Why is Parson in Erfworld?

[MarbitChow]

MarbitChow, for every assumption you accuse me of, you make a corresponding assumption yourself. Try again.

Then I'll just focus on the simplest assumption: how do you justify assuming that the Titans want to "win" the game and yet reject that they are doing this for entertainment?
I can name a number of games that cannot be won (Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, etc.), but I can't name a single game that wasn't designed to entertain.

[Thunder]

all the right type.

although i guess there were some entertaining aspects i think it was designed more to educate. and i think the only really entertaining parts were how bad the entertaining parts were.

[MarbitChow]

all the right type.
although i guess there were some entertaining aspects i think it was designed more to educate. and i think the only really entertaining parts were how bad the entertaining parts were.

Would you at least agree that the stated goals of the 'game' were to educate and entertain? I'm not going to argue that all games are entertaining, but that's the goal of each game, otherwise we don't call it a game.

[Kreistor]

MarbitChow, for every assumption you accuse me of, you make a corresponding assumption yourself. Try again.

Then I'll just focus on the simplest assumption: how do you justify assuming that the Titans want to "win" the game and yet reject that they are doing this for entertainment?
I can name a number of games that cannot be won (Dwarf Fortress, Farmville, etc.), but I can't name a single game that wasn't designed to entertain.

I'm not rejecting that they are being entertained. People play games for entertainment. You're the one that seems to think only games that no one wins are entertaining. Most people play games to win or lose. Sports. Casinos. Board games. Playing a game that can't be won, only lost, takes a rare player.

But the answer to your question is in my first post. It looks like a game. The game can, at least superficially, be won. It hasn't been won. Parson seems to have brought the capacity to break the game and win with him, and he has been surrounded by the Tools of the Titans that created the game in the first place. Ergo, their intent was to give him their Tools to fix the game so that it could be won, so they could start again with new rules to correct their mistakes.

The difference between us is that you see malice as their motivation. Eternal warfare for personal entertainment.

I see gaming as their motivation. The malicious nature of the world is, at that point, inevitable once they have decided the pieces will be intelligent. Any game involving people will wind of with the pieces being hurt: it's the unavoidable nature of conflict of any kind. Maybe not always physically... mental and emotional damage are possible, too. My Titans are merely selfish, and the malice in the world was an unavoidable outcome of deciding to play a game. That's why they eliminate the peasants: they can minimize how many people are harmed by their choice.

[MarbitChow]

You're the one that seems to think only games that no one wins are entertaining. Most people play games to win or lose. Sports. Casinos. Board games. Playing a game that can't be won, only lost, takes a rare player.

I'm not saying that at all. A football game can be won. The NFL (the structure in which the games occur) cannot.
An Erfworld battle can be won. Erfworld as a game cannot.

You're seeing Erfworld as a single game. I'm seeing it as a persistent world in which hundreds of simultaneous games (i.e. individual conflicts) can be enacted.

The difference between us is that you see malice as their motivation. Eternal warfare for personal entertainment. I see gaming as their motivation.

So, are the Titans in your view extremely callous or simply stupid? Because it doesn't take a god-like mind to comprehend that gaming with intelligent pieces that are forced to kill each other is evil.

[Kreistor]

You're seeing Erfworld as a single game. I'm seeing it as a persistent world in which hundreds of simultaneous games (i.e. individual conflicts) can be enacted.

That's a fine viewpoint for you. The problem is that the vast majority of situations have no choices and no entertainment value for being predictable. They are slaves, remember? Where free will rules, you can have some individual level entertainment when people do surprising things. But with the vast majority of choices made for the individual by the environment (ie. Natural Thinkamancies), it's a pretty poor implementation of your viewpoint. There's nothing less entertaining than predictable results.

The difference between us is that you see malice as their motivation. Eternal warfare for personal entertainment. I see gaming as their motivation.

So, are the Titans in your view extremely callous or simply stupid? Because it doesn't take a god-like mind to comprehend that gaming with intelligent pieces that are forced to kill each other is evil.

Is it? If you ask the inhabitants of Erfworld, "YOu have a choice: don't exist, or exist in a world of warfare," I don't think I'd be too far off saying that thre really is only one choice.

Because no matter how brutal that world is, there are sunsets, and love, and moments of joy. Yes, the Titans have a callous or self-centered nature, but if you look at Earth, you can say the same thing. There is much viciousness if you consider the entire world, but there is also some joy. Judeo-Christian thought calls our world a crucible for forging souls of a particular type to enjoy eternity with God, which glosses over the same callousness you accuse the Titans of. You have the option to opt out, if you think it's too callous a world, but you know, even in times of war, there isn't mass suicide. The Hundred YEars War covered generations in blood, and would have seemed eternal for them, and they still would rather live than not.

So, while the Titans are callous, they are still giving the gift of life to those that lack it, and so the callousness is offset by a certain benevolence.

[MarbitChow]

That's a fine viewpoint for you. The problem is that the vast majority of situations have no choices and no entertainment value for being predictable. They are slaves, remember? Where free will rules, you can have some individual level entertainment when people do surprising things. But with the vast majority of choices made for the individual by the environment (ie. Natural Thinkamancies), it's a pretty poor implementation of your viewpoint. There's nothing less entertaining than predictable results.

The level of "individual conflict" I'm referring to is side vs. side. I apologize for not making that clearer; I had incorrectly assumed it was obvious.

Is it? If you ask the inhabitants of Erfworld, "YOu have a choice: don't exist, or exist in a world of warfare," I don't think I'd be too far off saying that thre really is only one choice.

And if you ask a slave "live in slavery or die", the answer is the same. It doesn't make slavery any less evil.

Because no matter how brutal that world is, there are sunsets, and love, and moments of joy. Yes, the Titans have a callous or self-centered nature, but if you look at Earth, you can say the same thing. There is much viciousness if you consider the entire world, but there is also some joy. Judeo-Christian thought calls our world a crucible for forging souls of a particular type to enjoy eternity with God, which glosses over the same callousness you accuse the Titans of. You have the option to opt out, if you think it's too callous a world, but you know, even in times of war, there isn't mass suicide. The Hundred YEars War covered generations in blood, and would have seemed eternal for them, and they still would rather live than not.

The primary difference between Earth and Erfworld is that Earth is not *designed* to require conflict. No major world religion claims that we were created to fight each other. We choose to fight despite the creator's intentions, not because of it. That places the 'burden of evil' on man rather than the creator.

So, while the Titans are callous, they are still giving the gift of life to those that lack it, and so the callousness is offset by a certain benevolence.

So, by that same logic, it's okay to give birth to children that you specifically intend to torture and kill, because they wouldn't have otherwise lived? Bullshit.
We arrest people who raise dogs for fighting. Doing that against humans is even more vile.

[Kreistor]

The level of "individual conflict" I'm referring to is side vs. side. I apologize for not making that clearer; I had incorrectly assumed it was obvious.

That's a very straight-jacketed view of their entertainment. It eliminates any individuality between the Titans themselves, making them all clones, mentally. They all want exactly one thing? No, that's shoehorning the world into your view, rather than forming your view based on the world.

And if you ask a slave "live in slavery or die", the answer is the same. It doesn't make slavery any less evil.

Except that the people that are popping are not random, but those of a mindset to enjoy what they are doing. Slavery to do exactly what you like doing is far less vile than slavery to do what you loathe. There are exceptions, but there are in our world, too.

The primary difference between Earth and Erfworld is that Earth is not *designed* to require conflict. No major world religion claims that we were created to fight each other. We choose to fight despite the creator's intentions, not because of it. That places the 'burden of evil' on man rather than the creator.

No major surviving religion, you mean. The Central American ones, like the Aztecs, Maya, and their predecessors, believed very much in organized conflict as mandatory. As did the Vikings (a sect of the Norse, not the entire Norse religion... some Norse were peaceful).

So, by that same logic, it's okay to give birth to children that you specifically intend to torture and kill, because they wouldn't have otherwise lived? Bullshit.
We arrest people who raise dogs for fighting. Doing that against humans is even more vile.

Again, you're jumping to an extreme not based on evidence. Erfworld is popping those that like what they do. (The SPearman from the Summer interlude and Wanda in Book 0 are popped devoted to their function). It's a form of enslavement, yes, but not the type that is common on Earth, where forced labour is the norm. The Titans aren't beating the people until they turn into fighting dogs: anyone that isn't a fighting dog isn't permitted to be popped in the first place. It's favoritism in character creation that ensures that people that would hate the system are not abused by it.

You can point at a few exceptions, like Hippiemancers and Sizemore, and those are valid examples. It's not perfect. But is a single example of a person that loathes the world enough to make the creator of that world Evil? Because there are plenty on Earth that feel that way, but the majority do not believe that whoever created Earth is evil, even if they are in a period of suffering. For me, those examples are not enough to make God evil, and so I wouldn't make the Titans evil for it, either.

[Housellama]

Okay, speaking of assumptions, let's start with this one.

1) Erfworld bears many characteristics of a world created as a game. Assume it is a game.

But it's not a game. It's a world. A world that has rules which we tend to view as game-like, sure. But that's our point of view. This isn't our world. We are imposing the idea of a game on it, but that could easily be a faulty assumption.

Tram makes reference to Duke Nozzle being a scorist. But that doesn't make it a game either. Certainly not one that implies a winner or a loser. As Janice said, you can't reach level infinity, but does that mean you shouldn't strive to be the best you can? Perhaps that's what the Titans created Erfworld for. A place where their people could strive to be the best that they could.

Don't get so hung up on the assumption that it's a game that you miss ALL the reasons that Parson could be in Erfworld. It could be that the Titans left the door open because they wanted to see what their people could do, what they could become.

[MarbitChow]

Again, you're jumping to an extreme not based on evidence. Erfworld is popping those that like what they do. (The SPearman from the Summer interlude and Wanda in Book 0 are popped devoted to their function). It's a form of enslavement, yes, but not the type that is common on Earth, where forced labour is the norm. The Titans aren't beating the people until they turn into fighting dogs: anyone that isn't a fighting dog isn't permitted to be popped in the first place. It's favoritism in character creation that ensures that people that would hate the system are not abused by it. You can point at a few exceptions, like Hippiemancers and Sizemore, and those are valid examples. It's not perfect.

You make the case that they are not malicious because they're popping people who want to be there, then immediately bring examples of people who disprove that theory. The Hippiemancers, Sizemore, Marie, Trem... a sizable number of major characters abhor war. The Titans are either cruel or incompetent, otherwise there would be no exceptions.

If Michael Vick's dogs spontaneously sprung into existence as vicious animals, it would make the crimes he committed no less serious, after all.

But is a single example of a person that loathes the world enough to make the creator of that world Evil? Because there are plenty on Earth that feel that way, but the majority do not believe that whoever created Earth is evil, even if they are in a period of suffering. For me, those examples are not enough to make God evil, and so I wouldn't make the Titans evil for it, either.

A significant number of people on earth do not believe it was created by an intelligence at all, myself included. You required that we grant that the Titans exist. I require that you do not excuse the possibility of the Titan's maliciousness because of how YHWH / Jehovah / Allah is perceived, because a great number of atrocities have been and continue to be justified in his name. A great amount of good has also been done, I freely grant, but while God may be above our ability to judge against normal human morality, the Titans are not.

As an aside, I find it somewhat ironic that this post, in a thread discussing Titanic Religion, brings my total post count to a number sufficient to place me in the 700 Club...

[Kreistor]

You make the case that they are not malicious because they're popping people who want to be there, then immediately bring examples of people who disprove that theory. The Hippiemancers, Sizemore, Marie, Trem... a sizable number of major characters abhor war. The Titans are either cruel or incompetent, otherwise there would be no exceptions.

Bullcookies. We aren't judged solely by our failures, but also by our successes. Creation involves risk, and risk ensures that failure can occur. Remember, we both agree the Titans are not omniscient, so they do not have the capacity to predict all cases and scenarios, just a lot more than us. WE've got hindsight to see the failures they had to predict. Only an omniscient that creates a world with flawed persons can be assured to have created those failures intentionally. And, remarkably enough, maybe, just maybe, they would consider a world united in Peace as a victory. If no one has a pacifist mindset,that option is impossible, so inclusion of some peaceful people is absolutely mandatory. Remarkable that Trammenis is the one that proposed that idea.

So, hey, don't you ever misspell a single word, or you're evil for making a flawed creation.

If Michael Vick's dogs spontaneously sprung into existence as vicious animals, it would make the crimes he committed no less serious, after all.

Or the vicious dogs that they use on American Hoggers to hunt down hogs? Are the hoggers evil for training their dogs to attack other animals? Of course not... they're getting rid of animals that are wild and dangerous (and yummy to eat). Put in front of aggressive dogs, instead of hogs, they'll fight, too. Creating vicious dogs doesn't make you evil, it's how you use them. In Erfworld, it isn't the Titans forcing Rulers to attack their neighbours. They created a world where ambition is the norm, but that is no different from ours... we simply select which ambitious people rise to the top differently. We don't excuse ambitious people and blame God for creating them that way... we blame the people for not overcoming their weaknesses. Every Erfworld Side could carve back its population to that which their cities could support and stop fighting. The reason revenue becomes a problem is because ambitious Rulers over-produce beyond their upkeep, which is the fault of the Ruler, not the Titans. They would need to disband units if their upkeep rose, and repop new ones, which is unfortunate. So Peace is possible, despite everyone being a combatant.

a great number of atrocities have been and continue to be justified in his name.

You mean the 600000 killed by Stalin during his counter-revolutionary purges? Oh, right, he was an atheist. Okay, the 700000 by Mao in his purges? No, not Judeo-Christian either. How about the estimated 1 million Vietnamese after the North took the south? Yeah, weren't they Buddhist, who do not believe in a deity? How about the millions killed by the Nazi's. Oh, wait, they weren't pushing a Christian agenda either. The Japaneses PoW camps?

Attrocity is caused by AMBITION, with excuses made using whatever is culturally acceptable, be it religion or politics. Oh, the next good one is the economic excuse, with some Occupy folks wanting to off all the Banksters. Isn't that a new kind of human sweetness. Greed as capital crime. Well, they kinda did that once already, back in France in the late 18th century... another non-religious atrocity.

[MarbitChow]

If Michael Vick's dogs spontaneously sprung into existence as vicious animals, it would make the crimes he committed no less serious, after all.

Or the vicious dogs that they use on American Hoggers to hunt down hogs? Are the hoggers evil for training their dogs to attack other animals? Of course not... they're getting rid of animals that are wild and dangerous (and yummy to eat). Put in front of aggressive dogs, instead of hogs, they'll fight, too. Creating vicious dogs doesn't make you evil, it's how you use them.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Vick was evil for pitting dogs against each other FOR SPORT. You know, A GAME. Just like the Titans are pitting their creations against each other. FOR SPORT. That's what makes it EVIL. I'm glad we agree on this point. I'm just sorry that you can't seem to understand how the Titans are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

[MarbitChow]

Kreistor, answer me this: If the Titans are not malicious, why are units that are not lead by a commander forced to attack each other? Why is it that a commander is required to end a conflict before one side is completely wiped out? That's not an unintended consequence - that's a basic rule of the system. Explain to me how "Though MUST Kill" is not evil?

[Kreistor]

Kreistor, answer me this: If the Titans are not malicious, why are units that are not lead by a commander forced to attack each other? Why is it that a commander is required to end a conflict before one side is completely wiped out? That's not an unintended consequence - that's a basic rule of the system. Explain to me how "Though MUST Kill" is not evil?

The Titans didn't order the invading Side into enemy territory, the ambitious Ruler did.

Like I said, Peace is a viable option on Erfworld. No one forces Rulers to try to gain territory. The Rulers could all get together and forge a Peace deal to maintain the status quo, in which case all of those Rules about how Wars are fought become irrelevant.

Why is "Thou must kill" not evil? Define "evil". An Erfworlder would answer you, "Anything the Titans want is Good, so since it is what they want, it is inherently Good."

"Evil" is relative to your own moral code. So, something can be evil according to your moral code, but not evil by mine.

I can explain it like this, though. These people are at war. They have enemies. Killing enemies is not evil. Since the only pacifists we have identified so far are Commanders and not forced to attack, there is no vile enslavement in this rule's application: killing enemies is their inclination in the first place.

There is one other thing to consider. How is the "rule" that unlead troopers implemented? It doesn't have to be implemented as an environmental imperative. Are they popped with the natural desire to attack unless ordered not to? In that case, it is not enslavement to an environmental Law, but a careful design parameter in the creation of the non-Commander units. A lot of Natural Laws are implemented in this way... not as the environment forcing the action, but as a natural inclination of the person involved. If it is by selection, then there is no evil involved: the Titans are merely ensuring that only people with the desire to kill enemies on sight are popped .

But I think you are extremely confused. My viewpoint does not consider the Titans' morality. It is irrelevant. Malicious or benevolent, nothing changes for my presentation. Your system collapses if the Titans are benevolent: mine does not if they are malicious. So, really, I don't know why you're arguing this, since it endangers only your position. Do you really want to continue with this train of thought, because I'm not the one pressing this issue.

[MarbitChow]

Kriestor, I never argue to try to "win" an argument. Anyone who vehemently discusses one side of an issue, in my experience, never changes their view. I argue to see how other people think, and to be able to refine my own thoughts. Most arguments are not meant to be won, they're just there to entertain the participants.

You've stated at various points throughout this thread that:

Games are for winning, but not for entertainment (even though it is easier to find a examples of games that cannot be won than it is to find games that are not meant to entertain).
Creating sentient creatures for the purpose of killing each other is better than not creating them at all.
Killing enemies is not evil.
Creating only people who have a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter 'the other' is not evil.
You reinforced, then ignored the argument that pitting aggressive creatures against each other for entertainment is wrong.

For someone who professes to believe in God, you've shown a great willingness to embrace the expedient and self-gratifying over the moral.

Frankly, it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the Titans are benevolent deities who intended for Parson to show up because their game was broken and only Parson can fix it, or whether they are sinister entities whose vile creation (Erfworld) only Parson can redeem. Either the Titans are incompetent or they are evil. Personally, I hope they're just incompetent. Either way, Parson's ultimate goal is to transform endless killing into peace.

Your whole premise is meaningless. It does not impact the outcome of the story one way or another. Parson is there, Erfworld needs to be fixed, and that's all we need to know.
How you view the Titans... how you equivocate what, to me, are moral absolutes... speaks volumes.

[Kreistor]

You've stated at various points throughout this thread that:

No, these are your spin jobs on what I said. None of them are presented as I intended. Maybe you can convince others of spin, but since all my words are in place and unedited, others that wish to check the validity of your version can check on my intent, and if you're wrong in their eyes, you just lost anyone that calls your bluff. Frankly, I don't think anyone reading this will buy your versions.

Games are for winning, but not for entertainment (even though it is easier to find a examples of games that cannot be won than it is to find games that are not meant to entertain).

No, I said that Erfworld seems more consistent with a game to be won than one that is not intended to be won. I never denied the existence of persistent games not intended to be won, nor that some people play them for fun.

Creating sentient creatures for the purpose of killing each other is better than not creating them at all.

No, not in all cases. I specifically stated that creating people to live in a world of torture is malicious. I do not agree that Erfworld is a world of torture. You have a different opinion, and that's fine for you. If, however, the above statement is really what you think I said, then that indicates why it is so easy to make you dance. Sun Tzu stated that if you know yourself and your enemy, you will never lose. Since you don't know me, you miss that ideal. To defeat someone, you need to understand them, which is why spin jobs like yours fail utterly. You're fighting against a deluded version of me, and that never works out.

Killing enemies is not evil.

Only in the context of warfare, since my enemy is either trying to kill me, or will try to kill me. There are other contexts where it is not evil, such as self-defense, or defending others that are under threat. And since the Law backs me on that one, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.

But what it seems to me that you're implying is that a drafted soldier into the Soviet forces in WW2 that shot a Nazi SS Officer at 100 yards that was leaning against a tree having a smoke is evil. I'm going to have to grossly disagree.

Soldiers rarely get an opinion on what is immoral. So long as their actions do not violate the Geneva Conventions or Rules of War, their actions are not immoral, and they are not evil, just for being soldiers that have the mental capacity and willingness to kill the enemy.

Creating only people who have a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter 'the other' is not evil.

When did I call them bloodthirsty? Again, disingenuous spin. People that can kill aren't inherently bloodthirsty just because they kill in the line of duty to their nation. By your logic, every drill sergeant on Earth is evil, because he really does turn wimpering simps into weapons of war. The Titans simply skip the need for such men to exist.

You reinforced, then ignored the argument that pitting aggressive creatures against each other for entertainment is wrong.

No, I never absolved the Titans. I simply do not feel that their entertainment stems from suffering, but from competition with each other. You want the viciousness to be their primary motivation, and that's fine for you. I personally think it's inconsistent with the PG-13 nature of the world, where pain appears to be minimized such that people missing an arm and with holes in their chests can still fight competitively with undamaged people, strongly suggesting that pain is simply not felt the same way we feel it. This is a where blood is non-existent, and people heal instantly and completely with no long-term consequences in less than 24 hours. No, if they enjoyed the suffering the way you profess, the world would be a lot uglier.

For someone who professes to believe in God, you've shown a great willingness to embrace the expedient and self-gratifying over the moral.

I do not think I actually ever stated a belief in God. That I am knowledgeable in the Judeo-Christian belief system does not indicate that I believe it myself, only that at some point in my life I had opportunity to learn about it. Whether I do or do not is entirely irrelevant, and I don't think you're impressing anyone by attacking me on that front, since it's attacking me instead of my theories.

Your whole premise is meaningless. It does not impact the outcome of the story one way or another. Parson is there, Erfworld needs to be fixed, and that's all we need to know.
How you view the Titans... how you equivocate what, to me, are moral absolutes... speaks volumes.

Like I said, morality is irrelevant to my theory. I don't need to defend the Titans on a moral ground. Competitive people can be moral or immoral, so it doesn't matter to me one whit. that I may be immoral under your belief system does not make my theory wrong, nor cast doubt on its validity.

Now, how about getting back to attacking the theory instead of my personal morality?

[MarbitChow]

Creating only people who have a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter 'the other' is not evil.

When did I call them bloodthirsty? Again, disingenuous spin.

You said:

Except that the people that are popping are not random, but those of a mindset to enjoy what they are doing.

Most people in Erfworld have, as their primary function, killing each other. Bloodthristy: eager for or marked by the shedding of blood, violence, or killing. I'm honestly not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm echoing them back so you perceive how I am interpreting what you are saying. But, as this a tangent, I'll let it drop.

You reinforced, then ignored the argument that pitting aggressive creatures against each other for entertainment is wrong.

No, I never absolved the Titans. I simply do not feel that their entertainment stems from suffering, but from competition with each other.

Their competition involves death of sentient beings. The roman gladiatorial games, as well as modern day boxing, satisfies a primal desire for violence in us. Maggie's discussion of Parson's "sword" as well as Wanda's torture of Jillian make it clear that Erfworlders suffer. If they wanted it to be about conflict, why do Erfworlders feel pain?

Now, how about getting back to attacking the theory instead of my personal morality?

Fair enough. The morality tangent was mostly followed as result of the "Erfword as entertainment" assumption.

Games are for winning, but not for entertainment (even though it is easier to find a examples of games that cannot be won than it is to find games that are not meant to entertain).

No, I said that Erfworld seems more consistent with a game to be won than one that is not intended to be won. I never denied the existence of persistent games not intended to be won, nor that some people play them for fun.

From your original post:

Isn't the point of a game to find a winner, and then play again?

Your conclusion requires this point. I've argued that the point of the game is entertainment, not (a final, game-ending) victory.
You've presented evidence that the game cannot be won. I agree with this evidence.
You seem to believe that the inability to win is a mistake. I argue that it is inherent in the system and intentional.
I argue that it is more likely that the intent is entertainment rather than victory.

So, no, I don't think "entertainment" is their ultimate goal.

I would state that all successful games entertain, but not all successful games have final victory conditions.
Erfworld is not a game, but you draw your assumptions from the fact that it is "game-like".
Therefore, a 'more accurate' assumption is that entertainment is the goal.

If we cannot agree on assumptions, we have nothing to argue, because theories derive from their assumptions.

[Ptharien's Flame]

If we cannot agree on assumptions, we have nothing to argue, because theories derive from their assumptions.

Though this is technically true, the best theories often have an empty set of assumptions.

[MarbitChow]

the best theories often have an empty set of assumptions.

Can you provide an example of one? Even abstract mathematical theories have *some* assumptions (what a 'point' or a 'set' is, for example). I'm not aware of any theories that have *no* assumptions.

[Kreistor]

Creating only people who have a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter 'the other' is not evil.

When did I call them bloodthirsty? Again, disingenuous spin.

Except that the people that are popping are not random, but those of a mindset to enjoy what they are doing.

Enjoyment does not presuppose eagerness. To be bloodthirsty, you must want to commit violence at all times, and from our insight into the Spearman, we see he is not. He merely wants to use his spear, and his mind does not connect the violence to the consequences for the other person. He enjoys his function, a spear wielder, but not the results of that function (which he never got the chance to do). Bloodthirstiness requires motivation.

Their competition involves death of sentient beings.

Which part of "I don't absolve the Titans" do you not get?

Fair enough. The morality tangent was mostly followed as result of the "Erfword as entertainment" assumption.

Yes, defending your beliefs. I'm still waiting for you to actually start your own thread to defend yourself in, instead of hijacking mine.

Isn't the point of a game to find a winner, and then play again?

Your conclusion requires this point. I've argued that the point of the game is entertainment, not (a final, game-ending) victory.

Not quite. You present persistent games as a constant series of small games that are won or lost. You have not distanced gaming from competition between players and solely as entertainment. To be pure entertainment, the Titans must have no influence on the World, and you are presenting that they do, in trying to suppress or destroy Parson.

Still, this is still not attacking my theory, but trying to present your own as somehow superior. Stop hijacking the thread. That there are competing theories that fit the evidence was stated in the original post. MOVE ON.

So, no, I don't think "entertainment" is their ultimate goal.

I would state that all successful games entertain, but not all successful games have final victory conditions.
Erfworld is not a game, but you draw your assumptions from the fact that it is "game-like".
Therefore, a 'more accurate' assumption is that entertainment is the goal.

You did not face the PG-13 nature of Erfworld vs. your belief in the maliciousness of its creators. Did you think I missed that oversight? That failure suggests there is a big hole in your theory, and that it is in fact grossly inferior.