Now that that piece of information is on the table, how is Magda going to take it? Surely she’s been wondering why her dear uncle hasn’t contacted her in months. Now I guess it’s going to come down to whether she trusts Gravedust more than she trusts Iver.
What she said is still true though. Ivar killed the Mystics to make those things true. Leading your people on the path to damnation definitely warrants death.
The question to me, is whether Ivar or the Mystics were right. Pacifism is the ideology of suicide. I can’t say much more since we don’t know enough about the Mystics (or I just forget), but so far I see nothing definitive to indicate Ivar is bad and Gravedust is good.
Gravedust may be good. Gravedust may also be bad through stupidity (as the story does show us enough to indicate he is not malevolent in nature and therefore would not be bad on purpose). Ivar may be bad. Ivar may also be good and just know how to achieve greater goods.
This isn’t World of Warcraft as we know it. The Gastoanian humans (are there other kinds?) are pretty awful. We’ve all killed people for less in RPGs, based on some flimsy notions given to us by green people with yellow exclamation marks over their heads.
I suspect the writers wish to write Ivar as evil, and the world doesn’t exist until they create it, of course, but I wonder if Ivar really is evil, and I can easily imagine that he is not. And that Gravedust is at best a fool or at worst a villain.
I can’t really see a scenario where Gravedust is either a fool or a villain. He’s obviously not a villain. He has a well developed moral code which most people would agree with which he follows scrupulously. He’s been shown repeatedly to be brave, loyal to his comrades, and strongly inclined to protect the weak. Pretty definitively a heroic character.
As for being a fool… Doesn’t look like it to me. He is very aware that his people have no good options available, and is trying to find the least bad path. He may turn out to have been wrong, but he’s facing some very difficult issues.
Ivar, on the other hand, has been shown to be murderous, cruel, scheming, and untrustworthy. He may also turn out to be an effective leader for his people, but that seems like it would be almost incidental.
Okay yeah, the straight up old school bigotry is also a factor. I was giving it a bit of a pass because I don’t think Gravedust’s position on the issue has ever come up, but it definitely doesn’t make Ivar a more sympathetic character.
Leading your people on the path to damnation definitely warrants death.
And that’s why Ivar is going to die.
Is Gastonia rotten to the core? Certainly this is so.
That doesn’t mean the Savasi rulers aren’t as well. They are. We’ve been shown the workings of Ivar and his cronies.
We’ve also seen the genocidal history of the Gnolls. The slaver culture of the World’s Rebellion as a whole. We’ve seen HAMMERHEAD refusing to consider anything but slaughter, even in the face of a greater enemy.
Gastonia stinks, but the Rebellion smells strongly of garbage, too.
Both factions need a good wash and a restart from the ground up.
Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to come at the hands of the Cultists and HR, rather than from within, but…whatever does the trick.
I’m thinking that the best case scenario is going to be the champions on both sides joining forces to try to take out the Cultists and drag their respective cultures to the table. And if they refuse, maybe we’ll see Fightopia v. 2.0
Given that they’re just barely keeping the tides of battle in the Rebellion’s favor now, if they allied with Gastonia instead they’d have tilted the battle so far in their favor that I’m pretty sure they’d be even better off. Maybe even getting their old lands back in exchange for taking troll lands or whatever. And trolls can probably use volcano magic to make new land out in the ocean or something.
Pacifism isn’t the ideology of suicide. Some who have sought peace have been murdered, but a) the responsibility for those murders rests with the murderer, not the murdered, and b) by the numbers most people, beings, and cultures who seek peace just plain succeed at living peaceful lives; Your view that pacifism is somehow a bad plan is biased by a few prominent stories.
And in the case of several of the most prominent stories, the pacifist’s ideals won out even when the pacifist died. As a notable NON-pacifist put it: Ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bulletproof.
“I refuse to be the first to resort to violence” is viable, and is the foundation of most societies.
“I refuse to *ever* resort to violence” is not particularly viable. While it’s not the “ideology of suicide” per-se, absent other factors it will result in the individuals who practice it being killed and enslaved (not necessarily in that order) by the first group to come along who doesn’t mind initiating the use of violence.
When you think you’ve found a group that subscribes to the latter living perfectly peacefully with no outside interference, examine it closely. In most cases you will find that the group in question relies on another group (e.g. the police) who are ready, willing, and able to dispense violence to protect the peaceful people. (In many cases this erodes over the course of generations until it becomes the violence-capable group enslaving the pacifist group, just without the pacifist group realising it.)
The second model of pacifism only ever “wins” because the first model of pacifism is the best way so far devised to run a society and results in the best standard of living for everyone, and it’s occasionally possible to convince those who are inclined to violence that it’s the best way to get what they want. (Which it is, but primitive primate social instincts are hard for some people to overcome.)
Did he though? I mean, he might honestly believe his actions are for the best, but did he do them for his people, or for himself?
I think a big tipping point is the mystics here. As Gravedust said, all signs pointed to war back in the day as well. Why specifically did all the Mystics need to die? Because “Too many of our people still listened to them”. That’s generally not the actions of the good guy, “well, they might ruin that whole war thing I’ve got planned, so instead of seeing if I can convince everybody otherwise better just be the only opinion.”
No sugar-coating things here, huh?
Dwarves.gif
I’m pretty sure “tried to” is the sugar-coating part.
Sugar may be maybe a crystalline structure, but it’s plant origins are nott solid enough to build on… and it tends to erode rather quickly.
Well, yeah…In its most natural form, sugar is pretty sappy.
Most sugar is made from the sap of Sugar Cane or Sugar Beets: http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html
Sugar-coating? Useless. Counter-productive. At least, that’s how I see it in many, many cases. Maybe even most.
YES FINALLY!!!
“It was a very toxic relationship.”
Iver’s not a tyrant? So why do you all have to eat without utensils?
Who ever heard of “Slicing bread with the enemy?”
pretty sure if you are eating with the enemy, it’s hands only; all the utensils are hidden away for safety;)
“In fact, he DID kill me. I got better.”
“Now that I think of it, should I really be drinking this?”
He turned me into a corpse!
A corpse?
…
i got better.
BURN HIM!
How do you know he’s a corpse?
If he had planted some acorns on your grave, he could have turned you into a copse.
If you want all remorse, take your body to a corpse.
A bunch of well-maintained sod, and he could have turned you into a course.
No he didn’t! You were just resting!
I got better
Well, maybe you were just pining for the fjords?
Now that that piece of information is on the table, how is Magda going to take it? Surely she’s been wondering why her dear uncle hasn’t contacted her in months. Now I guess it’s going to come down to whether she trusts Gravedust more than she trusts Iver.
What she said is still true though. Ivar killed the Mystics to make those things true. Leading your people on the path to damnation definitely warrants death.
The question to me, is whether Ivar or the Mystics were right. Pacifism is the ideology of suicide. I can’t say much more since we don’t know enough about the Mystics (or I just forget), but so far I see nothing definitive to indicate Ivar is bad and Gravedust is good.
Gravedust may be good. Gravedust may also be bad through stupidity (as the story does show us enough to indicate he is not malevolent in nature and therefore would not be bad on purpose). Ivar may be bad. Ivar may also be good and just know how to achieve greater goods.
This isn’t World of Warcraft as we know it. The Gastoanian humans (are there other kinds?) are pretty awful. We’ve all killed people for less in RPGs, based on some flimsy notions given to us by green people with yellow exclamation marks over their heads.
I suspect the writers wish to write Ivar as evil, and the world doesn’t exist until they create it, of course, but I wonder if Ivar really is evil, and I can easily imagine that he is not. And that Gravedust is at best a fool or at worst a villain.
I can’t really see a scenario where Gravedust is either a fool or a villain. He’s obviously not a villain. He has a well developed moral code which most people would agree with which he follows scrupulously. He’s been shown repeatedly to be brave, loyal to his comrades, and strongly inclined to protect the weak. Pretty definitively a heroic character.
As for being a fool… Doesn’t look like it to me. He is very aware that his people have no good options available, and is trying to find the least bad path. He may turn out to have been wrong, but he’s facing some very difficult issues.
Ivar, on the other hand, has been shown to be murderous, cruel, scheming, and untrustworthy. He may also turn out to be an effective leader for his people, but that seems like it would be almost incidental.
Would also like to point out the look of disgust on Ivar’s face when a certain troll and avian were seen holding hands…
The possibility of flying trolls disgusts me too.
Okay yeah, the straight up old school bigotry is also a factor. I was giving it a bit of a pass because I don’t think Gravedust’s position on the issue has ever come up, but it definitely doesn’t make Ivar a more sympathetic character.
And that’s why Ivar is going to die.
Is Gastonia rotten to the core? Certainly this is so.
That doesn’t mean the Savasi rulers aren’t as well. They are. We’ve been shown the workings of Ivar and his cronies.
We’ve also seen the genocidal history of the Gnolls. The slaver culture of the World’s Rebellion as a whole. We’ve seen HAMMERHEAD refusing to consider anything but slaughter, even in the face of a greater enemy.
Gastonia stinks, but the Rebellion smells strongly of garbage, too.
Both factions need a good wash and a restart from the ground up.
Unfortunately, it looks like it’s going to come at the hands of the Cultists and HR, rather than from within, but…whatever does the trick.
I’m thinking that the best case scenario is going to be the champions on both sides joining forces to try to take out the Cultists and drag their respective cultures to the table. And if they refuse, maybe we’ll see Fightopia v. 2.0
Given that they’re just barely keeping the tides of battle in the Rebellion’s favor now, if they allied with Gastonia instead they’d have tilted the battle so far in their favor that I’m pretty sure they’d be even better off. Maybe even getting their old lands back in exchange for taking troll lands or whatever. And trolls can probably use volcano magic to make new land out in the ocean or something.
The thing that sells this is your name is Garithos.
The only good non-human is a DEAD non-human.
Pacifism isn’t the ideology of suicide. Some who have sought peace have been murdered, but a) the responsibility for those murders rests with the murderer, not the murdered, and b) by the numbers most people, beings, and cultures who seek peace just plain succeed at living peaceful lives; Your view that pacifism is somehow a bad plan is biased by a few prominent stories.
And in the case of several of the most prominent stories, the pacifist’s ideals won out even when the pacifist died. As a notable NON-pacifist put it: Ideas, Mr. Creedy, are bulletproof.
+1
It depends on what you mean by “pacifism.”
“I refuse to be the first to resort to violence” is viable, and is the foundation of most societies.
“I refuse to *ever* resort to violence” is not particularly viable. While it’s not the “ideology of suicide” per-se, absent other factors it will result in the individuals who practice it being killed and enslaved (not necessarily in that order) by the first group to come along who doesn’t mind initiating the use of violence.
When you think you’ve found a group that subscribes to the latter living perfectly peacefully with no outside interference, examine it closely. In most cases you will find that the group in question relies on another group (e.g. the police) who are ready, willing, and able to dispense violence to protect the peaceful people. (In many cases this erodes over the course of generations until it becomes the violence-capable group enslaving the pacifist group, just without the pacifist group realising it.)
The second model of pacifism only ever “wins” because the first model of pacifism is the best way so far devised to run a society and results in the best standard of living for everyone, and it’s occasionally possible to convince those who are inclined to violence that it’s the best way to get what they want. (Which it is, but primitive primate social instincts are hard for some people to overcome.)
“Why hate on the guy, he’s not a jerk or anything”
“Ok but he did kill a bunch of people, I mean that’s totally a thing that happened”
Well, ok, but he did it for the greater good. No offence meant. Speaking of which, let´s jump from the nearest cliff.
Did he though? I mean, he might honestly believe his actions are for the best, but did he do them for his people, or for himself?
I think a big tipping point is the mystics here. As Gravedust said, all signs pointed to war back in the day as well. Why specifically did all the Mystics need to die? Because “Too many of our people still listened to them”. That’s generally not the actions of the good guy, “well, they might ruin that whole war thing I’ve got planned, so instead of seeing if I can convince everybody otherwise better just be the only opinion.”
You must die so I can live?
Gravedust: *mic drop*
Truth Hurts, a lot, in fact it practically kills.
“…… Like ONE time!”
“…but the did build a lot of Autobahns!”
(I can say that, I’m German)
“Not everything is bad under his rule”
…
I should not say that, I´m German
:-)
Wir lieben es die Moralkeule zu schwingen.
For a split second, I read Gravedust’s reply as “I’ve killed your uncle” and I was like “Mmnooo, I’m pretty sure that’s not what happened?” ^_^
You’re not the only one, regarding “I’ve killed your uncle”. Did your brain, too, then go “…prepare to die”?
No, but that takes my brain in a new direction:
“My name is Inigo Montoya. I killed your father. Prepare to die.”
“…My father isn’t deadAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!”
“Also, he killed your dog.”
“and he flushed your goldfish”
“Even though the fish was still alive prior to the flush”