Book 3 - Page 242

Pitch, please

Book 3 - Page 242
Comic - Book 3 - Page 242
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Lingo wrote:
Personally, I doubt that more than a few (if any) Great Minds have been killed. The last time we heard from them, they were in a hurry to break their link so they could witness the execution, and that was way back when Bunny died. So I agree that his intent was just to destroy their Temple.


WRONG!

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrooooong!

I don't know why I was wrong, but I was wrooong!
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Yeah, but in that case repatriating Lilith should have been a ding too.

I mean, the whole thing with turning being included wasn't something I was able to infer from the contract, or see how that would be different from intentionally scamming Parson out of schmuckers, or stealing guns, or engaging in deliberate attempts to get the other side to violate the contract. Going by the plain language of the contract all of those should count as dings if turning a unit counts.
Yeah, repatriation of Lilith is a problem, but I'm still going with "I dunno, prisoner rules are fuzzy that way, maybe?"
For the rest... I think there applies "Erfworld has no rules for this, so it doesn't come into consideration for the contact".

Erfworld has no "scamming" mechanic, it just has trade, and trade is explicitly allowed by the contract. Stealing might only apply to equipped items, with stuff lying around being counted as "unownd" and free for everyone to take. It has no "taunt" mechanic (except maybe as a special, but that doesn't apply here), so taunting isn't a "real action" by contract terms.

Meanwhile, switching sides appears to be only possible when asked to do so by a unit of that side - in book zero, Wanda, who wants to actively leave Haffaton, still has to be asked to join Faq before she can do so. So, asking a unit to join your side is apparently a semi-hostile (causes financial damage to the side, but according to the backer stories, it can be done under truce) turn attempt, which is what triggers the contract.
The point is, the language of the contract simply isn't reliable in discerning what is and isn't a contract violation. We have to invent all kinds of caveats and alternate meanings in order to reconcile the plain language with the actual effects.

And the contract itself stipulates that the wording and the intent are both factors in the automagical enforcement mechanism, the wording cannot stand along according to the plain language of the contract itself.
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
The point is, the language of the contract simply isn't reliable in discerning what is and isn't a contract violation. We have to invent all kinds of caveats and alternate meanings in order to reconcile the plain language with the actual effects.

And the contract itself stipulates that the wording and the intent are both factors in the automagical enforcement mechanism, the wording cannot stand along according to the plain language of the contract itself.
The point is "automagical". The contract enforcement is stupid because it can't be any smarter. It can only hook into Erfworld mechanics. Wording and intend form the basis of these automagical judgements, but said judgements can only be rendered over things that can be automagicaly detected.

But then... I'm a long time D&D/Pathfinder player. And in tabletop rpg rules forums, every day is "talk about the contract" day! I've just developed a thick skin. And I have to admit that what seems reasonable and intuitive to one person is meaningless word salad to others - or, worse, still reasonable and intuitive, but interpreted in a completely different way... So yeah, I don't think the contract is that bad, but different points of view (both on the contract itself and Erfworld in general) can lead to vastly different conclusions.

kennyj wrote:
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
So, Ivan was wrong when he said that it could never have worked and was a stupid idea?
I'm not inclined to believe Ivan is infallible, but I will defer to him as the trap expert.

As for rules lawyering in table-top gaming, the reason it happens is precisely because there is nothing automatic or automagic about how the rules are applied and convincing the DM (sometimes by convincing enough of the other players) that your interpretation of the rules is more correct can lead to a judgment in your favor. I suspect a lot of contract lawyering we're seeing is a carryover of this behavior from people who fail to see that Rob's story has been plotted out in advance with a significant degree of narrative integrity. I think that Rob probably (and correctly, if so) regrets having provided an apparently complete contract text rather than 'highlights' from a text with a suggestively higher page count and references to numerous appendixes/subsections (oh well, maybe next time).

But maybe he just wanted to distract everyone from arguing about Jillian all the time.
I'm only saying that it's a possibility. It would be an interesting way to square the almost-loophole that Claude developed, with Marie's blatant assault on ICFYS (which neither tunnel-bound caster has any idea about.)
JadedDragoon wrote:
Where in the hell are people getting this "Wanda sides with Charley" crap? Talk about yer epileptic trees. There's absolutely nothing supporting this idea and it completely goes against the existing narrative and the characterization of a half dozen separate characters. It's quite possibly the single least likely outcome that is still even possible. While you're at it why not predict Stanley making Jillian overlord of GK and stepping down to be a piker again. And then Jillian finds peace in her heart and takes up Banhammer's philosophy.

I'm all for oddball theories but come the hell on... let's not be absurd.


Well, people have talked about Stanley stepping down to be a piker and Jillian winding up with the arkenhammer. Wrt the Wanda theory, wandas big thing is getting the arkentools together. ...which would require gk lose the arkenhammer for Wanda to join Charlie.
Unfortunately, Jillian is a Macguffin character, so it would probably violate narrative economy for her to attune to an Arkentool. That doesn't mean she won't ever get her hands on the 'hammer, but she won't have it for very long. Living Macguffins that become too active as decisive characters in their own right cross into Mary Suedom very easily (Jillian is already considered by many to be over that border due to having become a ruler, but as a royal puppet she's still firmly in Macguffin character territory).

Wanda is apparently aware that Parson is Fated to (personally) croak Charlie, so she would likely prefer to avoid being on Charlie's side. Wanda has several times joined sides with the firm intention of outliving the ruler after using the side for her own ends...but she seems to be tiring of it, or at least realizing that it doesn't always go just as planned. I doubt she'll try it on Charlie except under considerable duress.
Lord Dominator wrote:

kennyj wrote:
Something has been bugging me a bit about this page. Forgive me if this has already been covered:

What if the penalty had nothing to do with the doll?

We know that Marie, as a newly-minted GK unit, has just popped into ICFYS, Ryuken'd one dude and is shooting at others. And the same truce covers Faq units. What if that penalty was from Marie's assault, and it just happened to occur at the exact same time as the doll's entrapment? After all, the casters don't know what specifically debited the treasury - they only know that it dropped 5 mil.
So, Ivan was wrong when he said that it could never have worked and was a stupid idea?


Marie killed quite a few people in rapid succession to get Power out. If the above is true, then that page had really convenient timing which strikes me as bad narrative flow.