The whole idea of these vows are absolutely ridiculous. So what? It’s more honorable to say nothing for the time being and let it play out? Yeah, no I don’t think so.
Agreed. Better a moral person than an honourable one. A moral person would break an oath if the alternative did more damage, and face the consequences of that.
However if you can enforce your morality WITH honor then you can gain more in both. I’m thinking that Then is nowhere near as crafty as Scar is. Which is why Then thinks he is sneaky having Pohl being the witness and hitting two birds with one stone. But that might just be the final nail in his coffin because as a doctor now in the human realm he had to take the Hippocratic Oath to “Do no harm.” That might end up being Then’s downfall
True, very true, honour can be a guide to morality. But it can’t be allowed to constrain it– and honour can even be inverted against morality (“Honour amongst thieves”).
But yes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with Pohl.
So this is why Then thought Pohl would be a harder sell than Scar. He assumed that Scar, having already done evil things in the past, would be less resistant to doing so again.
So the real question is, is the vow in some way supernaturally compelling? Like, is there a magical component (break vow and die) or a mythological component (break vow and the Frenzy will bring you lethal bad luck), or is it merely honor-bound?
Because this is reminding me of Piers Anthony’s work, where on more than one occasion a villain extracted a promise from a hero, chiefly IIRC “don’t escape” or “don’t tell anyone”, and the hero would be wangsting all over the place going “oh I wish I could stop his Nefarious Plan before it kills all those orphans, but you see I GAVE MY WORD, and as our fantasy culture has no concept of Coercion or the fact that giving one’s word under duress does not, in fact, bind you to keep your word, I shall have to sit here and cry about it instead.”
Always thought that was the dumbest thing. Giving your word under duress, or giving it because the villain manipulated you in bad faith (“there’s nobody in there; swear not to stop me destroying that building” “okay I swear” “haha I lied, all the orphans are in the basement but you can’t stop me from destroying the building because you pinky-promised!”), does not bind you to that vow.
Maybe I’m just exhausted from the horrible week I’ve had, but in the second panel..
Is it just me, or does Then look.. regretful? Maybe I’m just a sucker for a really well written double agent, but I want to believe that Then genuinely wants what is best for the Sarnothi people and their relations with humans. He stated that he’s made promises even he can’t talk about under Vow, which to me sounds like world power leaders. What if he had to make certain concessions to secure even a scrap of guaranteed help for his people, and he is now precariously juggling what is essentially roaring chainsaws while walking a tightrope over a fiery field filled with spikes? One wrong move and he’s done for, but if he pulls it off…
Ugh.
The whole idea of these vows are absolutely ridiculous. So what? It’s more honorable to say nothing for the time being and let it play out? Yeah, no I don’t think so.
Agreed. Better a moral person than an honourable one. A moral person would break an oath if the alternative did more damage, and face the consequences of that.
However if you can enforce your morality WITH honor then you can gain more in both. I’m thinking that Then is nowhere near as crafty as Scar is. Which is why Then thinks he is sneaky having Pohl being the witness and hitting two birds with one stone. But that might just be the final nail in his coffin because as a doctor now in the human realm he had to take the Hippocratic Oath to “Do no harm.” That might end up being Then’s downfall
True, very true, honour can be a guide to morality. But it can’t be allowed to constrain it– and honour can even be inverted against morality (“Honour amongst thieves”).
But yes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with Pohl.
welcome to what its like having a security clearance.
So this is why Then thought Pohl would be a harder sell than Scar. He assumed that Scar, having already done evil things in the past, would be less resistant to doing so again.
Then thought wrong then 😉
Arrgh, only after posting I realize it would be funnier as “Then Then thought wrong” 🙁
So the real question is, is the vow in some way supernaturally compelling? Like, is there a magical component (break vow and die) or a mythological component (break vow and the Frenzy will bring you lethal bad luck), or is it merely honor-bound?
Because this is reminding me of Piers Anthony’s work, where on more than one occasion a villain extracted a promise from a hero, chiefly IIRC “don’t escape” or “don’t tell anyone”, and the hero would be wangsting all over the place going “oh I wish I could stop his Nefarious Plan before it kills all those orphans, but you see I GAVE MY WORD, and as our fantasy culture has no concept of Coercion or the fact that giving one’s word under duress does not, in fact, bind you to keep your word, I shall have to sit here and cry about it instead.”
Always thought that was the dumbest thing. Giving your word under duress, or giving it because the villain manipulated you in bad faith (“there’s nobody in there; swear not to stop me destroying that building” “okay I swear” “haha I lied, all the orphans are in the basement but you can’t stop me from destroying the building because you pinky-promised!”), does not bind you to that vow.
I think it’s a supernatural thing, yeah, considering they’re Echoes.
Then isn’t am Echo though
Maybe I’m just exhausted from the horrible week I’ve had, but in the second panel..
Is it just me, or does Then look.. regretful? Maybe I’m just a sucker for a really well written double agent, but I want to believe that Then genuinely wants what is best for the Sarnothi people and their relations with humans. He stated that he’s made promises even he can’t talk about under Vow, which to me sounds like world power leaders. What if he had to make certain concessions to secure even a scrap of guaranteed help for his people, and he is now precariously juggling what is essentially roaring chainsaws while walking a tightrope over a fiery field filled with spikes? One wrong move and he’s done for, but if he pulls it off…
Damn, what a helluva trick!
To me he just looks mad.
I really feel like Scar should have beaten Then within an inch of his life for trying to use children as leverage.
Yeah, looks mad to me to, maybe with a smidge of frustration, due to more push back than he was expecting.
Say, when Then said he’d “take the kids off the table”… was he talking about all underaged Echoes, or just about Selkie and Amanda, specifically?
Because there appears to have been at least one kid among the recent escapees (possibly as many as four if I’m reading the picture right).
Looking at Scar’s comment, Pohl and Scar have vowed not to reveal Then’s plans. There is nothing in the vow about working against the plan.