Duty vs. Coups

[Tiger]

According to Klog 10, Commanders and Warlords are affected by Natural Thinkamancy in a way that prevents them from conspiring against their leader. Yet we have at least two instances of exactly that happening. Wanda sold out FAQ (okay, she didn't mean to, but still), and Don King's son made a grab for the throne. So... is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something?

[DevilDan]

Wanda is a caster rather than a walord... don't know if that would make a difference, but I thought I should bring it up.

[Anton Gaist]

I don't really see it as a contradiction. First, like DevilDan pointed out, Wanda is a caster, not a warlord, and second, apparently the rules for royalty are not the same as the ones for regular units.

As I see it (mostly speculation based on what I have read and remember right now so I might be wrong), royals are allowed to go against their ruler's wishes, which kind of makes sense since we know they sometimes split off and form their own sides. That couldn't happen if they were too bound by loyalty.

[DevilDan]

You'll find a brief discussion of Obedience, Loyalty, and Duty here:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg

[Tiger]

You'll find a brief discussion of Obedience, Loyalty, and Duty here:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg

Yes, I read that. Reading it was what brought up these questions in the first place, and I mentioned as much in my first post.

Wanda is a caster rather than a walord... don't know if that would make a difference, but I thought I should bring it up.

Read the klog you just linked to - casters are Commanders.

I don't really see it as a contradiction. First, like DevilDan pointed out, Wanda is a caster, not a warlord, and second, apparently the rules for royalty are not the same as the ones for regular units.

As I see it (mostly speculation based on what I have read and remember right now so I might be wrong), royals are allowed to go against their ruler's wishes, which kind of makes sense since we know they sometimes split off and form their own sides. That couldn't happen if they were too bound by loyalty.

We could accept that explanation if Don King's son was the only example, but since we now understand that casters are affected by Duty as well, it still leaves the problem of Wanda.

[DevilDan]

Tiger: The link I posted was a response to Anton Gaist, who seemed to be unsure of the terminology. Sorry about the confusion.

Wanda is a caster rather than a walord... don't know if that would make a difference, but I thought I should bring it up.

Read the klog you just linked to - casters are Commanders.

I didn't say that they weren't commanders; I clearly said that they aren't warlords and wondered if it makes a difference. If you don't think that might make a difference, that's fine.

I did read your post carefully. Please try to extend me the same courtesy.

[MarbitChow]

According to Klog 10, Commanders and Warlords are affected by Natural Thinkamancy in a way that prevents them from conspiring against their leader. Yet we have at least two instances of exactly that happening. Wanda sold out FAQ (okay, she didn't mean to, but still), and Don King's son made a grab for the throne. So... is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something?

Thinkamancy isn't an absolute. It can be resisted or overcome. Both Parson and Jillian provide examples of this.

Thinkamancy doesn't prevent - it simply makes it difficult. A low loyalty stat may have an impact on Natural Thinkamancy - it's easier to overcome your Duty if you are not Loyal.

If Duty were an absolute, saying that it is stronger for warlords, and even more so for Chief Warlord wouldn't make any sense.

[Tiger]

I didn't say that they weren't commanders; I clearly said that they aren't warlords and wondered if it makes a difference. If you don't think that might make a difference, that's fine.

But Commanders and Warlords are mentioned in the same breath as being affected by Duty.

I did read your post carefully. Please try to extend me the same courtesy.

Apologies if I caused any offense.

[DevilDan]

I didn't say that they weren't commanders; I clearly said that they aren't warlords and wondered if it makes a difference. If you don't think that might make a difference, that's fine.

But Commanders and Warlords are mentioned in the same breath as being affected by Duty.

That doesn't mean that they are affected in identical ways. We've had some discussion now, for example, of how casters may have some allegiance to the Magic Kingdom and to their lieges. And we know Wanda specifically is likely to be an outlier on any chart of commanders or of casters. She is, by virtue of being "cool"/"badass" and because of plotmancy/fate, in a class of her own.

[Anton Gaist]

You'll find a brief discussion of Obedience, Loyalty, and Duty here:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg

Thanks for the link. I was sort of fuzzy on the details.

As for Wanda, I don't think she was anything but loyal to Faq. She said it herself, she thought Stanley would fall and she would attune to the Arkentool. If he had and she had, Faq would have acquired a powerful weapon and gained an advantage. She made a mistake, Faq fell. Her fault, but not out of being disloyal.

Now for heirs, I've been thinking about it. The best I can come up with is that Loyalty could be not aimed necessarily at the ruler but at the side. For a non-royal commander, warlord or chief warlord, those two concepts are one and the same, since the fall of the ruler means the end of the side, but that wouldn't be the case for an heir. If the heir believed the side would benefit from the fall of the current ruler, my guess is he could act on that belief.

[Maldeus]

"Natural Thinkamancy" could just be an Erf term for "peer pressure." Some people will always do what they're told even if it doesn't make sense, others will go along with it because no alternative is given, and other will make an alternative if there isn't one already. Wanda falls into the latter category. Her loyalty, as she said, is to fate, not to Faq or Gobwin Knob.

[moose o death]

You'll find a brief discussion of Obedience, Loyalty, and Duty here:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg

Thanks for the link. I was sort of fuzzy on the details.

As for Wanda, I don't think she was anything but loyal to Faq. She said it herself, she thought Stanley would fall and she would attune to the Arkentool. If he had and she had, Faq would have acquired a powerful weapon and gained an advantage. She made a mistake, Faq fell. Her fault, but not out of being disloyal.

Now for heirs, I've been thinking about it. The best I can come up with is that Loyalty could be not aimed necessarily at the ruler but at the side. For a non-royal commander, warlord or chief warlord, those two concepts are one and the same, since the fall of the ruler means the end of the side, but that wouldn't be the case for an heir. If the heir believed the side would benefit from the fall of the current ruler, my guess is he could act on that belief.

err you do remember faq was a nation of philosphers right? they hid from local sides through use of a predictamancer and a foolamancer. they fought in far off lands to avoid anyone ever finding them.

why would a caster need an arkentool "for the good of her city"? faq fell because she invited the wolf into the sheepshed. she says she didn't expect faq to fall but she never said what she plans to do now either. no-one in GK truly trusts wanda right now. she's even made a veilled threat to parson which parson picked up on. she's also ON RECORD saying that she's loyal to fate magic NOT stanley. this implies to FAQ as well. she has proven she's willing to do what it takes to follow her fate. it's the rest of her sessions with that predictamncer we need to know now.

[President_Allosaurus]

According to Klog 10, Commanders and Warlords are affected by Natural Thinkamancy in a way that prevents them from conspiring against their leader. Yet we have at least two instances of exactly that happening. Wanda sold out FAQ (okay, she didn't mean to, but still), and Don King's son made a grab for the throne. So... is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something?

I believe Natural Thinkamancy, as Maggie explains it, only enhances that which is already there. So soldiers are more loyal, commanders more aggressive, that sort of thing. But it's not mind control (which is an actual spell, as Wanda's mancy on Jillian shows) and so a disloyal or traitorous person will still be traitorous, maybe less so, but circumstances and personality can still triumph.

[DevilDan]

Not to be pusillanimous or an apologist, but we don't know the weight that the predictamancer's prophecy has or had on Wanda's actions. For one, we don't know much about how those predictions work.

[PhoenixTalion]

I just had a thought. Remember the cast page back on GITP? Wanda is listed as 'the (lost) Croatan tribe'. Lost = destroyed?

Anyway, my gist is this -- maybe Faq wasn't Wanda's original side. It's mentioned that turned units have notoriously low loyalty to begin with. It brings up a lot more questions, but it's a thought.

[DevilDan]

Anyway, my gist is this -- maybe Faq wasn't Wanda's original side. It's mentioned that turned units have notoriously low loyalty to begin with. It brings up a lot more questions, but it's a thought.

It's been mentioned as a possibility before. It would explain (more or less) what Faq was doing with a croakamancer in the first place (assuming that sides can pick the sort of 'mancer they pop.)

[PhoenixTalion]

Aw, darn. I'd totally forgotten about that, and thus thought I was being clever.

Brings up some more, though, like I said. I mean, we don't know much about turning mechanics, but you've gotta wonder why Faq would even bother paying upkeep for a caster they're not going to use.

[SteveMB]

Aw, darn. I'd totally forgotten about that, and thus thought I was being clever.

Brings up some more, though, like I said. I mean, we don't know much about turning mechanics, but you've gotta wonder why Faq would even bother paying upkeep for a caster they're not going to use.

Who says they didn't? Wanda is proficient in a wide variety of magic; she just isn't particularly interested in any but Croakamancy.

[PhoenixTalion]

Oh! Good point. Could be how she got good at other disciplines, too.

[DevilDan]

Oh! Good point. Could be how she got good at other disciplines, too.

She is nothing if not resourceful and determined.