Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 62 of 62
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019

    Default Re: The real reason Nale destroyed Mallack (and why he died a true hero)

    Quote Originally Posted by HorizonWalker View Post
    He kinda did try to keep Tarquin from advocating for him. "I want nothing from you! I am my own man!" and all that.
    Yes, but that was because it was Tarquin and Nale wanted nothing to do with Tarquin than the idea of someone who isn't immediately in his inner circle trying to stick up for him.
    An explanation of why MitD being any larger than Huge is implausible.

    See my extended signature here! May contain wit, candor, and somewhere from 52 to 8127 walruses.

    Purple is humorous descriptions made up on the fly
    Green is serious talk about hypothetical
    Blue is irony and sarcasm

    "I think, therefore I am,
    I walk, therefore I stand,
    I sleep, therefore I dream;
    I joke, therefore I meme."
    -Squire Doodad

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: The real reason Nale destroyed Mallack (and why he died a true hero)

    Quote Originally Posted by deuterio12 View Post
    The most recent arc was "kill or be killed" against a bunch of vampires and the vampire-killers seem to be considered pretty heroic.
    The "kill or be killed" aspect of it has little to nothing to do with whether it's heroic. The most bearing it might have would be to say that killing someone in a life-or-death situation that you didn't directly cause probably isn't an overtly evil act.

    The question of heroism hinges largely on how they got to that point. The Order inserted themselves into (more direct) danger in order to save the world. Nothing in the narrative implied that the all of the denizens of the world deserved to be murdered in Hel's scheme--and in particular, nothing in the narrative implied that the dwarves deserved to die and be condemned to an eternity of suffering because a lifetime of trying to be honorable was cut short in a not-particularly-honorable way.

    We don't know for sure how the feud started between Nale and Malaak, but the narrative has painted Nale as the sort of person who goes looking for trouble and then casts himself as the victim when trouble finds him. Malaak certainly doesn't have clean hands, both in his overt role supporting several murderous, tyrannical empires, and as one of the puppet masters orchestrating the general warfare in the continent. However, despite being very clearly some flavor of Evil, he's always been shown to be personable, loyal, fairly true to his own system of honor, and capable of forming genuine emotional connections with other beings, including his adversaries. Contrast this with the borderline sociopathic Nale who really only has something resembling a genuine friendship with Sabine and the dark elf.

    I wouldn't stake my life on Nale being the one who unreasonably started this "life or death" feud, but I'd feel pretty comfortable betting a lot of money on it. To me, the subtext strongly implies that young Nale was probably just lashing out at a father/authority figure who was as close to his own father as possible without actually taking him on directly. Killing someone to protect yourself from their entirely justified revenge killing/capital punishment isn't heroic--it's pretty much the epitome of immoral criminal behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Schroeswald View Post
    Iím reminded of a Star Wars book (mwahaha) where the council adopts this thing called Taras-chi where for the purposes of debate someone debates with an unrepresented point of view, maybe Deuterio is our Taras-Chi.
    I only vaguely remember what you're talking about, but I would guess that the position is meant to be one where the Devil's Advocate is expected to argue the contrary position to the best of their ability, while still arguing in good faith. Done well, this sort of thing forces you to acknowledge the flaws in your own position--hopefully prompting introspection and the strengthening of the tenets of your beliefs--or prompts you to change your views unexpectedly.

    In my opinion, OP does neither of those things. The surprisingly fun discussions that spring up in his threads tend to become interesting and fun in spite of his continued participation, not because of it. Which is a real shame, because there are usually other people in the thread who prove that there are legitimate arguments supporting OPs initial assertion, but usually not someone who is willing to go all-in as an advocate of that position.
    Last edited by Xyril; 2019-09-06 at 06:12 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts