Curse

Slowpokeking · Jun 19, 2011, 04:06 PM // 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by synbios_kun

There's a difference between willing(Master Togo giving up his life to protect his half-brother) and unwilling sacrifices(the Chosen being slaughtered on the Bloodstone), by the way.

Well it's not willing or not, someone must make the sacrifice or we will be all doomed. Will the humans do the opposite, or choose to not sacrifice anyone if they are at that position?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedDog91

Just realized you made pretty much the same thread on GW2 guru and get angry at anyone that doesn't agree with your lore-breaking opinion(s) there also.

My suggestion would be to not be set on one idea and instead read every lore page about the subject on the wiki. And do so with a fresh mind. Leave every idea you have behind before reading, otherwise you'll continue to try and mold every sentence to fit your personal idea what what it should be.

I read it long ago. Well I gave many points by using the lore. If you say lore breaking, is the heroes' we played, their opinion more lore-breaking? That's just funny.

draxynnic · Jun 19, 2011, 05:12 PM // 17:12

Ack. Forum glitch ate my post, and I really don't have time to write it out in full detail again. You're going to have to live with the short form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowpokeking

Like real world, good people also kills good people sometimes, like the War of Troy, many of the Greek soldiers are good, but is Troy people evil?

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying regarding the centaur assassination, which as you may recall razor3999 has been trying to claim means the GW1 PCs are evil. I would say that Agamemnon (the mastermind of the attack on Troy) was a nasty piece of work, though.

On the Mursaat - Whether the sacrifices were necessary or not is something that we just don't have the information to prove either way. However, there are two ways in which the mursaat have inflicted suffering in ways that weren't absolutely necessary even if the sacrifices were. The first is the oppression by the White Mantle of Kryta's populace (apparently under the blessing of the mursaat, and while it's subtler in Prophecies than in the War in Kryta, it's there in the Hot Springs Murders quest and the Prophecies manuscripts), while the second is that there were far more sacrifices than were necessary to keep the door closed - the souls were also used to power other mursaat equipment than that on the door, and continued after the door had been sealed (All for One and One for Justice takes place three years after Prophecies).

I've said all along that it's possible that there were non-evil mursaat caught up in what happened, but their leadership definitely does seem to be made up of individuals with a callous disregard for the lives and rights of others.

Slowpokeking · Jun 19, 2011, 05:24 PM // 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

Ack. Forum glitch ate my post, and I really don't have time to write it out in full detail again. You're going to have to live with the short form.

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying regarding the centaur assassination, which as you may recall razor3999 has been trying to claim means the GW1 PCs are evil. I would say that Agamemnon (the mastermind of the attack on Troy) was a nasty piece of work, though.

On the Mursaat - Whether the sacrifices were necessary or not is something that we just don't have the information to prove either way. However, there are two ways in which the mursaat have inflicted suffering in ways that weren't absolutely necessary even if the sacrifices were. The first is the oppression by the White Mantle of Kryta's populace (apparently under the blessing of the mursaat, and while it's subtler in Prophecies than in the War in Kryta, it's there in the Hot Springs Murders quest and the Prophecies manuscripts), while the second is that there were far more sacrifices than were necessary to keep the door closed - the souls were also used to power other mursaat equipment than that on the door, and continued after the door had been sealed (All for One and One for Justice takes place three years after Prophecies).

I've said all along that it's possible that there were non-evil mursaat caught up in what happened, but their leadership definitely does seem to be made up of individuals with a callous disregard for the lives and rights of others.

Paris took Helen first and he's also no good, not anymore after he took Helen, if we have to look about it deeper, than it's the 3 goddesses, or even Eris, who made the golden apple started it.

Well I said the Mursaat are a harsher or darker race compare to humans, not all of their killings are necessary. But they also saved a lot of lives, more than they killed right? So overall I still judge them as a neutral race. Most of the chosen were used to seal the gate off.

draxynnic · Jun 21, 2011, 02:06 PM // 14:06

Well, at least Paris did what he did for the sake of love. Agamemnon, as I recall, pushed to turn the diplomatic incident into war because he felt he could profit financially off it (and had been looking for an excuse for a while). But that's a digression.

Regarding the mursaat - the impression I get is that the lives saved were incidental to their strategy. Even if the sacrifices of the chosen were purely to eliminate the threat they posed (the scenario that provides the least incentive to the mursaat to help Kryta), pushing the charr out of Kryta provides them with two benefits - it kept the titan-worshipping horde away from the ports that could have been used to launch an assault on the Ring of Fire so the charr could threaten to open the Door themselves and it provides them with a puppet army. Spectral Agony is a powerful weapon, but it can be overwhelmed by numbers and that's where the mursaat fall short - having a human army to bulk them out can be useful.

Basically, it's the intention that matters, not the result. While the actions of the mursaat may have saved lives, they did not take those actions because they were concerned about human life (otherwise I would expect the White Mantle regime to have been less oppressive). Instead, the mursaat seem to have "helped" Kryta as a 'the enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, but in the meantime, they may be useful' move - they helped Kryta because stopping the charr there was better for them than potentially having the titan-directed charr swarm after them next, and then they got to work dealing with the problem of the Chosen. Saving life for its own sake appears to have never been one of their goals.

Incidentally, we have no firm data on what proportion of the Chosen sacrificed were used to seal the Door, just that some were and some weren't. It could have been most of them, or it could have been a small handful while the rest went into powering ether seals, jades, and other works of mursaat magic.

Slowpokeking · Jun 21, 2011, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Paris took other's wife and after that he didn't act as a good leader in the war.

They kill and save for the same reason, to save themselves and we don't know how much they care about the rest of the world. It's not a evil goal, for this goal they killed many and saved more.

Which race other than dwarves and human themselves concerned about human lives during the war? We didn't see any other races cared about it and lay a hand to humans during the invasion, when humanity was in the edge of destruction. Even the 5 gods didn't do anything. But it's not their duty and we cannot say they are all evil. So why blame the Mursaat when they killed many but overall saved humanity during the darkest time? If they also stay aside and do nothing(including gave Saul wisdom), I guess people won't blame them but Kryta would surely fall and Ascalon would be in greater danger.

draxynnic · Jun 22, 2011, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Because intent matters. The people the mursaat saved (assuming here that Kryta couldn't have saved itself with another leader to rally them - there's no evidence that the mursaat actually directly intervened except in that final battle. It's mostly Saul standing up and rallying the people when King Reza ran away - in fact, their overall campaign seems to have been to give Kryta the ability to fight the charr, and then remove their ability to resist by taking away the leader that they'd built up) weren't saved because the mursaat were feeling altruistic. It was simply because it fit with their own goals.

Let's say that you have three groups of people. Group A intends to commit genocide upon Group B. Group C intervenes, but in exchange for its intervention, it effectively enslaves Group B and demands a constant tribute of sacrifices. Does the fact that Group C saved some lives excuse the fact that it's killing some and oppressing most? No. Groups A and C are both acting in evil ways, it's just that their objectives happened to be clash. Evil is not monolithic - evil fights evil, and just because fighting between two evil groups means that lives happen to be saved doesn't make the less homicidal group less evil. It just means that they had different objectives and took the opportunity to act at a time that would best allow them to complete those objectives.

In short, because acts taken with evil intent happen to save some lives in the process does not excuse them from being evil.

Now, I've said a few times that this doesn't mean ALL the mursaat are evil. There are plenty of examples historically of evil regimes who have people who are at least not evil going along with them for various reasons. But at the level of their leadership, they're nasty pieces of work. And I certainly wouldn't be inclined towards putting humanity under their "protection" in the future like some have espowsed - the mursaat only care for humanity when it suits their own goals to do so.

Slowpokeking · Jun 22, 2011, 02:39 AM // 02:39

Their intent was to save themselves, probably after that they also think a little bit about the rest of the world. Is it evil? No. Since you say intent does not make them good, then they also kill most of the people for that reason. Why save people didn't make them good but kill people make them evil when they did it under the same goal, which may not be noble but also not evil?

Without the Mursaat, there is no way Saul could become a good leader in such a short period of time. Without a leader Kryta will surely fall, Orr and Ascalon's king did better than King Reza but still didn't stop the destruction of their kingdom. Even without the foefire/cataclysm their kingdoms would still fall.

Also remember Group C killed most of the Group B people to make sure Group D, a very powerful group that can and want to wipe out both Group B and C. There is no other way to prevent it unless by these sacrifices. Other than that, I don't see where did the Mursaat treat people as slave, especially before the War of Kryta.

draxynnic · Jun 22, 2011, 02:40 AM // 02:40

I was just addressing that in an edit. For clarity, cut-and-pasted below:

On the question of whether the sacrifices themselves were evil or a regrettable necessity: Assuming for the sake of argument that they were necessary, the line with many of these things is informed consent. For most people, rape is one of the most hideous crimes that can be committed upon an individual, in some cases rated higher than murder, but consensual sex clearly is not. If you had a group of people starving in the mountains and one volunteered to be killed and eaten so that the others might survive, that is a noble sacrifice - but if the others simply set upon one of their number during the night and killed and ate him, that would be murder. If, on the eve of having assisted in driving out the charr, the mursaat had revealed that the gods of the charr were very real and that volunteers were needed to give their lives to keep the door closed, that would be one thing - and they probably would have had volunteers to do so (there are plenty of other examples in Guild Wars of people willing to give their lives for a cause). Instead, they tricked them into believing they were being taken to be trained in magic, led them into the jungles, and murdered them. And in the process, continued the momentum of the self-fulfilling prophecy that would ultimately lead to their downfall.

Regarding Kryta's ability to survive on its own - well, Saul did seem to be a pretty good leader despite his origins and relative inexperience, and there are others that might have arisen (possibly Evennia or some of the other Shining Blade leaders, for example). However, the biggest reason for Kryta to have likely been more able to survive on its own is because the charr army sent to Kryta was probably a lot smaller than that sent through Ascalon and Orr. The primary objective of the charr was Ascalon, the primary objective of Abaddon appears to have been Arah - the attack wave sent to Kryta was probably just intended to make it so that Kryta couldn't intervene elsewhere even if it wanted to.

Slowpokeking · Jun 22, 2011, 02:48 AM // 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by draxynnic

I was just addressing that in an edit. For clarity, cut-and-pasted below:

On the question of whether the sacrifices themselves were evil or a regrettable necessity: Assuming for the sake of argument that they were necessary, the line with many of these things is informed consent. For most people, rape is one of the most hideous crimes that can be committed upon an individual, in some cases rated higher than murder, but consensual sex clearly is not. If you had a group of people starving in the mountains and one volunteered to be killed and eaten so that the others might survive, that is a noble sacrifice - but if the others simply set upon one of their number during the night and killed and ate him, that would be murder. If, on the eve of having assisted in driving out the charr, the mursaat had revealed that the gods of the charr were very real and that volunteers were needed to give their lives to keep the door closed, that would be one thing - and they probably would have had volunteers to do so (there are plenty of other examples in Guild Wars of people willing to give their lives for a cause). Instead, they tricked them into believing they were being taken to be trained in magic, led them into the jungles, and murdered them. And in the process, continued the momentum of the self-fulfilling prophecy that would ultimately lead to their downfall.

Ok, so tell them about the stuff, then will Kryta people allow themselves to get cut? No, they will surely say: #$% off, kill your own people to fulfill it.
Then how are they gonna solve the problem? If human is at that position, they will mostly do the same thing. During that kind of situation, someone must make the sacrifice, choose to not let anyone's hand get blood may not be evil but it's silly and will cause the worst result. The Mursaat didn't sacrifice themselves, they are not noble, but we still cannot say it's evil, since we humans would pretty much pick on other races, too when we met it.

Like Churchill also sacrificed hundreds of innocent people in Coventry when they knew and could settle defense against Germany's bombing to avoid so much death, only to make sure Hitler won't know they got the secret code.

draxynnic · Jun 22, 2011, 07:14 AM // 07:14

Funnily enough, some people are willing to knowingly sacrifice their lives for the good of their fellows. It's where the Kurzick juggernaughts came from (although admittedly they're going into a different life rather than ending it entirely). It may well explain why the mursaat are the way they are, if the more altruistic members of their race have self-culled themselves through volunteering themselves for sacrifice - assuming that the mursaat even are acceptable sacrifices for the bloodstone.

Nevertheless, going through with forced sacrifices is an evil thing to do. Going back to my example of the group of people starving in the mountains - without one person making the sacrifice, everyone's going to die unless they are rescued first. Does that give any one person, or even the group as a whole, the right to decide that a particular individual will be the victim without their consent? No. It should be a volunteer, or a group decision that it's necessary followed by drawing lots to decide on who.

So, let's play a game of "What Would I Do If I Was Optimus Caliph." Let's assume that there is no viable way to keep the Door closed other than sacrificing the Chosen (rather than it simply being a convenient way to kill two birds with one stone), or any evidence of a reasonable way for the world to survive the Door opening.

First, I would try to save all of the human nations if reasonably practical. This is not out of altruism, but out of simple mathematics - the more Chosen saved from the charr, the more potential sacrifices.

Second, and this is a big one, even if it hasn't been raised before in this discussion: I wouldn't kill Gisinger, Bryen, Jaemes and Rebekah on the basis that they are "unworthy" to see me - that's a pretty narcissistic, self-conceited, and basically evil reason to kill someone. It's been theorised that the real reason is because the mursaat judged that those four wouldn't go along with their plans, but that's also pretty callous behaviour.

Instead, I'd reveal to them that there is another enemy, and if I knew it, that there was a link between my enemy and the enemy I just helped them against. The price for my aid would be Krytan support against the foe, with the test of the Chosen administered to determine those who had the potential to fight the foe. The Chosen selected would, ultimately, be brought to the Door, informed of the truth, and given the choice - those who volunteered would be entered into a roll of honour, while the rest would be trained as mages or soldiers and enlisted into the defenses of the Door. If brought to a proper understanding of the stakes involved, I would personally be surprised if there are not a significant number of volunteers, and the army formed from the rest can replace the jades and other defenses that might otherwise have been powered from their souls. Especially if they're kept close enough to the Door so that if the initial uptake of volunteers is insufficient to keep it closed, they can have the opportunity to change their minds if it does start to open.

Meanwhile, I'd be doing my best to find another means of keeping the door closed. If I knew of her, I might even send a band of trusted Chosen to the Crystal Desert to Ascend and ask Glint for a better option... and I wouldn't be leaving a totalitarian and oppressive government in charge of Kryta. From what we know of him, Saul seemed to be a pretty decent sort, and since I haven't gone and done something that forced me to 'disappear' him to ensure his silence, he'd probably do a decent job.

On the whole, your argument seems to be resting on two pillars. There's the "but they saved people" one - to which I say, they did so only because it was convenient for their own goals, not because they valued human life (if they did, I would expect Kryta to have been a more egalitarian nation rather than most of the population being pushed into poverty).

The second is that the sacrifices were necessary for the greater good. This, on its own, might have some weight, but it is undermined by the casual cruelty shown by the mursaat in the killing of most of Saul's followers at Demetra, the oppression of Kryta, and the continued sacrifices years after the Door had been sealed and thus the need for them had passed. This behaviour flips the mursaat (or at least their leadership) over from being guardians of the world reluctantly doing what is necessary for the world's safety, to a group of cruel overlords and casual murderers that happen to be guarding a portal that's at least as dangerous to them as it is to anybody else.

Slowpokeking · Jun 23, 2011, 06:45 PM // 18:45

You are saying that making forced sacrifice thing is evil, but isn't "save people from the edge of destruction" a good action? Since you are saying that their "evil action" under their netural goal make them evil, why didn't the "good action" make them good? Instead you are keep saying they saved humans for their own goals, then they killed the chosen for the same reason. Isn't it double standard and you are using it for a while?

Ok, as for your plan, you really think it will work? Just look at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, how many people are willing to face not certain death, but high level radiation when another huge disater can happen? Only 50 people went into the deepest place to repair it willingly. Less than 500 people were helping outside of the high radiation area, and these guys are under the order the Japanese government(Same for most of the sacrifice in Chernobyl). The Mursaat do not have such right to command the humans unless they do what they did in the actual story. Also the humans almost never saw the Titans and the door is far away from their home, all they got is Mursaat and Glint's words, many people will think: why should they do it? That's the human nature, even when the big disaster came, many of them still put themselves first.

as for the last point, I'm not saying kill Saul's followers good action but many of the "good" forces did such thing. Like in the American Civil War, general Sherman's actions in the South is pretty cruel but we cannot simply say he or his government is evil. Overall the Mursaat still saved more than they killed. That's why I judge them as overall a neutral race.

Pugs Not Drugs · Jun 24, 2011, 12:23 AM // 00:23

I always believed that the Mursaat thought the humans to be beneath them, due to their superiority in almost any way. So they used humans to their advantages similarly to how we use animals to our advantage. (labor, food, testing etc.) In this case, they used humans as live sacrifices to keep themselves alive. Sure, they could have come up with a compromise in which humans willingly sacrificed themselves, but then the humans probably would have asked the same of the Mursaat. So they tricked humans into powering the batteries simply because it was easier.

To a human, this may seem evil, but to the Mursaat, they were just using lesser intelligent species to their advantage to survive. You have to keep things in perspective: to a person, a KFC is a place for delicious meals; to a chicken, a KFC is the gates of hell themselves.

Slowpokeking · Jun 24, 2011, 12:59 AM // 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pugs Not Drugs

I always believed that the Mursaat thought the humans to be beneath them, due to their superiority in almost any way. So they used humans to their advantages similarly to how we use animals to our advantage. (labor, food, testing etc.) In this case, they used humans as live sacrifices to keep themselves alive. Sure, they could have come up with a compromise in which humans willingly sacrificed themselves, but then the humans probably would have asked the same of the Mursaat. So they tricked humans into powering the batteries simply because it was easier.

To a human, this may seem evil, but to the Mursaat, they were just using lesser intelligent species to their advantage to survive. You have to keep things in perspective: to a person, a KFC is a place for delicious meals; to a chicken, a KFC is the gates of hell themselves.

I agree most of your points, just unlike the Mursaat saved humans, other animals can live just fine, actually far better without humans.

draxynnic · Jun 24, 2011, 07:22 AM // 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowpokeking

You are saying that making forced sacrifice thing is evil, but isn't "save people from the edge of destruction" a good action? Since you are saying that their "evil action" under their netural goal make them evil, why didn't the "good action" make them good? Instead you are keep saying they saved humans for their own goals, then they killed the chosen for the same reason. Isn't it double standard and you are using it for a while?

Just as the ends don't justify the means, the means don't justify the ends. The sacrifices were an evil act committed towards neutral or even good ends - but that doesn't excuse it. The "rescue" of Kryta was what would otherwise be a good act committed towards evil ends - to enslave most of the population and murder some of it. Their treatment of Kryta after they had it - pushing most of the population into illiterate poverty (the line in the Prophecies Manuscripts about access to books being a "special privilige" of White Mantle membership is one of the most chilling I've read) shows that the intervention was not an altruistic act intended for the good of the people rescued, but a means of conquest - a neutral act at best.

So, basically, what you claim is a good act ISN'T. After all, if the mursaat had met the charr just north of Kryta and fought them for the privilige of whether the mursaat would get to conquer Kryta or whether the charr could destroy it, then the morality here would be clear - it's just that the mursaat waited until Kryta had been attacked before they initiated their act of conquest disguised as rescue... ironically enough, since the above scenario would probably have resulted in less damage to Kryta overall.

If you've played Star Control 2, it's akin to the fighting between the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za (who want to enslave the galaxy) and the Kohr-Ah (who want to exterminate all other sapient life). Now, enslavement is certainly a lesser evil than genocide, but that the Kzer-Za were fighting the Kohr-Ah didn't make them any better than the enslavers they were.

Regarding the willingness to sacrifice - I'd be curious whether in the case of the reactor it's a question of having volunteers, or one of how many people were actually wanted and needed in there. But there's a reason my hypothetical involved bringing the Chosen there before asking for volunteers - drafting an army would be relatively simple than asking for sacrifices, and letting them see just what's at stake (even if this involves allowing a titan or two through when the seals weaken) would make it much easier to get sacrifices. Especially given the stakes - if it's clearly a case of "sacrifice or EVERYBODY dies" you're going to have people who are willing to lay down their lives for the good of their family or friends back home. And we're still assuming that the sacrifices were actually necessary instead of simply convenient.

Meanwhile, the killing of Saul's followers is reprehensible basically because it's pointless. If they truly died because they were deemed unworthy it's hubris, otherwise their deaths served no purpose that disappearing them (as with Saul) wouldn't. Now, I don't know what General Sherman got up to, since I'm not an American and thus my history studies have been concentrated elsewhere, but I'd consider casual killing without good reason to be pretty much the epitome of evil. In times of war people have more reason (or at least think they do) to kill, but the mursaat weren't at war with Saul's followers.

I think the big difference between us is that you're concentrating on the results while I'm concentrating on the intent. Yes, the mursaat intervention may have saved more people than it killed (we don't actually know that Kryta would have fallen without the intervention - it was a different situation, and there's good reason to believe the charr army in Kryta may have simply been to keep Kryta's military from intervening in Ascalon and Orr, which were the real targets of the charr and Abaddon respectively) but there is no evidence that the mursaat saw people as being worth saving except as resources to be exploited and expended. Intent matters. An act that is done purely for your own good that just happens to have positive consequences for others is not a good act. It's at best a neutral one, that just happened to benefit someone else.

If I sold a bottle of water to someone who was dying of thirst at an exorbitant price, then technically I've saved a life, but is this a good act? No. A good person would offer the water for free. Most neutral people would too, if they were not at risk of dying of thirst themselves, or at least sell it it at a fair price. Overcharging because of the buyer's desperation is an act of opportunism that borders on evil.

At the risk of Godwining the thread, there were Nazi scientists that committed horrifying experiments on human subjects during World War 2. Some of those, I believe, did lead to medical discoveries that have saved lives since, possibly more than were lost or ruined during the experiments - in fact, since the experiments were mostly carried out on Jews who were probably slated for death anyway, arguably the experiments cost no lives at all. Still, I don't think anyone is going to argue that the people who carried out those experiments should be commended.

Slowpokeking · Jun 24, 2011, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Why isn't it a rescue good? If you say the ends, then their ends is to stop the Titan's release, that's their final ends, you can cut one piece off to say the "enslavement".

Sure, White Mantle got special privilege because they are the leading rank. It got nothing to do with enslave the people, other than the sacrifice, did they force people to do work all the day for them or the Mursaat? No. If you say enslavement you have to give more evidence. Pushing most of the people into illiterate poverty? They only ruled for 2 years, how did they do that? It's amazing.

Again, the Mursaat didn't know about the invasion until they met Saul. They only showed up after he called them. They lived in a hidden kingdom of the jungle. That's far from the charr.

As for sacrifice, I'm safe to say human's nature won't let many people to die under the words of some "aliens". They will tell the Mursaat to die, or say I will run to someplace if the titan came. Yeah we know how bad the titans are, but they never met it so it's very hard to make them realize how terrible it would be.

I also think their action toward Saul's friends is wrong.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Mursaat's is overall neutral, a little bit darker and harsher than the humans, they don't care too much about human lives, just like humans don't care about other living's lives as much as humans'. They did good and bad actions but overall they saved more than killed.

If I sold a bottle of water to someone who was dying of thirst at an exorbitant price because without this much money, someone's gonna go kill both of us, is that evil?

draxynnic · Jun 25, 2011, 10:34 AM // 10:34

Eight years, actually, until the mursaat truly lost control of Kryta. There was just a lot fewer of them after the first two - but the effects are also visible after the first two.

It comes down to a seperation of intent and results. None of the actions of the mursaat were intended to aid anyone but the mursaat, any such results were purely incidental. Therefor, they are not good acts, and do not balance the evil acts they did commit.

Let's say you have two scientists. One is attempting to find a cure for world hunger purely through his own funding and time... but in the process, accidentally creates and releases a horrible disease into the populace. Is he evil? No. His intent was good, he just made a serious mistake in the process. Meanwhile, his counterpart WAS working on producing a deadly bioweapon, but ends up stumbling on a solution for world hunger. This does not make the counterpart good, he simply came across a happy argument.

And I think this is basically as far as this discussion can go. For the reason above, none of the mursaat's known actions can really be classified as good (since they're all for their own benefit and not for the benefit of others), and thus they don't balance the evil acts we know they've done. Some of those acts could possibly be excused through necessity, but others cannot (not every soul reaped went to the door, nor was every person killed by the mursaat killed in battle or on a bloodstone). The evidence is overall damning.

Slowpokeking · Jun 25, 2011, 06:07 PM // 18:07

During Prophecies it's just 2 years.

Their goal is overall the same, save themselves is not evil, so their good actions do balance their evil action.

Well again their goal is to save themselves and maybe care a little about the others. This is not evil, even good. It does not match the example you gave.

Also I want to ask, is saving humanity good? It is, so why is saving the Mursaat themselves turned to be not good? Because the actions? They made good and evil actions, overall still saved more.

Amy Awien · Jul 01, 2011, 09:12 AM // 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Mystic Reaper

... their goal is not your typical goal an antagonist would do...

You would have had a point if they'd sacrificed themselves.
Now it's just plain evil to kidnap and sacrifice others to further your own goals, no matter what these goals are. That people are actually discussing that sacrificing the lives of others, without even asking them to volunteer or something, could in any way be seen as 'good' is quite unbelievable.

If you want to save the world, sacrifice yourself.

draxynnic · Jul 09, 2011, 01:46 AM // 01:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canthan Peasant

Maybe you need to learn a thing or two about how the world works. Sometimes doing good for others is really doing good for yourself.

Well played, ArenaNet. Well played.

Skale Devotee · Jul 11, 2011, 11:39 AM // 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amy Awien

You would have had a point if they'd sacrificed themselves.
Now it's just plain evil to kidnap and sacrifice others to further your own goals, no matter what these goals are. That people are actually discussing that sacrificing the lives of others, without even asking them to volunteer or something, could in any way be seen as 'good' is quite unbelievable.

If you want to save the world, sacrifice yourself.

They might have actually been doing that before Saul found them, we just don't know. The door has been closed for a long time before the Mursaat started sacrificing Krytans. Anyway the Mursaat could say the same to humans as well, it's not only the Mursaat at stake they're the only ones who actually know about it.

Besides the Mursaat are really paranoid people, I can understand why they were taking people without telling them. I wouldn't tell them either if I could help it, nobody would volunteer and even if a few did I would think it wouldn't be enough to keep the door closed.

Anyway the Mursaat actually provide the technology to keep the door closed and there are millions of people in Tyria, what's a few less? For all we know the Mursaat could be infertile or something. Anyway how can you blame the Mursaat for killing humans when, in Prophecies, we killed hundreds of Charr. I'm sure that if we were in the Mursaat's position we wouldn't mind killing a few hundred Charr to save the world.

Also it's not like human's are the greatest race on the planet. What about Vizier Khilbron who wiped out an entire city because he worshiped Abaddon, Shiro who transformed hundreds of people into Afflicted, Varesh Ossa who tried to bring about Nightfall? Then again they were touched by Abaddon.

But then there's Verata who killed people just to further his experiments, War Minister Wona who wanted to start a war with the Tengu just rich, Emperor Usoku who has prosecuted all non-humans in Cantha and removed anyone who disagreed with him.

And of course there's the groups like the Crimson Skull who terrorize Shing Jea Island, the Ministries who do nothing but push paper and accept bribes and the Am Fah and the Jade Brotherhood who not only attack travelers but attack each other as well.

Besides the Mursaat barely know of us or our culture and we know practically nothing about them. After all we don't know if the Mursaat we encountered are really representatives of their whole race? After all they are invisible. There could be untold thousands out there who didn't agree.

Don't you think it's a bit soon to judge?