Book 3 - Page 34

Book 3 - Page 34
Comic - Book 3 - Page 34
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Spruce wrote:
OneHugeTuck wrote:
DVL wrote:


This post here encapsulates why it's terrible to explain "Loyalty" as a number that's high or low.
You just built a psychological profile of Ace. His "loyalty" wasn't high or low, he's a person with a personality that responds to the people around him. He wasn't disloyal to Jetstone, he was dissatisfied.


That's presuming that one's psychological profile isn't an indicator of loyalty as a number.

I'm not asserting that it is or isn't, though I operate under a context that it is.

I agree with DVL that loyalty and dissatisfaction can be totally different aspects.


I'm with OneHugeTuck, "loyalty" as a unit's stat is an abstraction of that units/persons feelings towards his side: when the loyalty stat gets so low that the unit is ready to switch sides it just means that the unit/person is dissatisfied/disillusioned with his side. I don't think the loyalty is a fixed number: it goes up and down depending on how the unit is treated and how he reacts to the things that his ruler/side is doing.


A loyalty stat is not a necessary explanation.
What, that number changes with regard to every party or private individual on a case-by-base basis? Your Turnamancy is attack 12 and my Loyalty is 11, therefore you win my allegience?

Supposing I'm the Cookie Monster? Is there a separate number score with how every party appeals to my love of cookies? And these numbers fluctuate as a part of some function? And there's another function that determines when I decide to go turn coat or make some small disobedience?

It really doesn't work. The idea only exist in Erf because warlords are used to having a comprehensive top-down summary of everything like it's a war game.
DVL wrote:

A loyalty stat is not a necessary explanation.
What, that number changes with regard to every party or private individual on a case-by-base basis? Your Turnamancy is attack 12 and my Loyalty is 11, therefore you win my allegience?

Supposing I'm the Cookie Monster? Is there a separate number score with how every party appeals to my love of cookies? And these numbers fluctuate as a part of some function? And there's another function that determines when I decide to go turn coat or make some small disobedience?

It really doesn't work. The idea only exist in Erf because warlords are used to having a comprehensive top-down summary of everything like it's a war game.


Does the unit need loyalty stat to any other side than the one it's part of? When that reaches zero (or whatever the limit might be) it makes it possible for the unit to turn. It doesn't sound too complicated. When the unit joins another side the loyalty is reset to some unknown level.

Warlords may treat loyalty as a stat because they treat everything in Erfworld as in a war game, or it might be stat because everything in Erfworld works a bit like in a war game. <EDIT> fixed typo
DVL wrote:


What, that number changes with regard to every party or private individual on a case-by-base basis? Your Turnamancy is attack 12 and my Loyalty is 11, therefore you win my allegience?

Supposing I'm the Cookie Monster? Is there a separate number score with how every party appeals to my love of cookies? And these numbers fluctuate as a part of some function? And there's another function that determines when I decide to go turn coat or make some small disobedience?

It really doesn't work. The idea only exist in Erf because warlords are used to having a comprehensive top-down summary of everything like it's a war game.


They answer to your questions is, quite likely, 'yes'. Not sure about the thinkamancer vs. loyalty equation, but something along those lines, sure.

It really does work, if it's exactly as you just described in your questions. Loyalty to side goes down, the number goes down. Totally makes sense.
DVL wrote:
atalex wrote:
Quote:
Ace's loyalty must've been pretty low because man is he happy about being on Team Gobwin Knob.


Extremely low. He visibly hated working for a side whose leader was openly contemptuous of his entire view of his own discipline and who subconsciously blamed him for the death of his predecessor, with whom the leader had apparently been in love.


This post here encapsulates why it's terrible to explain "Loyalty" as a number that's high or low.
You just built a psychological profile of Ace. His "loyalty" wasn't high or low, he's a person with a personality that responds to the people around him. He wasn't disloyal to Jetstone, he was dissatisfied.


You have two soldiers fighting. They both roll the dice. One rolls high the other rolls low. The low roller dies. Their die roll wasn't some number, but the representation of their actions. A low roll means that the soldier made a poor combat decision, or put his foot down wrong, or something of the like. Same with all the other 'numbers' behind the scenes in Erfworld. Loyalty is part of a unit's personality. It isn't as simple as some stat where if they get enough dissatisfaction points compared to their loyalty value, they could roll for a loyalty check or they turn. The loyalty is how much the unit naturally desires to stay with their current side, and enough stresses on this can cause a unit to decide to turn. The number is just a representation of this.

We see units living in barracks or celebrating with liquor, or some such. If everything is just a roll of the dice, why bother? Why spend any juice or schmuckers on raiments or amenities? What does it matter if your soldiers are stuck in the mud, if instead of beds they just had cold stone floors? If they ate nothing but cold gruel? Don King mentions that by letting any successful warlord manage some nice Level 2 city by the shore it causes his remaining warlords to fight slightly harder. If it was just die rolls, wouldn't this have absolutely no effect on how hard his warlords fight? No, it's decisions like that that represent the "good decisions" that represent what the high and low numbers of the dice rolls are.
Corrupt User wrote:
You have two soldiers fighting. They both roll the dice. One rolls high the other rolls low. The low roller dies. Their die roll wasn't some number, but the representation of their actions. A low roll means that the soldier made a poor combat decision, or put his foot down wrong, or something of the like. Same with all the other 'numbers' behind the scenes in Erfworld. Loyalty is part of a unit's personality. It isn't as simple as some stat where if they get enough dissatisfaction points compared to their loyalty value, they could roll for a loyalty check or they turn. The loyalty is how much the unit naturally desires to stay with their current side, and enough stresses on this can cause a unit to decide to turn. The number is just a representation of this.

That depends on which kind of Caster you are talking to. You said all of this like it is fact, and not just your pet theory. Even the people of Erfworld do not agree about whether the numbers represent the world or the other way around. This may well be the truth, but not necessarily, and until it is revealed to be so, it remains merely your opinion... I personally believe this world represents the underlying Numbers, which is why I brought this up, but I don't say that IS the way it is. Just that that is how I see it.
ThisIsNotDan wrote:
"Jack croaked me." I love the awkwardness in that line. I'm not sure if it was meant to portray anything beyond the fact that Ace is just awkward in these kinds of situations, LOL.


I ... I got better ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
-D- wrote:
He apologized mid air. Right before Jillian said, he wasn't the one he loved.


Maybe it's just me, but didn't she cut him off? I was reading that as he wasn't apologizing for killing her, but for having to kill her to get her to see the Titans' will (I'm sorry it had to be this way.). Or that's what I expected he would've said had she not cut him short.
Fla_Panther wrote:
-D- wrote:
He apologized mid air. Right before Jillian said, he wasn't the one he loved.


Maybe it's just me, but didn't she cut him off? I was reading that as he wasn't apologizing for killing her, but for having to kill her to get her to see the Titans' will (I'm sorry it had to be this way.). Or that's what I expected he would've said had she not cut him short.

Issue was, if he expressed remorse. He was sincere, it was an apology ergo he did some slight to her.

Carl wrote:
Your confusing character development for the sake of plot with character development that is demonstrated by the plot.

I'm not the one that is confused. In very good stories, plot is driven by the characters. Whether you plot major events first and then based on those actions you trace character traits, or you come up with characters and simulate their interaction that will lead into events is unimportant. At highest level, it's indistinguishable. What is distinguishable is how well a character adheres to his own psychology, how it evolves with time and how complex a character is and how relatable is to the audiences.

My problems with Jill are: No growth, simple and unrelatable.
CarniDollMancer wrote:
Corrupt User wrote:
You have two soldiers fighting. They both roll the dice. One rolls high the other rolls low. The low roller dies. Their die roll wasn't some number, but the representation of their actions. A low roll means that the soldier made a poor combat decision, or put his foot down wrong, or something of the like. Same with all the other 'numbers' behind the scenes in Erfworld. Loyalty is part of a unit's personality. It isn't as simple as some stat where if they get enough dissatisfaction points compared to their loyalty value, they could roll for a loyalty check or they turn. The loyalty is how much the unit naturally desires to stay with their current side, and enough stresses on this can cause a unit to decide to turn. The number is just a representation of this.

That depends on which kind of Caster you are talking to. You said all of this like it is fact, and not just your pet theory. Even the people of Erfworld do not agree about whether the numbers represent the world or the other way around. This may well be the truth, but not necessarily, and until it is revealed to be so, it remains merely your opinion... I personally believe this world represents the underlying Numbers, which is why I brought this up, but I don't say that IS the way it is. Just that that is how I see it.


Perhaps it's more of the 6 blinded casters and the LFN. Each blinded caster feels the LFN with their own senses.

The Carnymancer declares that LFNs are an elaborate show
The Mathamancer declares that LFNs are a series of numbers
The Signamancer declares that LFNs are dangerous
The Dirtamancer declares that LFNs are a pile of matter
The Moneymancer declares that LFNs are a drain on the treasury and asks the Signamancer if all LFNs are also White.
The Predictamancer declares that LFNs are instruments of Fate.

All of the casters have given the correct but contradictory answers because they can only sense with the senses that they have.

Of course, hearing this, 6 blinded LFNs decide to determine what a caster is. After every LFN felt the caster with their feet, they unanimously declared that casters are pancakes.
Carl wrote:
Parsons' whole "i don't want to be in command" thing for example is a great example of this. Outside of it's effects on the plot, (i.e. the situation at the start of book 2 and parson's subsequent decision to get involved directly), it has no effect's and is barely examined beyond the initial acknowledgment of his issue.


I see it having come up again since then as less likely than not.

Parson isn't a moper. He's in charge now, and it seems like a bad idea to change that, so this won't come out until he needs to have a heart-to-heart conversation with someone. That could be a while.

Or it could happen in the grand strategy meeting. Not likely, but it's possible.