Book 2 – Text Updates 035

[Oberon]

It's not a law, so Parson's not breaking anything

Remember, convention? Following or not following a convention does not make a person evil, unless you're playing bridge.

Hes gaming the system, pushing the rules as far as they can. This appears to be a game world which follows game rules. What he's doing is akin to playing by the rulebooks literal word.

There's two things here: A) is portal usage law or not, and B) does it matter?

For the first, look at what Sizemore says. It sounds as if he's not making this rule up as he goes along. There must be some agreement between everyone who has a portal to the MK that no hostile troops can be sent via portals.

Nope and nope. First off, nice segue from "convention" to "law." A convention is an agreement, a law is something completely different. If you must change the meaning of the phrase under discussion in order to try to make your point, you've already lost. Secondly, Sizemore specified exactly what the convention was, and it wasn't "no hostile troops can be sent via portals." So there you're just making stuff up and calling it reinforcement for your position.

Sizemore first says that "you don't attack through portals." He constantly corrects his use of the word "can't" to "don't", because Parson called him out on the difference between the two words. Chastised, Sizemore then used more precise language to define the convention:

You don't send a caster from the Magic Kingdom to enter a city you don't control!

Plenty enough to work with here.
Parson isn't a "caster from the Magic Kingdom";
Parson isn't "sending a caster from the Magic Kingdom" to do anything, he is going himself;
Even if Sizemore and Maggie came with him, Parson is still not sending casters from the MK to attack through a portal, as neither Sizemore nor Maggie are "from the MK."

Here is the full force of the convention, as far as can be determined from the text so far: There is some form of agreement that a Side not hire a caster from the MK and then send it to attack another Side through that Side's portal. That's it. Nothing is said and no agreement exists about "hostile troops." Why would the participants in the convention even conceive to express this, when it is known to them all that no hostile troops can enter the MK and live?

Hell, Parson isn't even violating the convention, unless it has a scope well above that which has been described.

Even if there isn't an explicit treaty anywhere, it's an abuse. The fact that something is not illegal does not make said action morally justifiable.

You are welcome to hold that opinion. I choose to hold the opinion that Parson's moral justification for ignoring a convention which does not even apply to him is the saving of the GK expeditionary force at Jetstone. I further believe that were Parson to not act as he must to rescue them, that lack of action would be both morally unjustifiable and, as Parson himself described it "a fail."

[Nihila]

@Oberon: I think the implied meaning of "a caster from the Magic Kingdom" is not "A caster permanently residing in the Magic Kingdom" but "A caster who is traveling out of the Magic Kingdom."

So, Sizemore and Maggie would be "casters from the Magic Kingdom," even if Parson would not.

[HailGreen28]

Well, the Magic Kingdom may still be unsure what Parson is, but Janis told everybody that he's a Hippiemancer.

I suspect that he'll be called a "defiler", "abomination", and "threat to all that is good", eventually. Question is, will Parson get to level himself and his forces high enough, first?

[Oberon]

@Oberon: I think the implied meaning of "a caster from the Magic Kingdom" is not "A caster permanently residing in the Magic Kingdom" but "A caster who is traveling out of the Magic Kingdom."

So, Sizemore and Maggie would be "casters from the Magic Kingdom," even if Parson would not.

I see your point, but I disagree. If the convention applied to all casters equally, there would be absolutely no reason to add the qualifier "from the Magic Kingdom" to the phrasing of the convention. Instead of being stated as "a caster from the Magic Kingdom", it should just read "a caster."

[Sieggy]

I'm wondering if Parson has leveled at all . . . After all, he won an epic victory, defeated a massively superior force even though he didn't physically engage more than once. Or is one-on-one combat the only way to level? Since he can't see his own stats and no one else can either, how would he or anyone else know if he's leveled up . . ? He started off with a 2 - is he any better now?

[dmorenus]

@Oberon: I think the implied meaning of "a caster from the Magic Kingdom" is not "A caster permanently residing in the Magic Kingdom" but "A caster who is traveling out of the Magic Kingdom."

So, Sizemore and Maggie would be "casters from the Magic Kingdom," even if Parson would not.

I see your point, but I disagree. If the convention applied to all casters equally, there would be absolutely no reason to add the qualifier "from the Magic Kingdom" to the phrasing of the convention. Instead of being stated as "a caster from the Magic Kingdom", it should just read "a caster."

I disagree. "You don't send a caster from the Magic Kingdom to enter a city you don't control." This distinguishes the move from sending a caster from an adjacent hex to enter a city you don't control.

I'm wondering if Parson has leveled at all . . . After all, he won an epic victory, defeated a massively superior force even though he didn't physically engage more than once. Or is one-on-one combat the only way to level? Since he can't see his own stats and no one else can either, how would he or anyone else know if he's leveled up . . ? He started off with a 2 - is he any better now?

At least some units are able to see each others' stats, including the bonus they get from their chief warlord.

[Selexor]

Random unlikely theory I got from watching Serenity last night. I'm sure most of you have seen the movie (this is the internet, after all), and thus remember how the gang runs past an Alliance blockade led by The Agent: They pick a fight with the Reavers, make them angry enough to start chasing Serenity, and then lead this extremely pissed-off band of Reavers headlong into the Alliance blockade.

I wonder, if Parson does get "sprung" in the MK, would any of these high-level casters be angry enough to chase him into Spacerock? Because I'm imagining that if the guards in the portal room saw the Terrible Lord Hamster come bursting through, followed by a Benny-Hill-style chase of apocalyptically furious high-level casters, those guards might just soil themselves. And if Spacerock got caught in a pissing match with the MK at the same time, it could change the balance of the fight dramatically.

Of course Parson would still have to run for his rotund little life. And if Jetstone actually managed to convince the MK that Gobwin Knob was a mutual enemy, it would be pretty damn terrible for them. And please note the first three words of this post: "Random Unlikely Theory". So I know it's not that smart.

But hell, you gotta admit - Parson stirring up a Hornet's Nest and then throwing it in Jetstone's face... that's the kind of strategy you just know he'd approve of.

[Smoker]

Law Vs Convention:

The argument is all about Sizemore's phrasing of the 'thing' they have going on in the MK. He said "Convention" but if the Magic Kingdom is actually a kingdom, and they enforce the security of their borders with their little wand militia (as we have seen) does that not make it a law? Certainly not a law of physics, but a law nonetheless. To me its a bit like bombing the olympic games - you get the whole world, who all hate each other, to agree on one peaceful location, and one person spoils it for selfish reasons.

Yes I said selfish.

The way its been explained to us so far, it doesn't look like Parson NEEDS to be in Spacerock for his plan to work (maybe he does, in which case, everything changes) and so he's taking a crap on the one thing Erfworld has that resembles peace, in order to satisfy his own emotions. Asshole thing to do.

But like I said, that's operating on the assumption that he doesn't NEED to be there for the plan to work. If he NEEDS to be there... well... you gotta do what you gotta do, I guess.

The other nice hair-split I saw was saying "well Parson's not a caster, so the rules dont apply to him." what rubbish. The understanding is that you dont attack through the portals. Since up till now, only casters can get in and out, Sizemore phrases it as "casters" when he equally could have said "units" and still be completely accurate.

Retaliation:
I expect that instead of the MK taking arms against GK, that more sides might join the conflict instead. Look at it: The MK benefits the larger, richer sides that can afford to hire casters. Anyone breaching the law/convention/agreement/treaty/understanding/assumption/whatever is putting this very valuable resource at risk. If other sides find ways in which to also exploit the portals, it will make this resource, at the very least, potentially unsafe. This is more than many sides would be willing to tolerate (eg. charlie) and anyone who is rocking the boat should be put down fast.

I can imagine:
ChrlsinCharge: You're messing with my Casters, Parson. This cant go on.

Now, before you go hitting the quote button, let me also say that Paron IS trying to do something right, by being there with his men, and there's a fair chance that him dashing the 50 yards between portals can be covered up without the MK being placed in any sort of danger, so in my opinion, Parson's heart is in the right place. He's taking a calculated risk of making enemies so that he can be a good man. It kinda adds more to the gesture.

Parson: Hug.

[atalex]

With all this arguing about the morality and likely consequences of Parson violating the MK's alleged neutrality, I'm going to laugh my ass off if Janice, armed with intel from the predictomancer, manipulates events so that no one ever even knows that Parson used the portal shortcut. It took 70 or so turns for the RCC to find out how they lost the Battle for Gobwin Knob and that was only because Charlie told them. If no one at Jetstone lives to tell how Parson entered through a portal, I think it's quite likely that the MK will privately let GK know that its portal access will henceforth be restricted but otherwise the MK will be more concerned with making sure no one ever finds out what happened.

[Pointyleaf]

Now, before you go hitting the quote button, let me also say that Paron IS trying to do something right, by being there with his men, and there's a fair chance that him dashing the 50 yards between portals can be covered up without the MK being placed in any sort of danger, so in my opinion, Parson's heart is in the right place. He's taking a calculated risk of making enemies so that he can be a good man. It kinda adds more to the gesture.

Parson: Hug.

Hard for us to tell how big of a difference Parson's bonus would make, too. Only the bracer knows..

Re: the morality of Parson going through MK, it reminds me of the transition in warfare style in Europe in the 1700s-1800s. At the beginning, military officers were exclusively gentlemen, they were not specifically targeted by the other side, and if they were captured, they were ransomed. But by 1900, war was no longer a "gentlemen's game".. no special privileges for them, it was brutish for everyone.

Parson doesn't care about pissing off the establishment; he's just there to win.

~P

[peteratjet]

Maybe you don't send a caster through a portal to a city you don't control, because everybody knows it would be stupid. An unprotected caster would be toast, even if the Magic Kingdom would allow passage. It's simply unthinkable, so nobody ever thinks about it.

Until now.

[morikahn]

I like Xin's use of atmospheric perspecitve. It is subtle enough not to draw too much attention, but gives depth. I think the last panel on page 5 needed better planning standard perspective wise.

It would only stand out to people like me, probably. Based on the alignment of the buildings, the horizon line should be much higher in the shot.

[Kyrt]

There's two things here: A) is portal usage law or not, and B) does it matter?

For the first, look at what Sizemore says. It sounds as if he's not making this rule up as he goes along. There must be some agreement between everyone who has a portal to the MK that no hostile troops can be sent via portals.

An agreement which, if it exists, Parson isn't party to, doesn't know about and which Sizemore presumably isn't telling him, about.

His action appears to be just what Sizemore said...just not "done". Its not the socially acceptable way of doing things.

In short, it strikes me that Parson is following the LETTER of the rules - which allows him passage - but not the SPIRIT - which is Sizemores approach. A true munchkin.

Even if there isn't an explicit treaty anywhere, it's an abuse. The fact that something is not illegal does not make said action morally justifiable.

It appears to be a convention which has no hold over or meaning for parson. Sizemores not saying it can't be done...he's just saying its not the way things are done. As for morally justifiable....hes ignoring a convention that hes' neither party to nor bound by.

Also, morality is not about obeying the laws of physics ("rulebooks literal word"). It's not, actually, about obeying rules either- but many rules have a moral purpose behind them, and breaking them goes against that purpose, and is immoral. In this case, Parson is abusing and endagering an entity (the MK as a whole) which is not in conflict with him. Whatever the dealings of a few individual casters, the MK itself is not at war with GK. Yet.

Then it has no reason to stop him exercising his right to enter the MK

A country is well within its rights to, for example, deny its airspace or waterways to military craft.

Then Parson wouldn't have a right to enter at all. He does and he can and the denizens of the MK don't like that. He is exercising his right to be there.

This is the false dichotomy: destroy Jetstone, OR lose the expeditionary group (Wanda, Jack etc). This is what I say (and no dichotomy, or any poly-chotomy in sight): use the MK portals for attack is morally dubious.

He doesn't appear to be using the portal for attack. Nor is it even certain he can do so. He's using it to get himself to Jetstone because he wants to be with his troops.

See Sizemore's line in this update, the one about "thou shall not send casters into cities you don't control". It's pretty explicit in considering that the danger of a caster attack exists, and prohibiting it.

No...he says "you **don't** send casters..." Again, indicative of a convention rather than a rule. And as Parson says...hes a warlord. You don't send casters...can you send a warlord?

MY impression is that there is this unwritten rule, this understanding about such transits. In game terms, its a house rule which the normal gamers adhere to, but to which the newcomer has no obligation to follow.

[memnoch]

I'm only posting because i don't like the assumption Law>Convention that is going around in this topic not for the question of Parson subjective/objective morality issues. From what I understand, and I'm not entirely sure since English is not my first language so it could be that the word i translate Convention in may have more meaning that the English one or not be the right one altogether, a convention in this context is a custom witch means "that a group of individuals ranging from two people to an entire society decide something with or without, mostly without, stating it directly and adhere to it without setting it in to a Law", the difference between a Law and a convention is that there is a defined sanction to break a Law and an undefined one to breaking a convention, what we tend to forget is that when something is more or less defined there is also a limit to it, if a judge sentence someone to death for stealing a peace or bread when the law state for a lower maximum penalty allowed for that crime the Judge is sentenced for dis-application of the Law. If someone break a social convention that is seen as fundamental or of high importance for a group of people and there isn't a Law on the matter to settle the rights, wrongs , limits of sentence, etc... the consequences could be incredibly unpleasant for that someone if he/she end in the mist of that group and in case of extreme sense of perceived offense it could even bring people to break the Law to "sentence" someone who they don't think should go unpunished not only to "small" punishment witch the Law normally doesn't punish as vigilantism such as being made a pariah from that group.

Ps Sorry if I wrote such a verbose argument but as i was saying English is not my first leanguage.

PPs on Parson Morality on the matter I think that's simply unimportant, the important thing is the reactions and reprisal from casters and kingdoms anywhere on Parson and between kingdoms and casters if what Parson is trying to do became public knowledge.

[decius]

I like Xin's use of atmospheric perspecitve. It is subtle enough not to draw too much attention, but gives depth. I think the last panel on page 5 needed better planning standard perspective wise.

It would only stand out to people like me, probably. Based on the alignment of the buildings, the horizon line should be much higher in the shot.

Not if Spacerock is higher than the surrounding terrain. Also, if there's a huge difference between the altitude of the buildings, then they should have different vanishing points.

Reference: Morality of Magic Kingdom as an attack path: All's fair in love and war. This is war. It is just as 'illegal' to send an attacker through the Magic Kingdom as it is to send a disguised unit into an enemy city through the tunnels. There will probably be bad consequences, even if Parson gets to Spacerock without carving a figurative path through the Magic Kingdon (Granted, he is planning on carving a literal path already.)

[Ytaker]

With all this arguing about the morality and likely consequences of Parson violating the MK's alleged neutrality, I'm going to laugh my ass off if Janice, armed with intel from the predictomancer, manipulates events so that no one ever even knows that Parson used the portal shortcut. It took 70 or so turns for the RCC to find out how they lost the Battle for Gobwin Knob and that was only because Charlie told them. If no one at Jetstone lives to tell how Parson entered through a portal, I think it's quite likely that the MK will privately let GK know that its portal access will henceforth be restricted but otherwise the MK will be more concerned with making sure no one ever finds out what happened.

Charlie and Trammenis both know he can enter the magic kingdom. They're both smart enough to consider the implications.

[BLANDCorporatio]

As promised, one more post on the whole morality thing. No post quotes in this one, though there were some very interesting and quotable things said; this is more of a concluding statement from my side. It's too long as it is. There's a new update anyway.

There's some disagreement as to what Parson is breaking/challenging now. Is it a law? Is it a formalized, written down act layed down by some MK ruling body? Enforced by some authority in the MK? A legal basis for other acts, treaties this time, with sides connected by portals?

My assumption is yes; there probably are treaties of use, and there is a law inside the MK. But all this matters less.

There exists a rule of conduct (call it convention, or law, or house rule if you like) in the MK; agreed upon, to provide some of the basis for the MK's neutrality. It's a rule layed down by the people of the MK about how their kingdom should function. It is about how portals should be used. And while we can try an overly literal interpretation of it, I think it's clear that it's about how you do not send units (or casters, since only they can pass) through MK portals into cities you don't control. Sizemore is citing this rule to attempt and prevent Parson's run. By the maxim of relation, I interpret Sizemore to be bringing a relevant comment to the situation at hand.

Does the MK have a right to impose a portal-usage rule at all? If the portals were constructed by casters, the feeling of the forum tends to yes, and I agree. If the portals were made by the Titans, the feeling shifts no, and here I disagree. Here on Earth, a country has control about who's allowed in their airspace- but they did not construct the atmosphere!

Does a country have the right to say how to use resources that are located in/over what that country call own territory? The general view (not necessarily in this here forum) is yes. This way, we get some basis for peaceful functioning. My turf, I do what I want. Your turf, you do what you want; I ask permission, it's up to you to say yes/no. Unless we go to war

War is hell, they say, so in gowing to war, we chose the less moral route. Sometimes, maybe, we hope for a greater good out of it. I'm not discussing that here. Sometimes an evil is needed.

One thing war does not lack though is rules. Yeah, they say all's fair, yeah, war doesn't determine who's right. But there's such things as respecting the flag of truce, respecting parley (*cough*), humane treatment of at least a category of combatants, rules of engagement (*cough-cough*). Some of these rules exist to ease an eventual diplomatic solution. It's easier to get to negociate if you believe that a negociation will stay just that.

In practice, rules are bent and broken often. That does not make said bending or breaking moral.

The rule Parson is breaking now is about disrespecting how a neutral state wants to govern itself. I think it's well whithin a state's rights to chose its own house rules. Guests of that state should abide, unless they wish to declare aggression and face the consequences of disrespecting that state's rights. Because, we all agree, if this rule is broken the MK will get in GK's business something fierce.

Did Parson need to break this rule? My guess is no, there was at least one plan that could save the expeditionary force. And as someone said in this discussion, apparently Parson isn't going there because he has to. He's going for, GASP, moral reasons. As in, Parson is done thinking about Erfworld as a game and its inhabitants as pawns. He prioritizes his moral commitment, friends and allies first, and is willing to subject himself to the risk of combat.

It's actually a comendable intention. Too bad that to pursue it, he decides to break a neutral kingdom's "house rules", prompting a forumer here to compare the rules that a country uses to make itself function, to the house rules that his/her game group can decide on a whim to abolish. I thought that we were done thinking about Erfworld as a mere game.

Nearing the end. I'm not saying that Parson is evil. This act he does, is. It may be a necessary evil. Parson was brought to Erfworld to break the world after all. And its rules. I'd like to end by wondering what will Parson do with, or who he will leave the task of handling the, broken Erfworld. And to quote something that seems fitting-

Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires, make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world. Rubble, once achieved, makes further ruins' means irrelevant.

Away with our explosives then! Away with our destroyers! They have no place within our better world.

But let us raise a toast to all our bombers, all our bastards, most unlovely and most unforgivable. Let's drink their health ...

... then meet with them no more.

[atalex]

With all this arguing about the morality and likely consequences of Parson violating the MK's alleged neutrality, I'm going to laugh my ass off if Janice, armed with intel from the predictomancer, manipulates events so that no one ever even knows that Parson used the portal shortcut. It took 70 or so turns for the RCC to find out how they lost the Battle for Gobwin Knob and that was only because Charlie told them. If no one at Jetstone lives to tell how Parson entered through a portal, I think it's quite likely that the MK will privately let GK know that its portal access will henceforth be restricted but otherwise the MK will be more concerned with making sure no one ever finds out what happened.

Charlie and Trammenis both know he can enter the magic kingdom. They're both smart enough to consider the implications.

Yes, but no one listens to Charlie anymore, and Trammenis may be minutes away from croaking. Also, if no one sees him exit the portal on the JS side and he just "shows up" in the middle of combat, there could be other explanations that are equally plausible, especially if MK elects to conceal how he actually did it.

[atalex]

And a followup re BLAND's post:

Another interesting thing about MK is that some folks describe it as "a neutral kingdom." Interestingly for all its importance to the setting, we really don't know much about the MK. Although described as a "kingdom" there has been no hint of a king, or of any sort of government at all. It's population is exclusively caster, but that seems to be because, other than Parson, no non-caster can even go there. While there are hints that the MK as in institution has some hostility to GK and suspicions on the forum that Parson's run (I love that - "Parson's Run" with Burt Reynolds as "The Hamster") will provoke some kind of reprisal, it is also true that the only major figure native to the realm is deliberately encouraging Parson to break everything he can. Is Janis a loan wolf in all this? Or is there a much larger conspiracy to facilitate the breaking of Erfworld? Was the Summon Perfect Warlord spell something created by the entire MK or just a small group within it, and are its creators involved in Janis' plans? Is it immoral of Parson to abuse the portal network in the MK if the leadership of the MK is fine with it so long as their hands are clean?

We don't know the answers to any of these questions because so far, and I mean almost since the start of the strip, the true nature, structure and agenda of the Magic Kingdom has been like the dog that didn't bark, significant because of what has not been revealed.

[Oberon]

I disagree. "You don't send a caster from the Magic Kingdom to enter a city you don't control." This distinguishes the move from sending a caster from an adjacent hex to enter a city you don't control.

You've got to love the English language... It appears as though there are (at least) two valid readings of the same text. I read it as describing where the caster is from, as in "Charlie hired a caster from the MK", but read as describing the route the caster takes is just as valid. I believe that my reading is correct, but even if I am incorrect until such time as Parson is proven to be a caster he isn't even violating the convention. And I maintain my position that allowing the GK expeditionary force perish to preserve a convention that he never agreed to preserve, and indeed just heard about 5 minutes ago, would be the immoral act. It's as though we are balancing the proper use of a bridge convention by a person who doesn't play bridge and when pressed to play wasn't informed of the convention against real lives and the potential future survival of the GK Side. I find it astonishing that some see the bridge convention as being the more valuable thing to preserve.

To me its a bit like bombing the olympic games - you get the whole world, who all hate each other, to agree on one peaceful location, and one person spoils it for selfish reasons.

Yes I said selfish.

Meh. This is what is being called selfish: Preserving the lives of the majority of your Side's units, your air force of dwagons, your master class Foolamancer, and your 'Tool wielding master class Croakamancer who is the major contributor to your rolling advance to just past your former glory after a dozen or so Kingdoms decided that non-royals who grow too big need to be smashed to preserve the "Royal mandate", vs. breaking an agreement to which you are not even a party and just heard about 5 minutes ago. Again, I am really amazed that some people can call this choice "evil" or "selfish." Evil or selfish has nothing to do with it.

How about a small analogy: If you were about to take some action to save lives and preserve your army and your country (Side), would you care to be told that you mustn't, because all of the people you were about to offend by that action had decided amongst themselves and without your knowledge that that action was a bad thing for anyone to do? I hope that most people would choose to tell their opponents that they can decide amongst themselves all they like that you living, your army living, your Side living, is a bad thing. But that you were going to do what you liked anyway, selfishly (sarcasm), and preserve all of those things over their lousy agreement.

Re: the morality of Parson going through MK, it reminds me of the transition in warfare style in Europe in the 1700s-1800s. At the beginning, military officers were exclusively gentlemen, they were not specifically targeted by the other side, and if they were captured, they were ransomed. But by 1900, war was no longer a "gentlemen's game".. no special privileges for them, it was brutish for everyone.

Very nice analogy! In the most stereotyped examples of this, the "gentlemen" were utterly dismayed that officers were being targeted (by snipers, etc.) They had a disdain for the common unit *ahem* soldier, and the lives of their men were of import only as far as they could be spent to gain victory. Officers were to be captured and ransomed, not *shudder* specifically targeted for killing! Oh, woe! The convention is being selfishly violated by the opponent who discovered that killing off all the officers so easily visible in their shiny braid makes the men less effective as they lack the leadership and desire to continue the battle. How selfish of our opponents to desire to win with less casualties, why can't we all just line up and see who has the most men and can fire the most volleys with our straight lines of troops and let strategy and tactics be damned and left to lesser men? Why, why, why?