A Practical Guide to Evil

[Anteros]

I think the problem is that we've never seen a Hero actually uphold their supposed values. Not once. The out and out villains are worse, like Akua and the Tyrant, but Black and Malicia really haven't done anything worse than the heroes. Seriously, every single atrocity they've done has been matched by the Heroes. Including releasing the Dead King, considering the Saint of Swords was counting on that very thing happening, just to wipe out all the corrupt nobles (and countless innocent civilians)

Well, there were several who seemed like they might be genuinely good except our protagonists killed them. You're right that all of the majorly spotlighted heroes have been jerks. I'm not sure I'd equate knowing that the villains are going to do something awful with being as bad as actually doing it though.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire story yet so my opinion may be proven completely wrong by something I haven't gotten to.

[lord_khaine]

Well, there were several who seemed like they might be genuinely good except our protagonists killed them. You're right that all of the majorly spotlighted heroes have been jerks. I'm not sure I'd equate knowing that the villains are going to do something awful with being as bad as actually doing it though.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire story yet so my opinion may be proven completely wrong by something I haven't gotten to.

The White Knight is not a jerk, he is the straight man in a chaotic team of female heroes. And comes to the aid of those in need.
William was a jerk yes. But still fought and died to try and liberate his country.

[druid91]

The White Knight is not a jerk, he is the straight man in a chaotic team of female heroes. And comes to the aid of those in need.
William was a jerk yes. But still fought and died to try and liberate his country.

We've kind of covered this.

William fought and died to enslave his country on a super-powered guilt trip. It didn't matter one whit to him whether or not Callow was better off. Only that he show how much he regretted his actions to everyone.

[Anteros]

We've kind of covered this.

William fought and died to enslave his country on a super-powered guilt trip. It didn't matter one whit to him whether or not Callow was better off. Only that he show how much he regretted his actions to everyone.

Eh. If it's mind control then you can't really blame William since he's under its influence. If it's not mind control then he's culpable, but it's not so bad. Can't have it both ways where you blame William for his actions but also consider it to be enslavement.

[Forum Explorer]

Sorry but thats just plain wrong. Not even the Perigrine is quite as bad as Mr. Systematically murder children who might become heroes. Or Miss plot for an entire town to become zombified just to get a super weapon.
And we have seen heroes put their life on the line while fighting for others. Both Williams band and the White knight have done so.

Actually he totally is. He systematically killed an entire town (that he was supposed to protect to boot) and put a nation at risk in order to strike at his enemy. Black systematic murder of children pales in comparison because in all likelihood he ended up killing far less children. His was basically the equivalent of killing off noble lines to wipe out the nobility of a conquered people. Bad and evil certainly. Also? Likely not that many people all told.

Malicia was certainly more questionable, except for the fact that she didn't do anything. She could have exerted herself to prevent it certainly. But she didn't aid in it's creation either. That was all Akua. Besides, Malicia was willing to sacrifice a city in the hopes of peace. The Saint of Swords is willing to sacrifice a nation by preventing peace.

We've seen them act as soldiers. And that's about it. I'll give the White Knight credit, he hasn't tried to commit any atrocities in doing so. But his morality has basically been 'fight the guys I'm told to fight'. He has given away his free will, and thus has all the morality of an executioner. He is basically as moral as Adjutant, except Adjutant can feel regret when Cat or himself makes a bad judgement call. The White Knight isn't capable of even conceiving that the Heavens might make a bad judgement.

As for William and his band. Well, most of them died before doing much of anything. And their plans were bad. Like they tried to kill Warlock by taking the city hostage basically. Like Warlock could've instantly ignored their trap for him, but that would've detonated his wards and annihilated much of the city. And any time your plan requires the villain to make the moral choice and risk himself for the sake of others, you should immediately be asking yourself if what you are doing is correct.

William himself was doing better, freeing slaves and the like. Right up until he intentionally tried to brainwash an entire city. Which hey! Puts him on the level of Akua of all people. Akua! The only difference in result is that William's plan failed, and Akua's succeeded.

Well, there were several who seemed like they might be genuinely good except our protagonists killed them. You're right that all of the majorly spotlighted heroes have been jerks. I'm not sure I'd equate knowing that the villains are going to do something awful with being as bad as actually doing it though.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire story yet so my opinion may be proven completely wrong by something I haven't gotten to.

I'll grant you that. Though I don't know what part you are at.

Spoiler: Start of Book 4

Show

The heroes that Cat confronts are given a chance to settle things peacefully. To do good without fighting. Or even just to wander freely. She offers to let them rebuild as they please, study Lisse or the fae, even to let them have a crack at Black if they want. Or just go home.

And they say no and try to kill her. It's not like the people were being oppressed, most of the people they talked to approved of her, with the one person who didn't like her spoke of their distaste without fear. It's not like she had some evil doom plan like Akua's that had to be stopped. Nope, just the fact that she isn't in service to Heaven was enough to warrant a death sentence in their mind.

So while I can hardly call them evil, they didn't exactly make me think they were good either.

Eh. If it's mind control then you can't really blame William since he's under its influence. If it's not mind control then he's culpable, but it's not so bad. Can't have it both ways where you blame William for his actions but also consider it to be enslavement.

Brainwashing not mind control. There is a subtle difference in that William had a choice in how he went about things. He had to fight Evil, but he didn't have to torture his victims for example. Do I blame William for fighting Cat, rebelling against Black, or trying to assassinate Warlock? No. But I do blame him for trying to brainwash a city into a bunch of fanatics.

[Tyndmyr]

Sorry but thats just plain wrong. Not even the Perigrine is quite as bad as Mr. Systematically murder children who might become heroes. Or Miss plot for an entire town to become zombified just to get a super weapon.
And we have seen heroes put their life on the line while fighting for others. Both Williams band and the White knight have done so.

Yes, he is.

Book 4 Spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

He, too, murdered an entire town using a bioweapon. It was a convenient way to attack Black, who he wants for...some scheme that he and the other heroes say involves soul-binding. They're literally murdering their way through innocents to gain necromantic power.

Seriously, he's like Akua, just with a lot more moralizing talk.

Well, there were several who seemed like they might be genuinely good except our protagonists killed them. You're right that all of the majorly spotlighted heroes have been jerks. I'm not sure I'd equate knowing that the villains are going to do something awful with being as bad as actually doing it though.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire story yet so my opinion may be proven completely wrong by something I haven't gotten to.

Avoid some of the spoilers then, but largely, heroes are either awful people, or they're killed before we know much about them. The latter kind might not be so awful, we simply don't know. However, what we *do* see of them usually indicates that they are of a kin with their more spotlighted cousins.

Eh. If it's mind control then you can't really blame William since he's under its influence. If it's not mind control then he's culpable, but it's not so bad. Can't have it both ways where you blame William for his actions but also consider it to be enslavement.

He chose to be enslaved, and to attempt to enslave others, yes? Sure, some blame *definitely* goes to the Hashmallim and the Gods, but the heroic people are largely chosen because they already have the ideology the gods favor. And most heroes are, per WoG, not mind controlled. Most have not directly met a choir.

So a great deal of responsibility must lie with the "heroes".

[The Glyphstone]

Spoiler: Book 4

Show

I thoroughly disagree that 'didn't surrender to Cat's excellent Diplomacy check' is the necessary qualifier to be good. The charismatic villain(ess) who lures the heroes into a false sense of security is a narrative trope of its own; simply because she is the protagonist and we know she is being honest is no legitimate in-universe reason for Stalwart Paladin and his band to believe her even before her out-of-Callow reputation is taken into account. What makes them good(er) is that unlike every single other Hero before them (and after them), they specifically go out of their way to avoid getting innocents caught in the Named crossfire. William's band deliberately put an entire city at risk, then William himself did it a second time angel or no angel. Pilgrim+Saint butchered a village with plague to cripple Black's army by proxy. White Knight is fuzzy in memory, I can't remember if he and his bunch did anything to protect the people in the city from collateral damage.

[Florian]

Some of you guys are falling pray to the exact problem I mentioned earlier.

Creation is meant to be a battleground for Above and Below to fight out the differences they can´t handle on their (native) scale by proxy.

Going by the top level view, none of the nations and their citizens mean anything. The only hing that matters is the connect between A and B.

What complicates matters is that we get to see and understand only a POV based on a former regular citizen without a grasp on on how A or B really function.

[The Glyphstone]

Some of you guys are falling pray to the exact problem I mentioned earlier.

Creation is meant to be a battleground for Above and Below to fight out the differences they can´t handle on their (native) scale by proxy.

Going by the top level view, none of the nations and their citizens mean anything. The only hing that matters is the connect between A and B.

What complicates matters is that we get to see and understand only a POV based on a former regular citizen without a grasp on on how A or B really function.

Yeah, but the story isn't about Above and Below - they're not characters in any real sense of the word. So while their issues are the framing device for the setting, they're not really useful to any sort of actual discussion of the content of the story itself other than shutting down that discussion on the grounds of 'because A+B want it to be like that'. Not sure if that qualifies as a Doylesian/Watsonian split, though.

[lord_khaine]

We've kind of covered this.

We have indeed. I did not agree you then. I cant see why you think i would do now.

Spoiler: Hero discussion

Show

Actually he totally is. He systematically killed an entire town (that he was supposed to protect to boot) and put a nation at risk in order to strike at his enemy. Black systematic murder of children pales in comparison because in all likelihood he ended up killing far less children. His was basically the equivalent of killing off noble lines to wipe out the nobility of a conquered people. Bad and evil certainly. Also? Likely not that many people all told.

He was faced with the old dilemma of killing 1 man to save 10. And were ruthless enough to take it. It pales compared to Blacks systematic murder of children just because they -might- eventually get in his way down the road.

Malicia was certainly more questionable, except for the fact that she didn't do anything. She could have exerted herself to prevent it certainly. But she didn't aid in it's creation either. That was all Akua. Besides, Malicia was willing to sacrifice a city in the hopes of peace. The Saint of Swords is willing to sacrifice a nation by preventing peace.

As i read it she were quietly arranging everything from the shadows, making certain that Akua had all she needed.
Afterward everyone else certainly placed the blame on her shoulders, like if Akua had been her pawn.
Besides that i have still not seen any sort of situation where the SoS were in position to sacrifice anything. Let alone a nation.

We've seen them act as soldiers. And that's about it. I'll give the White Knight credit, he hasn't tried to commit any atrocities in doing so. But his morality has basically been 'fight the guys I'm told to fight'. He has given away his free will, and thus has all the morality of an executioner. He is basically as moral as Adjutant, except Adjutant can feel regret when Cat or himself makes a bad judgement call. The White Knight isn't capable of even conceiving that the Heavens might make a bad judgement.

Thats, sorry the choice of words, rubbish. Yes you can say that White Knight is nothing more than a soldier. You can also say he has dedicated his entire life to serve what he has been taught is the most impartial source of justice.
But you cant say he has given away his free will. Each time he follows the instructions of the choir, then its by his own choice.

As for William and his band. Well, most of them died before doing much of anything. And their plans were bad. Like they tried to kill Warlock by taking the city hostage basically. Like Warlock could've instantly ignored their trap for him, but that would've detonated his wards and annihilated much of the city. And any time your plan requires the villain to make the moral choice and risk himself for the sake of others, you should immediately be asking yourself if what you are doing is correct.

William himself was doing better, freeing slaves and the like. Right up until he intentionally tried to brainwash an entire city. Which hey! Puts him on the level of Akua of all people. Akua! The only difference in result is that William's plan failed, and Akua's succeeded.

Regarding Williams crew, i cant recall the specifics of their plan. But considering just how unfairly outmatched they were against the calamities, then i am ready to give them a little leniency in whatever weird strategy they cook up.
As for William himself. Then it should be pointed out that he had meet one of those angels himself. And he straight up explained that they dont force anyone to do anything.
So either he speaks the truth, and its not brainwashing. Or he is affected himself and innocent for thinking its not brainwashing.

Brainwashing not mind control. There is a subtle difference in that William had a choice in how he went about things. He had to fight Evil, but he didn't have to torture his victims for example. Do I blame William for fighting Cat, rebelling against Black, or trying to assassinate Warlock? No. But I do blame him for trying to brainwash a city into a bunch of fanatics.

I dont recall a single case of him doing any torturing. Finishing stuff as swiftly as possible were almost his trademark.
Also see above for why he should be excused for not thinking its brainwashing.

He, too, murdered an entire town using a bioweapon. It was a convenient way to attack Black, who he wants for...some scheme that he and the other heroes say involves soul-binding. They're literally murdering their way through innocents to gain necromantic power.

Seriously, he's like Akua, just with a lot more moralizing talk.

It was likely the only way to get to Black, who was guarded by an entire army, and getting in the way of defending against the Dead King.
And no, they are -not- aiming to get necromantic powers. We were directly told they respect him to much to risk using him as bait.
So they were planning to cut his soul out, and just use that instead. Less chance of it escaping in the night.

Avoid some of the spoilers then, but largely, heroes are either awful people, or they're killed before we know much about them. The latter kind might not be so awful, we simply don't know. However, what we *do* see of them usually indicates that they are of a kin with their more spotlighted cousins.

Well, there were several who seemed like they might be genuinely good except our protagonists killed them. You're right that all of the majorly spotlighted heroes have been jerks. I'm not sure I'd equate knowing that the villains are going to do something awful with being as bad as actually doing it though.

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire story yet so my opinion may be proven completely wrong by something I haven't gotten to.

Better read for yourself then. But as you can see, there are violent disagreement on the hero issue. D&D aligment debate has nothing on this

He chose to be enslaved, and to attempt to enslave others, yes? Sure, some blame *definitely* goes to the Hashmallim and the Gods, but the heroic people are largely chosen because they already have the ideology the gods favor. And most heroes are, per WoG, not mind controlled. Most have not directly met a choir.

Except, if he can chose to be enslaved, then he can also chose not to be enslaved. And that means its not enslavement.
Besides that, then its suposedly only "Williams" choir who has that effect.

[Rynjin]

He was faced with the old dilemma of killing 1 man to save 10. And were ruthless enough to take it. It pales compared to Blacks systematic murder of children just because they -might- eventually get in his way down the road.

Except he almost literally reversed the "old dilemma". He killed thousands of non-combatants to kill 1 man.

[Florian]

Sure, why not? That is the point: Only Named matter.

[Forum Explorer]

We have indeed. I did not agree you then. I cant see why you think i would do now.

Spoiler: Hero discussion

Show

He was faced with the old dilemma of killing 1 man to save 10. And were ruthless enough to take it. It pales compared to Blacks systematic murder of children just because they -might- eventually get in his way down the road.



As i read it she were quietly arranging everything from the shadows, making certain that Akua had all she needed.
Afterward everyone else certainly placed the blame on her shoulders, like if Akua had been her pawn.
Besides that i have still not seen any sort of situation where the SoS were in position to sacrifice anything. Let alone a nation.



Thats, sorry the choice of words, rubbish. Yes you can say that White Knight is nothing more than a soldier. You can also say he has dedicated his entire life to serve what he has been taught is the most impartial source of justice.
But you cant say he has given away his free will. Each time he follows the instructions of the choir, then its by his own choice.



Regarding Williams crew, i cant recall the specifics of their plan. But considering just how unfairly outmatched they were against the calamities, then i am ready to give them a little leniency in whatever weird strategy they cook up.
As for William himself. Then it should be pointed out that he had meet one of those angels himself. And he straight up explained that they dont force anyone to do anything.
So either he speaks the truth, and its not brainwashing. Or he is affected himself and innocent for thinking its not brainwashing.



I dont recall a single case of him doing any torturing. Finishing stuff as swiftly as possible were almost his trademark.
Also see above for why he should be excused for not thinking its brainwashing.



It was likely the only way to get to Black, who was guarded by an entire army, and getting in the way of defending against the Dead King.
And no, they are -not- aiming to get necromantic powers. We were directly told they respect him to much to risk using him as bait.
So they were planning to cut his soul out, and just use that instead. Less chance of it escaping in the night.

Spoiler: Hero discussion

Show

Not really. For starters, that old discussion implies that it's you've only got the two choices. I've said it before, but the Pilgrim did not have to sacrifice that town to take down Black. It was the safest (for him) way, and most efficent. But there were other methods that wouldn't require sacrificing the whole town. For a simple example: a non-lethal disease. Sick soldiers can't fight. Disable everyone and just walk in a take Black in much the same manner as they did anyways. Even if it did still kill some people it'd still be leagues better then killing everyone.

Not at all. Seriously, do you think Cat would do anything less than full out declare war on Malicia if she was holding her responsible for Lesse? Cat is certainly pissed off about it, but she doesn't blame Malicia for it. She blames Malicia for failing to stop it, and thus failing to uphold the bargain she made with Cat.

It's a dramatic way of speaking, I'll admit. Overall though, the White Knight does not make his own decisions. You are right in that he could if he wanted to. But he doesn't. He always follows the Heavens' orders without thinking about them or making a moral judgement of his own. Honestly, I'm not sure if he could. Like if he flipped his coin, and it came down death like it always does, I think it's distinctly possible that he actually couldn't not carry out the judgement. But I digress. Thing is, I don't accept the whole 'following orders' thing. If you are taking lives, than you have a moral imperative to make your own judgement on if it's a good cause. Refusing to do so and submitting your decision entirely to a higher authority is never a Good act. It might not be evil, depending on said higher authority, but it is never Good.

I suppose that's fair and the Warlock is certainly one of the worst Calamities considering what he's done. On the other hand, I remember Cat complaining about how Heroes shouldn't be able to call themselves heroes if they were going to pull stuff like this.

Like I already explained, he was totally brainwashed. But said brainwashing only forced him to fight evil. He did not have to resort to trying to brainwash a city as well. Or are you saying he should be forgiven because he didn't think it was brainwashing but was merely severe psychological torture? Which hey! Is part of brainwashing someone.

At best William was a rabid dog who needed to be put down to keep the world safe. At worst he was a broken man willing to sacrifice everyone to try and earn forgiveness from gods who never would. Either way, he's not any better than any of our main characters who aren't named Akua. Also no, I'm not giving him a pass for not realizing how you actually brainwash people.

Book 2, Chapter 4. He carves messages in people's flesh, and it's explicitly before he kills them.

It really wasn't. For fun, here is round 2 on a different way to could've taken down Black without slaughtering thousands of their own. Create a fog on the water, have the SoS in a small boat, and she just cuts open the ships one by one beneath the water line. It'd be pretty easy for her to sink the entire fleet that way, while it'd be very difficult to target her. The numbers of the army don't matter so much on a boat.

Besides that, binding a soul to an object is explicitly something Cat did to punish Akua. So again, the so called Heroes really aren't proving themselves to be any better than the Villains they are so hellbent on opposing.

Sure, why not? That is the point: Only Named matter.

That's a very evil perception. But even that's the case, that still doesn't make the 'Heroes' good. After all if only Named matter than the atrocities committed by the Villains don't matter either.

[Aotrs Commander]

That's a very evil perception. But even that's the case, that still doesn't make the 'Heroes' good. After all if only Named matter than the atrocities committed by the Villains don't matter either.

No Named in Liesse!

Akua confirmed as Hero!



I would also like to point out that Akua is actually getting a little bit of unfair flack here, both in and out of universe.

Black, Malicia or even Cordelia must have caused at least that many deaths (of the soldier and innocent alike) by their actions over the years. Sure, not each one by their own hand, but all the people on both sides who died in the various conflicts... Hell, by starting the crusade, Cordy may have wracked up the highest count of all.

Akua just killed the highest number at once.

(Also worth noting that Silly Willy would have caused a larger number of just-as-certain deaths with the angel; not all at once again, sure, but splashing themselves in a fervour against either Praes or the Dead King until they all died would have killed them all just as surely.)

There NO Good guys to root for here at all; you can only pick your flavour of Evil or, in the case of Hierarch, your neutral.

[Tvtyrant]

Murdering people to turn the world into an empire of slaves? Very naughty. Doing what it takes to prevent the world from becoming an empire of slaves? Exactly as naughty!

[Aotrs Commander]

Murdering people to turn the world into an empire of slaves? Very naughty. Doing what it takes to prevent the world from becoming an empire of slaves? Exactly as naughty!

The really funny part of this is you can even make an equally-valid arguement about which side the former and latter sentences apply to...

[Florian]

That's a very evil perception. But even that's the case, that still doesn't make the 'Heroes' good. After all if only Named matter than the atrocities committed by the Villains don't matter either.

You're judging this in terms of human morality, the thing that gets Amedeus so riled up against Above. A and B work based on their own framework, tho, expecting Heroes and Villains to follow them, not meaningless things like patriotism or morality.

[Forum Explorer]

You're judging this in terms of human morality, the thing that gets Amedeus so riled up against Above. A and B work based on their own framework, tho, expecting Heroes and Villains to follow them, not meaningless things like patriotism or morality.

Yes, because I'm not judging them as a character in their world. I'm judging them as me in my world, and saying that the so called good guys fail to meet my own moral code, and that quite frankly I don't think they are all that different from the bad guys.

I'm not expecting the characters to do anything, merely observing that hey, the good guys aren't.

[Tvtyrant]

The really funny part of this is you can even make an equally-valid arguement about which side the former and latter sentences apply to...

Edit: I think we've covered this ground before, so I'll move along.

I hope there isn't too long between books 4 and 5, it just got really good.

[Aresneo]

I hope there isn't too long between books 4 and 5, it just got really good.

Book 5 starts in mid January so not to long of a break.

[Tvtyrant]

Book 5 starts in mid January so not to long of a break.

Nice. It will be nice to habe snarky Cat back instead of evil Cat. I wonder if she will eveb regret stabbing Black?

[Aotrs Commander]

You're judging this in terms of human morality, the thing that gets Amedeus so riled up against Above. A and B work based on their own framework, tho, expecting Heroes and Villains to follow them, not meaningless things like patriotism or morality.

Any creature which says (tacitly of otherwise) it is beyond such petty conceits as good and evil is automatically Evil.

Nice. It will be nice to habe snarky Cat back instead of evil Cat. I wonder if she will eveb regret stabbing Black?

When has Cat NOT been Evil, since what... Chapter one or two of book one...?

[Florian]

Any creature which says (tacitly of otherwise) it is beyond such petty conceits as good and evil is automatically Evil.

Nope. "good" and "evil" (in contrast to "Good"), are cultural things. What is considered to be "right" or "wrong" is no constant and extremely dependent on the initial culture, their values and such.
For example, Callow has this thing with holding grudges and seeking revenge. That might be "right" based on the Callow cultural POV, but it might be "wrong" based on the POV of a culture which values forgiveness and harmony. There might be states that understand it as "right" to empower the citizen to be protected against the government, there're states that understand it as "right" to empower the government over the citizen. Substitute "right" and "wrong" with "good" and "evil" if you want.

In contrast, "Good" and "Evil" are absolute terms without a cultural background, no need for socialization, debate or acceptance. They just exist and are more or less equal to forces of nature. You just don't argue with the lunar circle or gravity.

[Tvtyrant]

When has Cat NOT been Evil, since what... Chapter one or two of book one...?

She's been on Team Evil from the beginning, I wouldn't consider her personally evil until she loses her humanity. That is when she goes from stretching the limits of morality to protect the rights of the people of Callow to protecting the country regardless of the moral cost.

She literally goes from "summoning devils temporarily is wrong" to "our best bet is to use a permanent hell-portal gun as a deterrant" in one chapter.

[lord_khaine]

Spoiler: Hero/moral debate -warning!-

Show

Not really. For starters, that old discussion implies that it's you've only got the two choices. I've said it before, but the Pilgrim did not have to sacrifice that town to take down Black. It was the safest (for him) way, and most efficent. But there were other methods that wouldn't require sacrificing the whole town. For a simple example: a non-lethal disease. Sick soldiers can't fight. Disable everyone and just walk in a take Black in much the same manner as they did anyways. Even if it did still kill some people it'd still be leagues better then killing everyone.

It is sometimes hard to put third way scenaries up thats more than educated guesswork. The Author clearly wanted the story to progress this way. And we dont know what elements would have gotten in the way of other solutions.
But it was certainly a shocking and extreme solution. To i guess, having an army of elite soldiers running rampant while your being invaded by the Skeleton King.

Not at all. Seriously, do you think Cat would do anything less than full out declare war on Malicia if she was holding her responsible for Lesse? Cat is certainly pissed off about it, but she doesn't blame Malicia for it. She blames Malicia for failing to stop it, and thus failing to uphold the bargain she made with Cat.

Yes i would. Cat has taken lessons in pragmatism from the grand master. She would not declare a war she knew she could not win.
Or at least, a war she knew she could not afford to fight without losing her kingdom.

It's a dramatic way of speaking, I'll admit. Overall though, the White Knight does not make his own decisions. You are right in that he could if he wanted to. But he doesn't. He always follows the Heavens' orders without thinking about them or making a moral judgement of his own. Honestly, I'm not sure if he could. Like if he flipped his coin, and it came down death like it always does, I think it's distinctly possible that he actually couldn't not carry out the judgement. But I digress. Thing is, I don't accept the whole 'following orders' thing. If you are taking lives, than you have a moral imperative to make your own judgement on if it's a good cause. Refusing to do so and submitting your decision entirely to a higher authority is never a Good act. It might not be evil, depending on said higher authority, but it is never Good.

The coin can only make yes/no replies, so that does mean he retains a large degree of autonomy. More than most soldiers are likely to have. We dont have any evidence for or against his ability to go against the direction of the coin, so i guess thats a subject that wont have any resolution. Though, is our whole society not more or less build around the concept of passing the right to make judgment on a few, highly trained and impartial people?
How is this different from a policeman taking someone before a judge?

I suppose that's fair and the Warlock is certainly one of the worst Calamities considering what he's done. On the other hand, I remember Cat complaining about how Heroes shouldn't be able to call themselves heroes if they were going to pull stuff like this.

Hmm.. as i recall.. at that point Cat had already started her own first civil war. So she isnt in position to cast those rocks to hard

Like I already explained, he was totally brainwashed. But said brainwashing only forced him to fight evil. He did not have to resort to trying to brainwash a city as well. Or are you saying he should be forgiven because he didn't think it was brainwashing but was merely severe psychological torture? Which hey! Is part of brainwashing someone.

At best William was a rabid dog who needed to be put down to keep the world safe. At worst he was a broken man willing to sacrifice everyone to try and earn forgiveness from gods who never would. Either way, he's not any better than any of our main characters who aren't named Akua. Also no, I'm not giving him a pass for not realizing how you actually brainwash people.

Book 2, Chapter 4. He carves messages in people's flesh, and it's explicitly before he kills them.

Did it now? He passed though it, and found himself a better man. So its understandable he would think its good for others as well. Therapy, not torture.
The carving bit is another thing though. Yeah he does cross the line there. Leaving messages is one thing. Not killing the noteblock first is another.

It really wasn't. For fun, here is round 2 on a different way to could've taken down Black without slaughtering thousands of their own. Create a fog on the water, have the SoS in a small boat, and she just cuts open the ships one by one beneath the water line. It'd be pretty easy for her to sink the entire fleet that way, while it'd be very difficult to target her. The numbers of the army don't matter so much on a boat.

And seems kinda risky as well. Takes a single grenade or vial of fire (hate those personally by the way), to remove one of their most valuable assets. The Saint has the kind of offence that makes her a danger to likely everyone in creation.
But she only has a mortal body.

Besides that, binding a soul to an object is explicitly something Cat did to punish Akua. So again, the so called Heroes really aren't proving themselves to be any better than the Villains they are so hellbent on opposing.

Was it to punish her though? Or to have her as backup advisor?
And the major difference seems to be, that Cat may have done it as punishment. The Heroes does it because its the only prison they trust will hold Black.
For that matter, its a lot less punishment if they dont block off sensory imput like Cat did at times.

[Forum Explorer]

Spoiler: Hero/moral debate -warning!-

Show

It is sometimes hard to put third way scenaries up thats more than educated guesswork. The Author clearly wanted the story to progress this way. And we dont know what elements would have gotten in the way of other solutions.
But it was certainly a shocking and extreme solution. To i guess, having an army of elite soldiers running rampant while your being invaded by the Skeleton King.



Yes i would. Cat has taken lessons in pragmatism from the grand master. She would not declare a war she knew she could not win.
Or at least, a war she knew she could not afford to fight without losing her kingdom.



The coin can only make yes/no replies, so that does mean he retains a large degree of autonomy. More than most soldiers are likely to have. We dont have any evidence for or against his ability to go against the direction of the coin, so i guess thats a subject that wont have any resolution. Though, is our whole society not more or less build around the concept of passing the right to make judgment on a few, highly trained and impartial people?
How is this different from a policeman taking someone before a judge?



Hmm.. as i recall.. at that point Cat had already started her own first civil war. So she isnt in position to cast those rocks to hard



Did it now? He passed though it, and found himself a better man. So its understandable he would think its good for others as well. Therapy, not torture.
The carving bit is another thing though. Yeah he does cross the line there. Leaving messages is one thing. Not killing the noteblock first is another.



And seems kinda risky as well. Takes a single grenade or vial of fire (hate those personally by the way), to remove one of their most valuable assets. The Saint has the kind of offence that makes her a danger to likely everyone in creation.
But she only has a mortal body.


Was it to punish her though? Or to have her as backup advisor?
And the major difference seems to be, that Cat may have done it as punishment. The Heroes does it because its the only prison they trust will hold Black.
For that matter, its a lot less punishment if they dont block off sensory imput like Cat did at times.

Spoiler: Hero debate

Show

Yes, I think the Author clearly wanted to show that the Heroes are just as bad as the Villains. So that the main character must be in conflict with the powers that be. She can't just slap down a peace treaty and expect the good guys to be reasonable as you'd expect someone who is supposed to be a paragon of goodness to be.

I think it happened right before the Skeleton King invaded actually. Even if it did though, it still doesn't justify an atrocity of your own.


No, she totally would. She may be pragmatic, but she's still very emotional. Much more so than Black. I mean she then goes to stab Black in the stomach and tell him to be a better person. Besides, from sheer pragmatism, being annexed by Procer isn't that different then working with Praes. Except Procer doesn't routinely engage in a bit of genocide against your own people.


The only thing we've seen the White Knight do is fight. Where his coin is very much relevant. He did pass judgement once off screen, which apparently was so bad that no one wanted him to pass judgement again. So I'm pretty sure he did his coin flip and killed both parties. Even heroes have described him as a butcher of judgement and the like. Well the Wandering Bard, I don't know if she counts as a hero anymore.

The difference is in keeping your own will. If the judge was injust in some way, the police officer might very well take justice into their own hands, or at least, seek a legal way to correct things. It's the same thing for pretty much any judge. If we feel the judge was wrong or injust than we can appeal his decision. If it's bad enough, we can even seek justice against the judge, either in the court of public opinion or just regular court.


Her whole point is that she's a villain, and the heroes need to be better than her to justify calling themselves heroes. I actually got the timing on it wrong though, she said that when she learned about William torturing people.


It's described as guilt so agonizing that you can't ignore it. You have to act to try and repent in some way, even though you know that it won't stop the guilt. Did William come out better for it? I suppose in the sense that he went from suicidal to having a purpose. Well, for him I guess I'd say he already was experiencing guilt of that level. It never going away and being pointed in a direction isn't really a step down. But I don't think he was really thinking about what other people felt at all. Only what it would result in them doing.


Sure. But that's kinda the point. If you are a hero. Frig, if you are a good person, you should be willing to take risks in order to save innocent lives. The plague is an incredibly effective weapon. Using it is literally the sort of thing you'd expect from someone like the Tyrant. Even Black would balk at using something like that, though more out of PR reasons than moral ones.

Sacrificing innocents to win? When it's not your only option? When negotiation is a possibility? Means you aren't good. Period. Yes, this makes things harder for the heroes. But that's because I hold heroes to a higher standard of conduct. It's not just a word, if you want to claim to be good, than you have to act like it.


You seriously go to huge lengths to justify the heroes actions. They explicitly say they are doing it so they can use Black as bait. That's it. They could kill him any time since they caught him.
Considering they've basically kept Black unconscious at every convenient moment, I'm pretty sure sensory deprivation is where things would start for Black, and hopefully end. Akua's been tortured a fair bit now that she's a bound soul so it is possible to go further.

[Florian]

Hm.. Ok, Ive got a bit of a background when it comes to the topics of war, management and politics.

Thing with Cat is, that the character acts like there was a choice, when there really is non. The trick here is two-fold: First, we get presented with a potential "good" option that she would like to aim forward, then we get presented with the "pragmatic" option she choses and get told how evil that is.

Switch POV and try to see it as a Tom Clancy story, we suddenly have heroic patriots which have to stoop low as part of Realpolitik to still gets things done, with the same outcome.

[Anteros]

Spoiler: Hero debate

Show

Yes, I think the Author clearly wanted to show that the Heroes are just as bad as the Villains. So that the main character must be in conflict with the powers that be. She can't just slap down a peace treaty and expect the good guys to be reasonable as you'd expect someone who is supposed to be a paragon of goodness to be.

I think it happened right before the Skeleton King invaded actually. Even if it did though, it still doesn't justify an atrocity of your own.


No, she totally would. She may be pragmatic, but she's still very emotional. Much more so than Black. I mean she then goes to stab Black in the stomach and tell him to be a better person. Besides, from sheer pragmatism, being annexed by Procer isn't that different then working with Praes. Except Procer doesn't routinely engage in a bit of genocide against your own people.


The only thing we've seen the White Knight do is fight. Where his coin is very much relevant. He did pass judgement once off screen, which apparently was so bad that no one wanted him to pass judgement again. So I'm pretty sure he did his coin flip and killed both parties. Even heroes have described him as a butcher of judgement and the like. Well the Wandering Bard, I don't know if she counts as a hero anymore.

The difference is in keeping your own will. If the judge was injust in some way, the police officer might very well take justice into their own hands, or at least, seek a legal way to correct things. It's the same thing for pretty much any judge. If we feel the judge was wrong or injust than we can appeal his decision. If it's bad enough, we can even seek justice against the judge, either in the court of public opinion or just regular court.


Her whole point is that she's a villain, and the heroes need to be better than her to justify calling themselves heroes. I actually got the timing on it wrong though, she said that when she learned about William torturing people.


It's described as guilt so agonizing that you can't ignore it. You have to act to try and repent in some way, even though you know that it won't stop the guilt. Did William come out better for it? I suppose in the sense that he went from suicidal to having a purpose. Well, for him I guess I'd say he already was experiencing guilt of that level. It never going away and being pointed in a direction isn't really a step down. But I don't think he was really thinking about what other people felt at all. Only what it would result in them doing.


Sure. But that's kinda the point. If you are a hero. Frig, if you are a good person, you should be willing to take risks in order to save innocent lives. The plague is an incredibly effective weapon. Using it is literally the sort of thing you'd expect from someone like the Tyrant. Even Black would balk at using something like that, though more out of PR reasons than moral ones.

Sacrificing innocents to win? When it's not your only option? When negotiation is a possibility? Means you aren't good. Period. Yes, this makes things harder for the heroes. But that's because I hold heroes to a higher standard of conduct. It's not just a word, if you want to claim to be good, than you have to act like it.


You seriously go to huge lengths to justify the heroes actions. They explicitly say they are doing it so they can use Black as bait. That's it. They could kill him any time since they caught him.
Considering they've basically kept Black unconscious at every convenient moment, I'm pretty sure sensory deprivation is where things would start for Black, and hopefully end. Akua's been tortured a fair bit now that she's a bound soul so it is possible to go further.

Just as bad as the villains is a stretch. Even if we accept that most of the heroes are awful people, heroes are largely reactionary. They wouldn't need to exist in the first place if you didn't have the villains oppressing and mass murdering people.

Hm.. Ok, Ive got a bit of a background when it comes to the topics of war, management and politics.

Thing with Cat is, that the character acts like there was a choice, when there really is non. The trick here is two-fold: First, we get presented with a potential "good" option that she would like to aim forward, then we get presented with the "pragmatic" option she choses and get told how evil that is.

Switch POV and try to see it as a Tom Clancy story, we suddenly have heroic patriots which have to stoop low as part of Realpolitik to still gets things done, with the same outcome.

The idea that Cat hasn't had a choice is just wrong. How many times have the heroes personally been slapped down by Cat herself? How many times has she turned down redemption? She's sold her soul to the idea that her plan to help her country from within is the only possible plan that could ever be successful even though there has been several points in the story where she's had other options to turn things around.

[Forum Explorer]

Hm.. Ok, Ive got a bit of a background when it comes to the topics of war, management and politics.

Thing with Cat is, that the character acts like there was a choice, when there really is non. The trick here is two-fold: First, we get presented with a potential "good" option that she would like to aim forward, then we get presented with the "pragmatic" option she choses and get told how evil that is.

Switch POV and try to see it as a Tom Clancy story, we suddenly have heroic patriots which have to stoop low as part of Realpolitik to still gets things done, with the same outcome.

She did have a choice, she could've (and should've) killed the Lone Swordsman when they first fought. That would've likely put off the civil war, maybe kept it off the table entirely until the Crusade. That means no Akua's Folly, and an actual functioning nobility in Callow. So than Cat would have someone she could have run the country rather then play warlord. And that someone would be good enough for the Crusade to not target Callow.

Other then that, I can't think of many times where she was in her right mind, and deliberately makes a bad choice. Like, yeah, she could have governed more effectively after setting up her council. She failed to do so, but that's failure . She could've used said council to immediately begin moving against Akua. She failed to do so, partially because she was expecting Black/Malicia to not allow her to do anything. Also she didn't realize that she'd lose so much time in Winter.

So yeah, I mostly agree with you. Cat has been ruthless and is certainly not good, but wasn't really a villain til she reached the drow where she went full evil mode.

Just as bad as the villains is a stretch. Even if we accept that most of the heroes are awful people, heroes are largely reactionary. They wouldn't need to exist in the first place if you didn't have the villains oppressing and mass murdering people.



The idea that Cat hasn't had a choice is just wrong. How many times have the heroes personally been slapped down by Cat herself? How many times has she turned down redemption? She's sold her soul to the idea that her plan to help her country from within is the only possible plan that could ever be successful even though there has been several points in the story where she's had other options to turn things around.

The Calamities are reacting as well, to living in a Wasteland where your options are genociding your own people or going to war in order to prevent mass starvation. Their answer was to conquer their neighbor (who is a breadbasket) and actually hold on to them in a sustainable manner. Cat's whole thing is reacting to that. And both groups are reacting to the rest of Praes being stupid and evil enough to think things like invisible tiger armies are a good idea.

How many of those heroes offered her redemption? Zero. They've all said they'd kill her. She even offered to allow herself to die in a redemption story to the Grey Pilgrim and he turned her down.

Seriously, name those other options. The only time I can think of is not letting William go or allowing herself to chain herself to the Choir of Contrition and basically become William 2.0.

[Florian]

Not really. We basically have to deal with a tug-of-war between Procer and Praes. The whole line of argument when it comes to the Lone Swordsman only holds true when taking Procer out of the picture and replacing it with Callow. Cats main argument back then was, that the Lone Swordsman (or other heroes) would lead Callow into a rebellion they couldn't win. That's basically bad world building, because one chapter later, we learn that the crusader-state of Procer would have interfered there and then, to keep Callow in the fold of Above.

That's not bad decision making, it´s bad penmanship.

Beyond that, I agree. Nothing to blame when she was forced to react on the spot, the Draw episode was maybe the first in a long time when she actually acted.