Forum    Members    Search    FAQ

Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:40 am 
User avatar
E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
Offline
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 905
Lilwik wrote:
We know that the court of Faq highly dislikes violence, but disbanding is very much not violent.
You have a rather disturbing conception of violence.

_________________
“I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

-The Song of Maybe

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:11 am 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1463
    Shai_hulud wrote:
    You have a rather disturbing conception of violence.
    I'm not sure what you imagine disbanding to be, but this is what disbanding looks like: Book 0, Episode 26. I challenge anyone to imagine a less violent death, or even a less violent event of any sort. Disbanding is like the opposite of popping, but disbanding is even less violent than popping, at least if the word "pop" is at all representative of the process.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:51 am 
    This user is a Tool! Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am
    Posts: 470
    Besides, the court of FAQ does not in practice appear to value non-commanders that much - remember Jillians anger at Loj's plan that would spell death to all units left in FAQ except casters.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:41 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
    Posts: 905
    Lilwik wrote:
    I'm not sure what you imagine disbanding to be, but this is what disbanding looks like: Book 0, Episode 26. I challenge anyone to imagine a less violent death, or even a less violent event of any sort. Disbanding is like the opposite of popping, but disbanding is even less violent than popping, at least if the word "pop" is at all representative of the process.
    And the fact that you seem to think that ending lives en masse with the push of a button to be nonviolent, because the people don't have time to feel pain, is what makes your beliefs disturbing. Not expecting you to necessarily understand, just pointing out that your thinking is kind of warped* and shouldn't be taken for granted that it's normal, especially when trying to discern other peoples/characters possible motives.
    mortissimus wrote:
    Besides, the court of FAQ does not in practice appear to value non-commanders that much - remember Jillians anger at Loj's plan that would spell death to all units left in FAQ except casters.
    This on the other hand, seems completely plausible.

    Edit*
    Really wanting a strike through button in this forum. Warped is not the most neutral word to use there. "Deviates from perceived normal behavior/values" ? Deviates is such a shitty word too. = /

    _________________
    “I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

    -The Song of Maybe


    Last edited by Shai hulud on Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:49 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    Shai_hulud wrote:
    And the fact that you seem to think that ending lives en masse with the push of a button to be nonviolent, because the people don't have time to feel pain, is what makes your beliefs disturbing. Not expecting you to necessarily understand, just pointing out that your thinking is kind of warped and shouldn't be taken for granted that it's normal, especially when trying to discern other peoples/characters possible motives.
    I believe that you're confusing violent and lethal. Violent actions can be lethal, but don't need to be. Lethal actions can be non-violent (for example, drug-induced coma leading to death).

    Wiping out an entire population by causing them to simple cease to exist is non-violent. Wiping out the same population through an atomic explosion is ultra-violent. That's the point Lilwik is, I think, making. It's still an atrocity; it's just that can be seen as somewhat "merciful" compared to other methods of lethality.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:56 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
    Posts: 905
    Weird, I was always under the impression that there is a difference between whether something is "destructive," "violent," and "painful". I mean, a lot of rape is neither destructive nor painful, but I have never heard anyone call it nonviolent. It seems that the context that people use the word violent in is meant to be about loss of life or some sort of "harm" being inflicted, even if no physical damages or pain sensations occur. So you're saying that you think gassing a civilian population is actually nonviolent? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking what your thinking is. I find people take for granted how different their thinking/minds really are.)

    _________________
    “I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

    -The Song of Maybe

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:11 pm 
    User avatar
    Offline
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm
    Posts: 2521
    Shai_hulud wrote:
    Weird, I was always under the impression that there is a difference between whether something is "destructive," "violent," and "painful". ... It seems that the context that people use the word violent in is meant to be about loss of life or some sort of "harm" being inflicted, even if no physical damages or pain sensations occur. So you're saying that you think gassing a civilian population is actually nonviolent? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking what your thinking is. I find people take for granted how different their thinking/minds really are.)
    Violence is applying force to destroy. Gassing a population is destructive - the chemicals destroy tissue. That's violent. In fact, in our world, it's almost impossible to imagine an action that is fatal that isn't violent. Lethal Injection is the closest thing I could come up with, because it stops the biological processes without (I think) causing tissue damage and such, but I could easily be mistaken about that.

    But "depopping" is something that doesn't exist in our world. We don't have popping and depopping in our world (above, possibly, the quantum level) - things don't simply appear and vanish again. Life on Earth is a gradual process; cells multiply and change, forming a whole organism over time. Instant disintegration of an organism also don't happen. Depopping is, functionally, like what we envision happens if someone travels back in time and kills the person's parent before they were born. One second they're there, the next - *pop* - they never existed. There's no trace of them anywhere. The difficulty with thinking about it like that is, of course, there's never really that moment where they existed for one second and then didn't the next, but that's how a lot of cheesy sci-fi has portrayed it.

    If death is the end of existence, then depopping is lethal - it results in nonexistence. But no "force" is applied to the body of the depopped; there's nothing left. It's not "violent" - it's just lethal.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:12 pm 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
    Posts: 905
    I guess I see what you're saying. I guess I never perceived the usage of the words to imply a difference in the causal link between initiating an event and the event occurring. So are you suggesting that as long as I order someone else to murder a woman, I am not the cause of that outcome, because I personally didn't engage in the attack myself? Or are you saying that if we really did have some cheesy B sci-fi eraser ray, I could go around "unmaking" people and be able to fairly claim that I never engaged in a violent act nor caused any harm to the people in question because they didn't "die," they just aren't alive anymore. That... seems like a weird way to view the world/words. I mean, the people in the comic sure act like use of the word disbanding is synonymous with death/violence, so I'm not sure where this idea of yours comes from.

    _________________
    “I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

    -The Song of Maybe

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:09 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1463
    Shai_hulud wrote:
    Or are you saying that if we really did have some cheesy B sci-fi eraser ray, I could go around "unmaking" people and be able to fairly claim that I never engaged in a violent act nor caused any harm to the people in question because they didn't "die," they just aren't alive anymore.
    Violence is the opposite of calm, not the opposite of moral rightness. Whether the eraser ray is violent is orthogonal to whether it causes harm and whether using it can be a crime.
    Shai_hulud wrote:
    the people in the comic sure act like use of the word disbanding is synonymous with death/violence
    Disbanding is not death/violence; it is just death.

    Edit:
    mortissimus wrote:
    Besides, the court of FAQ does not in practice appear to value non-commanders that much - remember Jillians anger at Loj's plan that would spell death to all units left in FAQ except casters.
    Don't forget that there is a huge difference between causing people to die and allowing people to die for a pacifist, and the court of Faq seems like it may be made of pacifists. An extreme pacifist would never harm a fly, but also wouldn't strike a blow even to prevent the total extermination of everyone and everything.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:08 am 
    User avatar
    E is for Erfworld Supporter Battle Crest Pins Supporter Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit Erfworld Bicycle® Playing Cards supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm
    Posts: 905
    K, I think I see what you're saying now. Makes more sense.

    _________________
    “I will tell you precisely what Royalty is,” said Intra, “It is a continuous cutting motion.”

    -The Song of Maybe

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:30 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:20 am
    Posts: 200
    Lamech wrote:
    The obvious excuse here is that if she turns it will disband, among other people, Orwell. Even the units in neutral cities will be trivial to kill and murder when frozen. And everyone will scramble for the cities if they go neutral. It will be a blood bath. The only way Olive can turn is if FAQ takes control of all of Haffaton's holdings. Which quite frankly can only be defended by Olive's power and evil garden.

    So it seems like good trap, but she should be able to slip out of it.


    Well, nobody but FAQ knows what's happening here. FAQ would absolutely have the initiative in claiming cities, and they have air transport. With Olive and Wanda's knowledge of the cities and terrain, I would think they can claim a lot of cities pretty quickly, Then they could order the units to consolidate at the higher level ones, and raze the lower level ones to boost the treasury and restore the side to a normal profile for Erfworld.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:34 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:20 am
    Posts: 200
    Lipkin wrote:
    Lilwik wrote:
    This is how Predictamancy is supposed to be used. Wanda knows that Olive won't turn because that would end Haffaton as a side and it would mean that Jillian cannot croak the ruler of Haffaton, therefore Wanda is 100% certain that Olive will choose not to turn and try to talk her way out of it.

    But isn't Wanda worried that some terrible punishment will rain down upon her for doing something that goes against Fate? Is this really what she would call the Easy Way? She seems to be trying to get Olive to turn which would defeat Fate. Perhaps Wanda thinks she has nothing to lose, but if she really believed in the Easy Way, she would just relax and assume that Olive was going to lose the trial without any dangerous Fate-defying maneuvers.

    She isn't trying to prevent fate. She knows Olive better than anyone else in attendance. She may be counting on Olive being unwilling, or actually unable, to turn. We know Olive's chief loyalty is to herself. What if that were actually binding? Because she isn't sincere, she may be incapable of turning.

    Also, consider this. Even if Olive could, and did turn, that wouldn't be the end of Jillian's fate. The capitol city that they just captured is also called Haffaton. Loj Banhammer is the new Ruler. That is a way Fate could course correct. We know it won't, because Jillian is far away when Faq falls, but that is a loophole that fate could exploit.


    pardon, but we only have Jillian's word as told to Prince Ansom as to where she was when FAQ fell And at the time, she was masquerading as Jillian Zamussels and showing a lot of conflict of interest. I consider everything she said during that time - or any time to a side other than her own, really - to be questionable.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:50 am 
    Print Book 2 & Draw Book 3 Supporter This user was a Tool before it was cool Pin-up Calendar and New Art Team Supporter
    Offline
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:20 am
    Posts: 200
    An undiscussed option for Olive and FAQ - contract / alliance. The terms are binding and automatically enforced by Erfworld's rules, and pretty much allow any terms. FAQ can demand anything of Haffaton at all, and Olive would have to obey.

    Some terms I can think of:
    Destroying the Olive Garden.
    Olive remaining as a "guest" of FAQ forever.
    Turning over all cities except Efbaum to FAQ.
    Hosting FAQ's occupation of Efbaum, with no resistance to any action taken by FAQ units.
    Ceasing all aggression against other sides, except for defense, forever.
    etc. etc.

    The penalties aren't really well known except for Shmuckers, but I'm sure the document can be worded in a way to ensure that breaking it would spell the end of Haffaton.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:22 pm 
    User avatar
    This user is a Tool! Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:04 pm
    Posts: 219
    Disbanding is free of anxiety. Unless of course the victim knows it is coming. Otherwise it is the most humane form of murder imaginable.

    _________________
    Release the quakken!

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:23 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary Has collected at least one unit
    Offline
    Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am
    Posts: 779
    "If death is the end of existence, then depopping is lethal - it results in nonexistence. But no "force" is applied to the body of the depopped; there's nothing left. It's not "violent" - it's just lethal." "Disbanding is free of anxiety. Unless of course the victim knows it is coming. Otherwise it is the most humane form of murder imaginable."

    I don't see the difference between disbanding and enough explosives to insta-kill and a powerful enough magic spell to insta-kill. In each case person may feel nothing/dies instantly. Whether body exists or not afterwards does not mean much.

    For example: http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F133.jpg Maggie shows power of attack spell in killing, possible maggie could insta-kill a low level ally in same way so quickly they wouldn't feel any pain, not that different from disbanding as far as humane.

    It can come down to culture/customs on what is "better", in real life for example some cultures believed dying without any blood loss was somehow "better". Some felt important thing was what happened to body after - preserve it, burn it, bury it, send it out to sea, etc... different for each group.

    It is possible "disbanding" is seen as better or worse compared to direct death. Viking logic might be disbanding is worse as results in worse afterlife.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:06 pm 
    Here for the 10th Anniversary
    Offline
    Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm
    Posts: 1463
    multilis wrote:
    Viking logic might be disbanding is worse as results in worse afterlife.
    I strongly suspect that disbanding is considered worse than croaking in many ways. Erfworlders talk about disbanding things that they don't like, rather than croaking them. Disbanding must be a shameful way to die because it only happens when your side no longer wants you, when you aren't valuable enough for your side to pay for your upkeep, or when your side is totally defeated. I wonder what Erfworlders believe the Titans think of the disbanded.

    At least that's the way I suspect normal Erfworlders think of disbanding. I wouldn't expect the strange pacifists of Faq to feel the same way. They probably prefer the peace of disbanding over the violence of croaking.

  • Tip this post

    Make Anonymous
  • Top 
       
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
    Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 

    Board index » Erfworld Things » Reactions


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Chrones, forgottenfables, Hawkclaw, thosta and 10 guests

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: