VN Ren'Py Ravager [v5.1.9] [4MinuteWarning]

[Dysphorika]

As a player, I accept the developers' decisions, even if I don't agree with them. (See The goblin cave poor controllability.)
I would like to be a good dragon and build a rich and prosperous kingdom where people are happy. Then I would show this to the regent. "You see, I am a better leader than you were."
For me, this would be a worthy revenge. It may not be appropriate for a porn game, but I'm more interested in the story than the sex scenes.

Agree
EDIT: Almost because a lot of NPCs saying basically that dragons are bad news , so just for that, I want to be a good dragon and make them wrong. XD

 

[Jman9]

Spoiler: Kinkshaming offtopic

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Decathect]

While i loathe the idea of being dragged into further exploring this...topic, I cant bring myself to stay silent at arguments this mind-boggingly inane and absurd.

If doing this to one person avoids killing a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand others by way of example, there are definitely moral systems that consider this position the high ground. Most of the practical ones I'd say, even, however distasteful you may find them. Law enforcement has never been about rainbows and butterflies.

First sentence: Ok, to begin with? How does that even make sense in this context? It implies that capital punishment is not, in fact, an effective deterrent - unlike the invasive body procedure, rape and perpetual imprisonment you advocated - since your argument clearly excludes the notion that the threat of death is enough to prevent...whatever figurative and unspecified situation avoids killing others by way of example. In your scenario everyone is all: "pff...death sentence? How droll. Lets keep going, lads!". That is exactly how absurd your pro-rape/incarceration/invasive procedure argument sounds.

Regarding your statement about moral systems that consider this to hold a high ground and it being practical, if distateful...well, thats a fact. One historically applied by tyrants and dictators as justification for what they do. Thats not a point against the validity of this statement - just pointing out its admiteddly less than moral origin - which was the main point of...whatever this is. Incidentally, cullings, purges and executions served them just fine in cowing the "thousands of others, by way of example."

Lastly your comment about law enforcement...i dont know how it applies to the situation between the dragon and balthorne, so Im going to assume it was a generalistic platitude. But the part about it never being about rainbows and butterflies - law enforcement is also about not being overly cruel, about demonstrating that the dignity of the criminal - any criminal - deserves to be preserved, by simply delivering the death sentence without undue humiliation or agony. THAT is an actual moral highground.

To add to this, the guillotine was originally developed as a more humane way to end the condemned's life.
Ignace Guillotin proposed that the government adopt a gentler method of execution. Although he was personally opposed to capital punishment, Guillotin argued that decapitation by a lightning-quick machine would be more humane and egalitarian.

Yes, "Law enforcement has never been about rainbows and butterflies." It was never about pushing for stuff like rape and gender mutilation as a more morally superior or effective deterrent either. Im stumped that this even had to be said...

your 'point' only ever existed in your head until the above message.

Not reading kinkshaming into that would be extending you not a branch, not even a log, but a multi-mile bridge.

You don't want to be misinterpreted, don't make vague remarks.

True. Re-reading the comments in sequence, I can see i wasnt nearly clear enough in expressing myself the way i meant to.
Thats on me.

 

[Jman9]

Spoiler: And it continues...

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[lop333]

Man this game and thread are pure kino.
Comments themselves give me entertainment.

 

[Rutonat]

Lots of people pitying Balthorne here, I'm surprised.
I'll just... mention a little thing that some people seem to have forgotten, or not understood...
He's not a nice guy.

He's a regent, who usurped the throne. Kingdom's rules apparently state that a member of the royal bloodline needs a dragon to ascend to the throne, if memory serves. And when the princess produces a dragon, therefore claiming her birthright, the guy literally tries to have the dragon killed, and imprisones the princess. And from her attire when you get her back, he took great fun in humiliating, and possibily offering her to soldiers or other creatures, by the state she's in.
His reaction wasn't out of fear for a monstrous dragon. It was to secure his own power. Someone who's only regent doesn't have statues of himself built into the fucking capital.

He's not a good guy. He deserves what happens to him, whether you play as a monstous beast or try to change dragons' reputation.


Also, buttfucking him into submission ? No thanks, I fuck my darling Heloïse with that dick, I don't need it tainted to the point of having to cut it off.

 

[Jman9]

Lots of people pitying Balthorne here, I'm surprised.

He deserves what happens to him, whether you play as a monstous beast or try to change dragons' reputation.

I think the point of our little offtopic dicussion was that what you're thinking the fucker deserves doesn't really matter. The 'bad' dragon was going to do something to him anyway, and a 'good' dragon really can't while remaining 'good'. Rulership is a burden.

 

[Rutonat]

I think the point of our little offtopic dicussion was that what you're thinking the fucker deserves doesn't really matter. The 'bad' dragon was going to do something to him anyway, and a 'good' dragon really can't while remaining 'good'. Rulership is a burden.

The way you phrase it implies that letting him do would be the "less bad" option. If that's the case, I'd suggest re-reading my post, and explaining how letting a temperamental dickhead (who locks up/kills anyone who could be a threat to his power or doesn't succeed to his orders) on the throne would be a "good"/"less bad" choice.

 

[Maizemallard]

Lots of people pitying Balthorne here, I'm surprised.
I'll just... mention a little thing that some people seem to have forgotten, or not understood...
He's not a nice guy.

I really only pity him in a meta way and I was being a bit cheeky . For ever other character people want to have the option to treat them better While the comments about Balthorne talk about killing everyone he loves, make him into a butt slave, changing his gender etc. I mean I'm one of the them but man cant help but feel a tinge of pity...also I bit his dick off so instinctively as a man I have to offer some pity.( and will continue to bite his dick off)

also to be fair to Balthorne everyone is a bit of a dick in this game. The MC himself is usually killing, raping, and Rampaging. Maleys genocide a species , Rhys allows his company to abuse and rape, Heloise manipulated multiple beings with her powers and Naho acts with aggression and tried to cripple people who had potential to over throw her etc. The only innocent people in these game are probably the Abbess, Darja, Malice and Marie-ann the rest are just varying degrees of asshole lol. Also while Balthorne is clearly doing this for his own power and is a bad ruler also a dick he does have a point that the Rulers before him also sucked and the previous dragons on the throne while somewhat controlled still regularly indulged their baser instincts. Now having said all that I still want to humiliate and toture Balthorne because I'm also a bit of a dick.

 

[Rutonat]

also to be fair to Balthorne everyone is a bit of a dick in this game. The MC himself is usually killing, raping, and Rampaging. Maleys genocide a species , Rhys allows his company to abuse and rape, Heloise manipulated multiple beings with her powers and Naho acts with aggression and tried to cripple people who had potential to over throw her etc. The only innocent people in these game are probably the Abbess, Malice and Marie-ann the rest are just varying degrees of asshole lol. Also while Balthorne is clearly doing this for his own power and is a bad ruler also a dick but he does have a point that the Rulers before him also sucked and the previous dragons on the thrown while somewhat controlled still regularly indulged their baser instincts. Now having said all that I still want to humiliate and toture Balthorne because I'm also a bit of a dick.

Well it's mainly a matter of perspective. Specifically, your dragon's.
There's only two characters that actually pose a threat for him. The first one is Valzira, who not only has power over him, but her powers also can't be resisted, plus she does not want to leave you any sort of chance (even poor Maelys has a more open mind and that one's been raped multiple times by dragons...). And the other one is Balthorne, since he controls a whole kingdom with the ressources it implies. On top of that, he's keeping your princess imprisoned. You play a dragon. They like to own shit, it's instinctive, it's in their nature. And he stole something that belongs to you. Something he can hurt or kill. And to top it off, he also stole you're rightful throne.

Others aren't much of a threat, really. Between a drunk, a farmgirl, two thieves... Maelys can be a relative threat, but ultimately she's easy to deal with, and sames goes for Rhys. Valzira and Balthorne both need you to build up your arsenal of minions to actually be dealt with.
And no, I'm not including Heloïse, because in the end it's not all that difficult to resist her powers. Plus she's not that hard to actually convince, if you're not playing the "Yeah I'll kill, rape and destroy the whole world. In that order." soooo...

 

[Jman9]

The way you phrase it implies that letting him do would be the "less bad" option. If that's the case, I'd suggest re-reading my post, and explaining how letting a temperamental dickhead (who locks up/kills anyone who could be a threat to his power or doesn't succeed to his orders) on the throne would be a "good"/"less bad" choice.

I'll assume 'do' was supposed to be 'go'.

Honestly, letting him go aka exile is a historically proven solution. In fact, exile was the worst punishment in certain societies.

But if you want to make sure that decision doesn't bite you in the ass at some point, there are other options. Make him a figurehead behaving on pain of exile/trial/dragon bite/body horror/whatever level of escalation you're okay with. Makes for a convenient scapegoat sooner or later, too. 'Forget' him in a dungeon cell. A nice one, even. Send him off on an atonement mission. I'm sure you can come up with more.

The overall sentiment I got from up-thread was "fuck him up, now!" There are lots of (probably better) choices in-between. Purging the previous ruler in what looks like a feudal society (and the dragon also has powerful underlings/allies who are going to take note of how he treats challenges to his rule) is not going to make his rule more stable, rather the converse.


My point was and is that what he 'deserves' and what's actually a 'good' choice are not necessarily even in the same building.

Edit:

Well it's mainly a matter of perspective. Specifically, your dragon's.
There's only two characters that actually pose a threat for him.

This is the exact kind of social myopia that makes the dragon a 'bad' ruler, no matter his original intentions.

 

[Rutonat]

I'll assume 'do' was supposed to be 'go'.

No, it wasn't. I meant that your post seemed to imply that, to be a "good" dragon, you'd have to let him have the throne, the princess, the power, and all of that, and just let him be, because stealing his position is bad.

And for the rest of your post, everything that happens in the game so far shows the guy is vindicative. Sure, you could exile him. And you know he'd somehow come back with an army, likely having rated you out to some other kingdom, to take you down and get the throne back, except this time he'll likely kill the princess and any person remotely linked to the royal family, to make sure nobody ever threatens his power anymore.
I get wanting to see the good in people, but he's really not that hard to read...

 

[Jman9]

No, it wasn't.

If so, then your sentence makes zero sense grammatically.

I meant that your post seemed to imply that, to be a "good" dragon, you'd have to let him have the throne, the princess, the power, and all of that, and just let him be, because stealing his position is bad.

No. What gave you that idea? I've already established that I think morality is relative. A 'good' dragon ruler thinks how he can make the best of the situation for his allies, for the kingdom, and for his legacy. A shortsighted one goes straight for 'he deserves X', whatever X is. Yes, it's very trope-appropriate for a dragon. No, it doesn't make him 'good'.

And for the rest of your post, everything that happens in the game so far shows the guy is vindicative. Sure, you could exile him. And you know he'd somehow come back with an army...

Historically, that tended to only happen if some external power backed that army, or the realm was going to the dogs anyway. Neither are dependent on Balthorne as a person, and the latter is the next ruler's failure.

Also, an exile tends to have very little power left. I've seen nothing that suggests Balthorne is part of some greater cabal of nefarious rulers.

Of course, 4MW could asspull that just for dramatic effect. But that's not a moral reason to neutralise him on the spot. It's a narrative reason.

I get wanting to see the good in people, but he's really not that hard to read...

I'm not looking for 'good' in him. He's a 'bad' apple any way you slice him, unless you're on his personal dole list.

What I'm saying is that killing the previous ruler out of hand is 'bad' rulership. Edit: Focused on short-term benefits and ignoring long-term ones. It's perfectly reasonable for neigbouring kingdoms to see that the same way the historical ones viewed the execution of Louis XVI. Cue the Draconeonic Wars and untold suffering for everyone, just because dragon boy couldn't keep the revenge boner in his pants.

 

[Rutonat]

If so, then your sentence makes zero sense grammatically.


No. What gave you that idea? I've already established that I think morality is relative. A 'good' dragon ruler thinks how he can make the best of the situation for his allies, for the kingdom, and for his legacy. A shortsighted one goes straight for 'he deserves X', whatever X is. Yes, it's very trope-appropriate for a dragon. No, it doesn't make him 'good'.

Look at my signature, dude. English isn't my native language. I'm making tones of mistakes, both in spelling and grammar, and also in comprehension. I'm doing my best over here, I'm mostly self-taught (my teachers were mostly absolute garbage).

Historically, that tended to only happen if some external power backed that army, or the realm was going to the dogs anyway. Neither are dependent on Balthorne as a person, and the latter is the next ruler's failure.

Also, an exile tends to have very little power left. I've seen nothing that suggests Balthorne is part of some greater cabal of nefarious rulers.

Of course, 4MW could asspull that just for dramatic effect. But that's not a moral reason to neutralise him on the spot. It's a narrative reason.

You keep using that word. Historically this, historically that, like it's a magic spell. This is a game, not a history lesson. The characters aren't written by a master in all things historical, nor maned by an IA with absolute realistic human behavior.
You're lnowledgable, it's great, congratulations. But what happend in our real world history doesn't have much weight in the world of a game with a script written with characters that are made to be relatively simple to read, especially antagonists.

What I'm saying is that killing the previous ruler out of hand is 'bad' rulership. Edit: Focused on short-term benefits and ignoring long-term ones. It's perfectly reasonable for neigbouring kingdoms to see that the same way the historical ones viewed the execution of Louis XVI. Cue the Draconeonic Wars.

Interesting choice of you to talk about that specific king, since I'm french. Made me smile.

Anyway, I'm not sure the logic of our real world and a fantasy world are as much aligned as you seem to want them to be...

 

[Jman9]

You keep using that word. Historically this, historically that, like it's a magic spell.

History is the best we know how human societies work, in different stages of development. The game is about a mostly human society, with nothing to indicate their psychology, physiology and social structures are not analogous to RL or very close approximations thereof. The converse, if anything. See the 'catgirls act like real cats' discussion, for example.

But what happend in our real world history doesn't have much weight in the world of a game with a script written with characters that are made to be relatively simple to read, especially antagonists.

In which case, why are you debating morality? Just say "I like my fantasy this way!" and be done with it? I'm not putting you down, this is an entirely legitimate stance on the whole thing. Most people don't really want or need to examine their fantasies all that carefully.

Yours is the argument that says "If you can cast Fireball, all village constables can detect lies without error!" because it's convenient for one specific occasion and ignores the wider (and absolutely massive) impact something like that would have on society (Edit: while Fireball is just a fancy grenade). I absolutely hate this stance. A consistent fantasy that explores the impact of the fantastical elements on the world and its people is always better than a power trip in my book. YMMV.

Interesting choice of you to talk about that specific king, since I'm french.

Well, it's about the best example of this kind of event happening in RL. Cromwell did a similar thing, and ultimately fucked up as well.

Anyway, I'm not sure the logic of our real world and a fantasy world are as much aligned as you seem to want them to be...

They are populated by mostly human characters with mostly human technology, aren't they? What evidence do you have that they aren't? Because most fantasy assumes the basics remain the same unless specifically mentioned. Or the author would have to precede every scene with a lengthy lore dump.

For example: "You see a cow and a peasant girl milking it." WTF is a 'cow' in this setting, what's a 'peasant' and what's 'milking'? How many heads and wings does the 'cow' have? How many does the 'girl' have? Does 'milking' mean some sort of ritual combat? Or is 'she' negotiating with the 'cow'? Is the 'cow' making a marriage proposal? Getting groomed? Declaring war? How many genders do these 'peasants' have and which one is the 'girl'? Etc.

Going by history and specific lore when that's contradicted is the sane option.

 

[Hullahopp]

These reflections are very interesting, but the point of the game is that as a new dragon we are not bound by social norms.
Everyone can play according to their own moral values, we create the ideology for it.

Am I a conqueror by right of the strongest? Then I can do what I want. I'll crush those who stand in my way and intimidate them into not daring to rebel. Setting an example with Balthorne, let the world see that I am not to be trifled with.

Am I a ruler who wants to create a better world? The end justifies the means. The regent is just an obstacle on my way to the throne that needs to be cleared.

Am I the vindictive? Balthorne is a traitor, people supported him, stood up to me, they deserve what they get.

Do I want to be a good king? To be merciful? I take back what is mine, firmly but gently. I will not destroy the kingdom, because I own it. I won't torture the regent, because I'm generous, but I'll dispose of him.

Emperor Caligula said: "Let them hate me, the main thing is that they fear me!" His mans conspired against him and killed him. Cruelty only works in the short term, because hate is stronger than fear.

When the game is over, there maybe we get good/bad ending and it becomes clear which behaviour was counterproductive.

 

[wiseold6996]

These reflections are very interesting, but the point of the game is that as a new dragon we are not bound by social norms.
Everyone can play according to their own moral values, we create the ideology for it.

Am I a conqueror by right of the strongest? Then I can do what I want. I'll crush those who stand in my way and intimidate them into not daring to rebel. Setting an example with Balthorne, let the world see that I am not to be trifled with.

Am I a ruler who wants to create a better world? The end justifies the means. The regent is just an obstacle on my way to the throne that needs to be cleared.

Am I the vindictive? Balthorne is a traitor, people supported him, stood up to me, they deserve what they get.

Do I want to be a good king? To be merciful? I take back what is mine, firmly but gently. I will not destroy the kingdom, because I own it. I won't torture the regent, because I'm generous, but I'll dispose of him.

Emperor Caligula said: "Let them hate me, the main thing is that they fear me!" His mans conspired against him and killed him. Cruelty only works in the short term, because hate is stronger than fear.

When the game is over, there maybe we get good/bad ending and it becomes clear which behaviour was counterproductive.

Emperor Caligula was just a man, not a monster

 

[Hullahopp]

Emperor Caligula was just a man, not a monster

Looking at his behaviour, he was a human monster. I see what you mean, a dragon is harder to kill. But not impossible. Adeline said the last dragon died in a battle.

 

[Jman9]

These reflections are very interesting, but the point of the game is that as a new dragon we are not bound by social norms.
Everyone can play according to their own moral values, we create the ideology for it.

When the game is over, there maybe we get good/bad ending and it becomes clear which behaviour was counterproductive.

But the dragon is interacting with human societies. Ignoring how they work while meddling with them is how dragons get killed.

I do hope there are neat ending slides. Remember what happened to Junktown when you went for the badguy there, one who might have offended you personally? Yeah.

 

[Dysphorika]

These reflections are very interesting, but the point of the game is that as a new dragon we are not bound by social norms.
Everyone can play according to their own moral values, we create the ideology for it.

Am I a conqueror by right of the strongest? Then I can do what I want. I'll crush those who stand in my way and intimidate them into not daring to rebel. Setting an example with Balthorne, let the world see that I am not to be trifled with.

Am I a ruler who wants to create a better world? The end justifies the means. The regent is just an obstacle on my way to the throne that needs to be cleared.

Am I the vindictive? Balthorne is a traitor, people supported him, stood up to me, they deserve what they get.

Do I want to be a good king? To be merciful? I take back what is mine, firmly but gently. I will not destroy the kingdom, because I own it. I won't torture the regent, because I'm generous, but I'll dispose of him.

Emperor Caligula said: "Let them hate me, the main thing is that they fear me!" His mans conspired against him and killed him. Cruelty only works in the short term, because hate is stronger than fear.

When the game is over, there maybe we get good/bad ending and it becomes clear which behaviour was counterproductive.

Well said.