Denar wrote:"can't stop yourself from doing your duty? can't stop me from doing my duty? guess that's grounds enough to hate you now, you horrible monster"
Lipkin wrote:There was nothing preventing Sizemore from going to the Magic Kingdom and turning barbarian.
arbo wrote:Lipkin wrote:There was nothing preventing Sizemore from going to the Magic Kingdom and turning barbarian.
I would accept this argument if there was... let me see... evidence in the comic that this is an actual mechanic in the game rules of Erfworld. I mean, if you disagree or are unhappy with your side, Loyalty takes a step back and lets you flee and go barbarian at will.
Instead, Loyalty and Duty are portrayed in the comic as Big Things in the world's mechanics. (Eager here to know more about the "flexibility" Maggie hinted about, but for now...) Up to this point, I can only remember Ossomer as an example of a character Turning of his own volition, and even then he was going through an epic Heroic BSOD. Unhappiness alone wouldn't cut it.
And that's for Turning. Willingly going barbarian is something the comic never depicted, I think.
Loyalty and Duty are Thinkamancy and Thinkamancy can't make a person do something that he strongly disagrees with, at last judging from what Maggie said in B1P148. Based on that it seems that Thinkamancy guides people's thinking rather than controlling people. Maybe leaving Gobwin Knob would make Sizemore happy and Loyalty is preventing him from realizing it, but Loyalty probably isn't capable of putting up an actual barrier to prevent Sizemore from leaving if he ever decided that he wanted to leave. It only does subtle stuff, so I doubt anyone who is under its influence is clearly aware of its effect. Thinkamancy guided Parson to try uncroaking the volcano, but even afterward he couldn't tell how much of that was him and how much of that was Thinkamancy.arbo wrote:Instead, Loyalty and Duty are portrayed in the comic as Big Things in the world's mechanics.
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
Nope. That's what culture and propaganda are for! : )Lilwik wrote:Loyalty and Duty are Thinkamancy and Thinkamancy can't make a person do something that he strongly disagrees with, at last judging from what Maggie said in B1P148.arbo wrote:Instead, Loyalty and Duty are portrayed in the comic as Big Things in the world's mechanics.
SIzemore should join with the Hippiemancers to work for a better Erfworld. Building, planting, signamancy and date-o-mancy. Those seem like some pretty damn important building blocks for a better tomorrow.multilis wrote:Lipkin wrote:I kind of wish Sizemore and Jack had talked about Old Faq. Seems like Sizemore's dream place.
Sizemore may end up changing allegiance like Ossomer did, and possible Digdoug will take his place. Ideals are both a strength and a weakness.... someone like Charlie may find way to exploit. Not that hard to create impression of a side like Old Faq and send propaganda to someone in magic kingdom.... carnymancers seem to make a living out of "rope a dope", a third party could be "hustled" to do the job.
The third party pacifist kingdom gains a dirtomancer, Charlie by arranging things weakens his biggest opponent and he likely makes a profit doing so.
0beron wrote:Hey Arbo? How about you actually go and read the comic and stop wasting our time? Then we wouldn't have to cherry-pick out tidbits from the piles of selfish angst that is Sizemore.
0beron wrote:If you want easy specific examples, the Book 2 epilogues are full to the brim with those. But even more meaningful are the things we cannot quote to you in easy bite-sized chunks. It's the character development, a well documented change.
0beron wrote:Sizemore is happy and complacent to let war and misery rage, and only gets worried when the war comes to his doorstep. Hundreds of units die daily to keep him alive, and it only becomes a problem once he's the one who has to do the killing. He's a spoiled little child who just got told he has to go to school instead of play on the playground all day.
Lipkin wrote:I don't buy it. Nothing is stopping Don from just removing Caesar as heir by this thought.
GWvsJohn wrote:It's not that Sizemore isn't a good person, it's that he's only concerned with himself. He's more upset that Parson forced him to kill not that Parson causes death. He's more upset at what GKs actions have on his reputation in the MK than at what they mean for the wider world. He seems perfectly content to let Erfworld stay the same as long as he gets to keep his hands clean and have his fun in the MK.
Lamech wrote:The man could save the child, but it would ruin the suit requiring a new one to be bought. So does the man leave the child to die and donate some money to a charity? Or should he save the child? Sizemore is the kind of person who jumps into save the child.
You didn't understand what I was saying. Removing Caesar as heir literally means stripping Caesar of heir status. I'm saying that I do not buy that Rulers can remove units from heir status at will, because Don would have done so by now. He has to pop a new heir, or promote another unit to heir first.Beeskee wrote:Lipkin wrote:I don't buy it. Nothing is stopping Don from just removing Caesar as heir by this thought.
Not to nitpick but Don kinda is stopped from simply disbanding Caesar.
B2T16: A Ruler does not simply disband his top warlord in a time of crisis, or ever. And if a Ruler did disband a popular warlord, it could affect the Duty and Loyalty of all other units on the side.
So, he *could* disband Caesar, and risk "trouble at home" that would make his current problems look mild.
Tho that had nothing to do with your actual point. I'm just mentioning that Don is kinda stuck with Caesar. Even if he sent him out in the woods to disband him, Caesar might ignore that disbanding order, rationalizing not disbanding under the "for the good of the side" clause. Sending him into dangerous battles is the best Don can do, and even then Caesar may be clever and/or strong enough to survive. S2009-047
Lipkin wrote:You didn't understand what I was saying. Removing Caesar as heir literally means stripping Caesar of heir status. I'm saying that I do not buy that Rulers can remove units from heir status at will, because Don would have done so by now. He has to pop an new heir, or promote another unit to heir first.
Beeskee wrote:Lipkin wrote:You didn't understand what I was saying. Removing Caesar as heir literally means stripping Caesar of heir status. I'm saying that I do not buy that Rulers can remove units from heir status at will, because Don would have done so by now. He has to pop an new heir, or promote another unit to heir first.
I thought you meant killing him. "Remoing Caesar as heir" sounds ominous.
Don can either make the new level 1 no bonuses kid chief, if he is extremely stupid, or he can leave Caesar and his TEN DAMN LEVELS in place, including a 10 TIMES bonus to his stack, a 5 TIMES bonus to his hex, and a 3 *xXx* multiplier to his entire freaking side. What do you think will happen? So, yeah, I didn't think you meant replacing Caesar as chief any time soon because that's really, really dumb. As far as heir, both units are heir. The new kid will obviously be first in line, given royal succession. Leaving Mr Level 10 as... Chief warlord where he belongs.
Beeskee wrote:Heir doesn't carry over between forced captures or conversions, that makes no sense as "heir" is very much a specific-side thing. (Edit: It might xfer on willingness from both sides and all units involved, like a political marriage RL) The only special case is decrypted which is just from Parson being extra careful by saying "or may do X, we don't know" - I doubt it carries over even with decrypted. He could have said "or flowers may sprout out of Ossomer's butt when Slately croaks, we don't know."
For TV, there's no point in removing heir status from Caesar, it essentially costs like 150-175k and if nothing else Benjamin would chew poor Don's ear off. Caesar didn't take the retirement offer so he can't be put to pasture. Even if he did, he's sorely needed both to train the new level 1 warlord and protect him or her, a unit which takes 60 turns to pop, as well as for his chief warlord bonus unless Don has a bunch more level tens up his fat butt. Transylvito is down a bunch of warlords, troops, cities, shmuckers, and everything else right now. Don can't afford to put anyone to pasture.
And I covered CW because it was funny. My original reply was way ot from yours anyway, it was more of an aside not a direct reply.
Vinny might make a good heir.
Beeskee wrote:And you misunderstand me, I was referring to the promotion cost, not meaning that there would be a cost to remove heir status.
As far as what will happen in the comic, nobody really knows except Rob, we'll all find out. I don't know if (and again, didn't mean) Don will want Caesar squished up against the new heir 24/whatever, but likely at least in the same hex for the bonus, and lots of training runs to get the new heir leveled up if he's going to be a warlord/warrior heir. Obviously if Don plans for the new heir to be a stay-at-home heir who never levels, then obviously never mind the leveling and training, it would only apply if the heir was going to be active. I don't think Don specified either way. And the new heir might have their own opinion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests