Ok, so what's so bad about.....

[Corwin Weber]

...Stanley?

"She'd never follow that monster out of her own free will." - Jillian, from the most recent comic.

There have been other references as well... do we have any idea what makes Stanley a monster? Is the fact that he's a non-royal running a side enough to make him a monster in the eyes of Erfers? Or do we know of actual atrocities he's committed?

Redcloak's a monster. The difference is, I can point to atrocities he's committed, a fair number of them in panel. (Torture, genocide, etc.) Stanley just seems to have had a string of military victories in a world that seems to be based on a wargame. Unlike OOtS, there are no children in Erf for Stanley to have murdered, for that matter there seem to be very few if any noncombantant units at all. Sooooo.....

What exactly makes him a monster? Any thoughts?

[Kish]

He encourages Wanda to pursue her hobby of recreational torture.

That's the most "monstrous" one we've seen, and of course it's worse for Wanda than it is for Stanley, though it's still plenty to damn Stanley. Beyond that, he treats his loyal followers like crap ("the turd guy"), and shows a general lack of concern for anyone but himself (Wanda had to appeal to his self-interest for him to see spending most of his treasury as preferable to letting all the people who followed him get killed).

[Corwin Weber]

He encourages Wanda to pursue her hobby of recreational torture.

That's the most "monstrous" one we've seen, and of course it's worse for Wanda than it is for Stanley, though it's still plenty to damn Stanley. Beyond that, he treats his loyal followers like crap ("the turd guy"), and shows a general lack of concern for anyone but himself (Wanda had to appeal to his self-interest for him to see spending most of his treasury as preferable to letting all the people who followed him get killed).

Wanda's hobbies I'll give you... aside from the fact that all we've seen of them is some BDSM play. I'll grant that there could have been other cases as well, sure. And that's.... monstrous. (To a degree anyway....) But the Alliance is reacting to Stanley like he's the Axis or something..... which would involve significantly worse actions than even that.

[Twisted Otaku]

Wanda's hobbies I'll give you... aside from the fact that all we've seen of them is some BDSM play. I'll grant that there could have been other cases as well, sure. And that's.... monstrous. (To a degree anyway....) But the Alliance is reacting to Stanley like he's the Axis or something..... which would involve significantly worse actions than even that.

Seems like most of the alliance is convinced that he performed regicide. Indeed that is how it would seem given the information we've got so far. But I think the lack of coming out and saying "Stanley killed Saline IV" means that there is more to the story. Another reason I personally don't like stanley much is that he was indirectly responsible for the death of Misty.

[Dacia Brabant]

I think you'd call someone a monster too if he attacked and wiped out your kingdom and people, presumably without provocation (that we've seen anyway). Even for someone like Jillian who resented her father and her people's way of life, she still had the life she wanted and it was taken from her (apparently) unjustly.

As for the other factions, well I'm not sure beyond the royals who must see his regicide as a monstrous act.

[Corwin Weber]

I think you'd call someone a monster too if he attacked and wiped out your kingdom and people, presumably without provocation (that we've seen anyway). Even for someone like Jillian who resented her father and her people's way of life, she still had the life she wanted and it was taken from her (apparently) unjustly.

As for the other factions, well I'm not sure beyond the royals who must see his regicide as a monstrous act.

Of course you would. So would I. The problem is that this sort of attack seems to be pretty normal for how Erf works. The world is based on a wargame. Attacking other sides and conquering them is normal for them. Look at Parson's description of their histories. You'd think that from Jillian's perspective this would just be the fortunes of war.

[Corwin Weber]

Seems like most of the alliance is convinced that he performed regicide. Indeed that is how it would seem given the information we've got so far. But I think the lack of coming out and saying "Stanley killed Saline IV" means that there is more to the story. Another reason I personally don't like stanley much is that he was indirectly responsible for the death of Misty.

Hell I don't like Stanley either. He's a twit. But that's a far cry from looking at him as the next incarnation of Chengis Khan or something.

[SteveMB]

He encourages Wanda to pursue her hobby of recreational torture.

Of course, that's a rather weak reason to condemn Stanley in the context of denying that Wanda would freely follow such a "monster" -- as you point out, Wanda actually doing it it more culpable than Stanley accepting and encouraging it.

We know why Ansom condemns Stanley -- his rise to power is a basic affront to Ansom's worldview (and, I suspect, Ansom wants to defeat Stanley to prove, not least of all to himself, that Stanley's attunement to the Arkenhammer and Ansom's own non-attunement to the Arkenpliers is not a sign that Stanley is favored over him in the eyes of the Titans). Various other members of the Coalition have been attacked by Stanley; however, there's no indication that they regard him as a figure of monstrous evil -- he's the enemy and they want to beat him, sure, but that's not the same thing.

I think you'd call someone a monster too if he attacked and wiped out your kingdom and people, presumably without provocation (that we've seen anyway). Even for someone like Jillian who resented her father and her people's way of life, she still had the life she wanted and it was taken from her (apparently) unjustly.

Of course you would. So would I. The problem is that this sort of attack seems to be pretty normal for how Erf works. The world is based on a wargame. Attacking other sides and conquering them is normal for them. Look at Parson's description of their histories. You'd think that from Jillian's perspective this would just be the fortunes of war.

Jillian's reasons for hating Stanley as much as she does may be more complex than the obvious (he destroyed her home kingdom).

Looking back at how Jillian describes her actions after the fall of Faq ("...I ran into enough sides that were mad at him to suspect Stanley the Worm. Then I got wind of Jetstone's coalition. Seemed like a good gig, with the fringe benefit of maybe getting my Faq question answered."), it does sound like "just business" -- Stanley attacked her side, and has retribution coming to him, yes, but it's a bit understated compared to calling him a "monster".

It could be that while Jillian was and is angry that Wanda "went too far", she doesn't entirely accept that Wanda is fully responsible for doing so. Thus, she assumes that Wanda is under magical compulsion from Stanley (making him the "monster" who cased the break between them), and disbelieved Jaclyn telling her that, no, she isn't.

[TigerHunter]

Of course you would. So would I. The problem is that this sort of attack seems to be pretty normal for how Erf works. The world is based on a wargame. Attacking other sides and conquering them is normal for them. Look at Parson's description of their histories. You'd think that from Jillian's perspective this would just be the fortunes of war.

Consider this: Serbians and Croatians are not allowed to play soccer against each other in Chicago, on the grounds that it inevitably leads to violence. Even games between commercial teams sometimes spark riots. Then consider that in this game, people you know and love die.

I'd say that some hard feelings are inevitable.

[Corwin Weber]

Consider this: Serbians and Croatians are not allowed to play soccer against each other in Chicago, on the grounds that it inevitably leads to violence. Even games between commercial teams sometimes spark riots. Then consider that in this game, people you know and love die.

I'd say that some hard feelings are inevitable.

That's the point. Those are real world considerations. Again, Erf is a wargame based reality, not a reality based reality.

I can still see the point.... it just seems to me like it would be dramatically less important in a world like Erf.

[Mewtarthio]

That's the point. Those are real world considerations. Again, Erf is a wargame based reality, not a reality based reality.

And what do leaders inevitably do during times of war? Propaganda. Emotional manipulation. Incitement of hatred towards the enemy. In a wargame-based reality, you could very well be innately "programmed" to hate the enemy. It's not an affect caused by any sort of loyalty spell: It's just that, as you war against someone, you dislike them more and more. The same thing's true to a certain extent in the real world, as well, thanks to propaganda and cognitive dissonance, and it'd only be amplified in a world that's explicitly designed to keep people fighting.

[slayerx]

Of course you would. So would I. The problem is that this sort of attack seems to be pretty normal for how Erf works. The world is based on a wargame. Attacking other sides and conquering them is normal for them. Look at Parson's description of their histories. You'd think that from Jillian's perspective this would just be the fortunes of war.

Just because war and battle is "pretty normal" does not at all mean anyone likes it. I mean our species has been fighting each other in wars for god knows how long and we know damn well that we'd rather it not be this way. Many of sides may very well wish for peace and don't want to fight; the trouble with erfworld is that a side that does want to fight, that wants to conquer or whatever always seems to pop up to start the fighting again. They may live in a wargame but they treat it more like war than a game; they have reasons they go to war, they don't just do it because their bored.

The war we are seeing is known as the great western conflict... now what about the east, north and south parts of the world? are they also in wars of their own or are they seeing some peace now? and this western conflcit, we have multiple sides involved, but is this how it normally is or is it usually just two sides duking it out?

Faq was supposedly a mostly pacifist nation... they stayed out of the conflicts around the world and the only involvement they had was sending their troops to act as mercs to fight in OTHER nations' wars... Faq itself tried to stay uninvolved. It seems the way Banhammer looked at things, he didn't like the wars and tried to stay out by doing everything he could to not get his nation involved; which bascially amounted to making sure no one realized it existed (can't attack what they don't know about)...

Jillian sees Stanely as a monster because of all he's done... He treats his troops like crap, he's cruel, possibly traitorous and condones the use of torture. He wiped out Faq a side that never wanted to fight... He attacked multiple other sides wiping them out or atleast striking them hard... and all of this was towards his own ambition. Just because rulers like him pop up to start fights does not mean people tolerate it...

[Kasavin]

This comic is probably the best explanation: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0034.html .

Yes, they live in a world where warfare is the norm and cannot be inherently wrong. However, as somebody whose played Europa Universalis, I know there can be rules to war. For example, fighting wars of annihilation might be taboo in Erfworld, or going to war with out first declaring it in triplicate and having a proper casus belli is a no-no.

Or heck, maybe any war of offense is viewed as evil, but they're still common enough that "peaceful" nations like Jetstone can keep their militaries occupied. Point is Stanley has gone above and beyond in his military. The whole regicide and upstart overlord just gives some coalition members extra incentive to get him.

[Dacia Brabant]

<Snip>

Thank you, that explains it far better than I did, especially the point about Faq being unjustly targeted for destruction.

It could be that while Jillian was and is angry that Wanda "went too far", she doesn't entirely accept that Wanda is fully responsible for doing so. Thus, she assumes that Wanda is under magical compulsion from Stanley (making him the "monster" who cased the break between them), and disbelieved Jaclyn telling her that, no, she isn't.

Possibly--but then looking at the complete sentence Jillian speaks, she says "[Wanda]'d never follow that monster of her own free will," which implies separation between Stanley's monstrousness and the possibility of Wanda being mind-controlled. Therefore he would still be a monster in Jillian's eyes even if Wanda were free-willed (and therefore just as much a monster as he). That also goes to the whole juxtapositioning of what Jillian says against what Wanda's doing in the background and most of all in the last panel where she's just downright scary.

[Lamech]

Why does Jillian think Stanley's a monster? I'm guessing Jillian has a double standard here here. She shouldn't be using the torture here because Wanda actually engages in torture. The attack on FAQ (I'm going to assume here it was unprovoked and intentional) isn't a good reason; Jillian frequently engaged in the same thing with her mercenary work. Not being a royal/noble would be an obvious double standard. Also being a jerk to his units, would get Stanley called a jerk.

To answer the question I'm guessing its a combination of attacking FAQ, endorsing torture, and being a jerk.

[SteveMB]

Possibly--but then looking at the complete sentence Jillian speaks, she says "[Wanda]'d never follow that monster of her own free will," which implies separation between Stanley's monstrousness and the possibility of Wanda being mind-controlled. Therefore he would still be a monster in Jillian's eyes even if Wanda were free-willed (and therefore just as much a monster as he).

That last sentence gets to what I think is the bottom line: Jillian really doesn't want to believe that Wanda would mistreat and exploit her the way she has. She explains it away by assuming that Wanda is under a loyalty spell, and thus everything bad that happens can be blamed on Stanley rather than Wanda. Thus, her resentment of any mistreatment at Wanda's hands is transferred to Stanley -- on top of her perfectly reasonable anger at him for destroying Faq, that makes him a "monster" in her eyes. The rationalization is somewhat self-reinforcing -- the more blame she transfers to Stanley, the more of a "monster" he becomes, and the less believable it is that (her idealized mental image of) Wanda would follow him voluntarily.

In the immediate aftermath of breaking free of Wanda's control just before the battle over the lake, Jillian was angry enough to vent at Wanda (the "I hope you can see this" comment I noted earlier). However, that didn't completely destroy the above rationalization in one swell foop. Confronting Wanda face to face, she is still not entirely sure of herself (note all the pauses at first, before she gets to the point) and still in denial about Wanda's culpability, explaining it away as Stanley's fault ("She'd never follow that monster of her own free will.")

[Corwin Weber]

The thing is, Wanda is a sub/masochist. She likes to be tortured. (She clearly doesn't like to openly admit it, but she does like it.) Plus as has been mentioned, she's done the same sort of attacking as a merc....

I mean I can see all of the arguments for, and I'm not saying they're entirely invalid.... it just seems like either there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on on the Alliance's part, (entirely possible) or that Stanley has done some pretty awful stuff that we aren't aware of. (Also possible.)

[SteveMB]

The thing is, Wanda is a sub/masochist. She likes to be tortured. (She clearly doesn't like to openly admit it, but she does like it.)

I assume that's a typo, and you mean "Jillian".

Yes, but there are limits to what she will and will not accept; that's why she told Wanda that she "went too far". Whatever relationship they may or may not have had back in Faq before the war, the relationship during the war was complicated by the fact that Wanda had a real and increasingly urgent stake in making Jillian cooperate (e.g. give up information). That would create pressure to ignore the line between domination and outright abuse.

Plus as has been mentioned, she's done the same sort of attacking as a merc....

Assuming that she was a participant in unprovoked attacks (and knew it -- she may have simply not bothered asking any questions other than "Can you afford me?"), people tend to be very good at amplifying other people's actions against them and downplaying their own similar actions against other people.

I mean I can see all of the arguments for, and I'm not saying they're entirely invalid.... it just seems like either there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on on the Alliance's part, (entirely possible) or that Stanley has done some pretty awful stuff that we aren't aware of. (Also possible.)

I think Ansom personally has some cognitive dissonance going on -- on some level, he must wonder why the Arkenpliers rejects him while the Arkenhammer accepted Stanley. IMO, there's a third level of motivation under the publicly declared one ("Stanley is a habitual aggressor") and the one Vinny tried to sound him out about ("Stanley is a commoner and a regicide, and therefore unfit to rule") -- Ansom (perhaps unadmittedly even to himself) wants to prove (to the world and perhaps more urgently to himself) that he is favored by the Titans, the apparent verdict of the Arkentools notwithstanding.

[Corwin Weber]

Erm.... yeah. Actually that was a brainfart. (Sunday morning, just woke up a bit ago....) Yes I did mean Jillian.

I am leaning toward the cognitive dissonance angle here.... especially on Ansom's part. For all Jillian talks about his pretty ideals, he's a bit of a twit. (Arguably as much of a twit as Stanley is.) Wanda going 'too far' is something I see as being more CD on Jillian's part. If your partner in that sort of relationship goes too far, you use a safeword, you don't wipe out their sanity.

[lamguin]

1. Stanley has attacked many of the factions in the alliance. He's sure not making friends like that.

2. He's one of the bad guys and has all the classically evil creatures on his side.

3. It is strongly implied that Stanley was responsible for the death of Saline IV. Considering that he was not only Saline's underling, but also his named heir, that kind of betrayal seems most likely to me to be the cause of the extra special brand of hatred.

4. For Jillian, especially, knowing that he was probably the one who destroyed FAQ just adds an extra layer to the hatred.

How he treats his own underlings is less of a factor than those, I think, and the Wanda-Jillian dynamic should only really matter to them.

[Corwin Weber]

1. Stanley has attacked many of the factions in the alliance. He's sure not making friends like that.

From the histories Parson encounters, the Alliance members are equally guilty of this. It seems to simply be part of life in Erf.

2. He's one of the bad guys and has all the classically evil creatures on his side.

...as opposed to Ansom who has vampires on his side? And seems to think that he has a divine mandate to rule?

Irrelevant to the current conversation.

3. It is strongly implied that Stanley was responsible for the death of Saline IV. Considering that he was not only Saline's underling, but also his named heir, that kind of betrayal seems most likely to me to be the cause of the extra special brand of hatred.

Actually this is specifically not implied. What is implied is that Stanley was on a mission for Saline, there was a revolution and Saline was killed, and Stanley came back and killed the revolutionaries.

The fact that he was not himself a royal would earn him some hard feelings from people like Ansom, but this is hardly one of Ansom's more endearing qualities.

4. For Jillian, especially, knowing that he was probably the one who destroyed FAQ just adds an extra layer to the hatred.

This is potentially a valid point, except that Jillian has implied that she's more or less ambivalent regarding Faq, and adjusted to mercenary life after its destruction quite well.

Again.... Stanley's clearly no saint. He's a twit. He's not terribly bright, he has the attention span of a ferret with a cocaine habit, and he's abusive to his underlings. I grant all of these and potentially more.... I'm just not seeing where these make him some sort of monster as opposed to just being the other side.

[slayerx]

From the histories Parson encounters, the Alliance members are equally guilty of this. It seems to simply be part of life in Erf.

The histories Parson read just said their have been battles...
Nothing saying who started the fights and nothing saying the alliance members started fights for purely selfish reasons... And certainly nothing saying they treat war like a game or like a sport; as in something they do for fun or because they are bored. One thing we are seeing in the battle of Gobwinknob is that everyone in this fight has some kind of reason for fighting.

And i say again what i said in my previous post... just because wars are common place does NOT mean the erfworlders tolerate it. There are many that may very easily wish to not fight and have peace but some ambitious and/or evil ruler always pops up to stir up more trouble and keep the wars going.

Actually this is specifically not implied. What is implied is that Stanley was on a mission for Saline, there was a revolution and Saline was killed, and Stanley came back and killed the revolutionaries.

it IS implied... Stanely leaving on a mission and then saline falling during a revolt is what we are told... to imply something, means reading between the lines at what the author is trying to leads us to believe... in this case, it is implied that Stanely was behind the revolt since it seems too strange that the revolt would happen when Stanely and all the casters were away; Stanely being sure to take the casters with him can easily be seen as him making sure the most valuable units were not around to be slaughtered (also Sizemore does not saying that Stanely was ordered to take the casters or that the mission was Saline's idea in the first place).

Ofcourse, something that is implied is not necessarily true as the author could be attempting to mislead readers by throwing down such information. hence why i said he was "possibly" traitorous in my previous post, since their is a air of doubt to whether or not Stanely was behind the gobwin revolt

[Lamech]

it IS implied... Stanely leaving on a mission and then saline falling during a revolt is what we are told... to imply something, means reading between the lines at what the author is trying to leads us to believe... in this case, it is implied that Stanely was behind the revolt since it seems too strange that the revolt would happen when Stanely and all the casters were away; Stanely being sure to take the casters with him can easily be seen as him making sure the most valuable units were not around to be slaughtered (also Sizemore does not saying that Stanely was ordered to take the casters or that the mission was Saline's idea in the first place).

I would like to point out that the revolt wouldn't have happened if Stanley was the city. The gobwins wouldn't revolt because Stanley would squash them with the dwagons. The casters coming with: when a mission requires extremely powerful and valuable units (like arkentool attuned chief warlords), casters might be brought along to. Also the revolt would likely happen when only the city is at its weakest. That could mean powerful units like caster gone.

I don't see hugely strong implications of Stanley having anything to do with the revolt other than Sizemore commenting that it was odd.

[Corwin Weber]

I would like to point out that the revolt wouldn't have happened if Stanley was the city. The gobwins wouldn't revolt because Stanley would squash them with the dwagons. The casters coming with: when a mission requires extremely powerful and valuable units (like arkentool attuned chief warlords), casters might be brought along to. Also the revolt would likely happen when only the city is at its weakest. That could mean powerful units like caster gone.

I don't see hugely strong implications of Stanley having anything to do with the revolt other than Sizemore commenting that it was odd.

Plus if Stanley was involved, why kill the revolutionaries? They were his allies that put him in power, and they'd potentially still be useful.

[Corwin Weber]

The histories Parson read just said their have been battles...
Nothing saying who started the fights and nothing saying the alliance members started fights for purely selfish reasons... And certainly nothing saying they treat war like a game or like a sport; as in something they do for fun or because they are bored. One thing we are seeing in the battle of Gobwinknob is that everyone in this fight has some kind of reason for fighting.

And i say again what i said in my previous post... just because wars are common place does NOT mean the erfworlders tolerate it. There are many that may very easily wish to not fight and have peace but some ambitious and/or evil ruler always pops up to stir up more trouble and keep the wars going.

The revolution that killed Saline happened after a surprise attack from below. (From unnamed and presumably unknown attackers.) Clearly Stanley's side isn't the only aggressor here.

Put simply, if Stanley's attacks on other sides were the issue I could see them defending themselves, sure.... but making Stanley out to be some sort of monster is another matter entirely. Remember, Vinnie himself is surprised that Jetstone entered the fight, their losses had been minimal. Ansom entered the fight because he doesn't like the idea of some commoner assuming power. There doesn't seem to be any other particular reason for him to do so.... and the fact that he tries to minimize this reason with vague rationalizations suggests that he knows that this reason is fairly petty and when it comes down to it, tyrannical in some ways.

I guess that's at least part of what's bugging me after all. Ansom dropped everything and marched to war because of class issues. The idea of a commoner being anywhere near his equal (much less his superior) comes dangerously close to sending him into a physical rage. From his perspective, it looks a lot like Stanley's 'atrocities' consist of becoming overlord and not having been a royal.

This seriously bugs me as an American. *shrug*

[SteveMB]

I am leaning toward the cognitive dissonance angle here.... especially on Ansom's part. For all Jillian talks about his pretty ideals, he's a bit of a twit. (Arguably as much of a twit as Stanley is.) Wanda going 'too far' is something I see as being more CD on Jillian's part. If your partner in that sort of relationship goes too far, you use a safeword, you don't wipe out their sanity.

Yes, if Wanda was respecting Jillian's boundaries -- that's what I meant by suggesting that Wanda might have crossed the line into abuse because she was conducting a real interrogation with real stakes (possibly up to and including her own survival).

If so, Jillian might prefer blame Stanley rather than Wanda because she doesn't want to think ill of Wanda and already bears a grudge against Stanley for attacking Faq (which she had suspected, and considered confirmed when she first encounted Wanda in Stanley's service). Her assumption that Stanley had Wanda bound by a loyalty spell enables her to rationalize that, and also explans why Wanda rejected her appeal to run away with her.

[Corwin Weber]

Yes, if Wanda was respecting Jillian's boundaries -- that's what I meant by suggesting that Wanda might have crossed the line into abuse because she was conducting a real interrogation with real stakes (possibly up to and including her own survival).

If so, Jillian might prefer blame Stanley rather than Wanda because she doesn't want to think ill of Wanda and already bears a grudge against Stanley for attacking Faq (which she had suspected, and considered confirmed when she first encounted Wanda in Stanley's service). Her assumption that Stanley had Wanda bound by a loyalty spell enables her to rationalize that, and also explans why Wanda rejected her appeal to run away with her.

It's possible, of course regardless of any other spells Wanda is bound by natural thinkamancy and Jillian apparently isn't.

[slayerx]

I would like to point out that the revolt wouldn't have happened if Stanley was the city. The gobwins wouldn't revolt because Stanley would squash them with the dwagons. The casters coming with: when a mission requires extremely powerful and valuable units (like arkentool attuned chief warlords), casters might be brought along to. Also the revolt would likely happen when only the city is at its weakest. That could mean powerful units like caster gone.

I don't see hugely strong implications of Stanley having anything to do with the revolt other than Sizemore commenting that it was odd.

This is why the implication is not certain and could be a mislead by the author as there are possible explainations... hell it's even possible that someone like Wanda was actually behind the revolt and Stanely was left oblvious... overall there definatly IS an implication that Stanely was behind the gobwin revolt, since the attack only occurred when he and the most important units were safe.... this is what implication means... That the author gives us enough information to lead us to a very likely and possible outcome, but at the same time not make it 100% certain.

However, what i would like to point out... The gobwins would know that they would have to face the dwagons when they return; would the gobwins be so foolish as to believe that they could hold the city after taking it? especially when you consider the fact that it was "easy" for Stanely to take back the city. And one would wonder what Stanely would need most of GK's casters for... not to mention, with how much Stanely likes his dwagons, the dwagons may have been away from GK on a regular basis so the gobwins could attack at anytime... Really this could all be part of why Sizemore thought it was odd; another reason he might find it odd is that maybe the gobwins in fact generally liked Saline; so it would seem odd that they would revolt...

Hell it's even possibly that Stanely wasn't working with the gobwins directly... he may have leaked some info that gave the gobwins the idea that they could hold the city against the dwagons, or that the dwagons were gonna be gone long enough for them to build up a proper air defence... Or maybe he tricked the gobwins into thinking that Saline found a new heir and that Stanely would be disbanded after the revolt... or maybe Stanely leaked a rumor that made the gobwins hate Saline and look for an opportunity to attack him... overall, the gobwins may have just been mere pawns in Stanely's schemes.

Plus if Stanley was involved, why kill the revolutionaries? They were his allies that put him in power, and they'd potentially still be useful.

It never said Stanely killed the revolutionaries... he took back the city but he didn't wipe out the gobwins as they still serve him and they even make up his personal knights.

The revolution that killed Saline happened after a surprise attack from below. (From unnamed and presumably unknown attackers.) Clearly Stanley's side isn't the only aggressor here.

The gobwins were the side that attacked from below; there were no other sides involved... if there were Sizemore would have mentioned them along with the gobwins

Put simply, if Stanley's attacks on other sides were the issue I could see them defending themselves, sure.... but making Stanley out to be some sort of monster is another matter entirely.

Why is it another matter entirely? how is attacking others and croaking entire nations not enough to call him a monster?... hell, erfworlders like Jillian could see EVERY ruler in history that started attacking other sides for personal gain as "monsters". Like i keep saying, just because their history books are full of wars and that they exist in a wargame world does NOT mean they tolerate the wars and do not wish for an end to the wars and an end to rulers like Stanely.

Could their be some propganda against Stanely to make him look even worse... maybe... but Jillian as her own reasons for calling Stanely a monster, reasons fueled by what she has seen of him and not of false rumors that have been spreading around... She's got plenty of her own reasons to see him as a monster

[lamguin]

I believe we've found the problem.

The original post is running on the assumption that everyone in the alliance believes that Stanley is, indeed, a monster, which is not quite the case here.

Ansom is involved because of the Royalty thing. The attunement thing doesn't help matters.

Jillian believes that he is, indeed, a monster. So far as I've found, she's the only one to refer to him as Stanley the Worm.

Nearly everyone else is responding to attacks.

Charlie is getting paid.

[Corwin Weber]

Again, these reasons would be?

We haven't seen them, nor have we had any reports from anyone who has. Stanley has attacked some other nations and defeated them.... in an environment where this happens all the time.

This is the point you don't seem to be getting.

Erf is a wargame. Conquest is part of life there in a way that it simply isn't in the real world. All units have combat stats. There are few if any noncombatant units in Erf. Units which do not normally fight are still entirely capable of it.

We're dealing with a world where not only are there arguably no innocents, but the concept of an innocent is itself foreign. There are no children. Women and men both fight and have combat ratings. Combat and leveling are referred to as fun. The only apparent noncombatant units are the resource gatherers, (such as the gobwins) and even they're actually combat capable and are considered to be at least irregular or light combat units in their own right. This is a situation that simply doesn't happen in the real world.