Jillian isn't just a unit, though. She's a Royal and a CWL, so she has higher stats, plus she has a few levels under her belt. 3 turns of not eating may be enough to croak a level 1 stabber, though. Or a rammerweiner. Those things are skinny.
Or this sensation of Hunger may just be a spell effect from Wanda. Right after Parson was summoned, she mentioned having a Headache spell. A Hunger spell wouldn't be much different. Units may typically not experience the sensation of hunger.
It could be that they still have to pay her upkeep or she de-pops, but actually giving here the food is not required.
Food is said to reduce upkeep costs, so maybe not eating the popped food makes a unit even more expensive.
Also, since Wanda apparently cast a spell before leaving, that would support the view that it is "fake" hunger, or maybe just enhanced.
But who is paying this upkeep? Is it Faq, since she is one of their units (CWL no less)? Or does it come from her purse since she is functioning as a mercenary/barbarian at this point, having a separate upkeep account for herself and the previous Wrecd? Or is Haffaton providing the upkeep since she is their prisoner? Maybe even Wanda since they are in her Garden, which seems unconnected to the rest of Erfworld.
Hah! Excellent. Yes, this is exactly my interpretation of what happened. She received her Protection From On High IN-WORLD as opposed to meta.
Once again, I have to congratulate Rob on his truly excellent understanding of human nature. The techniques used by both Wanda and Jillian are very true to life. Especially Jillian's. Sometimes you scare me a little bit, Rob.
Before I pull out my soapbox, I need to preface this. When I refer to "torture", I mean any attempt at coercion or conversion using physically or psychologically damaging techniques. To me, there is a qualitative difference between skillful use of psychology and physical discomfort to gather information, and outright torture as normally understood. One works, the other does not. Both are ethically questionable. I won't touch that debate on this one. I disapprove of "enhanced interrogation" on strictly Utilitarian principles, those being it doesn't booping work. Where to draw the line, however, is something that's way more than just 50 shades of gray.
Ineffective torture is very easy to write (and to do). It's easy to strap someone to a chair and do painful, horrible things to them. Yes, eventually you will break anyone with those techniques, but you cannot trust any information obtained using that method. Effective torture is very, very difficult. Wanda's techniques are textbook. Jillian's reactions to and tactics for resisting torture are also scarily true to life. The fact that Rob wrote both of these so very well makes me a little bit afraid. A sign of a great writer.
I hate to be disagreeable. But I disagree with your statement that torture doesn't boopin' work. I think that has to be qualified to some extent. I will definitely agree that torture is more suited to "interrogations" aimed at confessions or getting someone to say specific things. What I mean is its chance of success are based on what your win condition is. Such as is your goal to get the truth, or get a specific utterance. "I'm a witch" or "I was paid by X to do this." If truth is irrelevant to the goal.
Also, if you have a situation with someone uncooperative in a more mundane and more effective interrogation AND (Huge and) you have a relatively low cost way to verify the "facts" you're given AND the time with which to verify torture, re-torture, verify, ad nauseam. You could probably have something going for you. But all things considered not great. But hey, if you have a large group of people that know a fact, and a large group of disposable minions, you could just off one at a time till you got to the truth, if you're a horrible monster.
P.S. I do personally find torture abhorrent, I just you know feel it's important to think about things from every angle.
Nowhere has Marie explicitly lied. She sees Wanda causing the fall of Faq, but not necessarily how. She sees Wanda in the employ of the single greatest threat in the area. It's not hard to put two and two together. She just never expected Jillian to actually make it come out as five (by taking Wanda home with her).
At least, that's the benign and most straightforwards explanation. Marie could be lying through her teeth, (for the greater good, or lesser evil at least) but I highly doubt that.
If you think about it, that list should perhaps include her original side, Goodminton. It might have held out a lot longer if she had never been popped...
You are correct. Let me clarify my statement. Torture is one of the most ineffective methods of getting useful, reliable, actionable information from an unwilling subject. If you are just aiming to brainwash or break people, then it works fantastically. Under the conditions I'm used to discussing this particular subject, the win condition is always to gain said information. As such, that end condition went without saying, thus I didn't say it.
There's actually some very effective conventional interrogation techniques that exploit the ability to verify the information given by the subject. If you have the ability to do that (or you have a set of information that you have already verified), it's quite easy to use that to persuade the subject that it is in their best interest to tell the truth, since you will know when they are lying, and can thus punish them using conventional methods accordingly. You don't NEED torture for that.
My respect for you just went up a great deal. Thank you for your thoughtful reply!
Also, if you have a situation with someone uncooperative in a more mundane and more effective interrogation AND #Huge and# you have a relatively low cost way to verify the "facts" you're given AND the time with which to verify torture, re-torture, verify, ad nauseam. You could probably have something going for you. But all things considered not great. But hey, if you have a large group of people that know a fact, and a large group of disposable minions, you could just off one at a time till you got to the truth, if you're a horrible monster.
There's actually some very effective conventional interrogation techniques that exploit the ability to verify the information given by the subject. If you have the ability to do that #or you have a set of information that you have already verified#, it's quite easy to use that to persuade the subject that it is in their best interest to tell the truth, since you will know when they are lying, and can thus punish them using conventional methods accordingly. You don't NEED torture for that.[/quote]
I agree completely, I think the problem with a lot of things like torture is that while they can work, they're rarely the best option. People just see it as the most effective and efficient route to success. Much like war seems like the best way to conquer, but the spread/influence of culture can do the same thing with less risk and less atrocity, albeit at a slower pace. You do however have the chance at getting something more permanent and stable.
Violence is fast, and the right tool for some occasions. Self defence, protecting someone else, your child loosing in a little league game. It is a rather blunt and awkward tool that gets far to overused.
And violence used improperly often has consequences, the law, rebellion, or in the case of torture a subject who knows they're as good as dead deliberately trying to cause you as much grief as possible before they expire. It's one of those things that can backfire perhaps taking away the credibility of your argument kind of like the examples of a few brave souls killed in America's witch trials in a public fashion, by horrible methods just robbing the "just and holy" argument from their killers.