| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
Angel: "Oh, HP..."
HP:
It is creepy, frankly way more creepy then that soul sucking priest and I diffidently think that he is the lesser of the two evils. Don’t try to convince me for you can’t. I already know where this is going, you will try to make Angel into the better, and the most preferred of the two.
That won’t work however, it will just destroy the integrity of the entire story, she needs karmic retribution.
The ideal end is if you frame it. Want to know what I mean by that, note me.
She's far from being "good", and the more she uses her power selfishly, the wider the abyss under her will be when it comes time for her to pass on that power.
A man that kidnaps a girl and lock her in his cellar for a number of years are better then a man that merely kills someone for any reason.
It doesn't make the latter "better" or "worse". You might as well make a value judgment on whether a poison that's instantly lethal is "better" or "worse" than one that indefinitely cripples or debilitates. Nobody in their right mind is going to want either.
Same thing here. This is a Morton's fork, except that Angel's actions are portrayed as being less repulsive than the priest's.
The priest kills for “food”. He needs them to survive and thrive. His actions are do different then that of a lion hunting a gazelle (or perhaps the hyena stealing the gazelle afterwards). Either way, he does it because HE HAS TO DO IT. He could do it more responsibly, no doubt about that; but self preservation is still a very legitimate reason.
Angel’s action is completely different. She doesn’t have to do anything, she does it, she does it for revenge, and in a mad powerflip. She not he, is the true monster.
I also think you're speculating beyond any possible knowledge by saying that he did so because of self-preservation. And even leaving that aside, self-preservation justifies things like stealing in order to eat. It doesn't justify (say) killing and eating people, especially if other choices are available. It's a reasonably safe bet that the priest's action was more taking advantage of an opportunity, so he had other choices. Self-preservation does not apply here.
Angel, by comparison, is by no means good. She doesn't have to do anything, she is doing some things because of a twisted sense of revenge, others merely because she can, some even out of a misguided belief that she's doing "good". But she isn't draining people and killing them to increase her own power. She isn't "cultivating" them for later "consumption". And that makes a difference.
Angel is out of control, and she isn't acting at all responsible. But she had this job dumped on her without any warning, training, or guidance, or even asking for it. Even someone with the best of intentions would probably be screwing up right and left. And someone like Angel, who doesn't have the best of intentions, is doing an even worse job. She's anything but a "good" witch.
But she's also not a true monster. That takes experience which she doesn't have, being an inexperienced teenager who had this power dropped in her lap with no warning, guidance, or training. Give her a year or two, and she probably would be, but as it currently stands, she's just on the road.
Yes exactly, that makes a difference, that makes it WORSE. Having an agenda for doing something is better then doing something, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN.
Yes I believe that priest does what he does to extend his life, aka TO SURVIVE. At present we don’t have the technology to “transfer” life like that, but it is very likely that he has to drain humans to survive in human form.
And why kill the man that came to him for consolation? There are many reasons, first and foremost easy pray.
It is a very common concept and a necessary one if we are to remain sane, that we do not bestow personhood upon our food. If you eat meet, which is natural to do if you are a human, you must realize that your food used to be a sentient being, killed for your pleasure of consumption.
Yes he may be able to survive on animals, even maintain a human form with one, but if they aren’t as tasty that’s another reason not to do it.
I’ll like you to look up one of the new webcomics I have found called “Flipside” start at chapter 17, and read to chapter 18.
Tell me what you think.
Ps. It’s a very good webcomic so it should be interesting for you regardless.
As for your argument about the priest, there are several major problems with it.
1. You don't actually know anything about the priest except what's been shown in the comic. Thinking something to be very likely when you don't have any solid information to base it on is like building a house on sand.
2. Survival is not the same as artificially extending one's life at the cost of others. I've read books where mages were able to do so by draining the remaining years out of people they killed, but never did anyone, in or out of the book, try to argue that it was justified for survival.
3. Most animals are sentient. Self-awareness is nothing special. But there's an enormous difference when you talk about a sophont, an intelligent being capable of reason and communication. To treat a provably intelligent being as a food animal is an atrocity.
4. Luring someone into a relationship of trust merely so you can betray them is a crime, and it is certainly a betrayal.
5. The argument "don't grant personhood to your food" is sophistry. Personhood isn't something one can grant to another, it's something that a being is able to claim.
6. This argument can be used to justify vampirism, but there's a reason vampires in fiction are almost always hunted down when they're discovered. Vampires who were to actually be part of society would not predate on other members of that society (they would get sustenance from a blood bank or from animals). The priest is effectively part of society because of his position as a preacher. There is no justification for that, because it undercuts everything society stands for.
Give me a link to the webcomic and I'll take a look at it.