Erfworld 144 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 131

[BillyJimBoBob]

Treachery during a peace conference? Parson may be a protaganist, but he's no hero.

Why do you want or expect Parson to be a hero? Parson is a gamer. Gaming, other than perhaps role playing, is all about winning. At any cost.

In the 80s (maybe earlier, my memory fails me) the Pentagon brought in a bunch of gamers to help them with military simulations and training. They were aghast at the casualties the gamers were willing to incur in order to win, and that showed the clear distinction: A General may care for the lives of his men, but a gamer does not care one whit for a cardboard cutout which represents a man or men. A General might knowingly spend some lives to achieve an important enough objective, while a gamer will spend any amount of units to achieve a win, because there is no need to consider any strategic or logistical position which exists after that win.

Parson is in a juxtaposition between both positions. One the one hand, he is a gamer, he is unclear about the reality of his situation, and he has decided to play this to the end for reasons he isn't entirely clear about. On the other hand, despite his doubts as to the reality of the situation, he has treated everyone around him with care and respect, and has even made friends.

And on the gripping hand, he is under a magical compulsion to be Loyal to Tool, and surrendering GK might simply be impossible for him to do.


What are the odds in favor of Bogroll? He is a 5, while Ansom is unknown. But Vinny asked Ansom if he was going to go croak Jillian with his bare hands, and Jillian is a 9. If this was any kind of foreshadowing, than Ansom is at least a 9 without the Arcenpliers (bare hands). But Ansom has taken at least some damage in the struggle so far. A fall to the walls when attacked by Wanda, some nicks against the uncroaked, maybe some more nicks when Parson directed the archers and other forces against Ansom, etc. And there may have been some shockomancy along with the veil on Bogroll, unless the light show was only about the veil dropping. And Ansom has been disarmed, again. Does surprise count as a bonus in this system? I like Bogroll, I'd like to see him pull through. But for Ansom to lose to a 5 doesn't seem likely.

[Nargrakhan]

Wow... these comments that Parson did something dishonorable, must be referring to a human history I don't remember. {Scrubbed real world politics}

[BarGamer]

or Ansom falls conveniently though a sizemore hole into the dungeons,

where wanda and parson are waiting

I like the way you think, sir.

Spoiler

Show

Then, Wanda un-croaks Ansom, trots him out in front of the troops, Stanley, Charlie, and eventually Jillian, make him do something silly, and execute him in a dramatic manner. AWESOME!

[Lamech]

I'm going to say Charlies actions have all been mercenary. Gaining cash, and gaining more stuff to sell/rent. Thats all he's done. Nor is he all powerful. He AND the coalition can defeat GK, but by themselves neither had the power at the start of this story. His latest move should net him an Arkentool, for less than the output of an arkentool. That's just a good business deal.

And awesome, will Ansom be able to take another fall? I really hope he splats hard.

[fangthane]

Some things...
1. In our world, the false surrender would arguably be a violation of internationally-agreed rules of war. In Erf, such rules of war as exist are apparently only those hardcoded into reality itself. Anything else is a cultural blind spot which can be exploited.
2. Parson didn't lie, and in all likelihood nor did Charlie. "He asked me to tell you that you can meet him on the parapet to discuss GK's surrender." Therein lies the difference between loyalty and coerced obedience.
3. I don't think Parson is a motie.
4. Insofar as Parson's action in the false surrender is unconscionable, the sword is his excuse, in that the deception may well be an action he wouldn't have considered (or may not have implemented) without the Ruthlessness it provides.
5. Completely unofficially, usually regeneration in a wargame involves something like one of these: "This unit gains n additional hit points at the beginning of each of its side's turns, up to its current maximum" or "If the unit begins its turn with at least one hitpoint, it is returned to full health regardless of any factors which might ordinarily affect its health" or "If this unit's corpse is in friendly territory when its side's turn begins, it is returned to life with (partial, full, etc) vitality." We'll have to wait and see if any of them apply to Bogroll. :)

[Hatu]

First, this isn't a Saturday Morning cartoon. There aren't always obvious "good guys" and "bad guys". I don't think most people here are of the "I want the good guys to win" variety, because using that as a universal method for looking at all stories is overly simplistic. Almost everyone we've seen in detail in the strip has both flaws and sympathetic qualities; some might be better or worse than others, but nobody has clearly come off as an inhuman monster or as a shining knight of justice.

I'm not sure how I'd go about defining "inhuman" but I certainly consider Wanda a despicable character. Erfworld isn't Earth, but what she did to Jillian is far too close to rape for me to simply ignore.

And that, incidentally, is why so many people here dislike Ansom. Ansom is the sort of guy who could murder three thousand people to satisfy his pride and tell himself that he's still the hero, because he did it using an honorable method. Parson and Stanley aren't better people, or more heroic, or anything like that -- but at least they have the decency not to pretend that they're being shining paragons of righteousness when they murder you.

I think that's ignoring the fact that Ansom is presented in a very unflattering light. He invariably shown to be stiff and is generally humorless. He represents a paradigm (noblesse oblige) that is both archaic and unpopular. His victories thus far have been due to luck, fiat or outside counsel; any other action he takes is immediately derided by Parson, our main identification figure.

In short, people dislike Ansom he is presented as a caricature, and only shows glimpses of real depth when it is reflected in Jillian. The rest of the time, Ansom is little more than Vinny's pointy-haired boss.

-H

[Dr.Desastro]

Clap...clap...clap

I feel a disturbance in the web...as if thousands of readers cheer in unison and suddenly are reliefed.

Just waiting for the "splat". Without Ansom, the coalition will be booped. Also, I cannot wait, what happens, if Wanda retrieves the warlord corpse - the warlord who stole her chick ^^

[SteveMB]

5. Completely unofficially, usually regeneration in a wargame involves something like one of these: "This unit gains n additional hit points at the beginning of each of its side's turns, up to its current maximum" or "If the unit begins its turn with at least one hitpoint, it is returned to full health regardless of any factors which might ordinarily affect its health" or "If this unit's corpse is in friendly territory when its side's turn begins, it is returned to life with (partial, full, etc) vitality." We'll have to wait and see if any of them apply to Bogroll. :)

The first two are superceded by normal Erfworld mechanics -- units heal to full health at the start of their turn. Regeneration is presumably something better than that, or there'd be no point to it. (My guess is that it protects a unit that would otherwise be in a "will croak unless healed during this turn" situation.)

[PePe QuiCoSE]

Well, i need to read the following pages but after reading the strip this morning and reading the thread i still find a bit of a let down that the "secret allies" card wasn't played or that Ansom wasn't told that he wasn't the one that won but Charlie. I really expected a verbal ruse before this type of action. Thinking of it, Ansom could have been told that even Jillian was part of it. Heck, Charlie was brought into the conflict because of her (but the donut of doom is a big problem to buy this theory). But well, maybe this will be used later.
This that makes me think/expect a bit that Ansom will survive the fall but the pliers will change hands. As i understand, the RCC is all over the courtyard. If the pliers land in a different part of the courtyard than Ansom and Bogroll, Parson knows he has to send Sizemore for the pliers. Bogrolll will really need Luckamancy then.

Back the point, considering that Parson is still thinking of doing what is the best to the troops he has under his command (in general) and that Maggie might have had some influence over Ansom to ensure he'd fall for it (like a slight suggestion, unlikely since so far the target was in close position) i can really see this as the best stunt to try to pull. Specially since (as has been pointed out earlier) Erf is not like Earth in war terms (among a lot of other things).

[Glory of Arioch]

Man, if Ansom lives through this, he would be wise to install a weapon chain on his Arkenpliers. Those things spend about as much time in the air or stuck in the ground as they do in combat.

That being said, there's a couple of interesting things that happened here, besides the obvious. Firstly, Bogroll chooses to tackle Ansom off his carpet and choke him after disarming him. I say that this specific attack was ordered by Parson. The attack causes two things to occur: It first allows Bogroll to, presumably, piledrive Ansom into the ground zone, where he could be captured (or his croaked remains reclaimed) by Sizemore. (The Arkenpliers, too.) Secondly, and, in my opinion, more importantly, the choking prevents Ansom from issuing orders to his retained Archon escort. Throughout the comic we have always seen Ansom issuing orders vocally. Without the use of his voice, he can't order the archons to save him (again.)

Also, the last two panels are more than just a punchline -- they reinforce that the Archons are not going to take initiative and save Ansom, since the last time an Archon did that, she got killed. And since Ansom (presumably) can't issue vocal orders to the Archons due to being choked, Parson has successfully removed some of Ansom's plot armor. It remains to be seen how successful this maneuver will be, but (in a tactical sense) it was a very good choice.

[teratorn]

Parson is probably going to get the pliers. RCC will probably cluster around Ansom and ignore the pliers. Ansom may survive the fall, but be in such a bad shape that even the healers on his side can't do more than barely keep him alive.

That may be enough to force them to retreat (so that Bogroll's remains can be recovered) and end turn.

[SteveMB]

One angle that seems to have slipped under the radar so far:

"These qualities which you mock in us have led me to prevail. That is the only rebuttal needed."

It sounds to me like Ansom is feeling the need to reassure himself about the validity of his worldview, after suffering so many reverses at the hands of Stanley the Worm's minion. And now, the "rebuttal" has proven to be rather less compelling than expected, especially if this ends up with Ansom and/or the Arkenpliers captured.

[DoctorJest]

Man, if Ansom lives through this, he would be wise to install a weapon chain on his Arkenpliers. Those things spend about as much time in the air or stuck in the ground as they do in combat.

I'm guessing the reason for that is because Ansom isn't attuned to his artifact. So it's not really "his", so he has a hard time keeping hold of it.

[DoctorJest]

Parson is probably going to get the pliers. RCC will probably cluster around Ansom and ignore the pliers. Ansom may survive the fall, but be in such a bad shape that even the healers on his side can't do more than barely keep him alive.

That may be enough to force them to retreat (so that Bogroll's remains can be recovered) and end turn.

The RCC was already wavering quite a bit, with at least one leader openly expressing that they don't trust Ansom's leadership any longer. Seeing Ansom tumble like that, and if he and/or the Arkenpliers are captured, the coalition may well fall into chaos if not shatter completely. Ansom was the only thing holding the coalition together, and if he's out of the picture (or even just greatly humiliated) it may be enough for the rest of the coalition to say "we're sofa-king outta here". Again.

The morale hit to Ansom's tumble may well turn things to GKs favor in a big way, not even counting the tactical advantage of aquiring an artifact and/or capturing or croaking their leader (thus eliminating his leadership + artifact bonuses).

[Quimper]

Im guessing the next comic willl be a "Gandalf battles the Balrog while plummeting" which ends up with Ansom on top (literally speaking). Ansom survives/gets pulled back by his troops while bogroll is finished.

Best case scenario for GK?
1) They actually get the arkepliers (unless an archon snatches them midair)
2) Bogroll regenerates and can be salvaged.

Since all units get full hp at the start of their sides turn, it would be pretty pointless for regeneration to heal hitpoints in between turns. My guess is that they give a certain % to survive each killing blow, or they can regenerate a certain number of "negative hitpoints" at the end of the enemies turn. If damaged enough, the regeneration probably isn't gonna save them.

[BillyJimBoBob]

You want dishonorable? Parson murdered three thousand people yesterday, for no particularly good reason (what, his own pride? Stanley's religious fanaticism? None of the reasons he's given are worth fighting over. The best you can say for him his maybe he's mind-controlled.) And if you're just complaining now, because he just violated rule 347b in your little white book of things honorable generals do between slaughters? You are a hypocrite.

I'll assume you are referring to the Jetstone troops who were innocently (that's sarcasm) invading Parson's city through the tunnels. Am I right? Is self defense not a good enough reason to kill a man, in your book of morals? You call it murder, I call it self defense, obligation to leader, defense of friends (and country, which is only a little bit of a stretch due to the magical Loyalty imposed upon Parson), and a completely natural thing to do, when attacked.

And I'll match your view of Stanley's "religious fanaticism" with my own view of Ansom's "mandate from the Titans due to being Royalty." They are equivalent things, even if manifested in different ways.

Clap...clap...clap

I feel a disturbance in the web...as if thousands of readers cheer in unison and suddenly are reliefed.

Just waiting for the "splat". Without Ansom, the coalition will be booped. Also, I cannot wait, what happens, if Wanda retrieves the warlord corpse - the warlord who stole her chick ^^

GK now possesses Ansom (state yet unknown), the Arkenpliers, and pretty much initiative at this point.

Not so fast, all you who have seemingly arrived at the conclusion that Ansom is dead and the Arcenpliers are going to belong to someone on the GK side. We've seen this exact situation before, and Ansom not only survived that fall but had his 'Pliers back in the following strip. Will it happen again? We'll have to wait and see.

[Doug Lampert]

You seem to be assuming that ANSOM is negotiating in good faith.

Not true. I said NOTHING about the comic. There are any number of people making GLOBAL statements that if it's worth killing someone it's worth killing them at a parley. Or that if you're defending your kingdom anything goes. Or that honor is just a way to put a gloss on killing.

And none of them are limiting it to this situation.

Thinking that killing during parleys is fine leads to EVERY little dispute over fishing rights in the middle of nowhere being completely impossible to settle short of genocide.

This is EVIL! Flat out wrong and evil. That attitude, if held by actual governments in the actual world, would have resulted in the destruction of all human life at many times in the 20th century.

Thankfully, REAL governments, of real people, are well aware that killing people on the battlefield has a different set of standards than killing people at other times, and that a truce is one of the "other times".

DougL

[Opal Tide]

Long time reader, first time poster

Some random thoughts:

1) To me Charlie is acting very much like the mercenary he is supposed to be. He makes deals that enrich him, commits forces on his terms and is generally canny enough to create situations where, as he has said, he cannot lose no matter the outcome. I'm sure he has contingency plans for juust about every situation (though maybe not Stanley returning, we'll see). But I also get the sense that he might be bored. He only commits forces when he cannot lose and Parson presents a nice diversion from his typical pursuits. Not sure how that will eventually play out, but it is something to keep in mind when wondering about his motivations.

2) I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves about the pliers. We have only seen them fall, not land. I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie had a decent idea about what Parson planned and have some Archons discreetly (or at least has discreetly has glowing flying things can be) positioned below Ansom to catch anything that might fall past them. If they haven't lost many of their numbers, there would still be several archons unaccounted for from the posse that escorted Ansom.

3) I think we are projecting too much of Earth's ethics and norms onto Erfworld. As previous posters have pointed out, losing a war in Erfworld effectively negates the existence of most of the losing side. After most Earth wars, the population losing side still exists (though we haven't been shown that any type of non-military working or underclass exists). So long as nobles are spared and remain in existence after a surrender, there is incentive for them tosurrender. Parson, being a "special", cannot be sure that would apply to him and, added to his growing loyalty towards his side's forces, would never surrender.

4) I really like the axpressions Ansom has in this strip. They convey righteous anger, dread, bewilderment, fear, surprise and "Oh Boop" remarkably well.

5) Finally, it seems like Bogroll has come along way since his last performance review.

[Finwe]

HAHA! it's bogroll's 4 words! "For my lord hamstaaaaaar!"

Definately the right reasons tho :(

No, you see, Bogroll could have cut off his head, then given it to Wanda, who could have had one of the uncroaked climb to the top of the tower with it, and then chuck it at Ansom, which might have knocked him off of his carpet. Bogroll is just too prideful to admit that there were other options. Definitely the wrong reasons.

[pendell]

Wow... these comments that Parson did something dishonorable, must be referring to a human history I don't remember. War by its very nature is dishonorable: especially if you're on the losing end of the stick. Victory writes history and all that. Think about it...

Not so.

The problem with war is that unless you completely and totally annihilate your opponent -- not very likely -- you're going to have to deal with them again at some point. A reputation for treachery in dealing -- whether it be in war or in any other endeavour -- comes back to haunt people.

And even if you did completely wipe out your opponent, there are other people watching your conduct -- and you may have to deal with them also at some point.

Godwin's law strikes, yes, but it's the best real world example I can think of. Remember Munich? Part of the reason Germany wound up fighting a war to the knife with the entire rest of the world was because the leadership of the time demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted to keep its word.

The Western power will call the third world nation dishonorable for fighting dirty and using terror tactics.

In fact, there is honor even in insurgencies. The Hague conventions set up back in the 1870s, and the later Geneva conventions, both set up a set of rules which apply to rebels without conventional uniforms as well as conventional armies.

An example would be the American war of independence. It was a very vicious war, fought in ways that 18th century armies considered most unfair and unchivalrous. "Terrorist" is not an unfair description of some of the things done by the eventual winners.

And yet there was still honor between the combatants. After all, the two sides did eventually negotiate an end to that war. After another dustup in 1812, the two countries have been at peace for nearly 200 years. That wouldn't have been possible if *some* rules weren't observed in that combat.

Like, for instance, not murdering leaders during a peace conference. Or violating the flag of truce.

Honorable would be both sides taking on each other with equal numbers, the same level of technology, using the EXACT same battle strategy with each other (because its dishonorable to do something your opponent doesn't expect), exact same odds of victory and defeat, etc, etc, etc.

Not so. That's not honor, that's stupidity.

"Honor" has a very specific meaning. It means observing the relevant conventions and international laws relating to warfare, which are highly
sophisticated and applied with considerable vigor by western powers. It also
means courage in the face of danger, and it also means not engaging non-combatants. Killing a soldier is one thing. Killing his wife (or her husband) and kids another entirely.

It means that there are certain things both sides understand are simply Not Done. There is no legitimate reason, for example, to murder prisoners. Or to blow up a coffee shop filled entirely with noncombatants. Or violate a flag of truce.

Observing these rules allow us to manage the violence and eventually bring about a peace. The war has to end sometime, after all.

Failing to observe these rules means that all the gloves come off. The war of all against all. A war of extermination.

the whole point of war is to win.

No, the point of war is 'politics by other means', to quote Clausewitz. The point is to accomplish the objective for which you set out to war in the first place. To impose your will on an enemy, often. But if your enemy can't trust you to keep your word, there's very little you can do to make him stop fighting you. The most you can do then is kill them all. That doesn't always work as well as people might wish to believe.

There's no honor in war: only victors and losers.

The fact that you can say this implies that you are neither a soldier yourself nor know any in your immediate circle. What you wrote could very well be construed as implying that soldiers have no honor. I take strong exception, if that is what you meant.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

Attacking during negotiations is a fine way to make sure every conflict, no matter how small, escalates to genocide.

This is bad. It's bad for the WINNERS as well as the losers. Real life isn't zero sum, and you're almost always better off ending a fight without going on to the bitter end. But that REQUIRES that you have some degree of trust that the other side is capable of negotiating in good faith.

The only excuse is the claim that Parson never actually said he was surrendering (in fact what he said was weaselly enough that Charlie spotted it), and Bogroll didn't seem to have anything equivalent to a white flag. Arguably this is good enough, no truce exists without a clear signal or agreement that there is a truce.

But claiming that in general attacks during negotiations are justified since "honor is stupid" is itself stupid, historically the really great conquerers have typically been the sides that DIDN'T use such methods but considered honor and rule of law important. That let them add the other side's resources to their own at far lower cost and let them negotiate when appropriate.

QFT.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[ishnar]

Eh. I'm sure Im not the only American here who was taught to be honorable and play fair. I was also taught that not everyone does, and that often it is those people who win. I further learned that honor is more important than winning.

Oh, and I was also taught not to make sweeping generalizations.

If you tell your child not to fight, then take that child out to eat every time you hear he got into a fight in school, or brag about his/her fighting prowess to other parents which would affect the child's behavior more? The admonition or the reward?

It really doesn't matter that lots of people preach honor and integrity when society rewards strength and opportunism.

Someone's parents might be telling them over and over to be good and honorable and all that, but as soon as they leave the home, if society rewards the opposite behavior then the child will follow whichever result they value the most. Do they value the parent's respect, the peer's respect, or do they care less about respect and only concerned themself with the physical result?

Someone above said society depends on Honor and Integrity. That person was wrong. It might be arguably true for a peaceful society, but there are plenty of societies, both historically and in the present, that the only real rule is "Might makes right."

[Aquillion]

I'll assume you are referring to the Jetstone troops who were innocently (that's sarcasm) invading Parson's city through the tunnels. Am I right? Is self defense not a good enough reason to kill a man, in your book of morals? You call it murder, I call it self defense, obligation to leader, defense of friends (and country, which is only a little bit of a stretch due to the magical Loyalty imposed upon Parson), and a completely natural thing to do, when attacked.

And I'll match your view of Stanley's "religious fanaticism" with my own view of Ansom's "mandate from the Titans due to being Royalty." They are equivalent things, even if manifested in different ways.

Yeah, sure... I wasn't really meaning to get into the full morality of that

(Although it's a bit more complicated, since -- magical obligation aside -- it isn't at all clear why Parson shouldn't have negotiated a surrender that saved everyone in the city. It's not like we've seen any indication that Stanley's cause is really worth fighting or dying for, and the only thing he's done to give Parson an 'obligation' to him is pull him out of his universe and plop a magical enslaving spell on him. That wouldn't be much of an obligation in my book if I could get around it -- although, of course, we have no idea if Parson can. More seriously -- and more damningly -- Parson himself, reflecting on the issue, ultimately decides that his real reason is because he's a gamer and doesn't want to lose to a little munchkin.)

But the important part is, anything that could possibly justify killing that many people would also justify stabbing Ansom in the back during a parley. That much should be obvious. To suggest that violating a parley carries more moral weight than killing three thousand people is absurd.

I'm not sure how I'd go about defining "inhuman" but I certainly consider Wanda a despicable character. Erfworld isn't Earth, but what she did to Jillian is far too close to rape for me to simply ignore.

That's... complicated. My understanding is that what Jillian objected to was Wanda trying to force her hand in the decision to save Ansom or not. I don't think Jillian objected to anything Wanda did to her in the dungeons beyond that (her reaction to Wanda's assertion that she liked it would have been very different otherwise -- Jillian says that Wanda "went too far", implying that she had, in fact, been enjoying it up until then.)

I don't think we really know enough of the details of Wanda and Jillian's relationship or the understandings that underlie it to say much for certain beyond that, but I think that calling Wanda "despicable" based on that is a bit much. I think it's fair to say that she likely genuinely misunderstood what Jillian wanted and Jillian's limits -- which, given that Jillian herself is not certain what she wants, is not a hard mistake to make. How horrible a mistake that was on Wanda's part, and how it reflects on her, depends on how deep the understanding between her and Jillian was, and how clearly it was expressed up until then.

[Sieggy]

Why does everyone keep saying that Ansom's contract with Charlie involves handing over the Arkenpliers? Parson and the Mathamancy artifact, yes, that was a logical guess (which has since been confirmed), but I haven't seen anything at all which would imply that the 'Pliers were a part of his agreement . . .

Of course, now that Wanda is about to get her clutches on them, if it turns out that she can, as speculated, attune to them, then actually Charlie would be even MORE eager to acquire all the casters as a set (collect 'em all!). Let's face it, if the attitude of Ansom and the other RCC warlords is any indication, Erfworld has the european military mindset prior to Gustavus Adolphus . . . staid, traditional, and resistant to innovation.

Parson has just shaken that to its core (assuming any of the RCC gets out of this alive to tell about it, mind you), and his resulting rep would be an ENORMOUS asset to Charlie. Stanley, OTOH, is another story entirely . . .

[ishnar]

Wow... these comments that Parson did something dishonorable, must be referring to a human history I don't remember. War by its very nature is dishonorable: snip

Honorable would be both sides taking on each other with equal numbers, the same level of technology, using the EXACT same battle strategy with each other (because its dishonorable to do something your opponent doesn't expect), exact same odds of victory and defeat, etc, etc, etc.

Erm, no. You're confusing fighting honorably with fighting fairly. It is completely different. Fighting honorably means following any predetermined rules of warfare. Prisoner exchanges, not using certain weapons, not shooting messengers etc. Fighting fair is about preserving equality at the beginning of the battle. In Duels equality is a pre-determined rule, that is why fighting "fair" is honorable in a dual, but equality in force is not a predetermined rule of war, thus the lack of equality has nothing to do with honorable warfare.

Seriously. Not. Gonna. Happen.

But not for the reasons you suppose. The purpose of fairness is to encourage participation. That's why just about every game under the sun is fair, so people will WANT to play. The reason war is fought as unfairly as possible is to DISCOURAGE participation. You don't want more people to fight wars with you, so you fight unfair. You can fight honorably by adhering to any rules-of-warfare while still being as unfair as possible.

Removing all the political and social nonsense, the whole point of war is to win. Period. If you're losing, make that loss as terrible for the enemy as possible. Period.

Again false. The point of a war is eliminating the enemy's will to fight. You do not have to "win" in the traditional sense to achieve whatever objective initiated the war. At least in RL, in a most wargames, the winner is determined almost entirely as the one with the least casualties.

[Ragn Charran]

I'm not going to get involved in the morality debate about Parson's deception here, but I am going to comment on the "foolishness" aspect of this.

Under normal circumstances I would agree that this kind of attack is a short-term gain bought at a much higher long-term cost. The difference here is that it has been established that in Parson's mind, without this ploy to try and remove Ansom and the resulting leadership, artifact, and/or dancefight bonuses he's providing, there is no long term. When Ansom started dancing, Parson stated that it could very likely be game. Since then, we've seen his attempt to win "fairly" under those circumstances fail - troops couldn't get through to Ansom in a full-out heavy rush, Maggie couldn't stop the DDR projection, and more breaches were ripped in the garrison wall. He even commented on the likelihood of dying during a dancefight.

Parson is faced with looking untrustworthy or being dead. Regardless of whether it is "right" or not, it is certainly not stupid.

[Lombard]

I don't know. I enjoyed the page, but a little part of my brain is still wondering:

:why Charlie allowed this to happen (tons of potential reasons, but since we never get inside his head, we're left grasping at invisible straws)

Seems to me that the more he is needed, the more Charlie benefits. IMO all the little loose ends and unsolved mysteries are leading up to the grand revelation that Charlie somehow set this whole conflict in motion in the first place.

[sun_tzu]

Ah... a bold statment sir! :-)

In invitation to semantic and philosophical debate... this is where I live. <g>

Behavioural psychology is gradualy building up the picture that complience to the rules of society is based on fear of retribution. Most honour codes are based on religious moral systems that are based on the concept of ultimate judgment beyond the physical. This is borne out by studies that show that most employees will steal from employers to one degree or another with the determining factor being opertunity.

When the ability to punish is added to group trust excercises, EVERYBODY gets a lot better behaved.

Sure, fear of retribution matters. But if it was the only factor - if everybody was willing to do anything they believed they could get away with - then the world would be a far, far darker place.
Someone once defined honor as "doing the right thing, even when you can get away with the alternative". I think that's a good definition.

One thing I have learned in this world is there is Honor and honor. Many times Honor goes by another name, EGO. Just look up "honor killings" if you have have time, but it will not be pleasant reading. Or a more personal example is there was a person who lied about something and had been lying about it for some time. In fact she used this lie to beat down on other people (she claimed special/confidential knowledge of a situation). Well I discovered the truth of the matter and started spreading the evidence around. This person claimed I had birsmircher her Honor by stating she was lying. This sort of "hornor" is very common.

Then there honor. This is where a person fullfills comitments, is honest and tries to do the right thing because it's the right thing. This kind of honor is quite and it is proven by small quite actions, not loud words and offers to go dual someone. To often these "honors" get mixed up. :(

Right...So, "Honor" is a form of glorified pride, whereas "honor" is trustworthiness.

It's interesting to note our reactions here. Most of us have chosen our side (that is, Parson's side) and we're rooting for them. I'm going to assume the majority of readers are of the "I want the good guys to win" variety, which implies they're good and/or follow most of the laws. Our side aren't really the good guys here, and we go out of our way to explain and rationalize our leader's actions, however morally gray they may be. If Parson was the antagonist, we'd be appaled at this dishonourable, backstabbing ruse, but as is we're saying "it's ok, his back is against the wall, he does what he must" etc.

As someone who's bothered by Parson's latest action despite rooting for him all the time, I'll say that to me, Erfworld seems to be made of shades of gray. Neither the RCC nor Gobwin Knob strike me as completely good or completely bad (though circumstantial evidence does suggest that Gobwin Knob is generally "worse").

Sun Tzu said even the most useless servant can be a great resource if they think of nothing but serving their lord. And Bogroll is not useless.

Damn skippy.

Attacking during negotiations is a fine way to make sure every conflict, no matter how small, escalates to genocide.

This is bad. It's bad for the WINNERS as well as the losers. Real life isn't zero sum, and you're almost always better off ending a fight without going on to the bitter end. But that REQUIRES that you have some degree of trust that the other side is capable of negotiating in good faith.

The only excuse is the claim that Parson never actually said he was surrendering (in fact what he said was weaselly enough that Charlie spotted it), and Bogroll didn't seem to have anything equivalent to a white flag. Arguably this is good enough, no truce exists without a clear signal or agreement that there is a truce.

But claiming that in general attacks during negotiations are justified since "honor is stupid" is itself stupid, historically the really great conquerers have typically been the sides that DIDN'T use such methods but considered honor and rule of law important. That let them add the other side's resources to their own at far lower cost and let them negotiate when appropriate.

This.

Wow... these comments that Parson did something dishonorable, must be referring to a human history I don't remember. War by its very nature is dishonorable: especially if you're on the losing end of the stick. Victory writes history and all that. Think about it...

What honor is there if a Western power invades a third world nation? The Western power will call the third world nation dishonorable for fighting dirty and using terror tactics. I mean how dare they refuse to fight on a flat battlefield plain where the Western power can slam them into dust with their fighter jet dominance, sea launched cruise missiles, and waves after waves of armored vehicles. How dare they refuse to like up like just combatants in their t-shirts, jeans, AK-47 rifles, simple first aid kits, and maybe a few hand radios; against the Westerner's full body combat armor, battlefield information networking, massive selection of firearms, and advanced medical supply logistics.

Honorable would be both sides taking on each other with equal numbers, the same level of technology, using the EXACT same battle strategy with each other (because its dishonorable to do something your opponent doesn't expect), exact same odds of victory and defeat, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Removing all the political and social nonsense, the whole point of war is to win. Period. If you're losing, make that loss as terrible for the enemy as possible. Period. Oh there's always that protecting civilians stuff... or defending freedom around the world... blah, blah, blah. Convenient additions to the core philosophy of "making the other bastard die for his country." When you win, you can villianize and herioize the actions of the conflict. Happens all the time. Checkout the Anglo-Zulu War or the Mexican-American War. Hell... the Trojan War, or the Six Dynasties, or the Sengoku War, etc.

The problem with war these days, is the societies in power attempt to sanitize it to a level that: (a) only they can win it, (b) it's accepted by the general populace as a reasonable option of diplomacy, (c) the societies presently in charge remain in charge.

There's no honor in war: only victors and losers.

No. Even in war, there are often rules. That's why there's such a thing as "war crimes". Those rules exist to prevent the whole thing from becoming even more atrocious than it already is.

[MadMaw]

Oh, oh, oh! The two archons in the final panels are the same ones from the doughnut of doom and from the meeting with Wanda. The blond one objected to Jaclyn telling Jillian that a spell was on her there too, and the short haired one tried to warn Jaclyn about the air defenses.

Without Jaclyn, and with the cautionary tale of what happens to Archons who break the rules fresh in their memories, it seems unlikely that they're going to go the extra distance to save Ansom this time without being explictly told to by Charlie (who implicitly approved of Parson's stunt) or Ansom himself (who's being choked by Bogroll).

[aka Argent]

Wanda and Jillian

Wanda betrayed Jillian by putting the spell on her to affect her outside in the battle, not in the uh... bedroom. They've obviously been playing their other games for a long time, pre-GK, pre-Stanly and Ansom, which was why the dungeon scenes were so unguarded giving the suggestion of "Yeah, we're on different sides but there will always be you and me." But I think Wanda also felt equally betrayed by Jillian's breaking of the spell. That "Why?" she asked was very deeply felt.

Part of why Jillian wants to croak Stanley is to free Wanda from him, that and revenge for what happened to FAQ is the whole of her reason to fight. That Wanda is freely following him was an idea not even worth considering. When we learn what Wanda's reasons are for following Stanley we'll be able to better judge the situation. Whatever they are, they have to be very compelling for her to do what she's doing. The point though is that Wanda and Jillian's play is consensual.


I get the idea that in the next act, Charlie is going to be the lead opposition to Parson's forces. The two masterminds going at each other directly to get to their goal first.