|
|
Post by blahzor on Jun 25, 2022 6:52:46 GMT
a fire elemental with a history of temper problems and you just provoked her knowing she has a dagger to kill you with and she knows she can and probably will Annie is still not a murderer. tell that to the bug she squished to speak with that one pychopomp |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on Jun 25, 2022 8:01:14 GMT
...Seek a mate from the Court? Get imprisoned in it. Take and ruin bodies? Have your own taken away and ruined. Try to kill, out of fear and frustration, the daughter and holder of the essence of your lost love? Become her possession...It's not a unique trait to wild animals. Humans are the ones who have executions and big wars and mafias. I'd argue it's more human behavior than wild, to kill someone because you disagree with them. Renard regrets killing and trying to kill innocent people who had done nothing to him. He explicitly doesn't regret it because "killing is bad". In that same chapter, he said that killing Sivo was different; they were fighting, and he won. Hetty was not innocent. In fact, she was trying to kill someone who is. Renard wasn't any different from who he says he is in that scene, and no different from a human. Look at how the upstanding paragonic good guys solve their problems in the fiction we write: they kill the dragon. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Jun 25, 2022 10:42:50 GMT
Huh! I think this was one of the most surprising pages I've read in the comic. a fire elemental with a history of temper problems and you just provoked her knowing she has a dagger to kill you with and she knows she can and probably will Annie is still not a murderer. But she is a killer, when she has to be; she's torched wisps, for example. Likewise, Kat's electrocuted attacking shadow people. I'm sure neither of them enjoys killing sentients, but they're willing to do it if lives are on the line. Was this ... kayfabe? Is he just keeping up appearances so nobody suspects Jerrek? Did he really think they'd suspect something was up if he did nothing? Or wasn't he thinking at all? I'd like to think it was kayfabe--mostly because that would mean I wasn't so hilariously wrong in my guess for this page. But now I think bicarbonat probably has it right; he wasn't thinking. Loup's got the mental capacity for elaborate schemes, but when the rage hits it goes out the window. Remember how he went from telekinetic Zen master to slavering beast in about ten seconds when Annie showed up with the Shadow Men? As soon as one of the few people he valued did something he didn't like, the world stopped making sense to him and he immediately blamed her for it. And all he could think about afterwards was coercive control…putting her in her place by destroying everyone else on her side. Same pattern here. When Annie flatters Jerrek and encourages him to talk? He comes up with all sorts of interesting philosophical insights. When Renard acts wiser than him and wins Annie's eye? Forget all that, time to put Renard back in his place in the crudest way possible. Loup may not even know what "lesson" he meant Renard to learn, he just knows that Renard was Coyote's favorite student and Ysengrin's most hated competitor so WHO'S THE SMART ONE NOW HUH. The possibilities are endless, yes, between toys and statues and vat-grown bodies and potatoes. And for all we know, Annie may have already given him permission to experiment. Personally, I think he may fear regressing mentally if he leaves Surma's toy. If the "mind is nothing but a plaything of the body," then all the personality development he's had since trying to kill Antimony could be undone. Or he may still feel that staying in the toy is a fitting penance for his crime, as he told Hetty. And yet, he doesn't really learn the lesson! This scene is one of my favorites, because of how much it tell us about Renard. He's just visited Daniel's tomb, with such profound grief. He's just said how much he regrets trying to kill Annie. And then, he immediately goes for the kill. That's true. But one can kill with various intentions, and to swipe from speedwell , karma embraces both action and intent. I think Renard's learned that killing is only acceptable when morally justified, in a human-ish sense. It can't just be "because I really want to" or "because I'm special and I do what I please." So yes, Renard regrets trying to kill Annie and killing Daniel, because that was preying on innocents to satisfy his own desires. But he explicitly says that killing Sivo was different, because he was defending himself from a fellow warrior on the battlefield. That killing was done with a different intent, as was his killing Hetty. He did try to reason with her several times during the chapter. And, given his own time in prison, I doubt he thinks Court containment would be kinder than death. They'd probably just dissect or enslave her anyway; Renard only survived because he's a Person Of Interest and because they were hoping to save Sivo. I see it differently. Hetty's no threat to Renard, as far as we know; she's just a friend with issues. But he's just found out she's a threat to everybody else, and as her friend it's his duty to put her down. It's basically "Of Mice and Men" if George and Lennie were demon toys. I mean…Hetty is a child abuser and murderer who was actively preparing to finish off her second victim. Many, many humans would feel justified in personally executing a monster like that, whether or not you or I agree. Honestly, I think it's particularly human of Renard that he even cares about her crime. Most Forest animals would probably be like "wevs, cycle of life," and Ysengrin would have chuckled over idiot humans getting what they deserve. True, but we're getting into "justifiable" territory here. What if he goes after Kat for some reason? Maybe to punish Annie? Think she'll hold back? I don't. He keeps pushing and pushing...
Agreed. Loup's terrorized and displaced half the Court and the entire Forest, and brought lots of folks to the brink of death. Now he's stalking Annie at close range and tormenting her loved ones like a superpowered Lifetime villain. If she did decide to straight-up assassinate him it would be, at the least, very understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Jun 25, 2022 19:05:35 GMT
And, if you believe Coyote, even mandatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 25, 2022 19:29:26 GMT
And yet, he doesn't really learn the lesson! This scene is one of my favorites, because of how much it tell us about Renard. He's just visited Daniel's tomb, with such profound grief. He's just said how much he regrets trying to kill Annie. And then, he immediately goes for the kill. He could've gone to the Court with the case, asked help from Eggs to contain her, tried to convince her to stop being a psycho. But no, the first thing he does is be judge, jury and executioner, attack without a second thought that which he considers a threat... much like a wild animal would do. Because that's what he is. No matter how much he tries to associate with humans and be like them, by the end of the day he's still a wild animal.I... might've gotten a bit sidetracked here. Still, a point is made! It's not a unique trait to wild animals. Humans are the ones who have executions and big wars and mafias. I'd argue it's more human behavior than wild, to kill someone because you disagree with them. It's a point. I'd say executions and wars and disagreement are not the same as attacking someone that's directly threatening something you care about. I'd also say that humans can act like wild animals too, and that I'd like to think that the main attribute of humans is their ability of acting above their basic instincts and working out solutions with benefit to all parties involved, so when you say things like "mafia" and "wars", I choose to see those as very inhumane things. Renard regrets killing and trying to kill innocent people who had done nothing to him. He explicitly doesn't regret it because "killing is bad". In that same chapter, he said that killing Sivo was different; they were fighting, and he won. Hetty was not innocent. In fact, she was trying to kill someone who is. Renard wasn't any different from who he says he is in that scene, and no different from a human. Look at how the upstanding paragonic good guys solve their problems in the fiction we write: they kill the dragon. I have to ask, what was Hetty guilty of? She was definitely bullying a child, sure, and she strongly hinted to possible future murder attempts. She still hadn't done it though, had she? How bad were her actions, and how irreversible her intentions? Bad enough to have her condemned to burn to death on the spot, by a single person, without any chance to defend herself, or to change her attitudes, to somehow redeem herself? Humans have tribunals and legal processes for a reason. I'd say Renard was not acting like a human at all. And any human who was to do the same wouldn't be acting like a human either. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Jun 25, 2022 19:38:59 GMT
It's not a unique trait to wild animals. Humans are the ones who have executions and big wars and mafias. I'd argue it's more human behavior than wild, to kill someone because you disagree with them. It's a point. I'd say executions and wars and disagreement are not the same as attacking someone that's directly threatening something you care about. I'd also say that humans can act like wild animals too, and that I'd like to think that the main attribute of humans is their capacity of acting above their basic instincts and working out solutions with benefit to all parties involved, so when you say things like "mafia" and "wars", I choose to see those as very inhumane things. Renard regrets killing and trying to kill innocent people who had done nothing to him. He explicitly doesn't regret it because "killing is bad". In that same chapter, he said that killing Sivo was different; they were fighting, and he won. Hetty was not innocent. In fact, she was trying to kill someone who is. Renard wasn't any different from who he says he is in that scene, and no different from a human. Look at how the upstanding paragonic good guys solve their problems in the fiction we write: they kill the dragon. I have to ask, what was Hetty guilty of? She was definitely bullying a child, sure, and she strongly hinted to possible future murder attempts. She still hadn't done it though, had she? How bad were her actions, and how irreversible her intentions? Bad enough to have her condemned to burn to death on the spot, by a single person, without any chance to defend herself, or to change her attitudes, to somehow redeem herself? Humans have tribunals and legal processes for a reason. I'd say Renard was not acting like a human at all. And any human who was to do the same wouldn't be acting like a human either. She was a child-killer (Renard is too intelligent not to see 4 when Hetty alludes "2 + 2"), and Renard was the only person with that knowledge and the power to do anything about it. His inaction would have been virtually the same as consent. It's probably more justifiable that he killed her out of outrage than if he had done it by plan, in cold blood, sure. What would it mean for Renard to take on the responsibility of rehabilitating Hetty, anyway, and how deeply would he have to become entangled in her psychopathy? Their conversation suggests that he was almost too far down that road as it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 25, 2022 20:01:36 GMT
It's a point. I'd say executions and wars and disagreement are not the same as attacking someone that's directly threatening something you care about. I'd also say that humans can act like wild animals too, and that I'd like to think that the main attribute of humans is their capacity of acting above their basic instincts and working out solutions with benefit to all parties involved, so when you say things like "mafia" and "wars", I choose to see those as very inhumane things. I have to ask, what was Hetty guilty of? She was definitely bullying a child, sure, and she strongly hinted to possible future murder attempts. She still hadn't done it though, had she? How bad were her actions, and how irreversible her intentions? Bad enough to have her condemned to burn to death on the spot, by a single person, without any chance to defend herself, or to change her attitudes, to somehow redeem herself? Humans have tribunals and legal processes for a reason. I'd say Renard was not acting like a human at all. And any human who was to do the same wouldn't be acting like a human either. She was a child-killer... Possibly, but you're still assuming. There was no investigation, there was no tribunal, and even if there was she might not be condemned to death. Especially by fire. ...and Renard was the only person with that knowledge and the power to do anything about it. At the moment, yes. He was the first witness, let's say. Should the first witness to a crime be allowed to do whatever they think is "justice" at the moment, including killing the offender? By. FIRE? His inaction would have been virtually the same as consent. Not really, no. But I get what you're saying. Except inaction is absolutely not the same as "not killing that person on the spot". As I already said, there was N number of possible actions more humane then what he did. In fact, I'd like to think that most people wouldn't simply kill someone in the street as soon as they think the person could be dangerous, but would instead go to the police or something. It's probably more justifiable that he killed her out of outrage than if he had done it by plan, in cold blood, sure. What would it mean for Renard to take on the responsibility of rehabilitating Hetty, anyway, and how deeply would he have to become entangled in her psychopathy? It's justifiable for a wild animal. He acted by instinct and did the easiest thing instead of acting rationally and putting the effort for a solution that'd be better for everyone. Like a human should. In fact, he didn't even need to "become entangled" in anything. He just needed to point her to the right people. Much like when someone calls the police. |
|
|
|
Post by Angry Individual on Jun 25, 2022 22:15:32 GMT
Either way, I want to see where this is going to lead. Instead it leads to a scene change with Kat at the meeting. Then I will make the same face Annie is making. But then equally be as content because the machinations of the Court and learning about them are always a treat. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Jun 26, 2022 23:08:19 GMT
She was a child-killer... Possibly, but you're still assuming. There was no investigation, there was no tribunal, and even if there was she might not be condemned to death. Especially by fire. Renard was the tribunal, and performed the investigation. After all, he knows more about Hetty than the readers do. He's been acquainted with her for a while, and she's told him before about the "acts of unspeakable evil" she regularly performs. What he didn't know, before this chapter, was that she was targeting innocent children instead of fighting back against cruel captors. Having established that, he casually interrogates her and finds out that she's doing this for pleasure and feels zero remorse about it. So...what's left, really? As for the punishment, again, the Court's either going to kill her or do something worse than death. They're certainly not going to rehabilitate her; they can't even provide decent psych services for their human residents, much less some random murderdemon. FWIW, Renard didn't kill Hetty by fire. He used the fire to force her to leave the doll--which she was already starting to do before the match even landed--and then killed her by standard canine bite-and-shake. Presumably the initial burn was painful, but after screaming once she followed up with "You idiot! How could you!", which doesn't sound like she was experiencing terrible pain and fear. Compared to Annie, who literally maims and kills her opponents by burning them, Renard is mercy incarnate. I would say that depends very much on whether the local police are accessible and trustworthy. Court law enforcement is mostly invisible, and...well, consider the human lawbreakers we've met so far, like Annie, Jack, Kat, Tony and Zimmy. Would you say that the Court has done a good job of detecting, trying and sentencing any of them? I'm pretty sure that Renard would not. Plus, Renard and Hetty are not Court citizens. Renard's a prisoner, Hetty's an undocumented alien, and both are nonhuman and therefore non-persons as far as the Court's concerned. There is zero reason to think the Court would respect their rights or protect their welfare. Finally, Annie is essentially Renard's parole officer, and if Renard brought this to the Court's attention it would place Annie at risk. There would be lots of difficult questions about how long Renard's been consorting with rogue etherics without telling anybody, and why Annie had no idea this was going on, and so forth. But Renard is the right people. Not only is he a fellow etheric trapped in the Court, he's the crown prince and vice-administrator of the Forest, Coyote's literal heir apparent. If he and Hetty were back in the Forest it would be his job to sit in judgment of her. And by virtue of his personality and mythic history, he is vastly more likely than Coyote or Ysengrin to give Hetty anything approaching a "fair trial" and appropriate punishment in a human sense. Coyote's complete legal process looks like this. There is nobody around more suited to judge and punish Hetty than Renard, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by stevecharb on Jun 27, 2022 2:15:41 GMT
Can Renard take over Loup's body?
|
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 27, 2022 2:25:49 GMT
Can Renard take over Loup's body? According to Word of Tom, he wouldn't be able to take Coyote's body, so we assume he probably can't take Loup's body either. |
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Jun 27, 2022 6:04:59 GMT
Can Renard take over Loup's body? According to Word of Tom, he wouldn't be able to take Coyote's body, so we assume he probably can't take Loup's body either. Hmmm. Not entirely sure that follows? Coyote really seems to be a special case. I'm not sure his body is/was flesh even, based on how dynamic his form was. Loup seems to be in a physical wolf body, more or less. Which started out as Ysengrin's body, before he killed and ate Coyote. Never been quite sure what happened at that point.
Maybe I'm wrong though. He did seem to shape-shift into Jerrek when he started that whole thing, and now he's using a lot more of Coyote's powers. So maybe he has no more of a static physical form than Coyote did, and just doesn't morph it as much?
I guess we won't know for sure unless he (Renard) tries it. Or Tom speaks. He might try it though, to help Annie not have to do the deed. She's probably getting pretty close to being willing to take him out after what he did to Renard's fox body, BUT, she also knows Ysengrin is in there somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Jun 27, 2022 18:16:30 GMT
Loup: "How dare Annie comfort Reynard after I punished him!" I wonder if some of this is Jerrek's little infatuation with Annie leaking through a bit, with Jerloup being irritated at Annie's affection for rival Rey.... |
|
