I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never been in combat outside of a video game.
Gweyrerk: ロスト・チルドレンの章 (笑)
- Thread starter MeIsntVeryCreative
- Start date
*insert stream of expletives here*
You've already made up your mind, sure of your viewpoint.
Have a nice day.
Yes, that was explicitly the point I was making, which you still have not addressed.
When these people are trying to stick knives in you, the thought of what other people who aren't there might think after the fact is going to be about seventy-third on your list of Things You Give Two Fucks About.
And this... makes them somehow more sympathetic or deserving of mercy?
You didn't actually read what I said earlier, did you? It's really fucking hard to disable someone with head trauma without risking permanent harm. 'Common sense' and 'wot I seen on TV' isn't going to help you here, you whack someone in the head or neck hard enough to take them out of a fight and there's a very good chance you've also inflicted a fatal or at least permanently crippling injury. And when these same people are actively trying to kill you, the incentive to pull your own punches to the point that you're more likely to disable rather than kill is a big fat zero, especially when you're basically the only person willing to fight back and you know it.
I'm willing to be that Gweyr in-universe and Tobs out of it knows more about how hard it is than you do.
My main argument is that it is much much harder in a fight to take someone out 'safely' than you think it is. Secondary to this is that we have no reason to think that Gweyr has spent a lot of time training in how to pull her punches just so in order to disable rather than cripple or kill and that in the heat of battle when your opponents have ignored multiple warnings and are still trying to, y'know, kill you, her response is not as unreasonable as you seem to think.
So you are assuming that the city itself has no confinement or a prison system of their own? Unfortunately fiction world building overrides real world's to suspend disbelief and it has to explicitly mentioned that. How much readers out there know about history precisely?
The fact that people are so attached enough to do ANYTHING for the converted town peoples. EVEN GO AS FAR AS AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY. I am pretty sure they are willing to pay the costs to make them stay captivated.
Unfortunately, the text has shown no attempt of even TRYING the alternative, and that is exactly my criticism.
Unfortunately, it is author's job to address the plot-hole to maintain the logic coherency in-universe and the literature itself for the readers. I simply pointing it out what is exactly plothole itself.
Gweyr has clearly shown to able to form thought process and making decision of her own relatively clear headed in the combat and she explicitly choose to kill. Beside she shown no attempt at all to even trying to subdue or giving the reader information disclosure saying that given the situation subduing them is impossible or very fucking hard to make. And my point still stand.
There is no reason for Gweyr to not take the alternative.
Also you clearly contradicting the game itself by saying disabling people is very hard in real life when The Champion are constantly disabling/subduing people enough to fuck/loot/leave.
Last edited:
You... don't know much history, do you? Hawkethorn absolutely does not have either the agricultural resources or the physical necessities to confine a significant segment of the able-bodied population in perpetuity. You haven't even tried to address the points I've already raised, meaning that further engaging you on this topic is pointless.
Because you don't know something doesn't mean that the writers don't know something or are going to ignore it because 'LOL it's fiction'. Still waiting for you to address any of the substance of my points.
...I'm going to type this slowly in the hopes that it gets through your head: There was ONE of Gweyr. There were dozens of attackers. They were trying to kill her. This is not a situation where you tiptoe around trying not to kill people, because when you die the howling mob of fucking lunatics is free to do whatever they want.
Your unwillingness to admit that the situation was perhaps more complex than you think or your ignorance of how hard certain things are in real life does not make them plot holes.
Still ignoring literally every substantive point I made about how it IS HARD to disable someone in a fight without crippling/killing them. The fact that you seem to think that knocking someone in the head will take them out of a fight safely really says it all. It does not matter that television and film portray things otherwise if the writers feel like being more realistic about these things.
She did, she told them that they could put the weapons down, go home and she'd pretend none of this ever happened. When they still try killing her after that point, that's well past the point of playing with kid's gloves.
Pretty much everyone fighting you in-game is clearly only out to fuck you and they're consequently only interested in fighting you to the point of submission, so the stakes are lower all around. That's not the situation Gweyr was in.
So I will type this slowly in the hopes to get through your head: that Gweyr considered mobs even with the numbers of their own, not a threat to her, in her own words, in her own reflection, for the said event.
So you are blaming my ignorance for something that is not written by the author themselves now? Are you saying that all readers/audience are obligated to learn history now?
So here is one question for you, does it matter if readers themselves even if they don't know about something that is not being brought up? Also I have a really hard time to believe that a fucking town has no policing system, AT ALL. What are the odds that a perfect society existed?
Under a knowledge they are being conditioned, being "not their own self", she did it anyway, while they don't poses a real threat for her, knowingly that they aren't going to concede from the threat? This only scream characterization itself. I simply expressed on opinion pieces as criticism that in my opinion, it doesn't quite hit the mark in terms of delivering morality/ethics ambiguity by bringing up possible logical incoherency and missing information disclosure.
Writers and authors, by all metrics, are not obligated to take this criticism/suggestion to make relevant changes, themselves. I hope that clarify something out. You are feel free to agree or disagree my opinion with your own. Authors or not.
Last edited:
The mob's members on an individual basis not being a threat is different from a whole bunch of them given time to act while she's busy tiptoeing around attacking them in just such a way to not permanently harm them. Because again, when your opponents are trying to kill you the calculation is very different and it's actually hard to 'safely' disable someone in a fight.
Yes, there are some things that a reader can either be assumed to know or the writer can assume that the reader is capable of educating themselves sufficiently, so their not spoon-feeding all of the nitty gritty details to you does not make something a plot hole.
Fucking hell, please go back and read what I actually wrote before continuing this argument. There is a massive difference between 'having someone able to knock sense into rowdy drunks or punish a thief' and 'having the resources and physical structures necessary to safely hold dozens of people for extended periods of time'. Mass incarceration is a lot newer than you seem to think and requires the kind of resources you're not going to find in a newly-(re)settled town like Hawkethorne, in a wider setting that's still recovering from getting its metaphorical teeth kicked in.
When they ignore multiple clear warnings and still try to kill her, it's really beyond the point that 'they're not acting like they used to' matters all that much. Maybe if any of them had broken during the fighting and given her any reason to think that beating them semi-senseless could beat the influence out of them that would be one thing but y'know what? That didn't happen then and it doesn't happen in the present either.
A brief mention can easily fix this issues
Not necessarily depend on the target demographics. How often is that porn game audiences by default has a decently understanding for history? Anything in general, especially literature work, should be able to stand up by its own in order to be mostly logical coherent.
So here is a comparison, a work that addressed mostly of its logical coherent by offering necessarily exposition for the most part v.s. a work that largely depend on reader's understanding for specific areas to obtain decent understanding.
Which one is better objectively?
Like I said, the text never confronted the issues itself, that mass incarceration proven to be impossible/impractical to work for newly-settled town and forcing Gweyr had to resort to killing them. Like I said, some brief exposition for the context should've be enough, ideally if you wanted to draw morality/ethics ambiguous.
Similar as the criticism as before, a brief mention for the context should be enough for the large part.
Last edited:
The reason for the choice of Gweyr if they give it to you but not explicitly, as much as it seems that Gweyr and his daughter Gwyn do not look alike, that is not so in a very important aspect, respect for her father. Gwyn says that her father was a person who could not bear nonsense, she followed the advice he gave her and that kept her alive throughout her life while she watched as the newbies who joined them died. As much as they were the children of neighbors, she would not give a chance because although the whole village would hate her, it would be more difficult to take care of her children if she was murdered, I lost against the boss who I do not remember his name, he was about to kill you if it were not because Sanders helps you.
Gwyn followed Sanders '"right choice" for a while ignoring the experiences that had kept her alive exactly for the sake of her children, perhaps for months, and both Sanders and the boys' parents had tried to convince them and failed, And now they had kidnapped a girl, to all the groups she encountered she gave one last chance that surely in her days as a mercenary she had not even thought of giving them, except for those of the statue, since River's life was at stake, Gweyr did not let the innocent newcomer suffer the consequences of not acting sooner.
Given Sanders' seeming ineptitude, the baroness's obvious indifference, and the lack of reasoning of her enemies, Gweyr made the judgment she believed was correct. Most likely, if Sanders didn't exile her, the other half of the village would have supported her and the only culprit would have been Sanders. This denotes it since both Garret and Gwyn seem to be quite loved in the village and they all go for advice with Garth.
Now with a bit of historical context, something that TObs and I love, before, families had 18 children and 15 died, that's right, partner of the 21st century, the bronze age was brutal, losing a child or two was not Strange, it was rather the rule, whether they were killed, by starvation, by illness or in a criminal trial, as is the case. Keep in mind that Garth used to be a thief and if he stole something from them he was going to be murdered, however sensual the warning may have sounded, now imagine the sentence of an organized kidnapping and apparently many charges of disorderly conduct, added to the fact that It is said that the Marches are a hostile place, possibly equally the Baroness sentence would be the death penalty, having captives or cripples in the village was not a smart option, and as you can see the healing magic of Savarra is not miraculous, Leora she did not fully recover from an injury, another reason why Gweyr wouldn't risk getting hurt.
So I don't think Gweyr is a monster, he just did what any experienced survivor would do.
Gwyn followed Sanders '"right choice" for a while ignoring the experiences that had kept her alive exactly for the sake of her children, perhaps for months, and both Sanders and the boys' parents had tried to convince them and failed, And now they had kidnapped a girl, to all the groups she encountered she gave one last chance that surely in her days as a mercenary she had not even thought of giving them, except for those of the statue, since River's life was at stake, Gweyr did not let the innocent newcomer suffer the consequences of not acting sooner.
Given Sanders' seeming ineptitude, the baroness's obvious indifference, and the lack of reasoning of her enemies, Gweyr made the judgment she believed was correct. Most likely, if Sanders didn't exile her, the other half of the village would have supported her and the only culprit would have been Sanders. This denotes it since both Garret and Gwyn seem to be quite loved in the village and they all go for advice with Garth.
Now with a bit of historical context, something that TObs and I love, before, families had 18 children and 15 died, that's right, partner of the 21st century, the bronze age was brutal, losing a child or two was not Strange, it was rather the rule, whether they were killed, by starvation, by illness or in a criminal trial, as is the case. Keep in mind that Garth used to be a thief and if he stole something from them he was going to be murdered, however sensual the warning may have sounded, now imagine the sentence of an organized kidnapping and apparently many charges of disorderly conduct, added to the fact that It is said that the Marches are a hostile place, possibly equally the Baroness sentence would be the death penalty, having captives or cripples in the village was not a smart option, and as you can see the healing magic of Savarra is not miraculous, Leora she did not fully recover from an injury, another reason why Gweyr wouldn't risk getting hurt.
So I don't think Gweyr is a monster, he just did what any experienced survivor would do.
Like the new Mulan movie where they tell you explicitly what is happening every 3 seconds? no thanks, it is obvious that in a newly created town there are hardly enough inputs for the inhabitants, but ask the Kitsune that those who do not contribute as well as those who steal are sentenced to death. Even in real life not long ago robbery was punishable by amputation of the hands.
I admit I have not played that part yet, so I can just argue based on the points the people in this topic state.
But, still, allow me to raise one rather large point:
They would still be all executed.
Gweyr would have had a very hard time to disable everyone, because subduing a group of people is absurdly difficulty, and would have to risk failure and harm for the rather slim chance they would not be killed after a trial?
This village is in an age before the abolishment of the death penalty and considering the crimes that warrant one, there is little chance such cultists would be allowed to live.
Things that come to mind for such penalty: Rape, being in a non-sanctioned Cult, treason and breaking the lords peace.
But, still, allow me to raise one rather large point:
They would still be all executed.
Gweyr would have had a very hard time to disable everyone, because subduing a group of people is absurdly difficulty, and would have to risk failure and harm for the rather slim chance they would not be killed after a trial?
This village is in an age before the abolishment of the death penalty and considering the crimes that warrant one, there is little chance such cultists would be allowed to live.
Things that come to mind for such penalty: Rape, being in a non-sanctioned Cult, treason and breaking the lords peace.
Last edited:
One thing I will point out is that the player and their companions have typically no problem non-lethally disabling their opposition even when outnumbered.
Then there is the fact that Gweyr is supposed to be a strong warrior against what amounts to untrained kids even if there was a lot of them.
While this act in a realistic setting would be considered morally dubious, within the game's logic it seems unnecessarily violent.
Then there is the fact that Gweyr is supposed to be a strong warrior against what amounts to untrained kids even if there was a lot of them.
While this act in a realistic setting would be considered morally dubious, within the game's logic it seems unnecessarily violent.
For those who really don't get it which I wouldn't blame you for it, there is a reason after all I don't have a strong pursuit for writing.
The point of I am making this thread is that I felt like Gweyr behaved too much like a murderous bloodthirsty psychopath by jumping straight into rip and tear which I believed it is far from Tobs' intention and it can be improved/circumvent by making a few minor changes.
A lot of the defense I am seeing so far relying on the assumption from the readers part, which I disagree towards that notion mostly. If the readers/audiences are obligated to make assumption of their own to fill in the plotholes/rationalize events for the writers, which will make plot hole as a concept utterly irrelevant for writing in general, which is something I cannot agree with. If that is the case, is writing consistency no longer part of the metric we stick to when we evaluate literature's objective quality?
I am not saying that everything should be explained throughoutly like someone here has accused me of, which is far from the truth given the point I made especially I already pointed out which specific areas I believe demands more exposition to make Gweyr looks less like a psychopath and more like actual person you can relate to, a more "humanised" lupine that making harsh pragmatic decision that wasn't well accepted by the common folk because of their emotional attachment for their losses despite the necessity for the act.
Then again, if this is something that you getting out from this, it can't be helped. I have outlined my opinion and my reasoning as clearly as possible for my part.
The point of I am making this thread is that I felt like Gweyr behaved too much like a murderous bloodthirsty psychopath by jumping straight into rip and tear which I believed it is far from Tobs' intention and it can be improved/circumvent by making a few minor changes.
A lot of the defense I am seeing so far relying on the assumption from the readers part, which I disagree towards that notion mostly. If the readers/audiences are obligated to make assumption of their own to fill in the plotholes/rationalize events for the writers, which will make plot hole as a concept utterly irrelevant for writing in general, which is something I cannot agree with. If that is the case, is writing consistency no longer part of the metric we stick to when we evaluate literature's objective quality?
I am not saying that everything should be explained throughoutly like someone here has accused me of, which is far from the truth given the point I made especially I already pointed out which specific areas I believe demands more exposition to make Gweyr looks less like a psychopath and more like actual person you can relate to, a more "humanised" lupine that making harsh pragmatic decision that wasn't well accepted by the common folk because of their emotional attachment for their losses despite the necessity for the act.
Then again, if this is something that you getting out from this, it can't be helped. I have outlined my opinion and my reasoning as clearly as possible for my part.
Last edited:
Is asking for more context for a specific instances = explain everything for every 3 seconds? False equivalence.
Just like what I have said before, the audiences/reader should not be obligated to fill in the logic discontinuity for the writers.
You literally ignored my reasoning for the need of exposition for your opinion of "fuck explanation"
I guess it doesn't matter when shit just happened randomly throughout a book or a movie with no explanation at all counted as decent writing for you.
Also why the hell you watch that mess of a movie? It has way more problem than just explain everything for every 3 seconds. It even flopped inside China for fuck sake.
Last edited:
@MeIsntVeryCreative Why do you feel Gweyr should hold back against a dozen teenagers trying to kill her?
I really don't see the problem here. Gwyer warned these kids that if they swing them weapons at her she'd kill them. She even gave them opportunity to give up and that she'd forgive everything. But they didn't. She was also under a time constraint. If she spent too much time with these fools, the kidnappers would've escaped. She didn't know River was going after them. She thought he was guarding his statue.
Also, you shouldn't compare Gweyr to Guts. Guts is massively superhuman. The dude swings a sword that weighs 400 pounds like a fly swatter and can move faster than the eye can see. He'd destroy Gweryr and just about every other person in this game save for the Gods.
I really don't see the problem here. Gwyer warned these kids that if they swing them weapons at her she'd kill them. She even gave them opportunity to give up and that she'd forgive everything. But they didn't. She was also under a time constraint. If she spent too much time with these fools, the kidnappers would've escaped. She didn't know River was going after them. She thought he was guarding his statue.
Also, you shouldn't compare Gweyr to Guts. Guts is massively superhuman. The dude swings a sword that weighs 400 pounds like a fly swatter and can move faster than the eye can see. He'd destroy Gweryr and just about every other person in this game save for the Gods.
I use Berserk as an example because it definitely shared a parallel for this pieces.
First of all, even relatively speaking, Gweyr already described the converted people as a pushover compare to Guts clearly struggled from the apostle-fairies swarm. The point is that they don't poses enough danger to Gweyr thus lesser reason resorting to deadly forces.
Gweyr, whom basically started a new life with her husband in Hawkerthorne as a mother and bar waitress presumably and clearly received positive public reception from it, I seriously don't see why she would go back to her old way of dealing what is essentially former town folks so ruthlessly and not trying the alternative when they don't poses much threat to her.
She didn't acknowledge that she is under a time constraint as far as I know. Only the single-minded devotion of "her way", submit or die.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure she did mention the time constraint.
However, I still don't really see the problem.
First of all, were the townspeople under a spell to join the cult or were they doing this of their own will?
I remember after warning these kids and giving them her ultimatum, they clearly hesitated and were reconsidering. Until some dumb shit yelled "she ain't gonna do it". This leads me to believe that they were intelligent and aware of what they were doing. If so, Gweyr had every right to fuck'em up.
If they were under some magic voodoo shit, then I'd find what Gweyr did to be more distasteful. But it'd be a more of a necessary evil.
I don't know about you, but I do boxing. The amount of damage getting knocked tfo can do to someone is insane. A lot of people actually die because they end up hitting their head on their way down after being knocked out. Do you want her to knock them out one at a time and carry them slowly so they don't smash their head against the ground?
My point being, there isn't some mystical technique to subduing people. At the end of the day, you're either smashing their skull or destroying their limbs. You can't choke out a group.
To conclude,
"
Under a spell. YES. Even Gweyr actually know that.
Still even initial acknowledging a time constraint existed, Gweyr had stopped emphasized on it throughout her killing spree, I would say it is hardly compensating enough compare to the bigger picture. Kinu's quest did it right in this regard.
Last edited:
"I'm not sorry for what I did, I'm sorry I had to do it."
She did empathize with them originally. She didn't go and say "fuck them kids" right away. She tried to give them and out.
She even empathized with the parents of those kids saying that if someone did what she did to Garreth and Gweyn, she'd hate them too.
Well my criticism is that there is not enough exposition to let me justify that why she had to do it essentially, she wasn't pushed to kill, she explicitly choose to kill throughout the quest. It is not the time constraint or any kind of condition that driving her to kill, but it being a job to her.
The latter would pretty much make her a hypocrite for criticising the villagers not doing shit while being mad at her but it can be explained away as heat talk (not that kind of heat)
She was a warrior who saw a hostile takeover of her home, a takeover that threatened her husband and her two infant children and friends, not to mention the other villagers.
What was she supposed to do? Sit on her ass and twiddle her thumbs?
There was no way that the cultists could be reasoned with, especially if they were to a point of attacking a friend of theirs (RIver), or preparing for a ritual on the hill (hey, I wonder what would happen if there was a ritual performed up there. Like, what if a demonic conqueror popped on through. Sure would be a shame to have to deal that champion of corruption).
When Gweyr saw that the cultists were attacking River, she knew that she couldn't reason with them and they certainly weren't going to put their arms down.
What happened in Hawkethorne is a tragedy on multiple levels:
- Firstly, a village lost half its youth to the cult. Even before they attacked their own families.
- Second, Gweyr fought to protect her home and family and was betrayed for that.
- Thirdly, Garrett and Gwyn grew up without their mother, leading them down very different paths. Garrett's constantly trying to prove him and Gwyn has a disturbingly bordline daddy and babymaking fetish, all while hating her mother.
- Fourthly, whoever Sanders might have been as a Warrior of the White, he can't get that back because of what he did and didn't do. He could have helped fight back against Tollius, or watched over the youth more, or any number of things. Instead, in his cowardice, he stood back and decided to judge Gweyr.
Should Gweyr have jumped into battle, who knows? Whats done is done and nothing while change that. Just like the fact that Gweyr fought to save her home and family and still lost everything thanks to cowardice.
What can change though is setting things right with the Champion rightly calling out those involved, starting with Garth who did nothing to defend his wife and let his children grow up with a lie. Next up, Brother Sanders and I think its time that old priest learned some new prayers begging for forgiveness.
Last edited:
Which is why I am suggesting an alternative, disabling/disarming them. I didn't advocated for Gweyr to talk them out nor opposed Gweyr for taking actions. What I am saying is that why does the first thing that came up to her head is kill, simple as that when her opponent poses no threat to her means she has more opportunity and more leeway available for her to try the alternative I had suggested.
Even if you argue that disabling them is harder than outright killing them and potentially some of them would breach the town, which I would agree with, the text makes no mention if at all to my knowledge, which means the only thing that literally came up to her head is kill, no family, no town, nothing, which I am more than welcome for being proven wrong if I am. It certainly is far from pleasant experience to me which is why I am cared enough to make a thread and debate to this extend.
Last edited:
Again, you underestimate the difficulty to just disable someone, let alone a group.
Also, you seem to ignore my point that they would probably be executed anyway - why risk everything for a chance to keep a hostile group alive that are probably facing execution anyways?
According to all your points, there was no time for a calm battleplan. She gave them the chance to stop (which according is probably not neccessary).
Also, they where not the only threat. Again, risking everything on a noble course of action in this situation is not actually noble - it is a course of action to make you feel better.
Let us say she would have managed to subdue the group and still safe the day.
In that case she would have done "everything correct". The outcome would, however, probably still be the same. The cultists dead, executed instead of killed in action, and she being chastised for risking everything just for "being noble". Because, you know, just acting nobly to satisfy yourself is still selfish.
(Disclaimer: I do not fully condone her actions, that is a point to explain why both courses of actions could be seen as bad or selfish.)
Well, I tried the Sanders alternative for a while according to the story, were they doing it on their own? Well, as we had mentioned, they would have been sentenced to death as well; were they under a spell? because in Gweyr's eyes that spell was not reversible, neither the boys' parents nor Sanders had been able to convince them.
You mention a lot how graphic the description was while I was telling you the story, she tells it in such a way that you consider her a monster since she feels guilty for killing them since she in her experience up to that point there was no other option for him Little time she had and how ineffective Sanders' methods were, and for not ending Tollus sooner and giving the parents to the one who caused everything, if she were a psychopath she would not even have asked you the question.
I remember a part of God Of War where Atreus gets annoyed with Kratos for not showing sadness over the death of his mother, to which Kratos explains that if he doesn't keep his head cold the most likely is that the two end up dying, I suppose that's it the psychopathic personality you speak of, the one that keeps an experienced warrior alive.
What happened to the wolves the first time you meet Brint is what originally should happen, but in the gameplay it seems that the skills become like in Avatar, that no matter how much they throw a half-ton rock at you they will not break you no bones and soon after you wake up with a little pain. In short, the logic of the game is that which is illogical for convenience.
Speaking of which if I may go on a off-tangent. Confronting Garth about Gweyr was probably one of the most satisfying things out of that content added. It's nice to see the Champ isn't just shoving off that whole thing just because almost everyone else in town tries to not talk about it or forgot about it or etc etc and actually call Garth out regarding him just letting his kids live in a lie. Hopefully we can confront Sanders about it too at some point because it just doesn't feel right to have one half to talk about that and leave the other out. Who knows, maybe at a later date, but now I'm wanting it.
So probably the reason why people aren't talking about it, is perhaps many of the families moved. The loss of half a generation, sons and daughters, would people want to stay where they know they failed their kids? Yes, Gweyr may have killed them, but they themselves did nothing, Sanders stood by, as did Garth. Could they have left because they were disgusted with themselves, or disgusted with seeing the faces of those who still remained.
Honestly, I can understand why people might not like the content, but really, the moral ambiguity is kind of refreshing. Neither side is wholly wrong nor are they wholly right.
Honestly, I can understand why people might not like the content, but really, the moral ambiguity is kind of refreshing. Neither side is wholly wrong nor are they wholly right.
Gweyr's actions are likely influenced by her hardass no nonsense nature. Garth mentions at one point that his wife is the kind of person that cannot be reasoned or bargained with, and that she will never stop when she has a goal in mind. Because of this mentality it probably made sense to her to do what she did as she seems the kind of person to made hard decisions and take simple solutions.
What might make this behaviour shocking however is that it contrasts strongly against the Champion's actions considering that as players basically every combat encounter is won without killing our opponents even in situations where we find ourselves heavily outnumbered. Now while I understand that can dismissed as a limitation due to the nature of the game I must also point out that the Champion is our window into this setting and thus does shape out perspective on how things work in this fantasy world.
Now if this was a situation in which Gweyr was fighting for her life I would be more understanding. However Gweyr herself states that her opponents were weak enough that was not in any real danger and easily defeated/killed all that stood before her. Add to the fact that she knew that they were not in their right mind and were influenced makes her actions seem extreme under these circumstances.
What makes these actions seem even more shocking is that when all was said and done Gweyr had effectively wiped out half of the younger generation in one night.
The morality of this situation and whether or not you agree with her actions depends entirely on your perspective of things. Characters like Garth understand why she did what she did yet even they don't agree with her actions. Gweyr herself states that had someone else been in her position and killed her children she too would have hated them.
So everything considered I do think that Gweyr's actions were unnecessarily excessive, that said I understand why she acted like that in light of her personality and character.
What might make this behaviour shocking however is that it contrasts strongly against the Champion's actions considering that as players basically every combat encounter is won without killing our opponents even in situations where we find ourselves heavily outnumbered. Now while I understand that can dismissed as a limitation due to the nature of the game I must also point out that the Champion is our window into this setting and thus does shape out perspective on how things work in this fantasy world.
Now if this was a situation in which Gweyr was fighting for her life I would be more understanding. However Gweyr herself states that her opponents were weak enough that was not in any real danger and easily defeated/killed all that stood before her. Add to the fact that she knew that they were not in their right mind and were influenced makes her actions seem extreme under these circumstances.
What makes these actions seem even more shocking is that when all was said and done Gweyr had effectively wiped out half of the younger generation in one night.
The morality of this situation and whether or not you agree with her actions depends entirely on your perspective of things. Characters like Garth understand why she did what she did yet even they don't agree with her actions. Gweyr herself states that had someone else been in her position and killed her children she too would have hated them.
So everything considered I do think that Gweyr's actions were unnecessarily excessive, that said I understand why she acted like that in light of her personality and character.
I'd point out that she knew that one or two wouldn't have been a problem for her, and knows that while she has the training and ability, her children don't. All that would need to happen is a couple of them to attack the tavern, Garth might have been able to handle a couple of them, but all it would take is just one to find the kids.
She's not fighting for herself, she's protecting her kids.
And that's a fair point. I just think that considering her ability and the fact that she knew her opponents were under some sort of influence that her decision to kill every single one of the cultists was excessive and tragically unnecessary.