Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 061

[ftl]

If Banhammer's just an idiot, how come his side's stayed alive for so long?

If an idiot chases a butterfly into a busy street, and just so happens to avoid every single car in the process, does that make him any less of an idiot?

Nope. But if somebody lives to be 100, all the while chasing butterflies into streets, then maybe he knew what he was doing all along regardless of how stupid it seemed to everyone else?

[tgriff02]

1. Someone indicates that the Shockmancy, performed by the Hammer is stronger than known Shockmancy performed by casters. We have a power, but no frame of reference to judge the effect by. The rest of the powers have frames of reference, and are not significantly powerful. except Turning dwagons which is notable, but not really more so than standard Turnamancy applied to a good Warlord. (Turnamancers lack ontact with sufficient targets to match Stanley's volume, but can Turn units just as effective as Stanley.) Generally, supporters of the Primary theory will not accept this version, because they also insist that the Primary must be a Fate power, and Shockmancy is not. Thus, presenting it leas to warfare with two groups. Consequently, I will not respond to any disagreement.

Only issue I see here, is that it has been noted that units turned forcibly by a Turnamancer have notoriously low Loyalty. Stanley's Dwagons are implied to be completely loyal, wasn't it refered to as "Tamed?" Of course, that could be answered by the fact that Dwagons are animal type units, like Doombats, and have a different Loyalty system than other Units. Perhaps for animals you just have Feral and Tame? With no shades of grey between

[Dancing Cthulhu]

1. Someone indicates that the Shockmancy, performed by the Hammer is stronger than known Shockmancy performed by casters. We have a power, but no frame of reference to judge the effect by. The rest of the powers have frames of reference, and are not significantly powerful. except Turning dwagons which is notable, but not really more so than standard Turnamancy applied to a good Warlord. (Turnamancers lack ontact with sufficient targets to match Stanley's volume, but can Turn units just as effective as Stanley.) Generally, supporters of the Primary theory will not accept this version, because they also insist that the Primary must be a Fate power, and Shockmancy is not. Thus, presenting it leas to warfare with two groups. Consequently, I will not respond to any disagreement.

Only issue I see here, is that it has been noted that units turned forcibly by a Turnamancer have notoriously low Loyalty. Stanley's Dwagons are implied to be completely loyal, wasn't it refered to as "Tamed?" Of course, that could be answered by the fact that Dwagons are animal type units, like Doombats, and have a different Loyalty system than other Units. Perhaps for animals you just have Feral and Tame? With no shades of grey between

I always just chalked it up to the effect arkentools have on the type of unit that seems linked to them. Charlie's archons seem loyal above and beyond normal to their overlord, as do Wanda's decrypted to her. Course they are all very different types, Charlie's Archons pop normally in his city (it seems), Stanley tames wild dwagons, Wanda decrypts dead things.

[bladestorm]

So far my assumption has been that all heirs are Chief Warlords but.. could you pop more than one heir? That seemed to be the case with Jetstone. I could be wrong, but I believe they had both Ossomer and Ansom as heirs but only Ansom was Chief Warlord. When Ansom was croaked, Ossomer replaced him as heir and Chief Warlord. Perhaps there is an order for heirs? (Primary, secondary, etc.) but without being Chief Warlord the secondary and tertiary ones would be free to work against them to try to advance. Of course, I could be overthinking things.

I don't know if the order of popping between teh princes has been established, but yea you can have more then one heir. It is stated indirectly when Slatetly thinks about Tremennis and reveals that he was not popped heir as Jetstone had several princes but few warlords. So it was a choice.

I also think Chief Warlord is a free choice for the ruler, just look at how Stanley promotes and demotes Parson as he feels like it.

However, if there are more then one heir some order must be established. And we have never heard about an heir being demoted, just about heirs trying to rebell or splitting off. So having more then one could make court life a little bit more interesting.

I was thinking that the only time a Side would pop multiple heirs would be either when they routinely lose them (like GK went through warlords at the start of Book 1), or when they have accumulated a lot of territory and are looking to split off a new Side.

Jetstone had at least two Capitol sites, and had Ansom been victorious in Book 1, GK would have been at least number 3. Ossomer founds a Side at the old Capitol, Ansom founds a side at GK, and each of the three can then start popping a new set of heirs.

Now GK is in a similar position, minus the designated heirs. They have GK itself, the capitol of Unaroyal, and unless there is severe intervention, Spacerock (even if it is a really bad win where the fire goes inferno and reduces the entire hex to ash, leaving just the reds as GK units). Side-splitting potential.

[joosy]

My thoughts as well. However I am still curious about the mechanisms for multiple heirs and CWL status. You don't want your heirs out to croak the Ruler so you want the highest Duty on them as possible. That is done by making them CWL. But if you have multiple heirs then you have at least one heir who is able to act directly against the Ruler. Perhaps there is some other Duty component for Royal heirs that minimizes that. Also, is there a heirarchy of succession for multiple heirs and can that be changed at will?

[Lamech]

My thoughts as well. However I am still curious about the mechanisms for multiple heirs and CWL status. You don't want your heirs out to croak the Ruler so you want the highest Duty on them as possible. That is done by making them CWL. But if you have multiple heirs then you have at least one heir who is able to act directly the Ruler. Perhaps there is some other Duty component for Royal heirs that minimizes that. Also, is there a heirarchy of succession for multiple heirs and can that be changed at will?

In all honesty you want to make a caster the heir. You slap chief caster on them to max duty and stash them in the MK most of the time to keep them safe. At least if you are going for efficiency.

[John Campbell]

Just how full of herself -is- Olive, anyway?

To the brim, as it would be strange if she was full of someone else, no?

Dunno; ask Loj.

[Silvan]

I was rereading book 2 when I noticed something on this page http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -02-10.jpg

Jillian states that Wanda would try to find the "Fourth Arkentool". But she already saw and knew where the arkenshoes are. I think that it is further evidence for Judy going back to stupidworld. I can't imagine Wanda NOT searching for the arkenshoes is she knew they were at Haffigton territory somewhere.

[Housellama]

I was rereading book 2 when I noticed something on this page http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -02-10.jpg

Jillian states that Wanda would try to find the "Fourth Arkentool". But she already saw and knew where the arkenshoes are. I think that it is further evidence for Judy going back to stupidworld. I can't imagine Wanda NOT searching for the arkenshoes is she knew they were at Haffigton territory somewhere.

Heh. Story ain't over yet. There's a lot of possibilities. Wanda knew where the Arkenshoes were. That doesn't mean she knows where the Arkenshoes are.

I'm not like some guys and say that speculation is absolutely wrong and pointless and that you shouldn't do it under any circumstances. However, I doubt this is going to turn into a portal situation. Maybe we should just kick back and see where the ride goes.

[0beron]

Heh. Story ain't over yet. There's a lot of possibilities. Wanda knew where the Arkenshoes were. That doesn't mean she knows where the Arkenshoes are.
I'm not like some guys and say that speculation is absolutely wrong and pointless and that you shouldn't do it under any circumstances. However, I doubt this is going to turn into a portal situation. Maybe we should just kick back and see where the ride goes.

There are definitely a few possibilities that explain Wanda and Jillian not knowing more about the 'Shoes, and they're not all mutually exclusive either based on current evidence.

• Judy could return to whatever other world she was from, taking the Shoes with her or making them teleport to a random spot still in Erfworld
• The Shoes are Signamancy-aligned and thus able to make themselves be forgotten.
• Book 0 is showing us the other side of a Retconjuration event, and thus these events never happened from the Book 1 & 2 characters' perspective.

I like the speculating, but also acknowledge that we won't be able to prove anything until it happens.

[Kreistor]

Sorry, no. That was an old argument, but ended when the Tool listed the properties and their schools.

You forget that Stanley isn't especially bright or studious, and hasn't spent much time trying to figure out more powers of the 'hammer.

The power list came to the Tool from Wanda. They are not his own work product, and therefore not subject to his weaknesses. Wanda is an expert in magic, so the list stands.

There is unsupported speculation that Charlie is a Thinkamancer, now that we know Casters can Rule.

Supported, even if not concrete. Charlie may have been an Efbaum caster unit.[/quote]
Charlie and Charlescomm are cited as existing before Story 0, as competition on the merc market. Doesn't float. We do not have a starting point for Charlie's attunement or entry into the merc market, and so have no clue when he entered the Erfworld political scene.

And, like I have said repeatedly, as a reference to the unknowable Charlie of the Angels fame, and his inspiration, the reclusive Howard Hughes, it is unlikely we will know anything more of his origin than we already do.

Nice little essay. Just one thing about it - those times when we were wrong... we were wrong.

But until the knowledge was discovered, we were right, because it worked as expected. You're asking me to assume I'm wrong, despite current evidence. Sorry, no, that's not the way Science works, nor how I operate. Until evidence is uncovered to demonstrate a phenomenon's existence, what we see is obvious, and so "obviously" is an appropriate term to use. Hidden or undetectable evidence is not obvious, and so does not prevent the use of "obvious".

[drachefly]

Nice little essay. Just one thing about it - those times when we were wrong... we were wrong.

But until the knowledge was discovered, we were right, because it worked as expected.

That's not what 'right' means. Fer boop's sake, Kriestor. The idea of improved approximations such that newton was right is a way of being generous about the earlier theory, NOT a way of saying that later, better theories are wrong.

The 19th century physicists are right that Newton was right, by implicitly caveating them to being restricted to their available evidence, but there's no way you can twist it to say that they'd be right to say that QM is wrong. You CAN say that to them QM would be unjustified. And that's what we were trying to suggest you amend your statement to, and is very explicitly what you refused to do. You can even say that it would be procedurally correct for them to reject QM. That doesn't make QM wrong, or even obviously wrong.

[Whispri]

• Book 0 is showing us the other side of a Retconjuration event, and thus these events never happened from the Book 1 & 2 characters' perspective.

That would explain a few things... like the 'cloudiness' Marie spoke of.

[Kreistor]

Nice little essay. Just one thing about it - those times when we were wrong... we were wrong.

But until the knowledge was discovered, we were right, because it worked as expected.

That's not what 'right' means. Fer boop's sake, Kriestor. The idea of improved approximations such that newton was right is a way of being generous about the earlier theory, NOT a way of saying that later, better theories are wrong.

The 19th century physicists are right that Newton was right, by implicitly caveating them to being restricted to their available evidence, but there's no way you can twist it to say that they'd be right to say that QM is wrong. You CAN say that to them QM would be unjustified. And that's what we were trying to suggest you amend your statement to, and is very explicitly what you refused to do. You can even say that it would be procedurally correct for them to reject QM. That doesn't make QM wrong, or even obviously wrong.

But that wasn't your argument, drach. I interpreted your "we were wrong" to mean that the 19th century Scientists were wrong, and so I should assume I'm wrong, because I can't know more evidence won't come to light. If that was not your intent, could you please clarify, because I am having trouble resolving that statement and what you just wrote.

And, no, I said nothing about 19th century scientists being right to say QM is wrong. They can and should force stringent experimentation on a theory so utterly radical and foreign to their known Science, but they can't say it's wrong, when a phenomenon has been detected. They might postulate that the evidence was faked and repeat it themselves, and so initially assume it's wrong. That's normal and acceptable. See Cold Fusion, and continuing confusion about that particular branch of science. Scientists are allowed to approach a new phenomenon from both a positive and negative standpoint, and it's good that they do, because we can learn even more new things from a broader range of experiments.

[Housellama]

That's not what 'right' means. Fer boop's sake, Kriestor. The idea of improved approximations such that newton was right is a way of being generous about the earlier theory, NOT a way of saying that later, better theories are wrong.

The 19th century physicists are right that Newton was right, by implicitly caveating them to being restricted to their available evidence, but there's no way you can twist it to say that they'd be right to say that QM is wrong. You CAN say that to them QM would be unjustified. And that's what we were trying to suggest you amend your statement to, and is very explicitly what you refused to do. You can even say that it would be procedurally correct for them to reject QM. That doesn't make QM wrong, or even obviously wrong.

But that wasn't your argument, drach. I interpreted your "we were wrong" to mean that the 19th century Scientists were wrong, and so I should assume I'm wrong, because I can't know more evidence won't come to light. If that was not your intent, could you please clarify, because I am having trouble resolving that statement and what you just wrote.

And, no, I said nothing about 19th century scientists being right to say QM is wrong. They can and should force stringent experimentation on a theory so utterly radical and foreign to their known Science, but they can't say it's wrong, when a phenomenon has been detected. They might postulate that the evidence was faked and repeat it themselves, and so initially assume it's wrong. That's normal and acceptable. See Cold Fusion, and continuing confusion about that particular branch of science. Scientists are allowed to approach a new phenomenon from both a positive and negative standpoint, and it's good that they do, because we can learn even more new things from a broader range of experiments.

I heard all of this in my Phil of Science class last semester. It seemed stupid to me then, it seems stupid to me now. 19th century scientists WERE wrong. And I expect that eventually today's physicists will be proven wrong too. That's the point of science. That's why the falsification principle works. Being right doesn't teach us anything.

Here's the trap that so many people seem to fall into. "Being Wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "It doesn't work". Newton's gravitational formula was ultimately proven to be inaccurate, but it was accurate enough to get us to the freaking Moon. Math, which is the basis of physics, is unforgiving. There's The Solution. Everything else is Wrong. Reality is a bit more forgiving. There's Right, and then there's Good Enough. Technically, Good Enough is still Wrong, according to the math, but it still serves to hold the buildings up well enough. That doesn't make Good Enough any less Wrong. It just means that the people doing the figuring at that point were close, but didn't nail it.

So far, everyone in physics has been wrong. The theories that hold today hold only because they haven't been proven wrong yet. I don't think that anyone is arrogant enough to think that we've nailed it. We're still ultimately wrong. We just haven't figured out how yet, that's all. We're right enough to make boop work, but that doesn't mean we are RIGHT.

[teratorn]

I heard all of this in my Phil of Science class last semester. It seemed stupid to me then, it seems stupid to me now. 19th century scientists WERE wrong.

Right and wrong aren't proper terms to discuss scientific theories. A theory is always right, since it is based on a series of postulates and follows from them in a rigorous way, it is a consistent theoretical construct. It may or it may not be consistent with observations, that's the only relevant aspect.

[tgriff02]

And yet another thread has become completely and totally un-fun to participate in.

[Kreistor]

[read previous post for entire message]So far, everyone in physics has been wrong. The theories that hold today hold only because they haven't been proven wrong yet. I don't think that anyone is arrogant enough to think that we've nailed it. We're still ultimately wrong. We just haven't figured out how yet, that's all. We're right enough to make boop work, but that doesn't mean we are RIGHT.

By that standard, nothing in our world is ever right. Not science, religion, politics, economics, anything. It's not just Science that changes with time and discovery... everything does. Your standard makes "being right" impossible and unusable in any context. Including analysis of this comic. Rob does make new information known that changes what we knew to be true to now be false.

Would you like to take that all the way to its logical conclusion, or shall I?

[drachefly]

To take it back a little ways:

Anyway, this Speculation about Tools having Primary associations to schools is clearly and obviously false without a lot more supportable statements in the comic.

I just find this statement off. I mean how can something be obviously false if it's possible that more evidence might support it. The two clauses are kind of a contradiction.

Two ways...

The objection was logical-structure in nature, not asking for that hypothetical evidence. Take a look at the sentence beginning 'I mean' once again. Maybe twice again. Maybe add 'sufficiently that it becomes obviously true' at the end.

I'm kinda iffy on the tool-school theories. Little confidence.

I'm not THAT confident that they're false... and with what you said, offering the opening for supporting statements in the comic, you can be very confident that they're false - but not up to the level of 'clearly and obviously false'.

[0beron]

The power list [for the 'Hammer] came to the Tool from Wanda....Wanda is an expert in magic, so the list stands.

Except for two crucial caveats you are leaving out. 1) Wanda is only an "expert" (and even that term is debatable) in the schools she has practiced and 2) you left out the crucial phrase "thinks". As in:

Wanda said she thought it was a whole mess of different magicks.

So the list suggests that the 'Hammer doesn't have a primary association, but there is still plenty of room for Wanda to be wrong (or just flat out lying because she's like that). It's not proof.