|
|
Post by Black Cat on Mar 31, 2009 12:48:26 GMT -5
Because the term "empire" got a negative connotation. It´s always when a country submits another people by the force. And it is something artificial. Oh, so it's all about the connotation that you give to the words? But republics (sounds democratic and friendly, hey?) also submitted other people by force. The USA did that to the Filipinos in 1901 after Philippine claimed its independance from Spain. And since Philippine finally got its independance from the US in 1946, would you say that the Filipinos were the Good and the US the Bad because it was only a temporary moment in the Philippine's history before they got freedom? I understand that you make a very clear distinction between good and evil and that evil has some chractéristics that you think don't apply to the good. However, IMO, good and evil is not as clear as white and black: there are shades of grey in-between and both sides share things in common. |
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Mar 31, 2009 15:22:21 GMT -5
Even in temporary life no empire lasts more than one thousand years, because the vindication of freedom always appears in the horizon of the slavish countries. I'm not sure I agree that empires fall because of 'the vindication of freedom'. Let's look at a counter-example. The Roman Empire, possibly the most famous empire in history, fell (at least in the west) primarily because of the dissatisfaction and disillusionment of external 'barbarian' tribes; the other major contributing factor was the removal of the empire's defensive army, leaving it open to attack. The citizens didn't rise up and throw off the yoke of oppression; the empire collapsed under the weight of bad management. When you are bad you trust nothing but power and money. And that´s your perdition. The Evil is always rotten. That´s the reason to think they won´t win. Because the Evil is always a weakness. I don't think that's necessarily the case. At the risk of sounding cliched and melodramatic, I'm going to bring in Hitler, simply because he's widely (though not universally) considered to be one of the most 'evil' individuals in recent history. If you study Hitler at all, you discover that he acted in the interests of Germany, as he saw them. He didn't act for love of power or money; he acted to strengthen a country that was slowly dying under unyielding recrimination from the rest of the world over past mistakes. And it worked - he restored Germany. His 'evil' was not born of desire for power or money; it sprang instead from a deep-seated desire to do what he thought was right. As for evil being inherently weak, I'd have to dispute that too. In many ways, evil can be considered stronger. At the risk of shooting down my own case by using a fictitious example, take Darth Revan's decisions. Sacrificing a city full of civilians in order to win the war would, by many people's definitions, be considered evil. Yet winning the war would save far more lives than those of just one city. A person who you might consider 'evil' may, in fact, simply have a better view of the big picture and be willing to make sacrifices for a greater good. Is this weakness, or is it strength? To employ a real-life example: when Tony Blair followed George W Bush to war in search of WMDs that turned out to be nonexistent, many accused him of being the spineless lapdog of a reckless warmonger. If there had been WMDs, though, Blair would most likely have been hailed as a bold and decisive leader taking the necessary action to preserve many lives. Evil is not easily defined; still less easily can it be labelled weak, corrupt, or based on love of power. Magnamund is a legendary place where the afterlife exits, and i would like to think (like other myths and legends) the eternity is fair to the right people. 'Liking to think' something is not a compelling argument for it being the case. Setting that aside, though, Magnamund is demonstrably not fair. 'Eternity' on Magnamund is in the hands of the gods - Ishir, Kai, and Naar. And these gods are deadlocked; neither side consistently has the upper hand, so 'eternity' cannot reward the good and punish the evil, because 'eternity' itself is a battleground between good and evil. |
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Mar 31, 2009 18:53:37 GMT -5
Because the term "empire" got a negative connotation. It´s always when a country submits another people by the force. And it is something artificial. Oh, so it's all about the connotation that you give to the words? But republics (sounds democratic and friendly, hey?) also submitted other people by force. The USA did that to the Filipinos in 1901 after Philippine claimed its independance from Spain. And since Philippine finally got its independance from the US in 1946, would you say that the Filipinos were the Good and the US the Bad because it was only a temporary moment in the Philippine's history before they got freedom? I understand that you make a very clear distinction between good and evil and that evil has some chractéristics that you think don't apply to the good. However, IMO, good and evil is not as clear as white and black: there are shades of grey in-between and both sides share things in common. In Magnamund good and evil are white and black. Those are the limits of a childhood fantasy. But i got to tell when i say "Empire" i don´t refer only "a kingdom" i refer a republic too, even a democratic republic. And today we got an example of a democratic republic which is probably an empire. And our good comrade Samildanach are touching a point which is probably one of my best subjects: The Third Reich. I didn´t desire name Hitler at this web, but if you want... Hitler is a complex personality, but i can assure you one thing: -Never, Never he thought in the Germany´s interest. He manipulated the german people to get his destructive ambitions. He was a liar and a traitor. He killed all his best comrades, after he used them. A Helghast is a funny guy in comparison with uncle Adolf. He took advantage of the rage and fear from Germany. And when everything was lost, he used little boys to go on with his Apocalipse. I can give you more than one example of his incredible selfishness. Hitler only love one thing at his life: Destruction. To destroy other races or other countries he manipulated Germany to get his aim, because he needed a whole country to do it. And when he couldn´t go on smashing other countries he concentrated in the destruction of the own Germany. He was a nasty monster and i hope you made only a mistake when you tried to justify him, because was REAL not a gamebook fantasy.    And one more thing, you think "cruelty = strenght" and it´s wrong. When someone loves nothing, he got nothing to lose, and it´s very easy destroy a city when you got a warlike justification and other people endanger their lives for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Samildanach on Apr 1, 2009 20:53:36 GMT -5
In Magnamund good and evil are white and black. Those are the limits of a childhood fantasy. them to be the limits of childhood fantasy. Others may disagree. Take Vonotar in Legends. He doesn't start out evil; he wants to study right-handed magic because he believes it could be useful to Sommerlund, and even after he's defected to the Darklords he sees himself and Zagarna as the magician and knight who are destined to save Magnamund. His motives are honest enough, but his perception becomes twisted. This is not simple black and white. Never, Never he thought in the Germany´s interest. Evidence? If you consult Mein Kampf, you'll find he believed that Jews and Communists were genuinely a threat to the world. Again, like my Vonotar example, his intentions weren't inherently evil - he intended to eradicate the things he saw as evil. We all disagree with him, and his methods were barbaric - but it wasn't love of power. If you believe it was love of power, I'd appreciate you pointing me to a source that supports that. He was a nasty monster and i hope you made only a mistake when you tried to justify him, because was REAL not a gamebook fantasy. I've been told I have an usually strong ability to empathise - to see things through another's eyes. I'm not attempting to justify, condone or excuse Hitler's actions, I'm just saying it's not as simple as 'Hitler did evil things because he was evil'. In any case, Hitler's evilness isn't the issue. I brought him up only as an example of my point that even seemingly obvious evil is more complex than it might appear. And one more thing, you think "cruelty = strenght" and it´s wrong. When someone loves nothing, he got nothing to lose, and it´s very easy destroy a city when you got a warlike justification and other people endanger their lives for you. Did I say cruelty is strength? I didn't mention cruelty. I mentioned evil. And I didn't say evil is strength, I said it can be argued that evil is stronger than good. There's a world of difference between seeing that it's possible to believe something, and believing it yourself. In any case, you say it's easy to destroy a city because the lives lost are not yours. But you haven't addressed my point. I'll simplify. Two options: Option 1) Two hundred thousand people die Option 2) Five million people die If those are the only options, which do you choose? Option 1 involves sacrificing a city in order to end the war. Option 2 involves saving the city but allowing the war to drag on for another five years. Choosing option one saves more lives, so it must be the 'good' choice. Yet you're arguing it's evil. Why is it evil? |
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 2, 2009 0:18:16 GMT -5
Choosing option one saves more lives, so it must be the 'good' choice. Yet you're arguing it's evil. Why is it evil? It is probably worth noting that, in this particular instance as well as a few others i have read in this thread so far, all participants would need to accept the assumption that good and evil represent the only two descriptors possible. Though a polarized assumption has the blessing of simplicity, that polarization may not be appropriate for providing due consideration for, say, the specific example (and the two options) given above. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 2, 2009 4:29:51 GMT -5
The philosophy i would like to express is that "Darkness won´t last for ever". This is wrong. In Aon, all other worlds apart from Magnamund are won by either Good or Evil. Magnamund is the last remaining battleground. If one side or the other wins on Magnamund, that's it. That's why it's so important. Lone Wolf dying before the Darklords were wiped out would almost certainly result in them winning a complete victory on Magnamund. If this happens, that's it. As others have said, Lone Wolf probably could have died after Book 12 because another Kai Lord could have taken up his mantle, or the (greatly strengthened) free nations would have been better placed to resist the new threat. Of course, this doesn't take into account what may or may not happen in Books 29-32, where Lone Wolf may again be vital (possibly in the self-sacrifice role that was speculated on over at PA). And finally (and off my original topic), Sam wasn't justifying Hitler's actions. He was explaining them. There's a rather large difference. -GB |
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Apr 2, 2009 9:25:48 GMT -5
I did a great effort to study Hitler since his point of view.
Trying to be comprehensive with his circumstances.
For sure he wasn´t the only guilty in that war.
Probably everybody was guilty.
The madness triumphs because the "sane minds" are not
sane at all.
I read "Mein Kampf" and i saw clear all the ghosts and lies
and i didn´t find any love for Germany. I only find HATE.
Germany always was an instrument for Hitler.
Well, Vonotar is almost a copy from Saruman, and as far as i know
"The Lord of the Rings", "Lone Wolf", and "Star wars" are tales
where the bad guys are very bad, and the good ones are very good. Of course there are traitors, some of the bad guys were good
in the past and the heroes are doubting sometimes. But they are
tales with very clear simplifications.
But i´m very worried about one thing i´ve discovered here:
Why am i the only one who defends decency, The Good,
The light and the good feelings...and no one supports me?
I like Lone Wolf but it´s ironic that i am Lone Wolf in a
Lone Wolf site. I´m Lone Wolf twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 2, 2009 10:40:13 GMT -5
The Lone Wolf universe is an interesting one. Overall, the simplistic good/evil axis is held in check. As GB said, there is no overall good rewarding, nor overall evil dragging humanity down, as may exist in normal literature.
It comes down to human (and other races) choice as to who ultimately wins, which is a much more satisfying and interesting concept.
Given this, I do not think people are arguing against decency, but are arguing against an overall hopefully vision being included in the books, as it robs this exciting premise. Lone Wolf is not a puppet, and neither is there any safety in fairure. Lone Wolf, and therefore the reader, have the power to accept Light and fight, and there is a real consequence for not making the right choice and fighting against evil effectively.
It helps to not think of Lone Wolf as a warrior. He is, after all, a monk and disciple of Kai. In that respect, his power does not just come from battle, and his reward is not for having fought in battle well. He is a spiritual and mental person, and his rewards come from forging personal and political alliances that keep the freelands and his country safe. More importantly, from being a teacher and inspiring the younger generation.
Book 12 has a harsh end for the lake of blood (evil may very well win and his suffering is eternal), because the gods he fights for cannot guarantee his soul. Instead it is Lone Wolf himself, if he triumphs in book 12, that may very well secure his own prmoising afterlife. With his success, a new generation of Kai are born. He may well die after, and still know that good can triumph and therefore Light win, securing his existance in a verison of heaven. I think that is a very positive thing, that Lone Wolf is not rewarded for the necessary violence in his life, but more likely for the non-violent act of inspiration and passing of knowledge.
I think that is a very good message, but it of course means that the danger and dark must be acknowledged as powerful and potential consequences.
I do think that by havign the Lone Wolf books emphasise, on a sub-conscious level, the value of personal choice to create and champion good, they provide a much better role model.
Also notice that many times there is no benefit nor consequence to evil actions. Lone Wolf can kill an angry mob and get away with it. He can decide to take the bad watch and let his companion rest, and gain nothing but loss of Endurance. There is no exernal agency (in real life) guiding you to make moral choices. Instead a reader should make them anyway for the sake of playign the character, and also be challenged by makign the harder moral choices to leave someone without the means to defend themselves, because of the greater good, without some overall comfort of an emissary of good making that all right.
Anyway, the reasons above may be why other readers are resistant to adding a comfort to the mythology of the LW afterlife. Long story short - personal responsibility being the bringer of good endings feels more epic, heroic, and inspirational I think!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Apr 2, 2009 12:05:33 GMT -5
I don't recall any reference in the books to afterlifes, either "good" or "bad". There are a few spirits seen here and there, and LW re-encounters a few old foes in Book 20, but there doesn't appear to be anything analagous to, say, Elysium or Tartarus. If I'm wrong, please provide references.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshua on Apr 2, 2009 13:13:15 GMT -5
There is no question about it. Remember an end that told "your natural life ends here..." So, there is another life...
It´s obvious that Magnamund is a place with spirits, ghosts
dead people, semi-dead bodies etc...it´s a magical place
and it is not a material novel, a kind of "you die and all finishes
for you".So,there are other lifes, other planes of existence...
But i´m worried about that philosophy :"you can be brave, with big
achievements and noble things in your background but if you
lose today you condemn youself ...for ever".
It´s a shame.
Pity...
pity...
pity........
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 2, 2009 13:34:55 GMT -5
I don't recall any reference in the books to afterlifes, either "good" or "bad". There are a few spirits seen here and there, and LW re-encounters a few old foes in Book 20, but there doesn't appear to be anything analagous to, say, Elysium or Tartarus. If I'm wrong, please provide references. The Planes of Light and Darkness are the LW 'afterlife'. This is referred to quite a few times, but since I just read Book 20 (from Section 163): Regarding eternal damnation in the Lake of Blood. It's important to realise that this is not a 'natural' event. And it's made quite obvious that it's quite a hideous thing to have happen to you. -GB |
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Apr 2, 2009 14:22:00 GMT -5
About this...
I read "eternal peace" as meaning rest for the spirits (as in ghosts being 'laid to rest') rather than them going to an actual heaven. But it might come down to personal interpretation/bias on the part of the reader. I'm not going to discuss actual religion (or lack thereof) on this forum however. That road lies madness!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 2, 2009 14:35:16 GMT -5
If that were the case, why mention the Plane of Light? It seems blatantly obvious to me that my interpretation is right. There's also the fact that you encounter mortal souls that you've previously killed on the Plane of Darkness like Cadak. If those two facts don't convince you, I don't think anything will.  -GB |
|
|
|
Post by Doomy on Apr 2, 2009 14:47:25 GMT -5
Yeah, but those souls are merely being held hostage, while the others aren't exactly chained to rocks having their gizzards eaten by vultures on a daily basis. The Plane of Light is merely where souls created by Kai and Ishir are "supposed" to end up, there's never any mention of a 'heaven' as such. My FINAL tuppenceworth on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 2, 2009 14:53:33 GMT -5
Can we all agree that hell is other people and move on? ;D
|
|
