Erfworld 114, Page 102

[Noemz]

It occurs to me that Wanda is spending an inordinate amount of time "booping around with her toys" as her own way of avoiding thinking about certain subjects....

If I had a choice between moping around a campfire or riding a zombie unipegataur, I know where I'd be. (Well, at least until the smell became a factor.)

Or, perhaps Wanda's confidence was so shattered (from failing to retain control over Jillian) that she is now obsessively checking her units so that she won't fail again.

She might also be avoiding talking to Parson.

[pclips]

I thought the point of iron man is that the weapons went in the wrong hands. Tony Stark had truly believed that America was his only customer. He wanted to stop making weapons when he found out that the bad guys were using them.

You know, I haven't posted in a reactions thread in over a year, but I'd like to comment on that.

What you said here is really where "Iron Man" dropped the moral ball. When you're making a film and you ask the Pentagon to let you borrow their tanks and F-22s, it means you have to present them a script that they approve of.

Consequently, Tony Stark isn't allowed to wonder whether there's an element of moral culpability for the weapons he sells to DoD. He's only bent out of shape that somebody let these tools of "good" death-dealing fall into unrighteous hands.

Nobody in Iron Man who wears a uniform or draws a government salary is anything but a squeaky-clean all-American Good Guy. All of the villainy in the movie resides with malevolent swarthy foreign men with accents and impenetrable motives (and one duplicitous businessman who loses his boop and literally goes ballistic).

Don't get me wrong; I loved Iron Man. I saw it twice, talked about it for weeks, and started cutting my goatee into a Tony Stark. But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis, and to challenge the viewer with difficult questions. Jamie and I hope to do a little better on that score.

[Caledonian]

I don't think Sizemore can be accused of hypocrisy for creating weapons of war. In Erfworld, everything is a weapon of war. Any action - even Hippymancy - has importance only in how it relates to killing. Other ways of living are considered semi-mythical.

Before, Sizemore produced the weapons. Now he's using them to kill. Those are very different things.

[klangley]

We humans operate on the principle that moral culpability decreases with distance, perhaps even as the square of the distance. Whether it's factory-farmed meat, sweatshop-produced cheap stuff from WalMart, or torture done in our name at Guantanamo Bay, as long as there are a few steps between us and the victims, we're pretty much OK with it. Perhaps that distance is necessary for us to remain sane, but it does make it harder to break out of our comfort shell and demand/ create a different way of doing business.

[Freederick]

To interrupt the ongoing ethics discussion with an aesthetic remark, I really like the fire and firelight effects in this strip, especially in panel 4. It has the right campfirey feel to it--you can feel the warmth and hear the crackling. It's real difficult to draw fire this well in an unmoving medium, and Jamie pulls it off very impressively.

[Geno9999]

dude, how did they pull off that fire? Did they take a pic and Photoshop'd it?
On the issue of then unipegitaur (try saying THAT 3 times faster), I think it's clothing so that people don't see the decay in the flesh, or leather armor. Take your pick.

[Vreejack]

Sizemore was somewhat astonished by what his creations did and can do when he finally saw it in person beneath the tunnels. "Good...good job guys." Had he ever "tasted" such an event before he would not have been so surprised. Note that it is only within the last day that he has become morose over the idea of killing; before he was simply nervous about being killed.

I also have to wonder what that "special mission" was that Stanley had brought him and the other casters on when Gobwin Knob first fell. Apparently it did not involve killing.

[jami]

dude, how did they pull off that fire? Did they take a pic and Photoshop'd it?

Hand painting, baby! Hand painted! Well, with liquify. But no photos.

[Fighteer]

Don't get me wrong; I loved Iron Man. I saw it twice, talked about it for weeks, and started cutting my goatee into a Tony Stark. But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis, and to challenge the viewer with difficult questions. Jamie and I hope to do a little better on that score.

I'm not sure if it's ironic or appropriate that in a comic about a gameworld-turned-real, the characters within the story would have their own moral viewpoints about creating weapons and killing people.

Ansom: Absolutely certain of his moral superiority and can therefore justify any action he chooses to take.
Stanley: Doesn't give a boop about morality; thinks that because he's got an Arkentool that he deserves to rule and therefore doesn't need to bother justifying himself.
Jillian: Isn't willing to take her own moral stand, so she takes refuge in being a barbarian and following Ansom's orders.
Wanda: Enjoys torture and killing for its own sake; so much so that she may be more of a true villain than Stanley. She's not blind to the concept of morality but either doesn't care or acts like she doesn't.
Sizemore: A pacifist at heart, he made weapons of war because he didn't see himself as having a choice; resents Parson for forcing him to make a choice.
Parson: Originally saw Erfworld as just a game, but keeps running into characters with "human" feelings and motivations. He's being forced to make choices that have moral consequences (or appear to) for perhaps the first time in his life.

What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators. Did Sizemore learn to be pacifistic, and Wanda cruel, through their experiences and "upbringing"; or did they simply pop that way with their personalities determined by the roll of a cosmic die? If the former, can Erfworld's inhabitants ever learn to get along? If the latter, is Parson right or wrong to develop friendships and loyalties with them?

[Harr]

Hand painting, baby! Hand painted! Well, with liquify. But no photos.

Wow, really? That's impressive.. I was sure it was some kind of photo-overlay thingy. Nice. The cast-light and shadows are also pulled off very well throughout.

[Gamebird]

Erfworld, everything is a weapon of war. Any action - even Hippymancy - has importance only in how it relates to killing. Other ways of living are considered semi-mythical.

And from Fighteer:

What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators.

Are we sure of this? The game opened with a situation that involved combat and Parson was summoned to resolve that situation. The strip has focussed on combat. But this doesn't prove that life in Erfworld is based on fighting. Or at least not that it's any more based on fighting than life on Earth. All life on Earth is based on struggle and competition to survive and out-populate all others. The meaning of life is to create more life and if you can't do that, then at least protect and nurture some life over others (making it more likely that the protected life will create more life, etc.)

Life on Earth isn't explicitly turn-based and doesn't involve units "popping", but I don't see how a turn-by-turn system must equate to a world based more heavily on warfare than our own. And in our own world, we have found lots of philosophies to explain (or attempt to explain) the mysteries of life. I don't see why people in Erf wouldn't do similar.

[Jade_Tarem]

I'm not sure if it's ironic or appropriate that in a comic about a gameworld-turned-real, the characters within the story would have their own moral viewpoints about creating weapons and killing people.

What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators. Did Sizemore learn to be pacifistic, and Wanda cruel, through their experiences and "upbringing"; or did they simply pop that way with their personalities determined by the roll of a cosmic die? If the former, can Erfworld's inhabitants ever learn to get along? If the latter, is Parson right or wrong to develop friendships and loyalties with them?

Man, Parson (or the readership) isn't even sure that he has free will, let alone whether he should be friends with the munchkins...

[Fez]

Step by step we're seeing more complexity in the characters that are presented.

Not that they weren't complex to start, but we didn't have enough information to know when Wanda was being overconfident, or understand Jillian's conflicts. The characters are developing stronger voices and there are a lot of unanswered questions about each still. The nice thing is that there are hints and indicators for us to find.

Sizemore always seemed a low value caster. Even when he was sent to the magic space for lessons, he didn't really learn anything. He was never treated with much respect but that is in part because this does seem to be a wargame, and other than making crap golems when Stanley had spare upkeep to go to them, he didn't seem to have heavy duties and certainly didn't need to go into combat. He was as much a non-factor as a caster could be.

Parson valued him as a source of information about the world and started making him feel more valuable. Unfortunately, he's also found a way to make him valuable in the wargame context directly, not just by making tools that he never has to see used.

Its tough growing up, but just because he may hate what he has to do now, it doesn't mean he will really hate Parson in the future. Growing can be a traumatic event. I'm curious to see if Sizemore's magic powers/capabilities grow finally with this action. I have no idea how Erf units grow/get xp. In some wargames its through combat. We may see a Sizemore after this who is no longer so unconfident and incapable.

Regardless, a shout to Rob and Jami. :) Nice seeing you about and great work as always.

PS - Consider boot, where the trainers are often putting themselves in an antagonistic position in order to push the recruits. Sometimes you need someone to direct your anger and frustrations at in order to do what needs to be done. How often has the meme of the recruit hating his sergeant come out?

[Fafnir13]

On the issue of then unipegitaur (try saying THAT 3 times faster), I think it's clothing so that people don't see the decay in the flesh, or leather armor. Take your pick.

It's a woman type unipegitaur, so they're just making sure things stay PG. I looked back to this comic and saw that she was present there too. Just a little harder to tell it was a she at the time.
And I was able to say it three times fast without trouble.

[ishnar]

Originally Posted by Zolem View Post
I'm reminded of many saying that are similar to this: I make the weapons, I don't wield them. What you do with them is not my problem. A sword I make is just as likly to wind up in the hands of a killer as it is a savior. I don't judge myself based on thier actions. The same sword could have been used by either.

Then what happens when the maker of the weapons is forced to use them himself? Does he suddenly decide that he was wrong to have made them in the first place, or is killing perfectly okay as long as he's not the one doing it?

Hating to do something does not imply a belief that the deed is morally wrong or have anything to do with hypocrisy as others have said. I could make the tools to clean a sewer all day, but if someone sent me into a sewer to clean up, I'd seriously dislike that person. Same with being a surgeon, working in a slaughterhouse, or preparing bodies for a funeral.

Some tasks are just repugnant as they are. "It is good that war is so horrible...."

[Aquillion]

Wanda: Enjoys torture and killing for its own sake; so much so that she may be more of a true villain than Stanley. She's not blind to the concept of morality but either doesn't care or acts like she doesn't.

Hey, hey. Hold on there.

She enjoys S&M relationships, sure, but beyond that we haven't seen any actual indication that Wanda simply enjoys torture for its own sake. Stanley thought so, but he's an idiot. Wanda enjoys torturing Jillian, yes, but that's different -- she thought Jillian enjoyed it (and we've had every indication that Jillian did, up until the point where Wanda forced her against Ansom. Remember, that's what she said went too far -- the rest was just part of their relationship.) And we've seen no indication at all that Wanda enjoys killing. She's willing to kill, yes, but so is everyone else who the topic has come up for in Erfworld except Sizemore. We haven't seen any indication that she just goes around killing or torturing at random.

Sizemore also knows that Parson doubts the reality of this world. I wonder how that influences his outlook on this?

[fendrin]

3 cheers for Rob and Jamie for once again elevating Erfworld from mere entertainment to the lofty heights of Art.

This is in my opinion one of the best pages so far: character development, ethical ponderings, and beautiful images.

Well done.

[BarGamer]

Poor Sizemore. He's an Role-player in a Turn-Based world...

It occurs to me that Croakamancers like Wanda don't spend a lot of time thinking of what their zombies "want." Heck, this even applies to Jillian. Wanda simply could not imagine that Jillian would object to more control over her, but Parson can and does. Parson just got another lesson in "Your Units Are People, Too 101." And it burns.

@Jami & Rob: The hand-painted flames look beautiful! Loving the character development!

[Tarnace]

Normally I only reply to this forum when I see an unsightly Klog or to praise it's regularity (or irregularity wheneven it happens) but today Im going out on a differnt limb of as to comment on the main story. To do so lets look at the phrase that seems to be of the most importance.

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

No wonder Parson wants to talk to Wanda - that would actually progress the main story and plot. Parson needs to discuss "important" things with Wanda ie. the next plan of attack/defend and in passing he tells Snoremore that he has an auxiliary plan to save Boremore and the rest of the casters whom he seems somewhat attached too.

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes. I'm not sure if Cantbeanylamermore is a "B" listed character or a "C" listed character but that only further proves my point. Why add this as it seems to be confusing to some of the readers and/or pointless to others like myself.

Why should I care if the person nobody likes at work throws a fit or tantrum? If I have a major deadline and someone gets upset because I'm making them DO THEIR JOB then they can commit suicide for all I care. If your not helping then your just in the way. So when I tell you armagedon is coming, and that I care about you enough that Im going to save your pathetic shriveled up keister while sacrificing myself only to be told that you disaprove of my actions - actions that you pretty much would have done anyways then you can just leave your sorry crapgolem ass in this doomed city and die for all I care.

Parson is fighting unbelieaveable odds - litterally 25-1 (I assuming losing the dwagons more than or equals the destroyed seige weapons). The last thing that should be going through his mind is a bit of highschool drama from the sidelines. Heck - Isn't Sizemores motto something like "when life gives you crap make crap golems?"

I smell a whole festering lot of Crap Golems oozing from this issue.

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

What does that even mean? In the very first issues before Parson is even in the story Crymore pays an exuberant tip to a hippymancer because he realizes that he most likly isn't returning. Is he actually mad because he might continue to exsist? Maybe the fact that he made golems wasn't that bad because even though his job sucked he realized his pathetic exsistence didn't actually have a lot of merit and that it would soon end. Yes im really going to say it - Sizemore persona indicates that he doesn't want to live. He has become detuned and detatched from life and now that people care about him and he is becoming important he trully "hates" Parson for it. Now he has to fight, he has to work and he has to do his job - a job of sensless killing and survival. When you look at it on that angle the story does "seem" much deeper but again - its wasted on a "B" or "C" listed guy making it moot.

So as usually I give props where do - A for effort, F for execution, but what do expect when your dealing with a crap golem makers feelings?

See you all next Klog

[some guy]

As always, Erfworld continues to fascinate. I'm enjoying the art, the dialogue (too bad those text balloons are overlapping the art, but hey, it belongs to the medium).
Has anyone else noticed how Parson keeps his not-yet-finished sword by his side. He must be more worried then he seems. Well, it's understandable when in one day your boop will, most likely, be booped.
Also, in the last panel Bogroll seems surprised or flustered that Parson is heading to Wanda. How come?

[factotum]

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes.

You may not care for Sizemore, but it's pretty clear Parson does--Sizemore was the one who taught him most of what he knows about magic in Erfworld, for a start; he's responsible for a good deal of Parson's success (such as it is).

[DargBoard]

I also have to wonder what that "special mission" was that Stanley had brought him and the other casters on when Gobwin Knob first fell. Apparently it did not involve killing.

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

[SteveMB]

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

For general reference, enclose spoiler text in tags that look like this:

[SPOILER]spoilertext[/SPOILER].


(It's more of an issue on the Order of the Stick forum, where Rich prefers to avoid reading speculations about what is going to happen. My recollection is that Rob and Jamie don't share that preference -- however, some people who post in both places find it easier to err on the side of caution and just use spoiler tags all the time.)

[Vreejack]

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

This is brilliant. Not only does it provide a future surprise but it upsets the carefully presented notion that Stanley was trying merely to save the valuable casters from dying in his coup. I always doubted the coup, merely because Sizemore, who is intelligent enough to notice such things, failed to mention it to Parson. I don't know if he was digging a tunnel to Faq (he doesn't need one with dwagons and I doub't they'd fit anyway) but he was digging a tunnel or something some place and I'll bet it comes up again.

[Fighteer]

Life on Earth isn't explicitly turn-based and doesn't involve units "popping", but I don't see how a turn-by-turn system must equate to a world based more heavily on warfare than our own. And in our own world, we have found lots of philosophies to explain (or attempt to explain) the mysteries of life. I don't see why people in Erf wouldn't do similar.

My question is how such thoughts and concerns would arise in the first place. Units don't go through a "childhood", nor do they apparently go to "school", as they pop with their basic skills and abilities already present. (I am excluding for the sake of argument the ability of some units to learn skills outside their basic profession/class.) Where did Sizemore "learn" to be a pacifist? Where did Jillian have the experiences that resulted in her being so willful? How did Wanda come to enjoy dressing in exotic outfits and performing kinky torture?

It almost seems like the process of "popping" units causes them to generate a set of personality attributes almost as complex, if not more so, than their combat stats. Then, the question becomes: how mutable are these attributes? How much can they change over time? In fact, how is it even possible to be/think/act like a "real person" without any actual memory or experiences before the moment you pop into being, fully grown and ready for battle? Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

In thinking about these things, I can't help but be reminded of another story that postulates similar questions about soi-disant "people" in an artificial, but extremely realistic world: Tad Williams' Otherland.

[Geno9999]

Thoughts on that, Bogroll is a Twoll and, as stated here, He's kind hearted, which is not a common trait for twolls.
My idea is, like pokemon, Units have a nature that is randomized. however, some natures are more common in certain unit than other natures (ever heard of a kind hearted croakamancer?)
This preset nature MIGHT change if certain actions are done (like say, punching someone with out reason when you're normally a nice guy.)

[Jeivar]

Hmm. Good update. I can't help but wonder what, if any, the significance of Wanda playing so much with her new uncroaked is. Is she trying to get the hang of riding a unipegataur (or whatever they're called again), for the upcoming battle or for fleeing, or is she just unwinding for a bit? Maybe now that Jillian's slipped her leash, Wanda feels the need to bend SOMETHING to her will as an ego-boost, even if it's just another uncroaked.

And I continue to be surprised and impressed by how deep and dramatic the characterizations are in a webcomic with a premise that is at it's core very silly and uncomplicated. Kudos to the creators for creating something so wonderfully off-beat and unpredictable. :)

[Titanium Dragon]

I really enjoyed this comic. I don't really have much to comment on about it; I just enjoyed the character development. I think Sizemore is an interesting character.

I also think people may be thinking about this too deeply in terms of game mechanics; after all, Parson himself has mentioned that some of this stuff sounds like pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. We can't take everything the erfs say at face value; they know more about their world than anyone else, but that doesn't mean their knowledge is perfect either. Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

[Occasional Sage]

Then again, this may not be a case of hypocrisy on Sizemore's part after all. His position under Stanley was a menial one that offered him little or no opportunity to make choices, and considering that he came from FAQ, he almost certainly wouldn't have taken his present role had he had any real choice. By befriending him, Parson allowed him some freedom of expression, and as a direct result he's now being asked to kill with his own hands (more or less). It's no wonder that his morale is low.

Actually, according to the cast page, Sizemore is part of the Plaid Tribe, like Stanley. He's original to GK.

I also think people may be thinking about this too deeply in terms of game mechanics; after all, Parson himself has mentioned that some of this stuff sounds like pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. We can't take everything the erfs say at face value; they know more about their world than anyone else, but that doesn't mean their knowledge is perfect either. Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

Presumably if loyalty can be affected by Thinkamancy, there are spells which specifically do so. Ergo, the rules of Erfworld tell the leaders and casters through the spell description that loyalty can be numerically expressed, making it more of a "hard" concept then it is for us.

That said, I don't see a reason that hating Parson would necessarily decrease Sizemore's loyalty. I can easily picture situations (not limited ot life-and-death) where I personally would follow somebody I hate; if they are talented and will lead us jointly to success, my opinions don't really matter.

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

Brilliant. Assuming that the dwagons could pass, that'd explain why FAQ didn't succeed in even slowing them down at their choke point.

EDIT: that's assuming that the dwagon stack wasn't able to simply choose to not engage the defenders due to the composition of the stacks.

[Zukhramm]

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.