103 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 93

[fendrin]

There's no evidence that would suggest a conspiracy of royals and nobles to hide the fact that their better stats are acquirable by anyone. For one part, Stanley is a non-royal and would thus know if it was true, as he'd know if he got better stats from becoming an overlord. And would have mentioned this at some point, so Sizemore would have explained it to Parson. So, no conspiracy. Royals and Nobles are better, statwise, than regular units.

Except that Stanley wasn't popped as an heir. He was promoted to heir. There is a big difference. After that distinction, the rest of your argument falls apart.

We have no evidence that a side depends on their leader not dieing or having an heir to continue. Previous examples had both the capital and the leader die to kill the side, but units were saved anyway because there were heirs. The simple fact that they recognize a city as a capital in the first place means it has meaning. The king is as mobile an unit as any other, and it's doubtful that the capital changes every time he goes for a walk, or indeed that the side is without a capital while he is in transit. Erfworld is a game, and in a game the names of things have meanings. Particularly where they are used to distinguish things.

...and London is the capital of England even if HM the Queen travels abroad. We recognize a capital regardless of whether or not the ruler is currently there or not. Why must Erfworld be different? Erfworld is not just a game. In fact, it may not be a game at all. It may just be a world that resembles a game.

I make a distinction between King and Overlord. You say there isn't one. However, if Noble status was transferable, Stanley would by right be a King, as he was the heir designate of a King. He isn't. Clearly then, the game doesn't allow for non-nobles to be kings. They are overlords. And if the distinction is in place, the game will have different rules for handling them. The first rule difference, apparently, is that they are called different things.

I actually do draw a distinction. I think that 'King' and 'Queen' are titles reserved for overlords that happen to be royals. Just like I think that royals are nobles that are overlords or heirs. Creates a nice little hierarchy. No proof, but it makes more sense to me than 3 unrelated categories that just happen to overlap slightly in function/role.

Also, where did you ever see that an heir could be changed? Unless you planned to kill him, you are stuck with the heir you got, because the whole deal with lines of succesions, as I said, is tracing back the lineage. If you say someone isn't a good enough heir, you're undermining the base of your authority, as you're admiting that some thing other than blood matters, which means that if someone was found to be more fit to be king than the actual king, that person should be king.

Actually, I feel this is justified by the comic. The very fact that you can promote a unit to heir and not just pop an heir. If it you had to just deal with the heir you've got, why would the titan's create an alternative method to have an heir?