Book 2 – Page 11

[nerf-dweller]

I agree with ftl. The strip contains character development as well as builds up the interpersonal intrigue. In fact, it shows changes in both Wanda and the Tool. Wanda is definitely all but running amuck with her new power to the point where even the Tool notices.

This just struck me. But I was wondering if anyone else sees it as well? The character development of Wanda and Stanley seems to be taking a very similar track as Londo Molari and G'Kar on Babylon 5.

[AngryAngel]

Finally, one more thing. Parson says there's twenty reasons for not decrypting Jack, among them the evilness of it ... you know I disagree, and if Mr. Balder put that line in to convince us that the decrypted are a horde of evil, he should try again. If you thought decryption is evil, that didn't change your mind. If you thought that decryption isn't evil, Parson's gut feelings won't change that either.

I'm pretty sure Parson is referring to the evilness of killing one of your own people, just so you can decrypt him and save a healing scroll, rather than that the act of decryption itself is evil. Parson didn't seem to have much against uncroaking, and decryption is just an improved version of that.

[regisminae]

Finally, one more thing. Parson says there's twenty reasons for not decrypting Jack, among them the evilness of it ... you know I disagree, and if Mr. Balder put that line in to convince us that the decrypted are a horde of evil, he should try again. If you thought decryption is evil, that didn't change your mind. If you thought that decryption isn't evil, Parson's gut feelings won't change that either.

I think that the evilness that was referenced would not lie in decrypting the Caster, but in intentionally croaking him so that he can be decrypted. It's the act, not the result, that carries the ethical question.

Silly question why has GK not popped healmancers? I know they are casters but if they are going to risk two big league casters not having a healer is bad news. I play enough D&D to know not having a Cleric is asking for death real fast. I know this is not D&D but same principals seem to apply. The scrolls are only going to become harder to find because of MK or Charlie probably not letting GK get its hands on such scrolls.

GK has not popped healomancers because, in the first place, Casters pop by accident, and in the second, when (if) they do pop, their new side has no control over what their discipline is.

Which brings up another question I'd be curious about: has GK been popping warlords since TBfGK? I suspect that they've been using mostly decrypted warlords, whose availability would seem to make popping their own irrelevant, but at the same time, if I were Parson I'd be actively interested in possibly getting another Caster's abilities at his disposal. The question then would be whether the resources they'd dump into popping warlords that might not be needed would justify the probably slim chances of getting a caster.

But, with his bracer, Parson should be able to run those odds: "What are the chances, should GK or one of its cities of at least Level 2 pop a warlord as soon as possible, that a Caster will pop instead?"

[ParsonIsOP]

I'm thinking, Wanda isn't and never has been loyal to Stanley, not really. All Stanley ever was to her, was a means to an end ... a route to an arkentool of her very own. So if she gets CAPTURED ... there's a very real chance that she'll Turn. ... And the Queen of Faq is going to be present in the upcoming battle. A Queen who is receiving Charlie's aid and advice on the sly. Aid and advice which includes the SAME access (a limited number of times) to Parson's Bracer, as Wanda has!!

Except that Stanley's side has the dwagon-taming Arkenhammer and Parson. Charlie is a dodgy partner at the best of times. If I were Wanda, I certainly wouldn't put myself at the mercy of a lover who jilted me or try and suck up to her Royal peers

Finally, one more thing. Parson says there's twenty reasons for not decrypting Jack, among them the evilness of it ... you know I disagree, and if Mr. Balder put that line in to convince us that the decrypted are a horde of evil, he should try again. If you thought decryption is evil, that didn't change your mind. If you thought that decryption isn't evil, Parson's gut feelings won't change that either. But there are two* good (as in practical, not as in moral) reasons for not decrypting Jack, one of them is where his loyalty will lie, the other is that he'll be down one life.

Well, yes, that’s sort of the point.

Parson thinks it’s evil because Decryption robs Jack of some of his autonomy. Stanley seems to agree on the notion because he “kinda likes that guy.” But it's not particularly because they have an objection with the Decrypted being a "hoard of evil." Like Ansom, they just don't like the notion of enslaving the people they happen to like. Or for that matter, killing them anymore than is strictly necessary (Of course, there's that whole "Loyalty" thing to talk about."

And it's pretty much a crime to subjugate Jack’s brilliance to the single-minded and humorless Wanda. So let's just rate it "evil" and call it a day.

[fjolnir]

Gk has been popping Dwagons since they finished popping Twolls, all the other cities have been doing similar, I think

[DevilDan]

Jack is valuable as a caster. Wouldn't want to use up his "extra life."

[BLANDCorporatio]

I'm pretty sure Parson is referring to the evilness of killing one of your own people, just so you can decrypt him and save a healing scroll, rather than that the act of decryption itself is evil. Parson didn't seem to have much against uncroaking, and decryption is just an improved version of that.

I think that the evilness that was referenced would not lie in decrypting the Caster, but in intentionally croaking him so that he can be decrypted. It's the act, not the result, that carries the ethical question.

Given that Healomancy scrolls are rare, and rare for the foreseeable and dangerous future, and needed by the one apparently un-decryptable unit Wanda, and that decryption is 100% efficient in healing ...

I'd say croak+decrypt is about as evil as inducing a profound coma in order to do bypass surgery.

Parson thinks it’s evil because Decryption robs Jack of some of his autonomy. Stanley seems to agree on the notion because he “kinda likes that guy.” But it's not particularly because they have an objection with the Decrypted being a "hoard of evil." Like Ansom, they just don't like the notion of enslaving the people they happen to like. Or for that matter, killing them anymore than is strictly necessary (Of course, there's that whole "Loyalty" thing to talk about."

And it's pretty much a crime to subjugate Jack’s brilliance to the single-minded and humorless Wanda. So let's just rate it "evil" and call it a day.

I wonder, what with Ansom's questioning of Wanda's decision for example, or how Maggie implies overlords usually get total compliance from living Erfworld units, just how much of an "enslavement" this really is, and how much "autonomy" is really lost.

Of course, Parson and co. might not answer those questions in the same way I do, can't argue with that. I just argue with their answers.

[HandofShadows]

I think Wanda is playing a little longer game than might be obviouse. For one Wanda very rearly askes for anything. She just does it. But here she is asking to kill and Decrypt one of the other two known survivors of Faq. Also Jack is somone she has known for a long time and clearly talks to a great amount (Jack is the only one that could have told her about Parson's wargameing plans). I wonder if Wanda never really intended to Decrypt Jack and is doing something to create a president for NOT decrypting everyone they come across. Or rather one person Wanda may soon be comeing across by the name of Jillian. Just a theory.

[BLANDCorporatio]

HandofShadows, that's actually a very interesting point.

Your precedent for Jillian is one theory, here's another. If Wanda were to ask, and then obey the answer even when it forbids her suggestion, that would be a show of loyalty and maybe meant to appease some of the internal tension in GK.

I don't think it's likely but yeah, it's an angle I didn't even think about. That Wanda's question is not about saying what its words mean, and is meant to communicate something else to Stanley, or Maggie, or Parson.

[AngryAngel]

<snip>I wonder if Wanda never really intended to Decrypt Jack and is doing something to create a president for NOT decrypting everyone they come across. Or rather one person Wanda may soon be comeing across by the name of Jillian. Just a theory.

That's a clever notion. Maybe Wanda knows or suspects how the Magic Kingdom is viewing her actions, and is doing something to reassure them that casters aren't candidates for decryption. Or at least, not friendly casters.

[MarbitChow]

This just struck me. But I was wondering if anyone else sees it as well? The character development of Wanda and Stanley seems to be taking a very similar track as Londo Molari and G'Kar on Babylon 5.

I don't see it, personally. Londo was a comical, happy-go-lucky fool at the start while G'Kar was portrayed as an amoral mercenary.
Their character arcs took them places we'd never expect, based on those initial character types.

Wanda isn't shown to be 'good' - she actively enjoys torture, for one thing.
She seems to be exactly where she should be - always striving for more power and more control over people.
Stanley's gradual transformation, on the other hand, appears to me to be Parson's influence more than anything.

That's a clever notion. Maybe Wanda knows or suspects how the Magic Kingdom is viewing her actions, and is doing something to reassure them that casters aren't candidates for decryption. Or at least, not friendly casters.

Doubtful. The conversations are telepathic, and thus probably not overheard. Now if she were to capture an enemy caster and not decrypt them, that might do it, but even then, most will assume that she just wants the extra life in case they're croaked once.

[Infidel]

I would love to see Stanley's inner thought process... so I'll write it myself.

Stanley: [Score one for me! I out awesomed Ossomer!]

Maggie: blah blah croak and decrypt Foolamancer blah blah

Stanley: [Foolamancer... we have one of those? Wait, I know that guy, Jack. He... helped me do something once. Was it the laundry?]

Wow, some people are hyper critical. Even if Stanley used to treat Jack as an object, he has since acknowledged him as a person. Stanley is NOT the type of person to handle intrigue well, mainly because every thought he makes shows on his face. And you're having him think a lot more than seems in character for him, and most of those thought don't seem that they were ever in character. And if there is any expression that shows on his could-never-win-poker face, it is thoughtfullness and a bit of worry. Sure, it's been rare, to non-existent for Stanley to actually think his way through a problem, but he is obviously doing that here. The expression he looks at Parson with, "Don't you." is also obviously there to let us know that Stanley truly is looking for confirmation from Parson.

Self-doubt is probably one of the biggest steps someone can make in developing character. Stanley hasn't made up his mind already. He actually unsure of his decision and Parson's in put is both desired, and acted on.

The punchline in this page is the Parson's smirk. [...] His smirk shows that he knew he had played the Tool well.

Also, there is nothing of spite in that expression on Stanley's face. No smirk on Parson's face. His lips are pursed in surprise. A smirk is a type of grin, so his mouth would be wider.

He also saw everyone out to destroy him as a sign of greatness and supported Wanda's torture hobby.

Actually, the sign of greatness comment was from Parson.

I'd say croak+decrypt is about as evil as inducing a profound coma in order to do bypass surgery.

Erm, while poisoning someone to save them, putting someone in a coma to do bypas surgery, drugging somone so that they appear dead, could all be considered valid strategies, it doesn't get around that decrypting still modifies the person's mind. So I don't like that analogy at all. More like Lobotomizing someone because they broke an ankle, and you don't want to wait three months for it to heal.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Erm, while poisoning someone to save them, putting someone in a coma to do bypas surgery, drugging somone so that they appear dead, could all be considered valid strategies, it doesn't get around that decrypting still modifies the person's mind. So I don't like that analogy at all. More like Lobotomizing someone because they broke an ankle, and you don't want to wait three months for it to heal.

Mmkay, let's adjust this analogy then. You put someone in a coma to do bypass surgery on them, and they wake up very grateful to you. Very, very, ridiculously grateful. But it appears that it can wear off.

[MuthSera]

Anybody notice that parson is not in the category of "fat" anymore? He's definately stout, but not so much fat. Look at how loosely his sleeves fit on him...

[BLANDCorporatio]

Completely unrelated thing.

Shouldn't (most) casters be a wee bit buffer than they seem to be?

Let's talk about this in game terms. Many casters are primarily useful close to or in combat- like Foolamancers say, Dirtamancers (c'mon Sizemore racked the most kills in TBfGK), Dittomancers, Croakamancers maybe. Lookamancers, Thinkamancers and Turnamancers are the only ones that we've actually seen, whose primary use would be away from the front line.

This is where talk of "balance" shows up, and usually in games wizards and such are squishy. They're very powerful because they cast, and if they were also very resistant and combat worthy nobody would pop anything else.

Only it appears that nobody can control even whether a caster will pop, let alone the type. So it could (should?) have been the case that casters were Gandalf-like heroes, capable to hold off Balrogs or lead a charge against an army of Orks and Naz-gul. You'd only have one for every five thousand stabbers anyway.

[AngryAngel]

A quick glance at the various disciplines of Erfworld magic suggest (to me at least) that most of them are geared toward support rather than actual combat. Shockamancers might regularly take the field, and healamancers and croakamancers might be with the army (in a non-combat role) but most of the other types of 'mancers have abilities that would be better used in cities (turnamancers and moneymancers) or in their side's HQ (lookamancers, findamancers, thinkamancers, predictamancers, etc). If they aren't expected to fight (and by Erfworld conventions they aren't) there's no reason for most of them to be good frontline fighters. Shockamancers might be an exception.

[BLANDCorporatio]

A quick glance at the various disciplines of Erfworld magic suggest (to me at least) that most of them are geared toward support rather than actual combat. {snip} Shockamancers might be an exception.

Actually yes, "support" is a better description. I should have said that the likes of Foolamancers or Dittomancers seem to have abilities that are most useful when they also happen to be near combat and in harm's way. That's why they could/should have been more resistant to damage.

[ErfNch]

Your precedent for Jillian is one theory, here's another. If Wanda were to ask, and then obey the answer even when it forbids her suggestion, that would be a show of loyalty and maybe meant to appease some of the internal tension in GK.

A third theory could be she knows about Jack's crush on Jillian. Maybe she wants to ensure his loyalty to GK during the battle ... using 'a bit of killng' (she's just finishing him after all ) and decryption.

[BLANDCorporatio]

A third theory could be she knows about Jack's crush on Jillian. Maybe she wants to ensure his loyalty to GK during the battle ... using 'a bit of killng' (she's just finishing him after all ) and decryption.

Yes that's a theory, but what HandofShadows was getting at is that Wanda is not asking for permission (just) to get permission.

She is asking for permission because the very act of asking, and what she'll do with the answer, will communicate something extra to somebody.

[AngryAngel]

Actually yes, "support" is a better description. I should have said that the likes of Foolamancers or Dittomancers seem to have abilities that are most useful when they also happen to be near combat and in harm's way. That's why they could/should have been more resistant to damage.

A quick look at the archives says Jack has 6 hits, and combat and defense scores of 2. Bogroll on the other hand had 12 hits, 5 combat and 4 defense. Those are the only two sets of stats we have to go on (as far as I remember), but even so Jack seems to be a bit sturdier than his other scores suggest. It would be nice if we could see more stats from various types of units, so we could get a feel for what's typical, but unfortunately I don't think that'll happen.