**Spoilers** Why Not Revive Statesman With A Ritual?

If I die with a smile on my face, please bring me back.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Note that Statesman's death is a part of *fiction* and determined by a *fictional* universe's owner, who has made it VERY clear what is meant and intended. Someone IRL who's just shot on the street or whatnot would likely have a passer-by (someone not aware of a DNR, etc.) try to save/revive them, or at least call an ambulance.

... you *do* realize Statesman is a fictional character, right? Just checking.

^ This

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Regarding Sam's comment: Yes, in Real Life, the look on the face is hardly dispositive. And yes, it is poor storytelling for the Devs to have used a heavy-handed pronouncement to state the fact. Add that to the huge list of Bad Writing Offenses the SSAs has already spawned.

Regarding Stormbird's comment: Good Grief. Before I am washed away in the torrent of insulting invective, let me suggest that the notions that Statesman had been "looking for rest after fighting crime for several decades" to the point that he would give up and let his daughter's murderer kill him and then be happy to have died under such circumstances are so staggeringly counterintuitive that the Devs had to make a flat-out pronouncement that these are now "facts" that we "somehow just know, Amen."

In a game awash with folks that come back from the dead in battalions, and often involuntarily, especially in the case of zombies, etc., and in which Time Travel is commonplace and unlimited, the question on the table was "Why not use the Ritual to revive Statesman?"

It is ONLY after it is established as a FACT that Statesman does not wish to ever return that such a desire is "selfish." Even after the Devs' ham-handed Souvenir pronouncement, it is still only an inference that Statesman would not wish to return. He could happily die with a smile on his face but still conclude he needed to come back to avenge his daughter, protect his granddaughter, save the world, etc. That much has not been established as a fact one way or the other., The inference that he would rather be dead seems fairly reasonable, but the inference that Statesman was going to stop at nothing to take Wade in was extremely reasonable too, until Statesman decided to welcome death with a smile and that was that.

So we are having a discussion about all of that. Do you have an opinion?

Techbot, I think we all understood that part.

Leonard Nimoy did not want to play Spock again. They accomodated him. Then he did. They accomodated him. Did they do a good job in each case? "He is a fictional character, DUH!!!111!!!" is not really the point of the discussion, is it?

Yes, I do realise that, but the backhanded insult it still appreciated.

What I'm saying is that this makes for a crap story and represents a ruination of the character. Yes we can infer that the Statesman wants to stay that, even though the method of delivering this information to us is suspect at best. So? There is still more he needs to do, and for him to give up the ghost - literally - and just want to stay dead and let his loved ones get killed because he's "tired" is the height of character ruination.

As I said before in other threads - this is what separates the true heroes from the basic supers. True heroes fight on even when it's unpleasant, even when it's difficult and even when it hurts. When he knows full well that his loved ones, his family, his friends and THE WHOLE WORLD is in danger because of HIS lapse of judgement, I have no sympathy for the man wanting to rest his bones. Maybe he's earned it, maybe he hasn't, but NOW is not the time to rest, because if I have to pick between his leisure and the world, I pick the world. That's what a true hero is supposed to pick, not have the choice made for him.

If his death were irreversible, then fine. Let the man rest, there's nothing more he could do. But if there IS more he could do and he still chooses to let people die because, screw it, let someone else take care of it, that's no longer fine.

No, this isn't real life. Exactly BECAUSE this isn't real life is why I can expect a true hero to remain true in all circumstances.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

*makes a note on Sam's medical records*

Sam, you have called this one correctly.

When Wile E. Coyote took a plunge to the canyon floor, he would often hold up a sign that said "Help!" or "Yike!" That is sort of what we all would be thinking.

What the Devs have done is have Statesman hold up a sign that says "OMG I am SO GLAD to be dead after decades of fighting crime!" as he is plunging to the canyon floor. It is so unexpected from him as to wreck the suspension of disbelief. The Devs also appear to want to add to the sign "BTW This was an INSPIRING and MOVING death scene, so your character is hereby INSPIRED and MOVED!"

*You have been awarded the "Inspired and Moved!" Badge*

...except is does not work at all.

I have enjoyed the player suggestions for the death scene (including YOURS ) far more than the actual event.

First, large fonts and italics don't actually give your point any more validity.

Second, there was no "let" about it. "Let" implies he had a choice once he was trapped. He did not.


... you obviously didn't pay attention to the cutscene, did you. Y'know, the one where he was telling his dead wife that he had to stop Wade, had to this-that-the other, until she got him to realize that no, he didn't, there were others that could take that self-imposed burden from him and that he could finally rest.

I went through this thread and thus far you're the only one who seems to think I'm being unreasonable. Everyone else has either raised counterpoint to me (which I have answered), or have had something to say.

I've laid out my points clearly. I've even provided the reasoning behind those points. If you want to interpret that as me being unreasonable, again...you're the only person in the thread that has posted to say so. And I see no point in turning such a thing into an argument so that you may either continue to call me unreasonable when I outline my points, nor I call you unable to see them. That's rude, certainly not the point of the thread and above all kind of childish.

I will only say this: when it comes to comic books, even when you have the body on the table in front of you, doesn't mean it's a final death. In comics, above probably most mediums, a final and definitive statement on life and death (need I cite Jean Grey here?) is not only a requirement, it's a must.

If you want to disagree with this and say I'm being unreasonable, then we have nothing further to discuss because it would turn into name-calling and that is something I want no part of. I can only apologise to you for any impression I've given that I am unreasonable.



S.

Well, given you're making a *real life* request ("If I die with a smile on my face, someone please revive me") in response to a *fictional* character's death....


No, actually, it doesn't. Unless you're using an odd thesaurus that has "ruination" as a synonym for "welcomed final rest."

In the Wheel of Time series, we're told flat out that Graendel killed Asmodean. By the author.

You're seeing that and saying "No, that source of information is suspect, I think actually that some random Aes Sedai did it instead."

You may not *like* it, but being told *flat out by the author(s)* is not "inferring" anything.

Play it and watch the cut scene again. This is already covered.

Yes, and that's incredibly selfish. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't, but it doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly selfish.

See, when Son Goku died for the second time, that's exactly what he did. He called his grieving friends and family and told them not to worry, explaining he was happy where he was. However, this is different in three ways.

1. Son Goku's death WAS a heroic sacrifice, teleporting a self-destructing Cell to where he couldn't blow up the Earth and dying with him. His death had meaning.

2. There was no way to revive him at the time, since he could only be revived once and he'd already been revived once before when, again, he sacrificed his life to kill Raditz, who wanted to kill all humans on Earth.

3. Goku was reassuring his friends and family so that THEY wouldn't be heartbroken over his death. He wasn't insisting to stay dead because he felt like it, he realised he HAD to stay dead and didn't want others to suffer because of it.

If the Statesman had at least two of the three covered, then maybe I could feel more sympathy for the man, but the truth is he has none of those. His death was completely pointless and humiliating, apparently, he CAN be revived but he just doesn't want to, and he's doing this for himself at the expense of the people who love him. Yeah, I have no sympathy his "eternal peace."

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

So what, Statesman isn't wearing his teleporter? We don't have precedent for saving spirits from the afterlife? Just because this is is his story and the writers want him dead doesn't excuse him from the same story rationales, lore and precedents that they themselves have set.

The problem is that they invented new stuff on the fly that we'd never seen before (up to and including Statesman's thoughts about dying, if we want to go that far) and the above I just listed wasn't even referenced, let alone addressed as to why things didn't work. It goes back to a 'just because' reasoning. He died 'just because'. I'm clearly not alone in asking simple basic story questions of the story, so it's not a conspiracy theory in my head.



S.

OK. At what point does he get to die, then, Sam? Because there's always - *always* - some "bigger bad" coming. When does he get to "pass on the mantle?"

Wade wants to release/control Ruularu. According to you, he's not allowed to die.

We know the Praetorian invasion is underway. There's a superpowered alternate-him still around. So according to you, he's still not allowed to die.

Recluse - who's at his level - is still around. So according to you, he's not allowed to die.

The Coming Storm is - well, coming. So according to you, he's not allowed to die.

After that, what comes? We've now got a ton of Incarnate-level villains running around - *more* powerful than him. So according to you, he's not allowed to die.

And you call him selfish?

Welcoming final rest when there is a choice not to, and a choice which would save lives IS the ruin of a great and true hero.

We're never told flat out. The implication is inferred. We're told the man had a smile on his face, but the smile on a corpse does not mean the dead person wants to stay dead. Unless the statesman calls us from the afterlife and says he wants to stay dead in his own words, that's still an inference.

It's covered via "someone else's problem." That's not the action of a true hero, it's the excuse for a "hero" to weasel out of his responsibility. Essentially, he wants to stay dead because he doesn't feel like fighting any more. I'm sure all those people wade kills when he brings Rularuu to the here and now will be very understanding of the Statesman for not really feeling like lifting a finger to help them.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Covered previously.
(A) Done once, that's more than enough, and
(B) even that required *someone else* to die, and had a time limit, on top of quite a bit of preparation.
And he hasn't been.

...


Yeah. Right. Because, after all, nobody's as powerful as him.

... except, of course, all those Incarnates running around. Which was, metagame-speaking, rather the point of the Incarnate SYSTEM - to match and surpass the signature characters. (Which, in-game speaking, he *knows* is going to happen, because he refuses to give in to the Well. Or expand his powers through it.)

See, this actually DOES deserve a real-life example. If you start a business, it's "all" on your shoulders - payroll, marketing, paying bills, etc. When the company grows, you really *can* hire an HR person/department, a payroll department, let someone else be trained to build your widgets and such. And you get to retire. Doing so is not "weaseling out" of your responsibilities. You did your part. And there comes a time to step aside and *let others do their jobs.*

Never. If the story is constructed so as to make him functionally immortal AND by far the world's strongest hero, then he doesn't get to die and doom the world. At least, never if he wants to avoid coming off selfish. He chose the path of hero on his own. No-one forced him. It's a walk he has to walk.

Now, you can argue that he can rest if he's no longer needed, but the fact of the matter is he's still needed, and badly. This is not an Incarnate storyline last I checked, and at no point has it been suggested that the world is now filled with so many heroes stronger than him that his contribution isn't all that important.

But OK, let's be fair to the man. Let's say he's tired and worn out and just wants to live his life in peace, or at least disappear for a couple hundred years. I can see that, maybe. But do that at a time when there isn't a cosmic threat looming over the world! And if such a time never comes... Well, that's what you signed up for.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

And you say that character is selfish.

Guess what. The game world evolves. Pity your view of it can't. But, with your declaration there, you've pretty well declared there's no point discussing this further with you.

... Really.

So, Praetoria and all those trials - which he *has* to be aware of - are all a mass delusion?

Except, of course, I ran this story arc at level 40 long before the concept of Incarnates is introduced into the game and long before the story arcs that deal with Recluse and Statesman.

As for your real life example, yes, a company president can retire, but it would be a dick move to do it at the height of an economic crisis in the middle of a major deal that he was brokering.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Good thing Statesman (a) isn't doing that, and (b) doesn't really have a choice in the matter.

You're taking the company president in my example to task for *daring* to die in a plane crash, or have a heart attack or something similar at that time.

Yes, I do. If he can be selfish and decide to leave me to my fate, I choose to be selfish and hold him to task for it. Because any person Darrin kills with the Statesman's power dies as a direct result of the Statesman's mistake and subsequent refusal to fix it. Yes, we can fix his mess, but that doesn't make it any less his own fault.

Consider that his death was entirely pointless. He achieved nothing through it, it accomplished nothing, and all it resulted in is giving a very bad man a lot of power. If the Statesman had chosen to sacrifice his life, maybe I'd be more lenient, but the way it happened, his death serves only as an excuse.

Pity you have to continue to resort to personal attacks to get your point across. And again - that arc takes place at level 40. At level 40, there are no Incarnates. The world may evolve, but it evolves with level progression, and Incarnates are all level 50 and beyond. At the time of his death, the Statesman is still the strongest hero in the world.

Also, if you consider continually telling me I'm wrong in the rudest manner you can think of to be a "discussion," then yes, it really is pointless. I'm not going to warm up to your charming approach of character assassination, if that's what you were expecting.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

But that wasn't my point, Techbot. My point was that Logan like Marcus is over a hundred years old yet he's clearly coping with it. People can't latch onto a single explanation like 'Cole is over one hundred years old, and he's tired of heroing and so he wants to die' if there are other similar characters not only in Marvel but the very game he comes from who have no such issues.

If you want a closer figure, try Captain America. He skipped decades and had pretty much the same losses Statesman endured yet he copes and sees himself as not only a contemporary but a...dare I say it...statesman for heroes generally.

I really genuinely do not see where the new generation of Incarnates (which by the way wouldn't be a sign of new heroes, but surely that things are about to get a lot worse, right?) coming along equates to 'well, I can die now'. Has his life really been that miserable? Is he just that tired of life, wanting to see potential great-grandchildren, continue to be a mentor and figurehead for heroes?

See, my problem from a writing standpoint is that we inevitably portray anyone who is long-lived as somehow tiring of life or wanting to kill themselves because we contain it from our perspective of being mortal. Films like Highlander, television shows like Doctor Who, and their ilk I think are the truer representation of such beings, because they take an essential step away from being human and one's outlook and perspective must surely change when you know you have two, three, multiple lifetimes in which to do what you want to do, when people are consumed for decades trying to cram in whatever it is they want to do before they die.

And because the cutscene is the very first thing we see that suggests he wants to die, it becomes hard for me as a viewer or player to accept that notion. It's out of the blue, never referenced before and is coming from someone, as I've said before, is now the Avatar of Zeus. Not Marcus Cole the man, but something more. If you want to extend this train of thought, then surely the same thing will happen to our characters as Incarnates? We'll tire of the immortal life when we gain his power levels? We'll want to just die and be with our lost loved ones? I don't find that a very appealing precedent given to us by the premiere Incarnate of our dimension, do you?

It's this whole notion that the power is defining him and making him miserable that I also object to. We had ample opportunity to find this out in the Alpha Slot arc, but we just get him taken over and him not remembering the conversation. There was room to foreshadow, and it wasn't taken. Just because we have the conclusion of what happens to him, it doesn't necessarily mean that what precedes it is internally consistent to come to that conclusion.

If someone, anyone, wants to show me precedent or give me some cause as to why Marcus Cole has been miserable (and for how long) to come to the point (and bear this in mind) that he chooses to die rather than fight at a crucial moment not only for his team, but for the world, I'll happily listen to it. It really truly is just yanking him off the stage in the most clumsy way possible as presented and shoving us onto it, whether we necessarily want it or not, because the writers of the story think that's what we want. To be where Statesman was.

That's a sobering thought to me. It's like a power fantasy come to life. And as I've said before, I know that being under that spotlight as a character with every facet of my personality and overall character being examined is not an experience I'd care to have. I personally think the player being in the spotlight will backfire on us and on the story generally for a variety of reasons, as it's just as well (if not better) served by us standing alongside the signature characters.

Players should never be better than NPC's, but I think anyone can fill in the blanks as to why.




S.

When we get to "choices," we go back to opening up the entire thread about Statesman walking into an Obvious Trap (tm) and all of that.

Even assuming for this discussion, that the very second the Obvious Trap (tm) energy struck him, Statesman was a goner, it is very unseemly for Statesman to not struggle and to actually SMILE ABOUT IT. Dylan Thomas's exhortation to "rage against the dying of the light" and "not go gentle" comes to mind when it is the murderer of your daughter, that you moments before had sworn to take in, that is the one who is killing YOU as well. Instead, Statesman smiles as he sails away.

If he had no choice, why does she need to convince him? If the fact is that he is Shuffling Off This Mortal Coil regardless of his desires, why does she even bother to tell him to rest? Why would his opinion on resting even matter? If struggling is impossible, why does her opinion matter? The very strong implication is that there IS a choice here.

Even if struggling does not help and is useless in the final analysis, even if the odds were so impossible it could not possibly make a difference, struggle and defiance in the face of impossible odds still seems to strike a chord and evoke heroism. The defenders of the Alamo had zero chance, as was amply proven, but their struggle even in the face of that is a source of admiration and inspiration for many people.

I had thought Statesman was made of sterner stuff than the death the Devs provided him. And if he wants to stay dead, again indicating a choice, with all of the factors previously noted, as opposed to trying again to remedy them, that does not speak very well of him in the hero department, either.

Do you realise you're arguing for two mutually exclusive points? Either he can be resurrected but he doesn't want to, or he can't be resurrected and his wish is irrelevant, but both of those can't be true at the same time.

If you want to argue that he can't be resurrected, then dying with a smile on his face makes no difference and that final cutscene just serves to make him appear weak and irresponsible. In fact, the whole thing would have gone a LOT better without the illousions in his head.

If you argue that he CAN be resurrected but he doesn't want to, and use the cutscene and the souvenir as evidence, then this makes the man appear selfish and unconcerned, preferring peace for himself and death and destruction for others over more work for himself. He's not broken down, he's not ill, he's just... Bored with his life of fighting crime, when you get down to it.

As far as I'm concerned, the simplest solution would have been to NOT put in a story about resurrecting the dead immediately after you release a story about a major signature character dying so that that character wanting to stay dead wouldn't come up, or at least come up so immediately. Because there's no way to spin his staying dead if he can be resurrected as anything BUT dodging responsibility.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Show you can handle the game world evolving - which you have yet to do, frankly, in pretty much *any* circumstance I can think of - and you can call it an attack instead of an observation.

Oh, wait, it was what, last week you finally decided you can "surrender" to the invention system?

ITF. 35 and higher. Incarnates are definitely introduced.
Praetoria. 1-25, and people from Primal can show up in First Ward at 20. Incarnates are definitely introduced.
RWZ. 35 and up. While not called one "yet," Lady Grey is an Incarnate.
Level 45, RWZ, LGTF. Hero 1 - Incarnate, Riktified.
Level 1-5, Mercy Island (old arcs.) Sstheno. Older (currently sleeping) Incarnate than Statesman - reintroduced at 40-45.
And, of course, the very hero you want to argue about (and his nemesis, Recluse) - level *1* and up.

So, yes, Sam, there are Incarnates. There may not be Level 40 PC Incarnates, but there are more Incarnates around than Statesman.

Edit: I also want to point out that in many of those cases, *Pre-Player-Incarnate* levels, we stomp those characters into the ground.