Talk:Chief Warlord

From ErfWiki

Revision as of 10:53, 22 April 2010 by 60.240.3.70 (Talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Duty

We now have two cases of individuals with Duty defying the Natural Thinkamancy. Stanley is suggested to have betrayed King Saline: this is a weak one. Wanda betrays King Banhammer to Stanley: this is stronger. Wanda, as a Commander, is subject to Duty, though a lesser version than a Chief Warlord. But she arranges to have her side attacked, and even if she doesn't believe Stanley will win, it's still a betrayal. We also have a third attempt: Charlie tries to get Parson to abandon his side, turning to Charlescomm who will ally with RCC, making Parson a traitor. That means Duty is not an absolute. Maybe it takes more to get a Chief Warlord to betray the Ruler, but if Charlie thinks he can succeed without magic, then it must be at least theoretically possible. --Kreistor 01:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Wanda necessarily betrayed FAQ. In chess I may make an unsound sacrifice. I don't see through all the combinations. It doesn't mean my move meant I was 'trying' to lose. A better comparison may be Poker, since, unlike chess, we have incomplete information. I may bid on my flush - bid high, and lose to a Royal Flush. It doesn't mean I betrayed my hand or was trying to lose. I made an error. --waynemcdougall 28 June 2009

Might I add that an attempted coup was alluded to in Transylvito - attempted by a Royal Heir, no less. The same Heir was, more than likely (given Royal-ruled track records - See Jillian and Ansom) Chief Warlord, so this suggests either powerful incentive, above being a Ruler, or equally powerful Thinkamancy. That, or Don King is a very unlikable King (which doesn't seem to be the case).--Someone other then Paper Golem

I think all those counter examples are matters of loyalty, not duty. To my knowledge it's theoretically possible for anyone to roll a one on a loyalty check, and that disloyalty must necessitate disobedience and non-duty. I think duty is there more to contrast with obedience.

Consider the following example: A unit see a rock falling towards his ruler's head. The unit has no orders to warn the ruler. Doing nothing isn't disobedient, the unit can watch the ruler die without disobeying any orders. The unit may, however, be duty bound to warn the ruler, to think up orders for himself.--Paper Golem 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, for the case of Wanda, it was stated somewhere she did not expect Faq to lose to an idiot like Stanley. Considering the prophecy that she would attune, she probably thought it was Fate Stanley would come, get croacked and leave her the Arkenhammer.She'd probably feel guilty about it if she had any emotions other than Anger and Sadistic Pleasure. I'd like to ask, why does this page state "Chief Warlords may be able to end the turn"? The examples cited talk about the Ruler, Stanley, ending the turn, not the Chief Warlord Parson. 155.69.182.179 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I changed it the first time but after reading Book 1 again you can see Prince Ansom ending turn -> Erf-b1-p007-p5Same-site.PNG. Ansom was Royal Heir and Chief Warlord of Jetstone but was not Ruler however he can be seen ordering one of his Captains to "end the turn". I'll try to make it clearer. 60.240.3.70 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Uncroaked Warlords of GK

Does someone have any evidence the four Uncroaked Warlords were ever "Chief" Warlords? They are described to Parson only as his "warlords", with no history, as far as I remember. Prop C enough evidence to assuage any reasonable doubt. --Kreistor 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's at least as likely that Manpower was Chief Warlord the whole time and the rest died as his subordinates... well, there's his name, "the Temporary," which suggests a slot-in replacement, but no, there's really no proof any of the others were definitely Chief Warlords. "possible" or "likely" under Speculation is good enough. The argument for them all being Chief Warlords depends on speculation of Stanley being a creature of habit, only promoting warlords instead of popping them (because that's how he did it, and look how he turned out) and then naming them Chief Warlord, riding them until they break, and replacing them. So yeah, plausible but unconfirmed. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 29 2009
Well, I don't limit to just Manpower. I would speculate that since losing a battlefield loses you corpses, lots of unnamed Warlords could have died and not been uncroaked. That was the big problem for Germany's loss of Kursk: they lost all of those tank hulls, while Russia was able to repair an incredible number of their damaged tanks, and even get some Tigers going to use against the Germans. Same thing here: if you lose the battlefield, and Stanley lost a lot of battlefields, you lose the corpses and the Warlords cannot be uncroaked. Yes, I agree that Stanley had a habit of replacing Chief Warlords, but no, assuming they were all uncroaked is a big leap.--70.54.95.45 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Go To:
Personal tools