Erfworld 114, Page 102

[Earendill]

I suddenly realised that Parsons, the Earthling summoned to Erfworld is probably a better fit to Erfworld then most of the real Erfworlders, who would probably do better in our world...

[The Old Hack]

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

It's a fair cop.

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. He is much like the putative roleplayers Zolem provided as an example; the units aren't real people and may be allowed to die as needed. Any involved loss he sees purely in terms of military capability.

But is this so strange? Parson has never had combat close up before. Even in the first two battles in which he so to speak got bloodied, his units lacked any personality -- uncroaked Warlords that for all intents and purposes had little more personality than units on a tabletop, and dwagons he only saw as a kind of flying killing machine. (Stanley does not agree with that, obviously. He has some sort of emotional attachment to them, however twisted. I wonder precisely what it is?)

Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person. The awareness of death first forces itself on him when Misty dies. His immediate reaction is to a degree selfish, he starts worries about his own hide, but he retains feelings for Misty, among other things refusing to even contemplate the idea of her becoming uncroaked once he understands what it would mean.

And now the war is being brought still closer to home for him. It is all too common for war to break up friendships and destroy loves even when these are supposedly on the 'same side.' He now has to face the commander's moral dilemma of accepting the consequences of what his actions and decisions cost his subordinates -- or forcing them away through denial.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.

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.

Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded. Setting that aside, I do not think that Sizemore is struggling as much as he is accepting his duty but being very troubled by it. Not that I think that this reduces his character in any way or form. He may not be a great and glorious hero, but for all that, I still consider him a hero.

What Parson is doing is wrong.

Or at least very terrible, from Sizemore's point of view.

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.

Sadly, Parson as a person was not very used to seeing negotiation as anything but a different form of weapon when he initially arrived in Erfworld. And to be honest? At that point in my own life, I would have acted just like him. My own attitude was that as long as there was any chance at all, you kept fighting, damn the torpedoes and the Devil take the hindmost. And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

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.

EDIT:

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.

Much like being a soldier in real life, yes.

[Moechi_Vill]

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.

In modern wars, this is often true, but I still find your statements cynical, or at least overly simple... a blanket statement that falls over many crooked edges, tables, chairs and even the dust on the floor.

A certain amount of conflict in any imperfect world is unavoidable, even if the mould of people, society, technology, reality, motives, chain of command, beneficiaries and those devestated changes.

To put it blankly, yes people use each other, often selfishly; but generalizing about the decision-making generals and leaders, the soldiers, civilians, profiteers and losers is bound to cramp out colours, facts, information, experiences, motives, reality, etc.

War is of course, horrible in many ways, always in at least one.

[Moechi_Vill]

It's a fair cop.

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. He is much like the putative roleplayers Zolem provided as an example; the units aren't real people and may be allowed to die as needed. Any involved loss he sees purely in terms of military capability.

But is this so strange? Parson has never had combat close up before. Even in the first two battles in which he so to speak got bloodied, his units lacked any personality -- uncroaked Warlords that for all intents and purposes had little more personality than units on a tabletop, and dwagons he only saw as a kind of flying killing machine. (Stanley does not agree with that, obviously. He has some sort of emotional attachment to them, however twisted. I wonder precisely what it is?)

Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person. The awareness of death first forces itself on him when Misty dies. His immediate reaction is to a degree selfish, he starts worries about his own hide, but he retains feelings for Misty, among other things refusing to even contemplate the idea of her becoming uncroaked once he understands what it would mean.

And now the war is being brought still closer to home for him. It is all too common for war to break up friendships and destroy loves even when these are supposedly on the 'same side.' He now has to face the commander's moral dilemma of accepting the consequences of what his actions and decisions cost his subordinates -- or forcing them away through denial.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.



Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded. Setting that aside, I do not think that Sizemore is struggling as much as he is accepting his duty but being very troubled by it. Not that I think that this reduces his character in any way or form. He may not be a great and glorious hero, but for all that, I still consider him a hero.



Or at least very terrible, from Sizemore's point of view.



Sadly, Parson as a person was not very used to seeing negotiation as anything but a different form of weapon when he initially arrived in Erfworld. And to be honest? At that point in my own life, I would have acted just like him. My own attitude was that as long as there was any chance at all, you kept fighting, damn the torpedoes and the Devil take the hindmost. And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

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.

EDIT:



Much like being a soldier in real life, yes.

Actually, most western armies have comprehensive programs to weed out those psychologically and morally/criminally (the moral issues and a higher likelihood of disobeying orders) unfit for their station. Pacifists usually get waivers and are sometimes punished, let go or reassigned to a term of social service.

[Gamebird]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Occasional Sage]

And Erfworld, is a wargame.

I still haven't seen any proof of this.

...Not a wargame? Turns, hex maps, unit stats... how is this ANYTHING BUT a wargame?

ETA: oh and Friendly Fire, you get points for using the word "teleological".

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.

Well, the gem simply tipped the balance of one recent fight. Its effect was long, LONG after the war against Stanley started, which is after Stanley fought for Saline, which is after.... My point being that no, war is the norm and intent, not an accident stemming from the loss of a gem from Elvis's cape. That was, as the first panel states, a "little thing".

[Hinotori]

It's a fair cop.

Thanks for the well thought out response. You make some good points.

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. [...] Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.

While I acknowledge the growth Parson has been undergoing, I believe he has already had quite a few wake up calls, enough to be expected to take better responsibility for his actions. While his first few combat encounters were indeed either indirect or easily rationalized, I feel the most significant moment in this respect was not the death of Misty (with which he had little to no responsibility for), but the death and uncroaking of Jaclyn. At that point, he was exposed to the grisly consequences of combat, yet his later response to Charlie was one of complete disregard.

Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded.

I'm not entirely sure that that's the case, or Parson would not even question if he was under the effects of Loyalty. In this klog, Parson even goes as far as to question whether or not non-Rulers have free will. Remember, for example, when Stanley ordered him to laugh at his jokes or not to speak, orders which Parson was not able to disobey.

And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

Believe me, I read you. I still like Parson as a character. Hell, in real life, he could be someone I'd be friends with. But it bothers me that people are criticizing Sizemore for perceived hypocrisy when the person who really holds the cards here is Parson. Parson's getting a pass because we can identify with him the easiest, but he shouldn't. Not by a longshot.

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.

In my eyes, when the battle starts and people die, Parson will have already failed this test. But I am always open to the possibility of redemption.

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

This is a good point; however, I disagree for a couple reasons.

Knowing what we know about Ansom, I think it's actually quite possible that Ansom would consider surrender terms. Ego aside, he doesn't seem the type to be needlessly bloodthirsty, and despite their squabble, his major beef is with Stanley, not Parson. If approached respectfully (something I acknowledge Parson would have trouble with), I believe he could definitely be persuaded towards a more peaceful solution.

Of course, this information isn't available to Parson. We know this because we've been watching Ansom, but for all Parson knows, Ansom will put them all to the sword just for the hell of it.

Nevertheless, it's important to note that Parson was still considering surrender as a viable option. If he believed there was a possibility of it working, then I feel he should be held responsible for not pursuing it.

[Gamebird]

...Not a wargame? Turns, hex maps, unit stats... how is this ANYTHING BUT a wargame?

I agree it has a lot of trappings of a war game. It's like the Creator God of the Erfworld was a gamer geek like Parson and made a world that fit to gaming standards. However, I haven't figured out if Erfworld is really a game or if it is a world that uses gaming terms. When I say that I don't think it's a wargame, I'm saying I don't see the Erf world as a game of skill or chance being played by one or more players.

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

Well, the gem simply tipped the balance of one recent fight. Its effect was long, LONG after the war against Stanley started, which is after Stanley fought for Saline, which is after.... My point being that no, war is the norm and intent, not an accident stemming from the loss of a gem from Elvis's cape. That was, as the first panel states, a "little thing".

Our own history can be told as a series of wars and conflicts. Turn on the news any night and other than weather and the occasional human interest piece, it's a series of violent events and their outcomes. I haven't seen that Erfworld's history is more or less violent than our own.

[Zeku]

Related to Parson's moral culpability.

People who have the greatest moral flexibility in a time of war are the ones who believe in eternal life. Ie, when you kill the enemy, you're just putting their piece on the side of the board, they'll be back for the next game. In this way, the game war is very similar to a "holy war."

What's scary are the people who kill in wartime, and believe that the enemy ISN'T going to live forever, or that the enemy is going to burn in some eternal torment. Those guys are wacky, murderers in a more legitimate sense.

Our own history can be told as a series of wars and conflicts. Turn on the news any night and other than weather and the occasional human interest piece, it's a series of violent events and their outcomes. I haven't seen that Erfworld's history is more or less violent than our own.

Think about what you're saying. You even mentioned the news. What do we spend 99.99% of our time doing? Things that aren't war. War, conflict, hate, stupidity, strong opinions, these are just the things that make the most interesting stories. And, conflicts are basically never resolved by the actual war itself. Discussions take place before and after the fighting, and the tone of these discussions create the new truth we live by.

The best example of this is the Romans vs the British. 7 years of basically pointless fighting between two ultra-zealous armies, and yet the tone of the future is set by Caratacus, the British king taken to Rome and not executed. His family intermarries with the Romans, the Brits join the Romans by treaty, eventually Constantine shows up, and now suddenly we have TWO major christian churches, instead of just the British one. (Ive heavily simplified this story for brevity)

[Nargrakhan]

Heh... well since we're putting Parson's morality up for a War Tribunal discussion...

He is already aware he's working for the bad guys.

The Tool ain't for "freedom, justice, and equality" after all.

Shades of Gray? Maybe... but when the WHOLE world is after ya, maybe you ain't as gray as everyone else.

[SteveMB]

Knowing what we know about Ansom, I think it's actually quite possible that Ansom would consider surrender terms. Ego aside, he doesn't seem the type to be needlessly bloodthirsty, and despite their squabble, his major beef is with Stanley, not Parson. If approached respectfully (something I acknowledge Parson would have trouble with), I believe he could definitely be persuaded towards a more peaceful solution.

If Parson had merely insulted Ansom personally, I could see him being willing to swallow his pride in order to avoid casualties.

However, Parson's barbs were directed at Ansom's basic worldview and motivation for going to war in the first place: he dismissed royalty as "obsolete" and declared that Stanley's attunement to the Arkenhammer showed him to be Ansom's "superior" in the eyes of the Titans. Ansom thinks that putting an end to those notions is worth fighting for -- if he didn't, he wouldn't be here.

[OnDroid]

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

Who plays the computer game when you set all players to AI?

As for the War tribunal ( I repeat as was said before ) :
Parson was ordered to win "no matter what". And as we've seen he can't refuse an order. Even if he would want to. So is he really keeping his free will or have just an illusion of free will?

I fear we will see more sad and tragic lessons for Parson. He should have been more Careful what he wished for. But right now there is no peace in this WARgame.

[ShinyBrowncoat]

On the gripping hand

SteveMB FTW!

[Occasional Sage]

I agree it has a lot of trappings of a war game. It's like the Creator God of the Erfworld was a gamer geek like Parson and made a world that fit to gaming standards. However, I haven't figured out if Erfworld is really a game or if it is a world that uses gaming terms. When I say that I don't think it's a wargame, I'm saying I don't see the Erf world as a game of skill or chance being played by one or more players.

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

From the perspective we have of Erfworld, I don't believe it matters. The story that we are reading will be the same, whether the characters are making their own choices or their conversations and thoughts are representative of the decision-making processes of the people rolling the dice. In other words, what we see is our reality; if we can't see it, who cares?

Now, if we were reading a web comic about the players around the table (supposing they exist)... well, I have trouble imagining that I would care enough to read more than a strip or two. But if I did, that perspective would create a very different story for us.

[Gamebird]

Think about what you're saying. You even mentioned the news. What do we spend 99.99% of our time doing? Things that aren't war. War, conflict, hate, stupidity, strong opinions, these are just the things that make the most interesting stories. And, conflicts are basically never resolved by the actual war itself. Discussions take place before and after the fighting, and the tone of these discussions create the new truth we live by.

Perhaps 99.99% of the time in Erfworld is spent doing things that aren't war. Heck, most of the strips in the comic aren't battle scenes, they're character development, plot or exposition. If Erfworld was really a wargame, then I don't think it would have as many non-wargame elements to it. It's more like a world that has been set up like a game world. It's what my game world does in my head while I'm not relating it to the players: events play out, just like the computer when you set all the players to AI. (good analogy, I like it!)

An excellent argument could be made that it's a role-playing game, but that's not the argument that's been made.

[Gamebird]

From the perspective we have of Erfworld, I don't believe it matters. The story that we are reading will be the same, whether the characters are making their own choices or their conversations and thoughts are representative of the decision-making processes of the people rolling the dice. In other words, what we see is our reality; if we can't see it, who cares?

Now, if we were reading a web comic about the players around the table (supposing they exist)... well, I have trouble imagining that I would care enough to read more than a strip or two. But if I did, that perspective would create a very different story for us.

True, and I agree.

Your first point brings to mind my feelings on the free will debate in a real world religion. Due to forum rules I'll leave that as is.

[fendrin]

Wow, so much to talk about... such great conversation... I'll just have to hit the highlights. Warning! Wordy! Spoilered to avoid 'wall of text' phenomenon.

About Perfect Amnesiacs and units as people vs. wargame miniatures:

Spoiler

Show

If you consider units to be non-people, then personality is just an excess bit in the 'popping' process, like flash on a miniature. However, we know that commanders at least have free will (at minimum partial free will) and sentience. Bogroll, Mung and the other minions and non-commanders demonstrate a certain level of personality, however, that indicates that even non-commanders are sentient. Bogroll acted on his own to bake a pie for Parson. olely controlled by Loyalty, he would not have done so, as of course Parson's nutritional and caloric needs would be met at upkeep. Thus Bogroll made that pie for no other reason than that he wanted to. Thus non-commanders must have desires, and finally, they must be sentient. A basic unit has no need for sentience, indeed, it can often be a detriment in a soldier (sentience can lead to such undesireable situations as cowardice or disloyalty). I conclude that personality/sentience is not merely an 'accident' of the popping process, but instead an intrinsic part of Erfworld.

About Erf as a wargame vs. a world that resembles a wargame:

Spoiler

Show

There are many elements of Erf that have no bearing whatsoever on a wargame: The existance of food outside of upkeep (e.g. the feast Ansom offered to Jillian, the pie bogroll baked for Parson), the distinction between male and female (what gender is a chess pawn?), intimate relationships (certainly not needed for procreation), differences in biological factors unrelated to unit abilities (skin tone, eye color, hair color, etc.), et cetera ad nauseam. If Erf was 'just' a wargame, all of these things would be as irrelevant as the personality and sentience of a lowly twoll minion.

About Parson's culpability by not surrendering:

Spoiler

Show

In the last klog Parson pointed out that under normal circumstances, capturing is reserved for only "valuable casters". From Parson's perspective, Ansom is, if nothing else, an embodiment of the status quo of Erfworld. Thus he would have to negotiate for better terms (to include him, and others, such as Sizemore, who Stanley at least considered to be 'low value').

Parson also knows that he is not in a good position to negotiate. Why would Ansom take on the risk of an insurrection from within his own forces when he can take the city with minimal losses? It doesn't make sense. Parson is a skilled strategist and tactician, but not a diplomat.

Furthermore, just an attempt to negotiate could destroy his plan. If Ansom decides that Parson is in a weaker than expected position, he might opt for a straightforward frontal assault instead of splitting his forces.

So what to choose? a slim hope of diplomacy that could lead to him and his friends being croaked, or not negotiating so that he might save them?

[The Old Hack]

Thanks for the well thought out response. You make some good points.

Thank you. I try.

While I acknowledge the growth Parson has been undergoing, I believe he has already had quite a few wake up calls, enough to be expected to take better responsibility for his actions. While his first few combat encounters were indeed either indirect or easily rationalized, I feel the most significant moment in this respect was not the death of Misty (with which he had little to no responsibility for), but the death and uncroaking of Jaclyn. At that point, he was exposed to the grisly consequences of combat, yet his later response to Charlie was one of complete disregard.

Hm. Possibly, but I personally read those responses as the semi-terrified kind of bravado I myself would likely use upon speaking to a major player the moment after learning that he had compromised my supposedly secure communications. I feel that a better example of this is how he reacted when Jillian attacked the vulnerable A-dwagon stack. He knew Jillian was an intelligent being, yet not only did he not object in the slightest to the notion of mind control at the time, he also ordered Jillian croaked over Wanda's pleas. (True, he appealed to Stanley for his judgment. But he did not change his own.)

I'm not entirely sure that that's the case, or Parson would not even question if he was under the effects of Loyalty. In this klog, Parson even goes as far as to question whether or not non-Rulers have free will. Remember, for example, when Stanley ordered him to laugh at his jokes or not to speak, orders which Parson was not able to disobey.

Errr, I might have come across too unclear originally. I meant to say that units do have some leeway in interpreting their orders, but that if they stretch the leeway too far, they risk being disbanded. I myself saw this as meaning that a unit might be able to contemplate disobedience or betrayal without immediate consequences, such occurring only at such time when it tried to make either real. Also, there is the fact that a unit may disobey its orders if it believes it to be in its ruler's best interests to do so.

All of this means that 'free will' in Erfworld is an extremely complicated subject (much like in the real world, come to think of it.) Someone with no will of her own would not even be able to think in terms of disobedience or betrayal. To me this seems to indicate that units at least have will enough to think about their own existences, desires and ambitions even to the point of exceeding the roles their rulers have set for them. If nothing else, the very existence of the term 'betrayal' in Erfworld supports that idea.

Believe me, I read you. I still like Parson as a character. Hell, in real life, he could be someone I'd be friends with. But it bothers me that people are criticizing Sizemore for perceived hypocrisy when the person who really holds the cards here is Parson. Parson's getting a pass because we can identify with him the easiest, but he shouldn't. Not by a longshot.

I can't really argue with that. As I said, it's a fair cop.

In my eyes, when the battle starts and people die, Parson will have already failed this test. But I am always open to the possibility of redemption.

To my mind, flawed heroes working to rise above past mistakes are more interesting anyway.

Nevertheless, it's important to note that Parson was still considering surrender as a viable option. If he believed there was a possibility of it working, then I feel he should be held responsible for not pursuing it.

I largely agree. As Parson himself states, "I think I just want to play this out. If I gave up, I'd always wonder. For some reason, that's a worse idea than getting impaled by a munchkin."

That might be his Duty talking, of course. But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

[OnDroid]

An excellent argument could be made that it's a role-playing game, but that's not the argument that's been made.

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".

So in world where only thing that really matters is WAR, could we find and maintain peace? This F(requently)a(sked)q(uestion) of peace did not last. (pun kind of intended )

Poor Erfworlders were given personalities, but not free will ( common units simply "must" obey ... not completly free will for warlords. )

[Glome]

I should point that if Parson surrenders, that it would end the existence of everyone who wasn't a caster in Gobwin Knob, and possible Parson himself if he made that one of the conditions. Only casters are normally captured because of loyalty issues. And I just don't see how Ansom would agree to such an unreasonable demand that he pays for the upkeep of every living person in Gobwin Knob, not when he feels he that he already has Parson beat.

Anyway, as long as Parson feels he has a good chance to win the battle, I agree with his decision to keep fighting. More people in total will probably die because of his decision, but less people who he is responsible for protecting. To just give up when he feels he can win would be to abrogate his role as warlord. I perfectly understand Sizemore's objections, but it is not the type of moral quandary that a good leader can afford to indulge.

[The Old Hack]

Actually, most western armies have comprehensive programs to weed out those psychologically and morally/criminally (the moral issues and a higher likelihood of disobeying orders) unfit for their station. Pacifists usually get waivers and are sometimes punished, let go or reassigned to a term of social service.

That depends greatly on the army and the situation. I would state that even being on guard against the problem does not eliminate it. And in wartime such precautions are all too likely to slacken once the need for new troops becomes strong enough.

More, many of these filters are of such a nature that they cannot do anything about the problem until it has plainly shown itself. I once served in a unit that had an officer who was unfit for command, though thankfully not under his direct authority. It took several incidents before he was finally stripped of command, the last and most severe being seventeen soldiers ending up in the infirmary for weeks due to his incompetence and egomania.

[HOLEkevin]

Hey, I don't remember who Sizemore is any more, but that was a great page! Totally dramatic and heartfelt! Good job!

[Occasional Sage]

I largely agree. As Parson himself states, "I think I just want to play this out. If I gave up, I'd always wonder. For some reason, that's a worse idea than getting impaled by a munchkin."

That might be his Duty talking, of course. But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

I... don't think it's mandated. I think Parson actually wants to do something with his life. This is his only real chance to accomplish something, and he wants to know that he isn't the total failure society has tried to label him as.

[Hinotori]

I should point that if Parson surrenders, that it would end the existence of everyone who wasn't a caster in Gobwin Knob, and possible Parson himself if he made that one of the conditions. Only casters are normally captured because of loyalty issues. And I just don't see how Ansom would agree to such an unreasonable demand that he pays for the upkeep of every living person in Gobwin Knob, not when he feels he that he already has Parson beat.

As far as I know, nowhere in the strip has it mentioned that everyone gets disbanded if one surrenders. The only thing close to what you're talking about is the fact that field units get disbanded if Stanley is croaked - which Parson can do nothing about. Even then, the city stays intact, and the units become "neutral." Ansom does not have to pay for their upkeep. Casters are the only units that are captured AFTER a victory. If Surrender terms were negotiated, this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I understand the tactical ramifications of showing your hand by surrendering. Believe me, I'm not usually the type to advocate giving up. That being said, the most important thing to point out as far as responsibility goes is that Parson isn't doing this for anyone other than himself. That point is explicitly clear in the klog. He's doing this to satisfy his curiosity and ego, nothing more. He does care about his friends, but that's secondary. With regard to intent, he's guilty.

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.

On a final note, lest anyone think otherwise, nothing I've said so far is an attack on the comic. I'm calling Parson out, but I also think he's acting completely in accordance with his character. A moral dilemma isn't interesting if your characters never fail.

But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

True that.

[OnDroid]

As far as I know, nowhere in the strip has it mentioned that everyone gets disbanded if one surrenders. The only thing close to what you're talking about is the fact that field units get disbanded if Stanley is croaked - which Parson can do nothing about. Even then, the city stays intact, and the units become "neutral." Ansom does not have to pay for their upkeep. Casters are the only units that are captured AFTER a victory. If Surrender terms were negotiated, this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I understand the tactical ramifications of showing your hand by surrendering. Believe me, I'm not usually the type to advocate giving up. That being said, the most important thing to point out as far as responsibility goes is that Parson isn't doing this for anyone other than himself. That point is explicitly clear in the klog. He's doing this to satisfy his curiosity and ego, nothing more. He does care about his friends, but that's secondary. With regard to intent, he's guilty.

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.

Have you noticed, that the RC alliance came to CAPTURE the town ( even if it turns to neutral ) ... they already have plan to divide the SPOILS.

The surrender would mean either reverting to neutral ( and wait for capture ) or outright capturing of the city. So what probably happends to units in neutral city after capture? They are either killed in the assault or disbanded ( unless captured ... and capturing is reserved for casters as said many times ). Even if the city was left as neutral remember that is not as nice as it sounds. And someone would come to capture it sooner or later.

Are there some kinds of conflict POINTLESS in WARgame universe? Yes, ALL of them probably. Applying rules from our world to completly different univese is not always possible. Who can be blaming Parson for not changing the whole Erfworld? I understand Sizemore's intentions to change it. He started to study Hippiemancy in search of peace and he had hope that warlord Parson from another universe might change things around. Both Sizemore and Parson got hit with the laws of "the game" ... Parson only doesn't realise it yet. But who can blame him? He was transported to a completly ALIEN reality and it's his 4th day around ... and he learned his lesson about death on his third day. That's a bit tough approach in learning. All he know about Erfworld comes from his knowledge of wargames and his life is at risk. He was forced to become a commander and all he knows about command comes from games. There sure were a LOT of commanders given responsibility like this ... but only time can tell if Parson will learn or utterly fail to understand his "units".

[Hinotori]

Have you noticed, that the RC alliance came to CAPTURE the town ( even if it turns to neutral ) ... they already have plan to divide the SPOILS.

Err. Yes. Of course they intend to capture and divide the spoils of the city since it's still hostile. Why wouldn't they? You're assuming they'd do likewise if Parson offered a diplomatic solution, which he hasn't.

I'm not saying they wouldn't, but Parson never even bothered to try, and his reasons for not trying are not motivated by anything other than self-interest.

[OnDroid]

Err. Yes. Of course they intend to capture and divide the spoils of the city since it's still hostile. Why wouldn't they? You're assuming they'd do likewise if Parson offered a diplomatic solution, which he hasn't.

I'm not saying they wouldn't, but Parson never even bothered to try, and his reasons for not trying are not motivated by anything other than self-interest.

They will seize the initiative even AFTER the city turns neutral. That is the difference.

Unfortunately almost ALL other characters ( except for Sizemore and maybe Vinny ) are motivated by self-interest.

I simply imply that what Parson does are common mistakes that almost anyone would do given the circumstances.

[Occasional Sage]

Hinotori, your stance seems to be that Parson has a chance to negotiate with or surrender to Ansom without being croaked or the city being captured. This would be because the coalition exists for the destruction of Stanley, who is no longer around, which makes GK irrelevant to the army. Is that a fair summation?

I'd point out that this war has likely been going on a long while; the army has been moving together and the siege units have low move. Not only have lots of units from lots of factions been committed to this (which is expensive for each side), but the drain on units has likely required more military buildup back home, which compounds the expense. Add in incidentals like the purchase of new spells and the whole coalition becomes a huge drain on the resources of at least seven treasuries.

Those sides will want to recoup their losses. Remember that the GK treasury is down to roughly 30% of where it was a few turns ago; there just isn't likely to be enough left for the coalition to be bought off with cash. Gobwin Knob is the toughest defensive position in the known world, and somebody in the coalition will be wanting it as the price of their participation. Pragmatically speaking, Parson just doesn't seem to have the fungible resources to get out of this diplomatically.

[SteveMB]

I'd point out that this war has likely been going on a long while; the army has been moving together and the siege units have low move. Not only have lots of units from lots of factions been committed to this (which is expensive for each side), but the drain on units has likely required more military buildup back home, which compounds the expense. Add in incidentals like the purchase of new spells and the whole coalition becomes a huge drain on the resources of at least seven treasuries.

Those sides will want to recoup their losses. Remember that the GK treasury is down to roughly 30% of where it was a few turns ago; there just isn't likely to be enough left for the coalition to be bought off with cash. Gobwin Knob is the toughest defensive position in the known world, and somebody in the coalition will be wanting it as the price of their participation. Pragmatically speaking, Parson just doesn't seem to have the fungible resources to get out of this diplomatically.

Good points. Between that and the fact that Parson directly hit Ansom's sore spots with his Thinkagram, I don't think there's any realistic way to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

That said, Hinotori's underlying point seems to be that Parson doesn't want to try to negotiate a surrender, and his stated reason is purely egotistical desire to play this out rather than give up when he might have been able to win. I agree that that's a pretty poor reason to keep fighting, and the best justification I can come up with is that he's already stipulated the more compelling reason (that negotiating a surrender is pretty much hopeless anyway) and doesn't consider it worth dwelling on. It could simply be a bit of rationalizing bravado to avoid facing his own fears.

[Occasional Sage]

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

[/unwarranted sarcasm]