PDA

View Full Version : Erfworld thread IV: In memory of King Saline



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Legato Endless
2015-04-27, 03:51 PM
If that's Don's son, it puts a bit of a different spin on the building coup in Transylvito. And Isaac has cottoned onto to Maggie being compromised. Between this and Charlie's spy, it's looking more likely the Great Minds as a society are one of the things Parson will end up breaking in the war.

Lethologica
2015-04-27, 04:04 PM
If that's Don's son, it puts a bit of a different spin on the building coup in Transylvito. And Isaac has cottoned onto to Maggie being compromised. Between this and Charlie's spy, it's looking more likely the Great Minds as a society are one of the things Parson will end up breaking in the war.
Isn't that the Don when he was younger? These are images of Bunny's excommunication twenty years ago.

'Compromised' is...one way of putting it. :smallwink:

I'll be surprised if there's a power faction in the status quo that doesn't lose out in the end.

Landis963
2015-04-27, 04:04 PM
If that's Don's son, it puts a bit of a different spin on the building coup in Transylvito. And Isaac has cottoned onto to Maggie being compromised. Between this and Charlie's spy, it's looking more likely the Great Minds as a society are one of the things Parson will end up breaking in the war.

I think that's a young Don, actually (Stout signamancy, similar facial hair, and the earring are the smoking guns). Which puts an interesting spin on what Caesar thinks of his and Bunny's relationship. And the Great Minds need a good hard whack upside the head. Unfortunately Parson can't do anything that would deplete Isaac's hit points, at the risk of diplomatic incident, so there's that.

Lentrax
2015-04-27, 04:36 PM
Somewhere out there, a Rhyme-o-mancer named Hue. E. Louis. Has composed a ballad with lines such as:

"You ain't turned baby, till you've turned.
Turned by the mancy! The mancy of Love."

-D-
2015-04-27, 05:30 PM
I think that's a young Don, actually (Stout signamancy, similar facial hair, and the earring are the smoking guns). Which puts an interesting spin on what Caesar thinks of his and Bunny's relationship. And the Great Minds need a good hard whack upside the head. Unfortunately Parson can't do anything that would deplete Isaac's hit points, at the risk of diplomatic incident, so there's that.
What earrings? I suspect it's Don's son or father. More likely its his father. Because if it was the son Don wouldn't trust her.

Landis963
2015-04-27, 07:50 PM
What earrings? I suspect it's Don's son or father. More likely its his father. Because if it was the son Don wouldn't trust her.

Huh. Don doesn't have the earring or the goatee that Bunny's honey has in the picture. Or at least, he didn't during that test of Jillian's affinity for Noble-dom back in the Book 1 epilogue.

Legato Endless
2015-04-27, 07:56 PM
Isn't that the Don when he was younger? These are images of Bunny's excommunication twenty years ago.

It's definitely possible considering the nature of Signamancy, but since Don became King shortly after popping and only left the capital for a tour once, I assumed he's always looked pretty pudgy. The bigger reason is that, in Bunny's epilogue poem, she frames *Caesar as the man that she loves, and she doesn't exactly comfort him in his moment of grief.

*Unless there's someone else Don could be cursing?


What earrings? I suspect it's Don's son or father. More likely its his father. Because if it was the son Don wouldn't trust her.

That presumes that Don knew about the relationship, and that Bunny wasn't instrumental in his son's coup failing. But yes, it could be Don's father considering his reputation.

Killer Angel
2015-04-28, 06:45 AM
I start to think that being the "perfect warlord" simply boils down to "not quite so stupid as the locals". Being good at tactics/strategy is just the icing on the cake.

Stupidworld, ha.

Tradition rules their lives. As we saw in the backer stories, new ideas find hard times.

Yuki Akuma
2015-04-28, 12:56 PM
I start to think that being the "perfect warlord" simply boils down to "not quite so stupid as the locals". Being good at tactics/strategy is just the icing on the cake.

Stupidworld, ha.

Well, the last time it was cast, it did summon a naive farmgirl from Kansas...

Ravenlord
2015-04-28, 02:25 PM
Tradition rules their lives. As we saw in the backer stories, new ideas find hard times.

Yeah, but this time it's literally about "Forgive a minor transgression so we can give Charlie a beating"... and the Great Minds simply can't let go. This isn't even tradition - this is simply being greedy and wanting everything.

-D-
2015-04-28, 03:36 PM
I get the feeling GMTTA got more than their bargained for. My money is on Parson destroying their little culty group.

Spojaz
2015-04-28, 04:01 PM
The Great Minds Who Think Alike have unbending rules, altogether too much knowledge (which is power) and an unknown agenda (outside of getting rid of Charlie). Not great traits for a protagonist to have...

Jasdoif
2015-04-28, 04:10 PM
Yeah, but this time it's literally about "Forgive a minor transgression so we can give Charlie a beating"... and the Great Minds simply can't let go. This isn't even tradition - this is simply being greedy and wanting everything.I'm curious why you're categorizing this transgression as "minor", since to my knowledge the only thing we know about it is that it was significant enough that they worked out their answer in advance.

Lethologica
2015-04-28, 04:47 PM
It's certainly a massive transgression to them, whatever it is. Our standards might not be aligned with theirs, though.

Legato Endless
2015-04-28, 05:01 PM
I'm hoping it isn't minor frankly. I kind of like Isaac, for all the unsettling aspects of his cabal, and the conflict is much more interesting if what Bunny did, while understandable from a certain perspective, was still a huge violation that is forbidden for better reasons than simply the Great Minds' ensconced self interests.

HalfTangible
2015-04-28, 06:05 PM
I'm hoping it isn't minor frankly. I kind of like Isaac, for all the unsettling aspects of his cabal, and the conflict is much more interesting if what Bunny did, while understandable from a certain perspective, was still a huge violation that is forbidden for better reasons than simply the Great Minds' ensconced self interests.

Some ideas:
-Don's son had thinkamancy and Bunny took them away so Don could stay on the throne
-Similar situation to Stanley/Jillian - Someone blackmailed Don's life in exchange for some secret of Thinkamancy
-That contract Charlie mentioned concerns this in some way. That's an obvious Chekov's gun, though how it'll go off hasn't been revealed yet.
-Bunny is directly involved in Transylvito's bat scouting thing.

The Glyphstone
2015-04-28, 06:51 PM
All we know is that it involves an oath to the Great Minds that she broke (for love).

The Great Minds seem to be mostly concerned with protecting Thinkamancy's secrets and mysticism, as much as they are with opposing Charlie (who, really, boils down to a business competitor of theirs). What could Bunny have told Don, or shown him, that would warrant excommunication from the Minds?

memnarch
2015-04-28, 07:47 PM
All we know is that it involves an oath to the Great Minds that she broke (for love).

The Great Minds seem to be mostly concerned with protecting Thinkamancy's secrets and mysticism, as much as they are with opposing Charlie (who, really, boils down to a business competitor of theirs). What could Bunny have told Don, or shown him, that would warrant excommunication from the Minds?

Perhaps it's the viewing things through bat eyes?

Bird
2015-04-28, 11:35 PM
I'm hoping it isn't minor frankly. I kind of like Isaac, for all the unsettling aspects of his cabal, and the conflict is much more interesting if what Bunny did, while understandable from a certain perspective, was still a huge violation that is forbidden for better reasons than simply the Great Minds' ensconced self interests.
Absolutely this. The thing is, all the pieces are set up for the rule violation to be (from our perspective) silly. We have a society with strange secret rules on one hand, and a character who did something "for love" (a motivation we're supposed to immediately identify with) on the other. Plus, we naturally sympathize with the individual over the cabal. The narrative will be so much more interesting if it subverts our expectations by forcing us to consider that the Great Minds actually had a good point.

Killer Angel
2015-04-29, 06:11 AM
Yeah, but this time it's literally about "Forgive a minor transgression so we can give Charlie a beating"... and the Great Minds simply can't let go. This isn't even tradition - this is simply being greedy and wanting everything.

While I agree with Parson's position, we still don't know the details of the "transgression".

Calemyr
2015-04-29, 11:55 AM
Yeah, the transgression could be anything at this point. For example, what if Bunny is responsible for Don's "Bat Cam" abilities and that's a power the Great Minds don't want overlords to have? What if her skills were integral to the fall of Don King's numerous heirs, but they weren't all guilty? One was just a good enough leader that it threatened her king? What if she used her access to "certain thinkamancy bands" to listen in on and report to Don about topics that the Great Minds agreed to keep secret? What if she outright told him about the Great Minds, and some of the many conspiracies they're involved in? What if she used her abilities to "rig" battles in a way that the Great Minds find disgusting? Or betray a standing king in favor of a young and upcoming vampire with the charm of a godfather and the hair of a boxing promoter?

If Thinkamancers were allowed to operate with impunity and without guidelines, they could easily be as hated and mistrusted as Carnies. Heck, more than Carnies. The austerity of the Great Minds, the neutrality of the Magic Kingdom, the entire lot in life for entire disciplines of casters in general, all of it could be destroyed very easily by a rogue Thinkamancer with more loyalty to her leader than her kin. Maggie might well become proof of that.

A soul in love can justify many treasons, and not all of them are minor.

hajo
2015-04-29, 04:12 PM
I get the feeling GMTTA got more than their bargained for.
I think several of the thinkamencer's secrets will get out sooner or later,
simply because they will get obvious.

E.g. Parson's idea to bring Bunny to the temple to talk securely.
If you want such precautions, anybody might start to think about the reasons...

Also, how do you explain that, without spilling the secret ?

-D-
2015-04-29, 04:29 PM
The narrative will be so much more interesting if it subverts our expectations by forcing us to consider that the Great Minds actually had a good point.
Sure, although I'm not sure if we are in for a subversion. I guess they have their reasons.



E.g. Parson's idea to bring Bunny to the temple to talk securely.
If you want such precautions, anybody might start to think about the reasons...
I don't see much to explain. A thinkamancer, going to thinkamancy Temple. What is there to explain? It's about as suspicious as JoJo going back to Carnyvale.

Doran
2015-04-30, 06:32 AM
Backer story!

So.. Rhymamancy


Maybe Thomas thinks the epic will fail as he doesn't have any exciting deeds to sing about?
So he wants to avoid the blame from that?

Seems like a dysfunctional family relationship in Erfworld.

HandofShadows
2015-04-30, 07:07 AM
Seems like a dysfunctional family relationship in Erfworld.
[/SPOILER]

In other words a totally average family relationship in Erf. I swear about the only really good family relationship we have seen was between Wanda and her brother.

Killer Angel
2015-05-01, 04:21 AM
Seems like a dysfunctional family relationship in Erfworld.



In other words a totally average family relationship in Erf.

No surprise, given that also in old Europe, wars were fought by kings that were often part of the same family.

theangelJean
2015-05-01, 06:31 AM
How does "family" work in Erfworld, anyway? Since reproduction is by popping, what determines who is related to whom? For example, Wanda considered herself and Tommy to be the children of Overlord Firebaugh and she was clearly popped under his rule. Stanley came from a Kingdom, does that make him a child of King Saline (or the previous rulers), and then why isn't he a Noble?

Landis963
2015-05-01, 08:48 AM
How does "family" work in Erfworld, anyway? Since reproduction is by popping, what determines who is related to whom? For example, Wanda considered herself and Tommy to be the children of Overlord Firebaugh and she was clearly popped under his rule. Stanley came from a Kingdom, does that make him a child of King Saline (or the previous rulers), and then why isn't he a Noble?

Stanley was promoted up through the ranks, and then designated Heir. I suspect this makes him closer to an adopted son (or even a legitimized bastard) than a biological one.

Calemyr
2015-05-01, 09:00 AM
How does "family" work in Erfworld, anyway? Since reproduction is by popping, what determines who is related to whom? For example, Wanda considered herself and Tommy to be the children of Overlord Firebaugh and she was clearly popped under his rule. Stanley came from a Kingdom, does that make him a child of King Saline (or the previous rulers), and then why isn't he a Noble?

I think you're only a "child" of someone if you're the the same race/quality as the governor of the city you're popped in. If Stanley had been popped as a royal in Gobwin Knob (the city, not the side), he would be considered Saline's "son". However, we know he was popped as common and just kept getting promoted because he is freaking scary as anything less than an Overlord (and honestly, compared to the other Overlords we've seen, he's not that bad...).

I think family is a lot like signamancy in Erfworld - it's a powerful but subtle undertone of relationships rather than some generic rule of genetics (since genetics aren't a thing beyond signamancy). Or perhaps a natural form of another discipline (date-a-mancy, perhaps, if that involves relationships beyond the physical), connecting a group of characters together in a strong but platonic bond.

Rogar Demonblud
2015-05-01, 09:37 AM
There's also the fact that some units will pop as Royals, which essentially means offspring of the ruler.

Calemyr
2015-05-01, 09:59 AM
There's also the fact that some units will pop as Royals, which essentially means offspring of the ruler.

Ah, I was thinking it was just another grade of unit quality: even better stats and growth rate than a noble, plus a few advancement options not open to nobles and commoners. Of course, I don't think any ruler would pop a royal anywhere but their own capital, which would make them family regardless.

halfeye
2015-05-02, 05:22 AM
Hooray, that "Thinkagram" mess is over.

Welf
2015-05-03, 04:22 AM
Hooray, that "Thinkagram" mess is over.

At least in RL. New update. (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/61)


Yeah, the transgression could be anything at this point. For example, what if Bunny is responsible for Don's "Bat Cam" abilities and that's a power the Great Minds don't want overlords to have? What if her skills were integral to the fall of Don King's numerous heirs, but they weren't all guilty? One was just a good enough leader that it threatened her king? What if she used her access to "certain thinkamancy bands" to listen in on and report to Don about topics that the Great Minds agreed to keep secret? What if she outright told him about the Great Minds, and some of the many conspiracies they're involved in? What if she used her abilities to "rig" battles in a way that the Great Minds find disgusting? Or betray a standing king in favor of a young and upcoming vampire with the charm of a godfather and the hair of a boxing promoter?

If Thinkamancers were allowed to operate with impunity and without guidelines, they could easily be as hated and mistrusted as Carnies. Heck, more than Carnies. The austerity of the Great Minds, the neutrality of the Magic Kingdom, the entire lot in life for entire disciplines of casters in general, all of it could be destroyed very easily by a rogue Thinkamancer with more loyalty to her leader than her kin. Maggie might well become proof of that.

A soul in love can justify many treasons, and not all of them are minor.

I don't think it would be the Bat Cam. All TV warlords already have the ability to get information through their bats, Don simply increases the radius with thinkamancy. He doesn't get any information he wouldn't get anyway, just cuts the middle man. I think maybe Bunny explained too much about how thinkamancy works, and influenced the attempt by Prince Ponzi's to get the throne. Thinkamancy is the magic that keeps erfworld's system of rule and controlling in place. It forces units to obey orders and be loyal.

guttering flame
2015-05-03, 06:27 AM
She says the king 'needs her like he needs air'. Did she cast some dependency-inducing spell on him?

NEO|Phyte
2015-05-03, 06:34 AM
I suspect it's not literal, he's just become so accustomed to the conveniences of Thinkamancy that he'd have no clue what to do if he lacked them.

Killer Angel
2015-05-03, 08:36 AM
As always, love is a dangerous affair...

Lethologica
2015-05-04, 02:26 PM
As always, love is a dangerous affair...
War, somewhat less so, if the latest update is any indicator. :smallwink:

Welf
2015-05-04, 03:10 PM
War, somewhat less so, if the latest update is any indicator. :smallwink:


So we learn his name is fitting. And he inherited the smarts and tactical genius of his mother.

HandofShadows
2015-05-04, 03:23 PM
So we learn his name is fitting. And he inherited the smarts and tactical genius of his mother.

One place Jillian is good in in a fight. Even when she is acting crazy/taking risks, she is aware of it on some level and knows she shouldn't be actin that way. I would also point out that this exercise might have been Jillian's idea. This kid though, still has a lot to learn.

Killer Angel
2015-05-04, 03:37 PM
So we learn his name is fitting. And he inherited the smarts and tactical genius of his mother.

Let's hope the training will teach him something...
I doubt it, but who knows?

-D-
2015-05-04, 04:18 PM
So we learn his name is fitting. And he inherited the smarts and tactical genius of his mother.
I pray he didn't inherit her taste in partners, i.e. her ability to choose worse possible partner in the world.

Is it me or do people that she loves or that love her tend to get royally screwed by Fate (Ansom, Jack, Wanda, her Book 0 lovers). She's like a Fate-succubus.

Lethologica
2015-05-04, 05:03 PM
I pray he didn't inherit her taste in partners, i.e. her ability to choose worse possible partner in the world.

Is it me or do people that she loves or that love her tend to get royally screwed by Fate (Ansom, Jack, Wanda, her Book 0 lovers). She's like a Fate-succubus.
Vinny isn't the worst possible partner in the world, I don't think.

-D-
2015-05-04, 05:18 PM
Vinny isn't the worst possible partner in the world, I don't think.
I fear he will be. Heck I bet he dies when Caesar decides to absorb FAQ.

slayerx
2015-05-05, 08:39 AM
So we learn his name is fitting. And he inherited the smarts and tactical genius of his mother.

While Jillian is no tactical genius she does have better instincts for battle. I mean a quick point is that unlike her son she atleast know how to use a screen to protect herself so that she can get close enough to attack. (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%201/126) Heck she can even be less reckless, like in her other fight against Stanely (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/15) she knew if her forces just charged on him he would just pick them off and thus had to hold until the time was right

HalfTangible
2015-05-05, 12:44 PM
I never understood the argument that Jillian is an idiot, especially when it's applied to her battle prowess. She clearly knows how to fight, and was good enough to make it to level 9 even before she had her reborn kingdom.

HandofShadows
2015-05-05, 01:08 PM
People think that because she has done a lot of stupid things because of her impulsiveness and lack of tact. And when she does something smart they can't reconcile it and ignore it.

Rogar Demonblud
2015-05-05, 02:14 PM
We don't ignore it. We just label it "Blind Pig Finds Truffle" and move on.

HandofShadows
2015-05-05, 03:24 PM
We don't ignore it. We just label it "Blind Pig Finds Truffle" and move on.

Considering that pigs don't find truffles by sight, but rather by using their nose, that saying makes no sense.

-D-
2015-05-05, 03:47 PM
I never understood the argument that Jillian is an idiot, especially when it's applied to her battle prowess. She clearly knows how to fight, and was good enough to make it to level 9 even before she had her reborn kingdom.
No one said she was an idiot. She's basically female Stanley, albeit without any growth as a character and with a horrible crutch excuse for her behavior (She was branehax0r by Chorlie). Admittedly, she lacks Stanley's keen people management skills. Interesting though anyone that is romantically involved with the Yellow Queen, ends up like they met the King In Yellow.

If Stanley is "Titan's favorite son" then Jillian is "Titan Rob's favorite daughter".


We don't ignore it. We just label it "Blind Pig Finds Truffle" and move on.
Dude that's uncalled for. Pig are intelligent, clean animals. Don't insult them.

We have a similar term where I come from: "Even blind hen picks a grain".

HalfTangible
2015-05-05, 04:17 PM
No one said she was an idiot.Yes they have. A lot and often.

Maybe not in THIS particular conversation.


She's basically female Stanley,I thought you just said she wasn't an idiot.


albeit without any growth as a character and with a horrible crutch excuse for her behavior (She was branehax0r by Chorlie).1) Remember how she started this story as a spy in the Coalition in an abusive relationship maintained through mind control, and is currently a Queen doing what's best for her side as much as possible? She's had growth.
2) What makes you say her 'brainhax0r' is why she's "had no growth"? We don't know WHAT Charlie did to her head, because that story ended abruptly and has not continued since.


Admittedly, she lacks Stanley's keen people management skills....Are you serious?!


Interesting though anyone that is romantically involved with the Yellow Queen, ends up like they met the King In Yellow.Considering the nature of Erfworld, that's probably not a coincidence :smallwink:


If Stanley is "Titan's favorite son" then Jillian is "Titan Rob's favorite daughter".I'm not gonna defend her treatment by the story overall (seriously, she's NOT this amazing person, stop pretending she is), but I will point out that her most recent giant mistake was something she was called out for, and seemed to realize herself was a mistake.

Also, it's perfectly possible she really DOES have a fate blessing.


We don't ignore it. We just label it "Blind Pig Finds Truffle" and move on.

That's called the confirmation bias :smallwink: Sooner or later you have to consider that the blind pig has a nose.

Coidzor
2015-05-05, 07:29 PM
I pray he didn't inherit her taste in partners, i.e. her ability to choose worse possible partner in the world.

Other than the Wanda complication, there's nothing that clearly shows that her choice of lover was all that terrible given the context.


Is it me or do people that she loves or that love her tend to get royally screwed by Fate (Ansom, Jack, Wanda, her Book 0 lovers). She's like a Fate-succubus.

On the other hand, Jillian is the reason that Wanda is still around after Wanda was initially royally screwed by Fate.

Aquillion
2015-05-06, 01:13 AM
It is kind of interesting to think about why people hate Jillian so much (she gets way more of it than any other character in the comic.) Admittedly, I don't like her much myself, so I'll try to use my feelings as a basis.

A big part of it might just be that she's often done things that go against what readers want to happen... for very personal reasons that readers are unlikely to find cool. There are lots of antagonists in the series, but most of them are evil masterminds (Charlie), driven by personal ideology (most of Jetstone), loyalty to someone else or some idea, and so on. Jillian has repeatedly been a spanner-in-the-works for Parson (and, sometimes, Charlie's) plans, and I think a lot of readers don't like that because they prefer to see plots resolved by cleverness or, at least, by the protagonist's actions rather than by the love-life of a secondary character.

Which might lead to another issue -- is Jillian supposed to be a secondary character? I suspect that the authors intend for her to be a protagonist, but she doesn't feel like it. We're rarely given a genuinely sympathetic view of her -- maybe in part because her personality doesn't attract sympathy? Her backstory seemed intended to make us sympathize with her, but honestly I found I liked her even less after it; part of the issue was that it felt like it turned a lot of other potentially-interesting characters -- especially her father -- into caricatures in order to try and make Jillian look better against them. In fact, I was mostly ambivalent to her early on, but I've come to dislike her more as it has felt like the story was trying to make me like her. (I mentioned this before, but the breaking point for me was when Tramennis, a fan-favorite at the time, praised her to a somewhat absurd-seeming degree as she betrayed them by leaving the battlefield. Yes, you could put together a reason why it made sense, but it felt to me like a classic example of Shilling the Wesley.)

Another part of the issue might be that she's been heavily defined by her love for Ansom, who most readers are likely to find completely unlovable. I find him an interesting character in some ways, especially after his most recent page, but it's completely impossible to see what Jillian sees in him. Her desire for revenge and her wish to "fix" his devotion to Wanda come across as hypocritical in the context of the setting (since we, as omniscient readers, know that Ansom is no less of a person than he was before; and we know that Jillian employs a Turnamancer, and used her to recruit her current chief warlord, which makes her obsession with 'freeing' Ansom a bit hypocritical.)

Also, as Ansom correctly pointed out, her decision to view Decrypted as non-people unless they're him was pretty pathetic; it certainly didn't score her any more points with the readers than it did with him.

Her desire for revenge on Stanley is hard for readers to follow because Stanley himself just... doesn't seem like a worthwhile target. He doesn't even know or remember who she is. The attack itself was masterminded by Wanda and probably Charlie. Her father was unlovable and she hated Faq and while, yes, you can make an interesting character about her feeling the need for revenge despite all these things, the narrative hasn't really given us enough to get into those feelings. (That is, we didn't really see enough of a connection between her and her father or Faq for us to sympathize with that part of her motivation.) It feels like she's seeking revenge out of perfunctory desire to fill in the checklists about how a hero ought to react in this case.

I suspect that if she were the sole protagonist, we'd be able to empathize with her despite all this; but this combined with the fact that we've often seen her as an antagonist from Parson's perspective pretty much dooms her with the audience, since (viewing her from that perspective) we're more likely to fill in the blanks in her character uncharitably rather than charitably. My impression was that Ansom got about as much hate as Jillian does back when he was an antagonist; but people sympathize with him a bit more now that he's changed sides. (Granted, a lot of this comes from scenes like his last one with Jack and him commenting on Jillian's callous murder of other Decrypted.)

Although I also think that part of it is that it feels like the comic frequently pushes us to sympathize with or side with Jillian more than most other characters (again, the point when I really switched to actively hating her was when Tramennis started talking about how awesome she was, although I also intensely disliked the cartoonish way her father way portrayed, and that made me dislike her in turn because it felt like that was intended to make her look good.) I don't particularly like Jojo or Charlie, and I didn't like King Slately or Ossomer (although I could empathize with them a bit), but it didn't feel like I was really supposed to. It feels like the way the audience is supposed to see Jillian and the way a lot of people here see her are way off.

Maybe I'm wrong, though? They did have Ansom call her out for refusing to treat other Decrypted prisoners as people.

-D-
2015-05-06, 04:42 AM
I thought you just said she wasn't an idiot.
Things I also haven't said - Stanley is an idiot. Stanley isn't an idiot. He got promoted above his competency level most likely at Wanda's behest. Stanley actually displayed quite a bit of level headedness and he is a competent leader. He's incompetent when it comes to overall strategy, but he is not an idiot by any shape of form.


1) Remember how she started this story as a spy in the Coalition in an abusive relationship maintained through mind control, and is currently a Queen doing what's best for her side as much as possible? She's had growth.
Her role has changed but as a character, she never stopped being anything more than a dog with two bones - killing Stanley and boning Wanda/Ansom. Everything she did can be summed in that.


What makes you say her 'brainhax0r' is why she's "had no growth"?
I didn't say it did. I said it was just an excuse why she is such a stagnant character. I hope seeing herself in prince Albert will actually make her a bit more - reflective. That and her talk with Don holds more promise. His kind words, came as a shock to her and I like that.


...Are you serious?!
I must have missed a smiley there. :smallwink:


Considering the nature of Erfworld, that's probably not a coincidence :smallwink: Also, it's perfectly possible she really DOES have a fate blessing.
Don't get me started on how whole Fate shtick really ticks off my bad writing sensors. It robs characters of agency and I want characters to succeed on their own merits and not because some innate mechanics says so. Imagine if DM could reroll dice whenever he felt like you didn't deserve it or just wanted to punish you. I mean sure it can happen, but it feels sooo much cheaper.


she's NOT this amazing person, stop pretending she is), but I will point out that her most recent giant mistake was something she was called out for, and seemed to realize herself was a mistake.
Right. She's not that amazing character so why give her that much plot armor. Sure she is being called on her mistakes but it carries no cost for her. It's like doing something wrong, getting some verbal flak and you suffer no consequences. Of course you repeat the same move, because it had no consequences...

I look forward to it having some consequences, which Book 3 is implying. I think TV changing to GK will shake her up tremendously.


Other than the Wanda complication, there's nothing that clearly shows that her choice of lover was all that terrible given the context.
Well, her other lover just tried to kill her. Though to be fair, it's more horrible for the lover rather than Jillian.


On the other hand, Jillian is the reason that Wanda is still around after Wanda was initially royally screwed by Fate.
I think you're not giving Fate enough credit for it ;)

Yuki Akuma
2015-05-06, 06:08 AM
Things I also haven't said - Stanley is an idiot. Stanley isn't an idiot. He got promoted above his competency level most likely at Wanda's behest.

Wanda wasn't a Gobwin Knob unit when Stanley was made heir. How could she have manipulated King Saline into promoting him when she was a Faq unit?

Stanley was promoted because he attuned to the Arkenhammer and promptly lead a bunch of really impressive campaigns that resembled death metal album covers.

hajo
2015-05-06, 06:08 AM
Stanley isn't an idiot. He got promoted above his competency level most likely at Wanda's behest.
Stanley got promoted long before Wanda:
Piker --> Warlord --> Arkenhammer --> Dwagons --> Heir --> sacks FAQ, gets Wanda

-D-
2015-05-06, 06:58 AM
Wanda wasn't a Gobwin Knob unit when Stanley was made heir. How could she have manipulated King Saline into promoting him when she was a Faq unit?

Stanley was promoted because he attuned to the Arkenhammer and promptly lead a bunch of really impressive campaigns that resembled death metal album covers.
Stanley is competent Warlord, but not a competent Overlord. So, I was referring to mysterious circumstances regarding Saline's death. I suspect it Wanda/Stanley had something to do with it.

Calemyr
2015-05-06, 11:17 AM
Stanley is competent Warlord, but not a competent Overlord. So, I was referring to mysterious circumstances regarding Saline's death. I suspect it Wanda/Stanley had something to do with it.

I somehow doubt Wanda and Stanley had a hand in Saline's death. Charlie, on the other hand... I could certainly see a kingdom under Saline with Stanley as his chief warlord being exactly the kind of strength Charlie wants to avoid. Charlie's survival, after all, relies heavily on constant warfare. A good king combined with an excellent chief warlord could promote stability. As could a thriving example of a pacifist side. I could easily see him manipulate things so that the two sides would destroy one another. Convince Wanda to lure Stanley into Faq, rig the odds of dwagons popping along the path, and Faq gets roasted while leaving Gobwin Knob without its heavy hitters and protected mainly by a third party whose loyalties are just kind of assumed rather than known - loyalties he can manipulate from behind the scenes. This places Gobwin Knob in Stanley's hands, while placing Stanley in the hands of a true believer whose beliefs will push Stanley into a self-destructive crusade.

End result - pacifist country annihilated; barbarian-like princess of said country free, ready, and willing to promote war; stabilizing side not only removed but transformed into the greatest destabilizing factor in the region. The winner on all fronts? Charlie. And all with negligible exposure for Erf's favorite Carney.

Of course, this assumes that Saline was a good king and not just another royal with head stuck up his... crown. It does seem logical, though, as GK was supposedly a prosperous and powerful side before Stanley began his holy mission.

Landis963
2015-05-06, 11:57 AM
Of course, this assumes that Saline was a good king and not just another royal with head stuck up his... crown. It does seem logical, though, as GK was supposedly a prosperous and powerful side before Stanley began his holy mission.

The fact that Saline designated Stanley as Heir rather than pop another Royal backs you up on this, IMO.

HalfTangible
2015-05-06, 11:57 AM
Things I also haven't said - Stanley is an idiot.I am. He's an idiot.


Stanley isn't an idiot. He got promoted above his competency level most likely at Wanda's behest. Stanley actually displayed quite a bit of level headedness and he is a competent leader. He's incompetent when it comes to overall strategy, but he is not an idiot by any shape of form.

This character's entire motivation for everything he does is either A) because it's cartoonishly evil or B) he likes it.

That's stupid.

Granted, he's growing, and I do like his character a LOT, but he still ain't bright.


Her role has changed but as a character, she never stopped being anything more than a dog with two bones - killing Stanley and boning Wanda/Ansom. Everything she did can be summed in that.She was also a selfish loner who cared about as much about her comrades as I do about my peeled fingernails, and the concept that she could fail through her own faults was about as foreign to her as Latin. Also, again, she started book 1 willingly under the mind control of a sociopath.

Also, she took up rulership. An idea she once considered to be utterly disgusting.


I didn't say it did. I said it was just an excuse why she is such a stagnant character. I hope seeing herself in prince Albert will actually make her a bit more - reflective. That and her talk with Don holds more promise. His kind words, came as a shock to her and I like that.Except it's not. Because we don't know what happened there, now do we?


Don't get me started on how whole Fate shtick really ticks off my bad writing sensors. It robs characters of agency and I want characters to succeed on their own merits and not because some innate mechanics says so. Imagine if DM could reroll dice whenever he felt like you didn't deserve it or just wanted to punish you. I mean sure it can happen, but it feels sooo much cheaper. Except the characters still succeed on their merits >.> Fate in this world works on about the same level as contrivance - it only does so much for the characters on its own, it can't get them out of everything.



Right. She's not that amazing character so why give her that much plot armor. Sure she is being called on her mistakes but it carries no cost for her. It's like doing something wrong, getting some verbal flak and you suffer no consequences. Of course you repeat the same move, because it had no consequences...I'd say losing the only prize she GOT from that battle, being in debt to Charlie (again), nearly losing her life (and being saved in a manner that implies Fate was not going to save her) and being forced to give the enemy you hate time to regroup would be a consequence. Or several.


I look forward to it having some consequences, which Book 3 is implying. I think TV changing to GK will shake her up tremendously.Also lookin' forward to it.


(I mentioned this before, but the breaking point for me was when Tramennis, a fan-favorite at the time, praised her to a somewhat absurd-seeming degree as she betrayed them by leaving the battlefield. Yes, you could put together a reason why it made sense, but it felt to me like a classic example of Shilling the Wesley.)

'Betrayed' is rather harsh. Jetstone had won. As far as Jillian could tell, there was no reason at all for them to lose the fight.

And let's be honest - even after she left, the fight was a draw. Gobwin Knob failed to accomplish its goal, Jetstone failed to accomplish its goal, even Charlescomm failed to accomplish its goal. And as Parson said, what victories they had were Pyrrhic.

-D-
2015-05-06, 02:54 PM
I am. He's an idiot. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. You considering him an idiot and by extension Jillian is just funny as hell.


This character's entire motivation for everything he does is either A) because it's cartoonishly evil or B) he likes it.
Riiight. Trying to improve yourself, especially the way you interact with people is because it's cartoonishly evil or he likes it. *rolleyes*


She was also a selfish loner who cared about as much about her comrades as I do about my peeled fingernails, and the concept that she could fail through her own faults was about as foreign to her as Latin. Also, again, she started book 1 willingly under the mind control of a sociopath.

Also, she took up rulership. An idea she once considered to be utterly disgusting.
Well to her credits, she doesn't care about her comrades too much even now. And the concept of failing due to her own merits insofar (with exception of Ansom throwing her off), was just as foreign.

She "took" up rulership in a same way a hydrophobic dog takes to water. Unwillingly.


Except it's not. Because we don't know what happened there, now do we?
We know nothing too major. Because Jillian before treatment and Jillian after treatment is pretty much the same character. She's just the same charging dumbass.


Except the characters still succeed on their merits >.> Fate in this world works on about the same level as contrivance - it only does so much for the characters on its own, it can't get them out of everything.
It's hard to tell, Fate seems to only stops working once every possible limit is exhausted. It seems to me Fate always work until, you break it by being an overwhelming moron or magic.


nearly losing her life (and being saved in a manner that implies Fate was not going to save her)
That's debatable. I would imagine if Fate wasn't involved she would have croaked from the fall. It was a long fall, it has greater chance to kill you. Maybe her Fate wasn't so much to die, but to force Charlie to refund the damage she inflicted. Maybe Fate cared less about her and more about GK having cities.

HalfTangible
2015-05-06, 03:56 PM
Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. You considering him an idiot and by extension Jillian is just funny as hell.I don't consider Jillian to the female Stanley, though. YOU said that one :smallwink:


Riiight. Trying to improve yourself, especially the way you interact with people is because it's cartoonishly evil or he likes it. *rolleyes*Okay, one, to get this out of the way, I acknowledge that he's growing. That doesn't change that at his core, he's those two personality traits and not much else. And atm, he still hasn't moved far beyond that.

Two:
'Get it wrong and I'll disband you, caster or no'
'We're attacking Charlie' *after thinking about how utterly impossible that is* 'Good, I hate that guy'
'We can only make friends if we get to backstab them later'
'Pick the most handsome and dashing one left and make him a warlord'
*Pretty much everything he said or did in book 1, but in particular the part where he ignored his caster's advice on how spells work*


Well to her credits, she doesn't care about her comrades too much even now.Yeah, but now she gives a crap at all.

Not MUCH change, but it's change.


And the concept of failing due to her own merits insofar (with exception of Ansom throwing her off), was just as foreign. 1) That's called 'confidence', not 'stupidity'.
2) She's been prepared for failure in pretty much every engagement she's actually been in. SHE was the one who brought up to Vinny that they looked horribly outmatched in the pass battle, for instance. And DUNCAN was the one who convinced her to leave Spacerock to its fate because, after all, if they could lose at a fight like that they deserved to.


She "took" up rulership in a same way a hydrophobic dog takes to water. Unwillingly.And? She still threw herself into it and is doing her level best to be good at it.

And if she REALLY wanted to, she could've just said 'screw it' and not made herself a queen.


We know nothing too major. Because Jillian before treatment and Jillian after treatment is pretty much the same character. She's just the same charging dumbass.You're missing the point. You stated earlier that the brain hack is being used as an excuse to keep her stagnant.

How? We don't know anything about what Charlie did in there. We know the Healomancer wanted to make Jillian more of a pacifist, but we also know she didn't get the opportunity she wanted because Jillian already had the moral center she wanted to add in.


It's hard to tell, Fate seems to only stops working once every possible limit is exhausted. It seems to me Fate always work until, you break it by being an overwhelming moron or magic.On what basis? We see two actual instances of Fate working beyond a character's control to keep something going (Antium's first death and the falling bit of wood when Parson was reading the scroll) and both were reasonably practical under the circumstances.

(Sylvia was being kept alive through Carnymancy, she doesn't count)


That's debatable. I would imagine if Fate wasn't involved she would have croaked from the fall. It was a long fall, it has greater chance to kill you. Maybe her Fate wasn't so much to die, but to force Charlie to refund the damage she inflicted. Maybe Fate cared less about her and more about GK having cities.

I meant the fact that Charlie stepped in to keep her alive at great personal cost because of a 'contractual obligation' to keep her alive. Charlie is probably the biggest proponent of fighting against Fate in the series, and he didn't even TRY that roll of the dice. And by Parson's bracer, there was a not-unreasonable chance that Stanley could be croaked in that fight.

Spojaz
2015-05-06, 04:23 PM
'Pick the most handsome and dashing one left and make him a warlord'

Knowing what we know now, that one seems much less absurd. The better a warlord was, the more handsome their signamancy would make them.

HalfTangible
2015-05-06, 04:29 PM
Knowing what we know now, that one seems much less absurd. The better a warlord was, the more handsome their signamancy would make them.

1) Wanda's reaction indicates that Stanley was looking for the wrong qualities in their signamancy, and I'm inclined to agree with her.
2) 'Less absurd' does not mean it's no longer absurd. This method of selection is not true often enough to be a good measure for their status, as indicated by the fact that by the time tBfGK rolled around, Stanely had 'squandered his leadership corps'.

Lethologica
2015-05-06, 04:43 PM
Knowing what we know now, that one seems much less absurd. The better a warlord was, the more handsome their signamancy would make them.
We know that signamancy reflects inner self to some extent. However, the claim that handsome/dashing signamancy correlates specifically to warlord quality is immediately repudiated by in-comic evidence, starting with Stanley himself (a fine warlord who could never be called 'handsome' or 'dashing'), continuing with the demonstrated failure of Stanley's warlord-choosing policy, and driven home by none other than Parson, our 'perfect warlord', who hardly looks the part.

All this could be interpreted as Stanley outsmarting himself with a facile argument if there was any evidence whatsoever that Stanley was trying to game Signamancy in the first place, but there isn't. As far as we can tell, Stanley wasn't choosing handsome/dashing warlords as a proxy heuristic for competence--he genuinely thought it was more important to be handsome/dashing than to be competent in other ways.

Welf
2015-05-06, 04:52 PM
Her desire for revenge on Stanley is hard for readers to follow because Stanley himself just... doesn't seem like a worthwhile target. He doesn't even know or remember who she is. The attack itself was masterminded by Wanda and probably Charlie. Her father was unlovable and she hated Faq and while, yes, you can make an interesting character about her feeling the need for revenge despite all these things, the narrative hasn't really given us enough to get into those feelings. (That is, we didn't really see enough of a connection between her and her father or Faq for us to sympathize with that part of her motivation.) It feels like she's seeking revenge out of perfunctory desire to fill in the checklists about how a hero ought to react in this case.

I suspect that if she were the sole protagonist, we'd be able to empathize with her despite all this; but this combined with the fact that we've often seen her as an antagonist from Parson's perspective pretty much dooms her with the audience, since (viewing her from that perspective) we're more likely to fill in the blanks in her character uncharitably rather than charitably. My impression was that Ansom got about as much hate as Jillian does back when he was an antagonist; but people sympathize with him a bit more now that he's changed sides. (Granted, a lot of this comes from scenes like his last one with Jack and him commenting on Jillian's callous murder of other Decrypted.)

I pretty much agree with all you wrote. But I'm a bit harsher on her. Jillian is a horrible person, and it shows in her hate for Stanley. The latter killed her father and compatriots and destroyed her home, the place she had the duty to protect. All of these are very good reasons for going on a crusade for revenge, and we could all understand it. Yet, nothing of that motivates her. She didn't care her father and home was annihilated, she never expressed any grief about the deaths of her compatriots, and expressed relief she was free of her duty to protect the kingdom.
And yet she spend all her life and energy to hunt and kill Stanley, for no other reason than spite and that she hated the idea someone took something away from her, even if she didn't want it. She is simply a spoiled royal, an upper-class putz and nothing more. It was quite easy for her to become queen and took the royal arrogance towards commoners.
Jillian doesn't care about people, with the rare exception of her lovers, Ansom and Wanda. When she saw Jack, her only friend at court, her reaction was a meagre "hey you can join me and help me kill Stanley". What does this say about her priorities? He next attempt to turn him was also quite lackluster.
And last but not least, she is a shallow person. All the other main characters and leaders we saw try to strive for something higher. Stanley tried to give his existence purpose with the New Titan Mandate, Ossomer tried to be a man of honour, Ansom tried to be a noble man, serving king and titans, Slately and Don King tried to uphold the Old Titanic Mandate, the Hippymancers and Parson try to "break erfworld". They might be hypocrites, they might be zealots, they might fail at it but they aim for something higher. Only Jillian has the stated purpose to only life for her own desires.

-D-
2015-05-06, 05:11 PM
I don't consider Jillian to the female Stanley, though.
I'm not the only one. But she is eerily similar.


Okay, one, to get this out of the way, I acknowledge that he's growing. That doesn't change that at his core, he's those two personality traits and not much else. And atm, he still hasn't moved far beyond that.
And I acknowledge that there is possibility that Jillian will grow, but so far, she's pretty much behind Stanley in terms of interesting character.

When you look at Stanley you see a troubled individual that was distanced from the things he liked by his ambition. He isn't motivated just by being cartoonishly evil and impulsive. He's pretty much stated to have a strong inferiority complex - he has need for praise, for proving himself superior and yet he eschews all insignias. Small tidbits like that make him interesting. And that's before Book 2. From Book 2 so far he's changed a lot.

When you look at Jill, you see someone who pretty screwed up anyone that liked her and that hasn't significantly changed since Book 0. She's a queen now. Stop the ****ing presses. Only now in Book 3 is her character getting some development. Hopefully.
--------------------
To contrast. Stanley is troubled because he got what he wished for and wasn't that he yearned. Jillian is troubled because she didn't get to enact her vengenance or hump her lover(s). One is more relateable than the other.


Two:
'Get it wrong and I'll disband you, caster or no'
'We're attacking Charlie' *after thinking about how utterly impossible that is* 'Good, I hate that guy'
'We can only make friends if we get to backstab them later'
'Pick the most handsome and dashing one left and make him a warlord'
*Pretty much everything he said or did in book 1, but in particular the part where he ignored his caster's advice on how spells work*

Three:
'Good job.'
'Who's the hero now, Hamster?'


Yeah, but now she gives a crap at all.
She used to give crap before. I think she was devastated with what happened to Bart. She gave zero ****s about Court though.



1) That's called 'confidence', not 'stupidity'.
2) She's been prepared for failure in pretty much every engagement she's actually been in. SHE was the one who brought up to Vinny that they looked horribly outmatched in the pass battle, for instance. And DUNCAN was the one who convinced her to leave Spacerock to its fate because, after all, if they could lose at a fight like that they deserved to.
1) Yeah? By same reasoning Stanley rushing in to change capital is called 'trust in a higher Fate' and not 'stupidity'. He had his swarm of dragons, his trusted Hobogobwins and an Arkentool.
2) No she wasn't. She was totally unprepared for GK owning at Battle of Spacerock. Duncan rationalized her choice, it was pretty much made by then. Even he knew those two wouldn't fight.



And if she REALLY wanted to, she could've just said 'screw it' and not made herself a queen.
She sure looked happy about it. Throwing that teacup and all.



On what basis? We see two actual instances of Fate working beyond a character's control to keep something going (Antium's first death and the falling bit of wood when Parson was reading the scroll) and both were reasonably practical under the circumstances.
Right and when Wanda asks Delphie what if she jumps off the Tower. Delphie says she won't. That can be taken as a sign Fate influences more than just numbers and falling logs.



I meant the fact that Charlie stepped in to keep her alive at great personal cost because of a 'contractual obligation' to keep her alive. Charlie is probably the biggest proponent of fighting against Fate in the series, and he didn't even TRY that roll of the dice. And by Parson's bracer, there was a not-unreasonable chance that Stanley could be croaked in that fight.
Charlie is probably knows that removing Jillian will create an even worse unit to ruin his plans. So while he is desperately avoiding that route, Fate makes Parson a bit stronger, while he doesn't seem as that big of a threat. Basically force Charlie between a rock and a hard place. Also Fate of one unit is compensated by other units, according to Book 0, so if one units scores higher, her score is repaid from deaths of other units (foe and ally alike). It's eerily that all Jillian's lovers tend to end up worse for wear, as if something is draining their Fate. A certain Queen in Yellow, perhaps?

HalfTangible
2015-05-06, 05:33 PM
Okay, we've gotten to the point where I can no longer understand your basic sentence structure OR where you're pulling half of the ideas in your post that you state as fact. Either I badly need sleep, or we're talking so far past each other that there's no point in continuing. :smallsigh:

Aquillion
2015-05-06, 06:21 PM
'Betrayed' is rather harsh. Jetstone had won. As far as Jillian could tell, there was no reason at all for them to lose the fight.

And let's be honest - even after she left, the fight was a draw. Gobwin Knob failed to accomplish its goal, Jetstone failed to accomplish its goal, even Charlescomm failed to accomplish its goal. And as Parson said, what victories they had were Pyrrhic.Gobwin Knob killed Jetstone's king, destroyed most of its forces (and decrypted them, so it was able to replenish its own losses), and captured its capital. It didn't manage to completely obliterate the side in one blow, sure, but it achieved about as total a victory as it could have short of that.

Beyond that, though... yeah, you can come up with reasons why it was acceptable for Tramennis to suddenly go "omg Jillian so awesomes I wish I was that awesome <3 <3 <3 <3 <3." But it read to me as if the authors specifically set that scene up because they wanted to have a character people liked praising her in hopes that it would make her more popular with fans or build up her image or something; his reaction just struck me as jarring overall.

HalfTangible
2015-05-06, 06:35 PM
Gobwin Knob killed Jetstone's king, destroyed most of its forces (and decrypted them, so it was able to replenish its own losses), and captured its capital. It didn't manage to completely obliterate the side in one blow, sure, but it achieved about as total a victory as it could have short of that.Their goal was to end Jetstone as a side, which they failed to do. They lost most of their dwagons and all of their archons, neither of which can be replenished easily. They lost several high-level warlords and a massive ground force. They were forced to change their capital to one of the most vulnerable cities in the side. As Parson said, what they gained was not worth what they lost.

Again, it was at best a pyrrhic victory. More realistically it was a draw.


Beyond that, though... yeah, you can come up with reasons why it was acceptable for Tramennis to suddenly go "omg Jillian so awesomes I wish I was that awesome <3 <3 <3 <3 <3." But it read to me as if the authors specifically set that scene up because they wanted to have a character people liked praising her in hopes that it would make her more popular with fans or build up her image or something; his reaction just struck me as jarring overall.
I didn't get that impression. I got the idea he appreciated that she was headstrong and bluntly honest.

Heck, I didn't even like Traeminnis all that much when I first read it.

Lizard Lord
2015-05-07, 03:07 AM
'We're attacking Charlie' *after thinking about how utterly impossible that is* 'Good, I hate that guy'


You left out the part where he believes Parson could do it anyway.


Which, unless this is a shaggy dog story, Parson can.

guttering flame
2015-05-07, 03:48 AM
I speculated once that the healomancer's meddling in Jillian's brain were the cause of her love for Ansom. He's a picture-perfect royalist prince that would fit with the healomancer shallow rosy worldview.

-D-
2015-05-07, 04:55 AM
Which, unless this is a shaggy dog story, Parson can.
It's not that Parson can, it's that he will. The summoning spell looked for someone that will also take down Charlie, end wars and ???.


Their goal was to end Jetstone as a side, which they failed to do. They lost most of their dwagons and all of their archons, neither of which can be replenished easily. They lost several high-level warlords and a massive ground force. They were forced to change their capital to one of the most vulnerable cities in the side. As Parson said, what they gained was not worth what they lost.
Their goal wasn't necessary to end Jetstone. Their goal was to remove their enemies from the board. If their goal was to end them as a side, they wouldn't have to offer parley to them or to queen Bea. They didn't fully succeed but Jetstone is off the board for time being.

Also all most if not all of those losses were repelished during Battle of Spacerock and/or Battle of Binding Arbitration.

Oh and their weakest position just got an autonomous tower. I'd say that's not too bad.

HalfTangible
2015-05-07, 09:22 AM
You left out the part where he believes Parson could do it anyway.And? :smallconfused: Stanley's motivation for killing Charlie (and not allying with him in the tBfGK) was 'i hate the guy'.


Their goal wasn't necessary to end Jetstone. Their goal was to remove their enemies from the board. If their goal was to end them as a side, they wouldn't have to offer parley to them or to queen Bea. They didn't fully succeed but Jetstone is off the board for time being."A direct capital strike. I will simply TAKE Jetstone." -Ansom

Moreover, the plan was to remove Jetstone entirely. Currently, they're still around and kicking, just too weak to do anything to GK.

A scenario where neither side got what they wanted and nothing was really concluded. It's a tie. :smallwink:


Also all most if not all of those losses were repelished during Battle of Spacerock and/or Battle of Binding Arbitration. To be perfectly frank, those units are nowhere near as valuable as a fleet of dwagons and a fleet of archons.


Oh and their weakest position just got an autonomous tower. I'd say that's not too bad.That's not really a victory so much as a consolation prize >.>

Legato Endless
2015-05-07, 09:53 AM
*slides onto an arm of the dislikes Jillian couch*

In addition to all of the aforementioned, Jillian also bears the distinction that she renders certain other characters less likable when she enters the scene. Wanda has a number of things she can bring into a dramatic scene, except when Jillian is there, and then it's all jilted lover all the time post book 1 with no sign of things changing. Don went from reasonably pragmatic monarch (and therefor a sympathetic character in this fandom) to another mandate of heaven royalist, and one who supports Jillian even though it's destabilized his side to the point of threatening extinction. Now, that's not Jillian's fault in story, but the association still leaves things bitter. I'm also not entirely sure why Don bought into the royalist orthodoxy after the Battle of Gobwin Knob beyond the narrative need to give Jillian a backer for kingdom building, although I like the TV coup storyline, for all it's slow pacing.

Killing Stanley is Jillian's big goal, but you can't really say she brings anything dramatically great out of him. Stanley's best scenes don't involve her, and the feud is mostly one sided. Jillian is just the gadfly to him of all people. Jillian annoys Stanley, Stanley responds and then forgets about it. Out of sight, out of mind. Tramennis, a character who spends a lot of time pushing other people's philosophical buttons in an entertaining fashion...doesn't get to do that in his scene with Jillian. Heck, Jack and Ansom just had a much more interesting characterization scene with each other, than the two have had with her in some time. And Charlie and Jillian is basically Charlie telling Jillian what needs to happen, and Jillian ignoring him. Oh, and sacrificing significant resources to save her ass.

HalfTangible
2015-05-07, 10:06 AM
*slides onto an arm of the dislikes Jillian couch*

In addition to all of the aforementioned, Jillian also bears the distinction that she renders certain other characters less likable when she enters the scene. Wanda has a number of things she can bring into a dramatic scene, except when Jillian is there, and then it's all jilted lover all the time post book 1 with no sign of things changing.*shrug* I dislike Wanda in any case. But I don't blame Jillian for this jilted lover garbage anyway - that's Wanda's problem.


Don went from reasonably pragmatic monarch (and therefor a sympathetic character in this fandom) to another mandate of heaven royalist, and one who supports Jillian even though it's destabilized his side to the point of threatening extinction. Now, that's not Jillian's fault in story, but the association still leaves things bitter. I'm also not entirely sure why Don bought into the royalist orthodoxy after the Battle of Gobwin Knob beyond the narrative need to give Jillian a backer for kingdom building, although I like the TV coup storyline, for all it's slow pacing.

My impression is that he began to buy into it once he noticed what Stanley (a non-royal overlord) behaved like. Like he demonstrated to Jillian, a ruler that doesn't care about nobility, honor, etc (that royals are supposed to epitomize) is an ugly thing to see.

He threw himself harder into it once Bea died, though. Unaroyal was a huge wrench in Erfworld's workings.

Though to be perfectly honest, most of what we've been told about Don's ruling style has been secondhand. We saw him once before he bought into the Royal Mandate thing, and that wasn't a very extensive interaction.

-D-
2015-05-07, 10:12 AM
And? :smallconfused: Stanley's motivation for killing Charlie (and not allying with him in the tBfGK) was 'i hate the guy'.
I get we don't know full extent of why Stanley hates Charlie. I suspect it has to do with Gobwin's rebellion.

Why does he need more motivation than:
A) Disliking Charlie
B) Charlie attacking his CWL

:smallconfused: ? Wars have been fought over less.


"A direct capital strike. I will simply TAKE Jetstone." -Ansom
"All along you misunderstood our side's intentions. We would prefer alliance to conqest" - Ansom.


Moreover, the plan was to remove Jetstone entirely. Currently, they're still around and kicking, just too weak to do anything to GK.
It's like what like Parson said. Perfect tactical genius doesn't mean one flawless victory after another. They didn't fulfill all of their objectives but they did horrible damage to Jetstone and RCC. Destroying Jetstone is just a small step to removing external threats and moving onto Charlie.

Aftermath of battle:
A) Jetstone is no position to fight - Trammenis needs to earn trust of his peers
B) Haggar is closer to GK than Jetstone
C) Transylvitto is running out of Shmuckers, in no position to fight.
D) FAQ achieved nothing, lost bunch of their forces, in no position to fight barring Turnamancy. Probably lost confidence of Jetstone as well.
---------
E) Gobwin Knob reasonably alive and healthy, ready for another round.


That's not really a victory so much as a consolation prize >.>
That's kinda the point. GK with Parson + Plier is like a foe that can regenerate from a single cell. Anything other than total annihilation will just let him return stronger before you get to recuperate.

HalfTangible
2015-05-07, 10:30 AM
No, no, forget it. I said I wasn't talking about this anymore, stopping now. For real this time.

Legato Endless
2015-05-07, 10:39 AM
No, no, forget it. I said I wasn't talking about this anymore, stopping now. For real this time.

So HalfTangible, what do you think of the latest artwork? Are the flying scenes dynamic? Are the characters emoting? Was Bunny's panty shot necessary?

-D-
2015-05-07, 11:16 AM
So HalfTangible, what do you think of the latest artwork? Are the flying scenes dynamic? Are the characters emoting? Was Bunny's panty shot necessary?
Since he ain't talking :smallwink: I'll chime in.

The flying isn't dynamic. Character's emoting was meh and panty shot was not as necessary. It does establish that as an intimate moment.

Aquillion
2015-05-07, 12:45 PM
*slides onto an arm of the dislikes Jillian couch*

In addition to all of the aforementioned, Jillian also bears the distinction that she renders certain other characters less likable when she enters the scene. Wanda has a number of things she can bring into a dramatic scene, except when Jillian is there, and then it's all jilted lover all the time post book 1 with no sign of things changing. Don went from reasonably pragmatic monarch (and therefor a sympathetic character in this fandom) to another mandate of heaven royalist, and one who supports Jillian even though it's destabilized his side to the point of threatening extinction. Now, that's not Jillian's fault in story, but the association still leaves things bitter. I'm also not entirely sure why Don bought into the royalist orthodoxy after the Battle of Gobwin Knob beyond the narrative need to give Jillian a backer for kingdom building, although I like the TV coup storyline, for all it's slow pacing. This is another thing that bugs me, yes (I mentioned above how I was pissed at the way that her father was portrayed as a caricature; and it felt like that was done just to make her look better.)

Part of the problem might just be that the authors aren't as good at writing (and drawing) romance and love as they are at writing other things. The art style doesn't lend itself to taking love seriously, either. So it's hard to feel romantic sparks between Jillian and any of the numerous characters attracted to her, which makes the way other characters revolve around her feel a bit more forced.

(Judging by Ansom and Jack's conversation recently, they're getting over her, but it was still a bit teeth-grating to have Jack treat attraction to Jillian as such a big deal in that scene. Of course, their feelings about Wanda feel just as bad, but that's a bit more reasonable because those are magically-coerced. If I had to say it, I think the problem is that people's love for Jillian feels just as fake and forced as the decrypted's love for Wanda.)

Jasdoif
2015-05-07, 02:39 PM
I'm not gonna defend her treatment by the story overall (seriously, she's NOT this amazing person, stop pretending she is), but I will point out that her most recent giant mistake was something she was called out for, and seemed to realize herself was a mistake.

Another part of the issue might be that she's been heavily defined by her love for Ansom, who most readers are likely to find completely unlovable. I find him an interesting character in some ways, especially after his most recent page, but it's completely impossible to see what Jillian sees in him. Her desire for revenge and her wish to "fix" his devotion to Wanda come across as hypocritical in the context of the setting (since we, as omniscient readers, know that Ansom is no less of a person than he was before; and we know that Jillian employs a Turnamancer, and used her to recruit her current chief warlord, which makes her obsession with 'freeing' Ansom a bit hypocritical.)
....
Her desire for revenge on Stanley is hard for readers to follow because Stanley himself just... doesn't seem like a worthwhile target. He doesn't even know or remember who she is. The attack itself was masterminded by Wanda and probably Charlie. Her father was unlovable and she hated Faq and while, yes, you can make an interesting character about her feeling the need for revenge despite all these things, the narrative hasn't really given us enough to get into those feelings. (That is, we didn't really see enough of a connection between her and her father or Faq for us to sympathize with that part of her motivation.) It feels like she's seeking revenge out of perfunctory desire to fill in the checklists about how a hero ought to react in this case.

I suspect that if she were the sole protagonist, we'd be able to empathize with her despite all this; but this combined with the fact that we've often seen her as an antagonist from Parson's perspective pretty much dooms her with the audience, since (viewing her from that perspective) we're more likely to fill in the blanks in her character uncharitably rather than charitably. My impression was that Ansom got about as much hate as Jillian does back when he was an antagonist; but people sympathize with him a bit more now that he's changed sides. (Granted, a lot of this comes from scenes like his last one with Jack and him commenting on Jillian's callous murder of other Decrypted.)The interesting part here is Jillian's involvement with the storyline.

The Court of Faq belittled her...because she was a warlord.
Wanda took an interest in her...because she was another prisoner of Haffaton.
Charlie took pains to restrict her...because she was a Faq unit.
Don took an interest in her...because she was royalty.
Charlie took an interest in bolstering her...because she led the last royal side he tried to involve himself through.

Her significance is repeatedly tied to what she is, that she has no control over; instead of who she is, which she does have some control over. Of course she acts however she pleases, using the skills she feels most comfortable with; her decisions have never made a real difference before. The two big exceptions in her treatment that we've seen are Ansom, who was attracted to her before learning she was royalty; and Stanley, who necessarily couldn't have judged her on her status because he still has a limited sense of her existence. Is it a coincidence the two people she feels a connection to on account of her personally, are the two people she routinely chooses to expend her energy on?


The fascinating part, though, is how this parallels with Parson....Who was brought to Erfworld to fulfill prophecies he still doesn't really know about, uses the skills he's the most comfortable with, and Charlie's attempt to eliminate him has drawn most of his energy towards dealing with Charlie. I've also noticed that of the major characters who've been around since the beginning, Parson and Jillian are the only ones who haven't interacted in any real sense.

So is Jillian supposed to be portrayed as a secondary protagonist? Or is she supposed to be a foil in Parson's portrayal? ....I'm not sure, honestly, I could see it going either way at this point.

Lethologica
2015-05-07, 02:57 PM
Wanda's interest in Jillian extends somewhat beyond what would have been typical for Haffaton prisoners.

virgileso
2015-05-07, 03:13 PM
The interesting part here is Jillian's involvement with the storyline.

The Court of Faq belittled her...because she was a warlord.
Wanda took an interest in her...because she was another prisoner of Haffaton.
Charlie took pains to restrict her...because she was a Faq unit.
Don took an interest in her...because she was royalty.
Charlie took an interest in bolstering her...because she led the last royal side he tried to involve himself through.

Her significance is repeatedly tied to what she is, that she has no control over; instead of who she is, which she does have some control over.Isn't the Court of FAQ's situation where her who & what are the same? She liked fighting, she wanted to be (and was) a warlord. She certainly never tried to be anything else with them.

Jasdoif
2015-05-07, 03:33 PM
Wanda's interest in Jillian extends somewhat beyond what would have been typical for Haffaton prisoners.Hmm. I was thinking about how they met under conditions neither of them could have chosen; you make a good point. It would explain Jillian's interest in Wanda, at least.
Isn't the Court of FAQ's situation where her who & what are the same? She liked fighting, she wanted to be (and was) a warlord. She certainly never tried to be anything else with them.It does complicate reading the situation, I admit....Perhaps I've overestimated how much influence the Court of Faq had on her and/or the storyline.

The rest of the list still stands, I think.

Killer Angel
2015-05-07, 03:52 PM
Is someone reading "the siege of Palingrad"?
I'd say it's sufficiently enjoyable...

Bird
2015-05-07, 05:19 PM
For some reason, following the Erfworld prose stories in serial usually doesn't work for me. I lose track of who is who and why I'm supposed to care. Once a sizable chunk is written, I read it all at once and enjoy it.

It may be that I read so much prose on a daily basis that these bite-sized installments just don't stick properly. (Or, more likely: I'm just not expending the proper effort on them because I'm spending it on other things.) By contrast, the visuals on comic pages give my brain something to latch onto.

Shogo
2015-05-08, 02:51 AM
She really did get exactly the kind of heir she deserved to be saddled with.

Lizard Lord
2015-05-08, 02:59 AM
She really did get exactly the kind of heir she deserved to be saddled with.

Jillian never croaked her own people. If she did while in old FAQ I am fairly certain Banhammer would have disbanded her.


Come to think of it, did she ever lie Banhammer either? :smallconfused:
I don't think she did but I could have simply forgot.

And yea, I find it highly unlikely that he wasn't aiming for the sarge given that he was, pissed off, embarrassed, and had previously shown amazing aim with his throwing knives. Granted it would be easier to tell if we could tell his facial expression in panel four (which I am NOT blaming the artwork for this time btw).

In fact the split panel and the last panel actually had okay facial expressions. Though I thought Albert was smiling in panel two (as if he was laughing it off with Vinny) until I read the whole page and looked at that panel again.

Talesin
2015-05-08, 04:00 AM
Is someone reading "the siege of Palingrad"?
I'd say it's sufficiently enjoyable...

I think it's one of the better ones on the site outside of the main storyline.

I'm a big fan of League so i'm liking how the author is using the puns/references and using The Addams family as something to draw inspiration from is a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to seeing where he takes it.

-D-
2015-05-08, 04:37 AM
She really did get exactly the kind of heir she deserved to be saddled with.
He is the heir she deserves, but not the one she needs. Because he our a **** knight. Or knight in dickish armor.

Well, on the bright side, I now hate Albert more than Jillian. I hope he sticks around. He makes his mother look better. Which ties into having a foil for Jill, someone mentioned here.


Jillian never croaked her own people. If she did while in old FAQ I am fairly certain Banhammer would have disbanded her.

Come to think of it, did she ever lie Banhammer either? :smallconfused:
I don't think she did but I could have simply forgot.

Jillian was rash and could sacrifice her own people for a goal, but she wouldn't kill someone out of spite. Even if he didn't lie, he croaked a unit. To paraphrase one guy on Erfworld forums (who copied Archer) - "Sure you aren't malevolent, just incompetent. And that makes it better."



In fact the split panel and the last panel actually had okay facial expressions. Though I thought Albert was smiling in
panel two (as if he was laughing it off with Vinny) until I read the whole page and looked at that panel again.
I definitely didn't read that as a smile. A pained expression, but definitely not smiling.

HandofShadows
2015-05-08, 06:33 AM
I notice Duncan looks rather happy. Also that Vanna does not look at ALL happy from the very start of the page. I wonder how loyal those two are to Jillian at this point. :smallconfused:

Kantaki
2015-05-08, 07:46 AM
Every one says Albert acts like Jillian.
I think that is wrong, Jill would have attacked Vinnie in this Situation. :smalltongue:

And why does she deserve him as a heir?
Considering how much she loved her father and his court she deserved an caster/ philosopher as an heir.:smallbiggrin:

-D-
2015-05-08, 07:49 AM
Every one says Albert acts like Jillian.
I think that is wrong, Jill would have attacked Vinnie in this Situation. :smalltongue:

*badumtish*


And why does she deserve him as a heir?
Considering how much she loved her father and his court she deserved an caster/ philosopher as an heir.:smallbiggrin:
Eh, she needs to see herself from another point of view. Plus Albert has a philosophy. It's called anarchy.

Kantaki
2015-05-08, 08:09 AM
Eh, she needs to see herself from another point of view. Plus Albert has a philosophy. It's called anarchy.
Everyone has a philosophy. But a true philosopher sits on his butt all day (Shut up Jillian)
I mean reflects about his and others viewpoints.

-D-
2015-05-08, 10:10 AM
Everyone has a philosophy. But a true philosopher sits on his butt all day (Shut up Jillian)
I mean reflects about his and others viewpoints.
No, see - Albert is helping her see truth about herself by showing how she looks like to readers. He is using the ancient foil-osophy method of demonstrating virtue by acting opposite of it.

HalfTangible
2015-05-08, 10:24 AM
Ya know, I was expecting Albert to a problem for Jillian. She did say she didn't care who she got as long as they could fly, after all...

... But I didn't expect him to be THIS bad .____. I mean, yikes. It was implied (and outright stated, in the case of Overlord Stanley) that attacking your own units on purpose wasn't possible. (I figured a coup would go down by the rebelling warlord forming his own pseudo-side temporarily)

Kantaki
2015-05-08, 10:40 AM
No, see - Albert is helping her see truth about herself by showing how she looks like to readers. He is using the ancient foil-osophy method of demonstrating virtue by acting opposite of it.

Then he turns her into a philosopher. Anyway what is the problem with Jill? She is funny.

@HalfTangible Maybe he is already rebelling:smallbiggrin:, or its one of those royal rules that do not apply to other Units. Another Option is that you can't attack Units that are higher in the hierarchy than you or that duty says are to important. I think that was the case in with Stanley. You did mean the "can I throw a Stone at him?" Thing right?

Legato Endless
2015-05-08, 11:00 AM
This is actually rather convenient for Jillian in a way. Not helpful, but convenient for the side of her that leads from the front.

Jillian gave her sponsor what he wanted...and now she has the perfect excuse to not abandon the field. Albert remains at home, and with an heir crafted, the side isn't at stake whenever she runs off to risk herself. Perhaps more importantly, there's no risk of a more independent Chief Warlord taking over and potentially overruling her for the sake of Duty as Duncan is fairly passive on that front.

I'm not sure Duncan is long for this world. Between that smug reaction, holding the Prince's 'rightful place', Albert's interest in his girlfriend, and the revelation units who aren't rebelling can still attack each other...

-D-
2015-05-08, 11:40 AM
It was implied (and outright stated, in the case of Overlord Stanley) that attacking your own units on purpose wasn't possible. (I figured a coup would go down by the rebelling warlord forming his own pseudo-side temporarily)
I don't think it's impossible. Just that it's inconceivable!
https://flamingbagofpoo.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/inconceivable.jpg

We know from Lord Crush's story heir attacked his father and rebelled. So it's possible to rebel against your higher up if your Duty or Loyalty allow it.

Calemyr
2015-05-08, 12:50 PM
We know from Lord Crush's story heir attacked his father and rebelled. So it's possible to rebel against your higher up if your Duty or Loyalty allow it.

Question: How much Duty would a self-proclaimed anarchist have?

Loyalty, maybe. Mother and all that, but Duty?

-D-
2015-05-08, 02:30 PM
Question: How much Duty would a self-proclaimed anarchist have?

Loyalty, maybe. Mother and all that, but Duty?
He has Duty to perpetuate Anarchy of course.

Kantaki
2015-05-08, 02:44 PM
He has Duty to perpetuate Anarchy of course.

So he will try turn all sides into babarians - hopefully FAQ first? Maybe he will be the one to demonstrate the rebellion-mechanics instead of Caesar. I would love to see the look on Jills face.

HandofShadows
2015-05-08, 03:40 PM
If Jillian gets croaked, how long do you think she will stay that way? Wanda would kill herself to get there to decrypt her.

Landis963
2015-05-08, 03:50 PM
If Jillian gets croaked, how long do you think she will stay that way? Wanda would kill herself to get there to decrypt her.

Also to wreak croaky vengeance upon the perpetrator, twice.

Kantaki
2015-05-08, 04:05 PM
If Jillian gets croaked, how long do you think she will stay that way? Wanda would kill herself to get there to decrypt her.

That would be a great story, but I’m not sure if I would prefer Wanda succeding or failing at this. Success would give us an rewired Jill with would be an improvement and could still be funny but failiure would break Wanda even more with would be terrifying and make Parsons path more „interesting”.
Also Wanda having both Ansom and Jillian as loyal marionettes? No, just no.

-D-
2015-05-09, 12:11 AM
Also Wanda having both Ansom and Jillian as loyal marionettes? No, just no.
Or yes. Just yes.

A Mistress with two slaves ;)

Killer Angel
2015-05-09, 02:36 AM
Jillian never croaked her own people. If she did while in old FAQ I am fairly certain Banhammer would have disbanded her.


Come to think of it, did she ever lie Banhammer either? :smallconfused:
I don't think she did but I could have simply forgot.

And yea, I find it highly unlikely that he wasn't aiming for the sarge given that he was, pissed off, embarrassed, and had previously shown amazing aim with his throwing knives. Granted it would be easier to tell if we could tell his facial expression in panel four (which I am NOT blaming the artwork for this time btw).

In fact the split panel and the last panel actually had okay facial expressions. Though I thought Albert was smiling in panel two (as if he was laughing it off with Vinny) until I read the whole page and looked at that panel again.

Speaking of facial expression, I also liked Jillian's in the Sixth panel


I think it's one of the better ones on the site outside of the main storyline.

I'm a big fan of League so i'm liking how the author is using the puns/references and using The Addams family as something to draw inspiration from is a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to seeing where he takes it.

Indeed. I also wonder if the background will become "official".

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 06:11 AM
Or yes. Just yes.

A Mistress with two slaves ;)

My problem is more the quasi undead nature of the decrypted. Well that and the general free-will-problem in Erfworld. But lets not derail another tread with one of these discussions.

-D-
2015-05-09, 06:13 AM
My problem is more the quasi undead nature of the decrypted.
I think they are less quasi undead and more mind-slave ;)

So just like regular unit, but with more zealotry.

NEO|Phyte
2015-05-09, 06:18 AM
They are technically undead (what with zero upkeep and all), but don't suffer the traditional undead problem of decay.

And of course, this being Erfworld, it's entirely probable that units don't have functioning biology as such, and decrypted would thus be indistinguishable from the living if you couldn't see their stats. Or hear them being all creepy about their mistress.

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-09, 06:18 AM
I just realized something....Jack and Jillian. Jack and Jill. Facepalm

Landis963
2015-05-09, 08:27 AM
I just realized something....Jack and Jillian. Jack and Jill. Facepalm

Signamancy!

-D-
2015-05-09, 09:07 AM
And of course, this being Erfworld, it's entirely probable that units don't have functioning biology as such, and decrypted would thus be indistinguishable from the living if you couldn't see their stats. Or hear them being all creepy about their mistress.
The only difference between Archon and Decrypted!Archon is upkeep and livery.

They are quite a long way away from anything undead. They are more like reincarnated + mind control than regular liches, ghoul, vamps or ghost even.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 09:29 AM
The only difference between Archon and Decrypted!Archon is upkeep and livery.

They are quite a long way away from anything undead. They are more like reincarnated + mind control than regular liches, ghoul, vamps or ghost even.

But the basis of their existence is rooted in croakamancy. They are pretty much uncroaked without the flaws of the not divine-artifact created version.

HandofShadows
2015-05-09, 10:05 AM
The decrypted have minds and emotions, are still people. And that is VERY different than the uncroaked.

-D-
2015-05-09, 10:19 AM
But the basis of their existence is rooted in croakamancy. They are pretty much uncroaked without the flaws of the not divine-artifact created version.
Perhaps. But maybe it's just a mirrage. It seems like the story set the Decrypted as undead like only to subvert it later.

Perhaps the Arkentools function as a stealth wish granting tool. Wanda's conveniently could have brought Tommy back. Hammer gives Stanley lots of power and importance. Charlie's wish could be related to Archons.

We never seen Arkentool attuned to different wielder. We know evil witch attune to it but we know nothing of Old Charlie fighting Archons.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 10:20 AM
The decrypted have minds and emotions, are still people. And that is VERY different than the uncroaked.

The mindlessness was one of the flaws I meant. And yes they are still persons but are they still the same person? Their motivations and loyalitys are utterly warped by the decryption. Only the most basic drive remains intact. I view them as undead because the by the rules living units need upkeep (and/or food) to keep existing. And isn‘t turning into to dust upon destruction another thing they share with uncroaked?

@-D-: Or the Arkentools only attune to those with an mindset and goals that match them.

MReav
2015-05-09, 10:35 AM
The mindlessness was one of the flaws I meant. And yes they are still persons but are they still the same person? Their motivations and loyalitys are utterly warped by the decryption. Only the most basic drive remains intact. I view them as undead because the by the rules living units need upkeep (and/or food) to keep existing. And isn‘t turning into to dust upon destruction another thing they share with uncroaked?

@-D-: Or the Arkentools only attune to those with an mindset and goals that match them.

Except that when Wanda left Jetstone, Ossomer was able to break free. The altered personality might simply be a form of mind control. It's probably pretty subtle, and likely the longer you're under her control the harder it is to break.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 10:46 AM
Except that when Wanda left Jetstone, Ossomer was able to break free. The altered personality might simply be a form of mind control. It's probably pretty subtle, and likely the longer you're under her control the harder it is to break.

But Ossomers core motivation was Jetstone with he was acting against in this moment. I doubt this would have worked had it been Ansom.

Yuki Akuma
2015-05-09, 11:10 AM
I'm pretty sure being Decrypted just sets your Loyalty to the wielder of the Arkenpliers, which can then be eroded normally.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 01:10 PM
I just noticed: Jill calls Albert princess. The question is did she do so to insult/ belittle him or is it a mistake?

HandofShadows
2015-05-09, 01:16 PM
I think it was deliberate. I wonder though, how long before Prince Albert in a can? :smallconfused:

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 01:27 PM
I think it was deliberate. I wonder though, how long before Prince Albert in a can? :smallconfused:

I don't think I understand what you said. Prince Albert does what in a can?:smallconfused:

Aquillion
2015-05-09, 02:08 PM
I don't think I understand what you said. Prince Albert does what in a can?:smallconfused:
http://i.imgur.com/hOCJayd.jpg
There was an old joke of calling stores asking if they have Prince Albert in a can; and, if they say yes, saying "Well, let him out!"

Humor was kind of corny back then, I guess.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 02:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/hOCJayd.jpg
There was an old joke of calling stores asking if they have Prince Albert in a can; and, if they say yes, saying "Well, let him out!"

Humor was kind of corny back then, I guess.

Thanks, I guess I'm to young to get this. And to german:smallwink:.
But seriously now I that get the joke it is quite funny.

Bird
2015-05-09, 03:20 PM
I just noticed: Jill calls Albert princess. The question is did she do so to insult/ belittle him or is it a mistake?
I remember this coming up before when Stanley called his knights "ladies" in a coach-teasing-his-players way. It raised the issue of whether being called a woman is a generic insult in Erfworld, as it often is in Stupidworld. Evidently, yes, it is.

(Also, interesting that Jillian and her oh-so-hated Stanley are the only two characters to do this, unless I'm missing an example?)

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 03:24 PM
I remember this coming up before when Stanley called his knights "ladies" in a coach-teasing-his-players way. It raised the issue of whether being called a woman is a generic insult in Erfworld, as it often is in Stupidworld. Evidently, yes, it is.

(Also, interesting that Jillian and her oh-so-hated Stanley are the only two characters to do this, unless I'm missing an example?)

Thats is one reason she hates him - he is like a mirror for her. Not that she would ever admit it.

-D-
2015-05-09, 03:38 PM
Thats is one reason she hates him - he is like a mirror for her. Not that she would ever admit it.
Who? Stanley for Jillian or Albert for Jillian.

If you answer a flat yes I will glare at you.

HandofShadows
2015-05-09, 03:40 PM
Thats is one reason she hates him - he is like a mirror for her. Not that she would ever admit it.


If Albert is a mirror to Jillian, it is a very badly warped mirror. Jillian was often very upset with her father, but she never betrayed him, her side or the people under her command. Jillian and Banhammer where just to VERY different people. And the court treated her HORRIBLY just because she was a warlord. Which of course made her not want to be in Faq and never allowed things to get better. If Albert did kill one of his own people then he did something Jillian never would have really even thought about doing.

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 03:44 PM
Who? Stanley for Jillian or Albert for Jillian.

If you answer a flat yes I will glare at you.

Yes:tongue:, I meant Stanley but the princess fits kinda too. Albert is a funhouse mirror:smallbiggrin:.

guttering flame
2015-05-09, 03:53 PM
If Albert is a mirror to Jillian, it is a very badly warped mirror. Jillian was often very upset with her father, but she never betrayed him, her side or the people under her command. Jillian and Banhammer where just to VERY different people. And the court treated her HORRIBLY just because she was a warlord. Which of course made her not want to be in Faq and never allowed things to get better. If Albert did kill one of his own people then he did something Jillian never would have really even thought about doing.

Jillian despised her father's pacifistic beliefs and his insistence on courtesy and nicesties. She went against those things whenever she could.

Albert sees no value in military order and the camaraderie of fellow warriors (which are Jillian's sacred mainstays) apparently or in fighting for your nation.

Jillian ruined her father's tea-parties. Albert ruins his mom's military exercise.

-D-
2015-05-09, 04:32 PM
Yes:tongue:
Initiate glare procedure.
http://i.imgur.com/oCST3uO.gif

Kantaki
2015-05-09, 04:37 PM
Initiate glare procedure.
http://i.imgur.com/oCST3uO.gif

You were asking for it.:smallbiggrin: Besides I was nice enough to elaborate. Shouldn't have bothered.:smallsigh:

-D-
2015-05-10, 01:21 AM
You were asking for it.:smallbiggrin:
Oh common, I was joking :biggrin:

I don't hate you. Much ;)

Kantaki
2015-05-10, 03:19 AM
Oh common, I was joking :biggrin:

I don't hate you. Much ;)

Would I take it serious I wouldn't have bothered to respond:smallamused:.

HandofShadows
2015-05-10, 06:57 AM
Jillian ruined her father's tea-parties. Albert ruins his mom's military exercise.

Jillian never croaked one of her own and lied about it. (Unless this was a set up). And the military exercise was a test of his abilities as a warlord. Screwing it up is bad for him personally.

guttering flame
2015-05-10, 07:40 AM
Jillian never croaked one of her own and lied about it. (Unless this was a set up). And the military exercise was a test of his abilities as a warlord. Screwing it up is bad for him personally.

Jillian and her father appreciated different things. To Jillian loyalty, camradeship and honesty are very important. To her father it was manners, niceties. Albert's crime may seem bigger but Jillian's father thought she was just as deviant and immoral.

halfeye
2015-05-10, 07:48 AM
Jillian and her father appreciated different things. To Jillian loyalty, camradeship and honesty are very important. To her father it was manners, niceties. Albert's crime may seem bigger but Jillian's father thought she was just as deviant and immoral.
Except that Banhammer was wrong, and Jillian right, by Erfworld's standards.

Kantaki
2015-05-10, 08:00 AM
Jillian and her father appreciated different things. To Jillian loyalty, camradeship and honesty are very important. To her father it was manners, niceties. Albert's crime may seem bigger but Jillian's father thought she was just as deviant and immoral.

I think Banhammer would be even more horrified by Albert than he ever was by Jillian. At least Jills character issues could be channeled in useful ways. Had he gotten Princess Anarchy as his heir old FAQ would have ceased to exist way before they could interact with any part of the plot.

guttering flame
2015-05-10, 08:56 AM
I think Banhammer would be even more horrified by Albert than he ever was by Jillian. At least Jills character issues could be channeled in useful ways. Had he gotten Princess Anarchy as his heir old FAQ would have ceased to exist way before they could interact with any part of the plot.

I'm sure Jillian thinks Albert's character issues can be channeled into useful ways eventually. She's not disbanding him in the last update, is she?

Kantaki
2015-05-10, 09:09 AM
I'm sure Jillian thinks Albert's character issues can be channeled into useful ways eventually. She's not disbanding him in the last update, is she?

She would if she could.:smalltongue: More seriously using Princess Anarchy? How? I don’t see it. Well maybe to justify joining the battle herself.

guttering flame
2015-05-10, 10:10 AM
She would if she could.:smalltongue: More seriously using Princess Anarchy? How? I don’t see it. Well maybe to justify joining the battle herself.

She sends him on solo commando missions

Kantaki
2015-05-10, 10:23 AM
She sends him on solo commando missions

But wasn’t the whole point of popping him to ensure the continiutation of Faq? Sending him on solo missions would risk that wouldn’t it? Letting him sit on his princess butt while she goes out to fight makes more sense. (for her)

Porthos
2015-05-11, 02:54 AM
New Update.

Remind me not to get on the bad side of Vinny!. :smalleek:

Also, Albert has a few more facets to his personality than we might have first thought. Some good (the whacamole), some potentially less so (already lusting after Vanna).

Makes me wonder if he and Parson will ever cross paths, and what would happen if they do.

Kantaki
2015-05-11, 04:17 AM
Albert, what am I supposed to think about you? Showing compassion for another life. But you are still an selfcentered brat so...

I'm not sure what happened at the end. Lesson learned or not? Accident or not? Our little Princess Anarchy sleeps upside down? But he can't drain other Units... All very confusing, I will have to think about this for a bit.

HandofShadows
2015-05-11, 06:37 AM
Smart idea to have Albert stay with the soldier. Better idea that Vinny visited him. I am still getting the feeling that Albert was set up somehow.

Doran
2015-05-11, 07:20 AM
...isn't that the Dramatic chipmunk?

Radar
2015-05-11, 08:14 AM
Smart idea to have Albert stay with the soldier. Better idea that Vinny visited him. I am still getting the feeling that Albert was set up somehow.
If there is anyone with means to do so, it would be Vanna. Whether she would be willing to do so, depends on her loyalties. She is AFAIK a contractor to FAQ, which means there could be someone from outside pulling the strings here. Aside from that, she has clearly Duncan under her charm, but we don't know, what will she use him for.

HandofShadows
2015-05-11, 08:24 AM
If there is anyone with means to do so, it would be Vanna. Whether she would be willing to do so, depends on her loyalties. She is AFAIK a contractor to FAQ, which means there could be someone from outside pulling the strings here. Aside from that, she has clearly Duncan under her charm, but we don't know, what will she use him for.

Actually, I wonder if it isn't Vanna under Duncan's sway. Duncan is happy about who this turned out. While Vanna is not a happy camper.

Killer Angel
2015-05-11, 01:36 PM
I wonder if our Young prince is really telling the truth.
Maybe he was under a sort of rage... it could exist a trait like that for some combat units: they gain bonuses but don't think too much.
Maybe it's anunusual trait for royals, and it's still unnoticed even by his mother, but it could explain the "great shot" and "it was an accident"

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-11, 01:38 PM
I'm more going with the feature that perhaps Albert can't miss. Which means even though he's targetting an inanimate object, it instead went to a unit.

Lizard Lord
2015-05-11, 01:56 PM
I'm more going with the feature that perhaps Albert can't miss. Which means even though he's targetting an inanimate object, it instead went to a unit.

Except it didn't do that when he was showing off his specials when he first popped.

Legato Endless
2015-05-11, 02:02 PM
Well that confirms at least that sex, or perhaps romantic entanglement, isn't quite so completely independent of heir popping as was previously assumed. It's not necessary, but it does have a definite potential influence.

Albert's a brat, but it looks like there's some good possibilities for development here.

BRC
2015-05-11, 02:15 PM
I'm more going with the feature that perhaps Albert can't miss. Which means even though he's targetting an inanimate object, it instead went to a unit.


Eh, the dialogue implies that, according to the rules of erfworld, the target dummy was a valid target.

I think it's something deeper. Albert's Signamancy implies not just rebellion but anarchy. He's made of contradictions.

He's a Transylvitan, but without the life drain. He's a Royal who is an Anarchist. Jillian would have been a fine princess for a more martial kingdom, she was only rebellious because her personality clashed with that of her father. However, Albert is inherently contradictory, he's a Royal, which means authority, but his signamancy indicates that he should be rejecting the very authority he supposedly represents.


I'm wondering if Albert isn't Erfworld's immune system response to Parson. Parson is running roughshod over Erfworld by understanding, and exploiting, the Rules. He approaches the rules of the world from a purely mechanical standpoint, with no preconceived notions for how things are done. Remember Parson attacking the siege during the BFGK. Nobody involved even thought that strategic attacks on specific units, followed by a retreat to minimize losses, would be a good idea until they thought about it. The Rules reward sticking around to win the fight (Thus earning XP), so everybody assumed that was the correct move. Parson saw the Retreat option, not as a way to retreat from a losing battle, but as a way to minimize losses once you've taken out your real target.

Maybe Prince Albert inherently ignores any arbitrary rules he encounters. He has to respect the actual game mechanics of Erfworld, but he inherently ignores anything else that gets in the way of his true goals.

His mother told him to take part in the training exercise (That's an Order, so hey must Obey). She then set the arbitrary rule of "Target the Dummies".

Albert actually WAS trying to hit the dummies, but what he REALLY wanted to do was hit the guy who attacked him. Since "Only hit the dummies" was an arbitrary rule getting in the way of his true goals, he instinctively ignored it.

This means that Albert may eventually end up on the same playing field as Parson. He knows and respects the game mechanics of Erfworld, as he must. However, he ignores any preconceived notions about how to use or apply those mechanics. He has no concept of "Honor" or "How things should be done", only effectiveness.

Of course, he may not be as creative as Parson when it comes to finding exploits.

Lethologica
2015-05-11, 03:49 PM
Whenever really, really bad luck is involved, I look for the Carny. (I'd look for Luckamancers if they were ever important.)

Psychonaut
2015-05-12, 04:06 AM
Well, Clay Dice did manage to curse Wanda so badly that later that turn she lost her entire side and ended up serving under a complete psychopath. :smalltongue:

Aquillion
2015-05-12, 05:11 AM
People. People.

Albert killed the guy deliberately. I don't think there's any question about that, and I'm not sure how else I could read this page:


But a punch, of course, wouldn't change the truth.

"I'm a great shot," he said again, more quietly.

If he hadn't killed the guy deliberately, he would know that, and would keep saying it; it's not like he has any reason to concede to Vinny here aside from actual guilt. His line there is straight-up admitting it -- he knows what Vinny is saying, he knows what it means for him to choose "I'm a great shot" as his reply, and if there were some other explanation he would say something else.

There isn't. He knows the truth. He murdered a guy in a fit of pique. To the extent that it was an "accident", the accident was that he lost his temper for a moment. (Given his personality, I think he might legitimately think of it that way; I think he believes what he's saying. But, I mean, he also knows deep down that that means he did it deliberately.)

Also, as evidence, consider the lines immediately before it -- for a moment there, if he weren't bound by alliance, he would seriously try to hurt Vinny. If he had the authority to do so, he would seriously consider breaking the alliance in order to hit Vinny. For the crime of... pointing out the implication of Albert's own words, and making him admit to murder. Albert has a seriously nasty temper, so there's no reason to doubt that he murdered the guy; and, again, the intensity of his reaction to Vinny's words doesn't make any sense otherwise.

Beyond that, just from a narrative standpoint, I think it would be very terrible writing to have this not be deliberate murder. This is Albert's establishing scene -- we know almost nothing else about him. Sure, he could be mind-controlled into having done it, and then mind-controlled into believing he did it (although we have no reason to believe that anyone in the hex has that kind of power), but, outside that, narratively... doing that here? When establishing a major character? And then, presumably, later on, saying "no, no, it was all a trick, the foundational event that we gave you to help you understand this character and his development was all a cheap magic trick because politics etc etc" -- that would really be awful. It'd be taking the emotional heft of this scene and turning it into a lazy tweeeest in a way that would undermine his entire character.

Kantaki
2015-05-12, 05:23 AM
But the question is not if it was an accident. Ist if Princess Anarchy learned his lesson. I hope not. 10 Quatloos Alberts attitude will only get worse.

-D-
2015-05-12, 05:31 AM
There isn't. He knows the truth. He murdered a guy in a fit of pique. To the extent that it was an "accident", the accident was that he lost his temper for a moment. (Given his personality, I think he might legitimately think of it that way; I think he believes what he's saying. But, I mean, he also knows deep down that that means he did it deliberately.)
I think so too, but maybe he just wanted to hurt him and not murder him almost outright. I think he did murder him in fit of rage, based on his casual relation to the corpse. He has no remorse over what he did.



It'd be taking the emotional heft of this scene and turning it into a lazy tweeeest in a way that would undermine his entire character.
Judging from everything we know about Fate and Luckamancy and Rob, it could be either...

Yanagi
2015-05-13, 04:31 AM
Well that confirms at least that sex, or perhaps romantic entanglement, isn't quite so completely independent of heir popping as was previously assumed. It's not necessary, but it does have a definite potential influence.

Another possibility is that he has Transylvito characteristics because his creation was primarily funded by Transylvito. Which sort of fits with the "game" logic of all "reproduction" being an economic act in Erfworld. Prince Albert is a joint venture, and Don King has majority shares.

It will be interesting to see if this is just a matter of Signamancy, or if there's some kind of hidden twist to Albert being half-Transylvito. Like him having low loyalty to Faq, or some kind of secret Loyalty/Duty to Don King.

Welf
2015-05-13, 01:44 PM
There isn't. He knows the truth. He murdered a guy in a fit of pique. To the extent that it was an "accident", the accident was that he lost his temper for a moment. (Given his personality, I think he might legitimately think of it that way; I think he believes what he's saying. But, I mean, he also knows deep down that that means he did it deliberately.)

Basically, he is what his name implies. :smalltongue: Good analysis.

The whole thing reminds me of:


There is no "Good" or "Evil" side, smart guy. That is a myth. That's propaganda.
Ansom and people like him like to put on airs. Nobility. Like they're not ruling by violence and fear. Psheh.

Isn't it ironic that the heir that Jillian had to pop to continue her royal line, and right after she started to buy into the royal mandate, turns out to be worse than Stanley? Or it might be a sign of the Titans. :smallamused:

Kantaki
2015-05-13, 02:35 PM
Isn't it ironic that the heir that Jillian had to pop to continue her royal line, and right after she started to buy into the royal mandate, turns out to be worse than Stanley? Or it might be a sign of the Titans. :smallamused:

But how can he be worse than Stanley? He is royal, that alone makes him already better than some upstart who might have arranged his kings death. :smalltongue:

At least when you believe that Titanic-Mandate-Boop the royal sides blab about. And who does do this, royals and some nobles aside?:smallbiggrin:

guttering flame
2015-05-14, 07:08 AM
The whole spiel King Don gave Jillian was kind of laughable considering the kind of dingdom Don runs. His court is the opposite of classy. The little tea party he gave her was probably the first one to occur in its history.

Kantaki
2015-05-14, 07:15 AM
Thats because until recently our dear Don didn't believe that stuff himself. After all he had an non-royal heir. This only has changed after Gobwinknob has gotten so strong. I think the breaking point was Slately death at Spacerock.

NEO|Phyte
2015-05-14, 08:53 AM
Thats because until recently our dear Don didn't believe that stuff himself. After all he had an non-royal heir. This only has changed after Gobwinknob has gotten so strong. I think the breaking point was Slately death at Spacerock.

Pretty sure Uniroyal was the breaking point. Remember that letter the queen sent Don before disbanding herself?

Kantaki
2015-05-14, 09:52 AM
Pretty sure Uniroyal was the breaking point. Remember that letter the queen sent Don before disbanding herself?

That happend in the summerupdates or the epilogue right? I don't remember those very well. Either way the first time we saw him he wasn't that pro-royality as after the breaking point. And I think that was when he met Jill first and gave her the talk about this stuff. More along the lines of appearence is important then this is the one true way.

guttering flame
2015-05-14, 10:01 AM
Thats because until recently our dear Don didn't believe that stuff himself. After all he had an non-royal heir. This only has changed after Gobwinknob has gotten so strong. I think the breaking point was Slately death at Spacerock.

So did the king order his Dollamancer to change his ways and stop creating inellegant monstrocities and start making pretty fighting dolls instead? Just because he's trying to have Ceasar killed doesn't mean he change any custom in his kingdom.

Kantaki
2015-05-14, 10:08 AM
So did the king order his Dollamancer to change his ways and stop creating inellegant monstrocities and start making pretty fighting dolls instead? Just because he's trying to have Ceasar killed doesn't mean he change any custom in his kingdom.

I am not sure what you mean. After he reached his breaking point Don put more emphasis on the royality-stuff than before. I am not sure what the Dollamancer has to do with this. Are you sure you quoted the right post?:smallconfused: The only Thing I remember about the mancer and a monstrosity was the freetime-project he showed of to an drunk Caesar.

Jasdoif
2015-05-14, 11:57 AM
Thats because until recently our dear Don didn't believe that stuff himself. After all he had an non-royal heir. This only has changed after Gobwinknob has gotten so strong. I think the breaking point was Slately death at Spacerock.
Pretty sure Uniroyal was the breaking point. Remember that letter the queen sent Don before disbanding herself?I think he broke both times, personally. He's going to be a powder the next time a Royal side takes a heavy/total loss, and dust the time after that :smalltongue:


That happend in the summerupdates or the epilogue right?Yep (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book+2/22). (I see the original formatting got lost during the site redesign, the letter portion was rendered differently than the rest of the text originally.)

guttering flame
2015-05-15, 08:31 AM
I am not sure what you mean. After he reached his breaking point Don put more emphasis on the royality-stuff than before. I am not sure what the Dollamancer has to do with this. Are you sure you quoted the right post?:smallconfused: The only Thing I remember about the mancer and a monstrosity was the freetime-project he showed of to an drunk Caesar.

What changed in Transilvito since King Don had his epiphany? He's been throwing his money and putting all his faith in queenly Jillian, tried to give support to fellow king Slately and been trying to have Caesar croak with various schemes. Maybe he's also getting rid of other non noble prominent figure in his kingdom though we've heard nothing about that so far. So we know he's a pro-nobility / royals. But when he had his talk with Jillian he tried to sell her the notion that royals (and maybe nobility) are superior beings who don't act crassly. Slately's Jetstone would be the example of what this royalist-directed world looks like. If he really believed what he told Jillian, Don would change his kingdom to resemble Jetstone. Those two kingdom's dollamancers exemplify the differences. Ace's mildly deviant creations were suppressed while Bill's which are the very definition of crass are allowed. Sure he does it in his free time but a true gentility believer like Slately would never allow him to allow him to create such things if he lived in his kingdom. The tea party was a sham (even if Don wants to believe it) His whole court is built on novo-riche or crime-lords lines, not nobility and grace.

Kantaki
2015-05-15, 09:00 AM
Maybe it is not completly right to say he fully believes the royality stuff now. But after the death of two close friends, who died fighting for it he at least seems to put more emphasis on the appearance of royality. As far as I can tell the more unseemly aspects of Transsylvito are more out of sight now. And before the crusade of Gobwinknob he was willing to make the non-royal Caesar his heir, it was only after Uniroyal that he was convinced that his side needed an royal heir to stenghten the cause of the royal sides.

Killer Angel
2015-05-16, 04:03 AM
New update. Weird contracts...

-D-
2015-05-16, 05:51 AM
New update. Weird contracts...
Charlie just paid GK 150k and got back 75k, as per Lillith contract.

Radar
2015-05-16, 05:53 AM
New update. Weird contracts...
Not really:
It's just Charlie fulfilling the contract obligation with the captured decrypted archon (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/46).

Killer Angel
2015-05-16, 05:57 AM
Charlie just paid GK 150k and got back 80k, as per Lillith contract.

I wasn't clear, but I know that. The weird part is how Charlie presented it to Parson... :smallwink:

Probably, bizarre would have been a more appropriate adjective. Charile, indeed, likes to "play" with Parson.

Kantaki
2015-05-16, 06:24 AM
That little stunt of Charlie was truly worthy of a true troll and Carnymancer. A great way to fulfil the contract without letting Parson know. In addition he learned something about his enemies way of thinking. I wish I knew what exactly Charlie wrote in those contracts.

Welf
2015-05-16, 11:19 AM
new comic? (http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%203/65)

And he got an 5 K rebate. But this tells us something about Charley, namely that he has analysed Parson well and is confident in his analysis. If Parson hadn't asked for the information Charley would have lost 150 K instead of only 75 K. Parson bought the information why Charley made the deal, so Charley couldn't pretend it wasn't for Lilith, and had to honestly transfer the money the first time just for screwing with Parson.
Interesting is also that he says that he played mind games with Stanley. That tells us a lot, mainly that he actively worked on Stanley's ruin. Making Stanley feel stupid is the best way to never have any business with him (and Stanley refused even when the royal forces marched on to his capital). So Charley denied GK his help while publicly still being neutral. But why did he tell that Parson? That was free information, and nothing is ever free from Charley.

HandofShadows
2015-05-16, 12:47 PM
We have to remember though. While Charlie is playing head games with Parson, Parson is doing it back. And so far Parson has a much better track record.

And what is this pop up from "computer2015" that shows up when I hit the command to bring up the spoiler tags? :smallconfused:

Douglas
2015-05-16, 01:44 PM
And what is this pop up from "computer2015" that shows up when I hit the command to bring up the spoiler tags? :smallconfused:
Most likely some sort of malware installed on your computer, I'd guess a browser extension of some kind.

Lethologica
2015-05-16, 04:06 PM
The most interesting things about this are:
Charlie didn't want to let Parson know the source of the 75k. That's the real reason he was so cagy--the 5000 isn't nearly as valuable as the information that Charlie wants a Decrypted Archon badly enough to pay 150k for it.
Despite this, Wanda knows about the 75k. But she didn't tell Parson. Is this failure of communication simply an oversight, like in book 1? Still, Parson will pay for it if this blindsides him.

Kantaki
2015-05-16, 04:19 PM
The most interesting things about this are:
Charlie didn't want to let Parson know the source of the 75k. That's the real reason he was so cagy--the 5000 isn't nearly as valuable as the information that Charlie wants a Decrypted Archon badly enough to pay 150k for it.
Despite this, Wanda knows about the 75k. But she didn't tell Parson. Is this failure of communication simply an oversight, like in book 1? Still, Parson will pay for it if this blindsides him.

Well of course Charlie doesn't want Parson to know why he pays him. Otherwise he would be a moron and we know he isn't.
Wanda is Wanda and only Wanda knows what Wanda thinks or plans. But more importantly Wanda is only loyal to fate first and Wanda second. Should Wanda feel either of those interests would be served best by leaving Parson in the dark about this Wanda would do so without hesitation. Not to mention that Wanda is kinda nuts.

Kornaki
2015-05-16, 04:27 PM
Does Parson actually not know why he's getting the money, or does he just want Charlie to think he doesn't know why he's getting the money? It's not obvious to me.

Kantaki
2015-05-16, 05:10 PM
Does Parson actually not know why he's getting the money, or does he just want Charlie to think he doesn't know why he's getting the money? It's not obvious to me.

It is a possibility but Charlie would work under the premise that Parson knows with Parson would account for with in turn means that I get a a headache and am to tired for those "where is the poison" Vizzini style headgames.

-D-
2015-05-16, 05:58 PM
It is a possibility but Charlie would work under the premise that Parson knows with Parson would account for with in turn means that I get a a headache and am to tired for those "where is the poison" Vizzini style headgames.
You're just stalling, now.

Kantaki
2015-05-17, 03:09 AM
You're just stalling, now.

Nah, I just tried to say that even if Parson knows why Charlie gave him the money it wouldn't change the way they interact because neither wants the other to get additional information out of their interactions. Charlie wants his reasons for this payment to remain a secret and Parson wants to hide how much he knows. Thus they play mindgames with each other. Trying to formulate this after midnight turned it into the mess that is the last post. Now that I'm awake it looks even worse than I thought. Sorry about that.

Douglas
2015-05-17, 03:46 AM
Nah, I just tried to say that even if Parson knows why Charlie gave him the money it wouldn't change the way they interact because neither wants the other to get additional information out of their interactions. Charlie wants his reasons for this payment to remain a secret and Parson wants to hide how much he knows. Thus they play mindgames with each other. Trying to formulate this after midnight turned it into the mess that is the last post. Now that I'm awake it looks even worse than I thought. Sorry about that.
He was just making a reference to the Vizzini scene you mentioned, I believe. At some point in Vizzini's absurdly roundabout logic about which cup is poisoned, the Man In Black accuses him of stalling.

Kantaki
2015-05-17, 04:00 AM
Maybe I should rewatch the movie again. I completely forgot that bit. Anyway even if Parson doesn't know Charlies motives for this little stunt he will definitely talk to his allies about this. Wanda might tell him. Or not who knows what she plans.

-D-
2015-05-17, 05:29 AM
Nah, I just tried to say that even if Parson knows why Charlie gave him the money it wouldn't change the way they interact because neither wants the other to get additional information out of their interactions. Charlie wants his reasons for this payment to remain a secret and Parson wants to hide how much he knows. Thus they play mindgames with each other. Trying to formulate this after midnight turned it into the mess that is the last post. Now that I'm awake it looks even worse than I thought. Sorry about that.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

HandofShadows
2015-05-17, 07:47 AM
Despite this, Wanda knows about the 75k. But she didn't tell Parson. Is this failure of communication simply an oversight, like in book 1? Still, Parson will pay for it if this blindsides him.[/list]

Wanda really hasn't had much of a chance to tell Parson though.

Killer Angel
2015-05-17, 08:09 AM
Wanda really hasn't had much of a chance to tell Parson though.

We don't know. I'm with the "Wanda didn't told", but it could be happened off-screen.

Kornaki
2015-05-17, 08:26 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think the key to the loophole is the phrase 'psychologically undermine you in our future dealings'. Because for all the other BS Charlie says, the real reason he did this was to make Parson not question the next 75K payment. And Charlie has to confess to that part somewhere in his list of reasons, and I think that's the part that covers it. The future dealings are just a bit less in-the-future than most people would interpret the sentence.

Welf
2015-05-17, 09:55 AM
We don't know. I'm with the "Wanda didn't told", but it could be happened off-screen.

Or maybe she did tell him and Parson spent the 80 K to bluff him into thinking captured Decrypted can't be used for reconnaissance.

Killer Angel
2015-05-17, 02:43 PM
Or maybe she did tell him and Parson spent the 80 K to bluff him into thinking captured Decrypted can't be used for reconnaissance.

Yep, that's the other possibility.

Now, we're on page 49. Any ideas for the new thread's title?

-D-
2015-05-17, 05:21 PM
Yep, that's the other possibility.

Now, we're on page 49. Any ideas for the new thread's title?
I got nothing. Anyone bought E is for Erfabet?

Maybe V is for Vinny/Vanna?

Or dial V for Vinny.

NEO|Phyte
2015-05-17, 08:29 PM
Yep, that's the other possibility.

Thinking on it, this possibility is fairly likely. If you look at the contextual information at the start of each transcript, Charlie offers the first contract in the morning, then Parson doesn't buy the information on why until the evening. So he had most of the turn to think it over and possibly check with the others.

Calemyr
2015-05-18, 08:49 AM
Actually, the incident makes sense on both sides. Charlie is trying to get a psych reading on Parson, screw with him, and reduce the money he has to pay out. Parson, on the other hand, gets a good look at Charlie's sense of "honor" and "honesty" by asking a question he likely knows the answer to but Charlie can't be sure he does, while at the same time playing dumb. Is it sad that I got more enjoyment out of this obvious filler than I have in most of the story comics for months?

-D-
2015-05-18, 09:38 AM
Actually, the incident makes sense on both sides. Charlie is trying to get a psych reading on Parson, screw with him, and reduce the money he has to pay out. Parson, on the other hand, gets a good look at Charlie's sense of "honor" and "honesty" by asking a question he likely knows the answer to but Charlie can't be sure he does, while at the same time playing dumb. Is it sad that I got more enjoyment out of this obvious filler than I have in most of the story comics for months?
I doubt Parson knew of the payment. If he did, it would make him the better player. But realistically, it seemed he had hand filled with other worries.

Kantaki
2015-05-18, 09:39 AM
I got nothing. Anyone bought E is for Erfabet?

Maybe V is for Vinny/Vanna?

Or dial V for Vinny.

V is for Vanna sounds good.

And the theory that Parson and Charlie are playing games with each other sounds likely. Especially since Parson waited an day before taking the deal.

-D-
2015-05-18, 10:03 AM
And the theory that Parson and Charlie are playing games with each other sounds likely. Especially since Parson waited an day before taking the deal.
I don't remember a day passing. We just see transcript 41, transcript 42. It's probably same day, but morning to midnight. I doubt Hamster knows of Lilith's deal. But if he does, that's great triple bluff by him.

Kantaki
2015-05-18, 10:08 AM
I don't remember a day passing. We just see transcript 41, transcript 42. It's probably same day, but morning to midnight. I doubt Hamster knows of Lilith's deal. But if he does, that's great triple bluff by him.

Sorry, should have said waited until the end of the day. Better? Not that it matters much, he got the offer at the beginning of the day and responded at the end of the day, thus he waited one day to consider the offer.:smalltongue:

-D-
2015-05-18, 10:21 AM
Sorry, should have said waited until the end of the day. Better? Not that it matters much, he got the offer at the beginning of the day and responded at the end of the day, thus he waited one day to consider the offer.:smalltongue:
Well, I assume he spent most of the time unraveling the link in MK. When we see him he is in his MK quarters.

Kantaki
2015-05-18, 10:29 AM
Well, I assume he spent most of the time unraveling the link in MK. When we see him he is in his MK quarters.

I kind of assumed that the panel showed him in the morning and that this is the day after the unraveling.

memnarch
2015-05-18, 11:28 AM
I got nothing. Anyone bought E is for Erfabet?

Maybe V is for Vinny/Vanna?

Or dial V for Vinny.
The V entry: "V is for Vinny, who travels with bats. A ladies-man greaser, the coolest of cats."

Narkis
2015-05-18, 01:46 PM
V for Vinny has my vote.

Lizard Lord
2015-05-18, 03:47 PM
V for Vinny has my vote.

I'll second that motion.

Calemyr
2015-05-18, 04:32 PM
I'll second that motion.

V is for Vinny. That's good enough for me.

Yana
2015-05-18, 05:49 PM
V is for Vinny. That's good enough for me.

Is... is that a Sesame Street reference?

Mutant Sheep
2015-05-18, 06:10 PM
Well jeez, this isn't harsh. I really hope this is either over something we'd perceive as stupidly minor, or something Maggie has already done for Parson.

-D-
2015-05-18, 06:30 PM
Well jeez, this isn't harsh. I really hope this is either over something we'd perceive as stupidly minor, or something Maggie has already done for Parson.
It's implied that it is.

Lethologica
2015-05-18, 06:36 PM
Well jeez, this isn't harsh. I really hope this is either over something we'd perceive as stupidly minor, or something Maggie has already done for Parson.
If not something Maggie has already done for Parson, it's at least something Maggie is likely to do for Parson. Note how she twitched when Charlie and Parson discussed Bunny.

Yana
2015-05-18, 07:44 PM
Compliance will be rewarded.

Are you ready to comply?

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-19, 06:33 AM
As for thread titles, there's also the V for Vendetta reference.

So far we have -

V is for Vinny (any subtext?)

V for Vinny (any subtext?)

Killer Angel
2015-05-19, 06:38 AM
As for thread titles, there's also the V for Vendetta reference.

So far we have -

V is for Vinny (any subtext?)

V for Vinny (any subtext?)

I tend to favor "V for Vinny".


Well jeez, this isn't harsh. I really hope this is either over something we'd perceive as stupidly minor, or something Maggie has already done for Parson.

What a warm welcome!

Kantaki
2015-05-19, 06:54 AM
Well, aren't the Great Minds friendly? I really hope the whole banishment turns out to be about something harmless, like that she told someone about the secret tea-mix of the Great Minds.

ryuplaneswalker
2015-05-19, 07:27 AM
As for thread titles, there's also the V for Vendetta reference.

So far we have -

V is for Vinny (any subtext?)

V for Vinny (any subtext?)

Might as well toss one in just for competitions sake

"Erfworld VI : We traded Thread V to Charlie"

-D-
2015-05-19, 10:05 AM
Thinkamancers. The TSA of MK.

The Glyphstone
2015-05-19, 11:41 AM
Am I the only one who actually wants Bunnie's crime to have been as serious as it makes it out to be, like revealing they can eavesdrop on any Thinkamancy communications in the world or something? I don't think making the Minds to be incredibly petty and spiteful over something minor - and all the other 'Mancers seem to be taking this extremely seriously - would suit the comic's atmosphere.

Lethologica
2015-05-19, 11:48 AM
Am I the only one who actually wants Bunnie's crime to have been as serious as it makes it out to be, like revealing they can eavesdrop on any Thinkamancy communications in the world or something? I don't think making the Minds to be incredibly petty and spiteful over something minor - and all the other 'Mancers seem to be taking this extremely seriously - would suit the comic's atmosphere.
If the information weren't important, we wouldn't regard Maggie's arc towards eventually revealing it to Parson as significant. But importance is not the same as enormity, and we may very well disagree with the Minds that this information should be reserved for them alone.

Lizard Lord
2015-05-19, 12:34 PM
Ooh! Wait I know of a good thread name! Erfworld V: Baddie will post the thread

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-19, 12:35 PM
Ooh! Wait I know of a good thread name! Erfworld V: Baddie will post the thread

Well I am a Wombat of Doom....but I don't know if that really means I'm a baddie. Just misunderstood!

Legato Endless
2015-05-19, 01:44 PM
Am I the only one who actually wants Bunnie's crime to have been as serious as it makes it out to be, like revealing they can eavesdrop on any Thinkamancy communications in the world or something? I don't think making the Minds to be incredibly petty and spiteful over something minor - and all the other 'Mancers seem to be taking this extremely seriously - would suit the comic's atmosphere.

No. Bird and I agreed a few pages ago that the narrative would be enriched if Bunny's crime wasn't something minor and easily dismissed as the GMTTA being overzealously controlling.

I kind of like Baddie will post the thread as it's more unique personally.

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-19, 01:53 PM
So any more suggestions?

Erfworld V: V is for Vinny - Five! Five bats! AH! AH! AH!

Erfworld V: V for Vinny - Remember, Remember the 5th thread in Splendor

Erfworld V: Baddie will post the thread

-D-
2015-05-19, 02:18 PM
Just Erfworld: V is for Vinnie. Write in first post anything you like, but I prefer simplicity.

Lethologica
2015-05-19, 03:13 PM
Just Erfworld: V is for Vinnie. Write in first post anything you like, but I prefer simplicity.
Agreed on the latter, though I'm undecided between V is for Vinnie and V for Vinnie.

I guess it depends...
:smallcool:
on what the meaning of 'is' is.

http://i.imgur.com/eZVuSeQ.jpg

Calemyr
2015-05-19, 04:18 PM
Is... is that a Sesame Street reference?

Yeah. I dunno why, it just felt right.

Bird
2015-05-19, 04:28 PM
I like the Baddie one with a slight tweak--

Erfworld V: Baddie will not post thread

I like the "not" because:
1) Most of of the commands given to Bunny were "not" constructions
2) It creates a bit of irony--implies that Baddie was instructed not to post, but did it anyway. This doing-what-you're-not-supposed-to theme fits Bunny's narrative.

Also, I prefer cutting the "the" before "thread" to match the clipped diction that the Great Minds are using in the scene.

Legato Endless
2015-05-19, 05:07 PM
Erfworld V: Baddie will not post thread

Lethologica
2015-05-19, 05:10 PM
That's...a significant improvement. Vote changed. Baddie Will Not Post Thread.

Kantaki
2015-05-19, 05:13 PM
One vote for: Baddie will not post thread

Killer Angel
2015-05-19, 05:15 PM
I like the Baddie one with a slight tweak--

Erfworld V: Baddie will not post thread
.

It's good, but I would stay with Vinny.

The Glyphstone
2015-05-19, 05:44 PM
I'd like to propose one more tweak - make it Baddie Will Not Post In Thread.

Bird
2015-05-19, 06:09 PM
I'd like to propose one more tweak - make it Baddie Will Not Post In Thread.
I like that. Makes each post an anti-authoritarian act.

Kantaki
2015-05-19, 06:13 PM
I like that. Makes each post an anti-authoritarian act.

Only if you are a Baddie.:smallamused:

Narkis
2015-05-19, 06:40 PM
I still prefer V for Vinnie.

ryuplaneswalker
2015-05-19, 07:33 PM
Only if you are a Baddie.:smallamused:

Hey, it is cool to be bad. (https://youtu.be/dsUXAEzaC3Q?t=62)

Godskook
2015-05-19, 07:52 PM
Am I the only one who actually wants Bunnie's crime to have been as serious as it makes it out to be, like revealing they can eavesdrop on any Thinkamancy communications in the world or something? I don't think making the Minds to be incredibly petty and spiteful over something minor - and all the other 'Mancers seem to be taking this extremely seriously - would suit the comic's atmosphere.

I kinda want it to be the kind of awkward thing that tears at the souls of the readers as to if Bunnie was in the right or not.

EnragedFilia
2015-05-19, 09:16 PM
I'd like to propose one more tweak - make it Baddie Will Not Post In Thread.

Dropping the definite article from the object like that is contrary to two of the examples in the comic, however ('baddie will drop the satchel.' and 'baddie will not enter the portal.')

guttering flame
2015-05-19, 10:14 PM
it can be: Baddie will not post

Aquillion
2015-05-19, 11:15 PM
Hey, it is cool to be bad. (https://youtu.be/dsUXAEzaC3Q?t=62)
It's so bad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZErvASwdlU).

-D-
2015-05-20, 04:48 AM
No. Bird and I agreed a few pages ago that the narrative would be enriched if Bunny's crime wasn't something minor and easily dismissed as the GMTTA being overzealously controlling.

I kind of like Baddie will post the thread as it's more unique personally.
I think her crime will be both minor but significant. She'll be the equivalent of someone constructing a small scale atom bomb, and GMTTA will be against publicly disclosing it because they know someone will make an atom bomb. Parson being from our world will recognize the advantages outweigh the cons, and use it, pissing off GMTTA.

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-20, 06:24 AM
New Thread is popped! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416285-Erfworld-thread-V-Baddie-Will-Not-Post-In-Thread&p=19280247#post19280247)

Bird
2015-05-22, 02:04 PM
Like this twist. Seemed that the Great Minds were making things difficult for themselves with Baddie ostracism, but it turns out that that might just be the leverage they need. Neat.

Also, Bunny came off more formal and serious than I expected, given her signamancy. Though there's certainly adequate reason for her to be in a serious mood.

TheWombatOfDoom
2015-05-26, 07:16 AM
Like this twist. Seemed that the Great Minds were making things difficult for themselves with Baddie ostracism, but it turns out that that might just be the leverage they need. Neat.

Also, Bunny came off more formal and serious than I expected, given her signamancy. Though there's certainly adequate reason for her to be in a serious mood.

Bird, we've gone over to the new thread, as we've reached page 50. See the post above yours, for the link. :smallwink: