Lord Crush - Part 4

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Mikalyaran » Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:49 am

Lilwik wrote:
Mikalyaran wrote:For it to be a murder the social and moral connotations have to be the same.
So then let's look at what people in Erfworld consider to be a crime. The obvious place to look is in the trial of Olive Branch in Book 0, Episode 66. Here's a list of some of Olive's crimes:
Wanda: "Her most serious acts include at least ten counts of commander-level fratricide (with others attempted). She also attempted both patricide and hericide. Beginning with Blair, she arranged or accomplished the croaking of eleven enemy rulers and at least two hundred warlords under false terms of parley, truce, or alliance, or via other dishonorable and perverse means. Among these were my brother Tommy, and my father Lord Firebaugh."


Ok so the trial then. Which everyone, even the people who think its the greatest idea (Banhammer and the Court) admit that it is an unprecedented event. Furthermore, murder is not listed as a crime. The only reason the deeds are crimes is because they were committed against command units dishonorably. This only proves Bea did nothing wrong by Erfworld standards. You can argue that her disbanding her command units was an "illegal" act and a crime. But it can just as strongly be argued that those units all perished dutifully in service to their said as they should have.

If you want to argue that Royals are the real bad guys of Erfworld go ahead. Personally I think that Erfworld is a more nuanced story than that. Everyone has good and bad in them. Everyone is capable of choosing either at any point during their life. Trying to boil it down to "Royals are evil. Bea is an example of this." is boring.
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:34 pm

Mikalyaran wrote:Ok so the trial then. Which everyone, even the people who think its the greatest idea (Banhammer and the Court) admit that it is an unprecedented event.
The trial wasn't something they had ever had to do before because crime is very rare in Erfworld. They don't need police because Natural Thinkamancy tends to prevent crimes. But of course Thinkamancy doesn't control people totally.

Mikalyaran wrote:Furthermore, murder is not listed as a crime.
Isn't it? Most of Olive's crimes involve killing people, and everyone in the court seems to agree that they are crimes. The only doubt is whether Olive is actually guilty of those crimes. So that seems to make all those deaths murder. It looks like the only reason the word "murder" isn't used is because more specific words are used instead to specify each type of murder. Queen Bea is guilty of croaking an enemy warlord under false terms of parley just as Olive was. Erfworlders consider that a crime, and therefore I call it murder by Erfworld standards.

Mikalyaran wrote:The only reason the deeds are crimes is because they were committed against command units dishonorably. This only proves Bea did nothing wrong by Erfworld standards.
How is the trick Bea pulled on Cruz not dishonorable?

Mikalyaran wrote:You can argue that her disbanding her command units was an "illegal" act and a crime.
Rulers are allowed to disband their units; that wouldn't be a crime by Erfworld standards, though it's pretty awful by Stupidworld standards. Of course, Bea didn't just disband her units; she deliberately destroyed her own side, and I suspect that many Erfworlders would see that as awful. I think the reason that rulers are morally allowed to disband units is the assumption that the ruler is doing it for the good of the side. That's why Scrofula had such a hard time disbanding Dunkin without an excuse; no one wants to see a ruler disbanding units for personal reasons.

Mikalyaran wrote:Trying to boil it down to "Royals are evil. Bea is an example of this." is boring.
Not all royals are evil. They are a very diverse group, but the things we've come to expect from royals are pretty bad. The only likeable royals are the ones who rise above their royalty and realize that there are more important things in life. Ansom never did that in his first life, but he's an okay guy in Book 2. Lord Crush did it so hard that he even refused to be called Prince without being decrypted. Even Tramennis did it a little bit when he decided he might want an alliance with Gobwin Knob under the right conditions. Queen Bea never did it. Queen Bea seems to be a lesson on just how horrible royals can be, and how important it is for Parson to break royal supremacy.
Last edited by Lilwik on Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Oberon » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:27 pm

Mikalyaran wrote:Trying to boil it down to "Royals are evil. Bea is an example of this." is boring.
Then it's a good thing that no one is trying to so boil it down, now isn't it? I've given two examples, Vinny and Crush, of nobles who were both shown to be thoughtful and reflective and who also don't really like the whole "royals are superior because we're superior" thing that the majority of royals have going on. Don King doesn't play by the normal royalty rules, either. Although we haven't seen him interact with GK or decrypted, he might be a royal ruler who wouldn't discard a GK offer of alliance out of hand. Tram, although he was right there insulting the GK envoy when GK offered Jetstone alliance, himself suggested to his father that an alliance with GK might not be a bad idea at all, especially since he predicted that even after wiping out the GK expeditionary forces and retaking the 'pliers that GK would probably overcome Jetstone in the long term.

So there are many royals who aren't as ruled by their blind prejudices as the majority of royals seem to be. Bea, however, ended her entire side and committed suicide rather than consider re-thinking the "royals are superior because we're superior" mindset. Alliance with GK would have been a tough thing for her to swallow, sure. Just like having your white daughter bring home a black man as a date would be a tough thing to swallow for most white fathers in the 1950s. But we can look back at that attitude and laugh at it as simple prejudice now, because we've learned here on Stupidworld that there is no divine mandate that makes whites superior to blacks. The same thing needs to happen on Erfworld, regarding the royals smug self assurance that they have a titanic mandate to rule, and their smug self assurance that they have the right to gang up on any uppity non-royals who manage to build a successful side.

And in fact, it is happening. GK is going to drive this lesson home, and the royals have two choices: Adapt, lose the prejudice, and join together with GK; or be conquered. Of course, there is always the third option: Keep your head so deeply in the sand that you'd rather commit suicide and destroy all of your loyal units. An extremist position, just like a suicide bomber might have.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Mikalyaran » Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:44 am

Lilwik wrote:
Mikalyaran wrote:Furthermore, murder is not listed as a crime.
Isn't it? Most of Olive's crimes involve killing people, and everyone in the court seems to agree that they are crimes. The only doubt is whether Olive is actually guilty of those crimes. So that seems to make all those deaths murder. It looks like the only reason the word "murder" isn't used is because more specific words are used instead to specify each type of murder. Queen Bea is guilty of croaking an enemy warlord under false terms of parley just as Olive was. Erfworlders consider that a crime, and therefore I call it murder by Erfworld standards.

Mikalyaran wrote:The only reason the deeds are crimes is because they were committed against command units dishonorably. This only proves Bea did nothing wrong by Erfworld standards.
How is the trick Bea pulled on Cruz not dishonorable?

Mikalyaran wrote:You can argue that her disbanding her command units was an "illegal" act and a crime.
Rulers are allowed to disband their units; that wouldn't be a crime by Erfworld standards, though it's pretty awful by Stupidworld standards.


No it isn't listed. Literally. The reason the word murder isn't used is because Erfworlders don't have a concept for murder. Just like they don't have a concept of what a child is because their are no children. Murder as we define it is just fighting for your side in Erfworld. Thus no murderers.

I'll gladly concede killing Cruz was an immoral act by Erfworld standards. I was thinking more about the disbanding than Cruz when I posted. She definitely acted immorally there. By Erfworld standards. Which are the standard she should be judged by.

Based on your words above you seem to understand that their are different standards between the two worlds. So why do you insist on applying a moral value from our world to theirs?
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:40 am

Mikalyaran wrote:Based on your words above you seem to understand that their are different standards between the two worlds. So why do you insist on applying a moral value from our world to theirs?
I try to avoid that in every way possible, but sometimes it's necessary to use Stupidworld morality to estimate Erfworld morality. Erfwolders are pretty much human in a lot of ways and hold many ideas that are very similar to ideas that you might find in Stupidworld, so when a moral question is raised and we have no reliable Erfworlder stating an opinion on that issue it seems pretty safe to use Stupidworld standards in place of the unknown Erfworld standards. I mean, surely Erfworlders would consider Bea's destruction of Unaroyal a crime, especially the soldiers of Unaroyal; they are not totally alien beings with bizarrely divergent morality. If Olive had deliberately destroyed a side she ruled, don't you think Wanda would have listed that among Olive's crimes?

Of course I am aware of Book 2, Text 42 where Slately explicitly states his opinion about Bea's actions, but naturally I wouldn't take someone like Slately's judgement as indicative of Erfworlders in general. On the contrary, it often seems that if Slately thinks a thing that is evidence that it is false. I'm sure Queen Bea also thought here actions were good, but what would less crazy people have thought? I'm more interested in the opinions of people like Lord Crush, or Sizemore, or even Wanda. I wonder what decrypted Ansom thought of it. If we were to hear from someone level-headed that rulers have no responsibility for the safety and continuation of their side then that would settle the issue for me, but since Erfworld is so much like Stupidworld I find it highly unlikely that we'll ever see that.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Mikalyaran » Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:17 am

Lilwik wrote:
Mikalyaran wrote:Based on your words above you seem to understand that their are different standards between the two worlds. So why do you insist on applying a moral value from our world to theirs?
I try to avoid that in every way possible, but sometimes it's necessary to use Stupidworld morality to estimate Erfworld morality. Erfwolders are pretty much human in a lot of ways and hold many ideas that are very similar to ideas that you might find in Stupidworld, so when a moral question is raised and we have no reliable Erfworlder stating an opinion on that issue it seems pretty safe to use Stupidworld standards in place of the unknown Erfworld standards. I mean, surely Erfworlders would consider Bea's destruction of Unaroyal a crime, especially the soldiers of Unaroyal; they are not totally alien beings with bizarrely divergent morality. If Olive had deliberately destroyed a side she ruled, don't you think Wanda would have listed that among Olive's crimes?

Of course I am aware of Book 2, Text 42 where Slately explicitly states his opinion about Bea's actions, but naturally I wouldn't take someone like Slately's judgement as indicative of Erfworlders in general. On the contrary, it often seems that if Slately thinks a thing that is evidence that it is false. I'm sure Queen Bea also thought here actions were good, but what would less crazy people have thought? I'm more interested in the opinions of people like Lord Crush, or Sizemore, or even Wanda. I wonder what decrypted Ansom thought of it. If we were to hear from someone level-headed that rulers have no responsibility for the safety and continuation of their side then that would settle the issue for me, but since Erfworld is so much like Stupidworld I find it highly unlikely that we'll ever see that.


I agree with all that. So, I guess the difference in our opinions starts with our thoughts on how much is known. I feel like there is sufficient information to judge Bea's action by Erf standards. I get that Slately is just one opinion. But look what he did with that opinion. He sacrificed himself to save his side and place Trammennis on the throne. Certainly the most noble act we ever saw from him. I think we can agree Trammenis is a more noble ruler than Slately. How about Don? He chose to re-engage as a Royal based on her sacrifice. Bea inspired him to re-embrace his Royalty. He felt it was a noble act. It would be informative to get other characters opinions but I doubt it will happen.

The trial. The only crimes have to do with the croaking of command units. Nothing about the common soldier. You say a soldier of Unaroyal might find Bae's action a crime. But the most fleshed out views we have of common soldiers show only people dedicated to their side completely willing to die for said side. Disbanding alongside your ruler in an act meant to save your allies from a vast and powerful enemy seems like a fine way to die. You have done your duty.

Bae's actions can be viewed as an act which disregards her responsibility for the safety and continuation of her side. But that fails to accept her right to draw the line somewhere. To take a moral stand based in Erf morals as she knows them. She's had the chance to read the scriptures. We haven't. But based on context it seems like she really believed those scriptures, and took a stand based on those beliefs.

You don't think there is enough info to judge Bea by Erf standards. I do.

Thanks for the debate :)
User avatar
Mikalyaran
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Wed Jan 15, 2014 12:03 pm

Mikalyaran wrote:The trial. The only crimes have to do with the croaking of command units. Nothing about the common soldier.
I doubt that indicates anything. Olive probably wasn't charged with murdering common soldiers because she probably never did. Olive didn't strike me as some sort of crazed serial killer who kills people for fun. She killed people because she had reasons to want those people dead, and common soldiers would probably be too far beneath her for her to have reasons to kill. On the other hand I suspect that Erfworlders might see croaking common soldiers as a lesser crime since it is less harmful to the side than croaking commanders.

Mikalyaran wrote:You say a soldier of Unaroyal might find Bae's action a crime. But the most fleshed out views we have of common soldiers show only people dedicated to their side completely willing to die for said side.
That's exactly why I think they would see it as a crime. People who are so willing to kill and die for Unaroyal would not feel lightly about Unaroyal being thrown away as if it were worthless.

Mikalyaran wrote:Disbanding alongside your ruler in an act meant to save your allies from a vast and powerful enemy seems like a fine way to die. You have done your duty.
Not if your duty was to defend Unaroyal. In that case your duty was to somehow stop Queen Bea from doing what she did.

Mikalyaran wrote:She's had the chance to read the scriptures. We haven't. But based on context it seems like she really believed those scriptures, and took a stand based on those beliefs.
I doubt that the scriptures say anything negative about decryption, since it's a Titanic power. I doubt that the scriptures say that a ruler is free to end her own side, since the scriptures seem inclined to limit the powers of rulers such as preventing them from disbanding fools. If you can't even disband your fool why would you be allowed to disband your entire side? I also doubt that the scriptures clearly state royal supremacy, otherwise no one in Erfworld would doubt royal supremacy and royals would be quick to quote scripture in situations such as Expository Bridge in Book 2, Page 3.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lipkin » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:34 am

Parson wiped out his own side as well. The only survivors were Stanley, a hobgobwin, the casters, and a few non-living units. Without decryption, his side wouldn't have been around much longer. He also killed Ansom in a false parley.

Decryption turns units against their own natures. A turnamancer can make a unit turn, but it takes time and effort to do so, and from then on that unit is more likely to turn than other units (I think I remember this being said). The decrypted don't get a choice, or a chance to resist. They are altered so that they are happy in their servitude. But we know from Ossomer that some part of them still resists if their loyalty is high enough. It's not the raising that is being objected to, nor that they are refuting the royal ideal. It's that they are being forced to do so. They are forced to be other than themselves, which is why when Ossomer turned back, he was welcomed back.

I'm not saying Royals are right in all that they do. But choosing not to have your brain rewired so you turn against your friends and forsake everything you believe is not monstrous. Keeping your subjects from that fate is not monstrous. And freeing your daughter from that state is not monstrous.

The decrypted do not need to eat, and turn into dust when they are killed. They are no longer physically human. They are being manipulated into doing things they would never choose to do before their current predicament. I pity the decrypted. they are tragic monsters, but monsters none the less.

Neither side is right in my opinion. Attacking non-royal rulers is bad. Blowing up everyone with a volcano is bad. Decryption is bad. Keeping you subjects from becoming twisted shades of themselves and attacking your allies is good, subjectively. I saw it entirely as a mass mercy killing.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Silversought » Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:56 am

Lipkin wrote:Parson wiped out his own side as well. The only survivors were Stanley, a hobgobwin, the casters, and a few non-living units. Without decryption, his side wouldn't have been around much longer. He also killed Ansom in a false parley.

Decryption turns units against their own natures. A turnamancer can make a unit turn, but it takes time and effort to do so, and from then on that unit is more likely to turn than other units (I think I remember this being said). The decrypted don't get a choice, or a chance to resist. They are altered so that they are happy in their servitude. But we know from Ossomer that some part of them still resists if their loyalty is high enough. It's not the raising that is being objected to, nor that they are refuting the royal ideal. It's that they are being forced to do so. They are forced to be other than themselves, which is why when Ossomer turned back, he was welcomed back.

I'm not saying Royals are right in all that they do. But choosing not to have your brain rewired so you turn against your friends and forsake everything you believe is not monstrous. Keeping your subjects from that fate is not monstrous. And freeing your daughter from that state is not monstrous.

The decrypted do not need to eat, and turn into dust when they are killed. They are no longer physically human. They are being manipulated into doing things they would never choose to do before their current predicament. I pity the decrypted. they are tragic monsters, but monsters none the less.

Neither side is right in my opinion. Attacking non-royal rulers is bad. Blowing up everyone with a volcano is bad. Decryption is bad. Keeping you subjects from becoming twisted shades of themselves and attacking your allies is good, subjectively. I saw it entirely as a mass mercy killing.


Setting aside the idea that a mass mercy killing can be a good thing, I disagree that you could describe her actions as a mercy killing.

Units believe in the City of Heroes, yes? Lord Crush, in what could have been his final moments, did not think execution without even a battle prior was a particularly good way to die. In the face of death, your units (if you were telling them the situation clearly) know they face three possible exits.

1. You disband the side, and they see no final glory.
2. You don't disband the side; this has two possibilities for each unit involved.
2a. In the futile defense of your capital, the unit is slain. Okay death, yes? Possibly unappealing to be Decrypted then, I get it.
2b. After the capital is captured, the unit is executed. Same death as disbandment, but wait? A second chance to win glory and die in honorable battle awaits!

None of those are very pretty options, but none of them is a clear "only reasonable option". I wouldn't say that mercy-killing is applicable here.

Finally, Bea was almost certainly motivated to protect Don and Slately by preventing the decryption of her side, right? That calls any guilt-free mercy killing into question by muddling her motive.
Silversought
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:17 am

Lipkin wrote:Parson wiped out his own side as well. The only survivors were Stanley, a hobgobwin, the casters, and a few non-living units. Without decryption, his side wouldn't have been around much longer.
Parson saved his side. In doing so he killed many of his own units, but Erfworlders seem to be pretty willing to die for their side, and the fact is that they would also have died without Parson. I agree that without decryption Gobwin Knob would have been in a very weakened state, but it would still exist for at least one more turn than it would have existed without Parson, which is the opposite of wiping out his own side.

Parson was under the influence of the sword of ruthlessness when he murdered Ansom, much like Queen Bea was under the influence of being a royal. We can expect people to do bad things in these sorts of situations.

Lipkin wrote:Decryption turns units against their own natures. A turnamancer can make a unit turn, but it takes time and effort to do so, and from then on that unit is more likely to turn than other units (I think I remember this being said). The decrypted don't get a choice, or a chance to resist.
You're right that there's no choice, but there certainly would have been a chance to resist. If Queen Bea hadn't taken that chance away from them, Unaroyal would surely have fought bravely for its survival. This is the chance that all those soldiers must have wanted, and I think they had every right to expect Queen Bea to help them.

Lipkin wrote:It's not the raising that is being objected to, nor that they are refuting the royal ideal. It's that they are being forced to do so.
Queen Bea clearly had no problem with forcing things upon the units of Unaroyal. The question is, why was forcing disbandment upon them better than forcing antiroyalism upon them? It must have been because royalism is more important than life.

Lipkin wrote:But choosing not to have your brain rewired so you turn against your friends and forsake everything you believe is not monstrous. Keeping your subjects from that fate is not monstrous. And freeing your daughter from that state is not monstrous.
That is all certainly true. The fact that Queen Bea did all those things is not what makes her monstrous. She's monstrous because of the way she did them. The ends don't always justify the means, especially when there are better alternatives easily available.

Lipkin wrote:The decrypted do not need to eat, and turn into dust when they are killed. They are no longer physically human. They are being manipulated into doing things they would never choose to do before their current predicament. I pity the decrypted. they are tragic monsters, but monsters none the less.
They seem fine to me. Everything we've seen of them makes them seem human in every way that matters. They don't seem to deserve pity since they are in no way suffering, and freeing them from royalism seems like a pretty nice bonus.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lipkin » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:58 am

We disagree on what is fine. We disagree on what constitutes a better alternative. Decryption is a fate worse than death, and the idea of such a thing happening to me makes my skin crawl. If I were killed by a terrorist, then raised from the dead and made to happily spew their agenda and threaten my friends and family, I would hope that someone would kill me again to prevent me from harming anyone I care about. I would also rather die than turn on what I believe and join people who are forcing such a state on others.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lamech » Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:54 pm

Lipkin wrote:Decryption turns units against their own natures. A turnamancer can make a unit turn, but it takes time and effort to do so, and from then on that unit is more likely to turn than other units (I think I remember this being said). The decrypted don't get a choice, or a chance to resist. They are altered so that they are happy in their servitude. But we know from Ossomer that some part of them still resists if their loyalty is high enough. It's not the raising that is being objected to, nor that they are refuting the royal ideal. It's that they are being forced to do so. They are forced to be other than themselves, which is why when Ossomer turned back, he was welcomed back.

I'm not saying Royals are right in all that they do. But choosing not to have your brain rewired so you turn against your friends and forsake everything you believe is not monstrous. Keeping your subjects from that fate is not monstrous. And freeing your daughter from that state is not monstrous.

A turnamancer CAN turn units instantly. Vanna tried to do exactly that! She also specifically mentioned she could cast a mass turn spell which would turn about half the captured units.

Nor do the decrypted turn against everything they believe, or turn against their friends. Ansom's world view was mostly intact. He merely changed from royals having a Titanic Mandate to Wanda having a Titanic Mandate. Ossomer still believed in honour. (Why he turned.) They don't turn against their friends. They want to stop their friends and family from trying to kill them. They want peace with their former sides. The archons didn't end up hating Charlie.

Look, its generally accepted that if a friend or family member starts trying to kill you, acting against them via reporting to the police or say killing them in self defense is accepted. Really we encourage people to do exactly that. The decrypted don't go that far though. They still want to make up with their abusive family members. Preferably, without decryption. Or failing that reform them using magic.

This is basically the equivalent of attempts to reform criminals with drugs. Do you think that's monstrous?
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby drachefly » Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:58 pm

We have no reason to expect Bea to see it that way.

What the heck are people arguing now, even?
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lipkin » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:43 am

Lamech wrote:
Lipkin wrote:Decryption turns units against their own natures. A turnamancer can make a unit turn, but it takes time and effort to do so, and from then on that unit is more likely to turn than other units (I think I remember this being said). The decrypted don't get a choice, or a chance to resist. They are altered so that they are happy in their servitude. But we know from Ossomer that some part of them still resists if their loyalty is high enough. It's not the raising that is being objected to, nor that they are refuting the royal ideal. It's that they are being forced to do so. They are forced to be other than themselves, which is why when Ossomer turned back, he was welcomed back.

I'm not saying Royals are right in all that they do. But choosing not to have your brain rewired so you turn against your friends and forsake everything you believe is not monstrous. Keeping your subjects from that fate is not monstrous. And freeing your daughter from that state is not monstrous.

A turnamancer CAN turn units instantly. Vanna tried to do exactly that! She also specifically mentioned she could cast a mass turn spell which would turn about half the captured units.

Nor do the decrypted turn against everything they believe, or turn against their friends. Ansom's world view was mostly intact. He merely changed from royals having a Titanic Mandate to Wanda having a Titanic Mandate. Ossomer still believed in honour. (Why he turned.) They don't turn against their friends. They want to stop their friends and family from trying to kill them. They want peace with their former sides. The archons didn't end up hating Charlie.

Look, its generally accepted that if a friend or family member starts trying to kill you, acting against them via reporting to the police or say killing them in self defense is accepted. Really we encourage people to do exactly that. The decrypted don't go that far though. They still want to make up with their abusive family members. Preferably, without decryption. Or failing that reform them using magic.

This is basically the equivalent of attempts to reform criminals with drugs. Do you think that's monstrous?
Turnamancy CAN, Decryption DOES. Vanna failed to turn him, and knew failure was an option when she made her attempt.

They did turn against their friends. They became a part of the enemy side. Reform is only possible when one side is good and the other is bad, and that isn't the case here. Neither side is wholly good or bad.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby spriteless » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:42 pm

drachefly wrote:We have no reason to expect Bea to see it that way.

What the heck are people arguing now, even?

Some people cannot process sad feels unless they assign one side good and the opposite evil. Bea made a great big sad feels with one stroke. Don King was the most affected by the pull of the feels, since he loved Bea, but that doesn't mean us arguing over the internet don't feel a shadow of his trauma in the drama.

It was all in character, so I just process it as a tragedy, myself. Tragedies don't need heroes, the protagonists are ruled by a flaw. Bea and Ansom both have flaws that made this inevitable. You'd get more traction arguing whether Oedipus or Jocasta were evil; there is more material to work with.
T'was a splendidly speedy defection.
spriteless
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:33 pm

For me, the key point that justifies Bea's actions is this. Unaroyal had no chance of defeating GK. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

If there was even a small chance she could have won the battle, then she absolutely should have tried. But she didn't. She had two, and only two options. Her units join GK or she disbands them. There were no other choices.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:01 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:Her units join GK or she disbands them. There were no other choices.
What about the option where no one dies? Surely we're not ignoring that option. Plus, an alliance isn't technically the same as joining GK.

I like to think of an analogy for what Bea did. It was a good thing done in a bad way. Suppose there are people trapped in a burning building and you are naturally committed to saving them from burning to death. The Queen Bea style option would be to euthanize them, perhaps by shooting them to death with a machine gun. Technically it saves them from burning to death, and if Queen Bea has no other way to save them from burning to death then it might be morally ambiguous, but in my fire analogy Queen Bea could just have opened the door and let the people walk out to safety. She had a good goal, but she chose to achieve that goal by massive quantities of killing in a situation where clearly no one had to die to achieve her goal. That alone is monstrous, and it's just one of the bad things that Queen Bea did.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lamech » Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:18 pm

She could have negotiated a decent alliance. She didn't even try. Same thing with Ossomer. Same thing with Jillian.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby GWvsJohn » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:07 pm

Lamech wrote:She could have negotiated a decent alliance. She didn't even try. Same thing with Ossomer. Same thing with Jillian.


There is no option for alliance. GK is a vehemently anti-Royal behemoth of unnatural monstrosities. Unaroyal cannot, I repeat cannot, ally with GK and still maintain any sense of being Unaroyal.
GWvsJohn
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Re: Lord Crush - Part 4

Postby Lilwik » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:25 pm

GWvsJohn wrote:Unaroyal cannot, I repeat cannot, ally with GK and still maintain any sense of being Unaroyal.
At least it would technically still be Unaroyal, and it would still be ruled by Queen Bea for what that's worth. The alliance might not last forever. Surely all of that is worth something. It shouldn't be thrown away like garbage, and she certainly shouldn't have killed an entire army that was loyal to her just to get to the garbage can.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Snethor and 3 guests