• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Story Monday January 29, 2018

Recommended Posts

Alright, Arthur's obviously going to give reasons why magic should remain secret and that a severe change might be the best choice, Tedd's going to have to come up with better reasons for magic to not change or have minimal changes.

I've no idea how Van would be of any help here, he'd need to come up with something to add to Tedd's argument not just echo it like what just happened but considering his age....I know Akiko's smart for being 8 (probably 9 now) but I've seen plenty of 8-10 year olds that speak without thinking or thinking about themselves rather than considering how others might feel.

I want to believe the WoM decides in favour of very minimal changes because I still fear for what a severe change might mean for Elliot and Ellen, because worst case scenario is Sirleck and Magus being stuck or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Tedd has an advantage in this argument, it is that almost every point Arthur is about to bring up is something Tedd has already heard from Edward.

Every time Tedd had to walk away from a discussion about magic with Dad probably left Tedd with one big question.  "What should I have said differently?"

Ok, Tedd.  Prove you were paying attention.  And remember, Arthur has honed his position by debating with Liefield, Politicians, TV Talk Show Hosts, and your father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

And remember, Arthur has honed his position by debating with Liefield, Politicians, TV Talk Show Hosts, and your father.

Leifeld is a Bureaucrat, a character class known more for skill in blame avoidance than in anything else. And Tedd's dad already exposed Arthur's agenda in front of Tedd, if Tedd thinks about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

If Tedd has an advantage in this argument, it is that almost every point Arthur is about to bring up is something Tedd has already heard from Edward.

Every time Tedd had to walk away from a discussion about magic with Dad probably left Tedd with one big question.  "What should I have said differently?"

Ok, Tedd.  Prove you were paying attention.  And remember, Arthur has honed his position by debating with Liefield, Politicians, TV Talk Show Hosts, and your father.

Allow me to guess some of Tedd's arguments:

- Every seer will be told of their status and purpose in the event of a severe change. If those seers decide to not keep it secret, the whole point of the severe change is undermined.

- Even if those seers are willing to be secretive, what about the people they teach? You can't control that many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Van, you do not surrender to minimum changes. :demonicduck:

If this will be like coding into an old computer, then shall be it. Let the chaos leftover commence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Ok, Tedd.  Prove you were paying attention.  And remember, Arthur has honed his position by debating with Liefield, Politicians, TV Talk Show Hosts, and your father.

Liefeld and Tedd's father already agree with Arthur, that's why they work in a clandestine branch of the government that tries to keep Magic hidden. I also don't think he's ever discussed magic with either of them on an equal footing, considering that they've been in an superior-subordinate relationship. It's unlikely that Arthur would get a chance to discuss magic with a politician who holds a divergent opinion on that matter either, since the only politicians assigned to his Department of Magic are people like Liefeld.

TV hosts are generally useless in debates and interviews, they frequently let their guests away with blatant falsehoods in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality.

Also keep in mind that Arthur's role in public was that of the "crazy of fool who believes in magic". His job was to discredit his own side in order to make the people who're sceptical of magic look good.

None of the above is going to help him here. I think he spent years coddled up in a comfortable bubble designed to confirm his beliefs and is now scheduled for a rude awakening.

It really boils down to the argument Pandora has made: magic can no longer stay hidden, humans have invented mundane means that are just as effective as magic when it comes to to causing harm - and Scarf's attempt to shoot Raven with a gun just proves that. So all a total magic reset would accomplish is take away all the good things magic can provide, such as new means of healing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur is in an excellent position for an Appeal to Force "argument": He can threaten Tedd's father's job; Tedd's access to alien technology; and possibly Tedd's, his father's, and his friends' freedom.

Of course, the Will of Magic just might recognize really blatent coercion and stop listening to the person using it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... two observations from a very very Doylist view.

  1. I doubt Tedd and Van will ultimately lose.  As I said before, it feels so wasteful to spend all this time setting up the various characters' magic to do away with it.  Moreover, these millennia-old cycles in fantasy just about always end up being broken before the curtain falls.  Magic has already said this is an unprecedented instance, at what we in the real world perceive as a very anomalous time in our history, and Elliot has laid the groundwork for Tedd to build on the latter.
  2. I also doubt that Tedd and Van will win this scene; heck, my guess'd be that Van'll be on Arthur's side by the end of his speech.  We're clearly being set up for a very compelling argument, and one I don't think Tedd is going to be able to immediately refute to Magic's satisfaction.  If we'd heard it in full prior to this point, I'd think this was likely the climax of that thread, but while we've gotten the gist of Arthur's objection from him and Edward, we're about to see it fleshed out in a way we haven't before, which I doubt will be punctured immediately, especially given the presence of an unknown third party, initially on Tedd's side, at an impressionable age.

For this reason, I expect that this scene will end with Tedd successfully fighting for an adjournment.  It's probably not something Magic wants, given its aversion to letting seers know this was a thing, but she might be able to leverage the fact that there are three of them now, plus a little "humans are social animals!" into a recess to prepare, with the rest of the eight/nine, a case that will ultimately win.  (After all, friendship is arguably more central a theme to this comic than transformation is.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WR...S said:

I also doubt that Tedd and Van will win this scene; heck, my guess'd be that Van'll be on Arthur's side by the end of his speech.  We're clearly being set up for a very compelling argument, and one I don't think Tedd is going to be able to immediately refute to Magic's satisfaction.  If we'd heard it in full prior to this point, I'd think this was likely the climax of that thread, but while we've gotten the gist of Arthur's objection from him and Edward, we're about to see it fleshed out in a way we haven't before, which I doubt will be punctured immediately, especially given the presence of an unknown third party, initially on Tedd's side, at an impressionable age.

 

This part is outright called "The Fate of Magic", and it's also well into the Sister 3 storyline. From another Doylist point-of-view, it's likely this will be resolved in this part without continuing into another part.

Whatever arguments Arthur makes, Tedd has likely heard them and argued over with his dad several times. I'm sure he can come up with something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to get a good in-depth debate at the pros and cons of magic for everyone.

Also a (sort of) explanation of why the Will of Magic is talking to the seers as a disembodied voice, instead of creating an avatar of some sort. An avatar would mislead the seers into thinking they're dealing with a singular entity, or if the avatar was a crowd of people, it would mislead them into thinking they were dealing with a plurality. Also Magic doesn't really understand people, so it's avatar(s) would seriously risk diving into the uncanny valley.

8 hours ago, Scotty said:

I've no idea how Van would be of any help here, he'd need to come up with something to add to Tedd's argument not just echo it like what just happened but considering his age....I know Akiko's smart for being 8 (probably 9 now) but I've seen plenty of 8-10 year olds that speak without thinking or thinking about themselves rather than considering how others might feel.

Van could add an emotive angle to the discussion, especially if he realizes that a severe magic change could put his mum in significant danger. If she happens to be actively fighting a monster at the time of system change, she'll lose her means to fight, which could very likely get her killed if her opponent isn't a human that will also lose their magic (or her opponent has a mundane back-up). I don't know if that would help the discussion, but Magic is an entity/collective/thing beyond corporeal understanding. Maybe a child worried about his mum would appeal to it/them/<insert pronoun here>

7 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:
8 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

And remember, Arthur has honed his position by debating with Liefield, Politicians, TV Talk Show Hosts, and your father.

Leifeld is a Bureaucrat, a character class known more for skill in blame avoidance than in anything else. And Tedd's dad already exposed Arthur's agenda in front of Tedd, if Tedd thinks about it.

Though Leifeld is not your typical build for a Bureaucrat, as evidenced by his exceptional Muscles stat. And he has been skeptical of Arthur's plan before, especially as his plan pretty much required shirking responsibility by doing nothing.

 

3 hours ago, Haylo said:

Arthur is in an excellent position for an Appeal to Force "argument": He can threaten Tedd's father's job; Tedd's access to alien technology; and possibly Tedd's, his father's, and his friends' freedom.

Of course, the Will of Magic just might recognize really blatent coercion and stop listening to the person using it...

He can't threaten Edward's job, as Edward is the head of Paranormal Diplomacy, which is not subordinate to Paranormal Investigations. He also has enough friends and connections (including Leifeld, Arthur's superior) that Arthur pretty much can't touch him anyway (Edward avoided getting fired after using potentially lethal force on a suspect that had already surrendered. And really the only reason Edward was 'promoted' out of Paranormal Investigations was because we was becoming too personally attached to the goings on). Threatening the main cast's freedom is going to run into oversight problems from Leifeld, who is unlikely to be willing to let Arthur lock up people (especially people closely connected to Edward) without a good enough reason. Arthur might be able to restrict Tedd's access to alien technology, but Tedd has uryuom friends in Will and Gill. They could potentially buy him the parts he needs to build gadgets like the TFG. And the CMD that was the basis for the first TFG wasn't acquired through official channels, but from Will and Gill directly when they needed someone to upgrade it to provide them with fully human morphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the outcome really depends on logic, then we may have the Captain Kirk solution: Destroy the judge with a logical paradox. It's really ironic that in every episode of the Original Series the CKS was used, it was Kirk who used it, not Spock.

However, I'm having difficulty in maintaining interest in this part of the story. Unless Dan wants to blow up EGS completely as in such disastrous "improvements" as the revised versions of the Original Trilogy, or denizens of the Aisle of Shame as Highlander II, Magic is not going for a severe change. The only features of interest for me are the relationship between Van and Tedd and finding out whether Arthur is simply wrong, deluded, or downright evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering if Arthur's arguments for Severe Changes may end up sounding ridiculous to later magical generations.  Like arguments against the 19th amendment to the US Constitution before 1920 or the opposition to the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

If the outcome really depends on logic, then we may have the Captain Kirk solution: Destroy the judge with a logical paradox. It's really ironic that in every episode of the Original Series the CKS was used, it was Kirk who used it, not Spock.

However, I'm having difficulty in maintaining interest in this part of the story. Unless Dan wants to blow up EGS completely as in such disastrous "improvements" as the revised versions of the Original Trilogy, or denizens of the Aisle of Shame as Highlander II, Magic is not going for a severe change. The only features of interest for me are the relationship between Van and Tedd and finding out whether Arthur is simply wrong, deluded, or downright evil.

Arthur comes across as someone who really doesn't thing that the general public is ready for magic to be completely public, even though he did come out on TV and say that it's real, he was still about the need to keep the knowledge of how easy it is to get magic secret. And the main line of logic would be that public knowledge of how to get magic would be disastrous in that there aren't any regulations set down for it's use, there'd have to be laws written or rewritten to include magic use in criminal acts, or there would be factions forming that are pro-magic and anti-magic.

I wouldn't doubt that things would eventually settle down but it's quite possible lives could be lost or billions if not trillions of dollars in property damage done during the first few years that everyone starts learning how to use magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur's rejection of magic for everyone comes across rather like "If I can't really use magic, they shouldn't either." He would have had a long lifetime to self-justify his attitude, outliving many or most of this bosses. 

Magic's rejection of magic for everyone comes across as "I just don't like it that way." It ties in with the flair for the dramatic: What becomes ordinary can't be dramatic. The argument that too much magic is too dangerous--which Magic hasn't made once yet--doesn't hold compared to the technological and ecological terrors of modern reality. The most fundamental argument against too much magic is that it could damage reality too much to recover, another argument that hasn't been made. But that's the only argument that stands up compared to the prospects of non-magical menaces like global thermonuclear war or pollution-triggered climate change leading to worldwide famine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, so if Magic doesn't make a big change, right now, then it will never make a big change again??

That means that one of the important questions right now is, "Is the current system of magic a good one?  Is it the one we want to get stuck with?"  Or would we have a good chance of the next system being a better one?  Can its inequities and flaws be fixed with 'minor changes'?  Do the Seers and the rest of humanity have zero input on what sort of minor changes are made, since their job is apparently only to help Magic decide whether to make a big change or a little one?  Would the world be better off with one magic system, forever, or with systems that change if someone figures out ways to abuse them too badly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

Arthur's rejection of magic for everyone comes across rather like "If I can't really use magic, they shouldn't either." He would have had a long lifetime to self-justify his attitude, outliving many or most of this bosses. 

I don't see Arthur as being vengeful like that, he knew he had quirks but he would have gotten to where he is if he wasn't able to use what abilities he had, just like Tedd with the glove and watches. We assumed Arthur was a bad guy because of the stance he took in not letting Cranium go out and deal with the Bulldog Dragon, but there is more to it than that.

Besides, the logic of "if I can't do it, no one should" goes beyond what a severe change would do, yeah it would clean the slate, but it wouldn't keep people from eventually relearning magic especially with seers to help with that, and I'm not just talking about Tedd and Van, they're only at the meeting cus they were eligible, there are an unknown number of other seers in the world that can still fulfill the first purpose.

26 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

Magic's rejection of magic for everyone comes across as "I just don't like it that way." It ties in with the flair for the dramatic: What becomes ordinary can't be dramatic. The argument that too much magic is too dangerous--which Magic hasn't made once yet--doesn't hold compared to the technological and ecological terrors of modern reality. The most fundamental argument against too much magic is that it could damage reality too much to recover, another argument that hasn't been made. But that's the only argument that stands up compared to the prospects of non-magical menaces like global thermonuclear war or pollution-triggered climate change leading to worldwide famine.

Magic never itself rejected it, it always based the changes on what it perceived from other Seers. Since in the past, the WoM only got the perspective of one seer whenever it changed the system, it stands to reason that the seer argued for it to remain secret for whatever reasons, probably because they felt they could control who got taught and such. I don't know what even caused the first ever system change but my guess is magic just assumed that changing was the best course of action and then it turned out seers agreed with it, like maybe it presented the first Seer with the question of should magic be allowed to be well known and the Seer said no, any time there were no eligible seers available the WoM just defaulted to what it always did. It's possible that the other half of the world's WoM asked the same question at one point and the Seer there said "Yes, it should stay as it is", same would go for alternate universes. Maybe Lord Tedd convinced the WoM to leave magic as it was in his universe?

Having 3 seers to consult is a new experience, but I imagine the options of "change or don't change" haven't changed at all and it's not so much that the WoM doesn't want magic for everyone, but that it always went with what the Seers felt should happen, this might be the first time an actual list of pros and cons for both sides of the argument could be listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

However, I'm having difficulty in maintaining interest in this part of the story. Unless Dan wants to blow up EGS completely as in such disastrous "improvements" as the revised versions of the Original Trilogy, or denizens of the Aisle of Shame as Highlander II, Magic is not going for a severe change. The only features of interest for me are the relationship between Van and Tedd and finding out whether Arthur is simply wrong, deluded, or downright evil.

I am afraid that I have to disagree in almost every particular with the above. One, a magic change will not automatically 'blow up' EGS. What has always made this story good to me is the characterisation. Hypothetically, magic changing might even be a good thing for the storyline. In fact I would say that both outcomes could be fascinating. Severe changes and hidden magic might lead to new stories and different character dynamics due to power shifting around and perhaps new spells or even new ways of casting spells. Minor changes and public magic leads to a different challenge -- an entirely new world situation as everybody on Earth will have to come to terms with the existence of magic.

Of the two above, I personally would consider option two by far the more daunting challenge. I would not blame Dan if he preferred option one; it would mean less work for him and more focus on his main characters. Consider: How would the various religions of the world react to magic? (Hint: read history.) How would the various governments cope? Dictatorships everywhere might seek to forcibly recruit mages and weaponise them as would certain of the dodgier democracies. How would society at large cope? And so forth.

The relationship between Van and Tedd might be interesting but it will barely be touched in a sub-chapter like this one. And nonetheless Van is here. I do not think he has nothing to contribute in this discussion merely because he isn't very old. In fact, he might well have a perspective most adults lack. So many adults automatically ignore the perspective of children and consider them unimportant. This is a bias that I do not think the Will of Magic is subject to.

Finally, you missed an important option. We should look forward to finding out if Arthur is wrong, deluded, downright evil or right. Yes, he has not been portrayed as very sympathetic. That doesn't mean he is automatically wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Finally, you missed an important option. We should look forward to finding out if Arthur is wrong, deluded, downright evil or right. Yes, he has not been portrayed as very sympathetic. That doesn't mean he is automatically wrong.

Much like Pandora "Box" Raven.  For most of the run of EGS she was though by many to be "The BIg Bad".  Truth was some what different.  Unsympathetic authority figures are often right.  I might go as far as to say more often right than wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Finally, you missed an important option. We should look forward to finding out if Arthur is wrong, deluded, downright evil or right. Yes, he has not been portrayed as very sympathetic. That doesn't mean he is automatically wrong.

The only way we can find out if Arthur was right is if Magic doesn't follow his logic, doesn't make a severe change, and disaster results. Then we all go into the Vault for a few centuries and... Oh, that's right. Fallout. Or The Morrow Project, which Fallout ripped off. Or Gamma World, which The Morrow Project ripped off. Or...

Story logic isn't the same as real logic. The object of story logic is to make for a good story that holds audience attention. And after that remark about a few casualties not interfering with the greater purpose, Arthur doesn't fit the story logic definition of a good guy or "right".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

after that remark about a few casualties not interfering with the greater purpose, Arthur doesn't fit the story logic definition of a good guy or "right".

In military and security iissues, leaders we hope would be "good" must make decisions about strategic matters like "acceptable losses".  At that point Arthur was taking a practical view that we can not prevent the disaster, but we might mitigate the damage if the disaster strikes sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mlooney said:

Much like Pandora "Box" Raven.  For most of the run of EGS she was though by many to be "The BIg Bad".  Truth was some what different.  Unsympathetic authority figures are often right.  I might go as far as to say more often right than wrong.

Indeed. There is normally a fine distinction between unsympathetic and outright villainous. If the authority figure is like that sadistic woman in the fifth Harry Potter book (her name escapes me just now) who is clearly abusing her power, there is not much doubt that she is a villain. On the other hand, merely being distant and authoritarian along with similar 'unsympathetic' traits might indicate that there is more to the character. For example, in the Harry Dresden books the Warden Morgan is constantly cast as an enemy of Harry out to get him. But he gradually shows traits that indicate that he had suffered so much trauma and betrayal that he had become embittered and burned out. Finally, in the book Turn Coat, we get to see a more human side of him.

3 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

The only way we can find out if Arthur was right is if Magic doesn't follow his logic, doesn't make a severe change, and disaster results. Then we all go into the Vault for a few centuries and... Oh, that's right. Fallout. Or The Morrow Project, which Fallout ripped off. Or Gamma World, which The Morrow Project ripped off. Or...

Sweetikins, if we accept that logic, we also have to accept that we can't find out whether he is wrong, either. I reject it as well as your contrived argument that we have to go into the Vault. Adding a ludicrous consequence to something you disagree with does not strengthen your case; it merely implies that you are so unsure of your position that you have to stack your argument in order to make it stand up.

7 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

Story logic isn't the same as real logic.

Isn't it? Please give me examples that will support this claim of yours. Personally I would claim that they are very much the same with the only difference being that a writer's universe must be internally logically consistent.

 

9 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

The object of story logic is to make for a good story that holds audience attention. And after that remark about a few casualties not interfering with the greater purpose, Arthur doesn't fit the story logic definition of a good guy or "right".

But that is not 'logic'. That is merely you making a grand speech about logic and then adding a claim of yours, hoping that in the confusion it would be taken for logic. If we look at the 'story logic' definition of a good guy or 'right', we enter the exact same set of problems that we have in the real world, namely ethics and morals -- and neither of these two are constructed purely from logic. In fact, many a moral dilemma that is constructed through apparent logic is actually so contrived as to merely be apologia for a particular philosophical standpoint, for example utilitarism or pragmatism.

If we look more closely at Arthur, his standpoint in the situation above is similar to that of a military commander who must decide how to act on incoming intelligence. If he acts, he can save a few lives short term but runs a large risk of giving away to the enemy that their secrecy has been compromised, potentially losing his intelligence source. If he chooses deliberate inaction, people die but he retains the long term advantage of his intelligence source remaining unnoticed in place.

Arthur, here, deliberately chooses not to commit mages against the bulldragon because ordinary cops with guns will do just as well (or poorly) as mages. Sending in police mages would be confirmation to everybody that magic is real and would add to the suspicion that it is possible to learn. And he does that because he fears the long-term consequences of committing mages. He makes this clear the moment that he states that he refuses to deliberately create an incident that might cause the change because Magic might see it as an attempt to swindle it. He has chosen a course of action that involves deliberate nonaction, not out of malice but because he does not wish to make matters worse than they are -- and perhaps because he genuinely believes that matters will be worse if he acts rashly.

This does not make him a 'good guy' or 'right', but it does make him a man caught between a number of bad choices and not seeing a good choice attempting to choose the least of the available evils. And I would hardly call him evil for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

At that point Arthur was taking a practical view that we can not prevent the disaster, but we might mitigate the damage if the disaster strikes sooner rather than later.

At that point, Arthur says that "Police have guns of their own." No police officer is shown in that incident; police only arrived after the previous incident at Salty Crackers, the Mall Cops didn't do anything except call in "Code Spooky" at the Mall last Saturday, and the neither of the two guns shown in EGS has been in the hands of cops. After that, Arthur turns his back on Cranium and adds "Do not worry, Miss Cranium. The occasional casualty will not disrupt our long term objectives. Arthur doesn't reveal he wants the Change to come until years later in our time.

 

15 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Sweetikins

Don't call me "Sweetikins." And don't call me "Shirley," either.

Before we go any further, do you really believe Dan will make magic change so much he wrecks the powers of all the characters he has so lovingly built up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

Don't call me "Sweetikins." And don't call me "Shirley," either.

Stop using stacked arguments and I will treat you respectfully. As long as you talk to me as if you think I am an idiot, I will show you exactly the same respect back.

14 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

Before we go any further, do you really believe Dan will make magic change so much he wrecks the powers of all the characters he has so lovingly built up?

Ho hum. You are really fond of stacked arguments. I suppose that next you will ask me if I have stopped molesting dachshunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now