Some background on Equestria's Changeling Queen and the Abyssal Empress's Inspiration and upon Cultural Relativism · 7:28am Apr 6th, 2016
Now, I'm completely aware ECQ&tAE is not as popular as PC:TCQ and frankly has aroused a lot of criticism, particularly my choice of villain and... well what they are.
Also, now that we know more about them, I've heard things from, "They can't possibly need to eat meat of sapients" to "it makes no sense why they take a 1000 year old treaty as valid" to "they're murderers".
And I'm fine with that. Well... some of it anyway. Here's why.
The kelpies were never meant to be the likable villain such as the changelings. They were meant to be an interesting antagonist, a truly problematic antagonist because of how much problems they cause. They are also an interesting villain because of their nature. Some people and Equestrians, might think they are evil, but from their perspective, their actions are legitimate because of how their society works and also because of what they know. In their view, they are the heroes and they are completely justified in their actions. I can't say much, but as one can tell from their society, it appears to value honor, but also seems built around the fact that they need to eat sapient flesh. They have reasons for why they saw the ponies as ignoring them, and for why they didn't believe the surface worlders story... which to them sounds preposterous, until they got more evidence.
This whole miscommunication between the kelpies and Equestrians and their completley different views and responses to the situation, as well as the different ways they interpret these actions as morale, illustrates a key issue in our modern day world...
Cultural Relativism: This is "the principle that an individual person's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture." (wikipedia) it is one of the CORE tenets of our society. It's why people believe LGBTQ people have the right to marriage, why people should be allowed their own choice of abortion according to whether they believe it or not, it's why we believe we respect all religions even if we disagree with them.
Here's a problem though, if we pride ourselves on adhering to cultural relativism, to respecting that an individual person's beliefs and actions should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture, which could include values, practices, and traditions... when can we apply this principle, and what happens when applying that principle becomes... inconvenient to us?
Case in point, this story. It's why I'm fine with people not liking the kelpies, though I wish an effort can be made to understand their POV. It's because this story was meant to arise questions and reactions regarding this principle of cultural relativism.
The kelpies are harming the Equestrians and it's definitely fine for one to hate them for that, but from their point of view, they are perfectly legitimate. From the Equestrian's point of view, ... from our point of view... are they? If we go by the principle of cultural relativism, everybody should understand that what the kelpies are doing is legitimate, because according to their society and beliefs, they're not doing anything wrong. They clearly pride honor or at least a very strict sense of justice, and so when treaties are broken, they will uphold them regardless (they continued to preserve trade routes) but they will mete out retribution to those who break them, even if the wording seems absurd to Equestria and us in our modern context. As they have to eat the flesh of sapients , (more details to come on that) their war also satisfies that need and is legitimate because its providing for their kind and preventing the kelpies from turning onto the seaponies (why would they turn on the seaponies? Now that is the question XD).
Yet, its also natural to hate the kelpies. They kill to survive, they essentially are cannibals and they have done a lot of damage. They for some reason took the words of a 1000 year old treaty as law. Its hard to like the kelpies. More often than not, their actions are hateful. Heck, considering their feeding habits... it can be near impossible to like them.
But to refuse to try to understand them, hate them, to regard them as monsters because of what they are, of what they believe in, because of their culture and because of their feeding habits which they have no choice in? Wouldn't that be suspending the principle of Cultural Relativism our modern society believes in with such pride?
This principle, of cultural relativism, was what this story was made to question and to make people think about. Can cultural relativism be morale, be ethical, in all situations, especially when it isn't convenient for us? And we encounter this question more often than one thinks.
When we look at historical cultures such as the Aztecs, who sacrificed humans... were the Spanish right in wiping them out to the last man through guns, steel and disease? I mean, the Aztecs were barbaric, and flat out wrong, but does that warrant the destruction of an entire culture?
When we look at Polygamous cultures... we get a knee jerk EEW reaction, but to polygamous cultures, multiple spouses is natural. In fact, they'd think our monagomous culture is weird... and us vice versa. So... who is right here? And who gets to judge? Or does nobody get to judge? This is a relatively minor issue... However...
When we look at Sharia law in certain Muslim countries... a cultural law, that makes Muslim women clothe themselves, and not being able to go out without a male relative... that sounds barbaric in our western senses, but it's their culture, it's what they see as normal and right. Do we have a right to say to them that it is barbaric? But at the same time... such a practice IS barbaric to us, and yet we, as people who abide by cultural relativism, should respect this... right?
When religion and secular society interact with one another. Are religious people allowed to use laws to dictate society according to their principles? Or should secular society be allowed to do its own thing because they don't believe in that religion?... even if what they they are wrong according to the religious person's religious principles? And is it wrong for that religious person to vote to impose a religious principle over secular society... if she or he is expressing his or her own belief?
Questions and more questions abound, but while I don't know if I have an answer to it, I hope that the growing dilemma in Equestria's Changeling Queen and the Abyssal Empress will make the reader think not just about what happens in the story, but the theme it revolves around.
Yours sincerely,
vren55
Point #1: do the Kelpies de-value the rights of those they eat?
Point #2: is there any conceivable way for Kelpies to 'go vegan' to use Ms. Myers' term from those books?
Point #3: did Gryphons once go through a similar 'Equitarian' cultural phase, and do some individuals still 'practice tradition'?
Point #4: did/do the Gryphons de-value the rights of those they eat?
Honestly, from a biological standpoint, a diet that is as restrictive as "sapients" would result in kelpies dwindling over time to the point of extinction. This is assuming that other sapient species are making concerted efforts to avoid being consumed and progressively becoming more technologically advanced. Ponies armed with modern ballistic weaponry are ponies that kelpies would die trying to feed upon.
Barring individuals being captured via ambush and whatnot, in the near future kelpies would see the sapient food supply rapidly dwindle to nothingness as their prey has "evolved" past their capability to hunt it. As a result, most of the kelpie population would die off from starvation.
That all said, the exceptions to this outcome would likely come as follows:
1. There is a sapient species that can be fed upon, that either accepts being prey or is unable to technologically develop to a point where they can effectively resist.
2. Single sapient individuals can provide sufficient nourishment to large portions of the population at a time. (e.g. 1 adult pony would provide sustenance for 100 kelpies for a week.) There would still be challenges as sapient technology develops, but it's a fair assumption that the other species "can't save everyone".
3. Kelpies obtain an alternate food source that meets their dietary needs and does not provide the challenges that their current prey does.
As someone who spent the majority of his early life traveling abroad, I can understand how people can simply fail to grasp the idea of foreign cultures that are so different from what is known and accepted. It's easier to assume something is bad because you don't understand it.
Such a cultural misunderstanding and lack of effort to establish common ground is essentially what led to the Japanese attack on the US in 1941. The inability to accept cultural differences and take steps necessary towards mutual understanding made the war inevitable. It no longer became a matter of 'if', but 'when'.
Cultural relativity is BS in this situation, because of their need for murder and cannibalism. You can talk all you want to about the aspects of cultural relativity less horrible than human sacrifice and abortion, because those two are the only things near to the horror of cannibalism. Cannibalism is either inexcusable or unsustainable, and so the Kelpies as you've depicted them are most likely inexcusable. I wouldn't advocate genocide, but I wish you'd consider fixing them.
on the
moral
Also Kelpies FTW!
Ethical relativism as applied to cultures is most definitely not a core tenet of our society. In fact, it is pretty well established that it's a pretty awful way of determining the ethical value of actions. It is important to understand that relativism is not tolerance. It is the idea that the ethical value of actions is mostly or entirely dependent on the culture that they are taken in. This position is logically inconsistent over time and fails when you consider that every culture has sub-cultures. This then requires you to define how large a group has to be to be considered a 'culture', which is an arbitrary definition that will quickly be reduced down to one with any argument.
To the point on Cultural Relativism: Nobody is perfect, but some cultures are inferior because of stupid ideas that endanger the lives of people.
Cultural Relativism is all well and good now, but honestly, some cultures are just better than others. If the culture in question either inherently puts people's lives in danger or purposely treats parts of it's own population as inferiors, than I'm sorry, but I don't give shit about your culture.
This video states what I think pretty well.
One more thing.
It may be part of who they are, but that doesn't mean I can't hate them for it. If someone is trying to rip out my throat, I couldn't care less if they don't have a choice. Just as they have a right to kill to eat in their culture, I have a right to defend myself and not die in mine. This is why people are finding it so easy to actively despise the Kelpies and why I find it so mind-boggling why Alternia is trying so hard to find a peaceful resolution when it's clear the Kelpies aren't a peaceful people. Considering how easy it was to set them off the first time, I can see them getting into another conflict in the future quite quickly.
3851344 and do u also blame the falcon for feasting on the field mouse? if a culture functions, then there is no 'better' culture, more advanced perhaps, but not better. every culture has its good points and its bad one, this is the very nature of the world in which we live. to say anything is 'good' or 'evil' is a fallacy. for good and evil do not truely exist, they r but human constructs, imposed on the world by human perspective.
all things that exist in this, or any other world, must always be in Balance...against other concepts of their world...and against themselves. this is a truth that i have seen in the world, that all things have two faces, two distinct aspects of personality. distinct, yet relying on the other for their very existence. light and shadow, male and female, yin and yang...Infinity and Silence. two sides of the same coin all of them, opposing the other, yet existing in harmony. where there is light, there will always be shadows, must always be shadows. and the stronger the light the deeper the shadows.
so it is with the Kelpies, for reasons unknown to us at this time, they must consume sentient flesh and while we might find such practices abhorrent and a sign of blackened hearts...it is natural to them, natural and good. we cannot blame them for their very nature, to do so is to blame ourselves for our own nature. the Falcon feasting upon the Field Mouse. the world is Balance, and Balance is the world...take of that what u will,
I like the kelpies. I mean, not in the sense that I'm rooting for them, but they have a very interesting perspective and make the story fun to read.
Frankly, we still don't know enough about the Kelpies for me to make an informed decision about them.
1: we still don't know how often they have to eat, being a magical species
2: we don't know if sapient meat is the sole component to their diet or if they can supplement it with normal foods
3: we don't know their cultural views about the beings they eat
4: we don't know the consequences of them not eat sapients
5: we don't know if they can eat any sapient or not, which might leave the many animals of the Everfree (already prey animals) who show signs of sapience the way Angel does. Or if he's not from the Everfree, wherever he came from would likely have a ton of equally tasty technically sapient prey animals.
3851190 The difference with gryphons is that they don't actually need to eat sapient creatures, they can get by just fine on fish, or non sapient animals. Heck, if they are omnivorous, like us, they can even get by on vegetables.
Absolute cultural relativism is a horrible idea. I prefer simple timetable with the caveat that you don't harm others.
And, besides, you should anyways adhere to the cultural laws of the locals of you choose to go to their lands. This makes kelpies hunting at sea understandable, but not them going out on land to hunt down their prey.
Plus, with how completely reliant on their natural abilities and stagnant Aquestria's culture is, their did supply will continue to dwindle as the other races come up with better and better ways to combat them.
3851250
That video lays out pretty much every major point on the subject, so I'll simply add that while a perfect culture is likely impossible (hell the word Utopia literally means 'nowhere') but some cultures are provably better than others.
The standard I use is 'How free is an individual within the culture to fulfill their values, and what protections does an individual have to prevent others from interfering with the fulfillment of their values. When values conflict, does the culture work to create a compromise.' Apply this standard to the U.S. and it scores pretty well, apply it to say, Iran or North Korea, and they flunk pretty damn hard.
Now as to your Polygamy example, that is an example of compromise. If all members of such a relationship are truly consenting adults, then their would be no issue, but historically it has so often been used as a form of enslavement and domination of women that the cultural compromise has come out against it. That being said, such groups are still free to live together as if they were married, they just can't enter into the legal marriage contract with more than one partner.
On the other hand your support for the oppression of women under Sharia Law is rather worrying. Western society may not be able to afford to play world cop and go stop it, but the brainwashing and subjugation of women in Muslim countries where they are little more than property is a horror our culture has advanced past, and it is right and proper that we be horrified by it. It is important that we tell them they are wrong and show them by example how much better things can be, so their own barbarism is made plain to them.
Recently, ISIS executed a 15 year old boy in a town square by beheading for listening to Western pop music in Iraq. Take a look at that crowd doing nothing against the relatively few armed guys. That is what happens when a monstrous culture like this festers.
Of course the best way to take it down often isn't with direct violence, but with the export of our own culture. The more women in Muslim dominated countries who see that Western women are free to be actual people rather than a pseudo slave/cattle underclass, the more likely they are to subtly teach their children to support going against their culture. The more 15 year old boys who grow up listening to Western music, the more they will begin to wonder if maybe they should question the laws and traditions of their own culture.
Long story short, Cultural Relativism is not something we pride ourselves on, it is a bad thing. It is one thing to preserve a culture's stories or music, it is another to claim their horrific actions are 'just a part of their culture,' and not put pressure on them to shape up. When one culture scores say, a 70/100 and another scores a 14/100, the 70 doesn't have to pretend that the 14 is somehow equal to it, that math doesn't pan out.
3851875
Honestly, my view is, as per my beliefs: "If it harms none, do what you will." Which (heh!) means one must take oneself into account for that sociological equation.
3852336 That makes a lot of sense... Granted that doesn't mean others' actions are legitimized by that logic ("right" and "wrong" are objective, not subjective), but as long as it isn't attempting to infringe on others' lives it's not within our own rights to punish them for it, and DEFINITELY not within our rights to look down on them as people due to that one issue.
That being said, there are some beliefs that are inherently oppressive, such as Sharia law (heck, it specifically calls for the death of any who refuse to convert to Islam), so one cannot claim that a culture isn't entirely immoral simply because it's a different culture than yours.
All in all, this topic is quite the balancing act even for true Evangelical Christians, and that set of beliefs is the most inclusive without being hypocritical at any point that I've seen!
To be blunt and a little pithy, ponies should respect the kelpie's "culture" of eating other sapients exactly as far as the kelpies respect the ponies' (And other sapients') "culture" of not being eaten.
If a way can be found to feed the kelpies without killing sapients or putting unreasonable demands upon other nations, go for it. If not, then you've built a situation where the two groups are completely incompatible and are going to have to clash to survive.
Given that what little we've seen of the kelpies raises questions about their motivations and reasoning, and that their leader seems particularly vicious if not outright unhinged, it's unsurprising that people find the ponies more sympathetic. The talk of cultural relativism seems to be completely missing the point, in that it doesn't really change anything.
3851198
Like this?
Note: historically, allowing free exercise of religion did not come from postmodern ideas of cultural relativity, but was popularized and pioneered in law largely by extremely religious, relatively homogenous (by modern standards) settlers in America, who took the idea of objective truth in religion and philosophy very seriously. Let's keep things accurate, shall we?
3852900 ??? How was I inaccurate?
3852916 Well, you strongly implied that cultural relativism is an essential idea to enable respect for others' beliefs. That's not the case. And in America at least, that role was ably filled centuries before by a sharply-opposed ideology. If anything, it would be more accurate historically to consider cultural relativism a quirky outgrowth of (among other things) that original idea of religious liberty — an alternate way to justify maintaining the same ideals without having to use the same base. (Ethical backwards compatibility is fascinating.)
3853045 Huh, didn't know that. I mean, I would have thought that America still has issues with cultural relativism even today... i mean the country has operated (still does) by the longest time by a melting pot immigration idea, which focuses on assimilation versus cultural respect. Granted, I am NOT an american historian, so I'm likely wrong, but I've never heard of what you talked about so, if I did imply that, it's because I didn't know.
3851875 I agree... The kelpie's solution is shortsighted. As their "food" learn to combat them efficiently, in the long term they will run out of victims to consume. Once their food supplies began to dwindle, there is no doubt they will eventually feed on the sea ponies. Once that happens, how will this affect the long term survival of the kelpies? Not only that, families of the victim... seeking kelpies to exterminate, angered because a loved one was consumed painfully alive.
I doubt very much the sea ponies will submissively allow that to happen; there will fight back & probably brutally. I wonder if that is what Tethys meant of a "blood bath". Whatever substance stabilizes the kelpie's mind by consuming a live sapient being, the kelpies go mad when they lack that substance, & then they attack the sea ponies to acquire that substance. So the sea ponies fight back & hard, hence the "blood bath".
3853109 Sure, but at the very beginning, it was English Protestants, mostly of sects that thought the Anglican Church was far too loosey-goosey. Then it broadened a bit to include German Protestants of a different strain, and so on, and so forth. By the time things got so far as to include Irish Catholics, of all horrendously different people, the general mindset was still pretty firmly "You can believe what you like, even if it's quite wrong", rather than "You can believe what you like, because I couldn't possibly say you're wrong". (And by that time, laws for religious liberty were centuries old.)
3851198 The only way kelpies will survive will be in tiny pockets of feral kelpies. But then they will slowly dwindle away, even if there is a sapient species that is unable to technologically resist, it will eventually, especially if they receive help by others that can.
Assuming that cultural/ethical relativism is a virtue is a mistake in my book, not to be disrespectful and to get my opinion out there.
As for the point; the kelpies are militarily in trouble regardless of their terrifying victories so far. If they can only survive by eating sapients, as has been put, they're going to struggle. They cannot hope to invade and conquer Equestria, and judging by The Three Port Strikes chapter, there's only a limited number of them. They may have gotten a "Pearl Harbor" in, but clearly their productive capacity is far inferior. Equestria and whoever allies with them can afford to suffer numerous defeats, while the allied powers can just keep coming. If they don't try to negotiate and find some way to survive other than eating other people, they're going down. As I said, their successes so far have been terrifying, and what they did is a horror story in itself. But once you get past the terror and continue the fight, things are going to look different...
3853237
3853441
You know, I'd have thought you lot would have learned by now not to underestimate things. Seriously how many times does it take of people "Things are like this!" in the story only to be proven wrong later on to get the point across. You think Tethys doesn't realize that? Do you really think any given leader only has ONE FREAKING PLAN! Tethys now has a way to tell what the Changeling queens are saying to one another. She's wiped out Equestria's Eastern Fleet. Funny thing is, if she wanted an sustainable feeding resource, she'd have let them continue sending ships. Instead she's wiped out the fleet and handicapped their production facilities. That buys her time and not one of you are asking why.
3853318
cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-11-2015/ytSJap.gif
Typhon, a kelpie, was born from a sea pony. This isn't a separate species. The kelpies are a type of sea pony.
3851237 What do you mean by "fixing"? I mean... it's their design that they have to eat sapients. I honestly don't see what's wrong with that. Sure, it ain't pretty, but they're like werewolves from Harry Potter. They ain't got a choice to change into werewolves. The kelpies here ain't got a choice about their diet.
3851935 *Bliiinks*
I never said I supported women under Sharia law. I just pointed out that on one hand, people see it as barbaric ( I think its oppressive certainly), on the other hand, people have grown up that way and they're not going to take kindly to people just telling them what to do.
Also, you do realize that the export of our own culture is essentially promoting Assimilation? Which is something that is known to destroy cultures without actually doing much for it. We see its results in the US with its melting pot system wherein everybody has to be American... but at the same time due to race, there are such things as people being treated as secondary americans, aka Blacks. We also have seen it destory the First nations (indians) way of life and how they literally... have been culturally disconnected to the point that many have no idea what to do in our society.
Frankly, we do support cultural relativism, at least to some degree and if we don't support it to some degree, there are problems. Without the concept of respect for other cultures and religions, we slip into the mentality that allows people to enforce their culture over others, that judges one culture as inferior and therefore, should be eliminated. AKA Imperialism, the Europeans exported their culture to some benefits, but also to some disastrous consequences. Former colonies in Asia, Africa, and heck even America (north and south) are suffering from it today, as it has some ridiculously terrible effects. The whole Rwanda genocide can be attributed in part to the exportation of European ideals and cultures onto the Rwandan population.
Do we support cultural relativism all the way, of course not, and should we? that is the question. In what situations is it ethical to allow it, and when is it not?That's what the fic was meant to bring up, not really to give an answer. Personally, I agree, some cultures have barbaric practices and those practices shoudl be judged as such, but is it necessary for elimination of cultures? Especially when that culture arises out of need?
Questions and more questions.
3853614 I don't feel that I've been proven wrong. I kinda saw that the kelpies somehow need to devour sentient being to keep them from becoming "mad". I know that kelpies are sea ponies, albeit a very dangerous variety, hence why I suspected kelpies are cannibalistic. When they can't find any other form of sapient beings to devour, the sea ponies are then in their menu. vren55's post kinda confirmed my impression of the kelpies. Kelpies & sea ponies are related but still different species.
Yes, I'm aware that Prince Typhon was born of a sea pony Empress Samudra. From early on I understood that the late Empress was a sea pony & was imprisoning the kelpies. So my impression is that Typhon is a hybrid, but more kelpie then sea pony, therefore he has the need to devour live sapient beings. The sea ponies are related to kelpies, but still a distinct species & it seems the sea ponies are not afflicted by that condition that affects the kelpies. Typhon doesn't like that they have that need, he was kinda admonished for not "eating" & obviously doesn't like the war.
The only danger the sea ponies face is the pollution, but that has a remedy since the princesses now are aware of that mistake to allow the contamination to pollute the sea. But the sea ponies main danger are the kelpies, so it's understandable why they fight alongside the kelpies. Both the kelpies & sea ponies have the same goals
I'm commenting the long term survival of the kelpies if they cannot find an alternate source of food that will keep them from going mad, especially if things start to go bad for the kelpies.
3851344 3851250 I definitely agree that Sh*tting in public and raping boys, sucking babies penises, eating tiger penises, slavery (OH DEFINITELY), and everything the video listed is definitely a terrible thing, and that those cultural practices are just downright wrong... not to mention disturbing.
Heck, I can even get behind that the Western culture, is pretty damn good. It IS the best.
But again, the question remains here, is that while some cultural practices are definitely barbaric, what is our thought process for judging them. Why should certain cultures just die and why should certain cultures live? Just what makes them barbaric? Cultural relativism has to survive to some degree, or by the logic of "west is best" we might as well resort to the old days of imperialism... actually relatively new days too, where European and the USA simply imposed their culture on others... with disastrous consequences not only for other cultures in Africa and Asia, but also for the home countries who... well they should be ashamed of what they did in the imperial times because cultural genocide, assimilation, annihilation of indigenous populations based on the idea that their culture was inferior, which it was of course, but does it justify genocide.
And when, at least in this story, that practice, is related to biological need... are that species, the Aquestrians, because heck Typhon as born from a seapony mother, inferior?
Food for thought. If certain cultures are inferior, then what to do about them? XD
3851935
If you read your own link, you'd know that incident pissed off the entire town. As for rushing armed men, no matter how few, that is a good way to die. Seriously, automatic weapons are a thing and there are probably more ISIS members present than made evident by that picture. All they have to do to kill dozens is hold the trigger and sweep the crowd. And you never know, these bastards might have explosive vests on. You're holding an incident caused by zealots as a norm for an entire people, despite the fact the act enraged the community for it's barbarity. You are being dishonest as fuck.
3853686 Typhon's not a hybrid, he's a kelpie, born from a seapony.
3853691 The thought process on judging a culture is extremely complicated and really is based on majority opinion at the time. What the people view as right and wrong. Of course, there in lies the problem. As you can say that the majority only think that way due to it being their culture. After which you'll just get into an endless loop.
Ultimately, the way I see it, it comes down to influence. Undoubtedly, the best way to tell whether or not a culture is superior or inferior is if it survives. If a culture is inferior, it will eventually die out. That may sound a little Darwin, but it's the truth. It just depends on if the people willingly leave it, if the culture itself ends up changing over time to the point it's unrecognizable, or if a new one is forced by outside factors.
3853713
Interesting... I took the idea of hybrids since Typhon was born from a sea pony, & the sea ponies are Typhon's subjects. So I naturally thought hybrid. Then the situation is even more monstrous. Cannibalism through & through if the kelpies go mad. Sound like a sort of curse...
I once entertained an idea to myself that sea ponies & kelpies something akin to Jekyll & Hyde. Sea ponies are what they are after they fed on a victim, while kelpies are sea ponies turned monstrous that are yet to feed. But of course that was just my idea I kept to myself.
3853626 They need the choice. A werewolf has a choice about whether or not he stays inside, in most situations. Cannibalism... Let me break out my Skyrim ethics for this one. The only acceptable sapients to consume are the ones who'd be considered monsters in their own right. Even that statement makes me uncomfortable. Since you seem to be the type to use moral relativism for the kelpies, I somewhat doubt that's the case.
3853237 Yep. Not only that, but their current victories were always in water or in cramped ships in water. Now imagine them trying to raid the griffon lands and suddenly they're against an entire race of fast, agile and strong fliers armed in natural sharp talons, claws and beak and whatever weapons they designed (and griffins strike me as the type to design good guns}, possibly magic (dunno if they have magic in this verse) and outnumbering them greatly and fighting on home turf. Their chances at successful raids are suddenly much lower, not to mention the fact that I don't think griffins would mind snacking on them after what they did to part of their fleet.
3853777
Uh no, they don't need the choice, in fact, give them the choice on whether to eat sapients or not with how I've currently written them and they turn int a whole new level of monster. That by no mean fixes them.
Also, I don't know what definition of werewolf you're going, but I'm going by Harry Potter (as I stated) and they got no choice whether or not to stay inside.
This is the design of the villain, you're not supposed to like them, you are supposed to feel uncomfortable or dislike them. This is just me trying to get people to think about why do they dislike this villain... when they don't exactly have unjustifiable reasons for trying to survive.
3853727 Finally someone gets what I've been hinting at! And yeah, your solution seems darwinian... but frankly its what we do actually and unfortunately, there have been consequences :P.
3853698 Annnd for some reason you got three downvotes for pointing out the truth. Wowzers internet, and fimfiction's downvote system, make me feel so welcome.
3854236 I think I'll live somehow. People apparently don't like having their bullshit pointed out.
3854226 I dislike them because they have to murder and cannibalize to survive, and I can't enjoy that. Considering they may or may not be so selective with their prey, I also predict I'll continue to at least be uncomfortable with them. Also, they majorly affect how much I can enjoy this. I wanted to love this, but I can't.
3854236
3854405 I don't think it's because he pointed it out, but rather the way he did it. More particularly, that ending statement. No offense Zervziel, but you are a bit more...abrasive than vren55. Also, sorry, but one those down votes were mine. It was pretty late last night and I was really groggy when I read your post. Again, sorry about that.
3854786 No need to apologize. I honestly stopped caring about downvotes a long time ago.
3854574 Then why are you still here? You've been making it clear you don't like the story with the kelpies for almost three days now. I mean we're not gonna change this.
3855118 Good question. I remember, sort of, how the situation in PC:TCQ got changed. I almost couldn't take that either. Also, I've seen it implied that the kelpies are low in number. It could be that they follow my standards, as much as they could.
3855593
You have any idea of how self centered that sounds?
3857302
Well I certainly felt it sounded quite self-centered to the point I actually got a little annoyed at that.
3857302 Yeah, it's self centered to enjoy specific things, and we're all bad for it.
3858144 Its fine to enjoy things that you like according to your standards... its just it feels like through your comments your'e attempting to impose your opinions... which are opinions, on me, which therefore feels rude. Not to say you are rude, but it comes across as that way.
3889999 Sorry 'bout that. I've had a realization that it isn't so great to pass along my feelings when they're that strong. I've been shooting to impress all my pain onto writers that inflame it... And that's disgustingly hurtful. I need to learn to be less vengeful.
3890424 That's fine, as long as you recognize that :)
3854786 Reason I appear less abrasive is that I try to be as academic as i can with my comments as possible and follow Voltaire's principle regarding opinions. Aka, the one where I defend a person's right to say the opinion even if I disagree with it. I'm also very very careful as to what I say because i try to be a nice guy when I can.
Of course, that doesn't mean I'll just let insults and readers ordering me to do something by which some people have been intentionally doing (grrrr....) and if I strongly disagree with things i go down to down with it in an academic manner... by countering with my own opinion. But again, I try to keep in mind I cna't argue ppl down (I know due to past experience)... just point out what I think is wrong with their arguments. Key point being, I think, not what it is because I know it's my opinion.
Zerv is a bit more expressive and believes in the value of blunt honesty and less subtly, though believe me, I feel as frustrated as him sometime and go REALLY passive aggressive.