Erfworld 114, Page 102

[Occasional Sage]

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.

If you're referring to Sizemore in Panel 10, he didn't mean those to be questions. They're statements, and the phrasing forces Parson to think about what he's being accused of.

Edit: looking at panel 12, that looks to be Bogroll sitting to the right of Sizemore, and he has over his head the marks that in many comics denote a sudden and surprising thought. Sizemore's declaration of hatred would most likely get an angry response from him, like when Sizemore suggested that Parson is crazy; what has this conversation triggered for him?

[SteveMB]

Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

Perhaps not. Erfworlders know that unit stats exist and govern various important aspects of their lives, so they're predisposed to explain things in such terms. The "loyalty stat" may have no more real existence than the crystalline spheres and epicycles of ancient astronomy.

Actually, according to the cast page, Sizemore is part of the Plaid Tribe, like Stanley. He's original to GK.

And he specifically said that he was popped under Saline IV, who ruled the place prior to Stanley.

[The Old Hack]

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes.

*blinks* I don't care about or like Sizemore? That's strange, here I thought he was one of my favourite characters. Ah well, good thing I have you around here to set me straight!

[Occasional Sage]

*blinks* I don't care about or like Sizemore? That's strange, here I thought he was one of my favourite characters. Ah well, good thing I have you around here to set me straight!

No, you don't. Neither do I. In fact now that it's explained to me I realize that I was horribly wrong to think he was even interesting, much less one of the more nuanced characters.

Do you feel as silly as I do now?

[fendrin]

It almost seems like the process of "popping" units causes them to generate a set of personality attributes almost as complex, if not more so, than their combat stats. Then, the question becomes: how mutable are these attributes? How much can they change over time? In fact, how is it even possible to be/think/act like a "real person" without any actual memory or experiences before the moment you pop into being, fully grown and ready for battle? Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

The way I think about it is that when a unit is popped they have a fully formed personality, as if they had lived through a complete set of formative experiences. If you think about it, it is as if all units are popped as perfect amnesiacs. They have a fully formed personality, but no memory of events that shaped that personality. I prefer to think of the characters as human analogues, and thus can change their personality as much as any human can. It makes it easier for me to identify with the characters.

[glenstorm74]

You know...Wanda has a reputation of doing the unexpected as she seems to follow a personal agenda. It would make perfect sense that Wanda is playing with her toys and not speaking with Parson because she has no intention of following through with his plan. The real question for me is: "What will she do?"

Wild speculation
We know that the arkenpliers have some affinity for the undead. Many have also proposed that Wanda has the most potential for becoming the comic's main villan. What if Wanda were to aquire the pliers and start a whole new side? An undead side.

[Zolem]

Wild speculation
We know that the arkenpliers have some affinity for the undead...

The affinity of destroying them realy easily. An Undead BANE weapon does not provide somebody with an Undead army.

BAck to the comic. A lot of people are calling Seizmore hypocritical or a wimp. Those who do so, take a gun, point it at somebody three feet away, and kill them after waiting a day to think about it......well, what are you waiting for? It's hard isn't it, to end a life.

Real life example: I enjoy playing more pasifiscal charecters, which got me berated by my fellow RPers, who slaughter and gave grusome descriptions and such, and slaughter people, places, animals, and magnificant beasts with glee. Then I took them hunting one weekend. They couldn't bring themselves to shoot a thing. I killed three deer. They said it was horrible that I could kill animals like that. I said "What do you think you're charecters do? Where do you think hamburgers come from? Grow up. If you go hunting, you kill things." To summerise, it's easy to sayyou're a hardened killer, it'sa hell of a lot harder to pull the trigger. I can actually kill (animals, not peopple) and I still prefer to play a less violent roll. Why? Even though I am willing to kill, I don't do so needlessly. Wolves are exting in our area, so the deer population needs to be controled. I usualy just sell the animal, and it gets made into jerky and jerkins. I personaly don't eat the jerky, but a lot of people do. Anyone who acuses me of being hypocritical abotu how I roleplay and how I hunt misses the point. I understand the value of life. I just also know that things die. I just don't want things to die needlessly.

[The Old Hack]

The affinity of destroying them realy easily. An Undead BANE weapon does not provide somebody with an Undead army.

In their unattuned state, yes. If the Arkenpliers were to attune to Wanda -- either due to the will of the Titans or even their own preference, given that they are sentient -- they may well have additional powers not yet shown.

BAck to the comic. A lot of people are calling Seizmore hypocritical or a wimp. Those who do so, take a gun, point it at somebody three feet away, and kill them after waiting a day to think about it......well, what are you waiting for? It's hard isn't it, to end a life.

It is possible to be hypocritical without being aware of it, and then be horrified once one realises it. I do not consider Sizemore to be any less of a person even granted that he has existed in a state of denial so far and only now become aware of it. Even were it the case, it would still mean that he had now accepted the facts of his existence and become aware of the consequences of his duties -- something many others would have dealt with merely through finding a different form of denial with which to shield themselves.

But when it comes right down to it, he states that he has now tasted what it is like to croak others. Once it is up close and that personal, there are few illusions left to anyone, and he is honest enough to tell his own Warlord that he hates the feeling of it. And in spite of this, he is still intending to go do his duty the next Turn. This is not a coward, this is a soldier doing his duty in spite of being horrified by it.

Real life example: I enjoy playing more pasifiscal charecters, which got me berated by my fellow RPers, who slaughter and gave grusome descriptions and such, and slaughter people, places, animals, and magnificant beasts with glee.

It is a question of maturity and comprehension, I think. Fortunately I know roleplayers who put a bit more thought into their behavior than that. *sigh*

Then I took them hunting one weekend. They couldn't bring themselves to shoot a thing. I killed three deer. They said it was horrible that I could kill animals like that. I said "What do you think you're charecters do? Where do you think hamburgers come from? Grow up. If you go hunting, you kill things." To summerise, it's easy to sayyou're a hardened killer, it'sa hell of a lot harder to pull the trigger.

A great deal of training in boot camp goes into ensuring that the soldier will pull the trigger when he has to, and more importantly (from the officers' point of view, at least) when he is told to. Many people do not care for the idea of killing and need to be carefully managed to be eased into the role of soldier. Sizemore has had little in the way of either training or experience and nonetheless still carried out Parson's orders when on the spot.

I can actually kill (animals, not peopple) and I still prefer to play a less violent roll. Why? Even though I am willing to kill, I don't do so needlessly. Wolves are exting in our area, so the deer population needs to be controled. I usualy just sell the animal, and it gets made into jerky and jerkins. I personaly don't eat the jerky, but a lot of people do. Anyone who acuses me of being hypocritical abotu how I roleplay and how I hunt misses the point. I understand the value of life. I just also know that things die. I just don't want things to die needlessly.

I am in complete agreement with this. But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him. That makes Sizemore's dilemma even more painful -- he has only two options left to him, he can either do as he is told and become what he abhors, or he can fail in his duty. 'Ours not to make reply, ours but to do and die, into the valley of Death rode the six hundred...'

[Thoughtbot360]

I guess Sizemore killing a certain number of enemies will earn him the XP to gain a level, and that in turn will enable him to study more magic (as he has tried before, but without success).
How would that affect his feelings ?

Actually, the Level system is a pretty horrible artifice if you live in a world where people really do "level up" through endless killing. There are two types of high-level people in such a world:

1) Otherwise decent people who have lost their sanity do to PTS and heavy consciences. Type 2s might be on a mission to save the world from evil, but the need for constant fighting so that you stand a chance against said evil will invariably force you to fight constantly. (The only thing that stops them is cowardice or running out of victims that are challenging enough to give XP.)
2) People who like to kill in the first place. A psychopath who likes the thrill and challenge of killing successively greater foes could become the strongest person ever. They'd still go insane, but they wouldn't really notice.

Its a world where those with levels take what they want from those without levels. Just look at the abusive interactions on PVP servers of certain MMOs.

[Zolem]

But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him.

The ones who fight the war are not the ones who start it. The ones who benefit most never see battle. Those who lose the most are those that couldn't fight back. Luckily, civilians seem to be non-existant in this world, so that's one less horror of war to deal with.

"It is good that war is so horrible...."

The worse it is, the fewer want it. I enjoy Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics. I hate Advanced Wars and Chess. The first two reward you for guarding every unit as much as posible. The last two treats them as throw aways. I don't like having units die, even if it is good strategy. I know that sunds wimpy, but I don't want to sacrifice soemthing, even if it's not real (as far as I know), just to further my own goals. It's way to selfish for me.

[The Old Hack]

The worse it is, the fewer want it. I enjoy Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics. I hate Advanced Wars and Chess. The first two reward you for guarding every unit as much as posible. The last two treats them as throw aways.

Not necessarily. A certain French chess master from a couple centuries ago, for example, loathed the act of trading pieces, even pawns, and stated that it was the mark of simple minds that desired to reduce the problem in complexity to a level they could handle. He developed strategies based entirely on refusing trades of pieces, on protecting his pawns as they advanced, and finally choking the enemy behind an advanced forward line of pawns carefully guarded by officers. I no longer play chess very often, but I have tried this form of playing myself with a good deal of success.

I don't like having units die, even if it is good strategy. I know that sunds wimpy, but I don't want to sacrifice soemthing, even if it's not real (as far as I know), just to further my own goals. It's way to selfish for me.

In perfect honesty... this was at least half the reason I tried to emulate that stubborn Frenchman.

[BarGamer]

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.

Actually, it's "Can you." And even then, only if the person asking the question doesn't already know the answer. Sizemore isn't asking, he's ACCUSING. Sizemore, being a pacifist, doesn't want to lead his golems into battle. But Parson is ordering him to. It is a violation of his values. That's why Sizemore hates Parson, not because he's a emo suicidal baby.

What Parson should have said, is "As long as you're alive to hate me, that's what matters" or even "I don't care if you hate me, as long as you follow orders."

PS: It kinda confuses me from a purely psychological sense as to HOW someone like Sizemore's personality developed, considering dead units just vanish at the end of the turn, and new units pop, fully formed outta nowhere. Maybe it's randomly generated, or something. I mean, not everyone from FAQ are wierdos, right? :-p

Edit: Ninja'd several times. XDDD Also, thinking scary/useful thoughts about the Thinkamancy Klog.

Edit Again: Also, since Sizemore's killed, he doesn't have inner peace of the heart anymore either. TEH HAAAATE! It burns! XDDD

[dr pepper]

Is it possible that Erfworld is evolving? Maybe it was a pure wargame but it is becoming an frp world.

[Hinotori]

I'm surprised that no one has considered Parson's moral culpability here.

I completely understand Sizemore and empathize with him. As far as Sizemore knows, Parson has a choice. Sizemore doesn't and hasn't. Parson could surrender, but his only reason not to is that he "just want[s] to play this out," which, to me, is a very poor reason, ethically speaking, to do what he's doing. While it's possible that Parson could be under the influences of Loyalty, he certainly doesn't seem to be struggling against it, at least not as much as Sizemore.

What Parson is doing is wrong. Even if he couldn't guarantee a peaceful outcome, he hasn't put any effort at all into bringing one about. Sizemore knows this, and I believe that is why he resents Parson so much.

I like Parson as a character, but if I were in Sizemore's shoes, I think I might hate him too.

[KeiranHalcyon]

PD: it seems that there was a turn that Parson didn't get anything in his Stupid Meal, didn't get a Stupid Meal or it was simply not shown.

My my count, nothing was missed. Parson's been around for the beginning of 4 turns, and has 4 items: 3-d glasses that show unit stats, interface bracer for his calculator watch, sword hilt, and sword ricasso.

[tomaO2]

Sizemore: But you can't release me from that, can you.

Parson: No...

WAIT! OF course I can. You see, I got something called a Thinkmancer that does all sorts of mojo with people's heads. An amnesia charm will be a piece of cake or should be.

Sizemore: And if she can't?

Parson: Well then I'll just have to hire Charlie, the most powerful Thinkmancer in Erfworld and he'll do it. Don't worry Sizemore, I promise you that I'll help you to forget the horrible, horrible things you are about to to.

Sizemore: Then my problems are solved

Narrator: And there was much rejoicing. Mission accomplished everyone.

PS. This is all Stanly's fault. Not Parson's. If Parson had not been around Sizemore would have still had to fight when the enemy came to the city but the concern about not surrendering is a valid one. I think something important like this should be put to a vote for every soldier in the city. It's their lives after all.

I also think that Parson could try negotiating with the underground force. If he can prove they hare hoplessly outnumbered they could surrender without a fight? Just a thought.

[Eco-Mono]

Wow.

Wow.

[Aquillion]

But when it comes right down to it, he states that he has now tasted what it is like to croak others. Once it is up close and that personal, there are few illusions left to anyone, and he is honest enough to tell his own Warlord that he hates the feeling of it. And in spite of this, he is still intending to go do his duty the next Turn. This is not a coward, this is a soldier doing his duty in spite of being horrified by it.

A great deal of training in boot camp goes into ensuring that the soldier will pull the trigger when he has to, and more importantly (from the officers' point of view, at least) when he is told to. Many people do not care for the idea of killing and need to be carefully managed to be eased into the role of soldier. Sizemore has had little in the way of either training or experience and nonetheless still carried out Parson's orders when on the spot.

I am in complete agreement with this. But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him. That makes Sizemore's dilemma even more painful -- he has only two options left to him, he can either do as he is told and become what he abhors, or he can fail in his duty. 'Ours not to make reply, ours but to do and die, into the valley of Death rode the six hundred...'

To be perfectly fair, I don't think Sizemore does have a choice. Natural Thinkamancy, remember? Parson is still Stanley's chief warlord, and Sizemore doesn't have any choice but to obey.

He could beg Parson to relent, perhaps, but I'm not sure disobeying orders is actually possible for him unless he fails a loyalty check or whatever.

[Hinotori]

PS. This is all Stanly's fault. Not Parson's. If Parson had not been around Sizemore would have still had to fight when the enemy came to the city but the concern about not surrendering is a valid one. I think something important like this should be put to a vote for every soldier in the city. It's their lives after all.

To me, that's analogous to saying that if someone coerces you into doing something wrong, it's ok for you to go ahead and do it after they stop coercing you. As far as Parson is concerned, Stanley is a non-issue right now. Nothing is preventing him from seeking a diplomatic solution (except the power of plot); therefore, Parson IS responsible. He may not be as eb0l as Stanley, but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the lives that might be needlessly lost in the upcoming battle. Parson is clearly aware that he's on the side of the "bad guys." The only reason he continues to fight is to satisfy his own curiosity and ego.

[OnDroid]

To me, that's analogous to saying that if someone coerces you into doing something wrong, it's ok for you to go ahead and do it after they stop coercing you. As far as Parson is concerned, Stanley is a non-issue right now. Nothing is preventing him from seeking a diplomatic solution (except the power of plot); therefore, Parson IS responsible. He may not be as eb0l as Stanley, but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the lives that might be needlessly lost in the upcoming battle. Parson is clearly aware that he's on the side of the "bad guys." The only reason he continues to fight is to satisfy his own curiosity and ego.

Sadly there is no clue to say that turning/surrendering is either city option or unit only option. And I somewhat doubt that ANY unit ( chief warlord included ) could technically surrender the last and capitol city ( meaning reverting whole side ( rest of it ) to neutral/barbarian ) without approval of the Overlord/King.

Yes, he CAN commit all troops on outer walls and let the tunnel group take over the city-garrison without any fight ( if he is not under infulence of the Natural Thinkamancy ) but would he live to see such "peaceful ending"? ( not beeing disbanded )

Does that mean that Ansom is a good guy? He sent stacks of woodsy elves to certain death just to weaken dragons like this to finish with fresh Gumps for next assult (Ok, he sent all he got after this plan failed ... but why he didn't begin with such move in the first place? ) ? And with his Titanic ego mandate to lead both man and beast? Is he morally more fit than those of lesser stationmorally more fit than those of lesser station as he claims? I don't think so.

Sizemore is forced to make sort of Sophie's choice : Lead the counter-attack in tunnels to help with his bonuses to the Golems kill off a whole force. Or let everyone in the city die in battle with 25:1 ratio. ( almost all units would fight to death for their side ... wouldn't be accepted to turn due to low Loyality - except for the valuable casters ). Parson is only the one who voiced that dilema. Lose-lose situation for our poor pacifist Dirtamancer.

[Hinotori]

Sadly there is no clue to say that turning/surrendering is either city option or unit only option. And I somewhat doubt that ANY unit ( chief warlord included ) could technically surrender the last and capitol city ( meaning reverting whole side ( rest of it ) to neutral/barbarian ) without approval of the Overlord/King.

As indicated in the first Klog that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.

Does that mean that Ansom is a good guy? He sent stacks of woodsy elves to certain death just to weaken dragons like this to finish with fresh Gumps for next assult (Ok, he sent all he got after this plan failed ... but why he didn't begin with such move in the first place? ) ?

This is a really bad example. Ansom is a commander; he naturally needs to make decisions that leads to men getting killed. In this case, he made a feint to test the dwagons' strength, which is a legitimate scouting tactic. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Ansom sacrificed those troops for any reason other than a tactical one, and the fact that he personally led the troops the next turn even when his units were gladly willing to shoulder the danger alone shows that he's willing to put his own "keister" on the line. Note also that he rejected Vinny's first option of escape for the sole reason of not wanting to abandon his troops. Love him or hate him, Ansom clearly cares about his men.

All this is completely moot, however, because I don't see how you could possibly see Ansom as worse than Stanley. I'll certainly grant that Ansom has an enormous ego, but Stanley has slaughtered innocent people, has shown next to no concern for anyone but himself, and has his own ego that matches and exceeds Ansom's by a longshot. Even if you don't see Ansom as "good," Ansom is clearly the lesser of two evils, and Parson has already recognized this.

[OnDroid]

As indicated in the first Klog that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.

As I said : There is no hint what rules would cover the surrender option. Only time ( and creators ) could tell.

But surrendering probably means that all GK army would get disbanded ( as for low loyality troops will only rise upkeep and are not as good to use in combat for danger of self-disbanding or refusing the order ) except for casters maybe. So the rest don't die, but simply cease to exist. That would only tranfer the responsibility to Ansom. What would be YOUR pick?

The question is : Is Erfworld only turn-based real world with strange "physics" or is it true turn-based war strategy made real?

All evidence speaks for the later ... and in universe created for war, pacifists unfortunately have a very HARD and/or short lives. ( I DONT say that war is good but if the universe imposes some law(s) upon you, you can resist as much we can resist gravity ... man can fly, but what comes up must come down )

[SteveMB]

As indicated in the first Klog that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.

I think he burned that bridge, if it was ever there to begin with, during his friendly little chat with Ansom.

Note also that he rejected Vinny's first option of escape for the sole reason of not wanting to abandon his troops. Love him or hate him, Ansom clearly cares about his men.

Well, that and the fact that retreating now would cripple the entire mission ("We can't lose the siege, Vinny!"). That said, Ansom clearly does have a strong sense of noblesse oblige as well as a sense of prerogatives.

[Gamebird]

Couple unrelated points:

Characters advance in level by winning battles, but not by losing them or withdrawing. Stanley pointed this out when he found out about Parson having the uncroaked warlords on dwagons withdrawing after destroying siege.

Being able to consider an option and then dismissing it doesn't mean it was a valid option. I could consider flapping my arms in order to fly, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to do it.

If natural Thinkamancy makes people unable to rebel, then why did Stanley believe that Wanda had been disloyal (she answered, "I'm allowed" and explained - if it was impossible for her to betray, then he wouldn't have suspected disloyalty). The suspicion of betrayal means that betrayal is possible. Not sure what "natural Thinkamancy" does. Maybe it just changes the odds of you following orders - a tendency, but not a guarentee.

[only1doug]

you must obey his wills and desires forever the summoning spell compels you to obey his orders

the odds don't matter, strategy doesn't matter,those are details, thats your Job Stanley tells Parson that his desire is to win the battle.

so Parson may consider other options but the summoning magic effectively forces him to disregard any that wouldn't satisfy stanleys STATED desires.

Doug

[Friendly Fiend]

Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

In thinking about these things, I can't help but be reminded of another story that postulates similar questions about soi-disant "people" in an artificial, but extremely realistic world: Tad Williams' Otherland.

Best reference ever, have a self aware virus cookie.

Anyway, as I think some other poster mentioned already, it's important to recognize the change to the system that Parsons presence is making on Erfworld. While Sizemore might be the most glaring difference currently shown, he's certainly not the only one. Psychological warfare, independent thought, change within the caste system; all concepts that are perhaps not entirely . . healthy for Erf.

Any independently functioning system eventually creates the pattern for its existence. Like the pump of a heartbeat, this rhythm creates a homogeneous environment that supports life, and a slight murmur can spin that careful pattern into chaos and eventual (more than likely quick) ruin. Parsons complete "otherness" (for lack of a better term) could be enough of a murmur to spin Erfworld right off it's axis. Now of course I don't mean an apocalypse in the traditional sense (then again, maybe), but do "units" (not people, units) consider the morality of their actions when acting with in the rules of their popped place in the hierarchy?

On the surface it's easy to see Sizemore's crisis as a directly moral one, it's what just about any person (even really decent people) would feel. But is it possible that what we're seeing is merely a manifestation of him acting outside his popped identity?

Before you answer that think about what kind of an identity so called "perfect amnesiacs" (good term there, whoever said it first) even have? Is it possible that Gobwin Knob could have popped a "more humane" Sizemore that would have recognized the inherent hypocrisy of his hands off participation in the war? Of course not, Sizemore is not a person, -it- is a unit, incapable of making those decisions while the system is still homogeneous. Lastly, do concepts like pacifisim have a place on Erf? The difference between real Earth and any created world is mostly teleological. Real Earth doesn't exist for any reason as far as I know, but games clearly and obviously have a teleological purpose. And Erfworld, is a wargame.

But back to what I was originally saying, Parson's mere presence is booping around with the system, introducing uncountable new patterns and behaviors.

Call me morbid if you want but I'd like to take the most extreme (perhaps ridiculous possibility) and throw it out here. What do you think the suicide rate was before Parson set foot in Gobwin Knob? Assuming Erf still exists after Parson leaves, what do you think it will be after?

And to kind of return back to the beginning with a reference of my own; all of this reminds me of the film Dark City.

[SteveMB]

On the surface it's easy to see Sizemore's crisis as a directly moral one, it's what just about any person (even really decent people) would feel. But is it possible that what we're seeing is merely a manifestation of him acting outside his popped identity?

Before you answer that think about what kind of an identity so called "perfect amnesiacs" (good term there, whoever said it first) even have? Is it possible that Gobwin Knob could have popped a "more humane" Sizemore that would have recognized the inherent hypocrisy of his hands off participation in the war? Of course not, Sizemore is not a person, -it- is a unit, incapable of making those decisions while the system is still homogeneous. Lastly, do concepts like pacifisim have a place on Erf? The difference between real Earth and any created world is mostly teleological. Real Earth doesn't exist for any reason as far as I know, but games clearly and obviously have a teleological purpose. And Erfworld, is a wargame.

But back to what I was originally saying, Parson's mere presence is booping around with the system, introducing uncountable new patterns and behaviors.

OTOH, the "bubble kingdom" of Faq existed earlier, keeping out of wars (except to hire out mercs when necessary to replenish the treasury). On the gripping hand, this situation is portrayed as unusual -- Jillian herself called it "weird" and Ansom finds it hard to believe that it's even possible.

[Moechi_Vill]

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

Ouch, do I see rebellion stirring? It seems one nemesis isn't even gone and another is being foreshadowed!

This does seem to explain, however, why for the most part subordinates didn't use to get much free will, I guess.

No, it's just the best page so far.

[Earendill]

In D&D, the whole challenge is to try to convert real life actions into numbers. He fells from a cliff and gets hurt - lets convert this into numbers through the falling formula. He talks with a barmaid and tries to charm her - enter the Charisma stat and maybe some others...

Somehow Erfworlders are confronted with the same dillema - they experience real, human emotions and moral dillemas that they try to convert into the rigid number system of a wargame - mostly they fail. Experiencing stuff that cannot be converted into the coherent, secure system that you know can be stressful.

Most of the Erfworlders drama come from real personalities being forced into molds that are inadequate.

Jillian and her desire for revenge, mixed feelings towards Wanda and Ansom, probably her culpabilities is forced into a Barbarian warchief mold....


Sizemore with his existential and moral questionnings is forced into a summoner magician mold ...

Wanda with all her issues if forced into a necromancer...

Even Bogroll ...

It's like the whole popping part is not really working as it should- you got your job all prepared for you but noone is concerced if your personality is actually adequate for the job you popped into

But who cares anyway - you are ultimately just a miniature figure in a wargame.

[Moechi_Vill]

Exactly. There is no good and evil in a game, only holy and unholy - the creators and their purpose.

But this is not a game to the inhabitants. Life is not considered to be a game, it can only be a game to outsiders, players, creators and eccentric rulers.

Nice one on the wargame molds picture.