|
Post by borderprince on Nov 1, 2017 5:21:36 GMT
He's also not psychotic. He doesn't mind breaking a few eggs, even innocent eggs, to get what he wants done. He's not morally grey either, he's detestable. You may or may not agree with his ends, but when Stryker and Vlad are fighting to the death, and they both agree that Magnus went over the edge, something is up. Vlad will stab an MF'er, so will Stryker, but poison an entire army? That's overboard and dishonorable, even in the IK, even to Khador. Magnus will do that. Ends justify the means is a morally disputable issue. Different moral philosophies have different views on that (and the acceptability of those other philosophies). It's interesting that in the Black Crowns book, Eilish even makes a reference to relativism in the arguments of his comrades, suggesting the IK also has some of these differing perspectives. So I could plausibly argue that from some perspective, Magnus' actions were perfectly sensible, not detestable. The objective was to defend the city, avoid civilian casualties. He did that and he removed a portion of Khador's forces in the vicinity. And he killed quite quickly, with less risk to his own forces. I'd bet there were some Cygnaran soldiers happy to know they didn't have to put their lives on the line in a probably futile attempt to achieve the same objective. As for dishonourable, Magnus realises that honour doesn't matter. Vlad is an aristocrat, Stryker largely a knight. From Magnus' perspective, both are anachronisms.
|
|
|
Post by snarlyyow on Nov 2, 2017 16:40:44 GMT
He's also not psychotic. He doesn't mind breaking a few eggs, even innocent eggs, to get what he wants done. He's not morally grey either, he's detestable. You may or may not agree with his ends, but when Stryker and Vlad are fighting to the death, and they both agree that Magnus went over the edge, something is up. Vlad will stab an MF'er, so will Stryker, but poison an entire army? That's overboard and dishonorable, even in the IK, even to Khador. Magnus will do that. Ends justify the means is a morally disputable issue. Different moral philosophies have different views on that (and the acceptability of those other philosophies). It's interesting that in the Black Crowns book, Eilish even makes a reference to relativism in the arguments of his comrades, suggesting the IK also has some of these differing perspectives. So I could plausibly argue that from some perspective, Magnus' actions were perfectly sensible, not detestable. The objective was to defend the city, avoid civilian casualties. He did that and he removed a portion of Khador's forces in the vicinity. And he killed quite quickly, with less risk to his own forces. I'd bet there were some Cygnaran soldiers happy to know they didn't have to put their lives on the line in a probably futile attempt to achieve the same objective. As for dishonourable, Magnus realises that honour doesn't matter. Vlad is an aristocrat, Stryker largely a knight. From Magnus' perspective, both are anachronisms. Oh sure, I think all of that is valid. But I also think that in the world of the IK even chemical weapons are looked at suspiciously. That's sort of where the True Neutral comes in. I'm sure loads of Cygnaran troops were pretty happy to not trivially die. Magnus obtained his force's objectives as well as anyone else could have. That's not in question, what is in question is the how. It's pretty tough to imagine either Vlad or Stryker striking an opponent in the back. Magnus though? Magnus looks for that sort of upper hand. And that's what scares people, because when Magnus betrays you he'll do it when you're not looking.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Nov 3, 2017 13:26:27 GMT
Ends justify the means is a morally disputable issue. Different moral philosophies have different views on that (and the acceptability of those other philosophies). It's interesting that in the Black Crowns book, Eilish even makes a reference to relativism in the arguments of his comrades, suggesting the IK also has some of these differing perspectives. So I could plausibly argue that from some perspective, Magnus' actions were perfectly sensible, not detestable. The objective was to defend the city, avoid civilian casualties. He did that and he removed a portion of Khador's forces in the vicinity. And he killed quite quickly, with less risk to his own forces. I'd bet there were some Cygnaran soldiers happy to know they didn't have to put their lives on the line in a probably futile attempt to achieve the same objective. As for dishonourable, Magnus realises that honour doesn't matter. Vlad is an aristocrat, Stryker largely a knight. From Magnus' perspective, both are anachronisms. Oh sure, I think all of that is valid. But I also think that in the world of the IK even chemical weapons are looked at suspiciously. That's sort of where the True Neutral comes in. I'm sure loads of Cygnaran troops were pretty happy to not trivially die. Magnus obtained his force's objectives as well as anyone else could have. That's not in question, what is in question is the how. It's pretty tough to imagine either Vlad or Stryker striking an opponent in the back. Magnus though? Magnus looks for that sort of upper hand. And that's what scares people, because when Magnus betrays you he'll do it when you're not looking. Stryker has actively participated in as many coups as Magnus has.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Nov 3, 2017 14:53:00 GMT
what is in question is the how. It's pretty tough to imagine either Vlad or Stryker striking an opponent in the back. Magnus though? Magnus looks for that sort of upper hand. And that's what scares people, because when Magnus betrays you he'll do it when you're not looking. Doesn't necessarily make him a villain though. I hate to mix IPs, but it's like Batman's (another scary character to many) " Not cheating. Winning" remark - different people have different views about what is appropriate, but it doesn't make some people automatically villains.
|
|
boozy
Junior Strategist
Posts: 429
|
Post by boozy on Nov 5, 2017 22:02:23 GMT
My personal favorite would be a Wrong Eye2 as a hard control warlock. Starcrossed, his old Voodoo Doll, native Stealth in water, and some placement tech would be super fun. Make Snapjaw either a beater attachment like Laris, or Minions first character warbeast with a bond and a different animus.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Nov 5, 2017 23:36:57 GMT
He was never a villain, he was a bad*** soldier determined to do all that it takes to keep the rightful heir on the throne. He was relentless, cunning and deceptive, but he wasn't a sadist or psycho, he just does what you do in a long a long war and hazardous situations to try to survive and eventually overcome the difficulties. He played hella dirty. He's certainly a villain, or was. He's also not psychotic. He doesn't mind breaking a few eggs, even innocent eggs, to get what he wants done. He's not morally grey either, he's detestable. You may or may not agree with his ends, but when Stryker and Vlad are fighting to the death, and they both agree that Magnus went over the edge, something is up. Vlad will stab an MF'er, so will Stryker, but poison an entire army? That's overboard and dishonorable, even in the IK, even to Khador. Magnus will do that. I'm not sure where he sits on archetype chart, he's prolly true neutral. If it serves his ends he'll do it. Sometimes that means doing nothing, sometimes it means killing innocent people, and sometimes it means being an honorable knight of Cygnar. His moral fluidity is what has made him the most interesting character in the IK of late. He's still a villain and someone to not be trusted by anyone at any time. Actually, probably in D&D charts Magnus would probably be Neutral/Evil, or Chaotic/Neutral at best. That said, it is well known that D&D alignment charts are quite poor to define people. Anyway, he has a goal, a goal that is still quite egoistic, since it's to have a strong Cygnar kingdom that dominates on other nations. He is willing to let go of all the "good" aspects of Cygnar (honor, freedom, pity on the enemy) to make the nation stronger. (And before people start to swarm to say that Cygnar is not always good, sure, not everyone in cygnar is honorable, values freedom or shows mercy, but some of the big actors in Cygnar do indeed, and that is exactly what Magnus would like to eradicate to make Cygnar stronger in his vision). Sure, he is not doing so for his own personal gain, but he is still trying to force is vision on others, and he is willing to make all the necessary sacrifices to make his own nation stronger. He doesn't care at all of other nations, so again he is pushing his own subset of people ahead of others. We cannot say that Magnus isn't a villain. Even the worst dictators of history were trying to improve the power of their nations and did most of what they did since they had a vision on that making their state stronger, at the cost of some "sacrifices" on both ideologies and human lives. Magnus just happens to have a vision that is less "dangerous" than other evil people, and to have as a nation the most civil one of the IK, but he remains someone who wants to force other people to accept his vision, even at the cost of killing them. That said, again, in a real world without the empty D&D classifications, even evil people have their reasons for do what they do, and most of them actually find giustifications for their acts and think to be in the right, so I agree that Magnus is a very good character, one that feels a lot more "human" and "real" than most supposed "heroes" that are much less interesting.
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Nov 6, 2017 10:52:01 GMT
Anyway, he has a goal, a goal that is still quite egoistic, since it's to have a strong Cygnar kingdom that dominates on other nations. He is willing to let go of all the "good" aspects of Cygnar (honor, freedom, pity on the enemy) to make the nation stronger. I'm not convinced. I don't think we've seen anything saying that Magnus wants Cygnar to dominate or force Cygnaran views on others. He wants Cygnar to be strong, but that doesn't seem to be for purposes of domination/expansion (unlike Khador, for example). If memory serves, even under Vinter Cygnar's only directly aggressive act was the Scharde Invasions, which were offence for the purpose of defence. Under Julius Cygnar has invaded Llael, but that's arguably to restore a legitimate government, to expel invaders and even to restore the borders agreed in earlier treaties. Hardly domination. There is of course a risk that Llael could be a vassal state, but Cygnar and Llael have always been close allies and the post-invasion plans don't seem to have been worked out beyond Julius getting married. Also worth noting that once Magnus realised that Vinter would actually weaken Cygnar because he was too ruthless and egotistic (and because he tortured Magnus, too), he dumped Vinter. He doesn't think simply being ruthless works. He might have a more nuanced view of strength than most characters.
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Nov 6, 2017 15:37:06 GMT
I attack to defend myself while a valid motivation is also a great excuse... I think a rather famous war started to guarentee "survival space" for country?
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Nov 6, 2017 19:44:31 GMT
I attack to defend myself while a valid motivation is also a great excuse... I think a rather famous war started to guarentee "survival space" for country? Indeed. But historical parallels are perhaps a little limited when the neighbouring country actually does consist of necromancers who want to steal both your body and soul...
|
|