117 The Battle for Gobwin Knob 105

[Nargrakhan]

1) I don't think that's quite what Nargrakhan said...
2) Stanley had to have some battlefield skill without the 'hammer or he wouldn't have been promoted to Warlord, which we know happened before he found the 'hammer.

Yea... I'm supporting the theory that Stanley was once a competent Warlord. At one time he was a Piker. Evidently he rose through the ranks quickly, becoming a Warlord. Given how much respect Sizemore gives him, I think its safe to assume King Saline was a good leader. Thus there's no reason to believe promoting Stanley to Warlord (at least at the time), was not done so out of good judgment. He must have been a warrior worthy of being a Warlord. During his campaigns, Stanley runs across the Hammer. Naturally this would make him more powerful – but Stanley was adequate before it happened. The Hammer just made him unstoppable – hence the promotion to Chief Warlord and then heir.

[fendrin]

Yea... I'm supporting the theory that Stanley was once a competent Warlord. At one time he was a Piker. Evidently he rose through the ranks quickly, becoming a Warlord. Given how much respect Sizemore gives him, I think its safe to assume King Saline was a good leader. Thus there's no reason to believe promoting Stanley to Warlord (at least at the time), was not done so out of good judgment. He must have been a warrior worthy of being a Warlord. During his campaigns, Stanley runs across the Hammer. Naturally this would make him more powerful – but Stanley was adequate before it happened. The Hammer just made him unstoppable – hence the promotion to Chief Warlord and then heir.

I agree almost completely. The only thing I'm not sure of is that Stanley necessarily rose from Piker to Warlord quickly.

[SteveMB]

Let's just agree to disagree, lest we drag this thread into an unwinnable philosophical debate.

Even though I really like those...

Personally, I'd say that money and power, by removing external constraints, amplify whatever was there to begin with, for either good or ill.

That said, it's too subjective to come to any firm conclusions.

[ishnar]

Heh, nice.

Taking the same idea in the complete opposite direction, Stanley could have been a nice guy before the the 'hammer twisted his mind and darkened his soul. I mean, fantasy literature is rife with artifacts changing the people who have them. The One Ring, anyone?

For that matter, we all know that power corrupts. Consider the lives of people who win the lottery or otherwise suddenly become rich (like some pro sports players, pop stars, and movie actors). Often times their lives become horrid tragedies, because of the way their personality changes.

Nah, this is just scapegoating power. The ring was semi-aware that's how hit corrupted. Power itself doesn't corrupt, it's just a tool. The reason people blame power for corrupting is because they don't want to accept that the person "corrupted" was a bad apple all along.

When people gain power, they don't change personalities, they just remove the mask they were wearing before.

[ShinyBrowncoat]

Oh, I absolutely agree. I was imagining Parson &co in a bad spot at the end of Ansom's turn, then have a dwagon pop at the start of theirs.

If a dwagon popped at GK, would Parson even be able to control it with Stanley and the Arkenhammer away?

[Occasional Sage]

If a dwagon popped at GK, would Parson even be able to control it with Stanley and the Arkenhammer away?

Yes. Stanley is still the head of the faction, and we've seen that the dwagons obey Parson without having to relay his orders through the boss. Until there's a break between them, or Parson gets demoted, he's golden where dwagons are concerned.

[fendrin]

The ring was semi-aware that's how hit corrupted.

The hammer too seems to be self aware. It is considered a character by the creators, as is evidenced by it having an entry on the 'cast of characters' page.

When people gain power, they don't change personalities, they just remove the mask they were wearing before.

I actually agree with this (and with SteveMB, but didn't feel like double quoting).
I guess what I was saying is that power corrupts one's behaviors. It changes how you act by removing the need to obey societal conventions. I suppose then that power allows one's actions to align with one's true self.

Of course we are now drifting into a different unwinnable philosophical conversation, this time on the nature of humanity...

[multilis]

Stanley possibly is a "good leader" in same way Hitler was. Hitler was wildly successful at blitz, overriding his general's opinions, but screwed up defensive stuff after and wasn't that great a general. Hitler started in a low position.

"Destiny" was on his side.

[Nargrakhan]

Stanley possibly is a "good leader" in same way Hitler was. Hitler was wildly successful at blitz, overriding his general's opinions, but screwed up defensive stuff after and wasn't that great a general. Hitler started in a low position.

"Destiny" was on his side.

Just to keep the whole Godwin thing at bay: other examples would include Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek (i.e. leaders who's meddling with military decisions caused failures). Not all of them totally lost cause of it.

[OnDroid]

If a dwagon popped at GK, would Parson even be able to control it with Stanley and the Arkenhammer away?

But consider : Would he KNOW about it? He needed a Stupid Meal list ( or a Thinkamancer to confirm the list. ) to know what units are at GK.

But one dwagon is not such a big deal anyway. Remember that 3 Warlords with 5 dwagons ( probably 5 for max stack bonus ) were considered worth of 5-6 stacks of RC heavy troops. Sure it helps ... changing the outcome from 58.9 to like sixty-something.

[fendrin]

But consider : Would he KNOW about it? He needed a Stupid Meal list ( or a Thinkamancer to confirm the list. ) to know what units are at GK.

That would depend on where a popped unit appears, and if there is any sort of notification when it does. Also, dwagons are rather sizable. they're hard to overlook.

But one dwagon is not such a big deal anyway. Remember that 3 Warlords with 5 dwagons ( probably 5 for max stack bonus ) were considered worth of 5-6 stacks of RC heavy troops. Sure it helps ... changing the outcome from 58.9 to like sixty-something.

That's why I imagined it as a matter of timing. If it's down to a 1-2 powerful RC stacks vs. 1-2 not-so-powerful GK stacks, it could make all the difference in the world.

[Hiai]

There is much speculation going on, it seems, regarding Stanley's nature, and how he fits in as the Overlord.

It's obvious he pissed off ALOT of people on his quest for the Arkentools. Otherwise the Alliance wouldn't exist..and it's clear from all the maneuvering that the Alliance will fall apart the moment Stanley is eliminated. Ansom is too arrogant to keep the Alliance together with his own charisma.

While it never states the exact time periods involved, there is an implication that the 11 cities under Stanley's control were all part of Saline's Kingdom, first. That is to say..he didn't grab extras as an Overlord. Quite possibly he conquered, or at least helped, some or even most of those cities while in his Warlord capacity, working for Saline. In fact, that seems to fit very well, as Saline was quite fond of him, enough to make him Heir Designate. Being a highly successful Warlord that added cities to expand the kingdom would be a good way of becoming so near and dear to Saline. And his use of the Arkenhammer could be, probably WAS, a big part of that. What if Saline believed Stanley to be Chosen by the Titans, as well?

Which kind of brings me to my point...

We seem to often gloss over the idea of the Titans being involved. They are the local religion, basically, something that brings color to Erfworld's historical shadings.

But what if Stanley is RIGHT? By all evidence, he was, or is, a quite competent Warlord in his own right. Add the Arkenhammer, and he becomes a World Power. Obviously not unbeatable, but certainly someone to reckon with in all of Erfworld, as evidenced by the mass of enemies against him. What if the Titans ARE actively behind Stanley?

After all, the Arkentools are sentient, yes? Therefore, they have an agenda. The fact that the Arkenhammer attuned itself to Stanley MEANS something.

So let us look at the sequence of events, from an "Arkentool wants" perspective:

1. The Arkenhammer attunes itself to an accomplished Warlord who, presumably, already has won at least some favor with the reigning monarch of a major faction. This perhaps results in this Warlord being made Heir Apparent, (or maybe it just knew he would) but either way, the 'hammer is now in the hands of a very formidable leader of a major faction..and is ON THE MOVE.

2. The Arkenpliers fall into the hands of ANOTHER major faction leader. In this case, not the King, but the Heir Presumptive (again), who just so happened to be the Warlord of all the faction forces. Notice the similarities? However, what is extremely notable is that the 'pliers REFUSE to attune with Ansom. Hmmm. In any case, it, too, is ON THE MOVE.

3. The Arkendish falls into the hands of a very shrewd and ruthless mercenary. Now, we know less about these circumstances. We have no idea whether Charlie had any power BEFORE he gained the 'dish. In fact, although the 'dish's powers are purported to be involved with Thinkamancy, we don't know how much it affects his overall influence. We don't even know if the Archons are a result of his 'dish possession, as Stanley's dragons are, or whether the Archons were ALREADY his, and the 'dish enhanced only his control over intel. The result, however, is the same, in two ways. The Arkendish is attuned to the leader of a major faction, and it is ON THE MOVE.

4. We know nothing whatever about the fourth Arkentool. But I think it may be safe to presume that it is in the hands of, or soon will be, a major leader of some sort, and, also, ON THE MOVE.

So, the Arkentools have some sort of Agenda going on here. They MUST, for they are sentient. Does this mean they are maneuvering their holders into some kind of power play situation? Maybe. We haven't enough info to go by. But it does bear thinking about, to shed light on the way we perceive the motivations of the major players, here. How much of Stanley's collection of enemies have to do with his own obnoxiousness, and how much with the Arkenhammer's drive to make Stanley quest? Or is it all Stanley's idea?

Up until now, most speculation seems to put the religious aspects of the Arkentools on the back burner. I say, it's a MAJOR factor in this war. Stanley, in effect, jumped from a competent and successful Warlord, to a RELIGIOUS FANATIC JIHADIST. He truly believes he has a mission from the Titans. That much has been made clear. So much so, that he will sacrifice every military advantage he once had in order to obtain his religious objective. Is it true? Did the 'hammer WANT him to do this? That's in the realm of "One Ring" speculations as of yet. But it does shed light upon Stanley's personality, and whether or not he's the incompetent bootlicker that gained his position by backstabbing and flattery, or if he's truly a GOOD Warlord..who has now been blinded by his personal quest. And it therefore affects how we predict Stanley's moves, and everyone else's reactions to Stanley's moves.
Including Wanda's loyalty to Stanley.

One parting thought, along the same vein. Stanley's quest resulted in the loss of 11 cities..and a terrible weakening of his military position. So much so that he became (once Wanda explained to him) desperate enough to attempt to summon The Perfect Warlord. Was this truly an accident? Maybe Stanley's losses were in some way CAUSED by the Arkenhammer, to bring about that exact scenario. Parson is a central character..is he also a Tool of the Titans? :D

[teratorn]

Maybe Stanley's losses were in some way CAUSED by the Arkenhammer, to bring about that exact scenario. Parson is a central character..is he also a Tool of the Titans? :D

Wow, a true believer. If Stanley ever orders Wanda to summon the perfect high-priest you are a likely candidate to endup in Erfworld!

I guess what I was saying is that power corrupts one's behaviors. It changes how you act by removing the need to obey societal conventions. I suppose then that power allows one's actions to align with one's true self.

Well, you are also sort of assuming that most people's true self is corrupt and that human nature is inherently flawed.

[MattR]

Godwin... Gobwin.. why didnt i see this before. I always assumed it just applied to the Gobwins.. but maybe its a play on Godwin. Which would make sense with Stanley as Hitler :)

Imagine theres money on the floor of a shop, you didnt see anyone drop it and you pick it up. Would taking that money be theft? or a minor windfall. Corruption etc can be in the eye of the beholder.

[Arkenputtyknife]

There's this great big assumption going around that the Arkenhammer is sentient. What's the evidence for it?

As far as I can see, there is no evidence whatsoever in the comic itself that the 'Hammer (or any of the other 'Tools) is sentient. Quite the opposite: everything we've seen shows that it, and the 'Pliers, and the 'Dish, are powerful tools and nothing more.

The 'Hammer is listed on the characters page. What exactly does this prove? That (a) there isn't a page for Artifacts, (b) the 'Hammer is significant enough to warrant a mention, (c) that Rob and/or Jamie have a sense of humor and will not hesitate to use it, and (d) that readers are all too willing to to let an over-literal reading of a single humorous line go to their heads and completely cloud their judgment—but we already knew that. If there were a page for Artifacts and the 'Hammer were still listed on the Characters page, it would be a different matter.

Come off it, folks. Maybe, just maybe, the 'Tools are sentient, but right now we have nothing like a good enough reason for treating that as a given, or even a likely possibility.

[fendrin]

Well, you are also sort of assuming that most people's true self is corrupt and that human nature is inherently flawed.

It's not an assumption, it's a belief. I believe it to be true, though I admit the possibility that I may be wrong.

A more accurate phrasing of my belief would be a quote of Carl Jung: "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."

Come off it, folks. Maybe, just maybe, the 'Tools are sentient, but right now we have nothing like a good enough reason for treating that as a given, or even a likely possibility.

Well, it is the only explanation we have right now of why the 'hammer attuned to Stanley and the 'pliers did not attune to Ansom.

[Arkenputtyknife]

It's not an assumption, it's a belief. I believe it to be true, though I admit the possibility that I may be wrong.

It's an assumption because it requires a postulate for which there is no good evidence. Calling it a belief merely means that it's an assumption you believe; it does not cease to be an assumption because of that. Believing in assumptions that have no solid evidence is faith, not logic.

Well, it is the only explanation we have right now of why the 'hammer attuned to Stanley and the 'pliers did not attune to Ansom.

Really. Try this: There is a rule that determines the conditions under which a 'Tool attunes. The fact that we have not seen such a rule does not mean that it doesn't exist (we haven't actually seen any other rules, either, but we know they exist). The fact that everything else in Erfworld seems to be governed by rules makes it highly probable that such a rule would exist.

[fendrin]

It's an assumption because it requires a postulate for which there is no good evidence. Calling it a belief merely means that it's an assumption you believe; it does not cease to be an assumption because of that. Believing in assumptions that have no solid evidence is faith, not logic.

I never claimed it was logical, and the term 'belief' generally implies 'faith'.
In general usage, 'assumption' has a connotation of non-questioning belief. If I were writing a philosophical treatise I would call my statement a premise and make note of how the true nature of humanity is a hotly debated topic. I am not writing such a treatise, so therefore I did not include such a caveat.

I'm postulating that you too have some training in the philosophical arts. Or perhaps a scientist, which would lead to slightly different usage of terminology...

Really. Try this: There is a rule that determines the conditions under which a 'Tool attunes. The fact that we have not seen such a rule does not mean that it doesn't exist (we haven't actually seen any other rules, either, but we know they exist).

You do realize that by your own definition that is an assumption?

The fact that everything else in Erfworld seems to be governed by rules makes it highly probable that such a rule would exist.

Um, no. It makes such a rule congruent with the rest of Erfworld, but does not imply anything about the probability of it existing. I consider this to be even flimsier evidence than the 'hammer appearing on the cast list.

[Arkenputtyknife]

I never claimed it was logical, and the term 'belief' generally implies 'faith'.
In general usage, 'assumption' has a connotation of non-questioning belief. If I were writing a philosophical treatise I would call my statement a premise and make note of how the true nature of humanity is a hotly debated topic. I am not writing such a treatise, so therefore I did not include such a caveat.

I'm postulating that you too have some training in the philosophical arts. Or perhaps a scientist, which would lead to slightly different usage of terminology...

I started off in life as a scientist, but after going into technology it was relegated to a hobby. Philosophy has never been more than a hobby, but a particularly fascinating one. Most of the difficulties I have with philosophy, in fact, concern untangling the semantic messes that the subject produces, and boiling statements down to something I can wrap my head around. I've never liked arguments over semantics and don't much want this to turn into one.

My concern is that we agree that the supposed sentience of the 'Hammer is far from being a certainty.

You do realize that by your own definition that is an assumption?

Yes. Its sole purpose is to show that there are alternatives to the sentience theory.

Um, no. It makes such a rule congruent with the rest of Erfworld, but does not imply anything about the probability of it existing. I consider this to be even flimsier evidence than the 'hammer appearing on the cast list.

Heh. “Highly probable”, for some definition of “highly”. Yes, it's flimsy and an assumption; I don't argue with that.

I'm not claiming that the theory regarding the 'Hammer being sentient is a bad theory; it may well be the best theory, and could easily be correct. I'm simply objecting to the way it's being treated by some of the forumers as an established fact, when really the support for it is rather thin.

[Richbin]

There's this great big assumption going around that the Arkenhammer is sentient. What's the evidence for it?

As far as I can see, there is no evidence whatsoever in the comic itself that the 'Hammer (or any of the other 'Tools) is sentient. Quite the opposite: everything we've seen shows that it, and the 'Pliers, and the 'Dish, are powerful tools and nothing more.

The 'Hammer is listed on the characters page. What exactly does this prove? That (a) there isn't a page for Artifacts, (b) the 'Hammer is significant enough to warrant a mention, (c) that Rob and/or Jamie have a sense of humor and will not hesitate to use it, and (d) that readers are all too willing to to let an over-literal reading of a single humorous line go to their heads and completely cloud their judgment—but we already knew that. If there were a page for Artifacts and the 'Hammer were still listed on the Characters page, it would be a different matter.

Come off it, folks. Maybe, just maybe, the 'Tools are sentient, but right now we have nothing like a good enough reason for treating that as a given, or even a likely possibility.

The assumption of the Arkenhammer being sentient stems from the character roster page, where one of the Arken hammer's weaknesses are listed as:
Poor taste in friends, or somoething like that, which implies choice, which implies sentience.
Now although one could discount this by simply stating this is tomfoolery, or that its profession is listed as MacGuffin (Plot Herring), as there is no evidence to this effect, and there is no 'in-comic' valid speculation as to the reason why the pliers are unattuned to Ansom, then we can ascribe choice to it.

If one picks and chooses what statements to keep and which ones to discard in these mystical pages, then <gasp>, we would be doing no better than... than... interpreting fiction! how wonderfully blasphemous.

Is there any proof that the items are sentient? no.
Is there any proof that this is naught but a coma-like dream of Parson's? no.
Is Hamstard truly the evil mega-genmius playing everything on the board, and in possession of the fourth Arkentool? Maybe.

Most speculations are mere interpretations, gleaned from the tiniest reflections and meanings between the letterings, let alone between the lines. Nothing is writ in stone.