Book 3 - Page 25

Book 3 - Page 25
Comic - Book 3 - Page 25
Recent posts... (See full thread)
ManaCaster wrote:
Sure, given the information available to him at the time, Parson's life wouldn't seem quite so quintessential to the side as to justify making Stanley do that. But with an inferno breathing down his neck and the adrenaline rush of his first time in combat, it's entirely possible he wasn't thinking a larger picture that thoroughly. He wouldn't be perceiving that as an abuse of power.


True, if Parson was a complete slave to his Duty and wouldn't try to preserve his own life it would strip away so much of his humanity that it would make it very hard for readers to identify with him. If he wouldn't value his life at all (because of Duty), there wouldn't be any meaning and character growth in him endangering himself for his troops.
Xarx wrote:
Except that Maggie is out of action atm. But I'm sure Parson could rope in another Thinkamancer easily enough, given where he is.
I'm not sure I'd call Maggie "out". She still seems to be mostly with it and perhaps even still casting/using Thinkamancy senses. I'd guess she's still capable of casting an Order, but if I'm wrong then Parson can certainly have someone else send it.
Spruce wrote:
True, if Parson was a complete slave to his Duty and wouldn't try to preserve his own life [...] If he wouldn't value his life at all (because of Duty), there wouldn't be any meaning and character growth in him endangering himself for his troops.
I think even generally speaking, Duty compels a unit to protect themselves, especially Commanders. Infantry may be more "accustomed" to the idea of dying for the sake of their side's long-term survival, everybody is technically an asset to the side, so the best scenario is always one where you come out alive in addition to protecting the side.
No one in particular wrote:
ManaCaster wrote:
Parson was appealing to Stanley's reason in those first few messages in his eyebook. Then he says he will order Stanley if he has to. I'm pretty sure that implies an actual order.

Sure, given the information available to him at the time, Parson's life wouldn't seem quite so quintessential to the side as to justify making Stanley do that. But with an inferno breathing down his neck and the adrenaline rush of his first time in combat, it's entirely possible he wasn't thinking a larger picture that thoroughly. He wouldn't be perceiving that as an abuse of power.

Also, let's not forget that Parson is unique as Erfworlders go. He shirked his Duty (Not walking around to manage the City, First Intermission 35) because... he didn't know it was necessary?


That's just the thing though. Erfworlders are free to interpret what "duty" means. And no, I refuse to capitalize it.

Spruce wrote:
True, if Parson was a complete slave to his Duty and wouldn't try to preserve his own life it would strip away so much of his humanity that it would make it very hard for readers to identify with him. If he wouldn't value his life at all (because of Duty), there wouldn't be any meaning and character growth in him endangering himself for his troops.


All those statements require better justification.
Humanity is not a function of freedom or willpower. (And I refuse to append "free" before "will" like that's meaningful.)
Likewise, Parson made the choice to endanger himself.

For the most part, I don't see Duty and Loyalty as being real or as distinguishable from duty and loyalty. Obedience is, if only because orders force units to obey.

But everything I see shows that duty and loyalty work basically the same way as they do as in Stupidworld.
I wonder if an order transmitted by a Thinkamancer or by written note, say by hat, has the actual weight of an order? Could a Thinkamancer go rogue and give "orders"? Could a Thinkamancer be tricked into thinking their ruler asked them to give an order and be successful in giving a real, fake order?
ManaCaster wrote:
OneHugeTuck wrote:
wih wrote:
See Jillian ordering Banhammer during the trial in Book 0. They can do it.


I just read through it. Not a single order or command was given by Jillian to Banhammer. Nor the slightest implication of 'compel' nor implication of Banhammer being or experiencing being compelled.

"The King’s response seemed automatic, almost mindless." could mean Banhammer was simply that badly out of it, but I would hardly say it doesn't offer the slightest implication of being compelled.

And how about the time Parson was prepared to order Stanley to do something he didn't want to do?


Damn it. I read through that whole thing specifically for this, and I saw her 'order' him and then mentally skipped right over his response, which, I concede, could possibly be evidence of the compelling of an order.

As far as parson 'preparing to order', in general I still say that underlings can't order their superiors. Though the couple paragraphs with Jillian ordering Banhammer could very well point to that CWL's can have some amount of compel upon a ruler.
DVL wrote:
All those statements require better justification.
Humanity is not a function of freedom or willpower. (And I refuse to append "free" before "will" like that's meaningful.)
Likewise, Parson made the choice to endanger himself.

For the most part, I don't see Duty and Loyalty as being real or as distinguishable from duty and loyalty. Obedience is, if only because orders force units to obey.

But everything I see shows that duty and loyalty work basically the same way as they do as in Stupidworld.


1) Magic spell put Duty (with a capital D) in Parson's head. I said it would be difficult to identify to a magically controlled automaton. Refuse what you will, I didn't talk of free will in real world, why should I? We act like it exists and that's enough.

2) If Parson made a choice to endanger something that he doesn't value, the choice would be meaningless. I left coffee on when I went for a walk today and risked the coffee getting bitter, it was a choice I made, but it was meaningless one as I could have easily made a new pan full of coffee when I came back. There was no risk of losing something I value.
Spruce wrote:
1) Magic spell put Duty (with a capital D) in Parson's head. I said it would be difficult to identify to a magically controlled automaton. Refuse what you will, I didn't talk of free will in real world, why should I? We act like it exists and that's enough.


Maggie, our resident Thinkamancer, regularly poo-poos that her magic is the crass mind control thing that warlords typically imagine that it is. Wanda used a suggestion on Jillian, not a irrefutable command.

Likewise, Maggie explains that the ruthlessness magic of the sword only nudged forward Parson's inherent desire to play a war game.

To the outside observer, Vurp looks like he's doing an abrupt about-face because of Turnamancy, but in his internal world, his decision makes sense, even if Vanna fatigued him first before Charlie offered him his deal.

Ossomer still ultimately chose to turn back to Jetstone after being Decrypted, because ultimately, family and honor meant more to him than the larger abstract theological questions.

The thought magic is really a lot more subtle than you give it credit for.

But really, that's just a matter of degree. There are a lot of things that humans can't control in either Erf or Earth. Nobody chooses the circumstances of birth/popping. Nobody chooses their family. If I shoot an arrow into your brain in the right place, you don't get to choose whether you taste key lime pie.

Nobody complains about how these things diminish your dignity and humanity until somebody comes along with a Hocus Pocus spell. The fact that there's a powerful method of hacking your personality doesn't itself change your humanity. You're still human, just with a few twiddly bits rearranged. (If that scares you, well, that's just your mortality talking.)

All the evidence in Erf really does suggest that persons really are automatons with some kind of physical brain of a sort, however much we hate that characterization of ourselves. Parson just happened to get "translated" over to match Erf physics and physiology, but the broad details are still the same.

Parson is still essentially Parson, but with a little brain surgery done on him.


Quote:
2) If Parson made a choice to endanger something that he doesn't value, the choice would be meaningless. I left coffee on when I went for a walk today and risked the coffee getting bitter, it was a choice I made, but it was meaningless one as I could have easily made a new pan full of coffee when I came back. There was no risk of losing something I value.


Parson does value his life. He just doesn't necessarily prioritize the value of his life over the value of those he feels responsible for. And again, a character who wants to commit suicide, such as DigDoug, places low value on his own life. That demonstrates humanity has nothing to do with how much value you place on your life.

Anyway, I don't much care for relatable characters. I've sort of gone over to the school of thought that characters should be interesting, not relatable.
DVL wrote:
Maggie, our resident Thinkamancer, regularly poo-poos that her magic is the crass mind control thing that warlords typically imagine that it is. Wanda used a suggestion on Jillian, not a irrefutable command.

...

Nobody complains about how these things diminish your dignity and humanity until somebody comes along with a Hocus Pocus spell. The fact that there's a powerful method of hacking your personality doesn't itself change your humanity. You're still human, just with a few twiddly bits rearranged. (If that scares you, well, that's just your mortality talking.)

All the evidence in Erf really does suggest that persons really are automatons with some kind of physical brain of a sort, however much we hate that characterization of ourselves. Parson just happened to get "translated" over to match Erf physics and physiology, but the broad details are still the same.


Still Parson was blaming Erfworld for controlling him at the end of Book 1.

It definitely is a frightening thought how accidents and diseases affecting the biochemical machine that is our brain change our personality, on the other hand our personality changes over time in any case and some would even go as far as to say that we don't stay as the same person our whole life.

The problem with the magic is that we still make our decisions as the persons that we are (not were, or will be), on Parson's case the snap-of-a-fingers Hocus Pocus would be preventing him doing what he would like to / normally do. I think of that as an direct outside input, if I understood you correctly, you think of that as Parson's personality having been affected by the Erfworld.

Parson's cursing in the end of the Book 1 would be him breaking free of some of the outside control over him by my interpretation and character growth/change by yours (if I understood you correctly).

DVL wrote:

Parson does value his life. He just doesn't necessarily prioritize the value of his life over the value of those he feels responsible for. And again, a character who wants to commit suicide, such as DigDoug, places low value on his own life. That demonstrates humanity has nothing to do with how much value you place on your life.


Now I must sound like I'm backpedalling :) but I didn't meant to question his humanity when I mentioned him making a choice, I meant it as how valorous or brave his action could be interpreted and I should have made myself more clear or separated the sentences properly. As such I understood your first reply completely wrong, sorry.

DVL wrote:
Anyway, I don't much care for relatable characters. I've sort of gone over to the school of thought that characters should be interesting, not relatable.


I have it otherwise around, even tough some fictional character would feel as interesting first I loose interest if I can't relate to him/her on some level. But that is a matter of taste anyway.
Spruce wrote:
It definitely is a frightening thought how accidents and diseases affecting the biochemical machine that is our brain change our personality, on the other hand our personality changes over time in any case and some would even go as far as to say that we don't stay as the same person our whole life.

The problem with the magic is that we still make our decisions as the persons that we are (not were, or will be), on Parson's case the snap-of-a-fingers Hocus Pocus would be preventing him doing what he would like to / normally do. I think of that as an direct outside input, if I understood you correctly, you think of that as Parson's personality having been affected by the Erfworld.


Your interpreting me pretty correctly. Although I also must add there really isn't a meaningful distinction between "direct outside input" from magic and the more mundane stuff like disease/injury/aging. But you seemed to have reasoned yourself there more or less.

Magic just looks scarier and more dramatic because it's faster and more surgical than more mundane stuff.