April 9th, 2008
Field of Battle
(291 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading ...Here’s another oddly-shaped comic. I’m going to regret this when I have to lay out book two.
(291 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5) Loading ...Here’s another oddly-shaped comic. I’m going to regret this when I have to lay out book two.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Excellent. Just discovered your comic and have been enjoying catching up to it. Who hasn’t been frustrated when first learning the rules of chess - and ending up with lines of matched pawns everywhere. “But he’s right in front of me!”
April 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I love how ominous the last panel is, and the ‘living’ chess aspect. I occasionally act out living chess (because I’m that much of a nerd, yes). Mostly we make it insane to entertain little kids - insults, illegal moves being taken back, thrown ping pong balls. In one game pieces kept moving right beside the king and being taken out by him. (With his bannerpost, actually.)
April 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hmm. Based on what I’ve been reading lately, a lot of popular atheist literature, I saw this as perfectly representing the idea that we “rationalists” are stopped dead in our tracks in fighting unreason by the demand that we give automatic respect to theists (especially them cooky fundamentalists) and their positions because of the “how dare you criticize my religion, I’m insulted!” stance they always take. I’ve never been much of a chess fan.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Why do they have shields and guns?
April 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Wow…How shockingly aggressive you are Richard. What’s wrong with people of faith? I believe in God, and I never said you couldn’t believe whatever you wanted. Why cant people who believe in a god (any god), be allowed to believe? Why do you have to fight against our unreason (its faith, faith is by definition without reason)? There are a lot of us (people with a faith) that don’t have a problem with you not believing, and yet you assume, because the loud ones say it, that we do have a problem with you. The only problem we have is when people like you start denying us our right to freedom of religion.
-Bill
April 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
It took me a minute to get this strip, but when I finally did, I died.
And they have guns and shields because they can and because it makes them look really really awesome.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I love the look on the pawn’s face - priceless.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Wow. What a completely unprovoked and unrelated (to the comic), attack from “Richard.”
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Hey you been getting better at making guns since the Technology Fairy one…
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
you’ve*
April 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
It’s bad off-topic metaphor day! And this is coming from another atheist. Politics and religion…
April 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Now this is great stuff
April 9th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
@Bill:
By those same standards, you have absolutely no reason to voice out against 9/11 as it was merely people of faith doing what they believed their holy book told them to do.
You can’t attack them for doing something wrong - because they believe their book is the true word of Allah and his word is all we should follow. By their standards they’re doing what’s right, if you attack that you’re attacking their religious beliefs and thus being hypocritical.
So, in the end, we should allow all the murders and attacks on innocents be allowed because they believe in Allah and Allah’s word, and no one should question that.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I like this one. Especially the disbelieving look on all the pawn’s face at the end. Oh, I just noticed the checkerboard pattern in the grass too. Nice.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Sigh…I think this has nothing to do will politics or religion.
In chess, a pawn can only capture/kill another piece/unit when he is 1 square diagonally from it. He is mocking that the pawn can’t just walk right up to the enemy and kill him; he has to be diagonal to shoot.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Great strip… one of the best in a while.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
They.. have… guns with wooden barrels… cool! And shields! I want one. And the iron bra of the queen is a splendid touch.
Chess, being a great game of strategy, has always bothered me by being detached from reality. It’s possible to imagine a knight maneuvering across the battlefield, a rook (this should be heavy cavalry) charging, even a bishop running for his life and sermoning enemies to stop his madness or risk anathema. But pawns make no sense with their diagonal capture. It’s the simple folk, who would simply poke at the nearest foe, especially if right in front of them.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:12 am
First: fantastic comic.
Next: @ Nibien (and Richard) and Bill
On “reason”, used here seemingly in the vein of the Enlightenment ideal of rationality: all parties demonstrate a somewhat unsophisticated conception of human knowing. Regardless, it’s true that faith closes what might be called an evidentiary gap, which is what I think Richard is more precisely alluding to.
While I don’t want to get into First Amendment bullcorn, consider that what most interpretations (legal) really boil it down to is “tolerance.” Also think about the fact that tolerance as a concept in no way implies liking something, since it assumes you’re tolerant of something that is inferior to what you yourself possess. And this is situated in a constellation of laws etc. to which it is not superior or subordinate, leading me to Nibien…
You’re a tool. Being tolerant doesn’t mean being uncritical. Would you prefer the systematic use of the term “critical tolerance” instead? You don’t have to condone violence just because it’s parading under the guise of religion, especially when it’s a minority distortion of the tradition. Consider what’s going on with the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints right now.
Humanist values along with the majority opinions of religious groups fall down on the side of preserving/protecting life. A passing awareness of international affairs would acquaint you with the fact that most Islamic polities don’t promote terrorism, as violence, while associated with the early history and expansion of Islam (compare the crusades for an example in rather broad strokes), is not a component of modern practice.
You’re also conflating textual literalism with traditional interpretation (that is, how the tradition makes the texts signify vis-a-vis, uh, life now) and practice, I think. Books don’t “tell” you to do anything; a text is something one interacts with and activates particular meanings from, so you can’t boil it down to the book and away from the groups and individuals involved. Don’t underestimate the gift of the Protestant Reformation (facilitated by nascent Enlightenment ideals no less!) and the trickle-down Reaganomics of Western culture. If only the British had had the balls to civilize those barbarians before they gave up their colonies, eh?
P.S.
The only thing no one should question is your faculty for un-reasoning.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am
This is an example of the very best of SCP, beautifully drawn with a joke that is both subtle and intelligent. Top class Kevin!
April 10th, 2008 at 5:06 am
I normaly not comment, but because i see one religion, most worses, start again fighting other religions, i must intervene. Yep, the most worses religion, which is reason at these days to all suffering and pain in world. Atheimist. Yes, it is religion, because atheist believing here is no gods or anything else. Also they believe breeding is way to live forever. Want hear more? Or do we just can stop fighting? I asking, before i starting bringing examples which proves atheimist is worses religion at days of science.
And for Kevin. Keep going, even if some atheist showup, but they! You can always make comic from them ^^
-Grey-
April 10th, 2008 at 6:30 am
SCP is usually good but this one is just brilliant. I love the technique of visual punnery, where it is the pullback and reveal in the last panel that makes the whole thing work, while the text plays a subtle supporting role. And this is an outstanding example. Thanks.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Richard: you’re a smug prick, Nibien: you’re an idiot, Grey: you’re illiterate, Bill and Mr. W x: stop encouraging them.
Kevin: Great comic, I really like the way you did the pawn’s helmets, and how you drew some variation into the different pawns rather than making them carbon copies of each other.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Absolutely Great Strip.
The pawn looking over the top of his shield is still making me laugh as I write this..
grrr.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I think your first frame is really well done, the guy looks ready to kill. The emotion is conveyed very well!
April 10th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Well, my comment had the exact reaction I expected it to.
I’m not the smug prick that “Bartleby” thinks (quite the contrary) and I’m not attacking anyone’s beliefs as “Bill” (Bill, you most certainly *do* have Freedom of Religion, something I agree with, btw; I also have Freedom from Religion, but that’s a subject for another area) suggested. You are free to think and believe as you wish. I would *never* seek to prevent someone from having and expressing a religious belief. Bill, you simply took a position that is far too common. Light-hearted criticism does not equal censorship.
The point of my comment: We are all free to interpret everything we see and hear using whatever experiences and faculties available to us. Some people chose to take my comment as an attack, and others saw it for what it was.
Dangit, I totally misspelled “kooky,” as well. Oh well.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Aww, he doesn’t get to shoot, but with ‘certain rules’, at least the other is not going to shoot him.
I enjoyed that, it made me giggle. By far the funniest moment of my day. (:
I really like how you drew the clothes on the pawns.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I don;t see where you people get religious messages from this…
April 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
There are no religious messages. Richard just felt like trolling. Stick to the fundies forums if you feel like being a dick, Richard. Having freedom of Speech and religion is allowed, but not when you just go out of your way to attack people because you feel like growing an e-penis.
Also, I like the mix of shields and guns. If people were shooting at me, I’d want a shield too.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Ah, i really forget trolls. They are another so sad peoples. Loser who cannot say anything face to face. Very very sadly. So, Richard if you feel bad about those religions, please, be free talk about it. We listen and maybe somebody of us can help you. I understand, if you cannot accept Christ to your heart, but don’t worry. He accept YOU..
-Grey-
April 10th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Noted, Bartlby.
Also, I never thought about why the other pawn wasn’t taking aim at the black pawn? Or cowering under his neat-o shield?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:13 am
In response to Nate, who said,
“Why do they have shields and guns?”
If you were in battle, and you knew people would be shooting at you, would you choose to hide behind something, or rather stand out there like a fool ready to get shot ? I know that I (and most people) would choose to be behind something that would keep me from being penetrated with a bullet.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:35 am
To Halceon:
The pawns can only capture from an angle because they are holding shields. Being the “simple folk” you say they are, they are only capable of holding the shields directly in front of their bodies. As such, they are unable to attack that which is directly in front of them because the blows would be deflected by their own shields.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Thank you, Bill, Bartleby, Grey, etc, for proving my point.
I may be wrong, but perhaps the reason they have both shields and guns is that it represents modernity (rather than being literally about chess) and that every side to every conflict/argument has their own peculiar “shield” for defense. Debates and wars of ideas are expected to have a common ground, a rule set that allows reasonable discussion to happen with balance for each side. However, as I was alluding to in my original comment (and perhaps I was thinking too abstractly for some), sometimes the sides are not balanced and sometimes the players aren’t even aware what the rules are.
@ Grey: You and I could certainly have discussions about anything you’d like, but this comments section isn’t the place for such a potentially long, and perhaps dull, conversation.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:07 am
I like the bishop dude wagging his finger.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:10 am
I just noticed the castle on the side of the page representing the rook, that’s awesome!
I find the flow of this board very interesting. I understand Richards analogy, though I wouldn’t have come to that conclusion, and I remind everyone that he prefaced it with “Based on what I’ve been reading lately” This statement brings in to play how he was looking at it from another biased perspective, this perspective ignoring the chess perspective as “I’ve never been much of a chess fan. :D” Therefore his statements are very related to the comic, and barely aggressive at all.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Richard, maybe I misread you original post, I didn’t see it as lighthearted criticism at first. Tone doesn’t come out very well in a textual medium I don’t know. I guess I mainly felt that your use of “stopped dead in our tracks in fighting unreason” was somewhat aggressive. I mean, I don’t mind you saying I’m wrong in my religion and that science, or reason, is right. . I feel that believing all other religions are wrong though they still have the right to exist (so please, PLEASE, EVERYONE, don’t take that the wrong way, though I believe my religion is right, I know I may be wrong) is an integral part of actually BELIEVING in something. Its just you may not have used the words you intended. You make a good point about defenses. I read your post as being aggressive, so I went on the defensive.
LOL, I guess I really did prove your point…Thanks for pointing that out to me, I’ll try to be more careful next time (I don’t want to come off as looking like a religious nut).
Nibien, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that just because a few bad people take their religions to the extremes that all religions do? You really need to learn what a religion is. Talk to Richard, he probably knows.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
It’s a comic about chess, and Richard is just trolling. People who already have a chip on their shoulder are taking offense. Lighten up, its teh intarnets!!!
April 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
what i have been taught about the pawns in chess is that they are the equivalent of peasants. they have a big shield and a spear. the shield is directly in front of them which makes the space in front of them un-attackable. where the sides around the shield would be open to maneuver the spear around. least thats what i learned. the guns part makes same logical sence to me. dont want to shoot thru your shield.
funny though, very funny.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:26 am
The comments have left me damn near speechless. What is wrong with you people arguing? It’s about chess. No need to get into a deep, philosophical debate about religion. It has nothing to do with the comic. Seriously, you guys need to relax.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Haha, I love this - especially how the white pawn hides behind his shield in the last frame.
If I was that pawn I would have wanted to ‘accidently’ shoot straight ahead, as with so many times in chess. Claim a misfire, what can the other team do? The pawn will be dead.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Wow, that is a first, people apologizing for misunderstanding a statement -claps- this may be the only time I see that.
Now to the piece, it looks great, actually makes me think of the revolution somewhat, but regaurdless, looks great.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Richard FTW!
Richard’s original post was correct. Look at the arguments that have been bought to bear against him, case-in-point.
“What do you mean it’s illogical… it’s faith!”
“Everyone is entitled to their own religion, unless they live next door.”
“Faith will save us from hell” <- HAHA belief in nothing will save you from something that doesn’t exist…
Maybe the definition of faith could be updated to read “Illogical and unreasonable belief with no supporting evidence”.
Troll THAT.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I think that is the definition of faith, except that some people do often have reasons for believing in their faith (be it taught by parents or through some personal experience).
Also, I don’t know who exactly you’re quoting here. If you’re quoting me, you are completely misunderstanding me, just as I misunderstood Richard when I read his post.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
My farts stink.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I lol’d at the comic. Then I lol’d harder at Grey’s posts.
Forget I foreign caveman am. Caveman find internet. Babel fish translator then find me does. German convert to english and post then comic comment to.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Haha good stuff.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Vivid, but altruistic. Ironic (not). Well I’ll say it– Brilliant !!!!
— Winston
April 30th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I love the black pawn’s outfit, very Les Mis. What does the black army look like - do the king and queen have heads?
PS - if you ask me, the whole religion/science debate is just one big stalemate… (see what I did there?)
May 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I saw!
By the way, good for Grey to take the time to try to find the words (IN A LANGUAGE THAT IS FOREIGN TO HIM!!!or her) to tell Kevin he was reading the comic. Trashing him for his english skills is fairly ignorant, considering…
May 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“They.. have… guns with wooden barrels… cool! And shields! I want one. And the iron bra of the queen is a splendid touch.
Chess, being a great game of strategy, has always bothered me by being detached from reality. It’s possible to imagine a knight maneuvering across the battlefield, a rook (this should be heavy cavalry) charging, even a bishop running for his life and sermoning enemies to stop his madness or risk anathema. But pawns make no sense with their diagonal capture. It’s the simple folk, who would simply poke at the nearest foe, especially if right in front of them.”
The diagonal capture makes perfect sense. It originated from standard Medieval troops. They would have a pike and a tower shield. The tower shield was held in front of them. That prevented them from attacking forward (Though it made a great defense). They could only attack around the shield (i.e. diagonally).
May 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I CAN’T BELIEVE I JUS READ ALL THAT CRAP I JUS STUMBLED UPON THIS I NEED TO GET A LIFE :[
June 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@sleepy boy: I’m glad I’m not the only one who did that.