egscomics
patreon
Parable - 12 - HD
🕑 Added 2019-09-25 22:38:13 +0000 UTCIt's tempting to have Susan tie people up in more suggestive ways while having no clue she's doing it, but it's ALSO super tempting to have them tied up in super easy to draw ways forever and ever.
Commentary
Part of me really wanted to have the bandit say "puppy sanctuary" instead of "puppy orphanage" in the last panel, as the latter makes me wonder about tragic puppy backstories, whereas the former could just be some place with a bunch of adorable puppies.
The whole point was to reference a trope of stereotypical evil, however, so I'm stuck wondering about those tragic backstories, and whether any of those puppies will grow up to be Bat Dog.
Meanwhile, In The Game Being Parodied...
The equivalent in-game moral choice would be a bit difficult to quickly portray in 3-4 panel comics while being approximately as complicated from a moral perspective.
You slaughter a whole bandit camp's worth of bandits without mercy. In that camp are two villagers, trapped in a cage! You find the key for the cage, at which point, a lone bandit appears! One you missed, and are, for some reason, not immediately hostile to!
This bandit has a proposition for you. Give him the key so he can sell the villagers into slavery, and he'll give you gold! The villagers, meanwhile, have a counter proposition in that they'd very much like to be freed, thanks.
Even if you side with the villagers, the bandit does not become hostile, and you are not expected to attack him. He effectively just goes "oh, darn!", and nothing else happens.
I have several questions:
1 - Why did this bandit think it was safe to approach me after what I did to all his allies?
2 - Why would I do something like that for a trivial amount of gold in a game that lets you get filthy rich in various ways? Fable 2 has a rent system that lets you buy property and accumulate gold every 5 minutes while playing, and a smaller amount when not playing (you better believe I'll have more to say about THAT later).
3 - If I'm really evil and want his gold, why would I bargain with him at all? I just took out all his friends, and his much more intimidating boss. He's just one more bandit, and he must have the gold on him. Why wouldn't I just take it?
4 - Wouldn't a truly evil character do as I suggested in question 3, then sell the villagers into slavery themselves? Granted, if I personally ever did that, my game would implode on account of my own hatred of slavers, but it TECHNICALLY makes sense as an "evil option".
There's so much to question and unpack about the situation that is it any wonder I went with the puppy orphanage scenario instead? Susan would be stuck wading through that nonsense for weeks.
Comments
Jordan Sam
As far as I know, most versions of Ace the Bat-Hound was never orphaned like Batman, but a few had abusive owners that fostered a viscousness by dogfighting until someone in the Bat Family adopts him and retrains him.
Chordat
1: IIRC, he was technically not a bandit, and just there to buy the villagers as slaves from the bandits. Since you killed them all, and have the key to the cage, you're now the person he needs to negotiate with. 2: Because Fable morality is incredibly tongue-in-cheek and cartoonish. Often, the Evil choices are just Evil for Evil's sake, aka For teh Evulz. I would even argue that selling someone into slavery when you have no need of the gold is MORE evil than doing for an appreciable sum. 3: See 2+1. He wasn't actually a bandit, just an Evil businessman. That said, killing him SHOULD be an option. 4: ...yeah, this is absolutely an Evil option. A more Evil option would be: Sell the villagers, take the money, enslave the slaver, sell him yourself with the villagers. The only problem with that is finding a buyer, and the slaver is RIGHT THERE to sell to.
Some Ed
A very slightly more plausible moral question would be to have one of the kidnapped villagers suggest trying up any bandits that are still alive, before binding their wounds, and then sell those bandits into slavery. Said villager asserts that their rescuer would get all of the proceeds, they'd just be making the connections to get the deal to happen, based on what they heard from the bandits. What they get out of it was the people who were going to sell them into slavery are dealt with in a more permanent fashion. It's still a really easy thing to say no to, but I have met some gamers who would take that option.
Dan Shive
That sounds like a correct way to do it with an "I" instead of "me", yes.
Stephen Gilberg
I suppose the best way would be "I, one bandit, mysteriously remain," but yeah, still awkward.
Dan Shive
"One bandit, I, mysteriously remains" sounds wrong, but it's an odd thing to say to begin with.
IvyReed
Susan would get maybe 1 panel into that ridiculous caged villager scenario before calling "CUT" and walking off the set. She and Dan need to have a chat.
Stephen Gilberg
I'm more concerned about his use of "me" instead of "I."
Fenrir
Couldn't be. Cruella'd never have them burned down: it'd be a terrible waste of fur!
Fenrir
Which would lead a villainous character to start up a torture session (assuming the bandit didn't immediately give up when the villain turned aggressive, which would be the smart thing to do in this situation: you are not a credible threat to the villain, and if the villain thinks you aren't going to share where the gold is then you have outlived your usefulness.
Matt R
Burning down puppy orphanages? Who was his employer: Cruella DeVil?
coredumperror
In answer to #3, the gold he's offering you could be cleverly hidden somewhere that you can't find it, but that he knows how to access.
coredumperror
Burning down a "puppy orphanage" is hilariously over-the-top. Also I love the construction of panels 1 and 2.
McZed
Susan + rope = arguably more powerful than Susan+Hammers.
