Once & Future #5

[laughing_tree]

Sadly, a common fault is people tend to play Lawful Good as either Shithead Good or Stupid As Balls Good. -- Kieron Gillen

Comments

[thosefew]

Did she hide that note in the same area she shot? I'm surprised it's not bloodstained to illegibility.

"Well, at least I'll remember that for next time I shoot myself in the chest."

[nyadnar17]

"Sadly, a common fault is people tend to play Lawful Good as either Shithead Good or Stupid As Balls Good. -- Kieron Gillen"

Then argue with you about how those are the "correct" ways to play LG. Huge, huge pet peeve of mine.

[lordultimus]

I do recall a comic where a guy was playing his character as a typical paladin. However, since the DM had constructed a very morally grey setting, he instead came across as a genocidal zealot.

[nyadnar17]

Its so frustrating. 90% of the "hard moral choices" a player will see in the average game have been done to death in even a basic article of ethics on Wikipedia, yet some people insist that the most lazy, braindead choice is the thing a morally uncompromising person would do.

[servant_iskandar]

I understand your point, and I agree that it's often a gimmick used to downplay poor storytelling or planning - having "shades of grey" in a novel, comic or other narrative (which includes both tabletop and video games, of course) doesn't necessarily equate to the story having any "depth". It's a mood / setting, but a story requires a clear course, it's a journey.

To wit: the world is complex, and we need to acknowledge counterpoints and differences in opinion, including the fact that as people we aren't infallible or omniscient.

Yet we can still strive to be the best we can for the sake of others, and we cannot left others suffer because of the misgivings, shortcomings and true evils of our time; one should stand tall against violence, racism, fascism, wanton destruction, greed, malice for the sake of malice. But such vigilance must always be tempered by hope, compassion and love.

I don't know whether that's "lawful good", or if it makes me a silly idealist because I believe that yes, while there are degrees in between, there's still a line to draw. Not because we know better, but because, in the end, we care for others and that's the right thing to do. And for me, it comes close enough.

That's where the terse, concise one-liner from Gillen falls short: my take is that he was going for a deeper meaning, questioning whether (or *how*, if you're more optimistic) people could grasp what "doing good" and having a moral compass means in troubled times like these.

Taken out of contest, it still carries the snark but none of that depth, and it edges dangerously close to the nihilism that much less compelling storytellers than Gillen would resort to.

[cygnia]

Don't forget "Lawful Anal"

[mazway_75]

That last panel of him just dashing of like Speedy Gonzales while the guy in the fancy armor can barely move is hysterical.

[shadowpsykie]

I loved that!

[servant_iskandar]

Yes, just like the moments before (the dragon and so on) it adds some welcome levity. It also serves as comeuppance for this deranged version of Galahad.

[shadowpsykie]

I know I have asked this before, but I am still not sure I understand.... If this is about Mythical Arthur... Arthur was a GOOD King... Almost to a fault, because he kinda let people get away with shit that in the end bit him in the ass. (Lancelot/Guinevere/Mordred etc). Historical Arthur is pretty much a warlord... how is THIS Arthur bringing about the end of all things, and is now an evil Ring Wraith.... I love Gillian.... I just don't get this....

[servant_iskandar]

It's a clear subversion - one of the theme Gillen said he was wrestling with was Brexit, and in my opinion here the consequences of "maintaining our national identity" and "being led by a superior authority" are brought to their extreme by means of the tale being told.

IMHO, the other thread is the power of stories and myth, the perspective (the lens, the bias) they're being perceived through, and how people shouldn't maintain ideas of a mythical "it was good back then", or entrusting the "strong" to solve their issues for them (that's what fascism does) but progress and strive on their own (and together) to bring something good to the world.

So it isn't simply Gillen being edgy or a revisionist for the sake of revisionism, he's trying to address a point through his (cautionary) tale. Percy and Co. end up against Evil Dead Arthur because Evil Dead Arthur is the likely answer (or rewrite of the myth, again) to the people asking for "that" kind of savior.

...Although yes, I still prefer tales where Arthur and the Round Table, while flawed and fallible, are still fundamentally good and sympathetic.

[jlbarnett]

unfortunately entrusting the strong is also what democracy does, unless you don't expect the people you elect to be strong enough to deal with the issues the country their in is facing

[servant_iskandar]

IMHO, there's a difference between an autocrat and a democratically elected representant, and between totalitarian ideologies and (at least) the ideal of democracy.

Long preamble coming, sorry about that.

It doesn't mean that democracies cannot be misled or fail along the way: I live in a country that has rejected fascism in its Constitution (after paying a hefty price) and yet we had a right-wing millionaire playing Prime Minister across a period of twenty years. There's currently a guy who is quoting Mussolini on Twitter and inciting racial hate by ringing the doorbell of immigrants on live TV and asking them if they are drug dealers.

However: democracy has also the checks and balances to counter those faults and correct course, as long as voters exercise their right and make their pressure count. As long as we don't stay passive and keep making choices - which includes scrutinizing those we have elected.

It should also be a matter of capacity/ability and accountability, rather than "strength". Rule by might and might alone is what makes an autocrat or an oppressive regime.

Democracy is about estabilishing agreement and compromise between different points of view ("the art of possibility"), balancing things so that everybody, hopefully, has a chance as a free human being under the sun. So that they don't have mere privileges that can be revocated at any point in time (that's what monarchs and autocrats do, often) but inalienable rights.

Again, sorry for the long spiel.

[qalchemist]

Unrelated to the politics...
Arthur wasn't always that good.

The Massacre of the May Day Babies is part of Arthurian lore, after all.

[cainofdreaming]

Okay, maybe I should get some sleep already because I read that as "The Massacre of the Man Babies."

[gnarll]

"The Enemy of God" he was called.

[nyadnar17]

I think that's my biggest problem.

King Arthur, Merlin, and a lot of the knights were kinda shithead bastards. And his "golden age" didn't even last a single generation.

I don't get the whole legendary, noble, hero king reputation Camelot has.

[gnarll]

Everything is relative. I remember reading once that for a period after the legions left, the coasts of Britain were almost devoid of human life due to raiding. To a people being victimized to that degree, the memory of a strong warlord leader who at least tried to keep a minimum of justice and protection of the weak could be remembered pretty fondly.