124 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 112

[HOLEkevin]

Booping hosed.

[CaptC]

Yes, but the point of the comic seems to be that he's not taking it seriously, and yet there's a real war, in which real people are really dying going on around him, and he either doesn't realize that or is retreating from it.

Nope. Parson's playing a game. You have fun playing a game. Sometimes you lose cardboard counters, but that doesn't stop you from cracking wise while you play the game.

In chess, if you lose a pawn to a knight, do you think to yourself, "Dang, a ton-and-a-half of horse and armored knight just ran a lance through Fred, a poor terrified peasant." Or do you start thinking about how you're going to recover the material loss?

If you want to win the chess game, your pawns don't have names. And you are ruthless with their lives. And you are emotionally detached about their fates. And that is indeed, quite healthy - they are just pawns. Mourning your pawns gets you sent to the nice institution with the padded walls. Not to mention making you a bad chess player.

I'm glad Sizemore lived. I don't think he'll snap, but he's probably out of the rest of the fight.

[Estelindis]

All in all it ended really badly for Webinar. I did rooted for Sizemore, yet Webinar's and Dora's death made me sad.

+1

Parson's playing a game. You have fun playing a game. Sometimes you lose cardboard counters, but that doesn't stop you from cracking wise while you play the game.

In chess, if you lose a pawn to a knight, do you think to yourself, "Dang, a ton-and-a-half of horse and armored knight just ran a lance through Fred, a poor terrified peasant." Or do you start thinking about how you're going to recover the material loss?

Yes, but in chess, you don't have to look into the eyes of the people who are killing and being killed - it's just pieces on the board. From very near the start of this comic, I've felt that existential issues are going to come into play, and I think that's what's happening here.

[IronBear]

I know that moral relativity is cool and hip in fiction works these days, but really, there comes a point where you're just being indulgent and mean-spirited. The author here has gone out of his way to create a scenario with no positive satisfying outcome, so readers may only sit back and wonder in what gruesome fashion their sensibilities will be abused next.

Now, I know what everyone is going to say: Yes, it's daring, and yes, in real life there are no clearcut good guys and bad guys and few legitimately happy endings and only simpletons expect that kind of thing anymore, etc etc, but that doesn't make reading Erfworld anymore enjoyable. You're going to give me a steady stream of graphic violence, emotional torture, mental breakdowns, and sadism and then slap a "funny" punchline panel onto the end of our increasingly annoying protagonist prattling like an eight year old? Is this supposed to be ironic and postmodern or just plain sick?

This comic has walked some very fine lines over the past few years and I recognize that that's a large part of the point, but in the process it has gradually and quite ruthlessly murdered its own appeal. Boy, can't you just wait until Sizemore flips out and reenacts that scene from "Full Metal Jacket"? Yeah, me neither. But I'm sure it will pale in comparison to the final comic, in which Wanda forces the freshly uncroaked Ansom and Jillian to copulate in unnatural ways for her amusement, or whatever the hell other horrible thing is going to happen next.

Good people have flaws and the evil have virtues

[CaptC]

Yes, but in chess, you don't have to look into the eyes of the people who are killing and being killed - it's just pieces on the board. From very near the start of this comic, I've felt that existential issues are going to come into play, and I think that's what's happening here.

Existential for us. It's a game to newly ruthless Parson. If you can't understand that, you don't know gamers. Commanders in battle have to have a similar detachment. If you can't understand that, please don't ever command any actual troops (particularly infantry).

Parson may pay an emotional price later. But right now, those around him are material, not people. And correctly so, or he won't win this game.

[Moechi_Vill]

To be blunt, I really don't think you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You certainly are not speaking for me, and probably not for the majority of readers here, even though the post is phrased as if it were.

He's certainly wrong about basic facts such as 'this comic over the last few years...' It sets the rest of his protestations in light. Most likely a new reader who read all of them at once, seems very unaware of what the fanbase thinks as a conglomerate (I'd say most of the fanbase to highlight diversity, but that would imply he's still a fan, and he seemed quite clear about being an ex-fan).

Nope. Parson's playing a game. You have fun playing a game. Sometimes you lose cardboard counters, but that doesn't stop you from cracking wise while you play the game.

In chess, if you lose a pawn to a knight, do you think to yourself, "Dang, a ton-and-a-half of horse and armored knight just ran a lance through Fred, a poor terrified peasant." Or do you start thinking about how you're going to recover the material loss?

If you want to win the chess game, your pawns don't have names. And you are ruthless with their lives. And you are emotionally detached about their fates. And that is indeed, quite healthy - they are just pawns. Mourning your pawns gets you sent to the nice institution with the padded walls. Not to mention making you a bad chess player.

I'm glad Sizemore lived. I don't think he'll snap, but he's probably out of the rest of the fight.

A ton and a half? I'd like to see that horse, its rider and the armor for it and its master. It would have to be like a dire knight and warhorse!
OK, I guess if you armor the horse reaaaally heavily you could reach 1,500 kg, but it wouldn't be able to charge, more like a steady walk if it's a strong horse.


CaptC, you mentioned the sword! I forgot - since I'm Asbergers perhaps I just saw the joke for a joke and didn't connect it to earlier (like I did with Ctrl Alt Del). He's ruthless and makes jokes while breaking people and killing things*!
Excellent plot point!
*and vice versa

[pendell]

Well, I must say that Erfworld is attracting my interest again. The pacing has certainly improved, and it's nice to see Parson starting to get some hits in.

For the 'moral relativism' guy above, I am interested in the comic from a game perspective -- how does Parson defeat 25-1 odds?

I don't get the bit about 'horror'. This isn't a horror comic where evil regularly defeats good. This is a war comic, and horrible things happen in war. I wasn't horrified by the Dirtmaster's killing of Webinar and Dora -- it was a war, he used what tactical options he has, because it was him or them.

War *is* horror. It is the ultimate horror, because it makes good people do awful things. As is the case of our Dirtmaster here.

And this isn't even close to the horrors of a real war. For that, one should look at the pictures of Napalm from Vietnam, or read in Desert Storm where soldiers were occasionally buried alive in their bunkers by bulldozers.

The 'horror' in this comic so far is on a par with what anyone would see during war. And I don't see it as 'good vs. evil'. Ansom is a better dresser than Stanley, but that doesn't make him 'good'. He has vampires and mobsters on his side as well as cute creatures. And the 'angels' are pure mercenaries who will fight for whomever pays them the most.

Just because something's pretty on the outside doesn't make it pretty on the inside.

This is gray vs. gray. If you want to look for heroes, don't look at Parson -- look at Sizemore. The heroism in such a war -- in most wars -- is of ordinary, decent people doing what they must to survive while trying to hold onto whatever it is that separates men from ravening predators.

Of course, it could be that Stanley really is Evil with a capital E. But I'm not fully persuaded of that yet. I don't know enough of the backstory to make that determination.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Estelindis]

If you can't understand that, you don't know gamers. <snip> If you can't understand that, please don't ever command any actual troops (particularly infantry). <snip>

Er, kindly refrain from making personal comments of this ilk. Let's just discuss the comic.

The very phenomena that you describe (up to and including estrangement from the reality of life and death for practical battle purposes) are existential issues in themselves, and I think that quite a few of the characters in this strip are going to come to face with that by the end of the comic. (Indeed, some of them already have.) I think that's intentional on the part of the authors - they are playing around with mixing some of paradigms from gaming and from real life, and it's an interesting mélange from a moral point of view. The characters that Parson has to command certainly seem to have real emotions, strengths, and weaknesses - yet they're spawned based on in-game actions rather than being born. How do the personalities that they clearly have develop? It's questions like these that lead me to believe that Erfworld is a complex and interesting comic rather than a simplistic one.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

I just don't see a wall attack by most of the coalition. Maybe a few extremely vengeful groups or groups that really like Jetstone, but it will be a joke. Free xp's for Parson.

The coalition won't give up. And Ansom will still be the leader. It's a given in the story. This is war. It's a long haul for both sides. If I had a shmucker for each time I've heard someone say that the coalition will give up or Ansom will be captured/croaked/replaced in the next strip...

[DougTheHead]

I know that moral relativity is cool and hip in fiction works these days, but really, there comes a point where you're just being indulgent and mean-spirited. The author here has gone out of his way to create a scenario with no positive satisfying outcome, so readers may only sit back and wonder in what gruesome fashion their sensibilities will be abused next.

Now, I know what everyone is going to say: Yes, it's daring, and yes, in real life there are no clearcut good guys and bad guys and few legitimately happy endings and only simpletons expect that kind of thing anymore, etc etc, but that doesn't make reading Erfworld anymore enjoyable. You're going to give me a steady stream of graphic violence, emotional torture, mental breakdowns, and sadism and then slap a "funny" punchline panel onto the end of our increasingly annoying protagonist prattling like an eight year old? Is this supposed to be ironic and postmodern or just plain sick?

This comic has walked some very fine lines over the past few years and I recognize that that's a large part of the point, but in the process it has gradually and quite ruthlessly murdered its own appeal. Boy, can't you just wait until Sizemore flips out and reenacts that scene from "Full Metal Jacket"? Yeah, me neither. But I'm sure it will pale in comparison to the final comic, in which Wanda forces the freshly uncroaked Ansom and Jillian to copulate in unnatural ways for her amusement, or whatever the hell other horrible thing is going to happen next.

Anyone else find it hilarious that the person complaining about the disturbing content of this story is named "Tam Lin?" After all, there's absolutely nothing disturbing or morally ambiguous about that particular fairy tale! Right? Right???

[SteveMB]

Parson may pay an emotional price later.

I suspect so, especially if the "Ruthlessness" trait of the sword is (as I speculated) inducing him to be as cold toward people he knows and likes and sees in person as he is toward strangers.

[Moechi_Vill]

The coalition won't give up. And Ansom will still be the leader. It's a given in the story. This is war. It's a long haul for both sides. If I had a shmucker for each time I've heard someone say that the coalition will give up or Ansom will be captured/croaked/replaced in the next strip...

I agree completely, this is obviously a struggle that has been going on for hundreds of rounds, and has only recently come close to a possibly conclusion.

I think for a few coalition members, they will seek a way to live with the threat now that it has been weakened (temporarily). If they understand the leadership has been enhanced to the point where diplomacy is possible a few of them might be willing to take a peace deal.

[Dacia Brabant]

Aww, I was hoping Webinar would live if only to deliver a "General Ansom, I have no more men" line.

And I do think TamLin has a valid point about this episode, though I disagree with the conclusion. Parson does look callous here, and juxtaposing that with Sizemore's inner guilt a few panels earlier makes it look like an implicit moral message about the indifference of military commanders to the suffering of their troops/the slaughter that their actions bring about. Of course that indifference is necessary for them to do their jobs, and no amount of Flower Power is going to stop that from happening, but that doesn't make it any less pleasant either.

However, this is not a bad thing for an artist to acknowledge and represent (nor is it bad to present a good vs. evil dichotomy either for that matter) though it may not be to everybody's liking. What would be bad is to have a full-stop shift in the story from moral ambiguity and necessity grudgingly admitted to outweigh ideals, to moral clarity and triumph of ideals. (Amusingly enough it's a lot easier/more acceptable to go the other direction in story.)

I don't think we have to worry about the author reneging on his intent though.

[the_tick_rules]

poor webimar. You'll be missed. But hey they can always make another.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

The very phenomena that you describe (up to and including estrangement from the reality of life and death for practical battle purposes) are existential issues in themselves, and I think that quite a few of the characters in this strip are going to come to face with that by the end of the comic. (Indeed, some of them already have.) I think that's intentional on the part of the authors - they are playing around with mixing some of paradigms from gaming and from real life, and it's an interesting mélange from a moral point of view. The characters that Parson has to command certainly seem to have real emotions, strengths, and weaknesses - yet they're spawned based on in-game actions rather than being born. How to the personalities that they clearly have develop? It's questions like these that lead me to believe that Erfworld is a complex and interesting comic rather than a simplistic one.

Indeed. It's a stranger in the alternate world story. In such stories, the alternate world, which only the hero can visit, is more "real" to the hero in the sense the existential issues are more pressing to him or her even though the alternate world itself often makes no logical sense. It's in the tradition of Pan's Labyrinth, Spirited Away, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Phantom Tollbooth, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels, etc.

[Moechi_Vill]

Aww, I was hoping Webinar would live if only to deliver a "General Ansom, I have no more men" line.

And I do think TamLin has a valid point about this episode, though I disagree with the conclusion. Parson does look callous here, and juxtaposing that with Sizemore's inner guilt a few panels earlier makes it look like an implicit moral message about the indifference of military commanders to the suffering of their troops/the slaughter that their actions bring about. Of course that indifference is necessary for them to do their jobs, and no amount of Flower Power is going to stop that from happening, but that doesn't make it any less pleasant either.

However, this is not a bad thing for an artist to acknowledge and represent (nor is it bad to present a good vs. evil dichotomy either for that matter) though it may not be to everybody's liking. What would be bad is to have a full-stop shift in the story from moral ambiguity and necessity grudgingly admitted to outweigh ideals, to moral clarity and triumph of ideals. (Amusingly enough it's a lot easier/more acceptable to go the other direction in story.)

I don't think we have to worry about the author reneging on his intent though.

I'd hate their creations for the rest of my life if they did that.
Erfworld might by in my top 5 webcomics.
It'd almost be a bit like messing with Portal, you can imagine how that'd send Yahtzee into an ascended state of rage.

Indeed. It's a stranger in the alternate world story. In such stories, the alternate world, which only the hero can visit, is more "real" to the hero in the sense the existential issues are more pressing to him or her even though the alternate world itself often makes no logical sense. It's in the tradition of Pan's Labyrinth, Spirited Away, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Phantom Tollbooth, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels, etc.

Hurr... I don't know. What about American Psycho?
The protagonist in the book would be merely a psychotic if he's just imagining it all.

Please keep Thomas Covenant of 'the Tree Age' out of this. He can't decide whether he's gonna put his sins behind him, or work with his flawed self and be a hero in either case or stop caring.
It's like he somehow manages to be a bad guy, angst about it, and not improve himself or live with it. He's like Shinji Ikari except he's worse (and that kid at least has a few redeeming if not vindicating features other than being human).
He's a douche.

I dunno about 'Spirited Away', just can't take it seriously, but I knowz people loves it.

I agree with your point though, imaginary worlds and worlds that are different from ours have moral problems that are very real, and in fact make us care about them.

What is it... that ancient rule? 'Consistent Internal System'
We have a consistent set of moral rules here within the world, one similar but not quite the same as ours.

I'm not quite sure about this, but Parson might have nailed it with his observation that perhaps only rulers have free will in this world. That would be a great burden and a privilege at the same time. It absolves everyone below the ruler of guilt and an ability to make their own decisions.

Parson is magically bound to do all of this, and so is Sizemore. This is a battle between the Tool and the RCCola monarchs and race leaders.

[Oslecamo]

1- Yup, they've used up the tunnel and anti-air traps, so this effects any wall or garrison traps how? So unless they are planning on sending troops to dig through the tunnels it doesn't matter. Also, I was under the impression the sealing off the tunnels as to kill the routing units, actually.
2- Jillian's air strike was large enough to stop the dwagons and it got flattened, in fact they think it was totally wiped out.
Finally, the coalition doesn't know if the traps are completely used up, or half way gone. They do know the traps were sufficent to kill their units.

1-"Mop it all up and seal the entrances". I guess this means they first kill whatver's left in the tunnels, and then they seal them to stop any more outside forces from coming, at least for some turns.

Plus, Hamster specifically asked Sizemore to booby trap the entire tunnels, and we also heard of the air defences. We haven't, however, heard of any anti air defenses.

2-Jillian's air strike was enough to stop a group of heavily wounded dragons with the aid of the two strongest warlords of the coalition, Ansom and Vinnie, plus one of the arkentools for fat leadership bonus.
Also, this:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0109.html.

As you can see, a significat portion of the air strike survived. They just didn't report back to the coalition because they had no means to do so.

Also, the coalition knows that Gobwin Knob doesn't have endless resources.
Gobwin knob is at the verge of economic and manpower colapse, and it only stands because Hamster has managed to stretch their resources to the limit while playing mind tricks with Ansom.

Do remember, even Hamster admited that if the coalition attacked with everything they had, they would be booped.

[the_tick_rules]

Indeed Parson is playing on the number 1 and 2 force multipliers of all time, fear and surprise.

[Justyn]

For the 'moral relativism' guy above, I am interested in the comic from a game perspective -- how does Parson defeat 25-1 odds?

He doesn't. Wanda's estimation of 25 to 1 odds was highly pessimistic, at the RCC's highest, it only outnumbered Gobwin Knob 12 to one.

The RCC, before the the actual siege of Gobwin Knob, numbered exactly 9751. While Gobwin Knob, at the same time, numbered 785 (821 before Stanley bugged out)

Now, even the lowest estimates of the RCC's losses with pretty bad ones for Gobwin Knob makes it so that they only outnumber Gobwin Knob about 10 or 11 to 1.

[teratorn]

It's questions like these that lead me to believe that Erfworld is a complex and interesting comic rather than a simplistic one.

Yes, you sum it up well. The gaming angle interests me, but I want to find out where this will take Parson. Up to now he has been watching it from a distance. In the tunnel fight he didn't even see the thing, like he had done when the table was available.

With the marbit diggers dead, the tunnels will be out of reach as soon as the entries are closed. Parson was asking for Wanda in the previous strip, that should be phase two: uncroaking as many units as possible before the enemy starts his turn.

[The Old Hack]

Indeed Parson is playing on the number 1 and 2 force multipliers of all time, fear and surprise.

Fear and surprise... surprise and fear... fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms...

...er.

I'll just go on a Monty Python detox cure now. Again. *sigh*

[Oracle_Hunter]

I suspect so, especially if the "Ruthlessness" trait of the sword is (as I speculated) inducing him to be as cold toward people he knows and likes and sees in person as he is toward strangers.

Y'see, I don't think the sword makes Parson "ruthless" and here's why: it would cheapen the actions that Parson is taking. It's like Mind Control - you can feel guilt for what you did, but you don't really have volition that can make you responsible for those actions.

Even if Parson knew that, by picking up the sword, his morals would be suppressed (which is not clear), then the question is whether he wanted to pack away his morals for a time or not, rather than whether he would discard his morals each and every time they were challenged.

This is why More Than Mind Control was so effective. Jillian was compelled to take actions that harmed her side, but only within the limits of her natural inclinations. Indeed, the struggle against Wanda's magic here was such an effective scene - she had to, at some level, accept Wanda's mental domination for it to work, and when she was finally forced to choose, she developed as a character.

Parson here, he has to deal with people who are real to him, and people that he cares about. And yet, he has to win a war, a war that doesn't quite seem real to him because it is clothed in all the trappings of a war game. The standard wargamer is ruthless, because none of the figures have feelings or personality, but many of them are also goodhearted individuals.

This sequence is all about the lengths that Parson is willing to go to win. Every battle should be a choice for him, where he can decide to be Good or to Win. If he doesn't have to make these decisions because the sword is numbing his emotions, then the whole conflict loses something big.

[hajo]

With no lungs? we haven't seen uncroaked warlords acctually giving orders.
The only word said by one of them was as i recall "pie" from the late Lord Manpower the Temporary.

True, and we haven't heard him utter the warcry "LEEEEEROY", either

[SteveMB]

He doesn't. Wanda's estimation of 25 to 1 odds was highly pessimistic, at the RCC's highest, it only outnumbered Gobwin Knob 12 to one.

The RCC, before the the actual siege of Gobwin Knob, numbered exactly 9751. While Gobwin Knob, at the same time, numbered 785 (821 before Stanley bugged out)

Now, even the lowest estimates of the RCC's losses with pretty bad ones for Gobwin Knob makes it so that they only outnumber Gobwin Knob about 10 or 11 to 1.

Wanda's 25:1 may have been based on some sort of estimate of strength rather than raw numbers (perhaps she was adding total levels rather than number of units) -- a big chunk of GK's forces are "gobwin infantry, mostly level 1" and "uncroaked infantry" (which may be less powerful than the original units had been in life). That's especially likely if Parson is correct in his suspicion that Wanda knows more about military matters than she lets on.

[kagato23]

I would think it does make him ruthless. You saw his eyes glow, and you saw the box say it would do this to him.

However, you have a point as well. My guess? The sword makes him ruthless, able to not care what he's doing to sizemore or any other number of ugly things he has to do to win. However, it is an effect he's fully cognizant of. Part of him however recognizes that he needs this to win, and thus allows it to continue.

I suspect he'll feel bad for sizemore again when it's all over.

[SteveMB]

Y'see, I don't think the sword makes Parson "ruthless" and here's why: it would cheapen the actions that Parson is taking. It's like Mind Control - you can feel guilt for what you did, but you don't really have volition that can make you responsible for those actions.

Even if Parson knew that, by picking up the sword, his morals would be suppressed (which is not clear), then the question is whether he wanted to pack away his morals for a time or not, rather than whether he would discard his morals each and every time they were challenged.

This is why More Than Mind Control was so effective. Jillian was compelled to take actions that harmed her side, but only within the limits of her natural inclinations. Indeed, the struggle against Wanda's magic here was such an effective scene - she had to, at some level, accept Wanda's mental domination for it to work, and when she was finally forced to choose, she developed as a character.

Parson here, he has to deal with people who are real to him, and people that he cares about. And yet, he has to win a war, a war that doesn't quite seem real to him because it is clothed in all the trappings of a war game. The standard wargamer is ruthless, because none of the figures have feelings or personality, but many of them are also goodhearted individuals.

This sequence is all about the lengths that Parson is willing to go to win. Every battle should be a choice for him, where he can decide to be Good or to Win. If he doesn't have to make these decisions because the sword is numbing his emotions, then the whole conflict loses something big.

I agree, actually -- that's why I used the word "inducing" (meaning to foster an inclination in that direction, not to outright compel him). Perhaps I should have made that distinction clearer.

[selgnij]

Just to point it out, Parson doesn't actually need to beat 10-1 or whatever odds in outright combat. If he can inflict enough damage on the siege equipment both now and when RCC takes the outer walls that they can't break the garrison walls, the RCC wont be able to get into the garrison save by the air route. (This is assuming the tunnels are now blocked off.) And a good chuck of their air forces are either croaked or off chasing Stalnley.

Oh, and panel 6 is really well done. Shows major anguish on Sizemore's part.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I would think it does make him ruthless. You saw his eyes glow, and you saw the box say it would do this to him.

However, you have a point as well. My guess? The sword makes him ruthless, able to not care what he's doing to sizemore or any other number of ugly things he has to do to win. However, it is an effect he's fully cognizant of. Part of him however recognizes that he needs this to win, and thus allows it to continue.

I suspect he'll feel bad for sizemore again when it's all over.

*sigh* I suppose you're right. Looking back at the panel, it's hard to argue otherwise. Note particularly the purple aura running from the sword up his arm.

Still, the whole Superpowered Evil Side is fine, but I feel like we're missing an opportunity for Parson to be making hard decisions. Remorse after the fact is nice and all, with a My God What Have I Done after Parson witnesses the carnage, but he could have had to face a What Have I Become were he actually making every choice.

All in all, I'm very pleased with the comic, but it's a shame that Sizemore has to deal with the emotional impact of his actions, while Parson gets a crutch.

[the_tick_rules]

Fear and surprise... surprise and fear... fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms...

...er.

I'll just go on a Monty Python detox cure now. Again. *sigh*

I'm not sure what you were going for with that.

[Brasswatchman]

:D It's the simple things in life, isn't it?