Zappa's hair is too dark. I'm still sure it's Doug Henning, who besides being a magician, was really into trancendental meditation, making him perfect for the setting.
I'm also convinced now that Janis is NOT a direct reference to somebody in real life, since she's obviously going to be at least a semi-major character now, and is not a good physical match for either of the musical Janis's from the 70s.
Even though this page doesn't have any action or startling revelation it has some really awesome insight into the world of a Hippiemancer and it shows a new sizemore mayhaps.
__________________
GENERATION 20: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. This is a social experiment.
"This hand of mine is burning red! It's loud roar tells me to grasp victory!"
I'm genuinely mystified why he should feel bad about the deaths and humiliations of homicidal enemies like Webinar, Dora, and the Radish Guy. These people would have killed him and then disbanded his whole side without a moment's pause.
What the other side would do is not a sufficient basis for morality.
As for Webinar and Dora, they saw what Lord Hamster's side did to their men -- they were burned alive. They were not "homicidal enemies" who wanted to kill the caster because they liked killing. They wanted revenge for what happen to their side. (Ah, the source of never-ending feuds!) Of course, Webinar and Ansom did have some stiff sticks well implanted in their backsides. But, though foolish, they were loyal and noble.
And, frankly, it can be easier at times for soldiers to understand fellow soldiers on the other side than their own citizens at time. Though on different sides for political or other reasons, but for that difference, they could be friends rather than enemies. (Of course, that does not apply to zealots, but that does not seem to be the case here. And Ansom would have been officious, but not homicidal in the absence of conflict.)
Somewhat offtopic, but is there a story where this actually happened, and was considered a good thing? Y'know instead of either the unification failing miserably after much death, or the resulting world government becoming a force of pure evil?
What the other side would do is not a sufficient basis for morality.
Actually, I think it's quite sufficient to know what an enemy will do to you if you don't do it to him first. This is war, and so-called "high morality" takes a holiday in war. The fact that the coalition would kill Hamster and his men hasn't been debated. Parson's only moral alternative to allowing his men to die meaninglessly was to let them die meaninglessly with everyone else. A crappy choice to be handed, but I think he did the only morally acceptable thing by killing everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud
As for Webinar and Dora, they saw what Lord Hamster's side did to their men -- they were burned alive. They were not "homicidal enemies" who wanted to kill the caster because they liked killing. They wanted revenge for what happen to their side. (Ah, the source of never-ending feuds!) Of course, Webinar and Ansom did have some stiff sticks well implanted in their backsides. But, though foolish, they were loyal and noble.
I understood homicidal to mean that they were bent on killing Parson and his dudes. Whether they enjoyed it or not--or whether it was due to revenge or some other motivation--is all the same to someone in Parson's situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud
And, frankly, it can be easier at times for soldiers to understand fellow soldiers on the other side than their own citizens at time. Though on different sides for political or other reasons, but for that difference, they could be friends rather than enemies. (Of course, that does not apply to zealots, but that does not seem to be the case here. And Ansom would have been officious, but not homicidal in the absence of conflict.)
I'm also not sure if this particular phenomenon--which is quite real in our world--applies to erfworld. There can be no friendly exchanges with troops of another side if the rules dictate that auto-attacking takes place between unled stacks. Stacks with a leader are different, but then that brings in personality and motivational issues within the leadership. I just don't see that happening.
Or, in the immortal words of Joshua from the WarGames novel, "The only winning move is not to play."
Aye.
Janis is full of Win.
Also, Parson may eventually mention an acquaintance of his. A man named Andrew Wiggin. Y'see, Andrew probably taught Parson that, when you have to fight, you win - and you fight not to win just that particular battle, but all the rest of the battles too...
::thumbs up::
As far as the previous poster's reference to Baron von Wulfenbach - I would add the example of Havelock Vetinari's Ankh-Morpork.
Going to the mention of how Parson sees people close to him as people, and the masses of troops arrayed against him as "units" or "things" - that's nothing special; I believe that's how most of standard Humanity envisions opposing forces and populations, in war. It's certainly how modern military training attempts to condition individual members.
Also, Parson may eventually mention an acquaintance of his. A man named Andrew Wiggin. Y'see, Andrew probably taught Parson that, when you have to fight, you win - and you fight not to win just that particular battle, but all the rest of the battles too...
::thumbs::
You should really finish reading that book some time.
Spoiler
Yes, yes, I know you read it. But the point is, I really don't think WOO GENOCIDE was the intended moral. It was intended to attack that line of thinking, not show how awesome it is to blow up planets and genocide your enemies.
Last edited by Aquillion : 04-18-2009 at 06:13 PM.
Good points. Ever since Parson entered Erfworld, I've been fascinated by a dichotomy in the way he treats people. He treats those closest to him with affection and sensitivity, although he does use them as he must for the war. He was pretty sad when Misty died.
Anyone else is just a game piece, whose lives he spent gladly. This is clearly shown in the tragic horrible deaths of Webinar and Dora and a couple of unknown enemy troops, all while Parson works out silly word games.
This kind of dichotomy (my friends are human, everyone else is walking meat) is a depressingly common condition. A form of basic tribalism, which makes a lot of very bad behavior possible. Perhaps part of Parson's journey will be to value all life, with Sizemore being his conscience. That makes Sizemore a perfect contrast with Wanda, for whom horror, pain, and (above all) dominance are always personal--and delicious. She is a walking Id.
Wow! I really am enjoying my little theory!
Maggie and Bogroll round out the cast of external representations of Parson's character. Maggie representing cold logic and ruthless efficiency, Bogroll representing innocence -- which just died.
You should really finish reading that book some time.
Spoiler
Read 'em all, Aqui. I believe the books separate the act of "finishing" an opponent, from having to commit genocide. It's possible to achieve the same effect through acts ruthless and just sufficiently overwhelmingly horrific enough, to inspire the opponent to never want to offer opposition again, without going whole-hog genocidal. Harry S. Truman, for example.
Janis thinks that Parson can change Erfworld and bring "peace" by breaking things... in particular; rules.
That probably makes sense. The "rules" call for things like auto attack. If the rules are broken, units won't HAVE to attack, they will have other options.
One of the things about a good story is the ability to make the story entertaining on several levels. In this case, we have Erfworld bringing up issues of philosophic impact on the nature of war, peace, reality, paradigms, and personal truths - and all that happens in just this last comic!
Erfworld is a wargame world. It is a game where the inhabitants have been fighting a war probably since they heard the phrase, "The Titans have left the world." Although there has been no definite time-frame given for how long that has been, it is easy to see that the endless war has been going on for so long that there is no cultural memory, no history, nothing to indicate that there is anything but war.
Janis, as a Hippimancer, is striving for peace, but in a world like Erfworld, that's impossible. Hence we have the introduction of Parson and the possibility of breaking reality until Erfworld is possible.
But bringing an end to a forever war can't be done with a wave of the hand, or even with a spell that costs 500,000 Schmuckers. It's going to take a lot of hard work, and things will break.
Someone like Sizemore doesn't realize how bad things are and how much worse they will get before they get better. It's not unlike dealing with a doctor who knows how to heal a broken bone after you've been used to having several quacks just help you get by. By now, the bone has healed wrong and has to be re-broken.
For everyone who wants a more in-depth look at the quality of being ruthless, I highly recommend Sun Tzu's The Art of War (I got the pocket-sized version translated by Thomas Cleary - quite inexpensively, I might admit). Sun Tzu epitomized the value of being a ruthless general as a way to underline how horrible war really is. Parson, whether he read it or not, is definitely illustrating its fundamentals. As someone else in this thread already pointed out, fight to win, not just this battle, but the war. By the value of ruthlessness, make people realize just how horrible war is so that they look to peace instead.
__________________ 1. Have fun. It's only a game. 2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest. 3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests. 4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.
Janis thinks that Parson can change Erfworld and bring "peace" by breaking things... in particular; rules.
That probably makes sense. The "rules" call for things like auto attack. If the rules are broken, units won't HAVE to attack, they will have other options.
Another problem with the current world "rules" is economy. Right now it seems money making is down to "mining" or "mercenary" work, although trade might be in there somewhere, it is probably strictly in a "settlers of catan", or raw resources only.
I doubt, for example, that there is room for a value added economy or a service economy, other than mercenary work that is. So with no resources to trade or gold to mine, a poor nation has to attack to acquire new mines or tradeable resources.
Wargames usually involve fights for basic resources wood and gold Warcraft style. Or strategic resources, Aluminum and Oil in Civilization. Game design encourages fighting over resources even when trade is possible. Mines are capped and designed to run out. Strategic resources become obsolete and new ones must be acquired.
This is looking more Warcrafty though than Civ. Thus technological progress isn't the goal, it's fighting wars. So technology should remain relatively static throughout the series, like Warhammer or Warcraft. Resources will be basic, gold, gems, trees or whatever.
__________________
"If I could just interrupt your stunningly dysfunctional group dynamic for a moment to interject." -- Erfworld
Parson's only moral alternative to allowing his men to die meaninglessly was to let them die meaninglessly with everyone else. A crappy choice to be handed, but I think he did the only morally acceptable thing by killing everyone.
That last sentence, when taken out of context, is just hilarious. I hope you don't mind me sigging it (if you do, I'll remove it).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Roamer
I think he did the only morally acceptable thing by killing everyone.
Another problem with the current world "rules" is economy. Right now it seems money making is down to "mining" or "mercenary" work, although trade might be in there somewhere, it is probably strictly in a "settlers of catan", or raw resources only.
I doubt, for example, that there is room for a value added economy or a service economy, other than mercenary work that is. So with no resources to trade or gold to mine, a poor nation has to attack to acquire new mines or tradeable resources.
Wargames usually involve fights for basic resources wood and gold Warcraft style. Or strategic resources, Aluminum and Oil in Civilization. Game design encourages fighting over resources even when trade is possible. Mines are capped and designed to run out. Strategic resources become obsolete and new ones must be acquired.
This is looking more Warcrafty though than Civ. Thus technological progress isn't the goal, it's fighting wars. So technology should remain relatively static throughout the series, like Warhammer or Warcraft. Resources will be basic, gold, gems, trees or whatever.
Back in the long-long-ago, when I used to play Dungeons and Dragons, pretty much everyone in the extended group of gamers I played with, used variant rules such as the Perrin Conventions, and other variations based on the Arduin Grimmoire.
I remember that time. Every gm felt free to throw in whatever suited them, or throw out whatever they found inconveninet. Every time you brought an old character to a new game you had to rewrite it because the rules were so different. But no matter how different, it was all D&D to us. And when i showed up at the LASFS clubhous on saturdays there were always enough people for 3 or 4 games. Today, i hang out at my FLGS every weekend and so far i've only found 2 other players interested in a new campaign :(
BTW: I think the Perrin Conventions were the forst step towards rounding out characters with skills beyond their basic function.
Quote:
One of the house rules that just about everyone used, was that you couldn't level more than twice in a single play session (or in some cases, you couldn't level more than twice in large battles that extended over multiple play sessions).
So, even if you somehow managed to kill a god (I'm using this as an intentionally ridiculous example), or even an entire pantheon of gods....
...well, here you go, here are your two levels.
Perhaps Erfworld uses the same house rules?
The rule most of us used was 2 levels -1 experience point per session. Some gms would give you a chance to do a quick solo confrontation to try to get that last ep.
__________________
NOGENERATION Aleph(0): Copy this into your sig and add or subtract 1 whenever you feel like it. This is a pointless experiment.
I think Sizemore gained those two levels from all the earlier fighting - and that all the casters "missed" the experience they would have gotten from the volcano when they escaped.
Maybe the volcano leveled :)
__________________
NOGENERATION Aleph(0): Copy this into your sig and add or subtract 1 whenever you feel like it. This is a pointless experiment.
I'm also convinced now that Janis is NOT a direct reference to somebody in real life, since she's obviously going to be at least a semi-major character now, and is not a good physical match for either of the musical Janis's from the 70s.
No, she's modelled on the style of R Crumb, who illustrated one of Janis Joplin's albums and liked his women extra beefy.
__________________
NOGENERATION Aleph(0): Copy this into your sig and add or subtract 1 whenever you feel like it. This is a pointless experiment.
[color="Indigo"][font="Trebuchet MS"]
I'm not sure this means that Parson could take over the world, or that Parson will find a way to make all victories Pyrrhic, which seems to be the way it's been interpreted so far. Of course, it could mean that, but ... it just seems like a small meaning, given the scope we've seen the authors display. I think I'd rather be disappointed, in the sense that ... I think there's a lot more that could be done with the idea.
Not sure if what Parson did was considered a pyrrhic victory even. Pyrrhic victory implies that the attacking side 'wins,' but at a huge cost. The attacking side here didn't win on three levels - it did not get to take over Gobwin Knob (it's not even confirmed that Gobwin Knob actually is no longer a city, though it's a possibility); it did not kill Stanley (which was the entire point of the war); it did not kill Parson or cause him to surrender (which was one of Ansom's later goals) - in fact in a pure 'attrition' matter, one could argue that Stanley's side won, actually. On the RCC's side - no survivors (though if you want to count them, Jillian, Vinny, 2 of Jillians gwiffons, and 8 of Vinny's bats survived). On Stanley's side, Stanley, 3 casters, 1 chief warlord, between 1 and 3 Knights, and at least 6 dwagons survived. By a pure numbers matter, either way, Stanley's side arguably -won-.
So it's a pyrrhic.. um... loss? :) I dunno what to call it actually.
I think I understand why the Grand Abbie might think Parson is a hippiemancer. Hippies in our world were all about challenging the statues quo in hopes of peace and equality. While Parson may not care as much about peace as a Sizemore does, his very existence is a challenge to the status qua of Erfworld.
One could argue that Parson does want peace. He's just is unable to get it given the current nature of Erf Remember among the strategies he was considering, 2 of the strategies he liked were inherently non-violent ones. One was absolutely peaceful - Sue for peace/diplomacy. A second was Retreat.
The only problem were they were not feasible given the situation. Other options he used also minimized casualties, like Melt Away, Call the Cavalry, and Divide and Conquer, each of which are not exactly strategies which would cause a huge death count, but could still be effective.
Ultimately he used the Ender's Game 'Superweapon' option, but you could tell it wasn't something he particularly enjoyed using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard Lord
(PS: How is status quo spelled exactly? I always thought it was two words and that it was spelled quo, but firefox's spell check is telling me that is wrong. From what I can tell of the spell check, it is is either status qua or statuesque. For now I shall leave it how I thought it was spelled.)
It's status quo. You got it right the first time.
Last edited by Jon Pander : 04-18-2009 at 11:14 PM.
Not sure if what Parson did was considered a pyrrhic victory even. Pyrrhic victory implies that the attacking side 'wins,' but at a huge cost. The attacking side here didn't win on three levels - it did not get to take over Gobwin Knob (it's not even confirmed that Gobwin Knob actually is no longer a city, though it's a possibility); it did not kill Stanley (which was the entire point of the war); it did not kill Parson or cause him to surrender (which was one of Ansom's later goals) - in fact in a pure 'attrition' matter, one could argue that Stanley's side won, actually. On the RCC's side - no survivors (though if you want to count them, Jillian, Vinny, 2 of Jillians gwiffons, and 8 of Vinny's bats survived). On Stanley's side, Stanley, 3 casters, 1 chief warlord, between 1 and 3 Knights, and at least 6 dwagons survived. By a pure numbers matter, either way, Stanley's side arguably -won-.
So it's a pyrrhic.. um... loss? :) I dunno what to call it actually.
It is game canceled due to the wrath of God. Actually, it reminds me of the war of 1812 in a way. Americans are taught that they won the war of 1812, the Canadians are likewise taught they were victorious. In reality, the war ended because a hurricane rolled in an destroyed both their navies and thus their ability to wage war effectively. What is worse, a tornado also happened to rip through the heart of Washington DC just after it came under British control.
Although actually it still can be called a Pyrrhic victory if Gobwin Knob won and the coalition decided to send another army and conquer what is left of Gobwin Knob. Thus, even in victory, the victor is undone because he used up all his resources to achieve the result, while the loser still has plenty of resources to continue the war. You are assuming the attacking side has to win, when in fact the original Pyrrhic war, the defenders won against a larger number of Romans, but depleted their numbers enough in doing so that they ensured their future destruction.
Of course in reality, the coalition was disbanded and it is unlikely anyone really has the will to fight, especially since their is no prize except a capital site which might become an active volcano at some random point in the future.
It is game canceled due to the wrath of God. Actually, it reminds me of the war of 1812 in a way. Americans are taught that they won the war of 1812, the Canadians are likewise taught they were victorious. In reality, the war ended because a hurricane rolled in an destroyed both their navies and thus their ability to wage war effectively. What is worse, a tornado also happened to rip through the heart of Washington DC just after it came under British control.
Still means the British lost if the they did not accomplish their goals at all. :) (not only take over, but keep it for any sustained period of time).
Pyrrhic victory would mean they won but at a cost that made the cost-benefit analysis of war not worth having gone to war in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glome
Although actually it still can be called a Pyrrhic victory if Gobwin Knob won and the coalition decided to send another army and conquer what is left of Gobwin Knob.
Except there isn't going to be any new army coming in, according to Vinny. So they lost.
In a pure numbers game even, Stanley ended the war with more soldiers than 0, so he 'won'... which probably explains why Stanley's side gained levels despite what might be considered 'retreating.'
I wonder if Erf is like Civilization or Starcraft, where for a certain amount of schmuckers and time you can just start a new city in a place where there was no city before.
Yknow, after thinking about it, i've come to the following belief.
Stanley's side won.
Stanley's side took grevious losses in order to win.
Stanley's side is the one that had a pyrrhic victory. Which I know doesn't make much sense since usually the pyrrhic victory is won by the side which has the advantage going into the battle/war/etc.
But a pyrrhic victory is, in this case, preferably to the only alternative, which would be total annihilation of their side. :)
The figures I can discern upon the mat in panel 4 are, from left to right: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Frank Zappa, John Lennon. I have no idea who the figure on the far right is. Theme? Big hippies.
Edit:
Changing my mind - second from the left is Mama Cass.
But the real question is, where in the boop is Jerry?
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Erfworld 154 - tBfGK - 141
I hope you don't mind me sigging it (if you do, I'll remove it).
