A Practical Guide to Evil III: A Series of Unfortunate Peace Treaties

[Rydiro]

As far as what is probably a better summary of Amadeus' world view, I would think his private discussion with Alaya is a better example: https://practicalguidetoevil.wordpre...07/epilogue-3/

I read that again, nice chapter. Do we have any hints on Malicias general motivation?
It often seems her only motivation is to maintain/gain absolute control.

[Dragonus45]

In addition to the previous statements, I would also point to the fact that the events seen on screen are not exceptional for Tariq. He probably had a sufficiently large list of bloody deeds that can add up to an equivalent to Amadeus. I know it's not explicitly stated, but given how others react to him, can one really be surprised that his hand was often red as it was pale, to quote Ishaq?

I hardly believe Tariq ever managed to equal out to being the kind of monster Amadeus is. And any kind of comparison between the two that tries to drag Tariq down to Amadeus' level is laughable by default because the only way it works is by stripping away so much context that the comparisons are meaningless. Yes he killed his nephew, on the eve of a meaningless war that would cost untold lives and kill tens of thousands and only after he desperately tried to convince him not to go to war. If you could go back in time and kill... Amadeus before he rose to power, not as a infant like Amadeus did to the last of the Callow bloodline so he could keep pushing his petty vendetta against existence, but if that was an option to avoid all the bloodshed and cultural genocide that Callow faced might that not be a fair option to take?

Or trying to say that freeing Callow from a despotic literally inhuman monster raised by the all to human monster that conquered it even if it means the, already culturally and logistically crippled, nation in question becomes a province of the larger nation next door is equivalent to Amadeus conquering the nation and slaughtering it's people and culture wholesale in the first place, to sate his personal quest for vengeance at being born into a world where evil looses because good cheats or some such bull****. The two could never be called equivalent without me feeling a need to laugh strongly, out loud at the absurdity of the statement.

Above is not Good in this case. They also view people as a means to an end for their personal side of the Wager. Considering Cat's communion with Below when attempting to save Hune, I suspect that there may be parts of Below and Above that have some form of affection for mortals, but I don't think it's universal that Above cares more for people than Below.

Not terribly interested in defending the Sword Saint she was an *******, although still absolutely a better person then Amadeus. Mostly though that's just because he managed to set that bar so remarkably low. Nor do I care to hash out the question of Above and Below right now either. It's not terribly relevant to comparing a massive dump on the pavement of creation like Amadeus to Tariq.

As far as what Amadeus perspective on the world, is it not just fury of having the Paladins conducting 'virtuous' raids? How would the culture that is the Green Stretch be shaped as being the lower caste of their own society, while the outsider also raided you claiming a right that absolved them of the sin of violence? I would think that 'One Sin, One Grace' is the exact lesson that would arise from such a culture where the blows are coming from both sides. It's probably a dark mirror of Callow as the best fed part of Praes with similar feelings of being the marching grounds of a boarder strife.

Well that cackling monarch one country over built another flying castle fueled by the tortured souls of orphaned children but we have raided the countryside over there at some point so, I guess we really are the baddies.

[The Glyphstone]

Why is everyone insisting that it must be that one is Good and one is Evil? Why can't we have Bad and Worse instead? That way, at least, no one is contorted into, for example, explaining how slaughtering a village with plague is morally justified but having children assassinated is not?

[Mith]

I hardly believe Tariq ever managed to equal out to being the kind of monster Amadeus is. And any kind of comparison between the two that tries to drag Tariq down to Amadeus' level is laughable by default because the only way it works is by stripping away so much context that the comparisons are meaningless. Yes he killed his nephew, on the eve of a meaningless war that would cost untold lives and kill tens of thousands and only after he desperately tried to convince him not to go to war. If you could go back in time and kill... Amadeus before he rose to power, not as a infant like Amadeus did to the last of the Callow bloodline so he could keep pushing his petty vendetta against existence, but if that was an option to avoid all the bloodshed and cultural genocide that Callow faced might that not be a fair option to take?

Or trying to say that freeing Callow from a despotic literally inhuman monster raised by the all to human monster that conquered it even if it means the, already culturally and logistically crippled, nation in question becomes a province of the larger nation next door is equivalent to Amadeus conquering the nation and slaughtering it's people and culture wholesale in the first place, to sate his personal quest for vengeance at being born into a world where evil looses because good cheats or some such bull****. The two could never be called equivalent without me feeling a need to laugh strongly, out loud at the absurdity of the statement.





Not terribly interested in defending the Sword Saint she was an *******, although still absolutely a better person then Amadeus. Mostly though that's just because he managed to set that bar so remarkably low. Nor do I care to hash out the question of Above and Below right now either. It's not terribly relevant to comparing a massive dump on the pavement of creation like Amadeus to Tariq.


Well that cackling monarch one country over built another flying castle fueled by the tortured souls of orphaned children but we have raided the countryside over there at some point so, I guess we really are the baddies.

.....Fine. The only way for me to defend my point is to draw on politics and history, and not all of it is 'dusty Old days'. So I guess instead of arguing the point of 'The Bad and The Worst' as Glyphstone puts it.

[Iruka]

Spoiler: Chapter 21

Show

Very interesting turn of events. Took me a little until I understood the title of the chapter.

[Forum Explorer]

Why is everyone insisting that it must be that one is Good and one is Evil? Why can't we have Bad and Worse instead? That way, at least, no one is contorted into, for example, explaining how slaughtering a village with plague is morally justified but having children assassinated is not?

It is fun to compare Taric and Amadeus because they are similar in their regard for their actions not really benefiting themselves but being aimed at a 'greater good', but I do agree that they are both awful people in the end. Taric slaughtering everyone in that village crossed the line, and I view him to be about as good as Cat or Amadeus. I'm not particularly interested in trying to argue whose atrocities aren't as bad as the other.

Spoiler: Chapter 21

Show

Very interesting turn of events. Took me a litttle until I understood the title of the chapter.

Yeah, I had to read the comments to remember what Amadeus' plan actually was.

[Tvtyrant]

This was a really beautiful chapter. It took the entire series to pull it off, having a subplot as big in its way as the mainplot climax in a song.

It is chapters like this that make me love this story. The end of the Hierarch was like that too, and Second Liesse.

[Dragonus45]

Why is everyone insisting that it must be that one is Good and one is Evil? Why can't we have Bad and Worse instead? That way, at least, no one is contorted into, for example, explaining how slaughtering a village with plague is morally justified but having children assassinated is not?

Because I just don't see it as an issue of Bad and Worse, Tariq constantly gives people chances and lets things be pushed till the last possible moment before doing something like using the plague to take out those Legions despite the consequences. Amadeus defaults to atrocities the moment he things them convenient. There is actual meaning to the difference there.

[tyckspoon]

I read that again, nice chapter. Do we have any hints on Malicias general motivation?
It often seems her only motivation is to maintain/gain absolute control.

Both Amadeus and Alaya originally wanted to change Praes, with a particular focus on removing the influence of the High Seats/Praesi nobility. They disagreed on the means - Amadeus wanted to tear it all down and let something new be built out of the rubble, and was willing to inflict a generation of chaos on the Empire to give it the chance and impetus to become something different. Alaya thought she could use the influence of the Tower and being Dread Empress to effect less disruptive reforms - she thought she could control the Role and play the politics game better than the rest of the crab bucket in order to reach the desired end. Alaya was able to convince Amadeus that she was on top of it for most of the series, so they did it her way.

But now, it appears to me that Dread Empress Malicia is in control. Not Alaya, the woman who wields the power of the Name Dread Empress to achieve her not-very-Dread-Empressy-goals - I think the Role is significantly affecting her thoughts and choices. She's playing the Praesi political dominance games not because they necessarily lead to a desired outcome, but because that's what Dread Empresses do; for the Name and Role of Dread Empress as an exemplar of Praesi culture, showing that you can outmaneuver all your rivals is a goal in itself. It doesn't have to win you anything except winning. (Contrast to Cat's lessons in the story about winning-by-losing. Malicia does not know how to do this, and while Alaya probably understood the concept at some point I don't think Malicia is capable of it now.)

[NulliusinVerba]

It is fun to compare Taric and Amadeus because they are similar in their regard for their actions not really benefiting themselves but being aimed at a 'greater good', but I do agree that they are both awful people in the end. Taric slaughtering everyone in that village crossed the line, and I view him to be about as good as Cat or Amadeus. I'm not particularly interested in trying to argue whose atrocities aren't as bad as the other.

I think it's important to note that the whole point of the comparisons between the two (because Cat does compare them implicitly, if not outright more than once) is that debating the merits of one being 'good' and the other being 'bad' kind of misses the point.

Both Tariq and Amadeus are people. They're individuals with flaws, prejudices and both of them make mistakes. We've read narration from both characters as they admit to themselves that they screwed up about something. The interesting story conceit is to look at the tension between who they are as people and the Roles they have been cast in by Above/Below.

Amadeus is all about reforming Praes and later Callow so that Evil would finally triumph over Good. He's Below's take on Pragmatic Villainy, the 'cold gears' of his Name a reflection of his constantly trying to balance what is the most pragmatic thing to do any time. He doesn't make ethical value judgments because they're not practical. He burned Procer's heartlands and killed thousands because to him, cutting off the Crusade's breadbasket was the practical move. He kills young Heroes who are basically teenagers because it's the practical move. And he notes when he meets up with Cat in Book V that he didn't have all of the information and that he should have headed for Stairway. He never apologises for what he's done, because in his mind he didn't do anything 'wrong' at the time. Right and wrong aren't questions for the Black Knight. It's worth noting that Below seems to have treated Amadeus's Role as a kind of experiment, and the moment he was losing they nope'd his Name because it stopped being a good story.

Tariq, on the other hand, is about preventing suffering. Another abstract concept that forms a rather concrete standard around which we can chart his behaviour. He kills Ishaq because it prevents a war. He wipes out the village at Lake Artoise because the Black Knight has already killed thousands and he needs to be captured right now to prevent unnecessary suffering. He has to wait at the Princes Graveyard for hundreds more to die so that his call to the Ophanim won't be, in his words, 'an empty prayer'. The Grey Pilgrim Role he's been cast in by Mercy and Above necessitates sacrifice. He can't function unless lots of people have either already died or are about to die. And he hates every second of that; the guy basically cries every battle watching people die just so that his angel friends can step in to save others. The Role is the quiet executioner as much as it is mentor and guide to Heroes. He trains the Good guys and then sends them off to die or get maimed by Below's champions so that he can save them - and he knows it.

'Good' and 'bad' are reductive labels. These are two men with decades of Role influence, and Cat's whole diatribe is against the influence in either direction (and I guess the hypocrisy that Tariq also has a body count in the thousands but is treated entirely heroically while Amadeus is seen as one of the worst monsters, but it's also a case of Protagonist Centered Morality).

[Mith]

I think it's important to note that the whole point of the comparisons between the two (because Cat does compare them implicitly, if not outright more than once) is that debating the merits of one being 'good' and the other being 'bad' kind of misses the point.

Both Tariq and Amadeus are people. They're individuals with flaws, prejudices and both of them make mistakes. We've read narration from both characters as they admit to themselves that they screwed up about something. The interesting story conceit is to look at the tension between who they are as people and the Roles they have been cast in by Above/Below.

Amadeus is all about reforming Praes and later Callow so that Evil would finally triumph over Good. He's Below's take on Pragmatic Villainy, the 'cold gears' of his Name a reflection of his constantly trying to balance what is the most pragmatic thing to do any time. He doesn't make ethical value judgments because they're not practical. He burned Procer's heartlands and killed thousands because to him, cutting off the Crusade's breadbasket was the practical move. He kills young Heroes who are basically teenagers because it's the practical move. And he notes when he meets up with Cat in Book V that he didn't have all of the information and that he should have headed for Stairway. He never apologises for what he's done, because in his mind he didn't do anything 'wrong' at the time. Right and wrong aren't questions for the Black Knight. It's worth noting that Below seems to have treated Amadeus's Role as a kind of experiment, and the moment he was losing they nope'd his Name because it stopped being a good story.

Tariq, on the other hand, is about preventing suffering. Another abstract concept that forms a rather concrete standard around which we can chart his behaviour. He kills Ishaq because it prevents a war. He wipes out the village at Lake Artoise because the Black Knight has already killed thousands and he needs to be captured right now to prevent unnecessary suffering. He has to wait at the Princes Graveyard for hundreds more to die so that his call to the Ophanim won't be, in his words, 'an empty prayer'. The Grey Pilgrim Role he's been cast in by Mercy and Above necessitates sacrifice. He can't function unless lots of people have either already died or are about to die. And he hates every second of that; the guy basically cries every battle watching people die just so that his angel friends can step in to save others. The Role is the quiet executioner as much as it is mentor and guide to Heroes. He trains the Good guys and then sends them off to die or get maimed by Below's champions so that he can save them - and he knows it.

'Good' and 'bad' are reductive labels. These are two men with decades of Role influence, and Cat's whole diatribe is against the influence in either direction (and I guess the hypocrisy that Tariq also has a body count in the thousands but is treated entirely heroically while Amadeus is seen as one of the worst monsters, but it's also a case of Protagonist Centered Morality).

It should also be the note that while Amadeus probably does have that chip on his shoulder about the Heavens 'winning easily', his goal in conquering Callow was not to put a thumb in an eye of the Heavens but to secure a food source for Praes in a fashion that would keep Praes stable and fed. That's the other reason I brought up that epilogue.

[Tvtyrant]

It should also be the note that while Amadeus probably does have that chip on his shoulder about the Heavens 'winning easily', his goal in conquering Callow was not to put a thumb in an eye of the Heavens but to secure a food source for Praes in a fashion that would keep Praes stable and fed. That's the other reason I brought up that epilogue.

He openly makes the argument that increased food stores will lance the fester of their culture, the belief that using each other makes society better.

[Mith]

He openly makes the argument that increased food stores will lance the fester of their culture, the belief that using each other makes society better.

I think we are in violent agreement here?

I was more getting at that a contrast between Amadeus and Tariq is that Amadeus focused on material condition of Praes and how to fix it, while Tariq has a stronger eye on spiritual consequences of certain actions. See Tariq's perception of the long term consequences of Cat's reign in Callow. Amadeus doesn't believe in those consequences, and sees those as Above's justification for their own actions.

[Tvtyrant]

I think we are in violent agreement here?

I was more getting at that a contrast between Amadeus and Tariq is that Amadeus focused on material condition of Praes and how to fix it, while Tariq has a stronger eye on spiritual consequences of certain actions. See Tariq's perception of the long term consequences of Cat's reign in Callow. Amadeus doesn't believe in those consequences, and sees those as Above's justification for their own actions.

We are! I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing :)

[Mith]

We are! I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing :)

Just checking. Currently in a minor heat wave, so my brain isn't always doing good for filtering context/tones from text.

[Tvtyrant]

Just checking. Currently in a minor heat wave, so my brain isn't always doing good for filtering context/tones from text.

Yeah I understand, it has been 95 here.

I think Amadeus is very much of the "material differences create moral differences" vein, and Tariq is of the "moral condition create material ones." Tariq is definitely a "bad kings bring bad weather" kind of approach, and Amadeus is of the "people wouldn't do bad things if they were of moderate wealth." Cat is of the "draconian laws make good citizens" bent, with the author seeming to come down on no one's side. Cat's worst moments are from her draconian sense of justice (see Drow enslavement) while Tariq's are from his sense of moral justice (refusing to ally with her at the Battle of the Camps) and Amadeus' from his.

In a sense every power from Ranger to Malicia is a rejection of a different approach to social bonds and justice, and while Cat's is the "righest" it is clearly wrong or it wouldn't be a Practical Guide to EVIL.

[Mith]

Yeah I understand, it has been 95 here.

I think Amadeus is very much of the "material differences create moral differences" vein, and Tariq is of the "moral condition create material ones." Tariq is definitely a "bad kings bring bad weather" kind of approach, and Amadeus is of the "people wouldn't do bad things if they were of moderate wealth." Cat is of the "draconian laws make good citizens" bent, with the author seeming to come down on no one's side. Cat's worst moments are from her draconian sense of justice (see Drow enslavement) while Tariq's are from his sense of moral justice (refusing to ally with her at the Battle of the Camps) and Amadeus' from his.

In a sense every power from Ranger to Malicia is a rejection of a different approach to social bonds and justice, and while Cat's is the "righest" it is clearly wrong or it wouldn't be a Practical Guide to EVIL.

I believe that makes Cat a Legalist.

And if the world is 'how it should be', there would be no Names.

[Tvtyrant]

I believe that makes Cat a Legalist.

And if the world is 'how it should be', there would be no Names.

I don't really get what your second sentence is saying, I must be missing something. My point was the word is broken, and each of the powers offers a "solution" that the author then shows as being flawed in many ways.

[Mith]

I don't really get what your second sentence is saying, I must be missing something. My point was the word is broken, and each of the powers offers a "solution" that the author then shows as being flawed in many ways.

It's reflecting on how a common statement of how Named come to be is them seeing the world not being how it should be and wanting the power to correct it. Since the Gods are having a Wager on what 'the best way foreword' is, they enable those people with powers to make such changes to the world and thus shape their own version of a 'perfect world'. Up to and including rising against the working of another person trying to shape the world in a way that you find incompatible to your own 'perfect vision'.

I would think that if a compromise everyone found agreeable arose, then the Wager would be resolved.

[NulliusinVerba]

Spoiler: Interlude: South

Show

So... will Basilia get a Name, do we think?

And if so, what do we think the odds are that said Name will be the Warden of the South?

Also loved seeing the Bellerophon nonsense once again! Their madness never disappoints.

[Dragonus45]

Spoiler: Interlude: South

Show

So... will Basilia get a Name, do we think?

And if so, what do we think the odds are that said Name will be the Warden of the South?

Also loved seeing the Bellerophon nonsense once again! Their madness never disappoints.

Spoiler: Interlude: South

Show

That would certainly qualify as important enough for me to be miffed it was stuck behind a paywall so I doubt the name will be that important.

[InvisibleBison]

Spoiler: Interlude: South

Show

So... will Basilia get a Name, do we think?

And if so, what do we think the odds are that said Name will be the Warden of the South?

Also loved seeing the Bellerophon nonsense once again! Their madness never disappoints.

Spoiler

Show

I'm fairly certain that Basilia's actions could lead to her getting a name, though it may not actually take for some reason (if nothing else, she hasn't won yet). But I see nothing to suggest that her name might be "Warden of the South".

[Iruka]

Spoiler: Interlude: South

Show

That would certainly qualify as important enough for me to be miffed it was stuck behind a paywall so I doubt the name will be that important.

Spoiler

Show

Is the bonus chapter also about Basilia? I had assumed it was about Ranger, going from the title.

Spoiler

Show

I'm fairly certain that Basilia's actions could lead to her getting a name, though it may not actually take for some reason (if nothing else, she hasn't won yet). But I see nothing to suggest that her name might be "Warden of the South".

Spoiler

Show

The only argument for WotS I can see would be the parallel to the Warden of the West, a possible Name with a much stronger story. Warden of the East was teased a little for Cat, but I am not really convinced so far.

[Dragonus45]

Spoiler

Show

Is the bonus chapter also about Basilia? I had assumed it was about Ranger, going from the title.

Spoiler

Show

Don’t know, I cancelled my plans for moving my subscription from Wildbow over to this once I found out the chapters weren’t going to be public to everyone.

Spoiler

Show

The only argument for WotS I can see would be the parallel to the Warden of the West, a possible Name with a much stronger story. Warden of the East was teased a little for Cat, but I am not really convinced so far.

Spoiler

Show

I feel like the area described is within the realm of what the Warden of the East would cover anyways and I am convinced something like that is filling into place for Cat.

[Tvtyrant]

The bonus chapters are free, there is just a delay on when they get released. I also think it is pretty weird to refer to a tiny fee for bonus content as a paywall. Especially given that the site we are on charges more for their bonus content.

[The Glyphstone]

That delay is until the end of the book, though. So yeah, you can get the bonus chapters for free a year later. Which could be frustrating if they're dealing with plot-relevant stuff at the time they are released.

[Tvtyrant]

That delay is until the end of the book, though. So yeah, you can get the bonus chapters for free a year later. Which could be frustrating if they're dealing with plot-relevant stuff at the time they are released.

Spoiler

Show

They haven't so far. It's been all background character development, several are for people who are already dead.

I don't see where the negativity is coming from. "Ah an artist wants to be paid, surely it is we who are getting screwed over!"

[The Glyphstone]

Spoiler

Show

They haven't so far. It's been all background character development, several are for people who are already dead.

I don't see where the negativity is coming from. "Ah an artist wants to be paid, surely it is we who are getting screwed over!"

No, you're not wrong there. But that doesn't mean a cheap paywall isn't still a paywall.

[Forum Explorer]

That delay is until the end of the book, though. So yeah, you can get the bonus chapters for free a year later. Which could be frustrating if they're dealing with plot-relevant stuff at the time they are released.

I can't remember anything actually plot important happening in the bonus chapters. Like Roland's. It was neat, and showed us a bunch about him, but you didn't need to read it to understand anything in the main books.

My problem is that I might actually lose interest in said bonus chapters by the time they are available to be read.

[Dragonus45]

Spoiler

Show

They haven't so far. It's been all background character development, several are for people who are already dead.

I don't see where the negativity is coming from. "Ah an artist wants to be paid, surely it is we who are getting screwed over!"

I'm all for helping get authors paid, almost all my patreon stuff is web serial stuff. I just don't personally support the paywall thing. I want to support the whole community not just get something nifty for me. Like for example, if TWI started making the interludes patron only I would have to really reconsider supporting it.