Totally not trying to put words in BLAND's mouth, but I totally get what he's saying... Turnamancy, as witnessed thus far, is remarkably powerful in just about every aspect of the comic. Skipping past Kingsworld (a few posters may have started having seizures upon reading that) and the enhanced speed for production (which is major, regardless of Shmucker-spending)... We're now getting a better look at a third major application of Turnamancy; the ability to convert units. En masse, at that!MarbitChow wrote:But why does the effort involved in 'turning' the person matter to the story?
In a world where "mind control" is real (including Earth), why does turnamancy / mind control need to be nerfed for the sake of the story?
We're past the point of converting a single Warlord (Duncan) who may, or may not, have had a low Loyalty score... We're now to Vanna being able to turn an estimated 12.5 units on a given turn. Maybe another 12.5 on a second turn? Even if we say it takes three turns, that's 25 units who could've had a very high Loyalty and now? Now they're loyal to a totally different side through a sparkle of some finger-tips. Bam. That's all.
It actually brings up some interesting questions about Archons... If Charlie was so worried about Gobwin Knob getting a hold of his secrets, are we correct to assume no one has ever captured or turned one of his Archons? I'd wanna say it'd be easier to turn a single unit then to turn twelve-point-five of them.
I believe the character development after having said control "lifted"/the Turnamancy-spell being 'undone' would be great, but isn't that what we're getting to see through Decryption? Besides, who's to say there is any sort of 'lifting'? Duncan seems true-blue-FAQ... lol, rhymes... So who are we to say that it'll ever lift? If it takes a turnamancy-spell to turn a unit, who's to say it wouldn't take another turnamancy-spell to turn the unit back? For me, it just strikes too close to Decryption - but the difference is, Decryption is meant to be broken/overpowered.MarbitChow wrote:Wouldn't what occurs after the control is lifted have the potential to be as interesting?
You made the comment that cheaply converting characters makes the notion of character useless.
Couldn't their rationalizations while under it, and the their reactions once it's lifted add to their character?
So I dunno; I just feel like it devalues a character's loyalty/devotion/Loyalty (uppercase 'L') to their side when a simple spell or two can undo it all. I mean, are the characters even able to resist it? Could Don have Bunny cast three or four Turnamancy scrolls on Caesar with his back turned, and bam: Loyal as the day he was popped? Could Vanna (or any other Turnamancer) cast a few spells on their ruler to make their Overlord/King/Queen totally loyal to them-self? Perhaps Charlie is a Turnamancer, given the powers of a Thinkamancer by the Arkendish, who used enough magic on his ruler to give himself control over a side? Oh, sorry, my tinfoil hat was on!!
(AND WHY WOULDN'T IT BE? ALIENS!)
Okay, I totally love the idea of a character who's been turned so many times between sides that they're mentally unstable, but in any other case? Why bother? If a character wants to turn to an enemy side, let 'em. If a character doesn't/wouldn't want to turn, why make 'em? ... Or better yet, why make it that easy? Make it a gradual process that takes dozens of turns. Not a small handful with seemly no repercussions. It just seems superfluous. Suuuuuuperfluuuuuous. Fun word.MarbitChow wrote:I guess I don't see why mind-control / -manipulation as a story-telling device cheapens the character at all.
If anything, it could add depth (reactions once manipulation is broken adding additional motivations) or pathos (we know the character is screwed, but the character can't see it themselves) or any number of complications that can advance plot.