• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Does saving a society give you the right to sabotage it?

Annoyingkid

Banned
Does saving a civilization from destruction and working almost tirelessly to keep it limping along give one any right to sabotage it's defences for personal gain and basically take back their prior heroic society saving actions.
 

Gurkhal

Auror
I would say, no. You have no right to harm others regardless if they owe their lives to you or not.
 
Does saving a civilization from destruction and working almost tirelessly to keep it limping along give one any right to sabotage it's defences for personal gain and basically take back their prior heroic society saving actions.
I have to ask, why should they have a right to sabotage?
 

Russ

Istar
It is basically like asking if a police officer who has fought against organized crime for his whole career has a "right" to start his own organized crime ring to prey on the same people he has protected.

I think the answer is no.
 

pmmg

Vala
Well, I can see how one might feel this way, and even act on it, but I am gonna have to put that in the category of wrong things to do. I bet Themistocles felt this way when he was ostracized.
 

Annoyingkid

Banned
I'm not talking about killing people directly, but rather manipulating their god to search the world looking for someone for him. Meaning there's basically no defence against invasion by an opposing god.

His logic is because there wouldn't be any of this without him, and he hasn't asked for anything in return, then he's entitled to be selfish for once and find his father. And if they can't defend themselves, that's their problem. Aka they're not entitled to protection.

You think he's entirely in the wrong?
 

pmmg

Vala
Well, that would be a passive act, and not an active one. I suppose I would have to question the God if the God was not wise enough to see the far reaching aims, and would allow itself to be duped. Throwing up ones hands and saying fend for yourselves is not an evil act. Leaving it in the hands of God would not be either.

Though, I do suppose there would be instances where one might be somewhat obligated to take an action and in not doing so would still be in the wrong.

Okay, read that again. I think his obligation is to tell them the defenses are down, not just leave them to an unexpected fate. If I was his God, I would still judge him harshly for such an action. I think he needs to inform them that he is essentially resigning his post, and their protection may not be adequate. Course, that is not to say he does not anyway.
 
Last edited:

Mythopoet

Auror
You can't do something for people and then take it back saying "well you wouldn't have this without me so it's basically mine anyway". That's twisted.
 
I'm not talking about killing people directly, but rather manipulating their god to search the world looking for someone for him. Meaning there's basically no defence against invasion by an opposing god.

His logic is because there wouldn't be any of this without him, and he hasn't asked for anything in return, then he's entitled to be selfish for once and find his father. And if they can't defend themselves, that's their problem. Aka they're not entitled to protection.

You think he's entirely in the wrong?
Since he is actively taking part in the harm, yes. That is an act of malfeasance, an act that puts persons in a worse position than if that person had done nothing. Now, if he had just left to find his father without taking the extra step of taking away their only means of protection, their god, then that wouldn't be what was described above. That act to manipulate the god for selfish purposes is wrong.
 

Annoyingkid

Banned
Well, that would be a passive act, and not an active one. I suppose I would have to question the God if the God was not wise enough to see the far reaching aims, and would allow itself to be duped. Throwing up ones hands and saying fend for yourselves in not an evil act. Leaving it in the hands of God would not be either.

Though, I do suppose there would be instances where one might be somewhat obligated to take an action and in not doing so would still be in the wrong.

The god is barely sentient and only understands very basic commands. Because of this, the character this topic is about, he knows his sister (the MC) would never stand for it, who believes lives of many outweigh the life of one so her defeats her, albeit through cheating, causing the god to leave, and them to get invaded.

I wanted to make it so neither was entirely in the wrong, but when I asked another forum, the majority thought he was wrong, so I added the idea that he received a vision of his parents dying in his sleep. (from someone else who wants to get at the god, but he doesnt know that). Desperation seemingly made his motives more understandable, but not necessarily correct in any way.

The MC does offer to help him look after the war in an attempt to get him to stop, but he refuses those terms. Basically what I don't want is for him to come off completely unsympathetic.
 

pmmg

Vala
It could just be his folly. He acts impulsively to save his sister by commanding the god to save her, and then is unexpectedly attacked. That is not the same as deliberately allowing them to be slaughtered, he would not know his actions would cause such a bad fate to befall. He would likely be vilified anyway, but he could be more a fool than just evil.
 

Annoyingkid

Banned
It could just be his folly. He acts impulsively to save his sister by commanding the god to save her, and then is unexpectedly attacked. That is not the same as deliberately allowing them to be slaughtered, he would not know his actions would cause such a bad fate to befall. He would likely be vilified anyway, but he could be more a fool than just evil.

It's his parents he's trying to save, based on a vision. He convinces his sister aka the world's greatest hero into thinking fighting the god is a necessary part of training, causing her to be injured badly. Only then does he attack his sister suddenly and with an item that allows him to wield earth magic putting her at an elemental disadvantage. She does still knock him out, but she isn't able to stop him from sending the god away.

He does know that the enemy god is out there, and is almost certainly waiting for an opening. His hope is that the god can find them and come back in time.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I think you might be asking the wrong question. I don't think anybody would say that it's the right thing to do, but you might have an easier time if the question was, "Can my MC still be likeable as a hero if he has a moment of weakness and does this?"
 

pmmg

Vala
Okay, going to piece it out one more time...

Brother knows parents are dying, and wants to send protector god to save them.
Sister opposes this.
Brother tricks sister into getting injured so he can order protector god to save parents.
Brother knows, 'knows', that if the protector gods leaves, the evil god will certainly attack.
Protector god leaves, sister is injured, evil god attacks and the village is defenseless. And this is all the brothers doing.

If the above is true, in my mind, the brother is wrong. If he knows his actions will lead to the death of many at the hands of the evil God, he should not risk their lives by removing the protector god. He is engaged in a selfish action, for which he may justify to himself, but would still put him in the camp of doing wrong things. He should know better. He needs another way to save his parents or accept the consequences.

His only saving grace would be lack of knowledge that his actions would lead to the dire consequences.
 
Top