Lord Crush - Part 4

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:00 am

Lilwik wrote:
Sir Shadow wrote:You guys are just not seeing. To the 'normal' people of Erfworld, the Decrypted seem like undead monstrosities.
I'm seeing that, and it's the worst thing about Queen Bea. Presuming that Queen Bea really believed that and wasn't just making an excuse, then Queen Bea is the real monster. In Queen Bea's opinion Cruz was a undead monstrosity and therefore killing Cruz was terrible but good in Bea's opinion. Unfortunately opinions don't always line up with facts, and we know that decrypted are people in fact. So in opinion Cruz was the monster, while in fact Queen Bea was the monster who killed people in mass quantities based on her misguided opinions.

Whenever someone has an opinion that indicates large numbers of people should be killed, it's time to take a hard look at whether that opinion is justified and carefully fact-check the whole situation. Queen Bea didn't do that, which is just awful.

LordAcme wrote:Plus, even if he failed it then, he'd have another chance any time something goes wrong.
Not if the first time something goes wrong is when Bullyclub betrays Squashcourt after totally conquering the union. There's no reason to think anything will go wrong before that point, and then it will be too late. I also expect that Crush was doomed to failure in that meeting no matter what he did; Scrofula could never accept Crush's plan without admitting to making a mistake no matter how the plan was presented.

Perhaps the only way it could have worked would be to not present the plan to the king, but instead present it to all of the king's warlords and have them very slowly and gently guide Scrofula into thinking of the plan himself.


What you're proposing is that Queen Bea, who is directly opposed to GK on an ideological level, collaborate with them. Collaborationism is generally considered treason.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lipkin » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:12 am

Dystopianman wrote:If Crush and Parson were to meet, Parson might finally find his much needed #2.

Parson already is a #2. What he needs is for Stanley to name an heir so Stanley can go do field work. That would offset Parson's abysmal leadership stat.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby mortissimus » Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:55 am

If faced with a superior force, a leader should collaborate with that force in order to protect the troops under his or her command, no matter how abhorent the nature of the superior force. Hm, that certainly makes some utilitarian sense, so now I have to go re-evaluate historic and fictional situations where a weaker group decides to fight anyway.
mortissimus
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:06 am

mortissimus wrote:If faced with a superior force, a leader should collaborate with that force in order to protect the troops under his or her command, no matter how abhorent the nature of the superior force. Hm, that certainly makes some utilitarian sense, so now I have to go re-evaluate historic and fictional situations where a weaker group decides to fight anyway.


Ask a Frenchman how they feel about Petain compared to de Gaulle.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby 0beron » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:43 am

Ok fine, I'll actually respond to the garbage argument that "Bea is evil specifically because she sees Decrypted as abominations" and related issues:
  1. As I have said....what, 4 times now?...the "monsters" here are the Titans. They created a world where endless fighting is the MO, wrote a Scripture that TELLS Royals they are superior, and gives them superior stats to back it up. Bea and modern royals may be said to be wrong and misguided, but they are not "evil" even by our world's standards.
  2. Our world's standards are the completely wrong measuring stick here, so stop trying to use them.
  3. If you insist on using our world's standards against all good reason not to, at least use them correctly. If you follow this logic through to it's conclusion, then families of murder victims are evil for wanting the perp dead, the world was evil for wanting Hitler dead, and anyone who has ever killed period (even in self-defense) is evil. Sorry, but it just doesn't hold up when you try and apply it so broadly.
  4. Evil requires intent. Not necessarily the acceptance that you are evil, but a drive/desire to accomplish something for selfish gain. Modern Royals do not fit that requirement. When it comes to the Decrypted, Royals are fighting for their survival, and we know from their private conversations that this is a genuine fear, not a ruse put together to de-humanize GK. Who is responsible for de-humanizing the Decrypted? See Point #1.
  5. There is not any hypocrisy in the fear of Decrypted either. Contrary to claims, Decrypted do not fit the model of turned units. Turning is assisted by a Turnamancer, but ultimately is the unit's personal choice. This has been explicitly stated. So when a unit Turns, it's because even their current self wants to for some reason or another. Their opinions may shift slightly, but the fact remains that the entire time, serving the "enemy" was consistent with their core personality and desires. Decryption is the complete opposite. It offers no choice, and takes units who clearly would have never joined GK.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:32 am

GWvsJohn wrote:What you're proposing is that Queen Bea, who is directly opposed to GK on an ideological level, collaborate with them. Collaborationism is generally considered treason.
It's really hard for a ruler to commit treason. Treason requires a betrayal of your own side, and since the ruler controls the side she pretty much gets whatever she wants anyway. A ruler committing treason would be like a man who owns everything trying to be a thief. If there is anything that a ruler could do that would be treason, the deliberate total destruction of the side would have to be treason. Preventing the destruction of the side by means of a calculated and carefully negotiated alliance is certainly not treason.

0beron wrote:As I have said....what, 4 times now?...the "monsters" here are the Titans. They created a world where endless fighting is the MO, wrote a Scripture that TELLS Royals they are superior, and gives them superior stats to back it up. Bea and modern royals may be said to be wrong and misguided, but they are not "evil" even by our world's standards.
I agree that the Titans are probably evil since they're the ultimate cause of all of this stuff, but that's no excuse for people to do bad things. If the Titans made you evil, that doesn't mean you're not actually evil.

If Queen Bea was merely misguided and not actually evil, then she was really pushing hard to prove just how terrible a misguided person can be. Not only did she murder her daughter and disband an army of soldiers who surely didn't deserve to be disbanded, but she was also responsible for the destruction of Unaroyal. I don't know anything about the history of Unaroyal, but surely it had previous kings and queens who worked hard to make Unaroyal what it was and each chose their heirs trusting they would strive to protect Unaroyal. Surely its people had a culture and dreams for the future. Think of the book where Jetstone kings write to their successors; maybe Unaroyal had something like that. Whatever proud tradition Unaroyal represented was ended by Queen Bea. As ruler of Unaroyal she should have had no higher priority than preventing the very thing that she made happen.

0beron wrote:If you follow this logic through to it's conclusion, then families of murder victims are evil for wanting the perp dead, the world was evil for wanting Hitler dead, and anyone who has ever killed period (even in self-defense) is evil. Sorry, but it just doesn't hold up when you try and apply it so broadly.
I'm having a hard time following that logic. Could you explain it step by step? I don't see how you got to those conclusions. I'm especially curious about the source of the idea that self defense is evil.

0beron wrote:Evil requires intent. Not necessarily the acceptance that you are evil, but a drive/desire to accomplish something for selfish gain. Modern Royals do not fit that requirement.
If you want to use that definition of evil, then let's say that instead of being evil, Queen Bea was just as horrible as any evil person could be, but not actually evil due to a technicality. She was murdering, monstrous, massively destructive, and betrayed her own side, but not technically evil because she wasn't selfish.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:29 am

I really can't believe this is so hard to understand.

Bea is/was opposed to everything GK stands for. Her only options were strengthening GK or not strengthening GK. Left with no options to better her own side she chose the option that hurt her foe most. Alliance was not an option. Bea is completely opposed to a non-Royal decrypted empire. Allying with GK (to have them inevitably subsume Unaroyal) is not something she could not do.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Mikalyaran » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:02 pm

0beron wrote:[*]Our world's standards are the completely wrong measuring stick here, so stop trying to use them.


I love how everyone against Bea seems to ignore this point.

In a world where violence is nearly the only cause of death (Wanda nearly died of a magical sickness) there is no such thing as murder. Without a natural death like old age available to units the negative connotations of the word murder don't apply. The morals associated with it in our world are irrelevant. Because in Erfworld being "murdered" is the most natural death possible. What's more in every library the people who made the whole flippin mess put a book that says something like this...

"Fear not your death in battle. Honor belongs to units who croak defending their side. But Glory belong to the unit who makes the other guy croak for his side. All true service shall be judged fairly by the Titans. Also Royals rule! LMFAOWTFBBQ"

Those are the morals Erfolk judge themselves by. Not "You committed a murder and that makes you a horrible bad monstrous person for it."
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby NYbear » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:17 pm

Lilwik wrote: If Bea believed that Cruz had been magically transformed into a rabid dog, that wouldn't make it okay to murder Cruz.


Actually it would, since a rabid dog is a threat to the safety of the community, the dog would be put down.

And she didn't murder her daughter Cruz from her perspective. She had the undead facsimile/simulacrum of her deceased daughter destroyed - no matter how good an impersonation this marionette before her was, it was not the daughter she knew to have croaked.

She had 2 choices:
Betray her ideals (questionable ideals or not) and collaborate with GK, a side that is literally anathema to her core beliefs (again, regardless if those beliefs are good or misplaced)...and then assume GK could be trusted enough to obey by any alliance terms and would not just turn on them (previous GK actions could certainly put some doubt on that)

Or prevent this foe, which grows larger from any fallen enemies, from gaining any units from Unaroyal in the ultimate act of sacrifice - so that her allies would stand a better chance against, what she saw, as this horrendous army of abominations.

I think her actions make sense given her point of view, ideals, history, and facts of life of Erfworld etc.
We are free to disagree her choices and voice opinions, but level of condemnation, outright malice towards Bea, and obtuse logic on the part of some posters leaves me wondering if we aren't being taken for a ride by the bridge keeper.
NYbear
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:50 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:Bea is/was opposed to everything GK stands for. Her only options were strengthening GK or not strengthening GK. Left with no options to better her own side she chose the option that hurt her foe most.
That is all true, but I'd like to add that even though she had no options which bettered her side, some options still gave better outcomes for her side than other options. She chose the worst option for her side, of course.

GWvsJohn wrote:Alliance was not an option.
Alliance was not an option for Bea. It would have been an option if Unaroyal happened to have a good ruler, but they had the bad fortune to be ruled by someone for which alliance was not an option.

Mikalyaran wrote:In a world where violence is nearly the only cause of death (Wanda nearly died of a magical sickness) there is no such thing as murder. Without a natural death like old age available to units the negative connotations of the word murder don't apply.
There is still murder. Killing in defense of your side is glorified; that's not murder by Erfworld standards. It seems to be accepted that rulers have the right to disband units, so that's usually not murder either. That still leaves at least two ways to kill people that Erfworlders do not accept: croaking units on your own side and croaking people in a parley. Even in Erfworld there are many situations where people are expected to not kill each other.

NYbear wrote:
Lilwik wrote:If Bea believed that Cruz had been magically transformed into a rabid dog, that wouldn't make it okay to murder Cruz.
Actually it would, since a rabid dog is a threat to the safety of the community, the dog would be put down.
Is that what you would say to a delusional person who decided that you had been magically transformed into a rabid dog? It sounds like you're saying that as long as the person killing you believes that you are a rabid dog, killing you is the right thing to do. Would you actually encourage it? "Since that is what you believe, it is okay to kill me."
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:00 pm

Lilwik wrote:
GWvsJohn wrote:Bea is/was opposed to everything GK stands for. Her only options were strengthening GK or not strengthening GK. Left with no options to better her own side she chose the option that hurt her foe most.
That is all true, but I'd like to add that even though she had no options which bettered her side, some options still gave better outcomes for her side than other options. She chose the worst option for her side, of course.

GWvsJohn wrote:Alliance was not an option.
Alliance was not an option for Bea. It would have been an option if Unaroyal happened to have a good ruler, but they had the bad fortune to be ruled by someone for which alliance was not an option.


I disagree 100% on both of your points. Unaroyal and GK are completely opposed on an ideological level. Allying with GK effectively ends Unaroyal as a side. It merely allows it to exist for a time as a vassal state of GK until GK decides its time to squash Unaroyal and decrypt its units.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lamech » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:37 pm

Lipkin wrote:False. Caesar knew Ansom was croaked, and said "in" before he was cut off. It's easy to presume he was about to say "a false parley." Whatever the case, it definitely seemed like he knew the details of Ansom's death.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2010-10-09.jpg
Bloody hell, Tram, point blank says that they learned Ansom die in a false surrender Parley.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby spriteless » Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Lilwik wrote:Whenever someone has an opinion that indicates large numbers of people should be killed, it's time to take a hard look at whether that opinion is justified and carefully fact-check the whole situation. Queen Bea didn't do that, which is just awful.


True on Stupidworld, but in the grim cuteness of Erfworld, there is only war.

So, one thing that people say is that Bea acted rashly and if she had put any thought into her actions it would have been sure she was evil. Parson may say 'you put [that you don't like people] aside in war' but that is a Stupidworld idea. In Erfworld war is all there is, the frame by which people's social lives are shaped: rulers are allies with their friends, and enemies with their enemies. There is no quiet time to sit back and reflect on the best thing to do when your family betrayed your friends. Even if Bea was rash and emotional and wrong and therefore evil, she was doing as she was popped and conditioned to do. Whether any actions done in such circumstances are evil is what is up for debate; some people are uncomfortable thinking that anyone can be evil without trying, because that means I could be evil! I don't want to be evil, and I want that fact to be enough to protect me from being evil, therefore I define evil as requiring wanting to do evil. It makes 'evil' into a useless line of inquiry, that.

It would have been un-Bea to do otherwise. We can do better, precisely because we have opportunities to think, to hold ourselves accountable and do better, while Bea hadn't in quite a long time.
T'was a splendidly speedy defection.
spriteless
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Mikalyaran » Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:33 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Mikalyaran wrote:In a world where violence is nearly the only cause of death (Wanda nearly died of a magical sickness) there is no such thing as murder. Without a natural death like old age available to units the negative connotations of the word murder don't apply.
There is still murder. Killing in defense of your side is glorified; that's not murder by Erfworld standards. It seems to be accepted that rulers have the right to disband units, so that's usually not murder either. That still leaves at least two ways to kill people that Erfworlders do not accept: croaking units on your own side and croaking people in a parley. Even in Erfworld there are many situations where people are expected to not kill each other.


No there is not still murder. For it to be a murder the social and moral connotations have to be the same.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -10-09.jpg

Tram doesn't say murdered in a false surrender parley. He says croaked. Because Erfworlders don't have a concept of murder. They don't have this because at least ~95% of units which die in Erfworld are murdered by our stupid world standards. The other ~5% are disbanded or die of magical disease plus whatever else Rob hasn't told us about (and 5% is probably generous).

You've already said disbanding units doesn't count. No murder there.

Ok so croaking units on your own side: we haven't seen it happen and don't know if it even can. Sounds like something Duty would prevent to me. And if your sense of duty causes you to croak someone on your own side you better have a good explanation of your sense of duty when you stand before your ruler.

Croaked during a false surrender Parley? A value held by Royals due to their sense of nobility and honor et cetera. We have no clue how many sides are Royal vs. Common nor how many Royals (or common sides) even really care. Hagar sure doesn't seem to give a flip. They were in an Alliance with the express idea of finding the most advantageous moment to break alliance. Sounds morally equivalent to croaking someone during a Parley to me. But what you were really trying to say is that there are plenty of situations where Erfworlders are expected not to kill each other. But the expectation of not being croaked doesn't make someone who ignores those expectations a murderer.It makes them dishonorable. For them to be a murderer there has to be a set of moral ideals and standards equivalent to our own.

And their just isn't.
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby 0beron » Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:40 pm

I'm done, because this argument has been reduced to repetition. Folks looking at it logically say one thing, then the "zomg royals must die" crowd simply ignore it and repeat their opinion as if nobody ever effectively countered them. I could literally quote my previous rebuttal posts, because nothing new has been raised by the opposition.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:13 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:Allying with GK effectively ends Unaroyal as a side. It merely allows it to exist for a time as a vassal state of GK until GK decides its time to squash Unaroyal and decrypt its units.
There was no way of knowing that would happen. According to Gobwin Knob they wanted to be friends with Unaroyal, so Unaroyal might survive for hundreds of turns in that arrangement, perhaps long enough to see Gobwin Knob go into decline. Sides come and go in Erfworld, and as long as Unaroyal still exists they have hope for the future. If they have a contract that constrains Gobwin Knob tightly enough, Unaroyal's survival could even be assured.

spriteless wrote:So, one thing that people say is that Bea acted rashly and if she had put any thought into her actions it would have been sure she was evil.
It's hard to say for certain whether she acted rashly, but I don't think she did. She had hours to think about it. She had a long conversation with Cruz during which Cruz apparently couldn't tell what Bea was planning, so Bea must have been in control of her emotions well enough to hide it. Bea also stopped to write that letter.

spriteless wrote:We can do better, precisely because we have opportunities to think, to hold ourselves accountable and do better, while Bea hadn't in quite a long time.
It shouldn't have taken more than a few minutes for Bea to realize that destroying her side and disbanding all those people would be a bad thing to do, but you're right that Bea probably never even tried to be a better person, because she probably believed that the Titans had chosen her to be the perfect ruler for her side. Given what she did, I don't think she was thoughtful enough to be plagued by doubts.

Mikalyaran wrote:For it to be a murder the social and moral connotations have to be the same.
So then let's look at what people in Erfworld consider to be a crime. The obvious place to look is in the trial of Olive Branch in Book 0, Episode 66. Here's a list of some of Olive's crimes:
Wanda: "Her most serious acts include at least ten counts of commander-level fratricide (with others attempted). She also attempted both patricide and hericide. Beginning with Blair, she arranged or accomplished the croaking of eleven enemy rulers and at least two hundred warlords under false terms of parley, truce, or alliance, or via other dishonorable and perverse means. Among these were my brother Tommy, and my father Lord Firebaugh."

0beron wrote:I could literally quote my previous rebuttal posts, because nothing new has been raised by the opposition.
I did raise a question that I was hoping for an answer to. link
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lipkin » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:21 pm

Lamech wrote:
Lipkin wrote:False. Caesar knew Ansom was croaked, and said "in" before he was cut off. It's easy to presume he was about to say "a false parley." Whatever the case, it definitely seemed like he knew the details of Ansom's death.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2010-10-09.jpg
Bloody hell, Tram, point blank says that they learned Ansom die in a false surrender Parley.

That doesn't mean they didn't know before that point. Trem could just be stating the timeline. At the very least, they knew Ansom hadn't died in the Dirtamancy trap. I think we can also be reasonably sure that someone that Bunny contacted knew that Ansom was going to accept GK's surrender when he was killed. She contacted every side in the coalition.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Dystopianman » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:14 pm

Lipkin wrote:
Dystopianman wrote:If Crush and Parson were to meet, Parson might finally find his much needed #2.

Parson already is a #2. What he needs is for Stanley to name an heir so Stanley can go do field work. That would offset Parson's abysmal leadership stat.


In this case, I'm talking about a #2 in terms of an XO (whereas Parson is the CO.) In the epilogue, Parson laments how he has lost everyone he could've trusted by now. To paraphrase him, Bogroll is dead, Sizemore hates him, Maggie has conflicting loyalties, and Jack is decrypted.

One of the unifying themes of LIAB was the operational chaos and lack of chain of command in Parson's absence. Each one of Parson's subordinates made serious mistakes during that battle as a result of this operational chaos. From a military perspective, Parson -needs- an XO to correctly interpret his wishes, act accordingly, and functions effectively in the absence of Parson's direct orders.

To use a Stupidworld reference, on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee ordered Richard S. Ewell (the guy that replaced Stonewall Jackson after he died) to take Cemetary Hill "if practical." That day, Ewell decided that taking the hill, was not "practical" even though it was undefended. By contrast, most historians agree that Stonewall Jackson would have correctly interpreted the order to mean "take that hill, whatever the cost."

Two days later, Pickett's Charge would fail to take Cemetary Hill.

Parson needs an XO.

Also

TBoGK #146 First two panels.

Parson: Ansom's mustering the troops. I think he wants to be my lackey or something.
Wanda: That would be well.
Parson: Why?
Wanda: You'll require a new one.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F146.jpg

Edit: I'll admit though, that it does look like the comic is heading towards Stanley going back to becoming a field unit in some way, though I'm not certain that an ego as big as Stanley's could fit into the specifically defined criteria of a military XO. From a military perspective, Stanley would be better off when someone points him at the objective, gives him the support he needs, then unleashes his chain. In other words, while Stanley would be good at the tactical level, part of being a good XO is to be able to help the CO plan strategy and be a good subordinate while doing so which is most assuredly not in Stanley's skillset.
This is strategy. First...you have a goal. Then, you list objectives in support of that goal, in order of importance. Then, you weigh the costs and accomplish the most you can, however you can. Without even fighting, if possible!
Dystopianman
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 3:04 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Oberon » Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:26 am

GWvsJohn wrote:
Oberon wrote:But when non-royals attune to tools of the titans, when non-royals command units with vastly superior points and capabilities, why, that is heresy!
Superior points and capabilities compared to "normal" uncroaked, which all sides have access to.
That is an assumption. Exactly what the decrypted have vastly superior points and capabilities compared with was not specified. I prefer to believe that it was a general statement, not limited to uncroaked.

And all sides do not have access to decrypted. Or, if they have access, they refuse to use it. Croakamancers are witches to the RCC sides, remember?

Zer0beron wrote:Ohberon you are missing the core point. Bea's decision has absolutely nothing to do with her feeling of superiority, in fact it's the exact opposite. Superiority would be Jetstone, standing and fighting because they believe they are better and will win because the Titans want them to win. Bea's actions were an admission of defeat!
*sigh* You are aware that someone can be capable of seeing that they will lose an engagement and still feel superior to her conquerors, aren't you? It's really just support for my position. As I already said, there are plenty of people here in Stupidworld who will claim that they would rather die then [whatever]. Bea is clearly one of those who would (and did) rather die than be defeated by or even ally with a non-royal side. Blind, stupid prejudice ruled her until her end and the end of her entire side.
Zer0beron wrote:Alliance was not an option for Bea because, as I said, she does not trust it would be honored.
You can keep saying that, but I'll note that Bea never said it. Nowhere in her letter to Don did she even hint that she feared treachery by GK. This is your invention.

The current comic, Lord Crush part 5 supports my description of royals. Here we have Crush, who is characterized as being a thinking man, studious, wise, etc., etc. And his own feelings about royalty?
Lord Crush wrote:The two Chief Warlords (technically two Princes, although Crush’s study of history had left him so soured on Royalism that he affected “Lord” for a title) stood face-to-face in the dim light of the hovering powerball.
Even (smart) royals can see what a bunch of boopholes the royals are! Why can't you?

Zer0beron wrote:Generations of teachings and interpretations from Scripture tell her that non-royals cannot be trusted.
I suppose you have a citation for this assertion?
Zer0beron wrote:Royals are not malicious leaders deliberately planning the subjugation of others and preservation of their own power as you suggest, they're not plotting behind closed doors to develop propaganda.
But they are indeed! By canon: When a non-royal gets powerful, the royals like to gang up on him.
You can claim that Parson was lied to by Sizemore, or that Sizemore is simply wrong. But the facts bear out this conclusion. Vinny told Ansom that GK hadn't done anything to deserve the RCC goal of destroying GK:
[url=http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F034.jpg]Vinny: It's the royal thing, ain't it?
You don't like how he came to power.
You don't like that he was common infantry.
Your beef is, he's not royal, right?[/url]
And Vinny is a lot more thoughtful and reliable narrator than Ansom by a long shot.

How much canon evidence is needed before you'll accept that the royals are the villains of this show, and that any excuses they make about "GK might break an alliance" (known to be able to be tied to huge penalties), or "decrypted are horrible!" (as I've said, people always vilify those they want an excuse to keep "in their place" or otherwise mistreat) are just that: Excuses they make to justify their prejudice and desire to keep their superior positions.

The royals fear the loss of the status quo which has them at the top of the heap, ganging up with their other oh-so-superior royal sides, simply because to have a non-royal lead a successful side would shake the very foundations of the house of cards they have invented to maintain their superiority. They are like South African apartheid, denying non-royals the same opportunities which they enjoy, because they enjoy them so very much.

Sir Shadow wrote:You guys are just not seeing. To the 'normal' people of Erfworld, the Decrypted seem like undead monstrosities.
Not true at all! To some royals, perhaps, but not even all of them have weighed in.
Tram and Slately spoke with Ossomer without the revulsion that would come from speaking to an undead monstrosity, and even got him to turn back to Jetstone. Who wants an undead monstrosity on their side? That would be Slately and Tram. No problems rubbing elbows with a decrypted seen, none at all.
Wanda thought Ansom was "something new. Something wonderful!"
Stanley is only concerned about them because they are under Wanda's direct control and not his.
No GK unit has expressed any kind of distaste for the decrypted. They fight beside them constantly, and there has been no issue made of it in the comic.
Charlies' sole concern about the decrypted was that the decrypted archons could spill secrets of his.

So no, not really. Much less "times 10", lol. Any excuse that decrypted are somehow abominations is just a way to vilify them and GK in order to try to maintain the royal superiority.
Last edited by Oberon on Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Oberon » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:31 am

Zer0beron wrote:They [the titans] created a world where endless fighting is the MO, wrote a Scripture that TELLS Royals they are superior, and gives them superior stats to back it up.
Citation, please? We know the royals believe themselves to have a titanic mandate because of their royal advantages. I just don't recall that the royals ever had anything other than the simple fact of the matter to support their assumption that they have a titanic mandate to rule. Please point me at that quotation from the titanic scripture.

Zer0beron wrote:Bea and modern royals may be said to be wrong and misguided, but they are not "evil" even by our world's standards.
I maintain that they are. Just like the whites during South African apartheid, the royals wish to keep themselves superior to the non-royals. And they gang up to remove anything of value a successful non-royal managed to achieve. Do recall that the RCC wasn't advancing on GK to force Stanley into a non-agression treaty. They weren't only seeking to retake cities he had captured from RCC sides, or to force war reparations upon Stanley. They were going to commit genocide.

Zer0beron wrote:Our world's standards are the completely wrong measuring stick here, so stop trying to use them.
They appear to apply just fine, so I'll continue using them, thanks. A story told which casts out any attempt to relate the actions of the characters with the morality of the real world would be nigh-incomprehensible to the readers, and would not find much in the way of a readership. Erfworld is based on Stupidworld, you cannot simply declare that Stupidworld morals do not apply and expect to be even close to correct.

But I won't use Stupidworld standards in a vacuum. I'll use our world's standards plus the canon I've cited. That which you appear to have no rebuttal to other than "nuh-uh!" and a bunch of non-canon ass-pulls you make up whenever it is convenient for your arguments.

Zer0beron wrote:If you insist on using our world's standards against all good reason not to, at least use them correctly. If you follow this logic through to it's conclusion, then families of murder victims are evil for wanting the perp dead, the world was evil for wanting Hitler dead, and anyone who has ever killed period (even in self-defense) is evil. Sorry, but it just doesn't hold up when you try and apply it so broadly.
No one but you is using it so broadly. And you do so out of reductio ad absurdum.
I'm really not sure what your examples refer to, they seem generally ridiculous. Perhaps you might expand a little, if you really have a point to make?
But maybe I can help you a little:
Killing a decrypted is just as wrong as is killing a person who had their heart restarted by CPR. They were dead, now they are alive. Some people who "come back" on the operating table view it as a religious experience, and feel that their lives have been changed forever. Does that sound like anything you might recall about decryption?

Zer0beron wrote:Evil requires intent. Not necessarily the acceptance that you are evil, but a drive/desire to accomplish something for selfish gain. Modern Royals do not fit that requirement.
Yes, they do. You've been told over and over, but you refuse to accept that their refusal to cast away their own self-appointed superiority is quite selfish and evil. Ganging up on any non-royal who is successful and committing genocide against them isn't evil or selfish enough for you? We know that this happens. And it happens often enough for Sizemore to have relayed it to Parson in just those terms. How can you believe that royals aren't evil after the readers are told in-story about their agenda to maintain their own self-appointed superiority by use of genocide against non-royal sides?

Zer0beron wrote:When it comes to the Decrypted, Royals are fighting for their survival, and we know from their private conversations that this is a genuine fear, not a ruse put together to de-humanize GK.
Citations, please. Bea sure didn't need to fight "for her survival", she had an offer of alliance. The same goes for Jetstone, who threw that offer and a bunch of insults in the face of the GK negotiators. The royals are fighting for their positions of superiority. The RCC was not formed for survival, it was formed for the purpose of genocide against GK. The RCCII was also not formed for survival, it was formed for genocide against GK. They haven't been terribly successful, but motives count, don't they?

Zer0beron wrote:There is not any hypocrisy in the fear of Decrypted either.
What "fear of the decrypted" are you referring to? I'd appreciate citations so I could re-read the conversations between royals, huddled in their castles, telling each other horror stories about the nasty decrypted who are coming to get them. Even Bea's letter to Don didn't use any words stronger than "more ghastly", referring to Cruz being decrypted rather than turned. Bea was willing to sit and talk to Cruz for more than two hours. How fearful can these decrypted be if Bea is willing to sit and talk with one for over two hours??

But please note that Bea did take pains to tell Don that she had pledged her casters to only work for royal sides. She didn't have to mention them at all, Don would have just assumed they were dusted in the field with the rest of the Unaroyal units. But you know, it just wouldn't be proper for any former units of a royal side to have any truck with a non-royal side! And that is the true horror story to the royals, not the decrypted.

Zero0beron wrote:I'm done, because this argument has been reduced to repetition. Folks looking at it logically say one thing, then the "zomg royals must die" crowd simply ignore it and repeat their opinion as if nobody ever effectively countered them. I could literally quote my previous rebuttal posts, because nothing new has been raised by the opposition.
Funny how you label your side of the debate as the "folks who look at things logically" and claim that you could simply repeat your arguments, when you invent canon and/or facts and fail to provide citations. Your false facts have been soundly refuted, by logic and canon. But please, do be done if you find you can't support the insupportable any longer.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arbo, Thecommander236 and 5 guests