Captured Heir Apparents & Thinkamancer Control

[random_guy]

I thought the issue of having kingdoms split off only applies only when it has grown to a certain size. I guess that might be why you said that Ansom would split off after taking Gobwin Knob. Maybe I took the term "disloyal" out of context. You're not saying they're out to commit regicide, just referring to the fact that heirs are meant to become rulers. This could mean splitting off, or helping the current ruler pass on. They might not take these actions, but they have the potential and motivations necessary.

[moose o death]

now your seeing things with my eyes, it's like the apprentice becoming his own master then one day facing off against his mentor, some units are going to see their ruler off with the blade some with the word. some will just walk away.

but royal heirs will be popped less loyal inorder to service that mechanic or else sides would just expand forever or until they become too big to support themselves and collapse. bankruptcy is just as terminal as being conquered.

[vdragan]

but royal heirs will be popped less loyal inorder to service that mechanic or else sides would just expand forever or until they become too big to support themselves and collapse. bankruptcy is just as terminal as being conquered.

I can definitely see Heirs being popped with a lower Loyalty score in order to augment their free will. I mean Wanda says that she's allowed to disobey an order if she thinks it will cause the end of the side. I'll bet you anything a gobwin wouldn't be able to do that. Which means there's a sort of progression lessening blind Loyalty as one goes up ranks. And the only thing higher than Heir is Overlord, right? So it follows that being an Heir would allow you more leeway with orders. Not complete disobedience.. but more talking back, certainly. So less loyalty.

[DevilDan]

dan if your getting into a long term relationship with someone all you tend to have is your feelings about them. you study them and see what makes them tick. saline could very well have chosen to make stanley an heir based on his opinions of stanley's motivations.

Many kingdoms don't have heirs, I suspect, until they have any reason to fear attack. Of course, tradition and the level of cautiousness of the ruler would be a factor.

i said all heirs are inherrantly disloyal as it aids in sides splitting and forming new kingdoms. sounds like a sensible method of causing such an issue if you ask me. either way we have as much evidence in both regards. so it's too early to say anything conclusive. i do not believe in the lack of evidence being proof for the safe theory. webcomics by design need to be as complicated and abstract as possible to keep the community guessing. being predictable is not in their best interests.

So, absent real evidence, which is likelier, that heir are reasonably loyal or that they are inherently disloyal? As I said, why pop them if they are? Sounds like a perverse system to me otherwise.

i think thinkamancers generally are very important , as are dirtamancers, foolamancers. essentially all the casters are important if you know how to best utilise their abilities. having a side without a thinkamancer is not terminal, from diplomacy and long range warfare angles thinkamancers would be very useful. but from the geurilla warfare type nations they may be a security risk and not something you would want. especially if charlie really can intercept thinkagrams.

As I wrote, Faq didn't seem to need any particular need for a thinkamancer compared to other sides.

erfworld is the kind of place you play the hand your dealt, there is no bad hands.

Spoken like a man who's never had a run of bad luck, haha.

Of course higher-level warlords and other executive/hero units are going to have more leeway. There's every reason to want the one with more responsibility and putatively more experience have greater freedom of action... so long as they are reasonably loyal.

[moose o death]

many kingdoms don't have heirs..we know of very few at any detail

GK, we don't know it's never been stated eitherway, it's either wanda if that's possible or no-one and stanley is fearful for the result
tv, ceaser
jetstone, was ansom now decrypted.

we have no other sides with enough information.i doubt casters can be heirs as they don't seem to be subject to the same rules as regular units so GK is probably the only resaonably story developed side without an heir.

[DevilDan]

many kingdoms don't have heirs..we know of very few at any detail

Faq didn't have an heir until a prophecy made it seem necessary. I could imagine that it's good insurance to have an heir. If nearly every side has an heir, that would only underscore how the theory that heir are naturally disloyal doesn't hold much water.

[moose o death]

not really, you keep looking at erfworlders like they are human. they aren't, they have their own ways of doing things. some of those things look strange to us. why pop someone who is very likley to betray me in some way? but for them it's common practise. if your side has no leader everyone dies. thousands of units cease to function if the leader croaks.

only an heir can prevent that. still not enough reason for me to pop an heir if i croak what do i care about my units? you bring up banhammer? he pops an heir when he finds out he will croak and faq will fall? how is that common sense. popping an heir will not save him in any way.he has done that for faq.

heirs do not save your bacon, they save the cities.

[DevilDan]

not really, you keep looking at erfworlders like they are human. they aren't, they have their own ways of doing things. some of those things look strange to us. why pop someone who is very likley to betray me in some way? but for them it's common practise. if your side has no leader everyone dies. thousands of units cease to function if the leader croaks.

only an heir can prevent that. still not enough reason for me to pop an heir if i croak what do i care about my units? you bring up banhammer? he pops an heir when he finds out he will croak and faq will fall? how is that common sense. popping an heir will not save him in any way.he has done that for faq.

heirs do not save your bacon, they save the cities.

Fair enough. That would mean, though, that royals are so, well, noble that they'd put themselves at serious risk in order to protect their side. As opposed to heirs, who, as you would have it, are monomaniacal about their eventual accession to the throne that neither loyalty nor the welfare of their side stand as serious considerations.

[moose o death]

popping an heir wont save your life, succesfully defending your kingdom will. it stands to reason more often than not the heir would fall at the same time or earlier than the ruler anyway so i see no legitimate reason why heirs have anything to do with battle or defence. they have some other ancillary benefit we have yet to witness...or they just sound good on paper. maybe they are actually popped as a cheap high level super unit. they level fast and have high leadership bonus's so popping one no matter how close to popping your own assasin that may proove is worth the cost/reward equation.

we could be talking about an extremely high powered unit for the cost of a piker, unfortunately it's a risky unit to keep around. and in saline and tv's case if you have legitimately high level units you can just spend the extra schmukers upgrading a regular unit to do that job. an heir would certainly be a higher level again on a chief warlord for bonus's. especially if every subsequent upgrade to a unit is additive. a popped heir might be powerful but (using stanley's case) a unit popped as a piker has combat and move, upgraded to warlord he gains further skills and retains his former, attuned adds further skills,chief warlord, further skills again, upgraded to an heir he's loaded up with everyt combat boost a unit could have.

but that kind of heir is probably super expensive

so royal heirs could simply be a very cheap method of getting a high level unit on a side quickly. the boost to your existing troops could mean a very powerful city defence in short order.

[random_guy]

Maybe it's the wording of your comment that's causing discussion. Should we refer to heirs as "potentially disloyal" instead of "inherently disloyal"?

I was wondering, are heirs the only units that can revolt. Disloyalty is not exclusive to them, since Wanda admitted to being disloyal to Stanley. However, does she have the ability to revolt without joining another side?

[moose o death]

she can be disbanded. so a revolution would be unwise. she may not be loyal to stanley but she's no idiot. her loyalty to him at any level is still enforceable. however, i don't think she's a captive either. i think she could quit and retreat to the magic kingdom. for all we know casters cannot lead a side.

[DevilDan]

She chose to join his side. The higher the unit is in hierarchy, most likely, the likelier they are to be able to revolt as they have greater latitude of thought and action. If they think that a ruler is going to make disastrous choices, they can "disobey" the most basic rule of not croaking their king, possibly.

Of course, some units may let ambition and pride cloud their judgment. Certainly Don King seems like he could be a reasonably effective leader, placing the onus of justifying the attempted coup against him on his son, who's unfortunately not granting interviews at the moment.

Yes, it's that "inherent" that bothers me.

[random_guy]

Assuming there is no heir, what happens when a warlord kills his king? Does the warlord, along with the entire kingdom become neutral? Or does the warlord end up declaring independence due to his action and become king?

The royals seem to be upset about Stanley's claim to having a titanic mandate, but are those concerns? Can Stanley inspire commonerss to step up to challenge royalty? It seems like the mechanics have been set up so that it's suicidal for anyone other than an heir to try to kill their king. If it's possible for units to "declare independence" things might get interesting.

[DevilDan]

Assuming there is no heir, what happens when a warlord kills his king? Does the warlord, along with the entire kingdom become neutral? Or does the warlord end up declaring independence due to his action and become king?

Presumably they become "frozen," easy pickings for whomever comes by, much as Parson and GK would have been if Wanda and the TV strike force had croaked Stanley at the battle of the pass.

The royals seem to be upset about Stanley's claim to having a titanic mandate, but are those concerns? Can Stanley inspire commonerss to step up to challenge royalty? It seems like the mechanics have been set up so that it's suicidal for anyone other than an heir to try to kill their king. If it's possible for units to "declare independence" things might get interesting.

Historically, at least in terms of earth history, monarchs have used the idea of a divine mandate to justify their rule. Of course, everything related to either deities or royalty is more complex when it comes to Erf, in practical terms, thanks to the differences between nobles and commoners and, now, to the arkentools. Could a warlord declare himself a barbarian somehow? I doubt it. But the possibility that Stanley, once he was made an heir, betrayed Saline, would be a precedent with which the royals could not possibly be happy.

Good points, random_guy.

[mortissimus]

Assuming there is no heir, what happens when a warlord kills his king? Does the warlord, along with the entire kingdom become neutral? Or does the warlord end up declaring independence due to his action and become king?

Presumably they become "frozen," easy pickings for whomever comes by, much as Parson and GK would have been if Wanda and the TV strike force had croaked Stanley at the battle of the pass.

Which is why units other then heirs would be fools to try regicide. Assuming there is no major difference in Loyalty score between heirs and non-heirs disloyal actions would differ. A non-heir might collaborate with the enemy and upon capture get their reward, an heir might try to overthrow the ruler.

[koolatron]

Assuming there is no heir, what happens when a warlord kills his king? Does the warlord, along with the entire kingdom become neutral? Or does the warlord end up declaring independence due to his action and become king?

I've been lurking here for the past couple of days, and it's this comment that spurred me to finally create an account. I've just got to comment.

There are likely a couple of subtle restrictions that I think would prevent a warlord from ever directly croaking his king. In particular, the threat of disbanding - I'm currently under the impression that any overtly disloyal action that a warlord takes with his king's knowledge will be met with an immediate and (probably) judicious disbanding. A disbanded warlord won't have much in the way of support for his cause; Additionally, being a barbarian, it's unclear whether he would be able to take further action at all. You know, besides getting croaked himself.

This is, in my view, the reason that Stanley had the Gobwins do his dirtywork. Stanley would simply not have been able to enact his plan by going in and murdering Saline himself, and the only recourse Saline would have against the Gobwins would be to break alliance, which they almost certainly did first anyway.

[raphfrk]

... and the only recourse Saline would have against the Gobwins would be to break alliance, which they almost certainly did first anyway.

Actually, that is a good point. Presumably, Natural Allies are not subject to insta-disbanding.

Also, I thought it was settled that disband means insta kill, i.e. the unit just disappears.

[President_Allosaurus]

Personally, I think Natural Thinkamancy works like Maggie said it did- that it enhances the already-there parts of you that would be like that, anyways. So units on a Side are more loyal and patriotic to it, Warlords are more creative and aggressive in following their Duty. But they still have free will of a sort, they still have their own personality and decisions, since the spell cannot force decisions they wouldn't otherwise make- that's in the realm of the mind control things Wanda performed, which is a visible spell effect thinkamancers can detect (or Archons can.)

Someone who becomes upset and disillusioned (such as by having their friend or lover die in combat) likely wouldn't be able to be forced to be Loyal, or if they just aren't the loyal type of person (like Don's children, I think.)

[taltamir]

the ENTIRE reason that they are even all fighting the battle of GK is because the royals BELEIVE that royalty is important, that it is a divine mandate from their gods whom they serve.
Religion.

Remember, parson even says "why bother even having royalty".

[DevilDan]

the ENTIRE reason that they are even all fighting the battle of GK is because the royals BELEIVE that royalty is important, that it is a divine mandate from their gods whom they serve.
Religion.

Remember, parson even says "why bother even having royalty".

I could make the argument that religion is only a justification, that it is holding onto power itself that is the driving factor behind it all.