Book 2 – Page 56

[teratorn]

Only issue with "stepping down" is if a Ruler can abdicate in Erfworld - I don't think we've seen it happen.

We know a side can spawn a new side. Don can keep a small nice city and give the rest to Caesar's side. Or he can do a Bea after he gets the money to Jetstone, hence saving both sides. The «old generation» of Royals in RCC1 would thus be over.

[the_tick_rules]

It's never been done but it sounds like something that could be done. Or I suppose croaking yourself if you REALLY needed to for some reason is an option. Since he's making an heir to replace caesar it sounds like something very unlikely.

[MonteCristo]

I'm still trying to figure out what it means that Caesar, Ben and the other warlords are even capable of having this conversation. Stanley was amazed that Parson didn't spontaneously disband for accidentally disobeying an order because he didn't understand the full implications of it. Maggie had to trick Stanley into allowing her to place a suggestion spell on him and that was only possible in the context of imminent disaster for the side. And yet here we see TV's moneymancer defy a direct order and then be backed up in his defiance by the entire command structure of the side, all without any sort of auto-disband even being contemplated. Not sure what it means, but very interesting nontheless.

Duty...
The stat basically compels units to use their own initiative to serve their ruler and their side. This would likely include disobeying direct orders from the ruler themselves if they KNEW it went against the ruler's best interests. If you might recall, Wanda was able to refuse Stanely's order to promote a new chief warlord because she knew it went against his best interests. At this point, Ben knows full well that the side can not afford to make such a loan on a loosing fight

Obedience and Loyalty may also be a factor when it comes to Ceasar and the other warlords. With all of his actions lately Don has likely done a number on their loyalty stat of his warlords. At this point, the warlords are more loyal to Ceasar than to Don himself. I would also mention that one of the don's previous heir's actually DID attempt a coup which proves that betrayal is possible

[Musrum]

in panel 9, "Thown" doesn't sound as gangsta as T'rown
or maybe you just missed an r >_>

Cut her some slack. She's obviously got a slight lisp. Is it the bubble gum? The extended canines? Or do I detect a hint of tongue-stud?

[Stormchi]

So Maggie's all like bro they're croaking our doodz, and Parson's all like yeah sucks to be them I guess. Tell the guy who replaces me to get on that. I mean what gives?

What happened to the Parson who decided to go through the portal in the first place cause he realized these were real people involved in these conflicts? Is he being pragmatic? Is he distracted by his near future dash through the MK? Is it cause he doesn't know anyone personally there? Did promoting himself to field unit somehow lose him his tactical overview?
---> Is he a multi-layered, complex character? <--

Just sayin...

[Willowleafs]

Well, for one he couldn't get there right now if he wanted to.

[Althernai]

So Maggie's all like bro they're croaking our doodz, and Parson's all like yeah sucks to be them I guess. Tell the guy who replaces me to get on that. I mean what gives?

There is absolutely nothing he can do about it so he is not going to spend time on it because there are many other things that he can do something about to think of. It's the only rational course of action.

[Oberon]

So then I ask you, what has he got to lose? If his only choices are to die to Caesar's rebellion, possibly die to Carpool if he disbands Caesar, or possibly live on as some kind of puppet king who has to wait for his casters to check with Caesar to get approval for every order, then why not chose the best option,

Or he should consider what is best for his side and not for himself. I'd tell Caesar I'd step down after the money goes to Jetstone.

And why the hell should he do that? He is the king! The side belongs to him! "Stepping down" doesn't even seem to be an option in Erfworld, and if it were, why would Caesar (the new TV king) maintain Don's upkeep when his policies are so despised?

Don can keep a small nice city and give the rest to Caesar's side.

Again, why would Caesar allow Don to keep this city? He is already very butt-hurt over allowing Jillian to take and build on the FAQ city sites.

Or he can do a Bea after he gets the money to Jetstone, hence saving both sides.

And now you're graciously allowing Don to kill himself rather than simply disbanding Caesar and dealing with the consequences. How generous of you! How about looking at things from Don's point of view? He is the man in charge, after all. If all you have to offer up is "Don should lose power" or "Don should die", then it's rather clear that you're not looking at things from the correct perspective. Don holds, for however much longer it may last, all the cards here. Right now he has the power and the capability to set the course of his own ship of fate. Pretending that every decision for Don except the ones where he ends up powerless, a puppet, or dead isn't really realistic.

So Maggie's all like bro they're croaking our doodz, and Parson's all like yeah sucks to be them I guess. Tell the guy who replaces me to get on that. I mean what gives?

Where've you been? Parson has always been a realist. He'd do something if he could, but it isn't his turn and he cannot. So he does the best thing he can: Gives the best orders he can issue in the case of his death, and returns his attention to the things he can influence by direct action.

[cheeseaholic]

And why the hell should he do that? He is the king! The side belongs to him! "Stepping down" doesn't even seem to be an option in Erfworld, and if it were, why would Caesar (the new TV king) maintain Don's upkeep when his policies are so despised?

Because Don would be a warlord, which they're rather low on at the moment, and their side depends on warlords? Have Don manage a nice seaside city.

Again, why would Caesar allow Don to keep this city? He is already very butt-hurt over allowing Jillian to take and build on the FAQ city sites.

Because he wants things to work out peacefully? If Don and Ceaser go against each other, they end up in a MAD situation. Disbanding Ceaser would likely doom the side at this point, which could happen if they attempt a coup. Assuming things go in that direction, of course.

And now you're graciously allowing Don to kill himself rather than simply disbanding Caesar and dealing with the consequences. How generous of you! How about looking at things from Don's point of view? He is the man in charge, after all. If all you have to offer up is "Don should lose power" or "Don should die", then it's rather clear that you're not looking at things from the correct perspective. Don holds, for however much longer it may last, all the cards here. Right now he has the power and the capability to set the course of his own ship of fate. Pretending that every decision for Don except the ones where he ends up powerless, a puppet, or dead isn't really realistic.

Yes, disband Caesar, your best warlord in terms of stats, and likely strategy. Remember that city that you just took back from Carpool? You wouldn't have it without this guy. The bat swarm strategy? Good luck without your highest level warlord. Don doesn't have all the cards. He has one card - disbandment. That's the nuclear option. I don't know why he'd use the option that would lead to his own destruction when he could take another one.

It's time for Don to go. All his policies have failed. His strategy of using FAQ to help Spacerock failed. It only looked like it would succeed due to Charlie's intervention. His own side has been losing cities and warlords and cash to a large degree. Now his own warlords and casters don't seem to care about his decisions. Don's failing fast and he must go for the good of his side.

And as far as not publicly disagreeing with Don in the open...I find that an interesting idea. I wonder if that's the case in most of Erfworld. It would help to explain the lack of innovation if nobody ever discussed things and just did what their leader told them. If people behaved in Erfworld how you believe that they should be behaving, I can see how the world could become rigid and unimaginative.

[elecampane]

And why the hell should he do that? He is the king! The side belongs to him! "Stepping down" doesn't even seem to be an option in Erfworld, and if it were, why would Caesar (the new TV king) maintain Don's upkeep when his policies are so despised?
...
If all you have to offer up is "Don should lose power" or "Don should die", then it's rather clear that you're not looking at things from the correct perspective. Don holds, for however much longer it may last, all the cards here. Right now he has the power and the capability to set the course of his own ship of fate. Pretending that every decision for Don except the ones where he ends up powerless, a puppet, or dead isn't really realistic.

Slately is going to step down. It seems that the only way to do it is dying, but he's going to do it anyway, for the good of his side.
Queen Bea has ended the whole side for the sake of the abstract idea.
However, I don't think it's in Don's character to step down now - he believes Ceasar doesn't have proper understanding of situation and thus will make wrong decisions.
I'm just saying that ruler sacrificing oneself for the good of the side is not unheard of.

[opal]

I think Don has lost his perspective since Queen Bea died. He "ignores the domestic for matters majestic." Fighting Gobwin Knob is the right thing to do but not at the expense of his kingdom.

The honorable think for a friend to to is call him on it. The dutiful thing for a subject to do is call him on it.

[Oberon]

Because Don would be a warlord, which they're rather low on at the moment, and their side depends on warlords? Have Don manage a nice seaside city.

Why would Don be a warlord? Where is any evidence for that? We don't know if Don popped as an heir, he was never a warlord. So in addition to no precedent for "stepping down", there is no precedent for appointing a former king to be a warlord. Really, this entire line of thought is just one huge ball of invented supposition.
And why would Caesar allow Don to live if Caesar became king? Why would you suffer the fool you had to overthrow? It makes no sense to just say Caesar would pack Don peacably off to some remote city to manage. If Caesar so greatly disagrees with Don's management that he rebels, why would he then allow Don to manage anything at all? You don't put someone in charge of something when you so violently disagree with their management capabilities, after all.

Disbanding Ceaser would likely doom the side at this point, which could happen if they attempt a coup.

More speculation. As I've pointed out numerous times before, passing the CWL title seems to be an easy thing to do. Jetstone passed it from Ansom to Ossomer to Tram, with no apparent shmucker cost, unlike appointing a new heir. GK has passed it from pretty boy to pretty boy, and from Parson to Ansom to Parson without any noticeable impact. And GK seems to do just fine with a L2 CWL, so there is no reason TV cannot carry on with Vinny or any of the other TV warlords. If Caesar is the highest level TV warlord (which is speculation), will this impact the TV combat capability? Possibly. But there is strong evidence that a smart CWL is better than a high level CWL, and Caesar is a clod.

Yes, disband Caesar, your best warlord in terms of stats, and likely strategy.

Best in terms of stats? Speculative. Best in terms of strategy? Also speculative. Vinny, at least, has proven himself to be a quick wit. Caesar has one single battle where he used non-standard tactics and won. And although he came out ahead against Stanley using standard TV tactics, he certainly didn't achieve the objective. So he's got an observed "batting 500" score. Great in baseball, not so much as a general.

As I've said before, the entire argument for keeping Caesar around seems to be based on one single premise: TV is doomed without him. And this is predictamancy of the most tenuous nature. Caesar isn't the sole saving grace of TV as you and others appear to position him. And most importantly, Don is the friggin' king and can certainly do better without a disloyal CWL than with one who has engineered a situation where the other warlords and casters need to check with Caesar before obeying Don's orders.

It's time for Don to go. All his policies have failed.

More thinking about what might be best for TV or Caesar, and ignoring the fact that the current king might have an opinion on the matter, and the power to influence this decision. And as for failed policies, look at who Parson is ordering destroyed: FAQ. Not TV. That is a clear policy win, as the entire reason for propping up FAQ appears to be to keep TV out of GK's radar and behind the scenes.

[Atomic]

And why would Caesar allow Don to live if Caesar became king?

While I agree with/find no fault in most of what you've said regarding the imminent coup, you're starting to sound a little silly in your attempts to shut everybody else down. Are you saying that if you were in Caesar's position, and there was a way to depose Don through non-violent means, you'd just kill your King to get him out of your hair? Seriously? Dude, that's messed up.

Stop looking at it as a game. For the characters Rob has written, this is 'real life'. Don didn't pop Caesar as an heir; he popped him as a Warlord. A Warlord who, over what was likely to be a long period of time, proved himself to be capable in both fighting battles and leading others into battle. A Warlord that Don -likely- had no qualms with...all the problems started when Caesar began to have issues with Don King's strategic investments/choices.

And just so we're clear here, 'cause everyone is thinking it'll be a blood-bath: the literal definition of a "coup d'état"/"coup" holds no murderous intentions. The violent overthrow is a mere connotation which has been attached over time... Based on what we know, it's just as likely for Caesar to kill Don as it is for Caesar to get the majority vote of Transylvito-Warlords before granting himself emergency powers in the senate.

[Althernai]

As I've said before, the entire argument for keeping Caesar around seems to be based on one single premise: TV is doomed without him. And this is predictamancy of the most tenuous nature. Caesar isn't the sole saving grace of TV as you and others appear to position him. And most importantly, Don is the friggin' king and can certainly do better without a disloyal CWL than with one who has engineered a situation where the other warlords and casters need to check with Caesar before obeying Don's orders.

Transylvito has 19 warlords of which 8 are at the party and appear to have sided with Caesar. Don relies on warlords to administer cities and to act as a multiplier for the prowess of bats. They had already lost several of them to Carpool and lack the funds to replace them. So yes, if Don decides to crush Caesar's little rebellion by disbanding the disobedient units, Transylvito is almost certainly finished. That said, I'm not sure whether at this point Don even can disband Caesar. It depends on how plays for the throne work and at what point a disloyal unit becomes immune to disbanding.

Also, I don't think Caesar is trying for a coup -- he doesn't want to depose Don, he just wants Don to stop the insanity. Caesar genuinely believes he is acting for the good of the side.

[Oberon]

While I agree with/find no fault in most of what you've said regarding the imminent coup, you're starting to sound a little silly in your attempts to shut everybody else down. Are you saying that if you were in Caesar's position, and there was a way to depose Don through non-violent means, you'd just kill your King to get him out of your hair?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just trying to look at the situation logically. If Caesar hates Don's policies and management so much that he ousts him, then why would he trust Don to manage a city, or take any other leadership role? If you're suggesting that there may be a compromise that Caesar would bend on and allow Don to live, I'm not going to disagree. But that just doesn't seem to be the way things are handled on Erf. Note that both of Don's children are dead, and not managing small cities somewhere remote. If you can point to anything that suggests that this kind of compromise has ever taken place before.

elecampane seems to suggest that Slately intending to step down or Bea ending her side are examples of royals stepping down. And he is right, but the situations are far different. Slately seems to have arrived at the conclusion that he has wronged Tram over time, and that Tram will be the better ruler. I don't think Slately wants to die, he just sees it as being very likely should he hold the rear guard while Tram exits the city. Bea didn't step down, she eliminated her every unit to keep them from becoming GK units. That is a relinquishment of power, sure, but on a far greater scale and with no transition to another. But I do agree with elecampane, I also do not see standing down as either within Don's character or good for TV overall. Caesar is not a strategic thinker and has no idea what Don has been trying to accomplish. Caesar might hold TV for a few more turns, but I see TV falling far faster under Caesar than under Don without Caesar.

Dude, that's messed up.

Complain to the author. He's the one who hasn't demonstrated that middle-ground transfer of power alternatives are possible through the many examples we have seen within the strip.

Stop looking at it as a game. For the characters Rob has written, this is 'real life'.

I'm not looking at it as a game. I'm looking at things as I believe the characters would see things. The opposing side seems to be only looking at how they want things to turn out, or they dislike Don and just propose things that see him killed or marginalized. I don't find those views to be reasonable unless Don decides that living as a puppet or an insignificant unit is better than death, should it come down to that. But that doesn't seem like Don's character, to me.

[drachefly]

If Caesar hates Don's policies and management so much that he ousts him, then why would he trust Don to manage a city, or take any other leadership role?

Because 'leading' a city is not really leadership in the sense we understand it. It's fairly valuable grunt-work.

As for it being supposition that Don King is in fact also a warlord... what? Heir isn't a unit type, heir is an attribute like royal or heavy. So what unit type would Don King have been? Twoll?

[Althernai]

I don't find those views to be reasonable unless Don decides that living as a puppet or an insignificant unit is better than death, should it come down to that. But that doesn't seem like Don's character, to me.

You keep saying that, but is there really any evidence of that? Benjamin, Caesar and the warlords do not appear to be out to marginalize Don. They are disobeying only because they believe the order to be suicidal. We have seen this happen before (Wanda and Stanley at the beginning of the story) and it does not cause the overlord to become a puppet. At this point, Transylvito's elite are still loyal to Don, they just don't believe he is acting in his own best interest.

[atalex]

I'm still trying to figure out what it means that Caesar, Ben and the other warlords are even capable of having this conversation. Stanley was amazed that Parson didn't spontaneously disband for accidentally disobeying an order because he didn't understand the full implications of it. Maggie had to trick Stanley into allowing her to place a suggestion spell on him and that was only possible in the context of imminent disaster for the side. And yet here we see TV's moneymancer defy a direct order and then be backed up in his defiance by the entire command structure of the side, all without any sort of auto-disband even being contemplated. Not sure what it means, but very interesting nontheless.

Duty...
The stat basically compels units to use their own initiative to serve their ruler and their side. This would likely include disobeying direct orders from the ruler themselves if they KNEW it went against the ruler's best interests. If you might recall, Wanda was able to refuse Stanely's order to promote a new chief warlord because she knew it went against his best interests. At this point, Ben knows full well that the side can not afford to make such a loan on a loosing fight

Obedience and Loyalty may also be a factor when it comes to Ceasar and the other warlords. With all of his actions lately Don has likely done a number on their loyalty stat of his warlords. At this point, the warlords are more loyal to Ceasar than to Don himself. I would also mention that one of the don's previous heir's actually DID attempt a coup which proves that betrayal is possible

Yeah, but here's the thing: is the Duty to the side or the side's ruler? Most of the time, it will be the same thing. L'etat c'est moi, and all that. But the mere possibility of a coup in a political setting where absolute rulers can disband truculent units apparently with a thought and where the units themselves auto-disband whenever they knowingly defy the orders of their rulers intrigues me. It suggests that Duty is first and foremost to the side. If that is true, then a unit's respect for his ruler flows entirely from the fact that the ruler is in charge of the side. It's not really "l'etat c'est moi" ("I [the king] am the State") so much as a magical patriotism which enforces loyalty to the side and coincidentally makes the unit have a natural respect for the ruler and the chain of command he represents. Sort of like how George Bush's approval rating shot up to 97% after 9/11 as Americans who didn't vote for him and didn't like him nevertheless supported him in a time of national crisis.

Conclusions: Duty is a magically imposed trait that links a unit to a side, not a ruler. Duty causes a unit to auto-disband if it knowingly violates an order from a ruler, but only so long as the unit believes the ruler is acting in the best interests of the side. Most units instinctively assume that the ruler de facto represents the best interests of the side, but this instinctive belief can be overcome by direct observation of bad decisions by a poor ruler. When a unit subjectively believes that following a particular order will lead to disaster for the side, autodisband does not take place. Units who observe a pattern of such bad decisions begin to chafe against the Duty to obey the ruler as their convictions that the ruler's commands are good for the side wane. This subjective belief in the ruler's basic competence is reflected by the Loyalty trait. Actual Loyalty is completely separate from Duty and is an entirely character driven trait that ebbs and flows according to the relationship between unit and ruler.

Theories: What if both the auto-disband rule and the royal disbanding prerogative are dependent on the unit's own subjective belief that the ruler is competent to lead the side, i.e. Loyalty? IOW, what if there is a critical point on the Loyalty scale below which the unit no longer risks disbanding for defying the ruler's orders and below which the ruler no longer has the power to disband at will. Of course, since Loyalty is an unknowable stat, not even the unit itself could be sure that it was safe from disbandment, hence Caesar's caution. This, to me, explains a lot about how GK units deal with Stanley. Pretty much his entire command staff is contemptuous of him, from Parson tricking him into thinking that "Tool" was a term of great respect to Maggie tricking him into ordering her to mind control him into taking the action she wanted taken. (Man, I'd hate to diagram that last sentence.)

This theory, if true, also limits the mind-altering aspects of Turnamancy, which concern Blando and others. Turnamancy, in this context, does not alter the emotional traits of the unit so much as simply reset the unit-side link so that the unit is linked to a different side. Parson has little Loyalty to Stanley, so if he were captured by another side, it would probably be very easy to turn him, in the sense that his captor would become the new ruler with disbanding privileges. But Parson would still have very little Loyalty unless the ruler to steps to inculcate that Loyalty.

[Oberon]

Because 'leading' a city is not really leadership in the sense we understand it. It's fairly valuable grunt-work.

Correction: It's fairly valuable grunt work which leaves Don alive to potentially reverse the situation again in the future. There is a reason why in our own history that after a coup that anyone on the opposing side with a potential legitimate claim to the throne (in some cases no matter how tenuous this might be) is often killed. Because all it takes is a few backers for the grand nephew of the former monarch and you could have yet another struggle for the throne.

As for it being supposition that Don King is in fact also a warlord... what? Heir isn't a unit type, heir is an attribute like royal or heavy. So what unit type would Don King have been? Twoll?

Not twoll, clearly. But what do you suggest? We've got two heirs popping right now. Have either been referred to as a warlord, ever? Are you suggesting that you have to be a warlord to be an overlord or king? If you are, I don't think there is any backing for that theory. Is it fuzzy? You bet.

At this point, Transylvito's elite are still loyal to Don, they just don't believe he is acting in his own best interest.

So let me ask you then: Where do you see things possibly going? Let's assume that Don agrees to drop the gem for Jetstone. Let's also assume that he agrees to drop support for FAQ. Can we agree that these appear to be some of the largest objections against Don's recent policies? Then what? Do Caesar and the remainder of the warlords and casters just go "Hey, that's great, Don! Thanks so much. Now we're all one big, happy side again and you're the king and set the course for the kingdom again." Is this at all what you conceptualize? If not, I'd really like to hear how you see Don being forced to back away from his command decisions and yet still remain in command of Caesar, the casters, and the side at large.

[GaryThunder]

Bear in mind that disbanding Caesar would also cause Don to lose Benjamin. Benny is not going to stick around after Don murders his top warlord and dooms his side just so he can further doom his side by blowing his treasury. He'll either turn, go through the MK portal and stay there, or just provoke Don into disbanding him if he had no other option.

And though Don has no way of knowing this, how do you think Bunny would take Don disbanding Caesar?