How dare you. Vote Viscountess!
To be honest not very interesting candidates, only slightly more appealing than last year what promoted me to side on basis of a single issue. I’m not quite fond of Fingerkings someone got to teach them a lesson as I was once forced to allow myself to be possessed in order to save someone because of their scheming. Just like devils they are menace to get rid off.
You’re saying this year’s aren’t interesting??? The cat, FF, and TE?? Those candidates??
Indeed, they have little to none depth (unlike contrarian that on surface is acting like a massive troll and devil’s advocate but wants to abolish masters without liberation) and simply being unusual doesn’t make them interesting on it’s own. In addition to that I haven’t found general aim their policies all that interesting, rubbery art? (this is at best trivial issue to deal with, London has far greater issues), science that looks more like pseudo-scientific/fantasy version of paleontology that I’ve yet to see any evidence of and well war with fingerkings what I can get behind. Not that matters mayors are pretty much play any significant relevance during elections only, I went through like 3 mayors at this point and if not for card in the deck I would forget about their existence. .
It’s rather interesting that you say the candidates have no character depth, as it makes me wonder: what exactly do you think character depth is? Or have you just not been paying attention to the characters? If you don’t have much time to play or have just ignored the election, fair play. Character depth is often quantified by how invested people can get in your characters, usually because of their motivations, desires, or beliefs. Complexity often adds a decent amount of depth to a character as well. Of course this is the most popular interpretation of character depth, it is not the only interpretation.
F. F. Gebrandt is a scientist that balances her ruthless business approach with a strong personal sense of morality. She is pragmatic, future-focused, and willing to exploit those who might use underhanded means to manipulate others through things like love potions. She is the model of a ‘conscientious capitalist’ which is something that is quite rare to see. She has her own checkered past with the Masters, but has since severed her ties to them (an experience which may have shaped her morals, as the Masters are known to extremely exploitative of anyone and anything), and aims to move things in a way that would be quite pleasing for the Prehistoricist faction of the revolutionaries.
The Rubbery Entrepreneur is an extremely wealthy figure, but is completely opposed by society and the status quo. He is earnest and sincere, seems to genuinely care about his people despite what is happening at Ealing Gardens, and has surprisingly good business sense, implying that he understands our society more than we think. He has deals with the Master and runs sweatshops, but there are numerous hints that there is more going on than we know. It is possible to argue that the rubbery men do not care that their labour is unrewarded, and acknowledge that the best possible way to get representation in society is to pool all their resources behind one figure and get them noticed in a way they could never achieve alone. He is a rubbery man on a mission and while he may seem a bumbling fool at times, how do we know that isn’t a facade?
The Viscountess is the character I’m most likely to agree on the depth part, but she is also the newest character out of the three. She is feline nobility, is disparaging towards those she sees as lesser, and hates the Fingerkings. However, there are hints of a decent foundation being built. She was "saved from torment" by the Shopkeeper in Viric when she was a kitten, hinting at a greater reason for either her animosity towards either people or the Fingerkings, or the reason as to why she’s so adamant on making sure people can protect themselves.
This is an incredibly brief overview of the characters all things considered. If you personally don’t like them or find them uninteresting, that’s your sense of taste and that’s okay, but to say they have no depth is just plain wrong and self-serving. They have at least some depth. They are characters with motivations, and reasons for those motivations, that operate within the world at different levels with different approaches befitting their current station. If you think that the Jovial Contrarian has depth because he has secret intentions that go against typical revolutionaries, then you should definitely think that the Entrepreneur has depth because he maintains a similar veneer of complex intentions that can look bad or good depending on the lens you see it through.
People often say that things are flawed if they don’t like them, which is understandable, but it’s all in the interest of feeling right, rather than actually improving whatever is in question. I feel like it’s always important to remind people that just because you don’t like something it doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad and that it is okay to like something that is bad, just as you can dislike something that is good. The most important thing to remember is that most of the time what you state is opinion, and therefore variable, rather than absolute fact. Anyway, thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Character depth is essentially a complexity there is in characters personality and possession of traits that aren’t apparent on the surface. For an example a stoner that persona is that of a slacker in their personal life, yet upon deeper investigation of character they turn out to be hard and dedicated worker in their job, ie possessing qualities that seemingly contrast each other in a different settings and would be unexpected when looked at different area of their life.
Here, candidates seem to be pretty much completly what they appear to be on the surface. Ethically questionable scientist and business woman seeking to advance "science" that’s pretty much I would have expected out of such character.
Business entrepreneur allegedly exploiting his workers (totally didn’t see it in real life) and puts emphasis on promoting new form of art (also what isn’t unfrequent for this kind of person in reality). About only unusual thing is that he is a rubbery man what typicially puts him ad odds with how other members of his species behave.
And Viscount a blood knight waging a war.
Every character pretty much has motivation, some capability to reason (even if they are incredibly stupid)and and almost every single "character" operates within the world at "different levels" (assuming you mean they affect multiple areas of life, but even here I find it dubious as characters run pretty much on single issue platforms), this is essentially must for character or simply incredibly difficult, meaning those are basics that are either required for character to ba a character or simply follow under most circumstances when writing character.
I don’t need to like character to acknowledge character has depths, as there are characters I’m not fond of and yet acknowledge they weren’t what I would expect them to be from how they conduct themselves. Here I’m not fond of them because specifically they have as I’ve little to none depth running on a single issue.
edited by MaxCaulfield on 7/25/2020
edited by MaxCaulfield on 7/25/2020
So you’ve stated your definition of depth, but don’t recognise that it applies to the candidates. You seem to have not really looked beneath the surface of the characters and are judging them exclusively on what they appear to be. I don’t really need to explain the irony here. Besides, a character doesn’t have to be consistently subverting expectations to have depth.
Let’s go by through each of the candidates using your definition: a complexity in the character’s personality and traits that aren’t apparent on the surface or possessing qualities that contrast with each other in different settings and would be unexpected when looking at different areas of their life.
Gebrandt’s depth doesn’t lie in her politics. If we were to go by your definition, then on the surface Gebrandt is a ruthless business woman that sells drugs and dubious goods like love potions for capital gain. Below the surface, Gebrandt uses her wealth and business acumen to block out those who would seek to exploit others with more dangerous drugs, like actual love potions. Those who buy love potions from Gebrandt can’t out her as a fake and encourage others to make real love potions because they would then be admitting that they tried to basically drug someone against their will, and if they tried to discredit her anonymously she can easily wave those accusations aside due to her fame and the quality of her other goods. This is revealed when you do her flash-lay, which is supposed to reveal a hidden truth about the character. Ruthless capitalist on the surface, prudent moralist beneath. A stark contrast that is not readily apparent (hence why you have to dig pretty far to find it).
I believe I already mentioned how there’s more to the Entrepreneur than there appears in the other post, but I’ll try to elaborate here.
The Rubbery Entrepreneur appears to be a wealthy socialite that acts a fool, lets himself be manipulated by a Nocturnal artist, and exploits his workers. Below the surface, he genuinely desires to better the quality of life of the Rubbery Men in the neath, rather intelligently secures deals with the Masters to ensure they are protected from harm, and advances art as a means of cultural validation that will humanise them and therefore potentially give them equal footing in society. It’s not just a rich man wanting to promote art like you seem to think it is, there’s more at stake here. The former appearance of exploiting his workers contradicts with the latter desire to improve their quality of life, an unexpected contrast not found in many business moguls and one that resonates with Maoist philosophies of using industry to ascend from the status of oppressed minority. The appearance of a fool in society, and the foolishness of rubbery men in general, makes his business acumen, ability to negotiate well with the Masters, and understanding of social situations (seen by his avoidance of certain questions around the Nocturnal Artist) all the more surprising. You state that the difference in apparent and underlying character traits has to be surprising or unexpected when looking at the other areas of their life (being a rubbery man and seeming to be socially incompetent at times) to have depth, so there you are.
The Viscountess I’ll give to you. However, she is the newest of the three and we have yet to establish very much in the way of characterisation with her. We still don’t know how she ‘suffered’ as a kitten before she was saved and we don’t know why the duchess doesn’t publicly support her. The Viscountess will probably be built upon when the Parabolan expansion comes, so we’ll see then.
The reason I mentioned motivations was because depth is more than just how a character changes the more you get to know them. It’s also about how nuanced and multifaceted a character’s desires are. A character that says "I want to be recognised" is a lot less nuanced than a character that says "I want my culture to be recognised so we stop getting treated like second class citizens and getting lynched in the streets" which has a motivation, a fear that is personal to them, and a desire that relates to their life experience. You have to understand where a character is coming from in order to see where they end up. When I say the characters are operating on different levels, I mean that their beliefs and values are influenced by their social standing (upper class, middle class, lower class) which makes them seem more real or rounded as characters and informs as of what their values are most likely to be.
Interestingly, based on your definition the Jovial Contrarian, who you call a complex character, is a character that has no depth. The reason he is a revolutionary is because it is contrary to society and law, and the reason he objects to the liberation is to be contrary to the revolutionaries. He announces what he will do from the outset, because it is in his name. He will always, predictably and obviously, be a contrarian. There’s nothing more to it, really. The reason I think he has depth despite this is because his intentions are understandable and interesting: he wants people to debate so that they’ll have to independently think about what they are actually saying, which is also contrary to the concept of dogma that is rather popular among revolutionaries.
[quote=Mulligan]So you’ve stated your definition of depth, but don’t recognise that it applies to the candidates. You seem to have not really looked beneath the surface of the characters and are judging them exclusively on what they appear to be. I don’t really need to explain the irony here. Besides, a character doesn’t have to be consistently subverting expectations to have depth.
Let’s go by through each of the candidates using your definition: a complexity in the character’s personality and traits that aren’t apparent on the surface or possessing qualities that contrast with each other in different settings and would be unexpected when looking at different areas of their life.
Gebrandt’s depth doesn’t lie in her politics. If we were to go by your definition, then on the surface Gebrandt is a ruthless business woman that sells drugs and dubious goods like love potions for capital gain. Below the surface, Gebrandt uses her wealth and business acumen to block out those who would seek to exploit others with more dangerous drugs, like actual love potions. Those who buy love potions from Gebrandt can’t out her as a fake and encourage others to make real love potions because they would then be admitting that they tried to basically drug someone against their will, and if they tried to discredit her anonymously she can easily wave those accusations aside due to her fame and the quality of her other goods. This is revealed when you do her flash-lay, which is supposed to reveal a hidden truth about the character. Ruthless capitalist on the surface, prudent moralist beneath. A stark contrast that is not readily apparent (hence why you have to dig pretty far to find it).
I believe I already mentioned how there’s more to the Entrepreneur than there appears in the other post, but I’ll try to elaborate here.
The Rubbery Entrepreneur appears to be a wealthy socialite that acts a fool, lets himself be manipulated by a Nocturnal artist, and exploits his workers. Below the surface, he genuinely desires to better the quality of life of the Rubbery Men in the neath, rather intelligently secures deals with the Masters to ensure they are protected from harm, and advances art as a means of cultural validation that will humanise them and therefore potentially give them equal footing in society. It’s not just a rich man wanting to promote art like you seem to think it is, there’s more at stake here. The former appearance of exploiting his workers contradicts with the latter desire to improve their quality of life, an unexpected contrast not found in many business moguls and one that resonates with Maoist philosophies of using industry to ascend from the status of oppressed minority. The appearance of a fool in society, and the foolishness of rubbery men in general, makes his business acumen, ability to negotiate well with the Masters, and understanding of social situations (seen by his avoidance of certain questions around the Nocturnal Artist) all the more surprising. You state that the difference in apparent and underlying character traits has to be surprising or unexpected when looking at the other areas of their life (being a rubbery man and seeming to be socially incompetent at times) to have depth, so there you are.
The Viscountess I’ll give to you. However, she is the newest of the three and we have yet to establish very much in the way of characterisation with her. We still don’t know how she ‘suffered’ as a kitten before she was saved and we don’t know why the duchess doesn’t publicly support her. The Viscountess will probably be built upon when the Parabolan expansion comes, so we’ll see then.
The reason I mentioned motivations was because depth is more than just how a character changes the more you get to know them. It’s also about how nuanced and multifaceted a character’s desires are. A character that says "I want to be recognised" is a lot less nuanced than a character that says "I want my culture to be recognised so we stop getting treated like second class citizens and getting lynched in the streets" which has a motivation, a fear that is personal to them, and a desire that relates to their life experience. You have to understand where a character is coming from in order to see where they end up. When I say the characters are operating on different levels, I mean that their beliefs and values are influenced by their social standing (upper class, middle class, lower class) which makes them seem more real or rounded as characters and informs as of what their values are most likely to be.
Interestingly, based on your definition the Jovial Contrarian, who you call a complex character, is a character that has no depth. The reason he is a revolutionary is because it is contrary to society and law, and the reason he objects to the liberation is to be contrary to the revolutionaries. He announces what he will do from the outset, because it is in his name. He will always, predictably and obviously, be a contrarian. There’s nothing more to it, really. The reason I think he has depth despite this is because his intentions are understandable and interesting: he wants people to debate so that they’ll have to independently think about what they are actually saying, which is also contrary to the concept of dogma that is rather popular among revolutionaries.[/quote]
It doesn’t, at least as far you’ve haven’t provided any evidence of that and presented your own interpretation that has no basis in evidence that they do have.I haven’t done flash lays as I didn’t know they provide additional info about candidates I’ve however exhausted all reputation content and one fate locked content of my chosen candidate. I’ll have to verify on my own assuming I will menage in time.
Either way I will speak assuming as everything you’re saying is true.
That’s nonsensical scheme, as it assumes that person buying such potion will buy it in order for someone to fell in love with them and therefore would be unable to expose her.Yet a simple researcher and scientist would be able to purchase it with intention of testing whether it works and out her scheme and fake product. So either it’s really irrational scam with misguided aim to prevent ie actual love potions (I’ve played FL for three years and I haven’t or at least can’t recall any such legitimate item so I’m dubious of it’s existence) or I call allegedly good intentions to question and she more likely blackmails and uses other means to silence anyone who would reveal her profiteering by scamming people.
I’ve not gotten impression of most of what you said from Rubbery Entrepreneur from the data I’ve obtained (the best I can say about him is that he promotes development of art among rubbery men what as I’ve expected). Obviously rubbery Entrepreneur isn’t a fool, I don’t know from where you get that, given it is known to be a successful entrepreneur so more correct word would be acting like an an eccentric but’s a given it is pretty much from the species that is pretty much behavioral bizarre to humans. On what data that it negotiated protections of rubbery men with altruistic tendencies? I know of said greater emphasis on protection (not very effective one mind you as you still can kill them) from rubbery card new option but that’s not indication of altruistic intent as given at very least allegations thrown at it there is plausible reason to suspect self-interests (such protection benefits himself) in this assuming it had hand in this.
Viscountess you agreed with, needless to say whether she will have a depth or not in the future is not much of relevance in terms of depth of candidates in this election.
Of course, having additional layer in motivation instead simply stating what you want but now why you won’t is less complex at least on the surface than goal with provided reasoning as for why you want something. Point is this is not in case here, at least it wasn’t reasoning provided. There is in fact reasoning stated for entrepreneur for desire to advance rubbery art ie more or less to obtain additional unique form of art and chance for London to experience of development of rubbery art but that’s not something I wouldn’t have expected, it’s fairly common trope for rich exploitative magnate take interest in "exotic" form of arts. Meh, adhering to a stereotype hardly adds to depth, or at least makes for an interesting character, as you know what to expect even if there is some truth to stereotype in which case would make character more realistic still not necessarily one with depth or interesting.
As for contrarian not really, as revolutionary you would expect him to back up liberation as this is pretty much major scheme, you could perhaps see him argue against idea of liberation but not act against it. You can’t really be contrary in a decision making as any decision you’ll make still will support some decision that’s taken by someone else (unless few people left) even if that decision is not to make a decision (ie doing nothing), if you mean by it’s actual meaning ie opposition of position taken by majority then you would expect contrarian to actually be for liberation as I heavily doubt it’s majority’s position within society and so contrarian would still support majority position within society he lives in. So it doesn’t really make sense. Even assuming it’s his actual motive.
[quote=MaxCaulfield]That’s nonsensical scheme, as it assumes that person buying such potion will buy it in order for someone to fell in love with them and therefore would be unable to expose her.Yet a simple researcher and scientist would be able to purchase it with intention of testing whether it works and out her scheme and fake product. So either it’s really irrational scam with misguided aim to prevent ie actual love potions (I’ve played FL for three years and I haven’t or at least can’t recall any such legitimate item so I’m dubious of it’s existence) or I call allegedly good intentions to question and she more likely blackmails and uses other means to silence anyone who would reveal her profiteering by scamming people.[/quote]It’s very possible that it might be a nonsensical scheme, but that doesn’t change the fact that what we were debating was appearance vs. intentions. Here’s the Flash-lay results that presents the love potion, and Gebrandt’s own response to the accusations. You can decide for yourself whether or not her intentions were moral (even though the flash-lay result is called "The Profitable Moral Decision"). Also, if you’re really going to argue against the hypothetical plausibility of such a scheme in a game where a space-crab is stealing cities to collect love stories for the sun you could argue that she, a known specialist in Katapleptic Toxicology, could make chemicals complex enough that you couldn’t differentiate it from any known substance. The only way to prove it’s fake is to take it yourself or have someone else imbibe it. And even then, why would anyone have any reason to believe you? F. F. Gebrandt is a powerful, and capable, woman. But hey, that’s conjecture.
[quote=MaxCaulfield]Obviously rubbery Entrepreneur isn’t a fool, I don’t know from where you get that[/quote]"The Tentacled Entrepreneur’s grasp of etiquette is superficial […]. Having refused to give up its hat, coat, and cane, it perspires […], and shakes your hand for the entire length of your conversation, leaving glistening deposits behind." The Entrepreneur fronts his business and attends society parties. Yet, he seemingly hasn’t picked up much in etiquette. Seemingly.
[quote=MaxCaulfield]On what data that it negotiated protections of rubbery men with altruistic tendencies?[/quote]Here is the Flash-lay for the Entrepreneur. It states that Mr. Fires has a desire for the Entrepreneur to use his factories differently. The Entrepreneur refuses. He manages to establish protection from the constables for whichever rubbery men he wishes. There is nothing that implies the Rubbery Entrepreneur is using the constables selfishly. The card also mentions that "The constables have done more to protect the rubbery men" which implies a general increase in their security. I also don’t think you actually kill the rubbery man anymore, you just extort the constable, though I do need to check that again.
[quote=MaxCaulfield]There is in fact reasoning stated for entrepreneur for desire to advance rubbery art ie more or less to obtain additional unique form of art and chance for London to experience of development of rubbery art but that’s not something I wouldn’t have expected, it’s fairly common trope for rich exploitative magnate take interest in "exotic" form of arts.[/quote]I’ve written this twice now, and I’ll write it a third, even though you seem to have ignored me each time. There is more to this than the art. It is a means to an end. If you read the Flash-lay I presented previously, you now know that it is the Nocturnal Landscape Artist that is pushing so heavily for rubbery art, while the Entrepreneur really just wants to protect the rubbery men. The Nocturnal Landscape Artist promises that the rich and powerful patrons will aid those efforts, presumably in getting people to accept rubbery art and culture. The Rubbery Entrepreneur is not your usual business magnate.
Anyway. I honestly don’t think I’ll be able to convince you at this rate. Ah well, can’t win them all. But I do thank you for taking the time to explain your views thoroughly, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Hopefully I didn’t come across as too antagonistic, but I do really need to stop writing essays on the forums. It’s kinda clogging up this thread. Best of luck to your candidate, and stay safe wherever you are.
edited by Mulligan on 7/25/2020
1.That’s it? That doesn’t really contradict her appearance nor does confirm her intentions. Narration in itself seems to call it a convenient excuse, one that doesn’t make much logical sense within stated motivation as I’ve explained. Appealing to supernatural (ie not existing in real world) elements of setting doesn’t mean things don’t have to make logical sense, e.g. that invisibility exists in specific setting doesn’t mean that characters shouldn’t notices all activities made by someone invisible unless it’s explained by additional circumstances such as those characters being deaf and blind. As far I know there is nothing in the setting that would prevent some academic or independent researcher boosting the scheme that’s unless she actively would silence any such individual. That there doesn’t seem to be some sort of actual love potion or at least available only seems to reinforces further idea that’s poor excuse for profiteering, which isn’t really character depth but simply character engaging in scheming accordingly with what appears to be on the surface.
- What does not adhering to some of social standards have to do with being a fool? This text makes claim it refused to give up hat, coat and cane ie making conscious decision whether informed by etiquette of London higher society or not, this is something eccentric could simply do.
3.Here it does indeed seem there is more to entrepreneur and makes some sense that, I thought there was as I didn’t access flay lays, I will conceded that in case that character has more depth than from what I’ve gathered so far.
-
I’ve "ignored" (well, not really questioned) what you’ve said because prior to that post you didn’t provide evidence of your claim and now you did I’ve no issue with stated motive.
-
That’s not much of relevance whether all revolutionaries support liberation, as it’s irrelevant to point i’ve made, Actually, contrary means opposite in this case taking an opposite action/goal from desired/pursued, term contrarian usually is defined as taking or preference to opposite position in argument to stance of majority, sometimes as someone who does opposite of majority… Nonetheless, as I’ve explained you can’t really be contrarian in action in sense you oppose what majority is doing because in some sense you will likely support majority within specific group or sub-group. As I’ve outlined take an action that supports liberation and you will take action against majority of society if not humanity but in agreement with probably majority of revolutionaries , take action against it and vice versa happens. So basically acting contrary for sake acting contrary doesn’t even make logical sense as any action would be contrary to some goal, by that logic everyone would be a contrarian (by established criteria) because everyone would act against goals of majority within some group of people. Love of playing devi’s advocate doesn’t equate to non-commitment in terms of views and action, Contrarian is a contrarian because he loves to argue even if it involves arguing against popular opinions but doesn’t mean he isn’t committed to personal views. As for why Contrarian hasn’t done pretty much anything of relevance, that’s pretty every single mayor (at least 3 I’ve went through) as I’ve initially explained they don’t really do anything of relevance and if they do they do it’s not knowledge accessible to players.
.
-
Sure, that’s why I said I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not her intentions are really moral. It’s up for interpretation. Reading between the lines and interpreting is an important part of any narrative, as is the suspension of disbelief. The reason I appealed to the supernatural setting is because some things in the story won’t make sense as we see it in our world. It is reasonable to say that it is not perfectly logical, but many things in stories aren’t. Hence the argument, "Why didn’t they ride the eagles into Mordor." Why take that long, epic, winding journey when an easier solution exists. "Why didn’t they just grab a gun and shoot the murderer," because then there would be no horror story. It’s largely for the sake of the narrative being presented. Also, the love potion not being a physical item in game doesn’t have anything to do with its plausibility and in no way reinforces any of your points. To make such a statement is to assume that the writer of the game must gamify every aspect of the narrative and never mention anything in fluff that they will not integrate, which severely handicaps the narrative.
-
Someone who doesn’t learn is a fool, or acting a fool, especially when they actually do seek to present themselves as a respectable part of that society. He makes an effort to integrate himself, but repeatedly fails at basic things like cutlery and etiquette. Because you keep asking for my evidence and never present any of your own to back up your statements, provide me with evidence that he is simply being eccentric.
3 & 4. Thank you.
[spoiler]5. And I quote:
[quote]As for contrarian not really, as revolutionary you would expect him to back up liberation as this is pretty much major scheme, you could perhaps see him argue against idea of liberation but not act against it.[/quote]With the evidence of the Anti-Liberationist groups I provided, you can, in fact, see that he might act against the liberation because there are revolutionaries literally doing so. Also, with the increasingly pedantic nature of this debate you seem to have just looked up the difference between contrarian vs. contrary on google.
[quote]Actually, contrary means opposite in this case taking an opposite action/goal from desired/pursued, term contrarian usually is defined as taking or preference to opposite position in argument to stance of majority[/quote]I know because I just did that, and the first result on google is extremely close to what you state, just jumbled around a bit.[quote]As nouns the difference between contrarian and contrary is that contrarian is a person who expresses a contradicting viewpoint, especially one who denounces the majority persuasion while contrary is the opposite[/quote]Of course the words mean different things when comparing them as nouns, the noun person means something different to the noun people if you look at it at a literal level, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t related. The Wikidiff, if you clicked on it, states that contrarian is derived from contrary. And to close off any further pedantry, someone taking a contradicting view literally means taking the opposite view. A contrarian is a person who typically takes an unpopular position that most people disagree with. A.k.a the opposite view. Therefore, considering the derivation and the definition, a contrarian (noun) is a person who typically takes a contrary (adj.) position. While it most often refers to opposing the majority it can also mean someone who is serially contrary, which is why the Wikidiff and Wikipedia says ‘especially’ in regard to disagreements. It isn’t just the majority a contrarian can be contrary to (especially meaning, in this case, being the most common case but not the overall rule). I also explained why it doesn’t matter if you’ll be siding with a majority group by being contrary to another, different, majority group. Because you’re seeking to be contrary to a specific group in that point in time. If you’re being contrary, you are representing or advocating an opposite. The opposite of whatever is currently presented to you. Your argument that everyone would be a contrarian because everyone is taking an opposite view to the overall majority at some point or another is a logical extreme. A contrarian is someone who tries to be, or is more often than not, contrary, and typically sees it as a point of character. The vast majority of people aren’t intentionally contrary, even if they end up with a contrary viewpoint. You can, in fact, be contrary to everything, it just means you don’t believe anything you say in the moment that you are arguing it, can change your view on a dime, and are just doing it to challenge or annoy people. Sound familiar? The Jovial Contrarian interrupts your boardroom meetings to state that maybe he should change his vote in retrospect because he’s now, inadvertently, siding with the majority, but he doesn’t because that would be exceedingly annoying to deal with in the game itself. "He takes whatever line no one else agrees with." Of course it doesn’t make logical sense for a person to do that, but people aren’t perfectly logical and they don’t have to act as if they’ve been written by robots, and I’ve already stated before that he does it to provoke debate, not prove a specific point (If he was trying to make a point it would have to include logic, but he’s not therefore it doesn’t). He argues for the sake of argument itself, not action. That’s why his election platform in the third election was the opposite to his platform in the first election. He went from supporting radical freedom to supporting the constables and stability. He was contrary to his initial platform, and wound up doing neither effectively because doing it wasn’t the point as much as arguing for it. You keep talking about my evidence, but where is your evidence that shows how the Contrarian has steadfastly committed personal views? How can you prove that he isn’t a revolutionary to snub society, and an Anti-Liberationist to snub the revolutionaries? Also, Sinning Jenny established a (fate-locked) school during her term that you can use to grind favours and implies that she did commit herself to bettering others in society within the narrative even if you can’t personally access it. Feducci didn’t really do anything aside from blow up the mayoral residence and try to get married to the Captivating Princess, but that’s understandable because he was a Presbyter spy. The Jovial Contrarian’s only thing of note was a chair. Virginia opened up a spa of which a branch can be built in Ealing Gardens and she announced the Ministry of Upper River Development which kick-started the railway content. The two mayors who sought to actually change something did so, while the other two were really just there to create chaos.
Your first point has some merit, but the fifth point just sounds like you’re trying to be right by analysing definitions in their individual state when they would otherwise be connected and creating logical extremes that ignore the importance of intent. If I just took the opposite stance to everything you said, with little care as to whether or not I was right or wrong or even contradicting myself, I would be being needlessly contrary to you and, as such, a contrarian by intent. Regardless, I’ve expressed my desire to end this debate before because I felt as if was not going anywhere and now I’ll end it definitively. It has strayed too far from the point of this thread, which is to discuss the candidates of the 1898 election, not the Jovial Contrarian. I brought up the Contrarian to try to prove the flaws in your original definition of depth and critique of the candidates, because you stated that he is a character that has depth and that depth lies in complexity and hidden characteristics when really he only does one thing: argue, but it’s now somehow become the focus. I’m glad you saw my point about the Entrepreneur, and I’m sorry I didn’t provide evidence sooner. But we really have to stop this here. Please. The word contrary is going to lose its meaning soon. And on that note, OTHATAROOTH and vote Entrepreneur![/spoiler]
EDIT: Compressed in spoiler tags for future ease of thread viewing
edited by Mulligan on 7/26/2020
I believe the long-term effects of the Viscountess’ governing drastically outweigh the combined impact of her rivals. The reasons which motivate me to vote for the Viscountess are definite; in other situation that wouldn’t influence all of us I would’ve kept them to myself, but now, I must share them with you:
1) there is no urgency in electing the Entrepreneur, nor is it critical for Mrs. Gebrandt to take the authority to create monsters. The Viscountess, however, made it clear that danger is coming from the dreams: [color=6633CC]"But it’s not just the threat I’ve seen in dream, in the Is-Not. I’ve seen more Fingerking-possessed creatures here in the Is. It’s getting worse, here and there"[/color]. Contentwise, the Viscountess will make London take the war to Parabola - enthralling, to put it mildly.
2)F.F. is convinced that the Entrepreneur is receiving behind-the-scenes support from the Masters: [color=6633CC]"If he isn’t backed by a Master, then I’m your aunt"[/color]. It doesn’t sound like spiteful calumny once you consider [color=CC0000]Mr. Fires[/color]’ pursuit of expanding industry. Similarly, it is known that Mrs. Gebrandt’s past conceals dependence from the Masters - you can ask yourself if it’s easy to break ties with the Masters.
Explaining why to be a Masters’ puppet for a Mayor is shattering for the whole concept of democracy is excessive. We are here to fulfill our will, not Masters’.
3) Mrs. Gebrand’s purpose of filling London’s streets with resurrected beasts would be more suitable for the Ruberry candidate, who is better equipped to deal with Shapeling Arts. As for The Tentacled Entrepreneur, his purpose of spreading art is so out of character that it’s hardly believable. The majority of his supporters are bohemians, who attend his speeches only to be amused by the contortions and mimes. Thusly, he has no real support among thinking Londoners.
P.S.
I’ve been completely intellectually honest in portraying my conclusions. We must realize that we are not voting for some "characters" - we are voting for the scenario of our future.
Either you weren’t attentive enough to her position, or you purposely distort it. Hopefully, it’s the former. The Viscountess warns about War: she says it’s inevitable and the only choice we have is where will it happen - in London or in Parabola. According to her - and there’s no reason to consider her lying - the danger is coming to London: "But it’s not just the threat I’ve seen in dream, in the Is-Not. I’ve seen more Fingerking-possessed creatures here in the Is. It’s getting worse, here and there. I must lead the resistance. We have to fight back."
I don’t hope to change your opinion, even though some counter-arguments, if present, are welcome.
I think you’re right that the value of the Viscountess’s campaign lies in the increasingly looming threat of the Fingerkings. Things are certainly coming to a head, and the Viscountess could be a powerful leader against those forces. Of course, that’s assuming that you oppose the Fingerkings. A surprising amount of people think they can use the Fingerkings to their advantage, and I admit that I’ve been tempted to ally with them at times simply because their existence spites the Judgements (which is a bit petty, but you know). There are also those who would probably side with another powerful force behind the glass: The Queen of Air and Darkness. For these people, it’s far less of a concern that the Fingerkings are arriving in our realm. After all, they’re the ones bringing them here.
I used to vote Viscountess, until I realised that I preferred the potential of social reform that the Rubbery Entrepreneur might bring. The urgency lies in a group that typically faces great prejudice finally getting an even footing. No, it doesn’t make us safer in our dreams, but it does make the rubbery men safer in our world and solidify them as allies. The Viscountess mentions that she doubts the rubbery men do not dream, instead they may enter parabola in a different place to everyone else potentially with the aid of another power. If we can learn more about that, perhaps there are other ways we can control and protect our sleeping conscience. And while you state that the Entrepreneur does not have supporters among thinking Londoners, I think the Dean of Xenotheology might have something to say about that. You say it’s out of character for the Rubbery Entrepreneur to value art, but I think you should read this. He cares about creating art—after all, he apparently created the Cloud-Filled Sphere which is beautiful enough to bring people to tears—but not in the overbearing, slightly pretentious way of the Nocturnal Landscape Artist. The interesting thing here is that he places particular importance on this (functionally worthless) piece of art because it is his. Does that mean he doesn’t consider his overwhelming wealth his? It’s something to think about. This wasn’t really an attempt to persuade you, it’s more for the sake of some light thought. If you disagree that social reform is as important as protecting ourselves against nightmares, that’s fine and I’ll be just as glad if the Viscountess wins the election. It seems we’re poised for an interesting year in Fallen London.
A politician threatening us with external enemies to get elected? What could possibly go wrong?
They’re not “external” enemies, you can see the effects of their meddling everywhere.
That’s quite a peculiar way of interpreting this quote by the Viscountess: "In all my time as guardian of the Viric Jungle, I have never once seen a Rubbery person on their way into a dream. Not even once. What does that tell you about their nature?".
Or maybe we are just talking about different statements?.. Some explanation would be met with gratitude.
P.S. The information you brought in the form of a link is appreciated, it does shed light on the election for me. I admit that one of my points is disproven.
edited by Unreliable Narrator on 7/26/2020
[quote=Eugenie Antontsev]That’s quite a peculiar way of interpreting this quote by the Viscountess: "In all my time as guardian of the Viric Jungle, I have never once seen a Rubbery person on their way into a dream. Not even once. What does that tell you about their nature?".
Or maybe we are just talking about different statements?.. Some explanation would be met with gratitude.
[/quote]
I believe Mulligan is referring to this quote, which unlocks in the Viric Jungle after asking the Viscountess about Rubbery Men in London.
OK, a politician threatening us with enemies in our dreams. What could possibly go wrong? :)
As a Silverer I would have voted for the Viscountess but the Viric Shopkeeper is definitely involved with the Fingerkings; so why are the two friends and is there more to the war than she says.
I like the Tentacled Entrepreneur but once again I am worried about the company he keeps. I don’t like the Nocturnal Artist or Mr Fires.
So my vote goes to Science.
edited by reveurciel on 7/27/2020