Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 010

[balder]

New One is up.

[Whispri]

That's why you don't lie, even if Delphie turns out to be right, it will be her lies that sealed it, rather than Wanda's obscene gesture at Fate.

Yay to Wanda's Chiefness!

[Sixty]

Wow, you weren't kidding on Facebook, that was a record breakingly long one. Though I suspect Delphie will be right about Goodminton in the long run considering Wanda's present view of Fate. I did think it interesting what Wanda said about predictamancers not being unbeatable. It might be that part of me WANTS it to be true, but I feel like there has to be some kind of weakness to Predictamancy, though it is possible that them being unable to change it is itself the weakness.

Also it looks like Chief can be appointed, with a lower level caster placed as Chief ahead of a higher leveled one. Perhaps the highest level caster being the Chief is merely the formal norm and not something that automatically happens. Either way it can be overruled it looks like.

[vintermann]

Oh Yeah! I believe I nailed this update pretty well ^^

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4249#p66126

[Saladman]

Oh Yeah! I believe I nailed this update pretty well ^^

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4249#p66126

Kudos, sir, you did.

[Saladman]

That's why you don't lie, even if Delphie turns out to be right, it will be her lies that sealed it, rather than Wanda's obscene gesture at Fate.

Yay to Wanda's Chiefness!

+1 to both sentiments

Though as much as I dislike Delphie I'm beginning to understand her predicament more. If she truly has foreseen something that must and will happen, Duty might compel her to maneuver for the best, or least worst, conditions for that to come about.

It's a shame neither her Overlord or Chief Warlord are flexible enough thinkers to be briefed, but then since it looks like she's responsible for that as well to some degree that's no excuse.

...

I'm reminded that old Faq used their Predictomancer to predict when other sides' units would come into sight of their cities so they could be veiled. So there is a form or a use of predictomancy at a level where you can still do something about it. Then of course Faq did get the prophecy of the kingdom falling (that led to an heir being popped, and conceivably to retreiving Wanda), and of Wanda attuning an Arkentool (that led to the kingdom falling), so they got some of the Cassandra dilemna after all. But I'm wondering to what degree you can choose between those: is Delphie choosing to ask the heavy questions about who's going to win when she could choose to just ask where the critical battles will be and stay blind to the outcomes, or is this all coming on her against her will? And does Predictomancy "fix" the future once it's been seen, or is it a glimpse into what's going to be whether you look or not, so you may as well peek and try to find the best path?

[vintermann]

Perhaps this should go in the speculation thread, but maybe predictamancy is a bit like in dune? By observing the future, maybe you force it to happen. Maybe Delphie, a low-level and eager predictamancer, has looked a bit too much at her side's future in general, whereas a more prudent predictamancer like Marie limited her predictions to troop movements (and reading Wanda's fate - but at this point Wanda was probably obsessed with fate, and it's suggested that Marie might have been somewhat smitten by her). I bet predictamancy, like luckamancy, has some terrible price.

The hippiemancers want peace on Erf, we know that. But what do the predictamancers want? Maybe they want a world where prophecy is no longer of any use, like in Dune. Or possibly a chaotic and unpredictable world where their skills are in high demand.

[Dr Pepper]

So if Delphie really believes that Wanda is an abomination, what does that make her? She was trying to molest that abomination!

[Utoryo]

Great update! And this M-W-F update schedule is just too awesome for words. As much as I love Xin's art and Jamie's before that, getting the equivalent of probably at least 10 strips worth of story per week is just an incredible treat.

Robb, have you considered sticking to a 'Every monday' text update schedule even after Book 0 is done and/or you start publishing Book 2 Issue 3? We understand it's not easy to get the art done on a predictable schedule (hopefully the inker/colorist you've talked about will help smooth the process) but I think getting at least some text on the same day every week would be deeply appreciated by a lot of us! It could be a separate storyline or just Book 2-like text updates; frankly, many of them could have been published next to quite a few different strips as they are rarely very time sensitive, and you could always rearrange them for the book.

As for the update itself - Delphie's "You have doomed us all" makes me think she had unambiguously predicted Goodminton's fall but was still clinging to the hope of surviving it (e.g. being captured by the invading side).

Perhaps this should go in the speculation thread, but maybe predictamancy is a bit like in dune? By observing the future, maybe you force it to happen. Maybe Delphie, a low-level and eager predictamancer, has looked a bit too much at her side's future in general, whereas a more prudent predictamancer like Marie limited her predictions to troop movements (and reading Wanda's fate - but at this point Wanda was probably obsessed with fate, and it's suggested that Marie might have been somewhat smitten by her). I bet predictamancy, like luckamancy, has some terrible price.

I also thought about that but it wouldn't work unless there were restrictions on what a predictamancer could see depending on his/her current side. Otherwise what would prevent enemy predictamancers from trying to predict when their enemies will fall and thus guaranteeing their doom in the process? And if there are such restrictions, how does it affect supposedly neutral predictamancers in the Magic Kingdom? So I'm not convinced it makes sense but either way it can't be easy for Robb to make this kind of power reasonably balanced.

[vintermann]

Otherwise what would prevent enemy predictamancers from trying to predict when their enemies will fall and thus guaranteeing their doom in the process?

Because if they look, and see that it's a thousand turns until its fall, suddenly the universe will conspire to make sure the enemy is utterly undefeatable until then, no matter what anyone does. Or at least, that's my theory.

[raphfrk]

But I'm wondering to what degree you can choose between those: is Delphie choosing to ask the heavy questions about who's going to win when she could choose to just ask where the critical battles will be and stay blind to the outcomes, or is this all coming on her against her will?

Exactly, you want info on what's going to happen, but not info on success/failure. Knowing the enemy will attack a particular city is useful, knowing that they will take the city is not.

The best questions are ones which are almost like lookamancy. They gain info, without locking down any event which hasn't already been set.

Maybe better predictamancers have better control over what questions they ask. I wonder if just thinking about a question can trigger a prediction.

Also, "will this side fall?" sounds like a question that will be answered Yes, always. The only exception would be if there was a max time limit. The answer could be that the predictamancer can't see the side falling when they look. Effectively, the question is actually, "Will the side fall within 1000 turns?", depending on how strong the predictamancer is.

Long duration predictions presumably carry the world forward to that time, and then give a result, which is then locked in. This means that the predictamancer is predicting the fate of their side, assuming that they don't have a predictamancer. Lots of short duration predictions, focused on information gathering would be much more effective. Ironically, despite being a philosopher king, Banhammer did get the practicalities of that right.

Marle said "I so predict it" about Janis stacking with Parson. If that was a prediction, then it was a risk. Predicting it didn't really change the odds. in either direction However, if she predicted that Janis wouldn't stack, then that would be locked in.

And does Predictomancy "fix" the future once it's been seen, or is it a glimpse into what's going to be whether you look or not, so you may as well peek and try to find the best path?

That sounds to be the way it works, or at minimum how the predictamancers believe it to work.

[Orzel]

Delphi's first statement about Clay makes my original thought on Luckamancy seem true. Clay can't boost the side because he can't steal Frenemy or Quisling rolls as they will be enemies in the future and he isn't strong enough to steal enemy rolls yet.

As for predictomancy. I don't think Delphie has absolute control of what she sees. Each prediction might be like a separate spell and see only a select number of things. Predictomancers can predict what kind of warlord will pop, which city the enemy will attack, which units will leave the side. But she might not be able to see exactly if and when a side will fall. They must guess this based on other predictions. This is why Predictomancer sides are not autowins. They can't see everything like they say. But what they do see will happen.

[Sieggy]

I agree - Predictamancy can be like peeking inside the box to tell if the cat's alive or not . . . it collapses the variables to a single eigenstate, and that can't be changed. So you have to be extremely careful about what you look for, what questions to ask. Sort of like wish spells that DMs love to twist and bite you in the ass . . . The act of seeing locks the future into a single path, and variability ceases.

When Marie looked into the future to predict intruders into FAQ territory, I suspect she was careful only to predict whether someone would ENTER their space, not whether they would discover their cities, because that might have the effect of making it inescapably so. A master Predictamancer knows how to look without locking a path into place; it may be that Delphi looked poorly. Or sometimes there are compelling visions of the future which cannot be denied, sent by fate itself. Plotamancy is the magick by which the Titans (or Erf itself) writes the stories of Erf.

Perhaps Delphi's despair is that she asked too much, saw too far, and in doing so guaranteed her doom, and her side's as well. Had she not seen, her side could have avoided the doom . . . so her terrible burden is that she guaranteed her side's fall, and will suffer the fate of Cassandra.

[Whispri]

I'd imagine that Delphie must have forseen that Wanda would be captured by Faq (or whoever) at the fall of a side, or something along those lines.

[chefsotero]

One thing I've got to say

Godminton, the side of saint dalek

[Walt]

I am enjoying IP(TSF) very much.

It is excellent writing by any reasonable objective standard.

The second statement is my mere opinion, while the first is unassailable fact but largely about my opinion, so take them for what they're worth. Still.

[Whispri]

One thing I've got to say

Godminton, the side of saint dalek

Yeah, I noticed the emblem and my first thought was sort of Daleky. I think it's probably Saint Shuttlecock though. Saint Dalek sounds better I must admit.

[Orzel]

I'd imagine that Delphie must have forseen that Wanda would be captured by Faq (or whoever) at the fall of a side, or something along those lines.

I think Delphie first saw Wanda pop in an Goodmitnton robes then saw another vision of Wanda in a Haffaton uniform. She then then knew Wanda would switch sides and with the ally betrayal prediction, went to the MK to seek a treaty with a Haffaton caster to make the prediction happen on better term.

But Wanda just ruined that.

[Dark Matter]

Exactly, you want info on what's going to happen, but not info on success/failure. Knowing the enemy will attack a particular city is useful, knowing that they will take the city is not.

Part of the problem is leadership, or lack there of.

If I'm playing a computer game where I *know* I'm going to lose a city on a turn, then there are things I can do. Sell off or destroy important structures, move or destroy important units, etc. In the real world... those are *tough* choices and maybe impossible orders. Would Stanley swallow his ego and do something like that? Any other Royal we've seen?

And does Predictomancy "fix" the future once it's been seen, or is it a glimpse into what's going to be whether you look or not, so you may as well peek and try to find the best path?

That sounds to be the way it works, or at minimum how the predictamancers believe it to work.

Agreed. It's Powerful, but knowing you're screwed is only useful if you can do something about it; Or maybe that's, if you are willing to do something.

[drachefly]

Perhaps this should go in the speculation thread, but maybe predictamancy is a bit like in dune? By observing the future, maybe you force it to happen.

What? Muad'Dib was able to see all the branches stemming from each major choice and saw only bad options... but he still had those choices! This is totally different.


Incidentally, this text update was 2440 words, almost a fifth of the book so far.


As for sides falling and such... there are things you can do. Arrange to spin off a side, and transfer everything to it. Have it capture your overlord on the designated turn.

Just like Oedipus' dad could have avoided a lot of trouble by inventing some legal fiction by which Oedipus was married to Jocasta for a while when he was still a baby, and then announced that in the event that he grew very old or ill, he wanted his son to euthanize him. Maybe it wouldn't have worked. But it was a lot more reliable and far more moral than defying the prediction by murdering his son in cold blood, especially in the super-unreliable way he did it in the story.