Alputone Posted May 23, 2021 Share Posted May 23, 2021 What are your thoughts on Micaiah? At first I liked her but as the game progressed I began to see several faults in her. My problem with her is that she is not a patriot but a nationalist. In the beginning she blames Ike for the current state Daein is in instead of acknowledging the faults of her own country. If she wanted someone to blame she should have blamed Ashnard. It isn't until part 3 though where I truly began to dislike her. She agrees to wage war on the Laguz Alliance simply because Pelleas told her. She should have demanded an explanation from Pelleas first and if he refused she should have resigned. Her being the general of Daein is no excuse. As soon as she found out about the blood pact she should have sent messengers to the Laguz Alliance to explain the situation and ask for their help. Even if they couldn't it would've at least explained the situation. Lastly and most importantly she should have refused to wage war against a group that had done no wrong to Daein. Yes even if it meant activating the blood pact. Killing innocents to save innocents is always wrong even if if you are responsible for them. What Daein should have done was form an alliance with the Laguz and attacked Begnion instead. It may have been suicide but it's still better than attacking a group that has done no wrong to you. Micaiah even admits to Sothe in a conversation that what she is doing is evil but that she just doesn't care. I give her credit for at least acknowledging her actions as evil. Acknowledging her actions as evil however doesn't make them any less evil and she still should have faced justice and been held accountable for her actions. The fact that she escapes justice at the end and even becomes Queen of Daein just makes it even worse. This is all just my opinion but what are some of your thoughts on her character? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 Sorry, but, this all comes off as very naive. When you become army general, you don't question your commander, and you also don't leave the moment you get a command you don't immediately agree with. That's just not how it works. Micaiah trusted Pelleas enough to put him on the throne and continue carrying out his orders, so she did. Was that trust misplaced? As far as his character is concerned, no, but as far as his personal capabilities, yes. But that happens. People aren't perfect. Begnion has spies. If Micaiah tried to contact the Laguz Alliance with the truth, bye-bye Daein. If she refused the war outright, bye-bye Daein. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say "she should have done the right thing," but if you're actually the one stuck between becoming the villain and losing everyone you've ever loved, it's not nearly so simple. I don't recall Micaiah ever saying she didn't care that what she was doing was evil, just that she had no choice because she can't stand let Daein die. Besides, it's not as though they didn't try to fight back against Begnion however they could. Pelleas searched for a way to break the pact and even gave up his own life to do so, although it failed in the end. The only thing here I don't inherently disagree with is the last point about Micaiah never being held accountable for the things she did, though given the reason for it all I can get behind the idea that everyone wanted to just move past these events with all the real villains already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 4 hours ago, Florete said: "When you become army general, you don't question your commander, and you also don't leave the moment you get a command you don't immediately agree with. That's just not how it works." That is how it works actually. You always have the choice to obey or refuse orders from those above you. Especially if they conflict with your own sense of morals. 4 hours ago, Florete said: Begnion has spies. If Micaiah tried to contact the Laguz Alliance with the truth, bye-bye Daein. If she refused the war outright, bye-bye Daein. This is true and there is a risk involved of course but it's still better than waging war on a group that has done no wrong to your country and is literally doing nothing but fleeing for their lives at that point. 4 hours ago, Florete said: I don't recall Micaiah ever saying she didn't care that what she was doing was evil, just that she had no choice because she can't stand let Daein die. Here is the conversation I mentioned about her stating as much in part 3 ch 12 in a base conversation. "Micaiah: I... I want to save them all. The world is a better place with people like them in it. Sothe: I know how you feel, Micaiah. That's why we started all this. We've always been fighting for them. But this war we're in... It's not just. We're fighting on the wrong side. Micaiah: I know. I don't want to see anyone die. It's ironic... I'm killing with no malice, because I don't want anyone to be killed. I... What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to stand back and let all of Daein perish? Is that the "just" thing to do? Sothe: ... Micaiah: If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice. I'd rather be hated and feared like Mad King Ashnard. I'd rather the dark god take my soul. I'm going to save my people, Sothe. If the rest of the world paints me as a beast to be reviled and hated, so be it." Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 49 minutes ago, Alputone said: That is how it works actually. You always have the choice to obey or refuse orders from those above you. Especially if they conflict with your own sense of morals. Technically, yeah, you have that choice, but you don't end up there in the first place if you're going to be making that kind of choice. This line of thinking would be more justifiable if there was already a history of Pelleas giving Micaiah questionable orders, but this was the first time, so Micaiah saw no reason not to trust him. Considering she kept going even after his death, she clearly would have made the same choice even if she knew all the details from the start. 50 minutes ago, Alputone said: This is true and there is a risk involved of course but it's still better than waging war on a group that has done no wrong to your country and is literally doing nothing but fleeing for their lives at that point. Says you. It's a situation with no "correct" answer. People die either way. Micaiah chose to save her own people. And what, they didn't fight anyone who was "just fleeing for their lives." They fought soldiers and armies. The story makes it a point that Daein is actually heavily outnumbered. 52 minutes ago, Alputone said: Here is the conversation I mentioned about her stating as much in part 3 ch 12 in a base conversation. "Micaiah: I... I want to save them all. The world is a better place with people like them in it. Sothe: I know how you feel, Micaiah. That's why we started all this. We've always been fighting for them. But this war we're in... It's not just. We're fighting on the wrong side. Micaiah: I know. I don't want to see anyone die. It's ironic... I'm killing with no malice, because I don't want anyone to be killed. I... What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to stand back and let all of Daein perish? Is that the "just" thing to do? Sothe: ... Micaiah: If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice. I'd rather be hated and feared like Mad King Ashnard. I'd rather the dark god take my soul. I'm going to save my people, Sothe. If the rest of the world paints me as a beast to be reviled and hated, so be it." Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. Yeah, I don't see how this means she just doesn't care. Complete opposite, in fact. She doesn't want to see anyone die, but her hand has been forced. Personally, the fact that she was willing to do what she needed to do for her people, and that her convictions were strong enough to see it through, are part of exactly why I like Micaiah as a character. She's not your everyday hero who goes and fights the generic evil bad guy. She gets put in a tough spot that hardly anyone in fiction, and certainly no other Fire Emblem protagonist (except maybe Edelgard), ever gets put into. She makes tough choices, she makes people hate her. She doesn't like it, but she doesn't regret it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 10 hours ago, Alputone said: That is how it works actually. You always have the choice to obey or refuse orders from those above you. Especially if they conflict with your own sense of morals. This is true and there is a risk involved of course but it's still better than waging war on a group that has done no wrong to your country and is literally doing nothing but fleeing for their lives at that point. Here is the conversation I mentioned about her stating as much in part 3 ch 12 in a base conversation. "Micaiah: I... I want to save them all. The world is a better place with people like them in it. Sothe: I know how you feel, Micaiah. That's why we started all this. We've always been fighting for them. But this war we're in... It's not just. We're fighting on the wrong side. Micaiah: I know. I don't want to see anyone die. It's ironic... I'm killing with no malice, because I don't want anyone to be killed. I... What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to stand back and let all of Daein perish? Is that the "just" thing to do? Sothe: ... Micaiah: If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice. I'd rather be hated and feared like Mad King Ashnard. I'd rather the dark god take my soul. I'm going to save my people, Sothe. If the rest of the world paints me as a beast to be reviled and hated, so be it." Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. She never says she doesn't care there. If anything that conversation is showing how she cares a considerable deal and that this war is taking a massive toll on her conscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanty Pete's 1st Mate Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 12 hours ago, Alputone said: Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. She doesn't necessarily believe her actions to be evil, though. She acknowledges that others will think of her as evil, yes, but that's not the same thing. To Micaiah, even if those actions are evil, she holds letting Daein suffer and die to be a greater evil. 20 hours ago, Alputone said: My problem with her is that she is not a patriot but a nationalist. I find these terms to generally be synonymous - but while the former has a positive connotation, the latter has a mixed-to-negative one. She is devoted for Daein, that much is true. And actually, her reasons for such devotion felt poorly handled. Very much "tell-don't-show". 20 hours ago, Alputone said: Yes even if it meant activating the blood pact. Killing innocents to save innocents is always wrong even if if you are responsible for them. What Daein should have done was form an alliance with the Laguz and attacked Begnion instead. It may have been suicide but it's still better than attacking a group that has done no wrong to you. This gets into sticky territory, of "what is a ruler's first duty"? Should Pelleas and Micaiah do the right thing, relative to other nations? Or should they do the best thing for their people? In Part III of Radiant Dawn, these two moral imperatives are at odds with one another. Which makes for an interesting study on everyone's convictions, Micaiah included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 On 5/23/2021 at 1:18 PM, Alputone said: In the beginning she blames Ike for the current state Daein is in instead of acknowledging the faults of her own country. If she wanted someone to blame she should have blamed Ashnard. Ashnard is referred to even in Daein as the Mad King, the very label of which suggests some blame for the situation, but do you really think that the people of Daein would hold Ike blameless? He led an army to conquer them (rather than attack Ashnard directly in Crimea; yes there were tactical reasons, but that's little comfort to the average Daein citizen) and after he departed, left a corrupt Begnion occupation force in charge which objectively treated the Daein citizens worse than Ashnard ever did. War is hell. Even with relatively moral commanders (which I'd agree that Ike is), conquering a nation is not pretty. One thing I really appreciated about the Tellius games is that they actually acknowledge this; in PoR, the Daein characters express disquiet with what is going on during the conquest of that nation, and in Radiant Dawn, we get a look at the post-conquest reality for the average citizen. Ashnard may be a horrible human being, but that does not mean that the Daein citizens deserved what happened to them, and they are right be angry with their conquerors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) What it comes down to is whether or not it is acceptable to kill innocent people to save innocent people. Micaiah's answer was yes if the people at risk are your people. From my point of view I can't justify killing a group that had done no wrong even given the circumstances. Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say a you are a parent and someone kidnaps your child and gives you 24 hrs to kill another innocent or the kidnapper would kill your child. Would you do it? Micaiah's answer was effectively yes. Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong wouldn't. The point being that killing people that don't deserve to die to save people that also don't deserve to die is just wrong. The fact that she is general of Daein doesn't change that. Edited May 24, 2021 by Alputone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) 16 hours ago, Florete said: And what, they didn't fight anyone who was "just fleeing for their lives." They fought soldiers and armies. The story makes it a point that Daein is actually heavily outnumbered. Yeah they were soldiers but after the failed assault on Begnion they were just trying to make there way back to their own country to regroup and go on the defensive. Daein was outnumbered alight compared to the Laguz Alliance but so was the Alliance outnumbered by the Begnion army chasing them. Edited May 24, 2021 by Alputone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 16 hours ago, Florete said: 17 hours ago, Alputone said: Micaiah: If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice. I'd rather be hated and feared like Mad King Ashnard. I'd rather the dark god take my soul. I'm going to save my people, Sothe. If the rest of the world paints me as a beast to be reviled and hated, so be it." Here she says she's willing to commit evil if that's what it takes to save Daein and why I strongly disagree with her. Yeah, I don't see how this means she just doesn't care. Complete opposite, in fact. She doesn't want to see anyone die, but her hand has been forced. "If that's what it takes to be just, then I want nothing to do with justice." Maybe I'm misinterpreting what she is saying here but to me it says if doing the right thing means the destruction of Daein the screw doing the right thing, she would rather commit evil if it meant sparing her country. I'm not saying she should just stand by and do nothing and let Daein perish she should do everything within her power to save Daein but you don't do that by attacking and killing people that have done no wrong to you. There are lines you just don't cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florete Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Alputone said: What it comes down to is whether or not it is acceptable to kill innocent people to save innocent people. Micaiah's answer was yes if the people at risk are your people. From my point of view I can't justify killing a group that had done no wrong even given the circumstances. Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say a you are a parent and someone kidnaps your child and gives you 24 hrs to kill another innocent or the kidnapper would kill your child. Would you do it? Micaiah's answer was effectively yes. Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong wouldn't. The point being that killing people that don't deserve to die to save people that also don't deserve to die is just wrong. The fact that she is general of Daein doesn't change that. Well, you've clearly never had a child of your own. "Right and wrong" really doesn't come into play in this scenario. You say "Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong wouldn't" but you're incorrect. Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong would know that killing someone else is wrong, but I guarantee you there are plenty of parents out there who absolutely would do it. Not everyone adheres to your personal moral compass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 The thing that pisses me off is that she helps Nico, which then causes three other Daein civilians to die by Jarod's lance. Also, if she's so gifted with foresight, why doesn't she use it past Part 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 24, 2021 Author Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Florete said: Well, you've clearly never had a child of your own. Actually I have. I would gladly give my own life for my child but never someone elses. But it's just a difference in morals like you said. It's the reason I don't like her very much because she's willing to do cross lines and the game presents it as unfortunate but acceptable when I don't. Edited May 24, 2021 by Alputone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose482 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Alputone said: Maybe I'm misinterpreting what she is saying here but to me it says if doing the right thing means the destruction of Daein the screw doing the right thing, she would rather commit evil if it meant sparing her country. I'm not saying she should just stand by and do nothing and let Daein perish she should do everything within her power to save Daein but you don't do that by attacking and killing people that have done no wrong to you. There are lines you just don't cross. I mean, someone could argue the Laguz helped in making sure Daein lose the war by supporting Crimea, which made Daein suffer under Begnion's rule, but that's beside the point. I just wouldn't say it's accurate to say the Laguz country did nothing to Daein. 2 hours ago, Alputone said: Maybe I'm misinterpreting what she is saying here but to me it says if doing the right thing means the destruction of Daein the screw doing the right thing Yes, I'm sure going the route that would lead to everyone dying in her country over some Laguz warriors is the "right thing" to do She doesn't see any glory in what she's doing, and like some people here already said, she does try to make Pelleas search for ways around the blood pact. And even before learning of the blood pact, I remember Micaiah telling Tauroneo to try and convince Pelleas to stop Daein from joining the war anymore. Also, if you really want to hate on Micaiah for this, then I'll expect you to hate on Pelleas, Sothe, and every single character that knew about the blood pact, and continued to fight. To me, it seems like you're trying to blame everything that happened on Micaiah, when like.....She was neither the reason behind the blood pact becoming a thing nor was she the reason Daein ending up joining the war in the first place, that was Pelleas. Now, where is the blame on his part? Daein joining the war would had happened with her or without her. "Innocent people" would been killed regardless of what Micaiah did, she just would rather them be people not from her country. You might say that makes her a bad person, but I highly doubt her own people see her like that. And I completely disagree that her doing what she did makes her a nationalist. I think it's ridiculous to say she's a nationalist for not going the route that might possibly kill everyone in her country. This might be a hot take, but I'd imagine that if most, if not all lords in this series were faced with the choice Micaiah did, I assume they'll do the exact same thing? I don't think I can imagine any of them doing otherwise? Edited May 25, 2021 by Rose482 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Alputone said: What it comes down to is whether or not it is acceptable to kill innocent people to save innocent people. Micaiah's answer was yes if the people at risk are your people. From my point of view I can't justify killing a group that had done no wrong even given the circumstances. Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say a you are a parent and someone kidnaps your child and gives you 24 hrs to kill another innocent or the kidnapper would kill your child. Would you do it? Micaiah's answer was effectively yes. Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong wouldn't. The point being that killing people that don't deserve to die to save people that also don't deserve to die is just wrong. The fact that she is general of Daein doesn't change that. That's not really the question though. The question is whether she's a good character or not. I don't see any reason why a character having a values set I disagree with could stop them from being compelling. It's how those decisions she makes and struggles with manifests in the writing that'll determine whether she's a good or bad character. Whether you consider her a good or bad person in that regard is irrelevant. And by far the best ammo for attacking the worth of her as a character is the blood contract and how contrived it makes the scenario. Edited May 25, 2021 by Jotari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 9 minutes ago, Rose482 said: I mean, someone could argue the Laguz helped in making sure Daein lose the war by supporting Crimea, which made Daein suffer under Begnion's rule, but that's beside the point. I just wouldn't say it's accurate to say the Laguz country did nothing to Daein. Yeah but that's not the Laguz's fault. Remember Daein was preparing to invade Gallia right after Crimea so they were simply defending themselves. Daein brought about it's own ruin with Ashnard, it's no other counties fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Rose482 said: Yes, I'm sure going the route that would lead to everyone dying in her country over some Laguz warriors is the "right thing" to do The right to do was to do everything she could to save her people without having to attack a group of people that don't deserve it. It sucks but you're not going to tell me that killing others just to save your own is acceptable. No way. Edited May 25, 2021 by Alputone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 23 minutes ago, Jotari said: I don't see any reason why a character having a values set I disagree with could stop them from being compelling. Well it depends on just what that person's values are and to what extremes they would go to pursue them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose482 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 34 minutes ago, Alputone said: Yeah but that's not the Laguz's fault. Remember Daein was preparing to invade Gallia right after Crimea so they were simply defending themselves. Daein brought about it's own ruin with Ashnard, it's no other counties fault. Defending itself or not, my point being was that there is bad blood between the two. Gallia just defending itself still lead Daein to being run by Begnion, and I doubt there wouldn't be people in Daein who aren't bitter towards Gallia for that, even though Daein attacked first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, Rose482 said: Defending itself or not, my point being was that there is bad blood between the two. Gallia just defending itself still lead Daein to being run by Begnion, and I doubt there wouldn't be people in Daein who aren't bitter towards Gallia for that, even though Daein attacked first. Yeah this is true but even though they would understandably be upset about it that doesn't justify taking revenge. They can be mad that they lost all they want it doesn't make them any less in the wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanty Pete's 1st Mate Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 38 minutes ago, Alputone said: Well it depends on just what that person's values are and to what extremes they would go to pursue them. That's the thing - Micaiah is an extremist. She has an ideal (the preservation of Daein, and its people), and is willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy that ideal. Even doing things she views as wrong, since failing her ideal would be the greatest wrong possible. There's a lot of disagreement about whether she's justified or not. It's great that she inspires such debate, and I'd actually call that a testament to how interesting she is as a character. You don't have to agree with her to appreciate her character. One more thing - you can reply to multiple people with a single comment. Please don't do back-to-back comments when it can be avoided, as that's regarded as double-posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotari Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 6 hours ago, Alputone said: Well it depends on just what that person's values are and to what extremes they would go to pursue them. I really don't think it does. The most extremist character in the series is probably Zephiel. The dude literally wants to kill all humans in the world. But I still find him interesting because of hardlined and unwavering he is in his ideals and can understand his motivations based on the his own personal trauma. The fact that he's a detestable human being I'd never want to know personally, or even want to exist in this world doesn't factor into the equation because he's a fictional character. Also you should multi quote instead of posting three times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 21 hours ago, Alputone said: What it comes down to is whether or not it is acceptable to kill innocent people to save innocent people. Micaiah's answer was yes if the people at risk are your people. From my point of view I can't justify killing a group that had done no wrong even given the circumstances. Oh my goodness, where do I begin? What you're describing is the trolley problem. What you're ignoring is that someone's going to die from Micaiah's PoV. So are you going to save the group of random strangers, or are you going to save your friends and family? There's no stopping this trolley, any attempts to do so kill you AND your friends and family. 21 hours ago, Alputone said: Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say a you are a parent and someone kidnaps your child and gives you 24 hrs to kill another innocent or the kidnapper would kill your child. Would you do it? This isn't an honest example, and we both know it. 21 hours ago, Alputone said: Micaiah's answer was effectively yes. Any rational person with any sense of right and wrong wouldn't. Uh-huh, because everyone who was in that situation would be totally rational. News flash: Anyone who would be otherwise rational would NOT be rational in that situation. 21 hours ago, Alputone said: The point being that killing people that don't deserve to die to save people that also don't deserve to die is just wrong. The fact that she is general of Daein doesn't change that. You're looking at the issue with the additional knowledge that you have as the player. Micaiah doesn't have all that information, because she's not hanging with the Greil Mercenaries. If you limit your knowledge to everything she would've canonically known at that time, her decisions make more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alputone Posted May 25, 2021 Author Share Posted May 25, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, eclipse said: What you're describing is the trolley problem. What you're ignoring is that someone's going to die from Micaiah's PoV. So are you going to save the group of random strangers, or are you going to save your friends and family? There's no stopping this trolley, any attempts to do so kill you AND your friends and family. I'm familiar with the trolley problem and it kind of reminded me of the situation. Between pulling the lever and killing one person and doing nothing resulting in several. If you haven't guessed I wouldn't pull the lever. 46 minutes ago, eclipse said: This isn't an honest example, and we both know it. It is an honest example because the parent/child relationship is reflected in the state/citizenry relationship. Both the parents and the state are responsible for their respective others. I have no doubt that Micaiah made her decision based not just out of duty but love for her people. 46 minutes ago, eclipse said: Uh-huh, because everyone who was in that situation would be totally rational. News flash: Anyone who would be otherwise rational would NOT be rational in that situation. Okay you got me here most people wouldn't be rational I admit but still I maintain that just because your loved ones may be at risk doesn't give you justification to commit evil by killing innocents to save your own. 46 minutes ago, eclipse said: You're looking at the issue with the additional knowledge that you have as the player. Micaiah doesn't have all that information, because she's not hanging with the Greil Mercenaries. If you limit your knowledge to everything she would've canonically known at that time, her decisions make more sense. Yeah this is also true. The player knows the Laguz Alliance are not bad guys but Micaiah doesn't know that. However she doesn't know anything about them. The only thing she does know is that they haven't attacked Daein or anything worth declaring war on them for. Just taking Pelleas's word for it is okay in most situations but not going to war. She needed to either demand justification from Pelleas or resign. There are limits to what a person can do out of duty. Edited May 25, 2021 by Alputone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, Alputone said: I'm familiar with the trolley problem and it kind of reminded me of the situation. Between pulling the lever and killing one person and doing nothing resulting in several. If you haven't guessed I wouldn't pull the lever. It's a modified trolley problem. Instead of one person over several, it's a group of strangers versus an equal number of your friends and family. Where's the trolley going to go in that situation? 5 minutes ago, Alputone said: It is an honest example because the parent/child relationship is reflected in the state/citizenry relationship. Both the parents and the state are responsible for their respective others. I have no doubt that Micaiah made her decision based not just out of duty but love for her people. Counterexample: The governments around the world and all the messy political issues that make RD look damn appealing. We humans apparently like abusive parents or something. IMO it's closer to employer/employee, except there's only one place hiring. 10 minutes ago, Alputone said: Okay you got me here most people wouldn't be rational I admit but still I maintain that just because your loved ones may be at risk doesn't give you justification to ignore morality by killing innocents to save your own. This says so much about your stance, to the point where I seriously doubt that you'll be able to entertain another view besides your own. 11 minutes ago, Alputone said: Yeah this is also true. The player knows the Laguz Alliance are not bad guys but Micaiah doesn't know that. However she doesn't know anything about them. The only thing she does know is that they haven't attacked Daein or anything worth declaring war on them for. Just taking Pelleas's word for it is okay in most situations but not going to war. She needed to either demand justification from Pelleas or resign. There are limits to what a person can do out of duty. That's great, if you decided to completely forget Daein's history of mistreatment of laguz. Just because the leaders don't believe in discrimination doesn't mean that the general populace will follow. Given the blood pact (which I will complain about another day) and the general sentiment of Daein WRT laguz, declaring war on the laguz won't be questioned as much as if they sprung some sort of alliance. If you want to see just what a pain it is to get rid of discrimination, look no further than the current events in this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.