Book 4 - Page 158

The Moneymancer spots a phony...

Book 4 - Page 158
Comic - Book 4 - Page 158

Recent posts... (See full thread)
Merilynne wrote:
kaylasdad99 wrote:
Here, have some shmuckers for saving me the trouble.

Thanks. :) Normally, I'd have just assumed it was a typo and skipped over it, but since he mentioned "the show," I thought he might actually be confused.

Yeah, he's an Aussie; walking around upside down all the time, all that blood rushing to his head is bound to have an effect...
Merilynne wrote:
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Merilynne wrote:

<Sigh> "Columbo" was a television series starring Peter Falk, of Princess Bride, as a detective. It wasn't particularly brutal. "Columbine" refers to the Columbine High School massacre, where 12 students and a teacher were murdered in 1999. It's a well-known reference in the U.S., but probably not as much outside of our borders.

I'll fess up: I just thought it would be funny to conflate the two; and that I mentioned the page number incase people didn't know what I was conflating it with.

(I just had to break after that sigh)

Since there is nothing "funny" about Columbine... yeah, I'm FOE'ing you now. You're not worth my time.

You're probably right to do so; he's such prolific poster, though (and he gets quoted so often), that you're probably going to find yourself reading a lot of his stuff anyway.
Goshen wrote:
Citizen Alan wrote:
Metallicat wrote:

What hope does TV have here? Benjamin is aware of the attack, but can he stop it in time? Even a quick attack on Bill might not stop a magic trap kill. I hoped that Ben could spot any trap in Bill's casting, but either Bill is good enough to fool him or Charlie helped.

One minor but potentially interesting detail -- we're about to find out if Moneymancers have any offensive capabilities at all beyond the basic Hoboken.

Maybe Benjamin can hoboken the amulet string. Doubt it's that much of a precision tool, though, more like a blunt instrument. Still, Cesar might survive it.

Yes, shoot the victim to save his life. Classic move.

Maybe Moneymancy has some tricks to pull on jewelry? Sort of like making gems, but in reverse?

We don't really know the rules for magic items, but they can be destroyed.

Erfworld doesn't seem to have generalized countermagic. No dispel magic, remove curse, or antimagic Shields. So no simple spell to disarm the trap. Maybe Weirdomancy might be able to change that, or carnymancy.
Merilynne wrote:
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Merilynne wrote:

<Sigh> "Columbo" was a television series starring Peter Falk, of Princess Bride, as a detective. It wasn't particularly brutal. "Columbine" refers to the Columbine High School massacre, where 12 students and a teacher were murdered in 1999. It's a well-known reference in the U.S., but probably not as much outside of our borders.

I'll fess up: I just thought it would be funny to conflate the two; and that I mentioned the page number incase people didn't know what I was conflating it with.

(I just had to break after that sigh)

Since there is nothing "funny" about Columbine... yeah, I'm FOE'ing you now. You're not worth my time.

But there is something funny about mixing up words. (*sigh* to self: you try to confess your intent when the guilt builds up and...)

Honestly wouldn't have confessed if you hadn't given such an annoyed sigh.

kaylasdad99 wrote:
Anomynous 167 wrote:
Like seriously, if people don't voice their problems then I risk getting Foe'd by everyone.

Well, you have to admit, that guy you have for an avatar does look like a bit of a douche...

Yeah, I figured it'd be a step up (and a way to stop me from going) from going "I'll get you next time, Gadget" in the event I get banned......

Though now, I guess you're right that I should retire Alvin.

edit:*introspective sigh* Better to be thought an idiot and silent, than to open your mouth and seem an honest deceiver.
JadedDragoon wrote:
Carl wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:

I think they would have to be compelled to attack... because otherwise, any sane person would want the city to be taken. They would actually help the "attackers" if they could.

Sane in the conventional sense and erfworld have at best a loose relationship. We might thing being trapped eternally in a city is a terrible thing, Most erfworlders probably wouldn't care except in the sense that they wouldn't want to be in that situation because it means their side fell.

I think it's a bit more complex than that. Again, I don't believe in subjective morality. Subjective _understanding_ of morality... sure... but not morality itself being subjective. And what we are discussing here fits with that as well. Ultimately morality comes from our human natures. We want to build communities. We want to belong. We want safety. We want companionship. We have a number of fundamental desires that are indelibly "human." And the things that rob us of that make us angry or sad or afraid. Thus we define things which rob us of what we fundamentally desire as "evil" and the things which help us achieve our nature's drives "good."

But different cultures disagree on the details of how to accomplish those goals. And I think that's what Erfworld really is in this case... just another culture. One that, like any other, is shaped by the circumstances it developed in. In a world where war is unavoidable... where life is almost disposable... the need for companionship, belonging, community, and all the rest would necessarily give rise to a different set of behavioral rules that fits the perceptions and experiences of Erfworld's culture.

And we have seen many examples of this. From Maggie valuing Parson's stupid world moral sensibilities so much she falls in love with him for them... to Ceasar's musing agreement with Parson's thoughts on the responsibility of Cheif Warlords to hate war. These characters in Erfworld clearly have the same human drives we do. The only reason their morality has developed differently is that their perceptions on what is and isn't how the world works are different from ours.

And I believe the human desire for intellectual and emotional stimulus would apply in the case of being trapped eternally in a city hex. While I acknowledge that, apparently, simple rank and file units demonstrate this desire _far_ less... as in the case of Stanley and the Jetstonian Pikers... commander units like casters and the warlords of TV have shown they do in fact desire something to occupy their minds when boredom threatens... from the philosophical arguments of Old Faq to the war games between Parson and Jack to the study and research into other disciplines by Sizemore to Bunney and Bill's (and Maxwell/Wanda's) research into giving dolls life to Wanda's keeping of the memorial garden... and on and on and on the examples go.

And, other than the dolls, molls, and bats... TV is composed almost entirely of commander units...

Very late getting back to this due to one thing and another so this will possibly get forgotten. But IMO your both hilariously right and hilariously wrong at the same time.

Morality as we look at it is a product of 2 general groups of effects. Hardwired imperatives stemming from our DNA. The way we respond to children as a species is a huge example of this. Where programmed on a genetic level to see all young children as cute and seek to protect them.

At the same time however not all species will share the same pre-programmed imperatives because it is supremely unlikely that 2 species will be genetically identical in that respect. It's probable even within humans there's at least a small amount of drift amongst normal humans, and there's definitive proven differences in the case of genetic defects in the brain or body hormone system and physical brain injuries can mess with this as well.

There's no law of physics that influences what is and is not morale. Morality is absolute only with absolute consistent programming. And Physics says that isn't possible.

This is your first strike against morality being an absolute concept.

On the other hand a very large amount of what we use to determine our morality is cultural, you can see the effects of this most visibly in the more criminal types of young abuse victims. Many of them display what we call and consider serious mental health issues because their definition of what is and is not moral is completely messed up compared to the cultural norm by the imperatives the abuse has created in their mental programming.

You can also see the same in some other cultures, mostly isolated modern or ancient cultures. That have a completely different way of life.

All these aspects of our Morality are provably not fixed by anything other than cultural bias, now our hardwired genetic programming can and will limit the range of acceptable cultures, but that still leaves room for enormous variation. And where nowhere near done separating genetic from cultural in psychology, as an aside.

So once again your assertion that morality is absolute runs into reality where it has been proved that parts of our morality system are not.

Lastly, whilst i haven't quoted it i know a subsequent post of yours has claimed that Erfworlders are humanlike. This is probably not so. Whilst many erfowlrds have an issue with getting killed, (and they're really fussy with their terminology), we've seen that they have absolutely no issue on average with killing other. This is very different from humans who have a hardwired do not kill rule. That hardwiring does allow exceptions, (or rather other stronger imperatives can overpower it), in defence of self and our family unit. And some of those are hardwired and some are cultural, (you can see the cultural in play in many violent cults). But even then as a rule humans have a pretty strong aversion, it's somthing that militaries go to great lengths to instill with varying success in their troops, and actually doing it tends to really mess people up.

The fact the Erworlders can kill with so few qualms and a not a sign in most cases of a mental health issue from doing so to speak of is one clear example of Erfworlders having completely different programming built in, (never mind the cultural differences).
DukeofTuring wrote:
TimeBot wrote:
Ace Hardware seems to have inherited the signamancy of the Jetstone princely line, and the Dollamancy of his Mother, Holly Shortcake, which Ace himself interpreted as a Sign from fate.
I agree with most of what you're saying. Inheriting signamancy has been discussed, but I don't think I've seen signamancy's place in Erfworld's magic system broken down like that before. That said, let me point out that Holly died before Ace popped, probably at least a few turns earlier if they had already had a parade in her honor and started reworking their side's strategy to function without a dollamancer.

Really hope that Transylvito at least survives somehow so that we can get another example to see if this works or not with Don being croaked. That, and see how horrible the half turnamancer half vampire heir turns out. :?

Edit: Go Go Gadget Spellcheck!
Adept wrote:
Skull the Troll wrote:
JadedDragoon wrote:

In an evolutionary context, we desire sex because it produces children and keeps the species alive. But in a behavioral context, we have sex because we desire sex... not because we desire children. We never evolved a desire for children.

That last sentence is pretty wrong. Many billions of people have an evolved desire for children. Aside from that it's pretty easy to find this desire stated in literature going from everything from The Handmaids Tale to the Old Testament.

You are mixing up cultural conditioning and evolutionary traits.

Incidentally there is now a selection pressure for specifically wanting to have children, as reliable birth control is decoupling sex and procreation.

There are forms of adequately reliable birth control which were well known in antiquity, Most of all, while not technically a form of birth control, as long as human infants have been incapable of caring for themselves, parents have had the option of simply abandoning an unwanted child to the wilderness. In both classical Greece and ancient China, separated though they were, this practice was widespread and persistent enough for mythology to crop up around it, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the myths in question have little else in common, which would tend to undermine the idea of a primarily cultural origin.

Here's a study (well, extensive discussion at least, the really hard science is behind a paywall) showing that parental grief upon the loss of a child has a hard-coded genetic basis, with little or no room for cultural variation: ... xperiment/

If your genes can tell you exactly how sad you're supposed to be, crunching numbers on the dead kid's age and gender through a fiddly database of reverse-engineered hunter-gatherer parenthood and morbidity/mortality demographics, if evolution has essentially provided you with a cheat sheet of pre-computed answers for every possible permutation of Sophie's Choice, one that's measurably better calibrated for the environment of ancestral adaptation than to the industrialized world, I think those same selfish genes can probably also somehow manage to make you want a kid at all, by some mechanism that's entirely separate from sex drive. Mission-critical functions demand redundancy at every step.
Dear future reader, if you somehow make it this far, don't look at this before you read the next page:
Spoiler: show
Burley wrote:
We were so focused on finding out what the golem is going to be like (Aztec?)

Hope I'm not ninja'd by now: This is an Atlante from Tula, state of Hidalgo, Mexico. This particular site is pre-Aztec, related to Teotihuacan, where the famous pyramids of the sun and moon are (just north of Mexico City). Reached its splendor between 900 and 1000 A.D. All of these nations spoke Nahuatl, so Tlatoani still applies.

Bigger pic here

Edit: I clicked on the wrong tab and published what would be a spoiler to a future reader that obsessively reads all the comments (ahem). Tagged it as such.
Sure, but we didn't see that until page 304. ;)
greycat wrote:
Sure, but we didn't see that until page 304. ;)

:oops: yep... tried to delete the post but no permissions. Clicked on the wrong tab.