Book 2 – Page 67

[GaryThunder]

I really love the shot of Maggie in the first frame.

I know that exact feeling. "How am I supposed to accomplish anything when everyone I try to work with goes off and does their own dumb ideas instead?!? Now I'm the one who looks bad!"

[Feyrauth]

(And is he casting just there, 'Van de Graaff'? What is that about?)

Calling lightning seems to be an ability granted by the hammer. He's used it a few times. And the trigger word probably named after a van der Graaff generator.

Also, regarding the most powerful combat unit in Erfworld... Stanley is pretty awesome when he gets going. But most of it comes from his artifact. So if Jillian, or Cesar, or Ansom were to attune to an artifact... for that matter, if Ansom *had* attuned to the Arkenpliers, would he still count as an awesome combat unit? They seem to be more of a behind-the-lines General's artifact, rather than a combat item.

[sleepymancer]

This talk of dwagons just made me realise... at no point has anyone referred to a "Level X Dwagon", it's always a red, or a yellow, etc. Whereas any other unit's level is always mentioned in various POV characters' tactical analyses. I don't have the time to check the text, but maybe dwagons don't have levels?

Edit: apart from this Donut of Doom just mentioned. Do you have a link?

There's a comment about individual dwagons being either weak examples of a strong type (or strong examples of a weak type). I would take that to refer to levels, although it could equally have been in relation to their current juice/health?? I imagine it was part of the Doughnut (British English :p ) of Doom

[MrBob81]

[quote="sleepymancerThere's a comment about individual dwagons being either weak examples of a strong type (or strong examples of a weak type). I would take that to refer to levels, although it could equally have been in relation to their current juice/health?? I imagine it was part of the Doughnut (British English :p ) of Doom[/quote]

The only mention I recall of dragon strength is by color. For instance, reds seem to be more powerful than say yellow. Im sure this also correlates to initial *pop* price and upkeep costs. As far as a specific dragon being stronger or weaker than others of its color, I've found nothing that corraborates that statement. I am always willing to be proven wrong though.

[Ansan Gotti]

Well, I think I found one reference that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The black judge probably has a link to Dennis Haysbert, the Allstate "Are you in good hands" guy.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371660/

[Kalak]

So, I see a lot of negativity towards Marie, and I was wondering how many other people do not think she's a bad guy? Sure, she might be a little manipulative, but she sees the end of all war on Erf. I think the accusations of her working for Charlie are totally baseless.

Also, on her "I so predict it," being manipulation, I definitely don't think she was Predicting right on the spot. I think the only Prediction we see her doing is on her wiki page, where she's sitting across from a glowing crystal ball. She could have just as easily Predicted that earlier in a day, but there's no need to show all your cards at once.

[effataigus]

I think she's legit, but I'm sure when the final accounting is done she'll have a lot of blood on her hands. Perhaps she will succeed and do net good, but her actions will still lead to a lot of dead Erfers.

I'm with her... morally and otherwise. Normally grand schemes for fundamentally altering the way the world works are a sign of someone who presumes too much about their own superiority, but she gets a pass on account of being able to literally see the future.

Admittedly, I'm mostly just trusting her, and she could be in pursuit of revenge or something silly in the end. I'm thinking and hoping that this was a plan she hatched with Banhammer and Wanda long ago though... we shall see. Mebbe Jack is also in on it... would account for his dedication to Parson's side.

[sleepymancer]

There's a comment about individual dwagons being either weak examples of a strong type (or strong examples of a weak type). I would take that to refer to levels, although it could equally have been in relation to their current juice/health?? I imagine it was part of the Doughnut (British English :p ) of Doom

The only mention I recall of dragon strength is by color. For instance, reds seem to be more powerful than say yellow. Im sure this also correlates to initial *pop* price and upkeep costs. As far as a specific dragon being stronger or weaker than others of its color, I've found nothing that corraborates that statement. I am always willing to be proven wrong though.

[/quote]

Found it. Prince Ansom in Book 1, p. 58, panel 2 at the initial rush of the Doughnut of Doom: http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F058.jpg. The exact words were "These may be weaker dwagon types, but they are strong examples" (my emphasis).

Again, I emphasise that this does not explicitly state level. There is a possibility that a given dwagon type, eg. red, has a strength of, say, 1d10+25, some will be stronger, others weaker, whether or not levelling is involved...

[DoctorJest]

There's a comment about individual dwagons being either weak examples of a strong type (or strong examples of a weak type). I would take that to refer to levels, although it could equally have been in relation to their current juice/health?? I imagine it was part of the Doughnut (British English :p ) of Doom

The only mention I recall of dragon strength is by color. For instance, reds seem to be more powerful than say yellow. Im sure this also correlates to initial *pop* price and upkeep costs. As far as a specific dragon being stronger or weaker than others of its color, I've found nothing that corraborates that statement. I am always willing to be proven wrong though.

Found it. Prince Ansom in Book 1, p. 58, panel 2 at the initial rush of the Doughnut of Doom: http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F058.jpg. The exact words were "These may be weaker dwagon types, but they are strong examples" (my emphasis).

Again, I emphasise that this does not explicitly state level. There is a possibility that a given dwagon type, eg. red, has a strength of, say, 1d10+25, some will be stronger, others weaker, whether or not levelling is involved...

There's also no reason to assume leveling isn't involved. Since we already know about the leveling mechanic, it makes more sense that levels are in fact what's involved, than presuming a whole new set of mechanics that aren't necessary. Occam's Razor and all that. We haven't seen any examples of a unit type that cannot level, and the only way we've witnessed units becoming more capable is through leveling, so it just stands to reason that dwagons, like other units, level as well.

There may be some variation of stats within a level, but I don't imagine it would be that significant.

[Housellama]

So, I see a lot of negativity towards Marie, and I was wondering how many other people do not think she's a bad guy? Sure, she might be a little manipulative, but she sees the end of all war on Erf. I think the accusations of her working for Charlie are totally baseless.

Also, on her "I so predict it," being manipulation, I definitely don't think she was Predicting right on the spot. I think the only Prediction we see her doing is on her wiki page, where she's sitting across from a glowing crystal ball. She could have just as easily Predicted that earlier in a day, but there's no need to show all your cards at once.

Hrm. I'm not sure that anyone's a BAD guy here. Stanley got it right at the beginning. There isn't a Good or Evil in Erf. It all depends on where you're standing, and who you're looking at.

What I do think is that Marie is... Less ethical and has fewer scruples than she is pretending. Marie isn't on the level. She's playing a game for her own ends, and she's willing to use whoever she has to in whatever way she has to so that she can achieve those ends. Parson is definitely playing for keeps these days, but he's got a conscience about it, and he's definitely spent some nights wrestling with his demons. Not only do I think that Marie hasn't lost any sleep to that, I think she sleeps more soundly than ever because she believes that she is morally justified in doing what she's doing.

From where I'm standing, that makes her the worse person. Parson will kill when he has to, but he'll feel bad about it. From the impression that I personally have formed about Marie, she wouldn't think twice about it, long as she gets what she wants. I'm also seriously unconvinced that Janis's goal of the end of all war on Erf and Marie's as yet unconfirmed goal are the same. We have been given no reasons at all to trust Marie, and several very good circumstantial reasons not to.

On the same topic, we have absolutely no reason to believe that she Predicted anything, right then or earlier in the day. If Miss Cleo told you that she foresaw that you would call her, would you believe her? If she said knew that you would ask her more questions, would you think she was psychic? The only thing that I would believe that Miss Cleo could tell me for absolute certainty is that she would be sending me a bill. That's about how much I trust anything that comes out of Marie's mouth. She has a problem. She needs, for whatever reason, Parson to be in Spacerock and right now there is a wall of very stubborn Thinkamancers between him and the portal. She has Janis, someone she's been able to push arou... I mean talk into things before. And she's a Predictamancer. If she says she Predicted it, to anyone who isn't her, what's the difference if she did or not? So she pulls a page from Jojo's book and uses a bit of Natural Carneymancy. That is to say, she lies through her implausibly white teeth.

[DoctorJest]

I really love the shot of Maggie in the first frame.

I know that exact feeling. "How am I supposed to accomplish anything when everyone I try to work with goes off and does their own dumb ideas instead?!? Now I'm the one who looks bad!"

Oh gawds yes.

[oslecamo2_temp]

From where I'm standing, that makes her the worse person. Parson will kill when he has to, but he'll feel bad about it. From the impression that I personally have formed about Marie, she wouldn't think twice about it, long as she gets what she wants. I'm also seriously unconvinced that Janis's goal of the end of all war on Erf and Marie's as yet unconfirmed goal are the same. We have been given no reasons at all to trust Marie, and several very good circumstantial reasons not to.

On the same topic, we have absolutely no reason to believe that she Predicted anything, right then or earlier in the day. If Miss Cleo told you that she foresaw that you would call her, would you believe her? If she said knew that you would ask her more questions, would you think she was psychic? The only thing that I would believe that Miss Cleo could tell me for absolute certainty is that she would be sending me a bill. That's about how much I trust anything that comes out of Marie's mouth. She has a problem. She needs, for whatever reason, Parson to be in Spacerock and right now there is a wall of very stubborn Thinkamancers between him and the portal. She has Janis, someone she's been able to push arou... I mean talk into things before. And she's a Predictamancer. If she says she Predicted it, to anyone who isn't her, what's the difference if she did or not? So she pulls a page from Jojo's book and uses a bit of Natural Carneymancy. That is to say, she lies through her implausibly white teeth.

She wouldn't be the only one. Hamster has been lyin-I mean, conducting pshychological warfare quite a lot since book 1. This is war. You use whatever tools you have at your disposal. Conspiracy and manipulation are just two more weapons to the arsenal. Heck Charlie made a freaking business out of it (clients hire us to solve problems, thus creating problems for our clients creates business, as said once by one of the archons)!

So Marie isn't any more evil than Parson "parleys are just another word for backstabbing, and I will rather have my troops kill themselves than ever admit surrender, twice so far actualy" Gotti, or Charlie "You didn't pay for magic protection, so I'll just sit here and watch you die", or Wanda "I'll reveal the location of my kingdom to the guy with the dwagon fleet and then murder my own liege when things go bad", or even Maggie "I will gladly direct the mental backslash to my allies to save my pale skin".

Marie probably simply wants what most other erfworlders want. Power and conquest. Hamster is being forged in the ultimate tool of war for conquering Erfworld, and the one pulling his strings from the background is Marie.

[Housellama]

She wouldn't be the only one. Hamster has been lyin-I mean, conducting pshychological warfare quite a lot since book 1. This is war. You use whatever tools you have at your disposal. Conspiracy and manipulation are just two more weapons to the arsenal. Heck Charlie made a freaking business out of it (clients hire us to solve problems, thus creating problems for our clients creates business, as said once by one of the archons)!

So Marie isn't any more evil than Parson "parleys are just another word for backstabbing, and I will rather have my troops kill themselves than ever admit surrender, twice so far actualy" Gotti, or Charlie "You didn't pay for magic protection, so I'll just sit here and watch you die", or Wanda "I'll reveal the location of my kingdom to the guy with the dwagon fleet and then murder my own liege when things go bad", or even Maggie "I will gladly direct the mental backslash to my allies to save my pale skin".

Marie probably simply wants what most other erfworlders want. Power and conquest. Hamster is being forged in the ultimate tool of war for conquering Erfworld, and the one pulling his strings from the background is Marie.

Okay, a couple points of order. First, what Maggie did, in the absence of orders otherwise, was self-preservation. Tri-mancer links are dangerous. As demonstrated when Issac brought several Master Class Thinkamancers after the Volcano Uncroaking. She had no orders to try something dangerous, so she shielded herself from all the backlash. That's simple self preservation. It's not NICE, but I can't fault her for that on any level.

Second, Parson was fighting a war. He was fighting an enemy that would kill or capture him given the first opportunity. He also acted in the most efficient manner possible to ensure his survival. Taking out Ansom in parley was the most efficient way to ensure that he survived. Taking out Ansom removed one of the most valuable assets that the enemy had. That's also simple survival. Again, not nice, but survival rarely is in the long run.

Wanda and Charlie fall into the category with Marie, definitely. But in the examples you chose, Parson and Maggie were acting in defense of their own survival, pure and simple. The drive for survival is the most basic motive for all life. What drives Marie is much less basic, and therefore not in the same category.

I'm open to a good argument, but the examples you have provided are not suitable.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Wanda and Charlie fall into the category with Marie, definitely. But in the examples you chose, Parson and Maggie were acting in defense of their own survival, pure and simple. The drive for survival is the most basic motive for all life. What drives Marie is much less basic, and therefore not in the same category.

They weren't. Hamster has had multiple chances to surrender by now (Charlie was even willing to just drag him out of all that mess and be his advisor in a fortress city filled with hot chicks), but Parson always chooses victory by any means or die trying.

Maggie could've just spreaded the backslash equally between all link members. She would get some brain damage like Jack, but still alive.

Hamster and Maggie also both aprove of Wanda butchering prisioners left, right and center and then turning them into fanatic dolls into a steamroll machine slaughtering everything on their path. They're her acomplices now and never raise a finger to even try to reign her back a bit. It was Stanley who had to give the order to spare Jack!

[Oberon]

I'm totally in the Marie fanclub now. Serene and friendly but action-oriented and decisive despite that. I'd hit it.

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become...

[Oberon]

Also, regarding the most powerful combat unit in Erfworld... Stanley is pretty awesome when he gets going. But most of it comes from his artifact. So if Jillian, or Cesar, or Ansom were to attune to an artifact... for that matter, if Ansom *had* attuned to the Arkenpliers, would he still count as an awesome combat unit?

I will posit the theory that no Jetstone unit who wasn't described as being a disaffected malcontent could have ever attuned to the 'pliers. Attunement has a meaning, after all. It describes a harmonious relationship. I sincerely doubt that Ansom or Ossomer or Tram or any other Jetstone unit we've been introduced to could have ever attuned to (formed a harmonious relationship with) an artifact which allowed them to create beings they view as being abominations, usurpers of the form and knowledge of their fallen friends, comrades, and relatives. Whereas Wanda's reaction when asked what the first decryption was replied "Something wonderful!" (or close enough, not looking it up) That is attunement!

So Marie isn't any more evil than Parson "parleys are just another word for backstabbing, and I will rather have my troops kill themselves than ever admit surrender, twice so far actualy" Gotti, or Charlie "You didn't pay for magic protection, so I'll just sit here and watch you die", or Wanda "I'll reveal the location of my kingdom to the guy with the dwagon fleet and then murder my own liege when things go bad", or even Maggie "I will gladly direct the mental backslash to my allies to save my pale skin".

I have only one observation to make. I believe that you are judging Parson way too harshly. He and his side were outnumbered 25:1 by a coalition of other sides which had ganged up for the specific purpose of taking down an upstart non-royal who had gotten a little too big for their comfort level. They were not coming to offer terms, not as we understand them. They were coming to destroy the GK side. Even the hokey "Parson is allowed to surrender to Ansom" scene was just a bit of pomp and pageantry to give the royals a nice warm fuzzy before they did what they would have done: Killed every GK unit who wasn't worth turning, which typically means all of them save the casters.

Parson never, not once, allowed units to die rather than have them surrender to the enemy. The enemy doesn't take prisoners, doesn't have gulags or prisoner of war camps or even concentration camps. And I'd rather have a leader who let me die on my feet trying to survive or even just ensuring that some of my countrymen survived than one who allowed a meaningless surrender just to make the slaughter easier.

Wanda and Charlie fall into the category with Marie, definitely. But in the examples you chose, Parson and Maggie were acting in defense of their own survival, pure and simple. The drive for survival is the most basic motive for all life. What drives Marie is much less basic, and therefore not in the same category.

They weren't. Hamster has had multiple chances to surrender by now (Charlie was even willing to just drag him out of all that mess and be his advisor in a fortress city filled with hot chicks), but Parson always chooses victory by any means or die trying.

Just so I understand your position, you're saying that a Chief Warlord, the supreme military commander of a side, should desert in the face of the enemy and allow himself to be captured by a mercenary in the employ of that enemy, and that if he does not then he must therefore be a bloody minded bastard with the low morals to subscribe to the foolish and naive position of "Give me victory or give me death!" Is that an accurate summation of your philosophy?

Hamster and Maggie also both aprove of Wanda butchering prisioners left, right and center and then turning them into fanatic dolls into a steamroll machine slaughtering everything on their path. They're her acomplices now and never raise a finger to even try to reign her back a bit. It was Stanley who had to give the order to spare Jack!

So, now you're just making shit up. First off, please provide a single reference which supports your claim that Parson (or Maggie, since you lumped her in there) approves or endorses the killing and decrypting of POWs. Second, Parson talked Stanley into making that decision you're crediting him with (and I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve credit for making the right decision, just that I'd have preferred that he said something like "I'd rather not see Jack, that guy who saved my bacon at the pass to FAQ, killed and decrypted just to save a healing scroll", instead of saying "I'm not sure I want Wanda to have a decrypted caster.") Parson also expressed disgust that Wanda even asked if she could croak and decrypt Jack, which you managed to fail to mention.

[Housellama]

Wanda and Charlie fall into the category with Marie, definitely. But in the examples you chose, Parson and Maggie were acting in defense of their own survival, pure and simple. The drive for survival is the most basic motive for all life. What drives Marie is much less basic, and therefore not in the same category.

They weren't. Hamster has had multiple chances to surrender by now (Charlie was even willing to just drag him out of all that mess and be his advisor in a fortress city filled with hot chicks), but Parson always chooses victory by any means or die trying.

Just so I understand your position, you're saying that a Chief Warlord, the supreme military commander of a side, should desert in the face of the enemy and allow himself to be captured by a mercenary in the employ of that enemy, and that if he does not then he must therefore be a bloody minded bastard with the low morals to subscribe to the foolish and naive position of "Give me victory or give me death!" Is that an accurate summation of your philosophy?

Hamster and Maggie also both aprove of Wanda butchering prisioners left, right and center and then turning them into fanatic dolls into a steamroll machine slaughtering everything on their path. They're her acomplices now and never raise a finger to even try to reign her back a bit. It was Stanley who had to give the order to spare Jack!

So, now you're just making shit up. First off, please provide a single reference which supports your claim that Parson (or Maggie, since you lumped her in there) approves or endorses the killing and decrypting of POWs. Second, Parson talked Stanley into making that decision you're crediting him with (and I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve credit for making the right decision, just that I'd have preferred that he said something like "I'd rather not see Jack, that guy who saved my bacon at the pass to FAQ, killed and decrypted just to save a healing scroll", instead of saying "I'm not sure I want Wanda to have a decrypted caster.") Parson also expressed disgust that Wanda even asked if she could croak and decrypt Jack, which you managed to fail to mention.

... Dude, if Oberon and I are agreeing that you're full of it and for the same reasons, then you're WAY off the reservation.

If you think that Parson would be living a life of his own free will living with Charlie, you need to pass me some of whatever it is you're smoking. The only things that Charlie has under him are mindless creations (Golems) and fanatically loyal minions who are literally incapable of disobeying, or even thinking anything other than that the sun rises and sets in Charlie's metaphorical pants. If you truly believe that Charlie wouldn't skullboop the free will out of Parson the MOMENT he turned, then I need to reevaluate my opinion of you. Surrendering to Charlie would have been just a different kind of death. Parson might have been technically alive, but there's no way that Charlie and the Arkendish would let him have any kind of freedom At. All. Well, that's not true. He'd be free to gush about how awesome Charlie was all he wanted. Personally, I'd pick death. The kind of Thinkamancy that the Arkendish is reputed to have doesn't sound like the kind of think you can fight, any more than the Decrypted can go back to being really alive.

You're right. Maggie could have taken some of the backlash. But what would YOU have done in her place? Would you have risked your brain when you know for a fact you could protect yourself, and there was no orders for you to do otherwise? You know, I'm a nice guy. Too nice for my own good sometimes. I might take a little risk. But if it came down to me or the other two? Sorry. It isn't going to be my brain getting fried. And you know what? If it DID come down to them or me? I'd sleep fine that night. Because when it comes down to it, I'm not bloody suicidal. And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point.

[gazes_also]

I'm totally in the Marie fanclub now. Serene and friendly but action-oriented and decisive despite that. I'd hit it.

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become...

... a really terrible actor?

[oslecamo2_temp]

I have only one observation to make. I believe that you are judging Parson way too harshly. He and his side were outnumbered 25:1 by a coalition of other sides which had ganged up for the specific purpose of taking down an upstart non-royal who had gotten a little too big for their comfort level. They were not coming to offer terms, not as we understand them. They were coming to destroy the GK side. Even the hokey "Parson is allowed to surrender to Ansom" scene was just a bit of pomp and pageantry to give the royals a nice warm fuzzy before they did what they would have done: Killed every GK unit who wasn't worth turning, which typically means all of them save the casters.

That's pure dog bowels. Ansom offers for discussing surrender terms and Hamster answered with provocations. We also know the royals keep prisioners of war from the text updates. Plus if Hamster really wanted, he could've used Charlie as a negotiator.

Parson never, not once, allowed units to die rather than have them surrender to the enemy. The enemy doesn't take prisoners, doesn't have gulags or prisoner of war camps or even concentration camps. And I'd rather have a leader who let me die on my feet trying to survive or even just ensuring that some of my countrymen survived than one who allowed a meaningless surrender just to make the slaughter easier.

But they do take prisioners. Read the damn story!

Just so I understand your position, you're saying that a civilian that was kidnaped and asked to fight with a psycho necromancer that butchered countless lifes just to get some oversized pliers, should desert in the face of inevitable death and allow himself to be captured by the only person in the new world that seems to don't seem to be a fanatic of sorts, and that if he does not then he must therefore be a bloody minded bastard with the low morals to subscribe to the foolish and naive position of "Give me victory or give me death!" Is that an accurate summation of your philosophy?

Fixed that for you.

So, now you're just making shit up. First off, please provide a single reference which supports your claim that Parson (or Maggie, since you lumped her in there) approves or endorses the killing and decrypting of POWs.

They knew what Wanda was doing all along during their curbstomp campaign. Even Jack comments how black is the new shackles. Other sides take prisioners of war and seek to turn them over time. Wanda speeds up the whole process by killing them and animating them as dolls. Hamster advises her how to make maximum carnage, using Maggie for communications, and then goes back to war simulations.

Second, Parson talked Stanley into making that decision you're crediting him with (and I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve credit for making the right decision, just that I'd have preferred that he said something like "I'd rather not see Jack, that guy who saved my bacon at the pass to FAQ, killed and decrypted just to save a healing scroll", instead of saying "I'm not sure I want Wanda to have a decrypted caster.") Parson also expressed disgust that Wanda even asked if she could croak and decrypt Jack, which you managed to fail to mention.

Funny thing, because it was Stanley himself who said he didn't want Wanda with a decrypted caster. Hamster was all willing to just sit and watch. He only openly shows disgust when Stanley expresses his opinion out of his own will.

Housellama:What if Hamster could've sacrificed himself to Charlie to save his side instead of blowing them up himself? did he even stop to think about that?

Also, you realize that you just called firefighters, cops, soldiers and everybody else who risks grave injury to save lifes suicidical right? Well my opinion of you has already been reavaluated.

EDIT:Another key point, we know it's possible to offer/sell units to another side. Hamster could've just donated his troops to the enemy with the surrender conditions. There. No need for mass slaughter. Unless Hamster is more worried about winning than preserving lifes.

[Dr Pepper]

Well, I think I found one reference that I haven't seen mentioned yet. The black judge probably has a link to Dennis Haysbert, the Allstate "Are you in good hands" guy.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371660/

Several people have mentioned it already.