DreamEternal Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 full controling takes time just like in book3 paalm didnt give saze that time While that is true, we still don't know if he wanted to take full control or only paralize her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robot Aztec Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 saze says to wax hed forcibly control paalm if he culd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamEternal Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 saze says to wax hed forcibly control paalm if he culd Yes, but the point is that he could either control her like Ruin did to the Inquisitors or just make her unable to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the winter system Posted October 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 He gave everyone free will- except those who he didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 He gave everyone free will- except those who he didn't. And what would you do in his shoes? I personally have trouble believing that Harmony's plan wouldn't involve manipulating someone, especially given what we know of his rules, and what we know of his opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) And what would you do in his shoes? I personally have trouble believing that Harmony's plan wouldn't involve manipulating someone, especially given what we know of his rules, and what we know of his opponent.Hold on. We're making equivalences that I don't think hold true. Manipulating =/= denying free will. In fact, manipulation is the only way to get free agents to do what you want without abrogating their free will. Persuasion is a form of manipulation, as is what Sazed was doing. Neither qualifies as denying someone their free will.The only thing that comes close is harmony's exploitation of paalm's flaw at the end of the book. And unless sazed did more than paralyze her body and in fact fully took over her mind, I'm not even willing to call that denial of free will. If Sazed merely makes it so that her body does not function anymore, that is functionally equivalent to imprisoning a criminal. If you don't see imprisonment as a denial of free will, then paralysis by Sazed should not be considered such either. EDIT: I don't really disagree with your post, landis. I agree in substance, but think that you are granting winter's assertion that manipulation = denying free will far too easily Edited October 14, 2015 by Seonid 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Perhaps. And if Sazed took over her mind fully, she wouldn't have been able to suicide. She did, therefore he didn't. And I don't believe Sazed would ever use the puppeteer power he has over Hemalurgic creatures. For one, the man he was would find it abhorrent, for two, he needs to maintain the balance between Ruin and Preservation somehow, so anything he does with the extra Ruin needs to be continuous (and therefore can't be diverted to acts like "assume direct control"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarion Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Perhaps. And if Sazed took over her mind fully, she wouldn't have been able to suicide. She did, therefore he didn't. And I don't believe Sazed would ever use the puppeteer power he has over Hemalurgic creatures. For one, the man he was would find it abhorrent, for two, he needs to maintain the balance between Ruin and Preservation somehow, so anything he does with the extra Ruin needs to be continuous (and therefore can't be diverted to acts like "assume direct control"). Wasn't the Kandra suicide option specifically designed because of their experience being taken over by Ruin? In what way would it be useful if it didn't work in the situation it was specifically designed for? Secondly, Sazed explicitly says that he can control spiked beings and "would act, for Bleeder has disobeyed her Contract with me and opened herself up for my intervention." Are you suggesting he's lying, and would not control her? Thirdly, even if he's just paralysing her, I'd argue that's significantly worse than imprisoning someone. If you imprison someone, you prevent them from taking specific actions. Taking away someone's control of their own body is significantly more than that. Frankly, I find the idea far more abhorent than even killing someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Really? All the Houses are utterly corrupt? What does that say about Wax, then? Steris? Marasi? And Paalm certainly wasn't part of a people's rebellion. Again I point you towards the murder of Father Bin - a heinous act meant to incite the people not against the nobles, but against the Path. However, these are all band-aid solutions to the underlying problem - you seem to have taken the idea that Harmony has turned evil and warped the evidence to fit it, to the point of believing a mass-murderer over a personal confidant of Harmony's. Steris and Marasi we wait to find out what their father is doing, and we know what Wax's uncle is doing, so his house is a prime exemplar of that corruption, not a counter example to it. Do I believe Harmony is evil? I believe the entire concept of a being capable of direct control over an entire species is evil, no matter what actions it uses them for. So yes, he is because he has and uses that power, if you claim to be the defender of free will, the only actions you can take are against people who acquire the very power he uses, or some thing similar through coercion, and that via agents who know exactly what they are getting into and why. Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) oops double Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Really? All the Houses are utterly corrupt? What does that say about Wax, then? Steris? Marasi? And Paalm certainly wasn't part of a people's rebellion. Again I point you towards the murder of Father Bin - a heinous act meant to incite the people not against the nobles, but against the Path. However, these are all band-aid solutions to the underlying problem - you seem to have taken the idea that Harmony has turned evil and warped the evidence to fit it, to the point of believing a mass-murderer over a personal confidant of Harmony's. His ability to enslave an entire race, and the fact that he has used it at all, is evil. A kill switch would be less cruel than the badgering and paralysis tactics he uses, so yes, that power in and of itself is evil and invalidates his claims about standing for free will. As you can tell I know how I would answer the question that Marasi is asked by Maalani at the end of the book. On the question of the houses: We know that Wax's uncles is corrupt and evil, so his house is an exemplar not a counter argument, as fro Steris and Marasi we do not know what their house has done yet, so that is still an open question, but, in case it was missed in an earlier post I called for exile and stripping of assets, not execution, the roughs sound like a decent place to send them. Or if necessary further. Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) His ability to enslave an entire race, and the fact that he has used it at all, is evil. A kill switch would be less cruel than the badgering and paralysis tactics he uses, so yes, that power in and of itself is evil and invalidates his claims about standing for free will. As you can tell I know how I would answer the question that Marasi is asked by Maalani at the end of the book. First off, Harmony has never used his override power, not to the level that Ruin did, because the rules he sets for himself prevent it. He could have kept Marsh from passing along Spook's journal, but didn't. He could have puppeteered the entire kandra population at once, but didn't. He could have sent in an army of koloss to shake things up, but didn't. Second off, "Badgering and paralysis"? If the badgering was so bad, why didn't Paalm just tell Wax before they left for Feltrel? He had a letter, which she had seen, and which he had explained to her. And the paralysis only happened after Paalm committed her other, actual crimes, which you may recall include murder, fomenting unrest, and whatever we're calling the creation of the chimeras she sent after Wax. EDIT: And before you say "He's made her fear him" does that really sound like Sazed to you? Edited October 14, 2015 by Landis963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) First off, Harmony has never used his override power, not to the level that Ruin did, because the rules he sets for himself prevent it. He could have kept Marsh from passing along Spook's journal, but didn't. He could have puppeteered the entire kandra population at once, but didn't. He could have sent in an army of koloss to shake things up, but didn't. Second off, "Badgering and paralysis"? If the badgering was so bad, why didn't Paalm just tell Wax before they left for Feltrel? He had a letter, which she had seen, and which he had explained to her. And the paralysis only happened after Paalm committed her other, actual crimes, which you may recall include murder, fomenting unrest, and whatever we're calling the creation of the chimeras she sent after Wax. EDIT: And before you say "He's made her fear him" does that really sound like Sazed to you? It sounds like Ruin, who is part of Harmony, Sazed is not Harmony, so yes, fear as a tool is a possibility, or lying about a terrible outcome, or an implied threat to Wax, manipulation like that is entirely possible. We don't know how the Chimera's where created, but that is a good point, that she may have been evil herself, still doesn't justify making her a slave, a voice in your head, talking, demanding every day another demand, never ceasing? That would break anyone's mind. Oh and as I view 'fomenting unrest' as a duty in the world presented, not a crime we can strike that one off, the murder of the priests is the one I view as a crime(EDIT: No add the murder of innocents for spikes I had forgotten that.) , the others iirc where criminal or noble figures or their guards. As for not telling Wax, we cannot know what Harmony had said/implied or threatened at that point. It's the mind control and all it implies that angers me. Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) It's only been 300 years of balancing the two forces, and I seem to have much more faith in Sazed's ability to juggle them than you do. Regardless, why would he lie about terrible outcomes? All the outcomes are terrible, the way I see it. Course 1: Paalm tells Wax that she's a kandra sent to protect him, back in the Roughs. Outcome: Best case scenario, returns to Elendel but doesn't listen to Harmony ever again (Which I think Harmony would be OK with, knowing Wax), Worst case scenario, Wax doesn't leave the Roughs (Which is not feasible because of the Set's machinations). Course 2: 'ask Wax and lay the cards on the table' For outcomes, see my post. Course 3: Paalm tells Wax she's a kandra after being shot by Tan. Outcome: See Course 1, but Wax is angrier. Course 4: Harmony tells Wax that Paalm was Lessie once they begin chasing her. Outcome: Wax would try and reason with Paalm, best-case scenario lengthening her rampage and worst-case scenario risking his life unnecessarily on the other. Course 5: Wax doesn't learn about Lessie until after he's shot Paalm. Best case scenario: He'll grieve for a bit, but will return to the fold after some spiritual counsel and some support from Steris. Worst case scenario: He'll grieve for a bit, but won't listen to Harmony ever again. Don't forget, his future sight ability allows him to parse and analyze all these options before they happen. Paring down the worst of the options, and considering the rest of his rules, he would have given Paalm the choice of coming clean or not. And she didn't. Perhaps because she knew it would hurt Wax, perhaps because she agreed that staying hidden was better for the long-term greater good. EDIT: Don't forget, there's another Shard muscling in on Sazed's turf (whom he would have seen coming due to the aforementioned future sight), and the two prime suspects are unlikely to have Scadrial's best interests in mind. Edited October 14, 2015 by Landis963 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) It's only been 300 years of balancing the two forces, and I seem to have much more faith in Sazed's ability to juggle them than you do. Regardless, why would he lie about terrible outcomes? All the outcomes are terrible, the way I see it. Course 1: Paalm tells Wax that she's a kandra sent to protect him, back in the Roughs. Outcome: Best case scenario, returns to Elendel but doesn't listen to Harmony ever again (Which I think Harmony would be OK with, knowing Wax), Worst case scenario, Wax doesn't leave the Roughs (Which is not feasible because of the Set's machinations). Course 2: Paalm tells Wax she's a kandra after being shot by Tan. Outcome: See Course 1, but Wax is angrier. Course 3: Harmony tells Wax that Paalm was Lessie once they begin chasing her. Outcome: Wax would try and reason with Paalm, best-case scenario lengthening her rampage and worst-case scenario risking his life unnecessarily on the other. Course 4: Wax doesn't learn about Lessie until after he's shot Paalm. Best case scenario: He'll grieve for a bit, but will return to the fold after some spiritual counsel and some support from Steris. Worst case scenario: He'll grieve for a bit, but won't listen to Harmony ever again. Don't forget, his future sight ability allows him to parse and analyze all these options before they happen. Paring down the worst of the options, and considering the rest of his rules, he would have given Paalm the choice of coming clean or not. And she didn't. Perhaps because she knew it would hurt Wax, perhaps because she agreed that staying hidden was better for the long-term greater good. EDIT: Don't forget, there's another Shard muscling in on Sazed's turf (whom he would have seen coming due to the aforementioned future sight), and the two prime suspects are unlikely to have Scadrial's best interests in mind. I need to know more about Autonomy before I know what it's motivations are. Hoid not liking something isn't a total condemnation, but it also isn't exactly a reason to trust it either, so on the fence for that one (that possibly shaded by Hoid being very similar in the way he talks to people to a savage bully I had the joy of going to school with, you didn't find his sarcastic belittling insults funny? Beat down time for you). Autonomy does suggest freedom, but freedom for who and how? Harmony also ignored course 'ask Wax and lay the cards on the table' you know, the one that is not manipulative and does actually respect free will. As to Lessie coming clean, as we do not know what Harmony told her, we cannot know what her reasons where and if they turned out to be lies or not, whether direct untruths or lies of omission. Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 It sounds like Ruin, who is part of Harmony, Sazed is not Harmony, so yes, fear as a tool is a possibility, or lying about a terrible outcome, or an implied threat to Wax, manipulation like that is entirely possible. We don't know how the Chimera's where created, but that is a good point, that she may have been evil herself, still doesn't justify making her a slave, a voice in your head, talking, demanding every day another demand, never ceasing? That would break anyone's mind. Oh and as I view 'fomenting unrest' as a duty in the world presented, not a crime we can strike that one off, the murder of the priests is the one I view as a crime(EDIT: No add the murder of innocents for spikes I had forgotten that.) , the others iirc where criminal or noble figures or their guards. As for not telling Wax, we cannot know what Harmony had said/implied or threatened at that point. It's the mind control and all it implies that angers me. You seem to have a different definition of mind control than I do. What Harmony does is not mind control. It is, in fact, what you said he should do: reasoning and attempt to persuade. And when a kandra refuses to obey him, he lets them go. The only thing that could be considered mind control is taking over Paalm's body at the end of the book. Let's leave this one out of the discussion for a moment. Without that incident, I assert that Sazed would be unambiguously considered morally good (perhaps depending on how involved he actually was with the Bloody Tan incident, but the information coming out of the book signings is pointing towards a different being controlling or influencing Tan). Before this incident, there is nothing morally problematic about what Sazed is doing. Not all of it is the optimal course, but Sazed doesn't have power to fully determine the optimal course. He's not omniscient, he's not omnipotent, and he's certainly not anything near what most of the Western world thinks of when they think of God. But without that incident, again, I assert that Sazed is unambiguously doing the best he can to be a force for moral good. You assert differently. I understand that you don't see it that way. But the way you see things is not justified by the available evidence. There is no indication that Sazed uses his ability to take over the kandra ever, except in the outlier case of Paalm, which we are not considering yet. There is no indication that Sazed is leading the people of Elendel around like puppets. He is interfering, but in a way that enhances free will rather than suppresses it. After all, he has a purpose, and that purpose seems to be doing everything he can to lead Elendel and its people towards the best possible future while retaining their ability to choose freely. And that means he has to influence, not control. And the only way to influence is through his agents. You assert that manipulation does not respect free will. I argue that manipulation is the only way for Harmony to respect free will and still be a force for good in the world. Free will does not mean the ability to choose without influence. If that's your definition, free will is a lie. It doesn't exist and cannot exist. Free will in the real world, and in works of fiction that are attempting to present a reasonable model of the real world, can only mean freedom to choose what influences you come under. Both Wax and Paalm chose freely to serve Harmony. They didn't know where that service would eventually lead, but that doesn't make the choice any less free. Harmony didn't threaten Wax if he didn't do what he wanted. He told Wax what would happen, but he didn't threaten retaliatory action. Both Wax and Paalm were free to choose to stop serving Harmony. Other kandra have done so before. And now we get to the sticking point, though. Are Wax and Paalm free to work against Harmony? Certainly seems to be the case. Paalm was free to start working against Harmony. She wasn't free to work against him without him trying to stop her, though. But it appears that she was even free to do that until she started killing. So what does Harmony do when she starts killing? Well, apparently he can't see her. And apparently he can't talk to her. Notice also that she is not just killing, but using Hemalurgy, which actually damages the soul of the people she steals attributes from. So she is not just murdering, but she is literally stealing pieces of her victim's souls. Far more reprehensible than simple killing. So what does Harmony do? He sends an agent, Wax. And how is Wax to stop her? By putting her back into conversation with Harmony. And Harmony stops her body from being able to move. If we had evidence that he was going to start controlling her choices, this would be a different conversation. But we don't. And it is the stopping her body from being able to carry out her choices that is the only place where Harmony could be possibly considered to be infringing on free will. And it certainly is an infringement of her ability to act. Does it rise to the level of slavery? Only if he intended to control her body permanently. Only if he is going to use her as Ruin did, a screaming slave in the prison of her own mind while her body commits actions she would never want to do. And if we had proof that he was going to do this, then that would be morally wrong. It wouldn't make Sazed irredeemably evil, but it would make him no longer unambiguously trying to be good. He would become a gray character, a mix of both good and evil tendencies, with a clear preference for neither. But all we have proof that he was going to try and do was talk to her. Attempt to reason with her (which, by the way, he apparently can't do without the second spike - he can't even see her). And for the record, I agree with you that not telling Wax was problematic. I wish he had. But it certainly does not rise to the level of morally evil. And it has nothing to do with the question of free will, any more than normal human deception has anything to do with free will. Because freedom is not a guarantee to always be able to act with all of the available information. It's not even a guarantee to be able to carry out our desires and choices. It's only the guarantee to be able to make a choice. And that was never taken from any character in the series. Finally, your assertion that killing nobles and their guards was not an immoral action is sickening. Those murders were just as morally wrong as the murder of the priest or the murders of the people who were changed into chimeras. Are the houses corrupt? Sure. But corruption doesn't justify murder. The situation is nowhere near as bad as the final empire. Wax uses this against Miles in Alloy of Law (who is the only one who is actually trying to overthrow the houses - Paalm is demonstrably trying to overthrow all semblance of order, without regard for whether it is good for the people or not. Her target is getting rid of Harmony's influence, no matter the cost. Which is also morally wrong), and he is demonstrably right. That people are still poor and suffering under the present system is an invitation for reform, not revolution. And even if it were an invitation for revolution, that still wouldn't justify murder of those who support hte status quo. Kelsier's murders of the nobility of the Final Empire was wrong, even if his goal was right. Vin saw clearly on that point. Paalm's murders of the much less awful nobility of Elendel was just as wrong, but her goal wasn't even right. That you attempt to justify her is problematic, to say the least. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Harmony also ignored course 'ask Wax and lay the cards on the table' you know, the one that is not manipulative and does actually respect free will. As to Lessie coming clean, as we do not know what Harmony told her, we cannot know what her reasons were and if they turned out to be lies or not, whether direct untruths or lies of omission. Maybe Harmony tried that, but for the sake of argument, let's make that Course 2 and bump up all the rest by a number. (I'll edit it in later) The problem with that course is that the worst-case scenario might be that Wax returns to Elendel, confident in his mission as Harmony's avenging sword, and confident that Harmony would stop him from doing wrong. (In that vein, then, the best-case scenario is that Wax refuses the call and we're back to square one) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamEternal Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Maybe Harmony tried that, but for the sake of argument, let's make that Course 2 and bump up all the rest by a number. (I'll edit it in later) The problem with that course is that the worst-case scenario might be that Wax returns to Elendel, confident in his mission as Harmony's avenging sword, and confident that Harmony would stop him from doing wrong. (In that vein, then, the best-case scenario is that Wax refuses the call and we're back to square one) That is... just false. You can't just assume that the Wax we know would become either a self-righteous divine avenger or refise the call. Wax wants to help people, so he most likely would go and do his best to help them. If he didn't become like that when he discovered he was Harmony's agent in SoS, I doubt he would do that if found out earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 If Wax wants to help people, then how do you think he'd react when Harmony told him "I need you to kill someone for me?" And also, when exactly should Harmony have made the divine announcement? When he was just starting out, well, the SoS prologue demonstrates how naive he was, and once he had gotten savvy enough to survive in the roughs he felt beholden to the people of the Roughs in general and whichever town he was lawkeeping for in specific. And he was told that he was Harmony's agent in tAoL, when Harmony told him that he had done something to help with the Vanishers, by sending Wax. Despite the pedantry of the distinction, the point remains that he learned about his divine appointment long after the thing with Bloody Tan happened and Wax's cynicism had set in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) Finally, your assertion that killing nobles and their guards was not an immoral action is sickening. Those murders were just as morally wrong as the murder of the priest or the murders of the people who were changed into chimeras. Are the houses corrupt? Sure. But corruption doesn't justify murder. The situation is nowhere near as bad as the final empire. Wax uses this against Miles in Alloy of Law (who is the only one who is actually trying to overthrow the houses - Paalm is demonstrably trying to overthrow all semblance of order, without regard for whether it is good for the people or not. Her target is getting rid of Harmony's influence, no matter the cost. Which is also morally wrong), and he is demonstrably right. That people are still poor and suffering under the present system is an invitation for reform, not revolution. And even if it were an invitation for revolution, that still wouldn't justify murder of those who support hte status quo. Kelsier's murders of the nobility of the Final Empire was wrong, even if his goal was right. Vin saw clearly on that point. Paalm's murders of the much less awful nobility of Elendel was just as wrong, but her goal wasn't even right. That you attempt to justify her is problematic, to say the least. That is what revolution IS, the violent overthrow of the current status quo, which does involve killing those who enforce it and their military or paramilitary forces. We didn't know how bad it was in AoL, but SoS makes it clear that it IS worse than we where lead to believe, and that a revolution is boiling under the surface, without interference, Paalm doesn't start the revolution, she tries to aim the one that is already brewing, and she wont be the only one. Edited October 14, 2015 by ArchonTremaine 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landis963 Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 That is what revolution IS, the violent overthrow of the current status quo, which does involve killing those who enforce it and their military or paramilitary forces. We didn't know how bad it was in AoL, but SoS makes it clear that it IS worse than we where lead to believe, and that a revolution is boiling under the surface, without interference, Paalm doesn't start the revolution, she tries to aim the one that is already brewing, and she wont be the only one. Yes, she aimed the revolution. However, she aimed it to cause the most damage it could, for as long as it could. Compare with Constable Aradel's actions, which also "aimed" the revolution, but in such a way that it didn't destroy the city. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonTremaine Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Yes, she aimed the revolution. However, she aimed it to cause the most damage it could, for as long as it could. Compare with Constable Aradel's actions, which also "aimed" the revolution, but in such a way that it didn't destroy the city. no, he placated it and left the cause in place. So it's only a matter of time before the houses crack down with their paramilitaries and the streets run knee deep in blood. His actions caused the population to lose their chance at a decapitation strike and quick win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 That is what revolution IS, the violent overthrow of the current status quo, which does involve killing those who enforce it and their military or paramilitary forces. We didn't know how bad it was in AoL, but SoS makes it clear that it IS worse than we where lead to believe, and that a revolution is boiling under the surface, without interference, Paalm doesn't start the revolution, she tries to aim the one that is already brewing, and she wont be the only one. Certainly a revolution is brewing near the surface. But it could easily be averted by reform, which is what Wax is aiming at. Fixing the existing system is preferable to the violence of a revolution. In fact, a revolution is not a moral option unless the possibility of reform has been shown to be unattainable. Let's see if I can lay out my position in plain terms. First, a brief quibble. Revolutions do not theoretically need to be violent. Gandhi's actions in India indicate that non-violence on the part of the revolutionaries is feasible as a strategy for achieving the overthrow of existing power structures. And the fall of the communist governments in eastern Europe during the dissolution of the Soviet Union were largely nonviolent even on the part of those who supported the status quo. And it still accomplished the overthrow of the existing power structure, which is what a revolution does. So I reject that a revolution must of necessity involve violence. However, as a practical matter, most revolutions do turn to violence. However, even in a violent revolution, there is a difference between the murder of people who support the status quo and the killing of those who attempt to enforce it with violence. And let it be clear - if the existing power structure is not enforcing the status quo with violence, violence on the part of the revolutionaries is an immoral act. What Paalm did was not killing people who were enforcing the status quo with violence, she straight-out murdered people who were part of the status quo. There is a vast difference in terms of moral culpability. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamEternal Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 no, he placated it and left the cause in place. So it's only a matter of time before the houses crack down with their paramilitaries and the streets run knee deep in blood. His actions caused the population to lose their chance at a decapitation strike and quick win. Wait, so you think the nobles will simply bring down the city with their armies, wich they magicaly summoned? I am not even sure if there are such things as armies in new northern Scadrial, and whatever paramilitary groups the nobles assemble will have to fight the constables, who apparently are prepared to deal not only with regular criminals, but with raids by Koloss warlords. Plus, you are assuming the nobles will leave the city and gather armies, instead of staying because they didn't have time or resources or simply though it was the best choice. And that beheading all nobles will be so much quickier than arresting only the corrupt ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seonid Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 no, he placated it and left the cause in place. So it's only a matter of time before the houses crack down with their paramilitaries and the streets run knee deep in blood. His actions caused the population to lose their chance at a decapitation strike and quick win. Also, a decapitation strike would have been immoral. The situation is nowhere near bad enough to justify preemptive violence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts