Comments on: Annotated 46-16

By: Pylgrim

Pylgrim — Sun, 10 Jul 2022 10:38:28 +0000

Sadly, you cannot say “the situation has changed” when the banner you used to rally people around you is one based on racial hatred. There’s nothing a human can do that would “change” them in the eyes of Harky’s fanatics. The suffering humans have inflicted upon the savage races has been politically linked to humanity itself. That’s why there cannot be compromise: sparing even one human is a massive strike against the “humanity is evil and must be eradicated for the good of everybody else” narrative.

By: Zalocin

Zalocin — Sat, 09 Jul 2022 04:23:33 +0000

Harky haven’t just talked of war with humans. He wants to annihilate humans. So yeah, to now only conquer Gastonia and then enter an alliance with the surviving humans would mean Harky had to admit he was wrong about at least some of them.

By: Urichov

Urichov — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 16:03:15 +0000

Has to be one of my favourite hovertexts.

By: Zak McKracken

Zak McKracken — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:17:54 +0000

»A change of mind would require admitting that their way had been wrong. «
Would it? I think Penk made a good argument to Hammerhead when he said that situations change. If the Peacemakers leave Gastonia and want to ally with the Rebellion, I think it’s fair to say that the situation has changed, therefore a leader who is unwilling to change course in reaction to that would need to explain why the old solution would still be appropriate for the new problem.

Now, of course, humans also struggle with that concept (as well as with the admission of errors, no matter how obvious), even these days, in any country, no matter how democratic or enlightened it believes itself to be, so I can see why that would also not come naturally to Harky, or why the Troll population might end up being confused if he did.

Really, showing respect for each other before the battle is not just helping the your opponent in case you lose (and they need to convince your followers to go along). It’s also helpful in case you win because it also shows understanding and respect for your opponent’s followers, _before_ the decision, which makes it a lot easier for them to follow you afterwards.
In that regard, they seem to do something right which I seriously miss in modern-day democratic elections — probably because some marketing people figured out that you can get 0.5% more votes if you slam all your opponents’ ideas, including the ones that actually make sense, or something.

By: Pylgrim

Pylgrim — Fri, 08 Jul 2022 12:48:49 +0000

I like Harky. I think he’s ultimately a good person who has been permanently affected by anger and yes, hatred, but a hatred born of real pain and suffering; his own and others’. I think in any other circumstances, he’d allow his mind to be changed, especially by someone trusted and loved like Penk.

But he knows that his cause can’t afford it so he can’t either. A change of mind would require admitting that their way had been wrong. As a political leader with thousands of people following you into deadly conflict, admitting you’ve been wrong would be grievous to morale and would inevitably cause schisms. Their alliance was born and maintained by his zealotry both in battle and in leadership, so in order to keep the ship together, a zealot he needed to remain at the end.

Only by being defeated by Penk would the tribes agree to follow Penk: the only way to change everybody’s mind was by an even greater display of might than Harky was believed to have. Not that Harky sacrificed himself for Penk, he fought for his own vision with all he had and wagered his life on the truthfulness of it. But only defeat and removal of the other would ensure the success of the rebellion. Whether Harky could have ever see eye to eye with Penk is irrelevant. It needed to be done this way.