Duty vs. Coups

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Duty vs. Coups

Postby Tiger » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:05 pm

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?
Tiger
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:33 pm

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.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby Anton Gaist » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:54 am

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.
Gentlemen, I like war.
I like trench war, I like Blitzkrieg, I like the offensive, I like the defensive.
I truly love each and every kind of war man can wage on a tabletop game.
Anton Gaist
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:33 pm

You'll find a brief discussion of Obedience, Loyalty, and Duty here:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby Tiger » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:36 pm

DevilDan wrote: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.

DevilDan wrote: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.

Anton Gaist wrote: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.
Tiger
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:55 pm

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

Tiger wrote:
DevilDan wrote: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.
Last edited by DevilDan on Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:00 pm

Tiger wrote: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.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby Tiger » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:52 pm

DevilDan wrote: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.
Tiger
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:56 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:21 pm

Tiger wrote:
DevilDan wrote: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.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby Anton Gaist » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:31 pm

DevilDan wrote: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.
Gentlemen, I like war.
I like trench war, I like Blitzkrieg, I like the offensive, I like the defensive.
I truly love each and every kind of war man can wage on a tabletop game.
Anton Gaist
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby Maldeus » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:05 pm

"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.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby moose o death » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Anton Gaist wrote:
DevilDan wrote: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.
http://moosetech.blogspot.com/ my video game art. in easy to read blog form. swing on by. laugh at my spelling.
User avatar
moose o death
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:17 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby President_Allosaurus » Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:29 am

Tiger wrote: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.
User avatar
President_Allosaurus
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:21 am

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.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby PhoenixTalion » Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:37 pm

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.
|Icons|Art|Fanfic|

"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa."
~Robert Heinlein
User avatar
PhoenixTalion
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:22 pm

PhoenixTalion wrote: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.)
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby PhoenixTalion » Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:50 pm

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.
|Icons|Art|Fanfic|

"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa."
~Robert Heinlein
User avatar
PhoenixTalion
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby SteveMB » Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:08 pm

PhoenixTalion wrote: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.
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby PhoenixTalion » Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:09 pm

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

"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa."
~Robert Heinlein
User avatar
PhoenixTalion
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Duty vs. Coups

Postby DevilDan » Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:46 pm

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

She is nothing if not resourceful and determined.
They could not possibly win. Every man knew this with certainty, and lo it was glorious.
User avatar
DevilDan
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:44 pm

Next

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests