Erfworld 128 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 116

[Wrecan]

The Transylvito emblems we've seen may all be Caesar's, the chief warlord.

It would be odd, though, for the king to wear his chief warlord's insignia. ALso, Caesar isn't wearing his insignia. I think that may simply be Transylvito's insignia.

[DevilDan]

It would be odd, though, for the king to wear his chief warlord's insignia. ALso, Caesar isn't wearing his insignia. I think that may simply be Transylvito's insignia.

If Caesar is a royal, an heir, then it may be a family crest. Caesar is certainly a regal-sounding name.

[Fafnir13]

Side note, isn't it a raddish that the Jetstone use? Or was that debunked?
Haven't been keeping up with much of the forum lately.

[SteveMB]

Side note, isn't it a raddish that the Jetstone use? Or was that debunked?
Haven't been keeping up with much of the forum lately.

"He'll probably redo it in all pastels and royal radishes."

[fendrin]

Most likely the use of insignia is up to the particular commander involved; In this case likely Wanda opted for Parson's rather than just using generic colors.

Perhaps she is using a misinformation campaign to try to get the coalition to think Stanley has been croaked. that is, if he declared Parson his heir and the croaked, of course they would have the Hamstard insignia.

[DevilDan]

Most likely the use of insignia is up to the particular commander involved; In this case likely Wanda opted for Parson's rather than just using generic colors.

Perhaps she is using a misinformation campaign to try to get the coalition to think Stanley has been croaked. that is, if he declared Parson his heir and the croaked, of course they would have the Hamstard insignia.

I'm still a bit shocked that the RCC couldn't muster a single thinkamancer to put in the field. If they're in that much danger of a surgical strike, wouldn't that also be true of Ansom or other commanders? Is even an (presumably) advanced heir that much less valuable than a caster?

Don King had a caster, but it has been remarked that his contributions to the RCC were on the stingy side, at least initially.

[Aquillion]

Most likely the use of insignia is up to the particular commander involved; In this case likely Wanda opted for Parson's rather than just using generic colors.

Perhaps she is using a misinformation campaign to try to get the coalition to think Stanley has been croaked. that is, if he declared Parson his heir and the croaked, of course they would have the Hamstard insignia.

Oh god.

In that case, what is Stanley going to think when he sees it?

[Ragn Charran]

Oh god.

In that case, what is Stanley going to think when he sees it?

Nothing, since Stanley knows he's still overlord. "Am I alive? Check. Do I still set production orders for Gobwin Knob? Check. Still overlord? Check."

If it's the case (and I doubt it) he may be peeved at Wanda initially purely from the ego slight, but she can talk her way out of it.

[fendrin]

I'm still a bit shocked that the RCC couldn't muster a single thinkamancer to put in the field. If they're in that much danger of a surgical strike, wouldn't that also be true of Ansom or other commanders? Is even an (presumably) advanced heir that much less valuable than a caster?

Don King had a caster, but it has been remarked that his contributions to the RCC were on the stingy side, at least initially.

We don't know the relative costs of unit production or relative unit stats, but common gaming tropes tend to have non-casters significantly more durable than casters. Further, your warlords are necessary to effectively lead your army (otherwise you don't have any tactical control).

Further, you can always promote a new warlord, chief warlord, and even heir. It is presumable that this takes much less time than popping one. One cannot promote infantry to caster status (I'm sure we would have heard about it if it was possible).

Another factor is that casters can create magic items to 'delegate' their powers: for instance the magic hats function like very limited thinkamancy. Warlords cannot lead from the rear (though the overlord/chief warlord can, with thinkamancy or other magic, give orders from the rear).

[Aquillion]

Nothing, since Stanley knows he's still overlord. "Am I alive? Check. Do I still set production orders for Gobwin Knob? Check. Still overlord? Check."

If it's the case (and I doubt it) he may be peeved at Wanda initially purely from the ego slight, but she can talk her way out of it.

We don't know enough about how the system works to be sure that that would reassure him, though (he was suspicious of Wanda disobeying his orders early on, when she refused to promote another pretty-boy warlord.) It could be that if Parson's loyalty is low, he could use his position as chief warlord to seize control of the capital, even though Stanley is still technically in charge.

(And, of course, Stanley's accusations of treason don't have to actually make sense; he's pretty paranoid already. He suspected Wanda, Parson, and Sizemore of possibly betraying him already when the donut strategy failed, remember? I dunno about the other two, but Parson's been in the world for all of a handful of days, so that doesn't make much sense -- he has nobody to betray Stanley to.)

[Justyn]

We don't know enough about how the system works to be sure that that would reassure him, though (he was suspicious of Wanda disobeying his orders early on, when she refused to promote another pretty-boy warlord.) It could be that if Parson's loyalty is low, he could use his position as chief warlord to seize control of the capital, even though Stanley is still technically in charge.

(And, of course, Stanley's accusations of treason don't have to actually make sense; he's pretty paranoid already. He suspected Wanda, Parson, and Sizemore of possibly betraying him already when the donut strategy failed, remember? I dunno about the other two, but Parson's been in the world for all of a handful of days, so that doesn't make much sense -- he has nobody to betray Stanley to.)

Actually, I could say that Stanley could see one person to whom Parson can betray him for: himself. It's been a long held speculation that Stanley was behind the Gobwins' betrayal of Saline, and people who have done something wrong tend to be paranoid about people doing the same thing to them (a cheating husband or wife will be unreasonably jealous, and constantly accusing their spouse of infidelity). If Stanley really did betray Saline, then he would be extremely weary of any betrayal, real or otherwise; and would see a mass of units wearing his Chief Warlord's heraldry rather than his own as incontrovertible evidence of Parson's betrayal.

[Yellowchopstick]

I know they're probably not taking suggestions, but i'd find it hilarious if Parson made the uncroaked Jetstone on the walls chant "braaaaaains" or "one of us" over and over

[DevilDan]

What is the livery of Stanley the Tool nee Plaid anyway?

Stanley is impulsive by nature; he reacted with anger when the most powerful of his precious dwagons were lost. He hasn't proven to be thoroughly unreasonable, just showing the thought patters of a man more suited to the front lines than to the war room.

[Aquillion]

Actually, I could say that Stanley could see one person to whom Parson can betray him for: himself. It's been a long held speculation that Stanley was behind the Gobwins' betrayal of Saline, and people who have done something wrong tend to be paranoid about people doing the same thing to them (a cheating husband or wife will be unreasonably jealous, and constantly accusing their spouse of infidelity). If Stanley really did betray Saline, then he would be extremely weary of any betrayal, real or otherwise; and would see a mass of units wearing his Chief Warlord's heraldry rather than his own as incontrovertible evidence of Parson's betrayal.

Yeah, I could see Stanley seeing that -- but only because Stanley is paranoid and not reasonable in this respect. After all, that only worked for him because he was heir. Parson doesn't actually have anything to gain from it.

[ChowGuy]

FWIW, I don't think Stanley did betray Saline. Even Ansom stops short of actually claiming that, saying merely that he came to power "through regicide" which is correct. Saline was the King, and he was killed. That's regicide, no matter who was responsible for the killing. To Ansom given his hangup on "nobility" as a prerequisite to rule that by itself is enough, but [Count] Vinny's "well, sorta" implies that he doesn't agree with the inference. It would be as if the various crowned heads of Europe despised Napoleon for coming to power through the Reign of Terror (which they did) even though as First Consul he did actually more to re-establish civil order then anything else. (Someone once remarked that "they should have killed [Emperor] Napoleon at the foot of a statue of [Consul] Bonaparte.")

To be honest, for someone in Stanley's presumed position as Tyrant, he shows remarkably little paranoia about his personal safety. We never see him with a personal bodyguard, and even when things go against him and he wonders whether his closest advisers have betrayed or just screwed up on him, he merely warns them to stay away; he does not order then placed under guard. He seems in fact more the type to whom the presumption of loyalty is a given, and I think he probably felt the same way with respect to Saline.

My own opinion, though I have nothing canonical to back it up, is that he knows or suspect Charlie of some involvement, possibly a betrayal of his own, and that's why he has a personal dislike of him. Wanda and Maggie both speak of Charlie as if they know of or have had enough past dealings to peg him as both devious and "weird" and from what we've seen of his double dealing with both the coalition and Parson, I'd hardly be inclined to trust him myself. Certainly not as blindly as Ansom did.

[DevilDan]

To be honest, for someone in Stanley's presumed position as Tyrant, he shows remarkably little paranoia about his personal safety. We never see him with a personal bodyguard, and even when things go against him and he wonders whether his closest advisers have betrayed or just screwed up on him, he merely warns them to stay away; he does not order then placed under guard. He seems in fact more the type to whom the presumption of loyalty is a given, and I think he probably felt the same way with respect to Saline.

Natural thinkamancy makes betrayal difficult; and he's a formidable warrior in his own right. Possibly he could have very tough bodyguards accompanying him, but he would outclass them having gained quite a few levels.

My own opinion, though I have nothing canonical to back it up, is that he knows or suspect Charlie of some involvement, possibly a betrayal of his own, and that's why he has a personal dislike of him. Wanda and Maggie both speak of Charlie as if they know of or have had enough past dealings to peg him as both devious and "weird" and from what we've seen of his double dealing with both the coalition and Parson, I'd hardly be inclined to trust him myself. Certainly not as blindly as Ansom did.

Charlie has an attuned arkentool and that's enough to annoy Stanley. In fact, I almost find it suspicious that Stanley hasn't railed against Charlie as he as once or twice against Ansom. On the other hand, Ansom and the RCC have been drawing most of his attention and ire lately.

I'm sure Ansom didn't trust Charlie blindly. He just didn't know that Charlie would get a better offer between jobs.

[SteveMB]

Charlie has an attuned arkentool and that's enough to annoy Stanley. In fact, I almost find it suspicious that Stanley hasn't railed against Charlie as he as once or twice against Ansom. On the other hand, Ansom and the RCC have been drawing most of his attention and ire lately.

Also, recall this comment: "Ansom and people like him like to put on airs. Nobility. Like they're not ruling by violence and fear. Psheh."

I get the impression that Stanley dislikes nobility in much the same way that Ansom dislikes non-noble Overlords -- it's less obvious because there hasn't been any occasion for him to expound on it as much as Ansom did in his conversation with Vinny, but it definitely seems to be there. If my read on this is correct, it would be interesting to find out if this attitude is a recent development, or if it was there to some extent while he was still working for King Saline IV....

[Kish]

Charlie has an attuned arkentool and that's enough to annoy Stanley. In fact, I almost find it suspicious that Stanley hasn't railed against Charlie as he as once or twice against Ansom. On the other hand, Ansom and the RCC have been drawing most of his attention and ire lately.

There are lots of reasons for Stanley not to act toward Charlie as he acts toward Ansom. Charlie being a non-royal with an attuned Arkentool is only the most obvious one. There's also:

Stanley's self-image is "Tool of the Titans, on a holy quest to collect the Arkentools and rule the world as is Their will." Ansom's is "Heroic prince out to save the world out of noblesse oblige." Central to each one's worldview is the idea that he's good and the other one is evil, whether he phrases it as "Good vs. Evil" or "Holy vs. Unholy."

Charlie's self-image seems to be, "Charmingly amoral mercenary leader." Aside from the fact that his self-image seems much closer to what other people see than that of either Stanley or Ansom, he really doesn't fit in the strict black and white way S and A see the conflict. Simply the fact that he doesn't act interested in who's right--only in who can pay him more--strikes me as something that would bother Stanley and Ansom both on a level they don't bother each other. Ansom is apparently able to cope with him being a nonroyal, but the only defense Stanley has against the implications of someone other than himself being able to attune to an Arkentool is ignoring them. "Luckily" for Stanley, he doesn't have to explain his reactions, even to himself. "I have a strong personal dislike for Charlie, and don't presume to ask me why!" is enough.

As for ranting against him, though--what could he say? "He has an attuned Arkentool, which makes him my equal by the metric I've been using to claim superiority to Ansom, and he neither acts like me, nor wants to serve me for free," while it's likely what goes on at some level of Stanley's mind, would strain even his capacity for hypocrisy if he voiced it aloud.

[DevilDan]

Another reason why Stanley may not care nearly as much about Charlie as he does about Ansom (asides from the fact that Ansom wants his head on a stake) is that Ansom has a weapon-like arkentool. If you asked Stanley which he'd rather have, an attuned arkendish or an unattuned arkenpliers, he'd probably choose the latter. He is not a subtle man.

[Aquillion]

Natural thinkamancy makes betrayal difficult; and he's a formidable warrior in his own right. Possibly he could have very tough bodyguards accompanying him, but he would outclass them having gained quite a few levels.

Don't forget, the Arkenhammer has also been shown to have the ability to call every Dwagon in the hex to him near-instantaneously. (Probably some sort of rallying call ability... it might not even be the Arkenhammer's power, it might be something an overlord can do naturally. But anyway, the arkenhammer to paralyze people with bursts of lightning, too.) The dwagons are by far his most powerful units anyway, so the fact that he can call them in whenever he feels like it makes more traditional bodyguards a bit obsolete (and he did seem to feel a bit bothered by having all the dwagons somewhere else, or by losing them in combat, perhaps partially for this reason.)

[fendrin]

Another reason why Stanley may not care nearly as much about Charlie as he does about Ansom (asides from the fact that Ansom wants his head on a stake) is that Ansom has a weapon-like arkentool. If you asked Stanley which he'd rather have, an attuned arkendish or an unattuned arkenpliers, he'd probably choose the latter. He is not a subtle man.

Keep in mind, Stanley did not particularly go after Ansom. He croaked a few of Jetstone's field units which, given Stanley's strategic prowess, could have been a case of bad orders, much like when the spidews ran into Webinar and got wiped out.

You know, from Vinny's description of Stanley's deeds, He obviously must have had some successes before the RCC was formed, but Wanda says that they have lost every battle since Stanley started the quest for the Arkentools.

Thus I conclude that the 'quest for the arkentools' was started after the RCC formed to attack Stanley.

[Aquillion]

You know, from Vinny's description of Stanley's deeds, He obviously must have had some successes before the RCC was formed, but Wanda says that they have lost every battle since Stanley started the quest for the Arkentools.

Thus I conclude that the 'quest for the arkentools' was started after the RCC formed to attack Stanley.

Not necessarily. He could have done all those things as chief warlord, making many people hate him personally; then, after Banhammer died and Stanley began his quest for the Arkentools, they used that as an excuse to go after him.

Alternatively, he could've done everything else earlier, but croaked 'a few jetstone field units' as part of his quest (which makes sense, given that Ansom has an Arkentool. And that's hardly a victory that Wanda would bother to mention.) Ansom then used this as an excuse to declare war.

[Welf]

Bringing up some interesting question that buggered my for some time: why Stanley didn't attack Ansom and Jetstone directly with an full-range offensive? Ansom owns the Arkentool he wants. And, as a plus, he is a pompous noble. With the eyemancers Stanley could have located him and started the war with an surgical dwagon strike against Ansom himself, croaking the chief warlord and securing the Arkentool. Even then Tool -or one of his former warlords - could came up with such a simple plan. Or simply attack Jetstone.
Because he didn't do this, this means Jetstone and its allies were always way to powerful to attack, or that Ansom found his Arkentool while fighting against GC. I guess it was the latter. Maybe he found it accidentally in some hex.

[ChowGuy]

I get the impression that Stanley dislikes nobility in much the same way that Ansom dislikes non-noble Overlords

Now you see, I don't get that impression at all. Rather I get the impression that he simply considers Ansom as "no better" then himself for being royal. But that's not at all the same thing as the "I'm better then him" which is Ansom's position. This is important as in Stanley's mind Ansom has no justifable right to claim dominion over him simply by virtue of being a royal, though Ansom explicitly does so claim. Saline on the other hand royal or not was his rightful lord, under the same rules as Stanley himself operates, and I believe that Stanley would thus have recognized him as such.

As for ranting against him, though--what could he say? "He has an attuned Arkentool, which makes him my equal by the metric I've been using to claim superiority to Ansom, and he neither acts like me, nor wants to serve me for free," while it's likely what goes on at some level of Stanley's mind, would strain even his capacity for hypocrisy if he voiced it aloud.

Except that we've never seen Stanley claim "superiority" to Ansom on that or any other moral basis. Parson has made that claim, but we've merely seen Stanley claim moral equality vis-a-vis the right of leadership. He claims a divine (Titanic?) mandate to control the Arkentools, but not, as does Ansom to "rule over man and beast", so again I see no claim of superiority but only a difference of opinion as to whose "mandate" is the true one.

Stanley is a good deal more vocal and less diplomatic about his, but Ansom when he blows his cool is no less emphatic, much to the annoyance and/orchagrin of his own advisors and war council.

[ChowGuy]

Bringing up some interesting question that buggered my for some time: why Stanley didn't attack Ansom and Jetstone directly with an full-range offensive?

We have no idea how far Spacerock is/was from GK territory, or what the logistics if such an attack which would have to be cross enemy territories would have been. It's entirely possible that securing safe passage for such a strike was his intention when he encountered and croaked "a few [Jetstone] field units." We don't even know in whose territory the encounter occurred.

You might just as well ask "why didn't we bomb Japan at the start of the war? Why did we waste all that time island hopping in the Pacific?" The aswer of course is that we first needed those islands as forward bases from which to carry out the bombing. Similarly even Stanley's dwagons do not have unlimited range. We saw that clearly when Parson was forced to hold them at the Donut/Lake rather then attack and withdraw all the way to GK in a single move.

Further, we don't know what the limits of the Trimancers were; your theory seems to assume that they can instantaneously see all hexes in the world map, and home in on something as small as the Arkenpliers simply by asking "where is it?" I doubt that's the case given the much smaller "window on the world" view we actually see displayed on the table. Even if, as the Stupid Meal points out there are "oinly four known Arkentools" thus implying their general location is known, that's not the same as actually locating them to a specific hex at a given point in time.

We also do not have sufficient reason to believe that such a "surgical strike" against a hardened target, say Spacerock capital itself, could hope to succeed on it's own. A better theory given the sequence of events as we know it is that Ansom foresaw and formed the coalition specifically to forestall such a strike.

[Wrecan]

We also have no idea when Ansom got the Arkenpliers. I get the feeling that at some point Stanley and Ansom found out about the location of the Arkenpliers and both of them rushed to get it. Ansom got it first and Stanley probably croaked some straggler Jetstone units in anger, which Ansom found to an unchivalrous act and so agreed to unite the disparate Stanley-haters in a noble campaign to rid the world of this uncouth lout.

[Kish]

Except that we've never seen Stanley claim "superiority" to Ansom on that or any other moral basis.

"There is no 'Good' or 'Evil' side, smart guy. That's a myth. That's propaganda. Ansom and people like to put on airs. Nobility. Like they're not ruling by violence and fear. Psheh. But I'll tell you what there is, Mister Mountain. There is 'Holy' and 'Unholy.' The Titans left this here for a reason. It chose me for a divine reason. Ansom has one, but it's not attuned to him and he doesn't know why. I know why. Because he is bringing it to me."

We haven't seen Stanley claim moral superiority to Ansom? That one of we hasn't; this one of we has.

[ChowGuy]

"There is no 'Good' or 'Evil' side, smart guy. That's a myth. That's propaganda. <snip> We haven't seen Stanley claim moral superiority to Ansom? That one of we hasn't; this one of we has.

Nope. THIS one of we sees a clear and unambiguous statement there that (so far as Stanley is concerned) there is no such thing as "moral superiority." There are only divine mandates, and disagreement about whose mandate is the stronger. But clearly THAT one is so hung up on the tropery of "Good vs Evil" (and "Suger==sweet therefore pretty==good" that THAT one fails to accept anything that does not display though shocking pink glasses and that the mere notion that ANY one else does not share the same perception is, to coin a phrase Inconceivable! ;)

Stanley says (and presumably believes) that Ansom is "bringing it [his arkentool) to me" not because Ansom is his moral inferior, but because Ansom as much as himself is mandated by the Titans to do so. Ansom, of course feels no such thing, and rejects out of hand the notion that Stanley figures in the Titans plans as anything other then another worm for him to crush underfoot. Much like the Sapphire Guard of OotS "knew" that the Goblins were created by their gods only to be cheap XP for adventurers. Except in that case, the Goblins knew it too, but still felt it was morally indefensible. Being the "will of the Titans" has no moral value, unless you ascribe unquestioned moral good to them in the first place. All Stanley accepts is "Holy" = in line with their will, and "Unholy" = not in line.

[fendrin]

Not necessarily. He could have done all those things as chief warlord, making many people hate him personally; then, after Banhammer died and Stanley began his quest for the Arkentools, they used that as an excuse to go after him.

Honestly, I doubt that.

1) Why would they blame Stanley? As CW he would have been carrying out the orders of Saline IV (unless he was given a ridiculously free hand). Really, only Ansom is using the attacks as an excuse to go after Stanley. Stanley is antithetical to Ansom's worldview, so he wants to crush Stanley.

2) Given Vinny's 'Well, sorta...' comment on Ansom's implication that Stanley had a hand in killing Saline IV, why would he have let blaming Stanley for those other acts go without comment?

Alternatively, he could've done everything else earlier, but croaked 'a few jetstone field units' as part of his quest (which makes sense, given that Ansom has an Arkentool. And that's hardly a victory that Wanda would bother to mention.) Ansom then used this as an excuse to declare war.

1) Ansom would hardly need an excuse to declare war on Stanley if Stanley had already started a war against Jetstone.

2a) Vinny makes mention of Jetstone 'dropping everything' to go after Stanley. That implies that Jetstone's troops were engaged in other activities. If the troops are away from their cities and Stanley comes swooping in with a large flight of dwagons, there would have been much more than 'a few field units' getting croaked.

2b) Ansom may be skilled at coalition building, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. If Stanley went on the full offensive against Jetstone, Jetstone would have either have to have a near impenetrable defense or they would have had much higher losses before the coalition was formed.

[Xiander]

Nope. THIS one of we sees a clear and unambiguous statement there that (so far as Stanley is concerned) there is no such thing as "moral superiority." There are only divine mandates, and disagreement about whose mandate is the stronger. But clearly THAT one is so hung up on the tropery of "Good vs Evil" (and "Suger==sweet therefore pretty==good" that THAT one fails to accept anything that does not display though shocking pink glasses and that the mere notion that ANY one else does not share the same perception is, to coin a phrase Inconceivable! ;)

Stanley says (and presumably believes) that Ansom is "bringing it [his arkentool) to me" not because Ansom is his moral inferior, but because Ansom as much as himself is mandated by the Titans to do so. Ansom, of course feels no such thing, and rejects out of hand the notion that Stanley figures in the Titans plans as anything other then another worm for him to crush underfoot. Much like the Sapphire Guard of OotS "knew" that the Goblins were created by their gods only to be cheap XP for adventurers. Except in that case, the Goblins knew it too, but still felt it was morally indefensible. Being the "will of the Titans" has no moral value, unless you ascribe unquestioned moral good to them in the first place. All Stanley accepts is "Holy" = in line with their will, and "Unholy" = not in line.

Interesting note: Even if stanly claims to believe in no good and evil, but rather believe in holy and unholy, it is my belief that if you asked him which was more "right", holy or unholy, he would without any hesitation answer holy.

My point is, that stanly might claim that good and evil does not exist and still claim an odd sort of "moral" surperiority. Of course this is no where near the moral rules we use today, but stanleys view on ethics seems to be: "The right thing to do is doing as i say!"
His way of justifying it is to say that his word is the word of the titans, but in my view this is just his megalomanic way of claming the moral highground. The argument is flawed and broke in its structure of course, but Stanley seems to believe it.