the fact that it IS a turn-based wargame. If the only books worth keeping are battle histories , what other kind of world could it be? Even with "something like HIGH SCORES".

Parson was looking up the history of warfare, not all of history or other lore. There may be a lot of rules for combat, but look at D&D, half the players handbook is about combat, yet it involves a lot more than that. Combat rules by necesity will be extensive and detailed. That doesn't mean that nothing else exists.

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit) is not under a loyalty spell even more interesting.

In the profiles, it notes that she is the last of the Croatan Tribe. If she was from Faq, she'd be from the same tribe as the other survivors (the other barbarians). As such, I think she might have been a capture by Faq (there is no mention of her poping there) and she betrayed it to Stanly in revenge.

[brob]

I fail to see this. He had numerous moral crises in the movie about whether or not to share the technology he had developed. Even when it came out that the 'bad guys' (Ten Rings) were getting ahold of his weapons, he didn't arrange for some special way to give it to the DoD alone... he cut weapons production entirely

Not to suck up to the proprietor too much (except... "omigod!omigod!omigod! erfworld is great!" ok, done), but I think you're making Rob's point. On screen at least, Tony stops producing weapons because he sees them used by "bad people". I agree with your reading that his character might have gone through some kind of moral development off screen, (perhaps the shock of seeing his weapons used on "good guys" makes him think about the reality of war)... but it takes a bit of generous viewing. I think Rob's right that the filmmakers probably selected between having that really important character movement on screen, or having the fancy planes and tanks on screen.

[SteveMB]

Parson was looking up the history of warfare, not all of history or other lore. There may be a lot of rules for combat, but look at D&D, half the players handbook is about combat, yet it involves a lot more than that. Combat rules by necesity will be extensive and detailed. That doesn't mean that nothing else exists.

Parson said "These books are mostly battle histories." That sounds like he was describing the library generally, not the specific books he was reading (though it's possible that he was referring particularly to the books Wanda pointed out to him). If so, and there isn't much if anything in the way of cultural writing in Erfworld, it sounds rather dark (especially to creative people, such as the authors... ).

[Eugenitor]

But as before, the story is in part about Parson's journey and of how heroes deal with the consequences of their actions. Parson may be morally culpable but the true test is how he deals with it.

What if he gets a big taste and finds that he, in fact, does like it?

The seeds are there. Parson likes playing the bad guys. Stanley demanded a warlord who kills for fun. Suppose, for a moment, that instead of learning to treat Erfworld units like real people, he learns to treat the ostensibly real people around him like wargame units? (He'll never show this, of course- unlike Stanley, he'll do what he must in order to retain loyalty and inspire confidence. Which is kinda what he's trying to do now.)

Additionally, Erfworld has a leveling-up system. What if Parson becomes level 5, or maybe level 7, by the time all is said and done? In most wargames (Warcraft 3 springs to mind), human attributes are raised, significantly, by the slaughter of other beings. What if Parson goes in looking like, well, Parson, and comes out of it with even MORE intelligence and a physique resembling Arnold Schwarzenegger?

And, furthermore, what if he finds himself needing to PERSONALLY lead a specific attack, runs a Marbit or two through with that shiny new sword of his, and finds that he really doesn't care? What if a Peep tries to NYAAAARM him and he grabs its jaws and tears it open something like this?

I'm LOLing that the arguments on this board USED to be "omg Parson can become GOD!" (through trickery, exploits, etc) What if he actually DOES, through sheer tactical prowess, mercilessness, and force of will?

[ishnar]

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

[Zolem]

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

True, a warmonger in a peace nation would hate it. But it still doesn't explain the tribe thing.

[Jeivar]

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

I guess it's POSSIBLE, but from what we've seen of Wanda's personality so far I'm pretty sure she ultimately serves no one but herself. I think her overall plan was/is to acquire the arkenhammer and set up her own side with Jillian as a figurehead. I just don't think someone of her devious intelligence could ever hold any real respect or appreciation for an idiotic cretin like Stanley. Just my five cent.

[Friendly Fiend]

Concepts that were already in play in Erf, without Parson. We saw that in the early strips.

In non-conflict situations, yes. As in many fantasy war games, strategy however focused on using each piece to its best advantage according to its predetermined strengths and weaknesses. Parsons movement of Misty, Sizemore, and even Bogroll has changed their characters, and perhaps Erfworld itself significantly.

I still haven't seen any proof of this. In fact, one of the first strips (might have been the first, I'm too lazy to check) showed the balance of power in the world being upset by the unintentional and accidental dropping of a gemstone into someone's territory. Perhaps without that gemstone, the world would never have spawned the waves of warfare that it did which have culminated in the current Battle for Gobwin Knob. So I am left thinking that the Titans intended the world to be in balance and NOT a wargame, NOT fighting each other. Or maybe they intended all fights to end in stalemate. I don't know, but the dropping of that gem is what we're told causes the imbalance of power which then causes one side to have an advantage over the others.

Link: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html

You may be taking that thought a little far, while the gemstone could be interpreted as a kind of accidental Tree of Knowledge, it seems to me that the incident speaks more about the small ways that Erfworld is changed that lead to huge consequences. Probably having something to do with the way all roads indirectly lead back to Parson, and the way minute changes in a (possibly imaginary, though I give the authors more credit then expecting them to end on a Saint Elmo's Fire kinda note) world lead to very big changes in Parsons character.

Second, the text states that because of the gem the marbits could afford an extra squad of axemen, either way they're still popping axemen. Rather, it shows this gigantic gem, this artifact of the creators, was used specifically and explicitly for war.

How many national treasures have real world nations sacrificed for war?

[dr pepper]

The last of the great coalition wars among the hellanic powers gave rise to a great scandal. The rulers of the district of Phokis, which was the guardian of Delphi, were supposedly found to have sold some of the treasures if the temple to pay for their army. Since the treasures were gifts to Apollo by grateful supplicants, and the site itself was considered part of the heritage of all Greece, it was completely out of bounds to do that, even if your fellow greeks were trying to kill you. This was Phillip's opening. He was able to mute the reaction to bringing his army south by claiming he was only there to punish the phokians for their sacrilege.

[pclips]

Hey before this thread passes into antiquity, I just wanted to thank everybody for making it one of the most intelligent and interesting discussions we've ever had here.

And I wanted to say that Albatross raised some pretty valid points where my critique of Iron Man is concerned. I suppose that not being as familiar with the original comics as I should have been (I had to ask my comics reading friends why there were Hungarian speakers in the bunch), I didn't consider the burden of staying true to the source.

I still think the movie fell prey to the white/black hats school of moral lessons, but now I can blame the comic books for that.

[Aquillion]

Specifically, Parson notes that "turned and captured units have a notoriously low loyalty to their new side, unless you put a spell on them".

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit) is not under a loyalty spell even more interesting. I'd been interpreting Jillian's refusal to believe that as a rationalization that makes Wanda not really responsible for her actions, but it may also be a perfectly rational assumption that an ruler who bothered to capture valuable enemy units would take such precautions.

I noticed something else on that page I didn't bring up before:

Jillian says "That's crap. She'd never follow that monster out of her own free will."

Free will?

I don't know whether that's sheltered innocence on Jillian's part (it simply hasn't occurred to her that normally, nobody except royalty and faction leaders actually has free will in her world) or something else (maybe she assumes or realizes Wanda would potentially have more free will as a captured caster.)

Either way, though, it's telling.

[fendrin]

I noticed something else on that page I didn't bring up before:

Jillian says "That's crap. She'd never follow that monster out of her own free will."

Free will?

I don't know whether that's sheltered innocence on Jillian's part (it simply hasn't occurred to her that normally, nobody except royalty and faction leaders actually has free will in her world) or something else (maybe she assumes or realizes Wanda would potentially have more free will as a captured caster.)

Either way, though, it's telling.

"Free will" is a lot easier to say than "Free will up until and occasionally past the point of betraying one's lord and master".

Yes, I made that a tad bit wordier than necessary, but I think the point still holds.

[SteveMB]

"Free will" is a lot easier to say than "Free will up until and occasionally past the point of betraying one's lord and master".

Yes, I made that a tad bit wordier than necessary, but I think the point still holds.

It could be simpler than that -- she thinks that Wanda wouldn't follow Stanley out of her own free will (as opposed to following Stanley because he has a strong loyalty spell on her).

(And that leaves us with the question of why she doesn't, given that captured/turned units are known to have weak Loyalty, which means greater risk of double-dealing....)

[Gamebird]

It could be that unit death isn't seen the same way that modern, Western real world views death. Death could be seen as a valid choice. For example, given the choice of betraying your master and dying, or obeying orders you find reprehensible, perhaps an Erfworlder would find it much more appealing to betray and die.

Has the strip said that betrayal/disobedience kills you before you can finish the action? I know it said essentially that for Parson - that the summoning spell would end him if he disobeyed - but what about for other units?

[fendrin]

It could be that unit death isn't seen the same way that modern, Western real world views death. Death could be seen as a valid choice. For example, given the choice of betraying your master and dying, or obeying orders you find reprehensible, perhaps an Erfworlder would find it much more appealing to betray and die.

Has the strip said that betrayal/disobedience kills you before you can finish the action? I know it said essentially that for Parson - that the summoning spell would end him if he disobeyed - but what about for other units?

It is at least implied that a unit could betray, and so long as they were 'adopted' by another overlord/ruler, they would not be auto-croaked. In fact, it seems to take an act of will from one's overlord/ruler in order to be croaked for disobeying.