Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 033

[Whispri]

On an unrelated note that I'm surprised nobody has commented on yet....there are barbarian CAPITALS!? How does that even make sense....? By having a Capital, don't they become a proper side...?

Well that's easily answered, a Capital Site turns Barbarian if the Ruler dies and has no heir.

I'd be interested to know what happens when a Barbarian Side captures a non-Capital City though.

[MonteCristo]

On Marie's prediction, i can't help but think she might be a manipulative *boop*
I mean she suddenly amended her prediction just as Jillian was coming up with a viable (though flawed) plan for getting rid of Haffaton. Its like Marie so strongly believes that defeating Haffaton is impossible that she THINKS its faqs fate to fall to haffaton and thus must make sure that Banhammer does not fight "fate" and make his life worse. However the real truth is that Marie has no idea how Faq will fall and though her prediction of its fall is correct, it will NOT fall to Haffaton... and frankly the idea that the prediction is correct because wanda is poison still means that Marie's is being EXTREMELY misleading since calling haffaton the agent of Faq's destruction under those circumstance requires the very LOOSEST interpretation of "agent" that you can imagine.

Though as for predictions, i was under the impression that Marie knew about wanda and kind of foresaw them being together after her and Jack ran into her in the magic kingdom... so she should be trying to push Faq on the path the will lead to Wanda's capture/turning to their side so that faq can play its role in wanda's "glorious" fate; just as Temple tried to force getting Wanda to Haffaton because that was to be her first stop on her way to the pliers



As for Jillian's plan. Yes the most obvious flaw is that haffaton has multiple capitol sites and an heir that can take over... however its still a better plan than finding a city that does not exist. its just that the war with haffaton would be longer that Jillian thinks. They would have to knock out all of haffaton's capitol sites a keep croaking each new ruler until they ran out of captiol's; if they raze the sites after taking them, that will prevent haffaton from taking back the sites since it would cost them significant money; money they need to keep assigning new heir's since Faq won't give them time to pop a new one (if haffaton is one of those foolish royal sides that feels the need to have a royal heir then the war will be over sooner as they will attempt to pop an heir instead of assigning one)... Furtharmore, Faq could hold its advantage if it hits the capitol so fast that the locals don't have enough time to tell the heir who hit them and how; this would allow the next ruler to be unprepared; Faq would be able to keep their stealth through foolamancy.

Though i think one alternate plan i think Jillian should consider is trying to form a coalition with the sides surrounding haffaton... their plan would be even better if they struck when Haffaton was being attacked from all sides. This however might be difficult without popping Faq's little bubble


One thing that does annoy me though is the power of hippymancy, as they make the suggestion that they might not be able to attack the capitol at all. Now we saw this in the previous chapter but i always assumed that their would be limits on that power since that would mean having a master hippymancer would make a side invulnarable to falling; it just seems a tad overpowered... i mean that's something i would expect from arkentool level of hippymancy.

[Balerion]

I didn't hear them protesting leaving the soldiers behind to die. None of them fought that plan, refusing to comply.

We were told some of them were against the plan. We do not know the reasons though, given that that discussion was a long time ago (before Jilian was created, as that is part of the plan). So "none of them fought that plan" is pure speculation. (I rather guess some objected and were persuaded that the reason for their objection is just cowardice before the facts of live).
[/quote]

If you are going to refuse (as Orwell did, and the rest of the court was being quick to follow suit on) that you will not kill, even to save the lives of those on your side, then you should be equally willing to risk your life for that belief. If Orwell had responded to the threat of an order with "I would rather be disbanded", that is being strong and holding to your convictions. Being unwilling to risk yourself, but quite willing to risk others, speaks volumes. The same for helping Jillian rendezvous with troops all those years; he should have refused and risked being disbanded ages ago. Instead he takes the safe way out and whispers behind Jillian's back on her moral bankruptcy.

As I wrote in the post you quoted: I do not believe it is their upkeep. They habe the resources to allow a long search for a new capital and to invade there. This makes it not very likely that the merchenary income is needed for the upkeep of normal operations of FAQ.

I would call that strong evidence her mercenary work is going well . supporting 8 casters on 3 cities? everything we know about caster upkeep says that is a very impressive feat.

But beyond that, they haven't done anything to fix the problem. Instead of there being a long term search to figure out how to avoid needing Jillian, the primary discussions are on things so theoretical as to be useless. Rather than doing anything to try and fix the problem, they seem to just whine about it.

I have no problem with them being pacifist; that is a noble goal. But when you say others should die for your belief, but are unwilling to risk yourself for it, I have nothing but contempt for you.

[drachefly]

Plus, we don't have any particular reason to expect that mercenary work started with Jillian - just that she eventually took it over.

[oslecamo2_temp]

0beron, Wanda's version of Faq's destruction is supported by Stanley's version, if he'd arrived with the forces he left home with on her advice, she'd have nailed him pretty easily. Whatever her longterm plans for Faq were, fact is, she wasn't plotting to destroy them that day.

Haffaton being the agents of Faq's destruction mean they're going to be the ones who destroy them, there's just no room for ambiguity. Soon doesn't mean thousands of turns from now which is the time needed for the version of events we've heard to occur.

So this really does leave us with two possibilities. The Prediction is wrong. Or the stories we've heard are, somehow, false.

Allow me to point you to this post.

On Marie's prediction, i can't help but think she might be a manipulative *boop*
I mean she suddenly amended her prediction just as Jillian was coming up with a viable (though flawed) plan for getting rid of Haffaton. Its like Marie so strongly believes that defeating Haffaton is impossible that she THINKS its faqs fate to fall to haffaton and thus must make sure that Banhammer does not fight "fate" and make his life worse. However the real truth is that Marie has no idea how Faq will fall and though her prediction of its fall is correct, it will NOT fall to Haffaton... and frankly the idea that the prediction is correct because wanda is poison still means that Marie's is being EXTREMELY misleading since calling haffaton the agent of Faq's destruction under those circumstance requires the very LOOSEST interpretation of "agent" that you can imagine.

Though as for predictions, i was under the impression that Marie knew about wanda and kind of foresaw them being together after her and Jack ran into her in the magic kingdom... so she should be trying to push Faq on the path the will lead to Wanda's capture/turning to their side so that faq can play its role in wanda's "glorious" fate; just as Temple tried to force getting Wanda to Haffaton because that was to be her first stop on her way to the pliers

That was pretty much my toughts when reading this update. Marie is a manipulative *boop*.

What she just did is a lie to push the King's hand. "Haffaton will destroy us soon, so we don't have time to search for a new home somewhere else and have to destroy them first".

But her real intention is geting Wanda, which will attunne to an arkentool sooner or later.

Now that I think about it, that may be how they decapitate Haffaton's . They arrive at the capital, which suposedly will be relying heavily in corpse guards, and then Wanda simply turns to the invader out of spite, and her uncroaked turn at the same time. Just like she'll do against FAQ much later on.

[Lamech]

One thing that does annoy me though is the power of hippymancy, as they make the suggestion that they might not be able to attack the capitol at all. Now we saw this in the previous chapter but i always assumed that their would be limits on that power since that would mean having a master hippymancer would make a side invulnarable to falling; it just seems a tad overpowered... i mean that's something i would expect from arkentool level of hippymancy.

You can still smash inanimate objects. Just burn the city to the ground and call it good. Okay, technically flower power can probably produce rations, so a big time hippymancer might be able to squat as a hex and annoy the hell out of everyone as a group of barbarians. But... congratulations? Your a small annoying commune. No one really cares. (Also their is probably counter-magic.)

[0beron]

Yeah even a Master-Class Florist would only be able to protect her capital, an invading force would be free to destroy every other city, and perhaps even destroy the capital's farms and reduce the city income. So yeah like Lamech said...sure' you'd be an invincible little commune with a single city that can hardly pay for the upkeep of anything besides your Florist.

[wrecan]

I doubt that single cities are sustainable like that. Otherwise, you've got yourself a Bubble Kingdom. I imagine a Florist-Side with only a single Capital will die from starvation.

[random_guy]

I think a city with a Master Class Florist to prevent attacks is no more broken than a city with a Master Class Foolamancer who can hide it from everyone's view. The foolmancy can be disrupted if someone looks closely. The "no attacking" powers of hippiemancy has loopholes around it. Remember how Tommy Firebaugh was killed? He initiated the kiss, so Olive (was that her name?) did not attack him. It may be possible to take actions that are "not attacks" that can kill opponents through collateral damage, such as setting buildings on fire. If that is not possible, then there is always the option of convincing them to poison themselves.

[onlyme]

If you are going to refuse (as Orwell did, and the rest of the court was being quick to follow suit on) that you will not kill ... then you should be equally willing to risk your life for that belief.

We were told they are willing to not only risk their life but actually willing to end it once the day is there. Because that it what it means to prefer that the whole plan (creating Jilian, mercenary work, find a new site, resettle unter princsess there) would
not have been chosen.

even to save the lives of those on your side

That is not part of any discussion here. Faq (the city) will fall and Banhammer will fall. People will die. That is predicted, nothing can change that. Jilian plans means being sure that it will not be Haffaton that will cause the end and to get lots of funds. That will risk lives, not safe any in the long run.

If Orwell had responded to the threat of an order with "I would rather be disbanded",

Erfworlds units have some loyality stat and I think most of Faq's casters have quite a high one, living in a world trying to be perfect and moral and a King valuing them.

I do not see how any action of a ruler deciding something like "You will move to another city to make as much of our ideals survive as possible. The side is most likely to survive if we move only one fighting sqad elsewhere and move the casters through the MK. Many others units will die here together with me sacrifying myself" could reduce that loyality stat enough that someone of them could even thread to refuse.

But beyond that, they haven't done anything to fix the problem. Instead of there being a long term search to figure out how to avoid needing Jillian, the primary discussions are on things so theoretical as to be useless. Rather than doing anything to try and fix the problem, they seem to just whine about it.

Given how long every other discussion in FAQ is, I'd rather guess it was a endless discussion back then. There was a decision, the plan was taken to action. What would "trying to fix the problem" be in your opinion? Asking the king to disband Jilian and stop the whole plan to be able to die with the kind once the inevitable day will come? And given that they already did that back in the discussion, should they bring that up every month anew?

[Whispri]

Wanda did the World a favour when she took Faq out. Pity Jillian escaped its doom.

Now the question here is, is that final Prediction a case of Preditamancy failure or is the fall of Faq going to be a rather different story then we've been led to believe?

We already know how this prophecy gets fulfilled, I think. Wanda was a Haffaton unit at one point. Therefore, her betrayal, which causes the fall of Faq, means that Haffaton has indirectly destroyed Faq.

Indirect? By that line of reasoning if Jillian stole an apple from Wanda's lunchbox and choked to death whilst eating it, the person who gave Wanda the apple would be responsible for Jillian's death.

But in that case, why not just say so? She can't have Predicted Wanda serving at Faq or she wouldn't be saying 'soon'.

Because revealing details beyond what are strictly necessary is something predictamancers avoid. She believes that revealing this information will lead to Banhammer or others trying to avoid the fate, which will make it worse when it comes. Follows the common predictamancer lines.

Won't being wrong here just encourage Fate fighting in the future?

0beron, Wanda's version of Faq's destruction is supported by Stanley's version, if he'd arrived with the forces he left home with on her advice, she'd have nailed him pretty easily. Whatever her longterm plans for Faq were, fact is, she wasn't plotting to destroy them that day.

That doesn't mean she would have stayed with FAQ. She could have planned to turn regardless of who the combat was in favor of, and then wipe up what was left of the victor with her Uncroaked. I think in her ideal plan, she would have walked away from that battle with the 'Hammer as a Barbarian again. We can't KNOW what her plans were, only guess. (though I acknowledge my guess may be a little less likely)

Recollect, he lost eleven Dwagons on approach and left home with fifteen, he just wouldn't have created a pile of corpses of any real size.

Allow me to point you to this post.

Why? What's that got to do with me? A deliberately falsified prediction is still a false prediction if that's what you meant. That said, if Marie wanted Wanda on board, why not just claim that Faq wouldn't fall while Wanda was working for them? It would even be true.

[Saladman]

On an unrelated note that I'm surprised nobody has commented on yet....there are barbarian CAPITALS!? How does that even make sense....? By having a Capital, don't they become a proper side...?

Well that's easily answered, a Capital Site turns Barbarian if the Ruler dies and has no heir.

I'd be interested to know what happens when a Barbarian Side captures a non-Capital City though.

Strictly a Capital turns neutral if the Ruler dies without an heir (that is, they freeze in place and are no longer active until they're called on to defend). Though Antium's comment about being prepared to mop up barbarian stragglers after Jetstone's garrison falls shows some overlap. I'll have to give barbarian capitals some thought, but it may not be that complicated: that may just be one source of Overlords as opposed to Royal rulers. Cuz we do know ruins occasionally pop barbarians, and they're not "neutral" in the sense of being frozen.

The glossary to the print edition of Book 1 tells us that a side needs a Capital to have a Treasury. So a Barbarian side with a non-Capital city might well be legal, but they'd have the burden of covering upkeep directly out of city income each turn (possibly, speculatively, only for units within the city?), and losing any excess unless a commander can Purse it. And it also follows, a regular side with a surviving ruler or heir can technically exist after their Capital falls, its just that practically speaking they're pretty booped without that treasury to support their armies.

[Gorky]

Great stuff. Loving this novel.

[Keighvin1]

Whispri, your analogy breaks down pretty quick, since Marie isn't saying Goodminton is the culprit. The analogy should be blaming Wanda for Jillian choking on an apple that she had stolen.

[multilis]

We do not know what really happened in fall of FAQ, only 2 stories so far by 2 possibly unreliable witnesses who wish to make selves look good.

We are unable to judge the prophesy very well without even knowing what really happened.

Wanda's father had time to promote Wanda and tell Wanda to avenge their side before he was croaked by a surprise attack.

Possible that revenge was arranged by Haffaton on Faq during the future conflict, they may have even hired Charlie. (As much as they may distrust Charlie, Charlie may also be weasel enough to make them also hire him to not reveal their secrets, or other business dealings already. Charlie would probably happily get paid to help Faq defeat Haffaton, paid to help Haffaton defeat Faq, and thus get rid of both as rivals at same time.)

[Whispri]

While I think the idea that everything we know about Faq's end turning out to be completely false is worth considering in the circumstances, it can't be as simple as Charlie helping Faq and Hafaton exterminate each other. Gobwin Knob doesn't exist at the moment. Wanda can't work for Stanley until it does. Therefore, either Faq must be eradicated long after Haffaton has been destroyed/driven away or... well I guess it's either that or reality bending magic, like Retconjury or something. Perhaps Faq's Shockmancer will have a stab at such a spell?

Strictly a Capital turns neutral if the Ruler dies without an heir (that is, they freeze in place and are no longer active until they're called on to defend). Though Antium's comment about being prepared to mop up barbarian stragglers after Jetstone's garrison falls shows some overlap. I'll have to give barbarian capitals some thought, but it may not be that complicated: that may just be one source of Overlords as opposed to Royal rulers. Cuz we do know ruins occasionally pop barbarians, and they're not "neutral" in the sense of being frozen.

The glossary to the print edition of Book 1 tells us that a side needs a Capital to have a Treasury. So a Barbarian side with a non-Capital city might well be legal, but they'd have the burden of covering upkeep directly out of city income each turn (possibly, speculatively, only for units within the city?), and losing any excess unless a commander can Purse it. And it also follows, a regular side with a surviving ruler or heir can technically exist after their Capital falls, its just that practically speaking they're pretty booped without that treasury to support their armies.

As I recall during the TBfGK Ansom spoke of Gobwin Knob falling to helpless Barbarism if Stanley died. Hmm, perhaps a Capital Site has to reach a cetain Level before a Side is formed? Although Gobwin Knob became a Level One City during TBfGB without ending the Side. On the other claw, the City popped a Dwagon despite being too low in Level to do so, so there may be loopholes to allow a side to continue as the City's production did

Yeah, I can't see a reason why Wanda for example, shouldn't have been able to claim an Outpost or two during her stint as an Independent Barbarian.

Whispri, your analogy breaks down pretty quick, since Marie isn't saying Goodminton is the culprit. The analogy should be blaming Wanda for Jillian choking on an apple that she had stolen.

No see, Overlord Firebaugh grows the apple, Olive buys it and puts it in Wanda's lunchbox, Wanda trots off to school where she's ambushed and robbed by Jillian, who later chokes to death on the apple. Olive gets blamed.

And uh, Marie may as well be blaming Goodminton, as they bear exactly as much responsibiilty as Haffaton does for Wanda's plot against Stanley failing catastrophically. Even if she destroyed Faq wih a smile on her lips and a song in her heart, fact is, she turned on them because they were doomed. Neither Goodminton nor Haffaton can be held responsible for that series of events.

[Dunbar]

I think most posters are taking Marie's words way too literally.

Initially, Marie says she thinks they have a lot of time yet, and she doesn't think Haffaton will be the agent of their destruction. At the end she amends her prediction, but this is long after Jillian's plan has been suggested. What prompts her to amend the prediction is there mere mention of one Lady Firebaugh, a powerful croakamancer.

My theory: Marie's prediction abilities have informed her of the fall of Faq, and that it will be because of a croakamancer (and maybe even specifically Lady Firebaugh). Marie does not know the identity of the side that will defeat Faq, but Haffaton is known for Hippiemancy so it seems unlikely that Haffaton is the one to destroy Faq. But, with the new knowledge that Haffaton has this croakamancer, suddenly the pieces fall into place.

In sum, Marie is extrapolating the future from the limited information she has from Predictamancy. She knows from her magic that this croakamancer will destroy Faq. She knows from Jillian that Haffaton has Faq surrounded. She felt Faq must be safe since Haffaton doesn't do croakamancy...but that fact changed, so her extrapolation of events has changed. Nothing more.

So this isn't a failure of predictamancy. It's a reasonable, though as we know incorrect, conclusion drawn from the information she has available. I do not believe Marie is attempting to manipulate events in any way here, just giving her best extrapolation of events given what knowledge she has.

And I know that she literally says the word "prediction", but I think the word doesn't mean what we think it means. Her magical predictive insight has given her certain infallible information (Faq will fall, a croakamancer will be the cause). She then gives her ruler the best predictions she can combining that information with known facts. That's why her prediction changes at the end, because Haffaton having a croakamancer is added to her list of known facts. What will actually happen is likely that Jillian will go through with her plan, Haffaton is defeated as a side, and Faq gains Lady Firebaugh.

tl,dr: Haffaton defeating Faq is not an insight she is gaining through Prediction (the magical discipline), rather it is her prediction (as in best guess about what will happen in the future) based on the facts she has available (which includes what she knows via Prediction, which is limited to Faq falling and a croakamancer, possibly specifically Firebaugh, being involved).

[SteveMB]

Now that is a misleading prediction if we ever got one. I'd even call it plain wrong. Being the "agent of destruction" by getting destroyed, giving you a low-loyality aka poison-pill caster and making room for many new kingdoms, one will finally conquer you? I wonder whether she will claim a misunderstanding or whether she has simply lied.

No unit fully understands the Predictamancy granted by grace of the Titans (as Ansom might say, either pre- or post-Decryption).

[Balerion]

We were told they are willing to not only risk their life but actually willing to end it once the day is there. Because that it what it means to prefer that the whole plan (creating Jilian, mercenary work, find a new site, resettle unter princsess there) would
not have been chosen.

Where were we told that? A plan was described where they removed themselves from any possibility of danger and left everyone to die, then reappeared in another secluded location and continued life as normal. Nowhere do I see them agreeing to end their own lives.

That is not part of any discussion here. Faq (the city) will fall and Banhammer will fall. People will die. That is predicted, nothing can change that. Jilian plans means being sure that it will not be Haffaton that will cause the end and to get lots of funds. That will risk lives, not safe any in the long run.

Sure it is. Fate says the side will fall; but how that manifests is completely up in the air. You could lose just Banhammer and five men there wasn't room for on the gwiffons, or you could lose hundreds because you don't try to evacuate. Or you could take a gamble and potentially lose hardly anyone and be much safer. That gamble requires killing instead of just letting people die, and it could still end in disaster. But that is not the argument presented against it: the argument is simply "I will not take part in killing", without any conditions on what the cost-benefit situation is.

Think about it this way: Orwell is saying that the lives of all units are precious; because of this opinion, he refuses to end life. However, he is quite fine with abandoning the units on his side to death (Jillian thought of a better evac plan in 5 minutes than what was proposed; they didn't try). This would imply that their lives are not, in fact, precious but expendable. Hence, my accusation of hypocrisy.

Erfworlds units have some loyality stat and I think most of Faq's casters have quite a high one, living in a world trying to be perfect and moral and a King valuing them.

I do not see how any action of a ruler deciding something like "You will move to another city to make as much of our ideals survive as possible. The side is most likely to survive if we move only one fighting sqad elsewhere and move the casters through the MK. Many others units will die here together with me sacrifying myself" could reduce that loyality stat enough that someone of them could even thread to refuse.

This is supposedly a deep seated belief of his. Being ordered (or threatened with such an order) to violate a core tenet of his morals should lead to a loyalty check. And if I valued life as highly as he supposedly does, I would be more than a little angry over leaving so many people to die.

Given how long every other discussion in FAQ is, I'd rather guess it was a endless discussion back then. There was a decision, the plan was taken to action. What would "trying to fix the problem" be in your opinion? Asking the king to disband Jilian and stop the whole plan to be able to die with the kind once the inevitable day will come? And given that they already did that back in the discussion, should they bring that up every month anew?

Personally, I would use my mathamancer and predictamancer in tandem to attempt to corner the scroll market in the MK, or at the very least make sure I was producing my scrolls at maximum profit levels. That is assuming they have even gone so far as to start selling scrolls on the MK for upkeep. I would also use those two casters to attempt to direct Jillian to the most efficient Schmucker-deaths contracts. Knowing more about what the other casters could do, we could invent uses for them as well.

Won't being wrong here just encourage Fate fighting in the future?

You play the odds; far more often then not, she will be right in this type of situation by saying Haffaton is likely to destroy them (assuming she knows Wanda is responsible for their destruction).

[Chit Rule Railroad]

On Haffaton being the agent of Faq's destruction, perhaps they will trade Wanda to Faq after finding out (via Predictamancy or Thinkamancy) that she is destined/inclined to betray her own side. Goodminton being defeated is not an example of agency, but if Haffaton trades Wanda, even in desperation as a bid for peace, that would be.

Though i think one alternate plan i think Jillian should consider is trying to form a coalition with the sides surrounding haffaton... their plan would be even better if they struck when Haffaton was being attacked from all sides. This however might be difficult without popping Faq's little bubble

Hmm, I wonder if foolamancy could be used to convince each of three or more sides that the others are planning to make an alliance, so you'd better offer to ally with them to avoid being left out. That sounds like the plot of a comedy.

Think about it this way: Orwell is saying that the lives of all units are precious; because of this opinion, he refuses to end life. However, he is quite fine with abandoning the units on his side to death (Jillian thought of a better evac plan in 5 minutes than what was proposed; they didn't try). This would imply that their lives are not, in fact, precious but expendable. Hence, my accusation of hypocrisy.

Describing the original plan as abandoning units to their deaths is unfairly discounting the fact that the defenders were supposed to "surrender if possible" rather than fighting to the end. The Court was actually favoring life, independent of Side, over vengeance. (The invading Side might disband the defenders rather than keep the low-loyalty units, but that's their sin, not Faq's.)