Charlie = GM?

[ShirKhan]

The latest page once again confirmed a thought I had had before: Is it possible that Charlie is a kind of deus ex machina, used by the GameMaster who built/plays the entire world?

Evidence:
* A GM leading a game in that world might occasionally want to use an extra force to tilt odds in favor of one side or the other. By setting Charlie's price (and principles), he can grant one side help or deny it.
* Charlie seems to incite some battles and conflicts himself, even though his goals aren't obvious. This again is what a GM would do to keep the battle and story interesting for his players.
* Barely anything is known about Charlie. Even most of his archons haven't seen him face to face yet.
* Charlie knows pretty much everything about the world, using his (extremely over-powered) Arkendish. Absolute knowledge is again something that suits into the description of a GM.
* Charlie doesn't show any interest in conquering terrain. This is consistent with a GM wanting the players to fight against each other, rather than getting involved in every battle himself.
* And, last but certainly not least, according to the latest text update, Charlie "had the whole world by its G-Strings".

Shir Khan

[spriteless]

If so, he is the most annoying GMPC since Gandalf.

[GKBeetle]

I'm thinking Charlie is actually someone else from the real world, just like Parson, and he's been living in Erfworld for a very long time. He probably figured out that he could use his knowledge of the real world to game the system for fun and profit. Now that another person from the real world is around, it's messing with his power, and he's not happy about it.

[GaryThunder]

Ehh...I've never really bought the "Charlie is a human" theory. Charlie is genuinely afraid of Parson. If Charlie was a human like he (surely) knows Parson is, he would sense a challenge, camaraderie perhaps, or at worst a grim determination to bring Parson down. Not fear. Charlie calls Parson "the more-than-perfect warlord" because he doesn't understand what sort of person, what sort of being Parson is, how he thinks...To Charlie, Parson is basically Nyarlathotep. A very crafty and very powerful ...something, incomprehensibly alien, utterly terrifying.

Charlie, with increasing desperation, is throwing more and more of his resources into his plans to bring down Gobwin Knob. Far more, it's been implied, than he usually ever does. He gave away free information, for boop's sake. He's running scared, which betrays his status as an Erf native. Another human wouldn't be so afraid, I think.

[bob the 6th]

but if you had been runing a game and sudanly a cabable of casters find a way to break your game, you plan it ahed and wright a story to back it up, not just let the eldrich horor to run free and trample your fun little role-play, but it could be that parson is the only player and everyone else is npcs, that this game was made for him to break, and the gmpc charlie is meant to play scaared to give a sense of true strugle to the game, making it a chalenge for parson to win.

but a better idea is that charlie is the npc gm, or the gms autopilot left by the gm when he bilt the game, meant to keep the system running so he could through in players to play in a game world that had a historie?

[Thunder]

then why the arkendish, if he was the gm leftover, why would he have the dish which is fated to fall into regular units? according to wanda anyway

[MarbitChow]

it could be that parson is the only player and everyone else is npcs

If that is the case, then Misty's and Bogroll's deaths are meaningless, as is the danger Parson is about to put himself into by entering combat.
The other people in Erfworld have to still be people - with loves, fears, ambitions, and everything that makes a person noble or knave - otherwise Parson's emotional growth is futile.

[Thunder]

its not futile if he believes that they are real people.

[MarbitChow]

its not futile if he believes that they are real people.

Not true. Imagine if all of the characters were dolls, and Parson just believed they were real.
The story's tone switches from 'protagonist growing emotionally' to 'creepy guy fantasizing about dolls'.
If they're not real people, then Parson is insane, or in a vast computer simulation, or some other explanation.

He's not putting his own life on the line as a constant reminder of the value of each life; he's just coming up with an excuse to level himself up.
His story isn't a metaphor for the insanity of war; it's just a cool-looking 3D simulation of a nifty tactical game.
He's not bringing peace to a war-torn world; he's just winning the game.

His actions remain exactly the same, but the meaning behind them vanishes.

[GaryThunder]

If you look at Erfworld from a gamelike perspective, the Rulers are the players and everyone else is an NPC. Parson is a unique exception, as he "won't be a gamepiece."

[Foolamancer]

its not futile if he believes that they are real people.

Not true. Imagine if all of the characters were dolls, and Parson just believed they were real.
The story's tone switches from 'protagonist growing emotionally' to 'creepy guy fantasizing about dolls'.
If they're not real people, then Parson is insane, or in a vast computer simulation, or some other explanation.

He's not putting his own life on the line as a constant reminder of the value of each life; he's just coming up with an excuse to level himself up.
His story isn't a metaphor for the insanity of war; it's just a cool-looking 3D simulation of a nifty tactical game.
He's not bringing peace to a war-torn world; he's just winning the game.

His actions remain exactly the same, but the meaning behind them vanishes.

Never read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, have you?

[GaryThunder]

Not true. Imagine if all of the characters were dolls, and Parson just believed they were real.
The story's tone switches from 'protagonist growing emotionally' to 'creepy guy fantasizing about dolls'.
If they're not real people, then Parson is insane, or in a vast computer simulation, or some other explanation.

He's not putting his own life on the line as a constant reminder of the value of each life; he's just coming up with an excuse to level himself up.
His story isn't a metaphor for the insanity of war; it's just a cool-looking 3D simulation of a nifty tactical game.
He's not bringing peace to a war-torn world; he's just winning the game.

His actions remain exactly the same, but the meaning behind them vanishes.

This only makes sense if all units were in fact philosophical zombies; that is to say, creatures that give every outward impression of sentience but in fact are completely without consciousness. Given that we know from the text updates that units do indeed have thoughts (except caster-created units like golems or Uncroaked, those indeed might fit the earlier description), even basic infantry...to say that something that acts like it thinks and thinks that it thinks is just a doll or a mindless NPC raises the question of what exactly the difference between NPCs and PCs is. It seems a rather nuanced distinction.

[MarbitChow]

Never read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, have you?

I've read them, and adore them. And they reinforce the point. Thomas does horrible things to people because he thinks they don't really exist.
He's an anti-hero, and saves the day despite his initial actions and attitudes.

This only makes sense if all units were in fact philosophical zombies; that is to say, creatures that give every outward impression of sentience but in fact are completely without consciousness. Given that we know from the text updates that units do indeed have thoughts (except caster-created units like golems or Uncroaked, those indeed might fit the earlier description), even basic infantry...to say that something that acts like it thinks and thinks that it thinks is just a doll or a mindless NPC raises the question of what exactly the difference between NPCs and PCs is. It seems a rather nuanced distinction.

To me, NPC implies 'less than human'; they're not fully fleshed out and are just there to fill a particular role.

Bob the 6th's original point reduced Erfworld to a game that Parson was trying to win. There is certainly that aspect of it, but if he's doing so just to win, rather than to try to bring peace to a war-torn world that just happens to have game-like mechanics, the story lacks the same meaning.

A thought-experiment for Earth, to try to make my point clearer:
if Marines kill terrorists in order to liberate a village living in fear, it is a noble and heroic act.
If they do the exact same sequence of actions to see who can get the most kills and thus 'win', it's callous at best and potentially evil.
The actions and participants are exactly the same in both scenarios, but our reactions to the protagonists change substantially.

[Thunder]

your example changes the characters motives, which makes it an incorect analogy.

in this case parson is dealing with a set of beings whom he belives to exist. he is as you say growing over time, he treats them as he would any person and although his actions are causing deaths he does wish that he didn't have to.

the other possibility is that parson is dealing with a set of beings whom he belives to exist. he is as you say growing over time, he treats them as he would any person and although his actions are causing deaths he does wish that he didn't have to, but these beings are actually nothing more than some robots with programed responces.

in either case parson is still "growing" it doesn't matter if they are really alive or not in terms of parsons growth

[GaryThunder]

To me, NPC implies 'less than human'; they're not fully fleshed out and are just there to fill a particular role.

Bob the 6th's original point reduced Erfworld to a game that Parson was trying to win. There is certainly that aspect of it, but if he's doing so just to win, rather than to try to bring peace to a war-torn world that just happens to have game-like mechanics, the story lacks the same meaning.

A thought-experiment for Earth, to try to make my point clearer:
if Marines kill terrorists in order to liberate a village living in fear, it is a noble and heroic act.
If they do the exact same sequence of actions to see who can get the most kills and thus 'win', it's callous at best and potentially evil.
The actions and participants are exactly the same in both scenarios, but our reactions to the protagonists change substantially.

Well, not all of them are "fully fleshed out." Basic infantry units, while not mindless, seem pretty darn limited in a sort of spooky Brave-New-World sort of way.

But they're not just mindlessly bumping into each other like electric football figurines, they all have competing interests just like in the real world. They want each others' resources, or land, or they want to increase their own strength, or wipe out a threat, or just keep themselves alive in a world where the laws of physics are designed in such a way as to make pretty much the skills for anything but fighting (i.e., farming, metallurgy, production of clothes or other such objects) are unnecessary. Everything they need, they either pop or create through magic, which isn't quite the same as making them in a mundane fashion. There is no entertainment. There is no industry, except for mining. There isn't any aspect to their lives that isn't focused around battle, because the physics work like that. It's not really their fault.

But within those constraints, they seem to be real enough. Look at the Commander units (and Rulers), anyway. There's no society, no marriage, no childbirth and nothing to do but fight - but they still fall in love. Even when they should be killing each other, sometimes. Look at poor pacifistic Sizemore, who doesn't even have the free will to stop himself from murder, much less stop anyone else. Look at the high-level casters, who study their power with as much intensity as we study our own laws of physics.

My point being (edit: forgot this the first time around, heh) that your hypothetical kill-count Marines would be rightly condemned, because they are choosing to direct their focus on a narrow and unpleasant aspect of our world. But Erfworld has nothing but carnage and mayhem. Other concepts - peace, culture, non-military societies, even free will for most people - literally do not exist within their universe. (Yet.) You can't hold them to the standards you hold humans to, since we aren't as limited.

[Foolamancer]

Never read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, have you?

I've read them, and adore them. And they reinforce the point. Thomas does horrible things to people because he thinks they don't really exist.
He's an anti-hero, and saves the day despite his initial actions and attitudes.

Yes, because, in the end, he decides that it doesn't matter whether or not the Land is real. He cares about it, and thus it is worth defending. The entire point of the series is that Covenant decides that his actions in this imaginary world do have meaning.

[the_tick_rules]

That makes him, and by extension parson, weak

[gameboy1234]

I think there's something to what you are saying, but I think there may be subtleties. My thoughts run like this:

1. Charlie started as a GM/game NPC whom you could buy things from. Like the goblins weren't originally a player race in WoW, they were just merchants.

2. When Erfword incarnated (became a real place), Charlie somehow gained some powers. Maybe his stock-in-trade, his Archons, were too powerful for someone to actually own and he became an unbalanced and uber powerful side.

3. Charlie either started with the Arkendish as an item to sell, or he acquired it as a trade item. It made Charlie even more unstoppable. Alternately, Charlie was just the Archon merchant until he acquired the Arkendish, which suddenly made him uber, sentient, unstoppable, etc.

4. Charlie still retains some of his merchant NPC nature -- has just one city and doesn't expand, he likes to make deals. This has been supplemented by the Arkendish to make Charlie either obsessive or very powerful or both.


I think the other possibility is that Charlie has a player, not that he is a player. The person playing Charlie probably enjoys doing the things that Charlie does -- one small city for easy management, uber powerful units, and makes deals with other sides. I think there are at least 4 other players, possibly one for each person in Parson group that we saw at the beginning of Book 1. There may also be other players from everywhere around the globe (Earth, not Erf), but I'm not really sure about the latter.

[ryanroyce]

I endorse the notion that Charlie is another person from our world. The 6th panel on page 100 is a semi-confirmation of this idea, IMO. The fact that Charlie recognizes Parson as a being, as opposed to a unit, also adds credibility. While this could be a feint/misdirection, I doubt it; Charlie being Real creates more questions than it answers.

[the_tick_rules]

or since the recent panel said intuition and other stuff is apparently tied to thinkamancy and charlie is apparently the top in thinkamancy he has the ability to know what parson is thinking and saying by playing with his g-string, boy that's fun to say, and imagine.