Erf 118, Pg 106

[PresidentEnder]

The thing I might have missed this whole time is just how tragic this whole cutesy world is. I'm thinking "Song of Ice and Fire" tragic. The good guys are bad guys, and everyone dies. That sort of thing. And, naturally, the real force for good (Parson) isn't such a force for good after all (not that Parson was all that good to begin with, in a moral sense, but I saw him that way for a long time).

[Oracle_Hunter]

But can he put it down before Bogtroll dies? I think this next round of fighting will see the end of Parson's faithful one-eyed friend.

Nah, I'm seeing Sizemore biting it first.

If Parson manifests a true Superpowered Evil Side, complete with an Enemy Within, then it would be thematically appropriate for a My God What Have I Done to show up - and nobody is better for that than Sizemore.

Bogroll is happy with his lot in life, and doesn't seem to mind what he does, so long as he does it in the service of his Lord. Sizemore, though, hates killing, and hates Parson for making him kill. Since Sizemore & Parson aren't currently on good terms, having Sizemore die in the execution of Parson's plan would be a fine way to force Parson to do a moral gut-check to see what he has become.

Of course, having said this I'm almost assured to be wrong. Well, I am certain that the last battle for Gobwin Knob will have carnage a-plenty.

[ReccaSquirrel]

Guys... ruthlessness != enraged bloodlust

ruthlessness: Having no compassion or pity; merciless

He's going to kill the enemy without any compassion. He isn't going to start cutting down his allies.

[jindra34]

anyone else notice dude is spelled dood? as said by prinnies.

yeah for prinnies... the living hand grenades... a weapon of the truly ruthless...

[Ubiq]

This bodes ill for any gobwins named Ruth.

That picture of Complete Cartoon Parson may well be my favorite image in the comic's entire run.

[Chronicled]

Guys... ruthlessness != enraged bloodlust

ruthlessness: Having no compassion or pity; merciless

He's going to kill the enemy without any compassion. He isn't going to start cutting down his allies.

That's not what we're saying. We're saying that if Parson's not watching out for his friends in Erfworld, they're quite likely to die. Heck, there's even this foreshadowing.

[Zolem]

I don't think it is changing his personality. I haven't seen any other sign of it. I think the red eye panel is just him realizing what Ruthlessness is. He asks out loud about ruthlessness and then is handed the sword. He realized the effect and realized he has what he needs to win.

"Ruthlessness?"


"Ruthlessness."

That's a good point, a lot of people seem to take it literaly, as a personality change. The following example is purly hypothetical, but shows hwo it could be an ability: An ability that affects units that benefit from his Leadership bonus (as Cheif Warlord, this aplies to everyone in the Capital). It increaces thier Attack so they strike more relentlessly and without mercy, but their defense is lowered as a tradeoff. Blanced somewhat by Parson's now boosted Leadership.

Also, a lot of people keep calling Parson lv 2. He has a leadership fo 2, not necesarily a level of 2. For example, Webner seems mid level, but he only has a leadership of 5. Jillian has a 9, but seems to be quite a few levels ahead of Webner, and this taking into acount her Royalty. As such, certain classes might gain leadership faster than others, such as a lv5 Knight having a 3 and a lv5 Pirate Captain having a 1.

[Cadrys]

Also, a lot of people keep calling Parson lv 2. He has a leadership fo 2, not necesarily a level of 2.

According to this klog entry, he's level 2.

[headhoncho]

Man, I feel like such a fanboy right now, but...

...this comic was SO freakin' cool, and I cannot WAIT for the next few strips!

[Justyn]

This page was, undoubtedly, worth the wait.

[Lamech]

Now the real question is will this let Parson beat Charlie? A leadership bonus + a luckamancy bonus... Ansom gets stomped. Hard. But will Parson be able to stop Chalie. Also note the sword made Parson's arm glow.

I wonder if Parson can keep getting cool toys, or magic help in his rations.

[Calmness]

For Charlie i think he'll need the Arkenpliers, plus someone who can atunne to them (Wanda i hope).

[Vladimir]

Tragically Malicious

I laughed so much.

[The Old Hack]

Okay... that was actually terrifying.

A ruthless leader not only shows no mercy to the enemy but will also not hesitate to sacrifice people on his own side if he that way can deal greater proportionate damage to the enemy. He particularly will not care about little things such as moral objections, chivalry or being a noble leader. He has one objective and one objective only -- to win -- and nothing else matters.

In other words, the kid gloves are off.

[Zeku]

Holy buildup, Batman!

So we can assume that the spell is compensating for Wanda's inexperience by completing the exact terms of the spell, just at a slower rate than was originally possible. Truly powerful magic, the kind that covers every base. Self-correcting.

Leadership
Combat
Ruthlessness

The possess of the item gives Parson his expected leadership bonuses and personal ability to attack. Ruthlessness is obviously his 'special,' which we have not yet seen the exact effect of. In terms of game mechanics, we can expect to see something related to a detachment from the moral implications of any decision. It is, perhaps, the unique ability to ignore the effects of duty/loyalty.


Here's my question, this is something that kind of burns in the back of my mind every time I read this comic, and it drives me crazy. Setting aside for the moment, our belief that Parson is cool, or that he is literally 'good at turn-based games,' ie, 'the perfect warlord,' then what exactly is it that makes anyone (such as Charlie or Maggie) believe that he is good for anything?

The donut of doom was a complete failure, since ALL of the A dragons were annihilated, which is actually worse than just telling them to attack siege until they died. No enemy warlords have been croaked so far. Parson decided to trust Wanda's mind control, which was an incompetent decision, both in terms of warlording and actual fact. He decided to park the A dragons over water, which apparently wasn't good enough to keep Jillian from just stumbling on them at random? He wasn't clever enough to figure that Ansom being in love with Zamussels means Ansom isn't going to retreat back to the column?

These were all terrible decisions, and Stanley was unfortunately right to dismiss Parson as worthless. You can be brilliant all you want to, but if you lose the battle, you aren't actually brilliant. Everything that actually affects the battle in some way has been something completely outside of Parson's control. In fact, in each case, it's been Zamussels erratic behavior that has determined the course of the conflict, and it looks like it's still heading that way!

I just can't get over the loss of those A dragons, mentally, somehow. I guess this is a bit unfair, since there's no way to have dramatic tension if the Perfect Warlord just whoops everyone's ass simultaneously. I guess I would feel better about it if some people didn't have faith in his ability. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now, since I get the feeling he's about to destroy everyone, personally.

[pendell]

Guys... ruthlessness != enraged bloodlust

ruthlessness: Having no compassion or pity; merciless

He's going to kill the enemy without any compassion. He isn't going to start cutting down his allies.

I respectfully disagree.

'Ruthlessness' does not mean 'slaughter the enemy'. Parson was ALWAYS willing to do that. So are most of the other units. Well, except our dirtamancer dude. You don't need to be ruthless for that. Everybody knows that winning against odds like this usually means a kill ratio compared to which 'slaughter' is a walk in the park.

And I don't think 'ruthlessness' means 'no compassion or mercy'.

I think ruthlessness means a willingness to do Whatever is necessary to win. Regardless of the cost.

And we don't count enemy casualties as cost.

What it means is that Parson is going to think less like a friend and more like a chess player.

If he's going to win, he's going to have to sacrifice a piece or two.

Except this isn't a game where you simply take the little plastic dude off the board and put it in a box. His 'pieces' -- his friends -- will need to be willingly, deliberately sent to their deaths.

Parson may even have to deceive them in order to do this.

To quote Michael Sharra in his book Killer Angels , 'To be a good officer, you must love the army ... but you must also be willing to order the death of the thing you love ... and that is why there are few good officers, although there are many good men'.

I think Parson isn't going to be able to look himself in a mirror ever again when this day is done. The things he will have to do ...

He knows this. But he'll still do it anyway.

Because he's ruthless.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chronicled]

The donut of doom was a complete failure, since ALL of the A dragons were annihilated, which is actually worse than just telling them to attack siege until they died. No enemy warlords have been croaked so far.

This was Stanley's fault. Had he not stopped Parson and recalled the B dwagons, they could have mobbed the very weakened warlords and archons. Heck, Vinny was expecting to die next turn.

I respectfully disagree.

'Ruthlessness' does not mean 'slaughter the enemy'. Parson was ALWAYS willing to do that. So are most of the other units. Well, except our dirtamancer dude. You don't need to be ruthless for that. Everybody knows that winning against odds like this usually means a kill ratio compared to which 'slaughter' is a walk in the park.

And I don't think 'ruthlessness' means 'no compassion or mercy'.

I think ruthlessness means a willingness to do Whatever is necessary to win. Regardless of the cost.

And we don't count enemy casualties as cost.

What it means is that Parson is going to think less like a friend and more like a chess player.

If he's going to win, he's going to have to sacrifice a piece or two.

Except this isn't a game where you simply take the little plastic dude off the board and put it in a box. His 'pieces' -- his friends -- will need to be willingly, deliberately sent to their deaths.

Parson may even have to deceive them in order to do this.

To quote Michael Sharra in his book Killer Angels , 'To be a good officer, you must love the army ... but you must also be willing to order the death of the thing you love ... and that is why there are few good officers, although there are many good men'.

I think Parson isn't going to be able to look himself in a mirror ever again when this day is done. The things he will have to do ...

He knows this. But he'll still do it anyway.

Because he's ruthless.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I'm not seeing where we disagree on this; If anything, it was poor wording on my part.

[Axl_Rose]

huh; odd that the situation was originally 'team evil' is quite screwed.

and now it seems the 'good guys' are the ones who are in for serious trouble(s).

I personally would like to see the "good guys" triumph in a Pyrrhic victory; it would be more believable than 'holy crap, perfect warlord comes in and exploits a whole bunch of things that we didn't even know about and saves the day!'

[headhoncho]

The donut of doom was a complete failure, since ALL of the A dragons were annihilated, which is actually worse than just telling them to attack siege until they died. No enemy warlords have been croaked so far. Parson decided to trust Wanda's mind control, which was an incompetent decision, both in terms of warlording and actual fact. He decided to park the A dragons over water, which apparently wasn't good enough to keep Jillian from just stumbling on them at random? He wasn't clever enough to figure that Ansom being in love with Zamussels means Ansom isn't going to retreat back to the column?

These were all terrible decisions, and Stanley was unfortunately right to dismiss Parson as worthless. You can be brilliant all you want to, but if you lose the battle, you aren't actually brilliant. Everything that actually affects the battle in some way has been something completely outside of Parson's control. In fact, in each case, it's been Zamussels erratic behavior that has determined the course of the conflict, and it looks like it's still heading that way!

I just can't get over the loss of those A dragons, mentally, somehow. I guess this is a bit unfair, since there's no way to have dramatic tension if the Perfect Warlord just whoops everyone's ass simultaneously. I guess I would feel better about it if some people didn't have faith in his ability. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now, since I get the feeling he's about to destroy everyone, personally.

Respectfully, I totally disagree with your analysis.

A good strategist takes chances. Calculated chances, but he typically acts, rather than reacts. He is typically active, rather than passive.

The gambits were reasonable ones that he formulated as he was still learning the ropes, so to speak. And any number of things could have worked, it was just a number of things working against him in concert that ruined the plan.

Moreover, even though on a tactical level it was painful to lose a group of dwagons, on a strategic level it allowed GK to survive until this turn, since otherwise the destroyed siege would have been enough to take GK last turn.

Also, if Stanley had continued to let things play out, Parson still might have salvaged matters. But Stanley let his attachment to the dwagons override his strategy.

Also, I don't think it was unreasonable for Parson to rely on Wanda's spell. She had been the most competent ally he had met so far, and she had been very confident. Besides, Parson's plan had been to minimize the need to rely on Wanda's spell. If any number of other things had worked in his favor, they wouldn't have even needed to reach the point of testing the spell.

[ReccaSquirrel]

I respectfully disagree.

'Ruthlessness' does not mean 'slaughter the enemy'. Parson was ALWAYS willing to do that. So are most of the other units. Well, except our dirtamancer dude. You don't need to be ruthless for that. Everybody knows that winning against odds like this usually means a kill ratio compared to which 'slaughter' is a walk in the park.

And I don't think 'ruthlessness' means 'no compassion or mercy'.

Considering I was quoting the dictionary, that would make you wrong.

I'm not saying that Parson isn't going to cause his allies and friends to die. But everyone is assuming that he's under some spell or influence that is going to make him sacrifice people needlessly.

Parson's sword is giving him an ability that will make HIM ruthless in battle. And by that, I mean going all Xena on people.

[Winged One]

To quote Michael Sharra in his book Killer Angels , 'To be a good officer, you must love the army ... but you must also be willing to order the death of the thing you love ... and that is why there are few good officers, although there are many good men'.

I think Parson isn't going to be able to look himself in a mirror ever again when this day is done. The things he will have to do ...

He knows this. But he'll still do it anyway.

Because he's ruthless.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I had always heard that quote attributed to Robert E. Lee.

[selgnij]

Just to address the Zeku's big post up above, even the greatest laid plans are subject to the whims of fortune.

First Ansom made the decision of trying to have his cake and eat it too, he played the longshot of saving all his units, if he had played it safe and sacraficed some to ensure the others safety, the plan worked. (Oh, and tacticly, had that longshot failed, he would have made things worse.)

Second, if Jillina hadn't basically stumbled into the dwagons, the plan would have worked.

Third, if the suggestion spell hadn't been broken, the plan worked. ( theres a couple of other minor points as to why things were unlikely to go that bad, but we'll leave em out.)

3 Failsafes is about as good as your going to get in a plan to inflict major damage to your opponents. You can't have a risk-free plan, the fact that all 3 failsafes, well, failed, is bad luck.

Now the point I wanted to make, Charlie has again asked the wrong question, 58.9% (or 59.8, can't remember) were the odds of Parson not losing the city next turn, not of beating the coalition. My thoughts on what happens:

Tunnels: A few attacks on the coalition stacks at the forefront, nothing major, just enough to bring Webiner to the front. Tunnel is collapsed behind his force, cutting them off from retreat or help, que a golem stack assault led by Sizemore (and maybe an uncroaked warlord) Webiner gets uncroaked, and Sizemore and his golems, along with the Gobwins and their new uncroaked warlord (just for the irony) form a defensive block the tunnel forces can't get through. (Now being leaderless, assuming Dora gets taken out aswell at some point) Tunnel forces essential out of action.

Air: Wanda and an uncroaked warlord, with their uncroaked air-force, make a few hit and run attacks, destroying more siege equipment. Selectively NOT attacking Charlie, just another reason for Ansom to suspect him of turning.

Ansom's turn: Ansom attacks the walls, eventually breaking through, although hindered by a lack of siege. In the process the majority of the coalitions siege equipment is destroyed. Ansom no longer has the siege needed to break the garrison walls, and with no air force and the tunnels blocked, his forces are basically left milling around GK. So Ansom holds the outer walls, but since he can't breach the garrison walls, he can't capture GK. And as a bonus he's unlikely to be trusting Charlie at this point.

Edit: on ruthlessness. The best description I've heard is being able to see the perfect line between point A and point B and not caring about anything in between besides how perfect it is.

[Aquillion]

Here's my question, this is something that kind of burns in the back of my mind every time I read this comic, and it drives me crazy. Setting aside for the moment, our belief that Parson is cool, or that he is literally 'good at turn-based games,' ie, 'the perfect warlord,' then what exactly is it that makes anyone (such as Charlie or Maggie) believe that he is good for anything?

Easy. Maggie lives her life by magic and places absolute trust in it. Parson was summoned by a spell intended to summon the perfect warlord, therefore he is the perfect warlord. Period. (And, more simply, she might suspect that they're screwed even with Parson's mind... but she knows they're screwed without it. Therefore, his mind is their best weapon; it's the only factor that can turn their fate around. Also... even more simply. She's presumably been with him during most strategy sessions. Unlike us, she probably knows what he's planning to do to Ansom. She might be basing her judgment off of that.)

Charlie is just interested in the mathemancy artifact. Parson holds some interest as an odd, unique unit, and the battle odds are intriguing, but beyond that he's probably just flattering Parson; it costs him nothing to do so, after all.

[Mal]

Considering that Parson's personality is in fact one of the driving forces in the story, I severely doubt that "Ruthlessness" would change the way he acts at all. It sounds like a buff, and likely is a buff.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I think "Ruthlessness" would rather mean he should stop thinking about the people under his command as actual people, and more like units. After all, he is in a game-world. He is The Player. The Player is the ultimate warlord, and he doesn't care about his units (except when they are powerful in their own rights)

[Mal]

I think "Ruthlessness" would rather mean he should stop thinking about the people under his command as actual people, and more like units. After all, he is in a game-world. He is The Player. The Player is the ultimate warlord, and he doesn't care about his units (except when they are powerful in their own rights)

Doubtful. Under that same logic, Parson is the player. He is absolute. Why then, would his thoughts and ideas be altered?

[badgerigar]

I signed up to post this because I was so proud of figuring something out before anyone else in the forums.

Spoiler

Show

Parson will disguise Bogroll as himself and send him to Charlie

I could be wrong of course, but it is very ruthless and has law of conservation of detail support.

[fractal]

Even if Parson's leadership bonus increased, so what? It's not like the Coalition doesn't already have plenty of good leadership bonuses, including Ansom's, as well as the massive advanage of numbers. If Gobwin Knob is even going to hold out, let alone emerge victorious, vastly superior tactics will be required, as well as some serious gambles, IN ADDITION TO Parson's new and improved Leadership. As far as his fighting ability goes, that hardly matters at all, except in allowing him to survive possible confrontations. Ruthlessness? Just opens up additional possible strategies.

[The Boyce]

Doubtful. Under that same logic, Parson is the player. He is absolute. Why then, would his thoughts and ideas be altered?

Because he is not currently in the position of Player he is interacting with his units on a human level clouding his ability to think of them as we would a chess piece or elf in a war game. In the Player's position they have no personality no life they are just pieces.

[PePe QuiCoSE]

I signed up to post this because I was so proud of figuring something out before anyone else in the forums.

Spoiler

Show

Parson will disguise Bogroll as himself and send him to Charlie

I could be wrong of course, but it is very ruthless and has law of conservation of detail support.

Err... this has been said before and was dismissed because warlords can see units stats. Unless there is some stats veiling/cloak that we don't know off, it's unreasonable.

And on that topic, i would like to know if now that the spell is complete Parson does have stats .

on the 'ruthlessness' topic: The sword gives 3 'feats': Leadership (we already know how it works), Combat (i guess now Parson does know something more than just 'pointy end away from user') and Ruthlessness, which he figured out how it worked when he got hold of it. I would guess we'll get to know more of it afterwards.
Though, when Parson was summoned, Stanley asked for someone who wouldn't have a moral case about being summoned, so i don't think that the completion of the spell would bring any mental/ethic issues to Parson.