Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

The comic stuff here.

Moderator: Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Technic[Bot]
Grand Templar
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Fav. Twokinds Character: Raine!
Contact:

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#46 Post by Technic[Bot] »

CrRAR wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:41 pm I'm one of the folks least critical of Zen, my post was mostly just observation. He has been through a lot. I can see where he would be in distress, they do share a mind and yeah the instinct to protect a younger sibling is strongly where he's operating from.

I think the most important takeaway from this page is that Zen's reaction to the situation hasn't changed, it's nearly identical to all the other discoveries of Natani "[ACTION VERB-ING] the Basitin!?". More importantly, what has changed is Natani's willingness to fight for what's his; his own individuality. Getting more defensive when Zen escalated to shouting, rather than concede and reserve himself to "improving" by concealing and suppressing his true feelings about things is an accomplishment.

Yeahhh, can't really shame Zen too hard for any reactions. He may never view Keith amicably, just for what he is, what he is to Natani, and let's not forget the whole incident about getting a sword through the chest (though having assassins chase you around the woods is no fun). That's not something you get over, and especially sitting in a bed recovering again might stir those memories back to the surface for Zen, which doesn't bode well for a face-to-face Zen-Keith meeting.

I would hope though that Zen can be happy that Natani has a chance at being happier than he's been in a loooong time. I think we may see Zen elaborate further soon enough, one way or the other.
Was just trying to point out that his reaction: "You are [EXPLETIVE] the Basitin?!" is a perfectly normal reaction when you find out your younger sibling might or might not be a bit more "intimate" with his boyfriend than you thought and were comfortable with. Regardless of you sibling, or his significant other gender, situation and whatnot, it is quite a shock. The "Give the man a break" part was simply a, poorly executed, way to add effect/flair to my idea. Should stop doing that by the way...
And you do bring up a point that i had not considered: Zen history with Keith is "rocky" at the very best. So he might not be thrilled by the idea of his bro "sleeping with the enemy" or someone who almost killed him, besides he is technically still on a mission to kill most of the party...
Alas he has known that Nat has been "fooling" around with Keith for a while now so it is not like it came out of nowhere.
And yeah hopefully we can see some/morehappy Natani as that is best Natani.
Warrl wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:00 am
Tyger42 wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:49 amPlaying a Pandaren in WoW, it's something I've found myself having to ponder. That and how kissing works with that mouth shape. Even harder to figure that last one out for a Worgen.
Well, real world, I have seen canids express affection for each other by one of them turning its head sideways and sort of play-biting the other's snout - so that basically A's upper jaw is on B's left side, and A's lower jaw on B's right. And I've seen humans kiss in a more or less similar positions, albeit with much shorter snouts and the noses kept out of the way (which could be a limiting factor for how long canids would want to keep one kiss going, as it would interfere with breathing more than it does in humans).
I think what you are describing is called nuzzle pretty common for dogs and cats. And apparently not only for domestic variants but wild animals with social structures tend to do that too, Now that does makes sense at least in a geometric sense.
amenon wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:15 pm
[Oh, and of course, this conversation could still go in that direction right now -- it's just that I'm expecting the comedy option of Keith walking in or having walked in on those last lines :grin: But if the scene continues as it has been, then a swerve in that direction looks quite likely, after that bomb of a revelation from Natani.
Then there is the other option: That Natani simply won't care that much: "He was simply trying to be a good older brother" and a such a big over protective and a worrywart. And as Draig mentioned, it is likely that Zen does not see Natani as weak anymore. On the contrary i think he is painfully aware that his brother is much more competent than him and that in the last few days he almost killed him and on top of that he almost got himself killed.
Niara wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:05 am I've got to admit... I really don't understand the degree of vitriol and judgement I see such a shockingly large portion of the fan base throwing around at characters like Zen.
-large snip-
Honestly nice post, personally i think Zen was not the best brother in absolute terms, but giving their situation he tried his best and although he did have a few missteps he was a pretty good big bro.

Ddraig wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:00 pm This rest much I pretty much agree with; Kei is trying to do the best he can for others, he just lacks/lacked necessary information and maybe skill. Eric seems to have a decent personality, but does reprehensible things deliberately (mostly offscreen).
amenon wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:54 pm I don't want to waste words on Kei -- he's more like a bad middle manager than anything approaching actual evil -- but Eric? The rapist slaver doesn't deserve vitriol?
I think Kei was designed explicitly as a character who had made mistakes so we can safely laugh at his misfortune but nothing so severe that we want his head on a platter. Some sort of comic realief/chafendraude*,
However Eric: i will have to agree with you, the moment he appeared i thought: "This is the character who dies a few chapters later right?" I am not sure why Tom decided to go with a reformation arc instead of the simpler option of having him blow to bits at the Basitin isles, it would have created a different dynamic, his crew now trying to mutiny against Kat and Trace's entourage, Kat now would be forced to "get over him" and now the group would have to forge papers to "prove" Mike and Evals were bought to set them free making the whole transaction a bit more interesting.
Yet Trace was kinda worse and got a chance at repenting and reforming, so it would have been a bit unfair not letting Eric have a chance at redemption.
*my german is non-existent
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook
If you are new to this phpBB thing:
BBCode guide

Niara
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:49 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#47 Post by Niara »

amenon wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 4:54 pm Flatly untrue. It was Natani who made those moves, over Zen's objections, and later on when the link happened -- when they had both been co-members of the guild for at least some time -- Zen still thought it was just because she was desperate.
Just a small point of order, as I don't want to cause conflict or give any cause for argument: Rather, I feel this confirms the point I was making... Zen was against it at first, the reason he gives being clearly NOT "you can't" "you're incapable" "only males can" or anything like that... his reason was "They don't allow girls", and "What will happen if you're caught" He clearly did NOT doubt that she Could pull it off. He did not think that she was incapable of doing that because she was female, or that she was less able. That is not what we have seen in the comic at all. His words here, and the fact that he went along with it at all is a very tangible proof that he had already rejected the supposed 'truths' of their society in relation to males' and females' social positions.

As mentioned by myself and others... he allowed himself to be convinced, despite the risks, despite going directly against what he was supposed to believe as part of his social upbringing, despite the fact that it was tangibly putting a younger sibling for whom he was at least partially the sole remaining carer for, whom he was left in a position of having to finish raising, in terrible danger. If he was the person you're depicting in your own descriptions, he never would have allowed that at all. If he actually believed the things that you've claimed, Natani joining the brotherhood would have been a non-starter that he would have absolutely enforced and shut down, with the full belief that he could enforce it and that he had a right to do so. He would also have believed that there would be nothing she could do once he did put his foot down, because he would be able to stop anything she might try. If he actually believed that she was weak and/or helpless, or otherwise not able to hold her own, there would have been no reason for him to relent, and many seemingly good reasons not to. He was not that person - not then, and not presently.

Yes there's a part of him that did, and would always continue to see Natani as his little baby sister needing care and protection... Exactly the same as any parent or person in a parenting position does. Ask any mother or father you like; there is a part of you that will always see and remember that, no matter how much you know that it isn't the case. That was pretty clearly explained in the comic you linked, I feel... and it's certainly not something that he can be held 'responsible' for in any real way.
When the soul crisis happened, parts of the soul were filled in; Natani's self view was then reinforced and varnished over by an external view that complimented it.
But Zen's view didn't compliment Natani's. It contradicted it. Compromised it. Shattered it.
That's where I beg to differ - what my post was getting at in part was that at that time, Natani was Also influenced by the culture they were both growing up in. Natani was also feeling the pressure of social 'truths' that said,very clearly, that males were better in most ways. To a youth who did not feel that they were inferior to any male, but under the pressure of a society that said from all sides that by simply bodily virtue she was, the growth towards feeling more 'right' with a male appearance and more 'right' being seen as one (the body is just wrong; that's not who I really am) isn't far away. In moving in that direction, however, the underlying effect was to reinforce the idea that women, and that being female, Was genuinely weaker and less capable. Thus, Zen's soul varnish filled in and reinforced that vague sensation into something that we can tangibly see Natani does very much feel. There are times when Natani makes positively sexist remarks about women and what it is to be a woman. There is a tangible vocalisation at many points that to be a woman is to be weaker... and as Young-tani pointed out to us, none of that actually came from or originated with Zen.

Natani is in the process of reviewing that and examining the possibility of other world views.... I suspect Adelaide helped a lot with that... but it's something that was there, entrenched, from very near the beginning, and long before Zen had any influence.
I don't want to waste words on Kei -- he's more like a bad middle manager than anything approaching actual evil -- but Eric? The rapist slaver doesn't deserve vitriol?
To my mind? No. The Eric we have before us right now is a man who was brought up in a world where acts we consider horrendous breaches and violations of personhood were not considered so. He was raised to a job that contains the very worst of that, and partook of it for a time, and over that time tried to be what, in his taught world view at the time, was a good person to those under his charge. He has done many things that most of us would rightly call terrible things. He has since been questioned on that, come to question it himself, and ultimately has had to face some very serious life choices in relation to that. He has faltered and stumbled on those choices along the way, but the Eric that is before us right now is one who has decided to do the right thing, and is seeking to make amends.

That is enough.

He doesn't have to become a paragon saint in some kind of perverse effort to 'counterbalance' what he was before; that isn't how it works. The person he is now is a person who is trying to do the right thing, and seems earnestly to want to do so. He had many opportunities not to, and has had many opportunities when he could have cut and run, salvaged his business and gone back to the comfortable, easy life. Instead he's doing something that, if discovered and traced back to him, may well destroy his entire life. If he continues to grow in a positive direction, then I have no reason to hold who he was before that turn agaisnt him.

The scenes involving Mike, Evals, Kat and the control collars was a very powerful series of scenes... I honestly feel that they were and are, for me at least, the most powerful scenes in the whole comic to date; they showed us Eric at his worst - at his most desperate and most willing to violate someone's person for the sake of his own need to be certain; a man desperately afraid of losing everything, and prepared to commit some dark deeds to prevent it. It was also, however, very clearly a turning point for him. It shook him to his core, and he came out of that making new decisions that he wasn't prepared to make before it. Decision that involved accepting, willingly, the risk of losing everything, just like he was afraid of before, for the sake of other people's well-being. This man does not deserve vitriol and venom, in my mind.

((Also... people toss around the rapist remark here quite a bit, like that justifies calling for blood. Rape, as any form of personal violation, is a dark and terrible thing, but it doens't alone make the perpetrator an evil monster. I've been in situations of non-consent several times, and honestly, as terrible as those times and events were, people are just people. They're not evil, twisted monsters who deserve death; they're just people, not too far dissimilar to you or I or anyone else, who made some bad decisions and did something atrocious.))

Er.... this is going along way off the current comic page, so I'll probably curtail my involvement in the thread here, this time around... as always, this is said in the tone of being conversational, and in a friendly way; I don't wish to cause arguments or upset/annoy/anger anyone.

-Niara

User avatar
Ddraig
Templar Master
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:06 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#48 Post by Ddraig »

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am
I don't want to waste words on Kei -- he's more like a bad middle manager than anything approaching actual evil -- but Eric? The rapist slaver doesn't deserve vitriol?
To my mind? No. The Eric we have before us right now is a man who was brought up in a world where acts we consider horrendous breaches and violations of personhood were not considered so. He was raised to a job that contains the very worst of that, and partook of it for a time, and over that time tried to be what, in his taught world view at the time, was a good person to those under his charge. He has done many things that most of us would rightly call terrible things. He has since been questioned on that, come to question it himself, and ultimately has had to face some very serious life choices in relation to that. He has faltered and stumbled on those choices along the way, but the Eric that is before us right now is one who has decided to do the right thing, and is seeking to make amends.

That is enough.

He doesn't have to become a paragon saint in some kind of perverse effort to 'counterbalance' what he was before; that isn't how it works. The person he is now is a person who is trying to do the right thing, and seems earnestly to want to do so. He had many opportunities not to, and has had many opportunities when he could have cut and run, salvaged his business and gone back to the comfortable, easy life. Instead he's doing something that, if discovered and traced back to him, may well destroy his entire life. If he continues to grow in a positive direction, then I have no reason to hold who he was before that turn agaisnt him.

The scenes involving Mike, Evals, Kat and the control collars was a very powerful series of scenes... I honestly feel that they were and are, for me at least, the most powerful scenes in the whole comic to date; they showed us Eric at his worst - at his most desperate and most willing to violate someone's person for the sake of his own need to be certain; a man desperately afraid of losing everything, and prepared to commit some dark deeds to prevent it. It was also, however, very clearly a turning point for him. It shook him to his core, and he came out of that making new decisions that he wasn't prepared to make before it. Decision that involved accepting, willingly, the risk of losing everything, just like he was afraid of before, for the sake of other people's well-being. This man does not deserve vitriol and venom, in my mind.

((Also... people toss around the rapist remark here quite a bit, like that justifies calling for blood. Rape, as any form of personal violation, is a dark and terrible thing, but it doens't alone make the perpetrator an evil monster. I've been in situations of non-consent several times, and honestly, as terrible as those times and events were, people are just people. They're not evil, twisted monsters who deserve death; they're just people, not too far dissimilar to you or I or anyone else, who made some bad decisions and did something atrocious.))

Er.... this is going along way off the current comic page, so I'll probably curtail my involvement in the thread here, this time around... as always, this is said in the tone of being conversational, and in a friendly way; I don't wish to cause arguments or upset/annoy/anger anyone.

-Niara
I haven't bothered to think on what each character deserves (mostly because people rarely get what they deserve, be it good or bad), I've only tried to find a spot for them on my mental good/bad meter (the requirements of which, admittedly, correspond awfully close to a selfless/selfish meter).

That being out of the way, Eric may have been raised in a society where it is considered normal and in a family in which the slave trade was the family business, but he doesn't tolerate it - on the contrary, he embraces it. He makes it his primary business to use the worst parts of the society he grew up in and is not discomfited in the least by it. Eric is personable in conversation, sure, and that is how we seem him the most, but that's pretty much his only redeeming trait.
He has to have it pointed out to him that other people have feelings, too. Kat is the exception for how he treats keidran, not the rule. That she had to equate Mike and Evals to herself to force him to realize that - holy [censored] - they're people, too, is not a point in his favor. Hell, it even appears that the only real reason he's treating them halfway decently is because he doesn't want to upset his "sister". Hell, he still demanded a pretty penny for Mike and Evals even after Kathrine literally bawling her eyes out and pleading with him. In doing so, he isn't 'risking losing everything'; he covered his [censored] by signing ownership of the two over to Trace and letting Trace free them. He only has to say he had no idea Trace was going to free them.

As for the last portion, if someone is deliberately doing "dark and terrible things" I wouldn't exactly count them of supreme moral fiber (/sarcastic understatement).

I should note that I don't bother with the 'traditional' definition of evil (someone who creates suffering for suffering's sake) because it simply doesn't exist, but rather define it as "someone who deliberately and knowingly creates suffering that exceeds any that their actions relieve". Eric knows that his actions cause suffering, but in his eyes keidran aren't people so it doesn't matter. Kat is the only one he truly sees as a person, and Mike and Evals, as far as I can tell, he holds in this odd limbo of "they matter but not really".

When I judge someone, I care less about the results of their actions than I do their intentions in the context of what they know, and the value they place on things in their decisions.

[edited for clarity and flow of thought]
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything, but it's wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it always finds that darkness has gotten there first, and is waiting for it."

User avatar
amenon
Grand Templar
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:11 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#49 Post by amenon »

Ddraig wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:00 pm To be fair to Zen, while he was against it initially [...] he was able to be convinced to allow her to join him despite his (later proven justified) misgivings.
I think this is a bit of a misstatement (see below, when I reply to Niara)

Ddraig wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:00 pm You probably realize/meant this as well, but I'd like to stress past-tense in "it's how Zen remembered you". Not "remembers", but specifically talking about only at the time of the link being forged and not anymore. So Zen doesn't view her that way any more.
I do think he still views young Natani that way. After all, what would have made him change his mind? How he really, in his heart of hearts, views the current-Natani-his-brother... I don't know! But I'm hoping to find out.

Ddraig wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:00 pm It was literally his job to take care of her, with the obvious reason that she's less capable than him (true due to age, not necessarily because she's... a she, and though we don't have an explicit explanation as to which reason for that view Zen had, it can be inferred to be primarily due to her age by the phrasing in the split personality scene).
I don't think it's really because of the age difference, but rather because of seeing Natani through his own role -- the panel we see there is the time right after they lost their parents. The age difference had become less relevant by the time of the link, and Natani much less helpless, but that's still the memory Zen was focused on. (Which makes sense; that moment defined his whole life. It just should not have also defined Natani's, at least not in the way it came to.)

Technic[Bot] wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:55 am And you do bring up a point that i had not considered: Zen history with Keith is "rocky" at the very best. So he might not be thrilled by the idea of his bro "sleeping with the enemy" or someone who almost killed him, besides he is technically still on a mission to kill most of the party...
I don't think the whole mutual-murder-attempt thing is going to weigh on either side of the equation. (Unless to foreshadow a romance; after all, Keith and Natani have also tried to kill each other :P) I think Keith's and Zen's relationship will be primarily defined through their respective relationships with Natani, rather than that brief -- and pointed :P -- first meeting or any fallout from there.

Technic[Bot] wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:55 am Then there is the other option: That Natani simply won't care that much: "He was simply trying to be a good older brother" and a such a big over protective and a worrywart. And as Draig mentioned, it is likely that Zen does not see Natani as weak anymore. On the contrary i think he is painfully aware that his brother is much more competent than him and that in the last few days he almost killed him and on top of that he almost got himself killed.
It's entirely possible that Natani won't care that much -- in which case, the manner in which he doesn't care is still going to be interesting -- but Zen definitely will. Unless Natani deliberately chooses to shield him from it (which, again, would be interesting.)

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am Just a small point of order, as I don't want to cause conflict or give any cause for argument: Rather, I feel this confirms the point I was making... Zen was against it at first, the reason he gives being clearly NOT "you can't" "you're incapable" "only males can" or anything like that... his reason was "They don't allow girls", and "What will happen if you're caught" He clearly did NOT doubt that she Could pull it off. He did not think that she was incapable of doing that because she was female, or that she was less able. That is not what we have seen in the comic at all. His words here, and the fact that he went along with it at all is a very tangible proof that he had already rejected the supposed 'truths' of their society in relation to males' and females' social positions.
No, what he says is 'Even if I allowed it', and then he gives those justifications for why it wouldn't matter even if he did. In essence: 'No, because I say so, and also because of these other reasons because you keep pestering me to change my mind.'

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 amAs mentioned by myself and others... he allowed himself to be convinced, despite the risks, despite going directly against what he was supposed to believe as part of his social upbringing, despite the fact that it was tangibly putting a younger sibling for whom he was at least partially the sole remaining carer for, whom he was left in a position of having to finish raising, in terrible danger. If he was the person you're depicting in your own descriptions, he never would have allowed that at all.
He didn't allow himself to be convinced. He was not amenable to repeated argument. Natani forced his hand.

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am If he actually believed the things that you've claimed, Natani joining the brotherhood would have been a non-starter that he would have absolutely enforced and shut down, with the full belief that he could enforce it and that he had a right to do so.
And that is precisely what he did. (Though I agree that it's likely the main driving force was wanting to protect her. Quite possibly with a good dollop of sexism, though.)

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am He would also have believed that there would be nothing she could do once he did put his foot down, because he would be able to stop anything she might try. If he actually believed that she was weak and/or helpless, or otherwise not able to hold her own, there would have been no reason for him to relent, and many seemingly good reasons not to. He was not that person - not then, and not presently.
The best I can say is that he was not willing to try to physically coerce Natani, once she was no longer willing to take 'no' for an answer. And once she was in, all choices disappeared.

And even after all of that, he still thought it was because she was desperate, rather than determined.

He never knew his sister.

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am That's where I beg to differ - what my post was getting at in part was that at that time, Natani was Also influenced by the culture they were both growing up in. Natani was also feeling the pressure of social 'truths' that said,very clearly, that males were better in most ways. To a youth who did not feel that they were inferior to any male, but under the pressure of a society that said from all sides that by simply bodily virtue she was, the growth towards feeling more 'right' with a male appearance and more 'right' being seen as one (the body is just wrong; that's not who I really am) isn't far away. In moving in that direction, however, the underlying effect was to reinforce the idea that women, and that being female, Was genuinely weaker and less capable. Thus, Zen's soul varnish filled in and reinforced that vague sensation into something that we can tangibly see Natani does very much feel. There are times when Natani makes positively sexist remarks about women and what it is to be a woman. There is a tangible vocalisation at many points that to be a woman is to be weaker... and as Young-tani pointed out to us, none of that actually came from or originated with Zen.
I don't think there's any real foundation for the idea that Zen enforced Natani's existing sexism. After all, she had proof positive of her own value in herself, the lived experience of taking on male societal roles -- despite the objections of his brother -- just fine. In the words of youngNatani, 'I didn't mind being a girl.' She knew her own value. She was confident.

And then that confidence got replaced by 'she was desperate.' Because, again, her brother did not know her.

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am To my mind? No. The Eric we have before us right now is a man who was brought up in a world where acts we consider horrendous breaches and violations of personhood were not considered so.
But anti-slavery sentiment among humanity exists -- Saria was one we know about. In this world as in ours, there are those whose conscience will guide them true, and those who either don't have one or are all too willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

And while it's a little past and beyond the point, I also reject the implication of moral relativity. There is that saying that 'everyone is the hero of their own story', and while that's not strictly true, it's true enough that people's opinion of themselves -- or societies' opinion of themselves -- is not a standard of morality I'm willing to accept.

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am He had many opportunities not to, and has had many opportunities when he could have cut and run, salvaged his business and gone back to the comfortable, easy life.
When were these opportunities?

Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 am ((Also... people toss around the rapist remark here quite a bit, like that justifies calling for blood. Rape, as any form of personal violation, is a dark and terrible thing, but it doens't alone make the perpetrator an evil monster. I've been in situations of non-consent several times, and honestly, as terrible as those times and events were, people are just people. They're not evil, twisted monsters who deserve death; they're just people, not too far dissimilar to you or I or anyone else, who made some bad decisions and did something atrocious.))
It is true that the fact that he's a rapist is almost... subsumed by the larger topic of him being a slaver -- after all, when you view people as property, what is rape but one way of making use of that property? But I do always bring it up, because there are a surprising number of people who are happy to... romanticize slavery. Underlining the fact that he's a rapist can make them reconsider what they are defending, and also separates Eric from the 'ideal' of 'good slaver'.

Eric, in doing what he's done, absent any law or court that will punish him, has at the very least forfeited his moral right to not be similarly violated. That's different from saying that he deserves dire consequences, but vitriol? Yes, definitely. And if one of his slaves should decide to take further issue with him, they would be absolutely justified in visiting similar depradations on him. Nobody is owed forgiveness, not even the deserving. And he's far from deserving.

Ddraig wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:35 am He isn't 'risking losing everything'; he covered his [censored] by signing ownership of the two over to Trace and letting Trace free them. He only has to say he had no idea Trace was going to free them.
This is something I don't fault him for. After all, it's Trace's fault that it would be illegal for Eric to free them, so it's eminently appropriate to make that liability fall on him. Evals and Mike were de facto freed on the ship, so that part of the arrangement is just formalities.

What is a very solid strike against him is that he profited on the sale. And there's a wonderful irony in that he then turned around and -- quite possibly literally -- paid Mike and Evals out of the money he made from selling them. That is not the act of someone who recognizes on any level that having owned them in the first place was wrong. He literally short-changed them on their own monetary value.
]]> Twokinds search (search the comic based on art or text!)
     
My most recent Twokinds smutfics, newest to oldest [NSFW]:

User avatar
MuonNeutrino
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:55 pm
Location: Sol system, Orion spiral arm, Milky Way
Fav. Twokinds Character: Rose, Natani

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#50 Post by MuonNeutrino »

amenon wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:57 pm
Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 amTo my mind? No. The Eric we have before us right now is a man who was brought up in a world where acts we consider horrendous breaches and violations of personhood were not considered so.
But anti-slavery sentiment among humanity exists -- Saria was one we know about. In this world as in ours, there are those whose conscience will guide them true, and those who either don't have one or are all too willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

And while it's a little past and beyond the point, I also reject the implication of moral relativity. There is that saying that 'everyone is the hero of their own story', and while that's not strictly true, it's true enough that people's opinion of themselves -- or societies' opinion of themselves -- is not a standard of morality I'm willing to accept.
On the topic of moral relativism, I think there's a bit of a nuance here that deserves being made explicit. I am likewise uncomfortable with moral relativism in a lot of ways. I don't believe that certain acts become acceptable simply because they were carried out in the context of a society that condones them, and I don't believe that one has to *accept* another society's moral beliefs when they conflict with one's own.

However, there's one aspect of the question where I do somewhat sympathise with the relativism side, and it lies in the distinction between the acts themselves and the person committing the acts. I will continue to condemn the *acts* (such as slavery) that my morality tells me are wrong. However, I find it hard to condemn the *people* for simply doing what their society tells them is a moral and valid thing to do. Will I say that what they're doing is wrong? Certainly. Would I try to convince them not to do such things? If I could. Would I reject the person's or society's view of themselves as moral paragons? Absolutely. Would I think that they would be better people if they changed their views? For sure. Would I condemn their moral system as wrong? Yes. But I can't, in good conscience, condemn individual people for simply doing and believing what they've been taught to do and believe. I can't judge someone who doesn't understand that what they're doing is wrong.

I don't excuse the things Eric's done. He *is* a slaver and a rapist, and those things are most definitely wrong. And yes, there are a few who seem to try to treat keidran more kindly (although Tom had something to say on the topic of Saria being anti-slavery). But it was simply what he had been raised to regard as normal, and he's actually pretty young. I can condemn what he's done, but I can't condemn *him* for not being superhuman enough to decide, umprompted, to reject all of his society's views and everything he'd ever been taught on the subject before his teens were even out.

Of course, now that he's had his nose rubbed in it and been made to actually think about the morality of his actions it changes a bit. I don't blame someone for accepting what they'd been taught, but if they *do* begin to evaluate their actions and still decide to not change, I would legitimately regard that as a moral failing on a personal level. The jury is still out on this aspect, though (see below).
amenon wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:57 pmWhat is a very solid strike against him is that he profited on the sale. And there's a wonderful irony in that he then turned around and -- quite possibly literally -- paid Mike and Evals out of the money he made from selling them. That is not the act of someone who recognizes on any level that having owned them in the first place was wrong. He literally short-changed them on their own monetary value.
I'd actually push back against this a bit. First, we don't actually know if he profited from their sale or not, because we have no idea what the terms of the sale were nor the value of the money he gave them. It's entirely possible that he gave them the equivalent of their sale price. We don't know if he 'short-changed' them in any way - it's possible, for sure, but it's also possible he did the exact opposite.

And second, and more importantly, I'd actually argue that this is *exactly* the act of someone who could be starting to realize that owning people might be wrong. The key is his statement that he was paying them 'for services rendered' - it's not just charity, it's not just because he feels bad about what he did, it's not just for saving stuff from the ship, but rather it's compensation for what they've done for him. The core of slavery is the idea that a sentient being can be 'owned' by another, that slaves don't belong to themselves, but rather that they and their labor belong to their owner, to be directed and used as he sees fit without consideration or compensation for the slaves. *Paying* them for what they did as slaves directly goes against this viewpoint - it's a tacit admission that *they* ought to own the value of their work, not him. By the 'normal' view, even if he wanted to free them he didn't have to do this. He didn't have to give them money, and specifically he didn't have to give them money *as compensation for their work*.

He's already admitted that he now realizes it's wrong to suppress someone's free will using the collars, which is a start at undermining one of the aspects of slavery - the idea that the owner somehow has a right to control the lives of his slaves. Paying Mike and Evals for their work acknowledges that their value in some sense belongs to them, which is a start at undermining that other major aspect - the idea that the owner is entitled to the product of his slaves' labor. In other words, at some level, some part of him is starting to question the basic assumptions of slavery. He wouldn't have worded his statements in that comic the way he did otherwise. It doesn't excuse what he's done, but it does give me hope for his further development.
Image

aitaituo
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#51 Post by aitaituo »

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm
amenon wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:57 pm
Niara wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:15 amTo my mind? No. The Eric we have before us right now is a man who was brought up in a world where acts we consider horrendous breaches and violations of personhood were not considered so.
But anti-slavery sentiment among humanity exists -- Saria was one we know about. In this world as in ours, there are those whose conscience will guide them true, and those who either don't have one or are all too willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

And while it's a little past and beyond the point, I also reject the implication of moral relativity. There is that saying that 'everyone is the hero of their own story', and while that's not strictly true, it's true enough that people's opinion of themselves -- or societies' opinion of themselves -- is not a standard of morality I'm willing to accept.
On the topic of moral relativism, I think there's a bit of a nuance here that deserves being made explicit. I am likewise uncomfortable with moral relativism in a lot of ways. I don't believe that certain acts become acceptable simply because they were carried out in the context of a society that condones them, and I don't believe that one has to *accept* another society's moral beliefs when they conflict with one's own.

However, there's one aspect of the question where I do somewhat sympathise with the relativism side, and it lies in the distinction between the acts themselves and the person committing the acts.
Is anyone really comfortable with moral relativism? The fact is that in practice morals are relative. People do not agree with other people's morals, even within a single neighborhood of a monocultural ethnostate. Heck, nuclear family households are known to have competing moral systems The lesson of moral relativism is that no one has found a privileged observer position for morals, so our judgement of others' immorality isn't based on facts, but our interpretations and likewise for their judgement of our immorality. As such, no moral system can be valued higher than any other for any objective reason. The closest theory to objective morality is the genetic morality hypothesis. Even if it were true, it's not very encouraging. It claims that we have great overlap in our moral systems because those systems were beneficial for reproduction, like toenails or pooping. And that we can't view other species as moral equals unless they are sufficiently similar to us at the genetic level.

I used to think the difference between intentions and results in moral decisions was pretty interesting. But the older I get the more I have understood that there are more illegal voters in the United States than people who commit an action they consider immoral for a reason they consider immoral to an end they consider immoral. We all believe we are the good guy. Even people who say they are terrible people are following their own moral compass.

Niara
Apprentice
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:49 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#52 Post by Niara »

I have such trouble resisting a discussion.... If I respond again after this with another long chattery post, please scold me.

Keeping it short and posing some questions to think on, as best I can:
I don't think it's really because of the age difference, but rather because of seeing Natani through his own role -- the panel we see there is the time right after they lost their parents. The age difference had become less relevant by the time of the link, and Natani much less helpless, but that's still the memory Zen was focused on. (Which makes sense; that moment defined his whole life. It just should not have also defined Natani's, at least not in the way it came to.)
This presumes that the event did not and had not had a profoundly influential impact on Natani at the time already. I think it very clearly did. It was a situation of helplessness that they *both* went through, but Zen felt the responsibility to suck up and try to be the new parent, because he was the older sibling. The result was a young Natani who, in the midst of a life-defining grief, was faced with 'stronger-older-brother-protecting', and 'I(as sister by coincidence) feel so sad about this and was so helpless to stop it'. The event had a deep and profound impact on Natani as much as it did Zen, long before the link was a thing. The difference was in the perspective of one who had to deal with loss and grief and assume a protective role (and we don't actually know the minutia of why he felt that need. It could have been he felt that way because he was the boy, it could have been he felt that way because he was the elder. We literally do not know which was the stronger driving force, but it very strongly seems to have been the latter and not the former), and one who had to deal with loss and grief, but was comforted and reassured through it by an older sibling who made promises of protection.

That Natani rejected the idea of feeling like a victim and grew up over the next stretch of time to deny any weakness or less capability in herself is commendable, but the rejection of weakness didn't start with Zen treating her like she was; it couldn't have. I could only have come from a seed of that feeling, and rebellion against it, that started with Natani directly.
I don't think the whole mutual-murder-attempt thing is going to weigh on either side of the equation. (Unless to foreshadow a romance; after all, Keith and Natani have also tried to kill each other :P) I think Keith's and Zen's relationship will be primarily defined through their respective relationships with Natani, rather than that brief -- and pointed :P -- first meeting or any fallout from there.
Probably true, but don't underestimate their perspectives on the difference between 'flailed a bit in a regretful attempt at violence', 'tried to poison a poison-immune person' and 'literally stabbed a sword through my chest'.
No, what he says is 'Even if I allowed it', and then he gives those justifications for why it wouldn't matter even if he did. In essence: 'No, because I say so, and also because of these other reasons because you keep pestering me to change my mind.


Which is the comment of a protector, regardless of sex... and the justifications that follow it are distinctly not sexist ones, which was my point.
He didn't allow himself to be convinced. He was not amenable to repeated argument. Natani forced his hand.
Point is, if he actually believed ANY of the sexist social culture as fact, there would have been no forcing of hand. He would have believed, absolutely, that he COULD stop her, and he would also have believed absolutely that NOT stopping her was CERTAIN DEATH for her, because he would have believed that she was NOT CAPABLE of doing the same job and work as a male.

Cutting your hair and dressing up is not a hand-force. It's a strong statement, sure, but it's not anything tangible to anyone who believes that they know best. Sexist-zen would have treated such an act in the same way you treat a petulant or misbehaving child... certainly not by allowing the behaviour to continue. So, no, that is not 'Precisely what he did'. It is precisely what he DIDN'T do. He made words about shutting her down and stopping it, but he did not actually stop her. If he believed that, as a female, she was less capable and couldn't do what she was trying to, then, out of care, he would have stopped her. Considering they were dealing with life and death, someone who loved and cared for her, but who genuinely believed the sexist culture, would have considered it his duty to stop her, even if that meant physically preventing her from doing what she wanted. This would have been backed up by the belief that he was, naturally, capable of physically preventing her. He didn't.

I feel like I pointed that out before and you just said "Oh but he did stop her!" No... he didn't... because she joined the order and the story progressed.
And even after all of that, he still thought it was because she was desperate, rather than determined.
Natani's words, not Zens, incidentally. Young Natani says that the impression of her feeling desperate came from Zen... But it's never defined what that impression is supposedly desperate about or for. It feels a lot like one of Natani's own half-formed introspection-lacking conclusion jumps. Young Natani, at that time was determined to pull her own weight, and to support and protect her brother while he was doing dangerous, life-threatening work. She wanted to be with him and share that danger, from what we can gather, and also be another pair of hands to help them earn their keep and survive. When you are talking about a sibling who is going into danger and leaving you behind to protect you, how far removed from each other, exactly, are determination and desperation? I'm willing to wager there were strong elements of both in that process, and they blurred together a lot. Zen saw the desperation more easily because he wasn't feeling that emotional mix, but there is no fault or sexism in that. It's quite possible that Zen himself was feeling quite desperate as well; it was a lean and mean time for them both, and he was going into very dangerous work for the sake of trying to keep them both alive.

Have we considered here that the emotional overlay of this entire section might not be 'Zen's impression of what Natani was feeling', but rather more directly, a bleed across of what Zen himself was feeling? Do we know that it wasn't because Zen himself was feeling desperate (because of their difficult position and bleak future, which was always on his mind), and also helpless (to stop Natani marching into danger no matter how hard he tried to get her not to... precisely because he did not innately believe the sexism of his culture, and knew he was helpless to stop her in reality (which, to reiterate, someone who believed that cultural truth would not believe)? Remember that young Natani is not some omniscient spirit guide... it's just young Natani, looking back reflectively, but no more knowledgeable about Zen's own feelings and motives than anyone else who isn't him.
I don't think there's any real foundation for the idea that Zen enforced Natani's existing sexism. After all, she had proof positive of her own value in herself, the lived experience of taking on male societal roles -- despite the objections of his brother -- just fine. In the words of youngNatani, 'I didn't mind being a girl.' She knew her own value. She was confident. And then that confidence got replaced by 'she was desperate.' Because, again, her brother did not know her.
I don't feel that what you're referencing makes the point you're trying to claim it does. I think it gives us every foundation for seeing Natani's existing self-assimilated sexism. We're seeing the same events and reading the same details, but we are receiving them differently, and coming away with different impressions. I doubt that there is an objective truth to be reached, short of Tom dropping down to tell us directly exactly what the content of younger Zen's thoughts, emotions and beliefs were. I personally feel that there's too much you're not considering or accounting for, while I suspect you feel I'm viewing characters through shallow rose-glass. Either way the discussion is interesting.

And while it's a little past and beyond the point, I also reject the implication of moral relativity. There is that saying that 'everyone is the hero of their own story', and while that's not strictly true, it's true enough that people's opinion of themselves -- or societies' opinion of themselves -- is not a standard of morality I'm willing to accept.
To be clear, I wasn't citing actual moral relativism at a full-blown societal level. I would also reject any claims to absolute objective morality as well... I was just pointing out the unfairness of judging someone worthy of punishment by a moral code that they havne't been brought up to follow. It is a factor that is important to consider; never the be-all end-all, but important all the same. Would it be commendable if he had been an anti-slavery activist? Absolutely. Should he be judged for accepting the norms of his society and accepting the inheritance of his family's business? Not in my opinion.
When were these opportunities?
At any point he could have decided to stop associating with these moral deviants who want to treat slaves like people and put them off his ship (yes into the ocean if need be), or refused to carry them in the first place. He could have negotiated to surrendered what aspects of his property were required to free his ship and immediately leave the basitin isles in good legal standing, and bluntly disassociated himself from the group. He could have chosen not to be any part of this adventure once he realised what sort of people he was with, and at any point he could cut himself off from them and step out of it to get back to his business and life. At most he would have lost some goods and two slaves, maybe three; a pittance to someone for whom slavery is their business. If he considered Mike and Evals objects for use, then that would have been a very easy decision to make.

It is true that the fact that he's a rapist
Is he? Proof?
Eric, in doing what he's done, absent any law or court that will punish him, has at the very least forfeited his moral right to not be similarly violated.
And if one of his slaves should decide to take further issue with him, they would be absolutely justified in visiting similar depradations on him.
And the world goes blind. No thanks.

I'm not interested in your vengeance-justifying morality at this time... that's not how it works. You're free to it if that's what you want for yourself, but I think far less, morally speaking, of anyone who thinks it's a natural right to visit violence, suffering or violation upon a person just because they did it first. It's not, and it never will be.
He isn't 'risking losing everything'; he covered his [censored] by signing ownership of the two over to Trace and letting Trace free them. He only has to say he had no idea Trace was going to free them.
He is risking it. If it is discovered that he knew, before the sale, it destroys his life. He's doing it anyway. He's being as safe about it as he can, but there is absolutely nothing stopping him from saying "No, I know that you intend to free them, legally I cant release them to you now and I'm not going to risk myself doing that. Sorry." Instead, he's agreeing to take the risk, as carefully as he can manage.
What is a very solid strike against him is that he profited on the sale. And there's a wonderful irony in that he then turned around and -- quite possibly literally -- paid Mike and Evals out of the money he made from selling them. That is not the act of someone who recognizes on any level that having owned them in the first place was wrong. He literally short-changed them on their own monetary value.
This is answered by the other post above, but, how much are they legally worth? We don't know. How much did he pay for them? We don't know. How much of the money he's getting from Trace did he give to Mike and Evals? We don't know. There are no grounds to try to claim that he's short-changing them, and as further pointed out, the money is stated to be for their past service, which is an acknowledgement of their right to value even before they were freed.

As I said at the start... if I post another long rambly chatter answer after this, please scold me... I honestly do not have the time in my was-too-busy working schedule to be dedicating to these discussions, as interesting as I find them....

-Niara

Warrl
Grand Templar
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:19 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#53 Post by Warrl »

Is anyone really comfortable with moral relativism? The fact is that in practice morals are relative. People do not agree with other people's morals, even within a single neighborhood of a monocultural ethnostate.
My take on it is that there IS a single absolutely correct moral standard, and in any given situation any two people who both completely understand that standard and also know all relevant facts must come to the same conclusion about morality...

... but no such people can be proven to have ever existed. Probably in part because no such people have ever existed.

User avatar
Ddraig
Templar Master
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:06 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#54 Post by Ddraig »

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am
When were these opportunities?
At any point he could have decided to stop associating with these moral deviants who want to treat slaves like people and put them off his ship (yes into the ocean if need be), or refused to carry them in the first place. He could have negotiated to surrendered what aspects of his property were required to free his ship and immediately leave the basitin isles in good legal standing, and bluntly disassociated himself from the group. He could have chosen not to be any part of this adventure once he realised what sort of people he was with, and at any point he could cut himself off from them and step out of it to get back to his business and life. At most he would have lost some goods and two slaves, maybe three; a pittance to someone for whom slavery is their business. If he considered Mike and Evals objects for use, then that would have been a very easy decision to make.


[the parts before this quote starts, I pretty much agree with so I won't bother reiterating an already made statement (with the moral relativity caveat about accepting vs embracing I mentioned prior)]
The moral deviants, meaning his "sister"? Flora did press Eric on the issue, but only after they were already at sea heading back to the mainland. Trace asked about it (after Flora failed) but didn't really get into trying to convince Eric before the fire happened, and from that point Eric was pushing the issue while Trace's reactions were more along the lines of "uh, alright".
As for being able to distance himself from them, even discounting Kat he'd have to throw the whole party overboard if he wanted to no longer be around them. Considering it would have been him (and, he would have believed, Mike and Evals; neither of which fighters) against two trained fighters and the former Grand Templar, I sincerely doubt he'd have been successful.
It is true that the fact that he's a rapist
Is he? Proof?
Considering when he "asked" he forgot she couldn't say no. He's also used to being... hands on with them, and he outright admits to laying with those for whom he knows it's been rendered literally impossible to say no, it's no different than him taking advantage of someone unconscious except that the unconscious person doesn't have to be awake to actually experience it nor to fear it happening every moment of their lives.
He isn't 'risking losing everything'; he covered his [censored] by signing ownership of the two over to Trace and letting Trace free them. He only has to say he had no idea Trace was going to free them.
He is risking it. If it is discovered that he knew, before the sale, it destroys his life. He's doing it anyway. He's being as safe about it as he can, but there is absolutely nothing stopping him from saying "No, I know that you intend to free them, legally I cant release them to you now and I'm not going to risk myself doing that. Sorry." Instead, he's agreeing to take the risk, as carefully as he can manage.
He's managing the risk, sure, but it's very easy for him to say "No, I had no idea. If he's freeing slaves, he's obviously against the trade and would say that to take down anyone in the trade that he could."
What is a very solid strike against him is that he profited on the sale. And there's a wonderful irony in that he then turned around and -- quite possibly literally -- paid Mike and Evals out of the money he made from selling them. That is not the act of someone who recognizes on any level that having owned them in the first place was wrong. He literally short-changed them on their own monetary value.
This is answered by the other post above, but, how much are they legally worth? We don't know. How much did he pay for them? We don't know. How much of the money he's getting from Trace did he give to Mike and Evals? We don't know. There are no grounds to try to claim that he's short-changing them, and as further pointed out, the money is stated to be for their past service, which is an acknowledgement of their right to value even before they were freed.

As I said at the start... if I post another long rambly chatter answer after this, please scold me... I honestly do not have the time in my was-too-busy working schedule to be dedicating to these discussions, as interesting as I find them....

-Niara
I recall a page where Trace handed Eric a bag of coins, which, unfortunately, I can't find at the moment, while Eric payed the two of them literally pocket change (an amount I'm confident Trace had on him, the lack of which was the reason Eric was unwilling to actually sell the two until they got to land, though he did free them immediately on the promise of future payment)
I will concede one thing - finding that last Eric page I realize I had completely forgotten about that next-to-last panel (incidentally the last time I think we've seen Eric); I'll give him he's apparently made the realization of oh crap, maybe I've been a bad guy all along, and is doing some introspection. What results from that we don't know yet and it will determine what side of the moral coin he ends up on (whether he goes back to what he was doing or if he does change, how much so)
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything, but it's wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it always finds that darkness has gotten there first, and is waiting for it."

Warrl
Grand Templar
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:19 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#55 Post by Warrl »

Well, I did last night think about how it might have worked out if Eric - complying what what he said the law was - had refused to sell M/E to Trace knowing that Trace intended to free them.

Trace could have pledged to NEVER free them. Upsetting Flora greatly.

And bought them.

And then given them as a gift to Flora.

Who never made any such pledge.

User avatar
amenon
Grand Templar
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:11 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#56 Post by amenon »

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm I don't excuse the things Eric's done. He *is* a slaver and a rapist, and those things are most definitely wrong. And yes, there are a few who seem to try to treat keidran more kindly (although Tom had something to say on the topic of Saria being anti-slavery).
Well, even disregarding Saria, I bring you the concept of the Resistance, which I don't think is something Ephemural just made up whole cloth.

But getting back to Saria, I would say it's a lucky break for the story that she appears more abolitionist than she was intended to be. If you look for example at the parallel of slavery in the US, it doesn't matter to what dark time in that history you go, you will find people speaking out against it. A time where everyone just accepts chattel slavery as a given cannot exist in a society that's still supposed to be human, and I don't think that getting a species like the keidran into the mix would be enough to change that. Having that present in the form of someone sympathetic like Saria is, I think, a good touch. Even if it was an accidental one :P

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm Of course, now that he's had his nose rubbed in it and been made to actually think about the morality of his actions it changes a bit. I don't blame someone for accepting what they'd been taught, but if they *do* begin to evaluate their actions and still decide to not change, I would legitimately regard that as a moral failing on a personal level. The jury is still out on this aspect, though (see below).
I would go one step farther, and say that carrying on in a life of luxury built on and perpetuated by owning people is in itself a moral failing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not blamelessness.

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm I'd actually push back against this a bit. First, we don't actually know if he profited from their sale or not, because we have no idea what the terms of the sale were nor the value of the money he gave them. It's entirely possible that he gave them the equivalent of their sale price. We don't know if he 'short-changed' them in any way - it's possible, for sure, but it's also possible he did the exact opposite.
I will mostly defer to Ddraig's points (especially the one about it being established that what Trace -- who tips with gold coins -- had at hand was not sufficient), but I will also say that if it was the full amount, surely he would have said as much.

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm And second, and more importantly, I'd actually argue that this is *exactly* the act of someone who could be starting to realize that owning people might be wrong. The key is his statement that he was paying them 'for services rendered' - it's not just charity, it's not just because he feels bad about what he did, it's not just for saving stuff from the ship, but rather it's compensation for what they've done for him.
I read him as meaning 'payment for your services [since being freed on the ship]', not any preceding time, but certainly it's ambiguous. I don't think it's supposed to be lifetime wages, though.

MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm He's already admitted that he now realizes it's wrong to suppress someone's free will using the collars, which is a start at undermining one of the aspects of slavery
I think he always knew it was wrong.


------------------

aitaituo wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:06 am The closest theory to objective morality is the genetic morality hypothesis.
I would be comfortable saying that morality emerges from the same place as human nature, or as part of it. And human nature never changes, just human circumstances. The Golden Rule and similar concepts have always existed.

What that says about individuals, even as a thought exercise... I don't rightly know.

------------------

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am I have such trouble resisting a discussion.... If I respond again after this with another long chattery post, please scold me.
Please scold me as well. I have neither the time nor energy for this, yet here I still am.


Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am Keeping it short and posing some questions to think on, as best I can:
I don't think it's really because of the age difference, but rather because of seeing Natani through his own role -- the panel we see there is the time right after they lost their parents. The age difference had become less relevant by the time of the link, and Natani much less helpless, but that's still the memory Zen was focused on. (Which makes sense; that moment defined his whole life. It just should not have also defined Natani's, at least not in the way it came to.)
This presumes that the event did not and had not had a profoundly influential impact on Natani at the time already.
No it doesn't. See the last sentence fragment of my nested quote, bolded for your convenience. I pretty much agree with your characterization of how it did, or at least very plausibly might have, affected Natani before the link.

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am Probably true, but don't underestimate their perspectives on the difference between 'flailed a bit in a regretful attempt at violence', 'tried to poison a poison-immune person' and 'literally stabbed a sword through my chest'.
It's true that Zen never attempted specific violence against Keith (just the general violence of 'trying to kill this group of people he's part of), and that if one looks for balance in these things, Keith rather has one up on Zen. But on the other hand, the delivery method for the poison was an arrow in the chest, so that part of it balances out, and I think Zen would rather that he took the sword in answer than Natani.

I think he's intellectually okay with what happened, given how things turned out, and since it happened the way it happened -- very abruptly, from behind, never saw it coming -- it's not like he has a bitter memory of Keith overpowering him or any such thing. I really don't think there's room for serious beef there. How they both feel about Natani is a much more important factor.

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am Which is the comment of a protector, regardless of sex... and the justifications that follow it are distinctly not sexist ones, which was my point.
We seem to have gotten into a somewhat curious situation, since you're arguing against Zen being sexist, and that's not a position I generally argue for. I do give a nod to sexism when it comes to the Magi bros, because it's clearly a theme on some level, but I don't think any kind of general sexim is actually required to explain anything about Zen or Natani in the comic. It can fit in to some things, and so I expect it's probably in there somewhere, but I don't think it's a definite necessary element. (Natani's behavior is quite adequately explained by him seeing femininity in himself as weakness, and the mindscape sequence told us exactly why. It would take some reaching to generalize that very specific feeling about himself into sexism directed at others. He does scoff at Laura once, but... that's pretty scant evidence for establishing facts about his character past the obvious that he was jealous over Keith.)

I think we got here because I pointed out the few outright counterfactuals I saw in your narrative, and you doubled down on how something that's the opposite of what you originally said regardless supports your narrative -- and also because your entry vector to the thread was in opposition to people being harsh on Zen, which you presumably attribute to people viewing him as sexist. But that doesn't go for me in particular, and I don't think it goes for people in general, either; the opposition comes from how he, as unwittingly as it was, hurt Natani, and how he apparently then never realized that there was something there that should be made right, and indeed instead apparently needled Natani every time he showed any femininity, despite the fact that, given the backstory of the early link, there should be no way he didn't know how that made Natani feel. A... failure of love, might be the kindest way I can rightfully characterize it.

The Natani-is-female crowd additionally heaps on his sins the twisting of Natani's gender identity, which I think is... well, a bad read, but does logically follow if you presuppose that Natani is 'really female', whatever that means to the people it means something to.

Either way, it's been seven years of his life with this... misconception of himself burdening him. The way I think I put it once is that he's been struggling to stay afloat, when all along he could have just straightend out his legs and stood on the bottom. Too stupid to help himself, and Zen -- at best -- too stupid to reach out a hand.

It's all just kind of depressing, really.

He didn't allow himself to be convinced. He was not amenable to repeated argument. Natani forced his hand.
Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am I feel like I pointed that out before and you just said "Oh but he did stop her!" No... he didn't... because she joined the order and the story progressed.
And you're insistent on attributing that to Zen's magnanimy, rather than Natani's determination. How do you propose he would have stopped her? They did not even have a room for him to lock her into. Belief by itself has little power to resist contradiction. How -- without risking harm to Natani, the one thing he cannot allow -- would Zen have stopped her from going around him, and joining the brotherhood? I do not think pre-emptively outing her to the people she absolutely cannot be outed to would have been safe, and I don't think Zen would have thought it was. And once she was in, she was in, and they were in it together.

How could he have stopped her, even if he would have wanted nothing more?

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am Have we considered here that the emotional overlay of this entire section might not be 'Zen's impression of what Natani was feeling', but rather more directly, a bleed across of what Zen himself was feeling?
It seems perfectly clear that what's at issue on page 931 is how Zen specifically viewed Natani specifically, regardless of where precisely that view came from. I've already said previously that I do not particularly blame Zen, at the tender age of whatever, and in a very dire situation (especially after Issac and before the link), having that view. It was understandable, if unfortunate. He tried his best, but failed, and failed in a particularly tragic way. That tragedy still looms, and I'm hoping to see it unravel, and to see it unravel in an uplifting way, because I would prefer to like Zen again as a character. Or if not that, then for Natani to grow further through the experience.

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am Remember that young Natani is not some omniscient spirit guide... it's just young Natani, looking back reflectively, but no more knowledgeable about Zen's own feelings and motives than anyone else who isn't him.
I do think young Natani should be viewed as near enough an 'omniscient spirit guide', at least until and unless she is either shown to be fallible, or somehow suggested to have an agenda. If she is all she appears to be, and I see no reason to doubt that, she knows precisely the difference between who Natani thinks he was and who she actually was, and that's an incredibly powerful perspective on the specific things she's been explaining and opining on.

I don't think it would be crazy to view her as fallible or motivated, but I do think it would have to be somehow corraborated to be plausible. (For the record, I think the most suspicious -- or maybe just the most odd -- she's been is one page ago, when addressing Zen. But I don't see a path from there to anywhere interesting, at least yet.)

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am I don't feel that what you're referencing makes the point you're trying to claim it does. I think it gives us every foundation for seeing Natani's existing self-assimilated sexism. We're seeing the same events and reading the same details, but we are receiving them differently, and coming away with different impressions.
How is it that you simultaneously reach the conclusions that Zen never bought into his culture's sexism, and that Natani did? When that culture would reinforce Zen and his role, and hinder Natani?

Something that this discussion has reminded me of is what Zen said to Kat not long ago; "Ever since our folks died... I've tried to be the brother dad told me to be." What kind of brother do you think his dad would have told him to be, to his sister, in this sexist culture? And why is that still Zen's guiding star now?

I do have a proper, psychological, dark read on Zen, if you would like to hear it. But I generally prefer rose-colored glasses myself, and so I try not to wade deeper than I have to.


[Here is where the Eric section of the post would be; I thankfully refer you instead to what Ddraig said, what I will say to Ddraig below the below, and perhaps what I said to MuonNeutrino above. If you feel like something fell through the cracks -- and it seems entirely likely something must have -- you're welcome to ask me to revisit. Even though I probably don't want to.]

Niara wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 am
Eric, in doing what he's done, absent any law or court that will punish him, has at the very least forfeited his moral right to not be similarly violated.
And if one of his slaves should decide to take further issue with him, they would be absolutely justified in visiting similar depradations on him.
And the world goes blind. No thanks.

I'm not interested in your vengeance-justifying morality at this time... that's not how it works. You're free to it if that's what you want for yourself, but I think far less, morally speaking, of anyone who thinks it's a natural right to visit violence, suffering or violation upon a person just because they did it first. It's not, and it never will be.
Justice can only be found in consequences. Eye for an eye is crude, but when you have nothing better in place, that's where you start. In modern times, he would (theoretically) be prosecuted for... forced labor and false imprisonment, maybe? I don't know if 'slavery' is on the books as a crime, but if not, all the components of it will be. He would quite likely pay exorbitant restitution, and he would probably go to jail. The main difference between that and 'eye for an eye' is that it's mediated by society, and the punishment is abstracted and proportional rather than direct. Rape would result in more prison time, and more restitution.

And since you felt the need to point out your low opinion of me, I suppose I should reply that I did not find it hurtful or discouraging.


------------------

Warrl wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:09 am My take on it is that there IS a single absolutely correct moral standard, and in any given situation any two people who both completely understand that standard and also know all relevant facts must come to the same conclusion about morality...

... but no such people can be proven to have ever existed. Probably in part because no such people have ever existed.
Somehow, it always seems come back to Aumann's agreement theorem!


------------------


Ddraig wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:24 am Considering it would have been him (and, he would have believed, Mike and Evals; neither of which fighters) against two trained fighters and the former Grand Templar, I sincerely doubt he'd have been successful.
Eric does have a way of grasping the realpolitik of the situation.

Ddraig wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:24 am Considering when he "asked" he forgot she couldn't say no. He's also used to being... hands on with them, and he outright admits to laying with those for whom he knows it's been rendered literally impossible to say no, it's no different than him taking advantage of someone unconscious except that the unconscious person doesn't have to be awake to actually experience it nor to fear it happening every moment of their lives.
I will further add that, even control spells notwithstanding, a slave cannot give consent because they by definition are not truly free to choose. It's the biggest power imbalance possible. The only way to not be coercive would be to free them (and then probably also to set them up to be independent of him.)

I will further further add one more page Ddraig didn't link, and underline that this is how he treats someone who consistently and vehemently says no. And this last one is after a month of interacting with Flora.

In other words, there isn't really much need for any of the subtler arguments, owing to the fact that he's abject garbage.

Ddraig wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:24 am He's managing the risk, sure, but it's very easy for him to say "No, I had no idea. If he's freeing slaves, he's obviously against the trade and would say that to take down anyone in the trade that he could."
"What was I supposed to do, say no to the Grand Templar?"

Ddraig wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:24 am I recall a page where Trace handed Eric a bag of coins, which, unfortunately, I can't find at the moment,
I think you're probably misremembering Trace planning his heist. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever saw any part of the transactions.

Ddraig wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:24 am I'll give him he's apparently made the realization of oh crap, maybe I've been a bad guy all along, and is doing some introspection. What results from that we don't know yet and it will determine what side of the moral coin he ends up on (whether he goes back to what he was doing or if he does change, how much so)
Or he's being reconciliatory (as with the money) in the hopes that Evals doesn't smother him in his sleep or throw him off a balcony. I do think there's some sincerity to him, but... mostly what he is in that scene is deft. The slaves are so thrown by him treating them decently that it goes much farther than it by any rights should. Stockholm syndrome, abusive relationship mechanics, whatever you want to call it.
]]> Twokinds search (search the comic based on art or text!)
     
My most recent Twokinds smutfics, newest to oldest [NSFW]:

User avatar
MuonNeutrino
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:55 pm
Location: Sol system, Orion spiral arm, Milky Way
Fav. Twokinds Character: Rose, Natani

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#57 Post by MuonNeutrino »

amenon wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:08 pm
MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm I don't excuse the things Eric's done. He *is* a slaver and a rapist, and those things are most definitely wrong. And yes, there are a few who seem to try to treat keidran more kindly (although Tom had something to say on the topic of Saria being anti-slavery).
Well, even disregarding Saria, I bring you the concept of the Resistance, which I don't think is something Ephemural just made up whole cloth.

But getting back to Saria, I would say it's a lucky break for the story that she appears more abolitionist than she was intended to be. If you look for example at the parallel of slavery in the US, it doesn't matter to what dark time in that history you go, you will find people speaking out against it. A time where everyone just accepts chattel slavery as a given cannot exist in a society that's still supposed to be human, and I don't think that getting a species like the keidran into the mix would be enough to change that. Having that present in the form of someone sympathetic like Saria is, I think, a good touch. Even if it was an accidental one :P
As far as 'the resistance' goes, I would likewise assume Ephemural didn't just make them up, yes, though I'd also note that that's from the really early days of the comic. I take most things from chapter 6 and earlier with a grain of salt these days, myself. Either way, though, my point was that the overall societal attitude is one that accepts and condones slavery as something perfectly normal. It's a given that not *everyone* will buy into it, but the overall attitude is what I was going for.

(Also, slavery was a thing for a very, very long time. I doubt you'd be able to say that *all* of those past societies had an anti-slavery strain. It'd be comforting to think so, but humans can be real [censored] when we put our minds to it. That's an aside, though.)
amenon wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:08 pm
MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm Of course, now that he's had his nose rubbed in it and been made to actually think about the morality of his actions it changes a bit. I don't blame someone for accepting what they'd been taught, but if they *do* begin to evaluate their actions and still decide to not change, I would legitimately regard that as a moral failing on a personal level. The jury is still out on this aspect, though (see below).
I would go one step farther, and say that carrying on in a life of luxury built on and perpetuated by owning people is in itself a moral failing. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not blamelessness.
This was more or less my point. Ignorance is bliss, sure, but to a point I think ignorance *can* also be blamelessness. I just don't think one can justify making a negative moral judgement against someone for doing something that they don't understand is wrong. Condemning the act and trying to stop it, sure, but not condemning the person.

I fully agree that building a life of luxury based on owning people is a terrible, horribly wrong thing. I will heartily condemn the morality of a society that condones such things and say that anyone doing so is committing an incredibly evil act, and I'd even go so far as to say that a true moral paragon, even if born into that society, should be able to recognize those things. But I can't condemn the vast majority of individual people in that society on a moral level simply for not being said (by definition unusual) moral paragons. I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation. It doesn't change how wrong it is, it doesn't make it any less worth opposing, it doesn't excuse any further cruelties beyond that, and doesn't make those who *do* recognize it and stand up for what is right any less better than the rest of their society, but ultimately I can't blame the rest of them on an individual level simply for buying in to what their society tells them is right.
amenon wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:08 pm
MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm And second, and more importantly, I'd actually argue that this is *exactly* the act of someone who could be starting to realize that owning people might be wrong. The key is his statement that he was paying them 'for services rendered' - it's not just charity, it's not just because he feels bad about what he did, it's not just for saving stuff from the ship, but rather it's compensation for what they've done for him.
I read him as meaning 'payment for your services [since being freed on the ship]', not any preceding time, but certainly it's ambiguous. I don't think it's supposed to be lifetime wages, though.
I do agreee that it doesn't look like lifetime wages or anything like that. You're also probably correct that it's not even their purchase price (I admit I wasn't thinking about Eric's line regarding Trace's cash-on-hand combined with the other times we'd seen money used). But I think that's gotta be more than just one week's wages* - there are at least two gold coins visible there, and from Adira's reaction that's still a significant amount of money. Regardless, though, like I said I think it's the attitude that's important. He's thinking of them as people now, not just as things.

(*Also I'd question whether one would even be paying them wages for that period anyway - on the one hand they're not officially freed yet so one could argue that they're still slaves, and on the other if they *are* regarded as freed then they're not automatically entitled to room and board (or transportation!) anymore and one could argue that they're in the position of working for their passage. This is another aside, though.)
amenon wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:08 pm
MuonNeutrino wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:28 pm He's already admitted that he now realizes it's wrong to suppress someone's free will using the collars, which is a start at undermining one of the aspects of slavery
I think he always knew it was wrong.
I'd point out that the context of that is specifically Kat, which I think is important. Notice his wording: "I do use it for my slaves, but... I couldn't do it to Kat" - in other words, his wording doesn't even include Kat as a slave. I think that's an important distinction when it comes to the changes in his mindset. He knows what they do, and he can't bring himself to do that to someone he thinks of as a *person*... but slaves aren't people, they're just things to be owned. Now, though, he's admitting that it was wrong to use it even for his slaves, which is a heck of a step towards accepting that slaves are people too.
Image

User avatar
Technic[Bot]
Grand Templar
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:48 pm
Location: México
Fav. Twokinds Character: Raine!
Contact:

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#58 Post by Technic[Bot] »

I love this! This is the reason i join forums. You can't get this kind of discussion elsewhere.

I would love to respond to every point but i doubt i could actually finish typing everything before the comic actually ends in 2072 so a few key things:
Amenon wrote:Well, even disregarding Saria, I bring you the concept of the Resistance, which I don't think is something Ephemural just made up whole cloth.

But getting back to Saria, I would say it's a lucky break for the story that she appears more abolitionist than she was intended to be. If you look for example at the parallel of slavery in the US, it doesn't matter to what dark time in that history you go, you will find people speaking out against it. A time where everyone just accepts chattel slavery as a given cannot exist in a society that's still supposed to be human, and I don't think that getting a species like the keidran into the mix would be enough to change that. Having that present in the form of someone sympathetic like Saria is, I think, a good touch. Even if it was an accidental one :P
Wasn't there a sketch which show Saria basically "extracted/stole" Rose from templar prison with a band of merry looking templars? I cannot find it for the life of my but i do remember it was colored. My point is that that comment is incredibly old and that at this point Tom might have changed his mind.
Draig wrote:I recall a page where Trace handed Eric a bag of coins, which, unfortunately, I can't find at the moment, while Eric payed the two of them literally pocket change (an amount I'm confident Trace had on him, the lack of which was the reason Eric was unwilling to actually sell the two until they got to land, though he did free them immediately on the promise of future payment)
I will concede one thing - finding that last Eric page I realize I had completely forgotten about that next-to-last panel (incidentally the last time I think we've seen Eric); I'll give him he's apparently made the realization of oh crap, maybe I've been a bad guy all along, and is doing some introspection. What results from that we don't know yet and it will determine what side of the moral coin he ends up on (whether he goes back to what he was doing or if he does change, how much so)
If i am not mistaken he wanted to do the "trade" by the "rules" that implied having a registered transaction or something like that. I imagine selling/buying slaves probably needs lots of paperwork. Thus it could not have been done on the ship, also if i recall correctly was mentioned ot have filled out all the necessary paperwork for the "purchase".
Personally i think he covered most of what he got from them. We have been shown that Trace's coins are of incredibly high denomination, in real life a coin like that of gold would probably set any of us for a few months if not more.

On the other hand i think that wiht Eircs "reformation" the comic is trying to portray how horrible people can actually repent and try to amend, also for large societal level changes you need to convince a lot of probably horrible ,hopefully not AS horrible people thought, that what they did was wrong. And that goes well with the overall theme of the comic.
There are three things that motivate people: Money, fear and love.
Links to my ramblings:
Twokinds [of] data
PhpBB in the age of facebook
If you are new to this phpBB thing:
BBCode guide

User avatar
amenon
Grand Templar
Posts: 1693
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:11 pm

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#59 Post by amenon »

MuonNeutrino wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:57 pm (Also, slavery was a thing for a very, very long time. I doubt you'd be able to say that *all* of those past societies had an anti-slavery strain. It'd be comforting to think so, but humans can be real [censored] when we put our minds to it. That's an aside, though.)
I did qualify 'chattel slavery', because I'm fairly certain there have been systems of slavery that were, all things considered, much closer to our modern day ideas of employment than to chattel slavery. But an evil that clear will always have been recognized as evil by at least some, yes.

Something that is undoubtedly important is the general quality of living of the populace; few indeed have time to think about justice or morality when they're struggling to survive day to day. But... by all appearances, human society in Twokinds seems to be fairly well off -- and socially quite advanced compared to say the slavery-era US.

MuonNeutrino wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:57 pm This was more or less my point. Ignorance is bliss, sure, but to a point I think ignorance *can* also be blamelessness. I just don't think one can justify making a negative moral judgement against someone for doing something that they don't understand is wrong. Condemning the act and trying to stop it, sure, but not condemning the person.

I fully agree that building a life of luxury based on owning people is a terrible, horribly wrong thing. I will heartily condemn the morality of a society that condones such things and say that anyone doing so is committing an incredibly evil act, and I'd even go so far as to say that a true moral paragon, even if born into that society, should be able to recognize those things. But I can't condemn the vast majority of individual people in that society on a moral level simply for not being said (by definition unusual) moral paragons. I just don't think it's a reasonable expectation. It doesn't change how wrong it is, it doesn't make it any less worth opposing, it doesn't excuse any further cruelties beyond that, and doesn't make those who *do* recognize it and stand up for what is right any less better than the rest of their society, but ultimately I can't blame the rest of them on an individual level simply for buying in to what their society tells them is right.
It feels to me like this kind of thinking only makes sense if you assume that people are prone to think the world is just, or to confuse law with morality. For my part, I think most of humanity has always held the understanding that life isn't fair (or alternatively, requires a God and afterlife to balance out.) And that recognition is the only thing you need to question the status quo.

If that does nothing for you, then agree to disagree, I suppose, simply because I don't care enough to try to do right by Aumann :P

MuonNeutrino wrote: Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:57 pm I do agreee that it doesn't look like lifetime wages or anything like that. You're also probably correct that it's not even their purchase price (I admit I wasn't thinking about Eric's line regarding Trace's cash-on-hand combined with the other times we'd seen money used). But I think that's gotta be more than just one week's wages* - there are at least two gold coins visible there, and from Adira's reaction that's still a significant amount of money.
"I included some extra for saving what you could from the Na'rella."

Technic[Bot] wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am I love this! This is the reason i join forums. You can't get this kind of discussion elsewhere.
I wish you couldn't get it from here, either, when it means that much work for me!

Technic[Bot] wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am Wasn't there a sketch which show Saria basically "extracted/stole" Rose from templar prison with a band of merry looking templars? I cannot find it for the life of my but i do remember it was colored. My point is that that comment is incredibly old and that at this point Tom might have changed his mind.
There is, and it even got Nora Carded at some point. I didn't bother to cite it because it was my recollection that the sketch was always explicitly an AU -- and maybe the original was, but if so, no more. Turns out the description there is more than enough to reverse MuonNeutrino's Word of God from 2007. So... there, I guess :P
]]> Twokinds search (search the comic based on art or text!)
     
My most recent Twokinds smutfics, newest to oldest [NSFW]:

User avatar
MuonNeutrino
Templar GrandMaster
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:55 pm
Location: Sol system, Orion spiral arm, Milky Way
Fav. Twokinds Character: Rose, Natani

Re: Comic for August 21, 2018: Assassin Siblings, Catching Up, Pt 4

#60 Post by MuonNeutrino »

amenon wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:25 pm It feels to me like this kind of thinking only makes sense if you assume that people are prone to think the world is just, or to confuse law with morality. For my part, I think most of humanity has always held the understanding that life isn't fair (or alternatively, requires a God and afterlife to balance out.) And that recognition is the only thing you need to question the status quo.

If that does nothing for you, then agree to disagree, I suppose, simply because I don't care enough to try to do right by Aumann :P
I wouldn't describe it as people assuming the world is just or confusing law for morality, just that it'll take some prodding to get most people to consider that *they* and *their* society might be the baddies. It's just familiarity and inertia. People can recognize in the abstract that the world isn't fair and that laws might be immoral, and even have specific things about the world they think aren't fair or specific laws they don't think are moral, without necessarily being likely to realize that they, specifically, as individuals and a society, are on the wrong path. It's not that people see that keeping slaves is legal and therefore think that it must be moral, it's that their society teaches that keeping slaves is moral and it doesn't occur to most people to question that without some sort of prompting. I don't think it's impossible for people to question the status quo, just that it doesn't usually happen without some sort of provocation and that I don't think people can really be faulted for that on an individual level.

We can agree to disagree if you like, yeah. I think we've probably spent enough electrons on this! And there's new things to discuss now anyway. :grin:
amenon wrote: Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:25 pm
Technic[Bot] wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 am Wasn't there a sketch which show Saria basically "extracted/stole" Rose from templar prison with a band of merry looking templars? I cannot find it for the life of my but i do remember it was colored. My point is that that comment is incredibly old and that at this point Tom might have changed his mind.
There is, and it even got Nora Carded at some point. I didn't bother to cite it because it was my recollection that the sketch was always explicitly an AU -- and maybe the original was, but if so, no more. Turns out the description there is more than enough to reverse MuonNeutrino's Word of God from 2007. So... there, I guess :P
I will note that that strip and description, as fun as it is, doesn't really say anything about Saria's attitudes towards slavery *specifically*. It reinforces that Saria is inclined to treat Keidran much more humanely than most other humans, adding to the insight we got into her character in TDM, but it doesn't mean she has to be an abolitionist. Rose was never a slave in the first place - she was a free keidran and then a prisoner, but not a slave - so Saria employing her as a servant rather than making her a slave doesn't necessarily have to represent Saria thinking that slavery is wrong or should be abolished. If anything it could simply represent being practical, given that Saria originally intended to arrange transport for Rose back to wolf lands (i.e. her continuing to be a free keidran).

(I do think it's likely that Tom's thinking on Saria's character continued to evolve between that post in 2007 and today, mind you. Nothing stays constant that long, and I do think that her portrayal in TDM is probably a bit stronger than her original conception. But it doesn't *have* to mean that Tom's decided she was an abolitionist after all.)
Image

Post Reply