I can't permanently kill you. Does that mean you shouldn't worry about it?

Yes you can. Just because the Fates have sent me back so far doesn't mean the next time won't be my last.

I don't remember anyone telling me that I should act as if I were immortal... in fact, aren't we constantly referred to as 'mortals' by the gods themselves?

Theres a difference.

Ok, so you kill an unbound (not aligned to Mother Night) fae. Now that fae goes through the suffering of dying, and most likely is bound in shadows against its will, as its soul is damaged over time...

Its not nice to kill fae, simply a nescesary step for Serenwilde. At least, thats how I see it.

Not really. Killing shadowbound, neutral or moonbound fae is much the same - they all suffer pain, they bleed, and their physical forms are destroyed without harming their spirits.

If characters of Serenwilde can decide it is 'for their own good', they can't exactly turn around and be horrified when other people do the same thing they just did. They might be upset that someone is working against their interests, but the deed itself can't be too shocking.

As for what they want... many criminals don't want to be bound by law. The way Chron sees it, we apply that same thinking to the Fae - we force them to do what we think is right, even if they want to go and frolic elsewhere.

Uh...

Isnt the point that what they think is right isn't what you think is right? I mean, you even said it yourself.

So yes, when you kill 'free' fae, serenwilde dosnt think its right, and when serenwilders kill shadowbound fae, they do think its right... They think they are helping the fae, and that you are harming the fae. Even though they suffer some pain, freeing the shadowbound fae is for the fae's better good.

That doesn't follow at all. If I cut off someone's leg, they're going to be understandably distraught about it. If if a doctor cuts off someone's leg to stop them dying of gangrene or something that's a totally different matter. (I understand that's not the most perfect analogy since you're saving them from slavery rather than just death, but it's close enough.)

It's not reasonable for Glomdoring and Magnagora at least to say that they're doing the Fae any favours by doing whatever they happen to be doing to them, so if they kill them it can't be justified as a good thing towards the Fae. When Serenwilde (maybe Celest) kills a Fae it's in order to save them so it can be justified as a good thing. Especially when the Fae tell Narsrim (say) they're glad he rescued them or whatever.

I was pointing out how Narsrim's justifications should be communicated to the rest of his organization. If it isn't the killing of fae that is bad, but rather the intent behind it, then it would make the conflict of Faethorn much more interesting.

If it was an unsightly stain on the leg, or something that would cause continuing pain, you have a better analogy. Even then, its only temporary. If someone could cut off my leg and I know it will grow back in a day or so, I'm not going to be as distraught as I might otherwise be.

And it -is- reasonable for Glomdoring to say they are doing the Fae a favour. Serenwilde doesn't agree, of course, but that doesn't make their argument invalid.

Just a random note, the fae don't come to Serenwilde because they themselves want it. To make an analogy:
It's much like the old man giving a kid candy, this kid follows the old man then.
Same for the fae.

I've never slain any fae in faethorn.

Ashteru, almost.

Now add in the card that the old man thinks hes saving the kid from evil corperations that want to eat his soul.

Do the corperations really want to? Find out next time on "forums"!!!!

I wouldn't call dying "slightly unsightly" even if the Fae ARE immortal.

And how is it reasonable? If I say killing Chron repeatedly and immolating him is reasonable that doesn't make it so. Glomdoring enslaving Fae isn't doing anyone but themselves favours from any rational perspective.

And the corporation thinks it saves the kid from theRapist. Or was it Therapist? You know what I mean.


Hey man, no need to insult me, btw. I was just pointing something out. Don't be so aggressive.

I thought the gangrene on the leg was supposed to represent being enslaved? Wasn't cutting off the leg supposed to represent death?

Narsrim, I said you were arguing killing fae was justified because of their nature. I never said you killed fae in Faethorn.

And I believe THAT'S where the problem lies, IC and OOC. You are all so fixated on Glomdoring to be the bad meanies that you don't look at yourself. Why would it be different with Seren? Who other than Seren itself gains something from 'pulling fae to the Moon'?

Umm. Okay let me go over this again since one of us is apparently confused.

Fae being killed by Glomdoring for no reason that benefits them (Fae) in any way: person being murdered.

Fae being killed by Seren for the purpose of saving them from slavery: person...

Yeah it looks like it was me that screwed up there, my bad.

Call it the difference between being mutilated and between having blood let to cure a disease or something then.



That may be where the "problem" lies IC but OOC there is justification behind the viewpoint that it's not rational for Glomdoring to reason away, unlike IC where they're not necessarily realistic about matters (or caring about it. It's their RP, whatever.)

It would be different with Seren because the Fae WANT Serenwilde to help them and they WANT to be saved from Glomdoring. They do not WANT to be enslaved. Therefore the Fae gain from what we do and they lose out from what Glomdoring does. This is why the matter is not just something you can divert by saying "well it's the same with you!" It isn't.

EDIT: Damn post conglutination!

Do we KNOW that Seren doesn't enslave fae? Sure, some fae came and complained to you. Doesn't mean that all fae think that way. Maeve represents all fae from what I heard, and she is undecided. So that means that it should be around fifty-fifty for each forest.
50% of the fae came to you because they like you, the other 50% came because they were enslaved. Tadaaa!

Ya, but...that's not how it is. If it were the case you'd have a point, but there's no point making hypotheticals to try and invalidate an argument based on how it actually works now. Serenwilde doesn't enslave Fae.

Maeve is a special case because she is influenced by Night. I can't remember exactly how that works (I think she's made up of even parts Night and Moon? Or something) but the pookas, pigwidgeons and pixies clearly aren't the same.

Well, did ALL fae come to you and complain, or only a few specimen?
Because then the fae could just come to Serenwilde and would be needed to be stopped by Glom as a quest, but it isn't like that.
The fae roam Faethorn and are then brought out by either Glom or Seren, they don't come to either out of their free will. You give them honeycakes, we give them honeycakes. And Maeve might be influenced by Night, but she's influenced by Moon in the same way.

A better analogy:

One boy cuts off an arm of a starfish because it has a hole in it, and occassionally leaks puss. The boy says it is for the well-being of the poor creature. The arm grows back later.

Another boy cuts off an arm of a starfish because it had a stinger in it, and with the stinger gone it can be more easily brought back to a private aquarium. The arm grows back later.

If the first boy angrily calls the second boy a starfish-maimer, does the second have a right to chuckle at him for hypocrisy? The first boy might not agree with -why- the arm was cut off, of course.

Both times the starfish gets to feel its arm being mutilated. In the first case, it might want the annoying hole to go away... but it probably wouldn't choose to have itself hurt so badly just to get rid of it. Both boys have a right to accuse the other of cruelty and acting outside the interests of the starfish.