shawndream wrote:I would be surprised if thinkamancers were not the freest agents on erfworld, with their control of the bonds of the mind.
BLANDCorporatio wrote: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.
AllPurposeNerd wrote:I don't think Wanda's really evil per se. She's just making logical use of what's available to her, playing hard and playing to win. Realizing that while most things a warlord does has some sort of associated cost (move, hits, juice, scrolls), croaking and decrypting a unit costs nothing and yields an immediate reward; a loyal new unit with full hits. Decrypting Ossomer was both faster and more certain than trying to get him to turn willingly. Decrypting Jack will bring him back to full hits at no cost. Since the archons retain their magical specials, there's no reason to assume that a decrypted caster stops being a caster. Also, it's possible Wanda can 'heal' decrypted units using her own juice, which replenishes.
I like Jack, and I hope she does the right thing, but I'm not convinced the wrong thing is strictly evil. Just pragmatic. You know how it is; when all you have is a hammer gun, every problem looks like a nail that's over there.
crazyguy_co wrote:Even if you don't think decrypting is immoral (which is a pretty lame argument, as at the very least its mind control, which is immoral) certainly murder is, and she proposed KILLING him first.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:crazyguy_co wrote:Even if you don't think decrypting is immoral (which is a pretty lame argument, as at the very least its mind control, which is immoral) certainly murder is, and she proposed KILLING him first.
It is apparent that most Erfworlders are under some form of mind control, be it natural thinkamancy, duty, loyalty or the like. This applies to all or almost all living Erfworlders.
They can voice (or at least think) disagreement with their leaders, see Caesar for instance; but so can the decrypted, see Ansom recently. Bottom line, the decrypted are under no more mind-control than anyone else in Erfworld is. Because of that, decryption=mind control=immoral is not an argument, because by the same token alive in Erfworld=mind control=immoral.
As for the second, murder is not murder when you can, and do it with the express intention to, bring the "dead" back.
crazyguy_co wrote:And yet, Jillian got angry at Wanda's use of thinkamancy on her, suggesting SHE thought it was wrong too. Natural circumstances and "physics" are one thing... this goes beyond that.
BLANDCorporatio wrote: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.
Lord Kasavin wrote:Well Erf is no Middle Earth. And even in Middle Earth a bowman was able to take down a Dragon with a single arrow. Middle Earth operated on a deterministic model where "fate" counted for a lot. Gandalf overcame challenges not because of his stats, but who he was as a person. Plus, plot.
Jack had a perfect chance to turn on Stanley in the Battle of the Mountain Pass, and didn't.Wii wrote:Hi, just signed up because I thought it's not been given enough attention:
in the previous page, Wanda learned that the Queen of FAQ was nearby, and thereafter she requests the decrypting of Jack. Even though Parson may assume it is an experiment, Parson isn't necessarily right─so to assume Wanda's intentions are 'conserving a healomancy scroll' or 'experimenting with decrypted casters' isn't precisely something that's uh, good!
I think there's a reasonable chance that there are equally twenty reasons to decrypt Jack. One of them would be certainty of his loyalties and ensure he won't turn because of whatever Jillian may do, or perhaps she does it precisely to ensure he will stay loyal to Wanda--and Wanda herself could turn to Faq. Afterall, did she not say she hadn't ever expected Stanley to actually win the battle with Faq?
Stating downright that the Tool made a good decision seems hasty. After all, there's no guarantee this won't bite him in the bum four pages from now.
HailGreen28 wrote:If/when Wanda turns, it'd be nice if Jack doesn't automatically Turn with her.
Infidel wrote:Actually, the sign of greatness comment was from Parson.He also saw everyone out to destroy him as a sign of greatness and supported Wanda's torture hobby.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest