|
|
Post by Inventrix on May 31, 2013 6:43:54 GMT 10
Oh good, I considered doing this myself because it's such an interesting topic but, as you pointed out, it was starting to derail the thread a bit. XD
Personally, I would say that for most cultures that have a distinction between "good" versus "evil", the Plaguebringer definitely constitutes evil. She invites, encourages, and devises means for the destruction of life - a characteristic which is practically the definition of evil almost everywhere.
But. I think saying "Plague is evil" is an oversimplification of a much more interesting philosophy. I really like my anarchy/democracy analogy so I'm going to use it again. The Gladekeeper's philosophy is more like democracy: a maintained system where all members have a voice and involvement and work or argue together in order to reach a conclusion. A somewhat cooperative influence. The Plaguebringer, on the other hand, is more like anarchy: a completely free system - a lack of a system, really - where all have the opportunity to act but also have to overcome any opposition by their own means and merits.
The way I see the Plaguebringer, she values life which can prove its ability to overcome any and all hardships, that can survive injury, disease, starvation, et al. Her spread of disease and decay is how she ensures that only those who according to her standards are fit and worthy of populating her world, do so, and that inferior life forms are pruned in favor of the strong and adaptable. I think her glorious vision of the perfect world would be one populated by life forms which can change and mutate to overcome anything. Unstoppable life that has proven its superiority.
The Gladekeeper... I think I will go into in a second post so this doesn't get too long. XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Xin Xiao on May 31, 2013 6:49:49 GMT 10
2) The desire to destroy anything she can <- Her desire isn't to destroy, it's to improve.
Destroying of all things means utter void - nihilism. And she's pretty much waay on the other pole.
4) She's ugly! - I don't think this is an argument to the "evil" fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Poor Plaguebringer, getting called ugly by her own minions :c
5) Genocide and the wholesale murder of all wilderness is something that can be considered 'evil'.
Again, she's not killing them wholly, only forcing improvement on all lifeforms.
You kinda know my feelings about Plague, but I felt that I should smoosh these in
"the Arcanist is just curious, he has no 'superiority complex' and certainly doesn't kill everything intentionally (though he's a worse murderer than the Plaguebringer"
WOAAAH woah woaaah. Arcanist...murderer? When the explosion occured it was the humans' fault for concetrating so much arcane energy and birthing him. The Arcanist had no flipping idea lol.
I overall agree with Invetrix's ideas.
Plague isn't evil by herself, she appears so to those who don't share her ideologies, but her deeds come from a desire to make the world better.
Kinda like a FR Hitler hahah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inventrix on May 31, 2013 6:53:03 GMT 10
Whether the Gladekeeper is "good" is an interesting question, and I would say... no, not really. I don't think any of the gods are really "good"; their views all seem a little too extreme for that.
I think the Gladekeeper is somewhat like the great forest spirit in Princess Mononoke. She loves and treasures plants and all life that grows from the earth and will tend and nurture and protect that life - even to the expense of others, I think. The value of other beings and elements, I suspect for her are directly proportional to how necessary or beneficial they are for the continued propagation and spread of her forests.
Also, I think she would respond poorly to actions that impeded or affected her growing of plants. Farming, for example, I think would displease her due to the repression of the spread of "weeds" and control of the desired crops. Any sort of civilization settlement involving clearing forests and suchlike would very likely invoke her wrath and I don't think she would hesitate to destroy those who dared to do such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xin Xiao on May 31, 2013 6:55:43 GMT 10
I personally see both goddesses to be exactly the same in nature, only with Plague being a bit more "obvious" to us thanks to her...umm, appearance. Only this aids a lot into provoking disgust and hatred. Buuuut yes, they're both essentially the same in my book. Although, imagine the power if they'd combine their elements. RAGING MUTATED PLANTS THAT OVERCOME ANY OBSTACLE FFFFFF-  |
|
|
|
Post by Inventrix on May 31, 2013 7:16:46 GMT 10
I really like this line; it's pretty much spot-on, I think. She's so convinced that her view of the world and How Things Should Be is right that she is incapable of admitting anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xin Xiao on May 31, 2013 7:19:15 GMT 10
I really like this line; it's pretty much spot-on, I think. She's so convinced that her view of the world and How Things Should Be is right that she is incapable of admitting anything else. Yeah, hands down you nailed it with that phrase. Ai't got nothing to comment. vov |
|
Altan
Hatchling
Previously Dalishar
Posts: 15 
|
Post by Altan on May 31, 2013 8:56:43 GMT 10
 Neither of them has an actively malicious intent! Whereas the other dragon gods seem to have 'higher minds', these two appear to operate more on primal / instinctive urges (at least until the epilogue is finished and completely ruins my take on them).
1. They were both born as embodiments of their elements, and immediately went to 'spreading their roots' as far as possible vs discovery of anything else.
The original four crafted the world in their image, yes, but they did so with logic and direction vs rampant proliferation. The next four were born of their elements + magic from the main four's bickering, but the spread of their elements are written as accidental byproducts while they pursued other goals. Additionially, the other nine are still distinct forms / more of a "magic sparked life and this was born and took on elements of its surroundings", whereas these two look like they were literally made from what they represent (because they were!).
2. Both of their blurbs speak only of their ambition to cover the world with their respective elements, whereas the other gods have more refined pursuits.
I'm taking a liberty here and assuming most of the flights' overall personalities are taken from aspects of the gods' own personalities (supported mostly by Arcanist and his arcane flight, since we don't have much on the other gods. But it makes sense, right?). So light dragons are studious because Lightweaver is an inherently studious dragon, Lightning dragons are inventors because Stormcatcher is all about progress, etc.
3. First reaction to the darkness in part 3 is to just run and preserve themselves (animal instinct!) vs analyzing it, or wanting to defend their homes against it (admittedly they could just be cowards, I guess)
The only hang up I can see for my theory is the description of the plague dragons from the Scarred Wasteland, but that could be as simple as plague dragons taking their god's mindless direction/ambition and applying logic to it.
It's like calling weeds or viruses evil - they aren't operating with the intent to murder everything else, they just really want to survive and make sure they're the most successful at doing so. Which incidentally results in murdering everything else. Plaguebringer's strategy just happens to be a lot more obviously destructive than Gladekeeper's.
This is speaking purely from a devil's advocate perspective, of course. From any other flight, Plaguebringer could seem unarguably evil (and mine will be operating under that assumption!~) |
|
|
|
Post by Inventrix on May 31, 2013 9:12:06 GMT 10
!!! PHOENIX WRIGHT REFERENCE! You are my new favorite person, hello.
Interestingly, the original gods also wanted to cover the world with their own elements. The great war in the first part before they formed the Pillar was driven by that specific motivation, until they realized that their fighting was destroying the world and they formed a truce.
The Gladekeeper and the Plaguebringer were born after this truce and after the Pillar, so they never experienced the horrific destruction that warring elemental gods can bring upon the world. As a result, they are much more willing to continue battling each other for supremacy. I think perhaps it is less that they are more primal beings and more that they are (relatively) young and naive.
|
|
Altan
Hatchling
Previously Dalishar
Posts: 15
|
Post by Altan on May 31, 2013 9:22:06 GMT 10
It seemed fitting, lol ; ; but hi!~
I was mostly going from that bit. They all wanted the world to be more representative of themselves, yes, but when they started they worked together to form it all (and then proceeded to ruin it and spawn the offshoot gods that were just born into an existing conflict) Whereas Nature & Plague went straight into trying to murder each other, which seems more primitive to me than just being naive would account for.
Young and naive is a fair point to make though, and probably what will actually be uncovered once the epilogue is unveiled. I just think purely-operate-on-instinct gods would be so cool to have D:
|
|
|
|
Post by Inventrix on May 31, 2013 9:26:41 GMT 10
Ahh, that's a good point! They are a little bit more... thoughtful about it than Plague and Nature, aren't they.
I hope you're right, actually; that would be very cool. It would make a lovely balance for the Arcanist's almost antithetical personality. (Now he is very definitely young and naive as of Part 3. XD)
|
|
|
|
Post by kaljaia on Jun 1, 2013 15:17:18 GMT 10
I see them as Stasis (Gladekeeper) versus Change (Plaguebringer) because to reach the idealized forest state is impossible in the real world due to order of succession and the need for intermittent fire, etc, yet we try so hard to preserve snippets of 'old growth' or 'deciduous' or 'evergreen' etc forests for our own enjoyment (lol ecology nerd coming up now) while the titular plague is only so dangerous as its ability to mutate and alter itself- if it stays the same too long, it is defeated- it must change itself to live, and force the world around it to change and adapt as well. I actually like both a lot, though I may like plague a bit more~ I love me my forests, but the role of viruses, bacteria, decay and disease in a functional ecosystem is really awesome and usually overlooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xin Xiao on Jun 2, 2013 17:34:39 GMT 10
I see them as Stasis (Gladekeeper) versus Change (Plaguebringer) because to reach the idealized forest state is impossible in the real world due to order of succession and the need for intermittent fire, etc, yet we try so hard to preserve snippets of 'old growth' or 'deciduous' or 'evergreen' etc forests for our own enjoyment (lol ecology nerd coming up now) while the titular plague is only so dangerous as its ability to mutate and alter itself- if it stays the same too long, it is defeated- it must change itself to live, and force the world around it to change and adapt as well. I actually like both a lot, though I may like plague a bit more~ I love me my forests, but the role of viruses, bacteria, decay and disease in a functional ecosystem is really awesome and usually overlooked. So much yes. |
|
