Talk:Parson Gotti

From Erfwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Portal Speculation

The entire thing appears to be dedicated to speculating that Parson is a natural caster. Are natural casters capable of using, or better yet, understanding scrolls? Are they capable of casting out of discipline too (Parson had a tiny, but existing chance of casting Dirtamancy)? We haven't seen any evidence against it, but we haven't seen any evidence for it either (surely Charlescomm would supply its Archons with scrolls if it could), and it overall seems kind of unlikely. Without the natural caster spec, all that leaves is "It was because he's a caster, but an immunity to disbanding may have helped", which is a bit redundant. Is there any support for a natural caster being capable of these things, or can we delete the speculation?-- 20:28, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Parson as a light unit

It is known that Heavy units cannot fly, but I was under the impression that Heavy units cannot enter tunnels either, but isn't Parson in the tunnel with Sizemore in this comic? Could it be that Parson couldn't fly because either he was trying to change zones off turn or maybe Garrison units can't fly? -- 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Who controls Parson?

I've seen some debate over who actually Parson most obey, Wanda or Stanley. I haven't seen this comic mentioned before but in the last panel of it looks like Wanda is issuing a command that P. should use Tool, not Lord. What do you think of that?

-Nope. Wanda's comment "you'll only use that word again," is a response to Parson's question, not a command. She means, "If I tell you how bad it is, you'll only swear ("use that word," boop) again."


I removed a sentence that someone added suggesting that Parson was disbanded without being "removed from the world". Sorry, man, but we do not know the effect of Disbanding. We do know that there is a Barbarian state. Disbanding may be a process whereby a unit becomes a barbarian. But that it disappears? Disbanding in our world merely means leaving the group you're in and wandering off home, not death. We do know that units are required to run farms, so disbanding to leave the military can mean the unit stops being military and becomes rural. We just do not know what the term means, and so using the term must be open enough to cover all possible definitions.
--Kreistor 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem to me that Sizemore would be all that alarmed about being disbanded (if they crossed Stanley's path after he told them to get out of his sight) if it just meant becoming a barbarian. SteveMB 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A barbarian without money to provide upkeep? Being a barbarian is not easy. Parson, as a barbarian, may die from starvation fairly quickly. In teh MK, they've got friends that may help them out, but that's not for Parson, as we saw. I'm not saying that being a barbarian is easy: it's hard, and a lot harder if you lack any units to support you, and have no reputation you can use to gain mercenary employment. Further, he'd be an unallied unit, in the midst of thousands of unled troops. Auto-attack rules come into effect -- he will die if disbanded inside GK, but not from the effect of disbanding, but from basic sword thrusts. --Kreistor 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think either Sizemore or Parson would have any trouble quickly striking an alliance or turning to a side if they went barbarian. Also, as noted above, Sizemore could probably just go to the MK (if he could make it to a portal... not sure how that would go). Sizemore definitely seemed in fear for their lives, and Parson surmizes in a Klog that Stanley has the ability to essentially kill him with a thought. Together, this seems to me enough evidence to guess that Disbanding is equivalent to death (or at least appears that way to the denizens of Erfworld), though we don't know the exact mechanics of how it works. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 10 2009, 17:51 (UTC)

Disbanding came back again, this time while "still working for Stanley". Snip as being a purely theoretical state of existence unsupported by the comic. If he had disbanded, he would not be on Side, and he would be getting auto-attacked by any unlead unit. Parson is still on GK Side. Oh, yeah... Stanley wouldn't have to pay his upkeep anymore, he'd have to do that himself, and that would get noticed. --Kreistor 06:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, exactly...

Why exactly is there a book 1 plot summary on Parson's character page? Seems really out of place. --Jerichothebard 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Right now half of Parson's wiki page is a recap of TBFGK, and a third of what's left is dedicated to someone's pet theory that he is a signamancer. I don't want to be rude and delete a whole bunch of stuff from the wiki, but both of those really belong somewhere else. The recap should be added to Plot Summary, and the signamancy stuff should really be removed entirely. It's mostly just mentioning something that parson has done, and then putting [i]sign[/i] after it. It could just as easily be carnymancy (he seems to be bending/breaking rules), shockamancy (he is shocking people with what he does), thinkamancy (he is thinking really hard), mathamancy (he is calculating odds, even without the bracer), luckamancy (some of plans work out really well, then a part of them hickups, like when the good luck from a luckamancer has to come from somewhere else on the side), predictamancy (he is predicting what the enemy will do), foolamancy (he largely relies on tricking his enemies), etc. Sorry for my vent there, but it's annoying seeing such a wild speculation put in the wiki like that, and taking up about 1/6th of his page on top of it.


Removed "Garrison" from Parson's special abilities. Though he has not left the city yet, there is no reason to assume now that he can't. I would be much surprised if any Warlord could be a Garrison unit. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 22, 2009, 17:59 (UTC)

I agree with that decision, but on the subject of Garrison... it may be a temporary thing. Bogroll is a Garrison unit, but nothing physically stops him from leaving GK. Garrison may be added when assigned to the Garrison, and not a permanent state. So Parson might have Garrison for the moment, but not later. We will see.--Kreistor 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This looks confirmed after update 009. Also confirmed is that Parson had been a Garrison unit during book 1. Why, I'm not sure. Certainly he hadn't needed to leave... and I guess going into the Magic Kingdom isn't the same as leaving the City hex. However, I removed the move: 0 from his stat box, because even though we know he was a Garrison unit, they were still uncertain whether he had a move or not.Maybe he does and it's taken to 0 while he's a Garrison unit, or maybe he doesn't and isn't really restricted at all. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 29, 2009
Yeah, I called that one, didn't I? ;) I was suspicious back when Stanley ordered all field units to garrison before he vacated the city. There had to be an advantage of some sort. Oh, and check Bogroll's stat block in the Klog. Garrison goes on the Move line, not Special. --Kreistor 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, dude. :( Don't put move 0. If he had move 0, he wouldn't get tired walking around the city. Until we know otherwise, Parson doesn't have a move value. Commander I. Heartly Noah
Hrm... I'm pretty sure that we can say for certain Garrison=Move 0. But I'll compromise for the moment. Just note that No Erfworlder gets tired by walking in a hex, Garrison or not. It's one of Parson's exceptions, so not evidence of anything about his technical stats. --Kreistor 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If he does, in fact, have actual and complete stats, his move would currently be 0. But we don't know that does, so we don't know that it is. If he were un-garrisoned, his move would no longer be 0, but what would it be? He'd still be moving exactly like he does now. Commander I. Heartly Noah
He has difficulty moving around one hex, it's unlikely he can get to another. Plus, given all of his similarities to Bogroll, it seems likely that the unit type he is, is more likely not to go off around the world when he's controlling everything from the capitol. I think he should be considered garrison until proven in the story otherwise. - 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
But he hasn't attempted to leave the City yet. There's no reason to believe he's incapable of it until we see some evidence. Oh wait, yeah, he did - when he went through the portal to the Magic Kingdom. Not a long hike, but definitely out of the hex. His similarities to Bogroll? You mean that they're both tall and fat? How about that other twoll who was out in the field, and therefore clearly not a Garrison unit? Isn't he more similar than Parson? And to Parson, come to think of it, since they both have two eyes. Plus, getting around so laboriously is supposed to be evidence of him not fitting the rules, not of him being constrained by them. Maybe, instead of having a Move value, he can move as far as he's physically able. Oh yeah - Bogroll is a Garrison unit and doesn't get tired, so why is Parson's poor fitness indication that he's a Garrison unit? And the idea that Parson would be best served by staying in the city is no evidence that he can't leave. And all of that aside, we should default to assuming a special circumstance (like having a particular Natural Ability) is not the case until shown otherwise, not the other way around. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 23, 2009, 01:43 (UTC)
Additionally, by breaking the hold of the Thikamancy in the Summon Spell, might he have begn the process of freeing himself from the game mechanics? As a player, he needs to remove the limitation of operating inside the system. He has to operate from above it. He may, ultimately, have to breach a Hex Wall. --Kreistor 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We are allowed to speculate, yes? I hereby speculate that he is a garrison unit, and he may also potentially be a noble. When asked by Stanley on page 24, he is officially named Lord Hamster. Ansom later claims that this title means nothing, but Ansom is not infallible. Given Parson's quick adapting skills and his ability to attempt to metagame (when he meets Misty, he's trying to) it could be said that he's doing things better, and potentially levelling (without visible stats, nobody can tell) both are things Ansom has said nobles do better. - NemFX 06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between Speculation and Pet Theories. If you want to pull somethign out of thin air, try it on the Forum first, and then if there's some positive feedback, consider putting it here. But if it's not got any support at all, there are a lot more people that disagree that can remove it than will put it back. Fantasize as much as you want, just not whee people are supposed to come to answer their questions. --Kreistor 06:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a place for pet theories on the wiki, as well.--Doran 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In this case, "Lord" is short for Chief Warlord. Not all warlords are nobles. Noble titles include things like King, Prince, Duke, and Count (Slately, Ansom, Nozzle, and Vinny Doombats). These men are Rulers, Warlords, and Chief Warlord in addition to having their noble/royal titles. We don't know Parson's stats and we don't know if he's levelled. Moreover, we don't know any other Warlord's stats, so comparisons are impossible. Parson's main asset is his mind, which is not governed by stats anyway. Commander I. Heartly Noah June 29 2009
Speculation proved. Point. - NemFX 02:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Now, now... this isn't a competition. Noah was right to remove it at the time. Garrison being a temporary ability was completely speculative, and was not appropriate for Prop C. There's evidence now, but not then. This is, and always will be, a work in progress. --Kreistor 03:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Speculation - Stronger than a Wiener-Rammer, though it may have already been weakened by the effort of breaking through the wall. Further speculation; Parson can now swear because he's a declared Player, as opposed to just another in-game unit. - NemFX 05:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sword provided "Combat", so can't say anything for certain about Parson's personal prowess. (Give me a sword and let me swing at John Cena's neck... when it comes off, does that mean I'm stronger than he?) Declaring oneself a "player" is only useful if there are other players, and they agree to your inclusion. Haven't seen any "players" yet. Parson has never been "just another in-game unit". He has always been different. He tires. He has no visible stats. He can't see Unit stats. He can be deleted just for being disloyal. He suffered from much greater Natural Thinkamancies (not really natural, they come from spells, but similar effects) than normal, popped units. Fact is: we haven't seen him even try to break rules himself personally. He never tried to walk through a Hex Wall (something I would have done first day, just to prove there was a hex wall at all.) He may have been less restricted than he thought all along, but more restricted in different ways. Parson threw the sword away: that could have broken the Thinkamancy. He may have merely summoned the mental will, or the anger to overwhelm the Thinkamancy. There are many options: all that is important is that he broke it, somehow. The why may be revealed someday, but most authors wouldn't, leaving it as a great unknown, not even deciding so that in the future, if they need to use something like it, they haven't restricted themselves. --Kreistor 06:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question- Stanley mentions here that Parson might need to be "promoted" from being a garrison unit. Is this possible? Would he be able to gain move if Stanley promoted him, or due to his unique conditions is it unlikely that Stanley would know how to promote him? I think it's safe to assume that regardless of whether he's able to or not, Stanley currently doesn't want to promote him. 11:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that question's half answered. Now we just need to figure out how much move he's got. - No one in particular

Parson as Deus ex machina

Someone had mentioned that Parson bares the resemblance of a Deus ex machina plot device: i.e. A plot device whereby a seemingly inextricable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new character, ability, or object. In the case of Parson Gotti, he is the "unexpected" object (although summoned the actual result of the spell is fairly unknown) and solves the "Gobwin Knob" problem (eventually). I am not entirely in agreement but I can see their point. --Darakat 10:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding his bleeding...

It's mentioned twice that Parson bleeds Erf-b1.5-p025Same-site.PNG Erf-b1.5-p032Same-site.PNG , however it's suggested that Erfworlders do not bleed WoT-4047518. This could lead to/support some good speculation regarding Parson and how he is different from other inhabitants of Erfworld; as such, should it be listed on the mainpage, and if so, where and how? Sorator 11:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Parson the natural Carnymancer?

I'd like to offer up the idea that parson may be a natural carnymancer. This (similar to natural signmancer) would allow him to enter the Magic Kingdom, but also explain the way he sees through and exploits/abuses the rules of the game by using them in unconventional ways; similar to explanations describing his natural signamancy allowing Parson to learn more from something's appearance that other inhabitants of Erfworld in a way that seems magical, Parson's novel interpretation and modification of the rules governing Erfworld seem otherwise magical to normal inhabitants.

Additionally, Charlie also seems to be from the 'real world' and is described as a Carnymancer.

Finally, Carnymancy involves a lot of trickery and deception, if Parson is a natural Carnymancer, he may be able to deceive the normal senses and appraisals of those around him so that they believe he is what he appears to be (a warlord, a heavy unit, a garrison unit, etc.) but yet he is able to act differently. Stanley even notes Parson's ability in Book 2 Text Update 58 "(Parson) did whatever he wanted, and screw the rules," bending the rules seems to be Parson's greatest power, even more so than his ability to interpret signs.

  • I consider both this and the "natural signamancer" section to be excessively overwrought fancruft. Erfworlders tend view all natural forces as forms of "natural magic." Things like flight, arithmetic, life, clothing and money are just forms of "natural magic." So it annoys me to read the meandering and pointless argument that Parson observes the world and the declare that it's Signamancy (persumptuous cart-before-the wagon stuff). Vinny observes the "Signs" of Jillian becoming a ruler, but it doesn't make him a Signamancer. Nor is Jack a Carnymancer because he occasionally does something clever. Oh hey, Parson does arithmetic! I guess he's a mathamancer too. I won't dismiss that possibility that Parson is some kind of special caster unit out-of-hand, but the "evidence" for these pet theories are getting ridiculous.

-- 19:26, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

  • We already know Parson is a caster of some sort, LIAB Text 59 proves it. What I want to know is why so many people are convinced he's a natural caster, to the point of having to come up with convoluted explanations for why he can cross portals. Archons are natural casters, and have we ever seen any of them use scrolls? No, the only units that seem able to use scrolls are true casters.-- 00:10, 3 September 2013 (EDT)
    • That page proves exactly nothing other than that he posed the hypothetical possibility of being a Caster to his math/prediction bracer. And he doesn't even get to cast the scroll before being bonked on the head. And for all that, it is a suspicious scroll provided by a Carnymancer. Until we know more both about the scroll and what was going on with his bracer, the page tells us nothing. --DVL (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Parson can cross portals. Janis called him a Hippiemancer. The bracer calculated a non-zero chance of him casting Dirtamancy to put out the inferno. Under those circumstances, a non-caster should have a zero chance. Parson unlocked an extra sense and intuitive sense of magic. For at least that moment, Parson was almost certainly a caster. The abilities of Carnymancy are vague and difficult to define, but I seriously doubt it would cut all that. And even if he could, why would Charlie want to trick Parson into thinking he has or out right grant him the ability to cast Dirtamancy? That gives Parson an out other than the scroll he tried so hard to get Parson to use.--ManaCaster (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That text update specifically says hypothetical. Also, Bunny has told us later on that remote orders require Juice so Overlords, Kings and Chiefs all have at least some Juice. Therefore, it's possible that all units technically could cast but they lack a suitably sized juice reserve, and the knowledge of spells (like a stabber trying to use a bow). Maybe Rhymeamancy can get around the Juice restriction and make it theoretically possible for ANY unit to cast a simple dirtamancy spell.Knavigator (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2017 (EST)
      • This is old. Yes, I've seen the updates proving me wrong. Parson is definitely not a caster in any shape or form, but has, like any living unit, a tiny probability of successfully casting a spell.--ManaCaster (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2017 (EST)