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

OK, how about this - come back to life, and then retire. We promise we won't bug you about saving the world unless there's no other choice, but that way, you're still here to pitch in if things really do get rough. Take a vacation, go to Rio, be with your family, help people out in small ways, put on a pair of Groucho Marx glasses and live a life of anonymity.

No. He's happier in the afterlife, and his happiness is all that matters.

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.

Again. Re-watch the cutscene.

Physically, yes, he's struggling.

Internally, he puts forward those same arguments about "being the only one," etc, etc, etc... and is finally brought to the realization he *isn't* the only one.

So, no, not "unseemly," and he didn't just let it happen without a fight.

To keep him from suffering more than he already had? Because fighting would have prolonged the pain? Wade wasn't tickling him and rubbing his shoulders with that ritual.
Not really, no.

Then be glad he did "struggle" (see above) before letting go.

No, I'm not.
Where did I say he "could be resurrected but didn't want to?" I never said that.

... he fights the inevitable, something he hadn't faced before, he's HAVING HIS POWER DRAINED FROM HIM PAINFULLY.... until he's convinced by the spirit of his wife that others can take up the burden he's carried, that the players really *are* capable of doing so after years of being inspired and trained by him...

And he's "weak and irresponsible?"

Really?


So, you're all for removing that statue in front of the King's Row tram, the Atlas statue, all the other ones to dead heroes - because, hell, at this rate they could ALL have been resurrected.

We shouldn't call Paragon the "City of Heroes," but the "City full of statues to lazy bums."

"You are stupid, ugly and worthless as a human being" is an observation, but also an insult. It's also a value judgement that's not everyone's place to make. In a similar way, "you can't handle the game world evolving" is a value judgement that's not your place to make, specifically since I've said it time and time again that I simply want to see this evolution tied to levels, not to real time.

But, of course, it's easier to attack me directly instead of attacking my arguments, so I understand where you're coming from.

As one man in the past who has no direct influence on events happening now.

Higher level characters "showing up" in lower level content are not consistent with the timeline within which this content takes place. You can easily see this with story arcs that reveal, for instance, the true nature of the Circle of Thorns, which you can do, then exemplar down to a lower-level character's stories and you are shown believing that they're just a cult Baron Zoria started in the 1920s.

Each character's timeline is restricted to what that character does personally and is not influenced by the stories of other player characters levelling up at the same time. That's the only way to explain how Dr. Vahz can be defeated hundreds of times and still release the Vahzilok Plague.

I've yet to see evidence for this. She knows about Incarnates, but I don't recall her being said to be one in official writing. If you want to infer that she is, you're free to do so, but I don't buy it.

And thus fairly useless and largely uncontrollable. Plus, he's not revealed to be an Incarante until Mender Ramiel's arc.

Asleep, and thus inert, and a villain to boot. She won't be of much help.

Yes, a card-carrying villain who represents a great threat and whose very presence the Statesman has served to offset for years.

I'm not sure why you read what I said as saying Incarnates, as a concept, don't exist in the in-game world before level 50. What I mean is that there aren't enough acting Incarnates to replace the Statesman before level 50 and, really, before they earn their level shifts and abilities. Remember - we're taking the slow path, so even though we are titled Incarnate, that still doesn't mean we're leaps and bounds more powerful than the established ones. After all, it takes 24 people to beat up on a single Marauder despite the guy not being an Incarnate, himself.

If the Statesman is to be phased out and replaced, that has to happen much, much later in the plot, at least around the time we're banding about three level shifts so even if he shows up as a level 54 Archvillain like he does in the Recluse SF, we'll still be fairly equal to him.

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.

Yes he has. Come on now....people have mentioned Ouroboros, previous issues of the comics, other rituals, other powers, a virtual litany of canon things that have been known to work prior to this point when they just don't, and that's not even remotely concerning from a story perspective?

And how is A) 'more than enough'? Was it a temp power with one charge? Seriously, if people as passingly knowledgable as I can draw upon the game as we know it to ask simple story questions such as 'what about....?' only to be given the answer 'but hey, this was in the story but we didn't know it before' is a story contrivance to get to the end that was desired, then there's problems with the story.

You may not agree and that's fine, that's the very reason these forums exist, to discuss these things. I don't go looking for stories to pick apart, that's not my thing. But to me, they leapt out at me so blatantly I wanted to say something about it.


Edit: I do have to say that I've been reading the exchanges between yourself and Sam, and I don't see the need for the tone to become personal when talking about a story. I'm happy to discuss a point with you rationally, but the exchanges there are becoming less so with each post. Could I please request that absolutism isn't a requirement for this thread, but an honest exchange of ideas is?

S.

Go back to the comics. I mean that in two ways:
1. To illustrate point B, and
2. to see just how ridiculous "Never really dead" gets. We get ridiculously close enough to this as it is without taking the heavily pushed "Permanent change to the game world, major character dying" and longjumping past that line.

Right here:

If you're arguing that he CAN'T be resurrected, then I really have no qualms about that. I'd really prefer it if we took away those reassurances that it'll all be OK and just die already, honey, though. They're unnecessary melodrama that just serve to diminish the man's accomplishments up to this far.

I'm well aware that you'll disagree and probably accuse me of something, but that's how I see it.

If they could have been brought back, they should have been brought back. I see no reason to discount these people's past actions, but refusing to come back would indeed make me respect them less in their future endeavours.

This is the problem with bringing people back to life and why broaching the subject at all harms a story more than it helps. There's always the question that if you can bring back one person, why not another, and then you're left having to think up excuses for why it's not possible. Really, a story is better off without broadly applicable resurrection.

Imagine me saying this in the GlaDOS voice: "Your sarcasm is appreciated."

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.

As it turns out, an argument isn't true or false depending on how many people agree with it.

Which isn't very good. Consider, for instance:

There is just as much "story rationales, lore and precedents" to establish that death is often permanent as there is to the contrary. You just choose not to see it that way. We didn't have this kind of outrage when (e.g.) Sefu Tendaji was killed off (arguably fridged). People pretty much took it in stride that we arrived on the scene too late to ressurect, etc.

What do you think citing Jean Grey is going to do?

Yes, if the game lasts long enough for the Big Pointy Hat to get passed off to someone else, or if the current wearer just changes his mind, then Statesman's death is subject to turning out to be less final than originally stated. That's neither here nor there.

Complaints about the sappy cutscene, the obvious trap, etc., are one thing. My personal favorite is that "who will die?" turned out to be a character that wasn't actually in the freaking story. It's like you're reading a Batman comic and suddenly Superman flies into shot in one panel then gets hit by a kryptonite laser and dies in the next, leaving you going "...the hell?" Arguing that the death itself requires some extraordinary justification simply because sometimes characters haven't stayed dead is just nerdrage.

And yet you argue against it and seem mortally offended, time and time again.

I listed *just the ones we know of, off the top of my head.*

Regardless, the *point* is that Statesman is not the only one at that level of power. He's NOT the "only one" who can carry along that burden. Even ignoring player characters, there's the rest of the Phalanx, their up-and-coming sidekicks the Vindicators (who really need to be let out of their mentors shadows at some point,) the Midnighters... how many other groups?

So, no, him realizing it's not all just on him, that he's actually NOT irreplaceable, is not "selfish." If anything, it's waking up and being LESS selfish and egotistical.

We defeat Recluse at 45, when we're not even at full *normal* power. We did that on SOs. Heroside, we do it in Mender Silos's arc. Villainside, VEATs do it on the spur of the moment in their mid-40s or whenever they decide to run that atrocious final mission with that ridiculous speech.

I'd say, yes, we ARE, if not leaps and bounds, at least a few hops more powerful even before Incarnatization.

You know what occurs to me? If the man's death had been presented as a lot more final, then questions of resurrections would never have even arisen. To quote Dr. Breen: "You will be destroyed in every way it is possible to BE destroyed, as well as several ways which as essentially IMpossible!"

Here's how you do it. You have the Statesman die as per normal, but instead of ending the arc there, you have one more - a delivery mission - that sends you to Numina. Obviously, if you need to resurrect the man, she's the one to go to. Only she says that there's nothing she can do. With the Statesman being an Incarnate, the power that the ritual generated was such that it ripped his essence apart and scattered it across the cosmos. There's nothing left of his soul to resurrect, and it is thus impossible to do so. Commence much grief.

Yeah, it's not a pleasant way to die, but it ties off that loose end. I still say that such a death would have been better if it resulted as a heroic sacrifice, but it would have been very conclusive and very final. Or, hell, come up with some better way than "He's dead and he's happy!"

Maybe that's just me being very areligious, but I honestly don't feel the need to be told that the man is happy as punch in the afterlife and, really, his death wasn't all that bad! In fact, Wade did him a favour because he was tired and lonely, but he never had an excuse to just disappear without people giving him accusing looks, but being dead is the perfect excuse!

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.

The fact he died with a smile on his face does not make one whit of difference about his ability (or lack) to have decided about his death.

No, they don't. If anything, they show a side of Statesman that hasn't been really highlighted much in game - his feeling that, yes, it IS "all on him," and that he hasn't realized before now that that simply is no longer true.


... They're dead, Sam. They would have no future endeavors.

Also, what the hell, Sam? Nobody EVER gets to rest/die in your book (except the bad guys?) Because that's what it sounds like to me.

... so why keep arguing for a miracle-resurrection? Especially when the majority of the in-game explanations for rezzes are the "brink of death."

What I find amusing about all this, as an aside, is remembering all the mortally offended arguments about why a necro MM could never be a hero....

That's boiling down my argument to a straw man and ignoring it in its entirety. I don't agree with a real time timeline. I argue for a level-based timeline, which the game had before and has now. Mixing a level-based timeline and a real time timeline in the same game creates hideous problems like Angus McQueen trying to prevent a second Rikti Invasion in the 40s that appears to have happened at least at level 35, and much earlier now that you can go into the Rikti War Zone and observe the invasion for yourself. Or, as many people learn about it, be present for a Rikti raid on a city zone.

I argue against an inconsistent timeline, but feel free to interpret this however you wish.

Again, why not come back to life and then retire? He can live out in peace and pursue his own happiness, maybe even meet another person he loves, and then if something comes up that the rest of the heroes can't handle, THEN step in and help.

Essentially, I'm making the Connor MaLeod argument. Yes, MacLeod did occasionally lament his eternal life and how it means he'll watch everyone he loves grow old and die, but you know what? He did just fine for... What? 400? 600 years? He fell in love, suffered loss, picked back up and fell in love again. At any point he could have let another immortal take his head or, you know, buy a guillotine, but he kept on fighting, because "the prize" couldn't fall into the Krugan's hands.

This is a really bad way to kill the man off even IF we assume he can be replaced.

Hmm... OK, you do have a point about Recluse. Both fights with him (and one with the Statesman) do occur in the 45-50 range, so I suppose if the arc is played out at 50, that could make a bit more sense. It's just that it goes down to 40, and at 40, we're just getting done fighting street crime on the hero side and acting as casino bouncers on the villain side of things.

See, if this happened as part of Incarnate content, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it. And when I say "Incarnate content," I mean something of the nature of Dark Astoria. You can't run any missions in there until you have unlocked at least your Alpha slot, and the whole place makes a big deal out of how awesome you are, as well as of how common Incarnates have become. At THAT point, maybe I could buy it, just because that's the point where Incarnates are a dime a dozen.

Honestly, though, it just really bugs me that they went the route of making the man give up. I've always hated the "he's in a better place" argument as a whole.

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.

I've been saying precisely how I've read your stands in the past. If I've been completely misunderstanding you and have built an incorrect picture of you in my head because of it (a picture which, quite obviously, is being reinforced in this argument,) then I owe you an apology.

But that picture I've seen get built up from your posts, Sam, is one of someone that - if I can *really* boil it down - basically doesn't like change, period. I know that's an unfairly basic way of putting it, but if I had to sum up the way you appear to me in one sentence, that would be it.

Your description of your view above - and I agree with not liking "temporal spaghetti," even if I understand the need and development of it - doesn't exactly match up with that.

Why doom him to that? "Hey, thanks for being a hero, your reward is to just eternally see those you love die, their families die, eventually to watch the Earth get burnt to a cinder unless you leave."

He's *not that indispensable.*

And what was his final reward?

All knowledge, etc, sure. And *the ability to grow old and die.* Something you're denying Statesman by saying he's not allowed to die - ever. (And who says there wouldn't be a bigger threat than Kurgan, etc? The second movie isn't hated JUST for being bad, but for the whole "OK, you're allowed to rest... YOINK! Just kidding, go fight stuff!" nonsense.)

Figure of speech, and not a very good use of it. But if we can call the dead, offer to resurrect them and they say "No!" then that's part of their future endeavours. What the dead do after they die, be it remarkable or shameful, should have no impact on what they did in life.

And you'd be entirely correct. I am elementally opposed to killing off signature characters in stories unless it serves some very important purpose that can't be accomplished in any other way. The only purpose the Statesman's death serve here is so they could wipe Jack Emmert out of the face of the game. This wasn't a story the plot of which simply required a character death and offered no alternative. This is a character death officially mandated, with a story written to give that death a reason to exist. That's why it's called "Who will die?"

And, no, I don't believe in killing off bad guys, either. A good enough villain is always good enough for more stories if you can manage your roster right. Killing characters is a complete waste of potential unless you give their deaths some kind of meaning, and the Statesman's death had none. He showed up, he died, move on.

I notice you start a lot of your paragraphs with an ellipsis.

I'm not arguing FOR a miracle resurrection solution. I'm arguing that one should never have been brought up in the first place. However, now that it HAS been brought up, we do need to explain why it can't be used on other people. OK, so the Statesman wants to stay dead. Let's roll with that. So why don't we resurrect Cyrus Thompson? He died a violent death. But, OK, his was a sacrifice and he was made a hero. Maybe he's happy, too. So why not resurrect Alexis Cole-Duncan? She did NOT die a happy death. She was kidnapped, tortured and killed. I'm sure she didn't die with a smile on her face.

Are we going to argue that she's in a better place, too? See, the reason I don't like the "better place where all our dead friends are" arguments is that all that means is... We should all just go ahead and die so we can all be together in paradise. Obviously, religions that espouse this forbid suicide - no surprises there - but it really does raise the dilemma: If you could die and go to paradise and live forever in happiness with everyone you live, why would you NOT do it? A hero might argue that he's needed, but if you expand this argument, why not just kill EVERYONE and send EVERYONE to heaven?

Obviously, we're delving into "destroy all humans" insane villain here, but those are the kind of arguments that give rise to it. Personally, I prefer to keep a story clean by regarding death as a "bad" thing and representing it as permanent and irreversible unless an entire storyline is devoted to it in a unique and non-replicable way. It just curbs so many questions before they're even asked.

Personally, I found those arguments to be stupid in a very big way. I argued then as I do now that it's not the powers that make the hero but the person behind them and the ideology in which they are used. A necromancer very much CAN be a hero, it just tasks the player to explain how and why.

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.

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.

And you'd be correct. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't fix what ain't broke, so to speak. Improve on it, of course. Add more stuff, fix more problems, but when you start taking stuff out... I have a problem with it, and I ask for VERY good reasons why it has to be done.

That's also why I like a level-based storyline - because it's static, if it's handled with care. Yes, new plots can be added to the static storyline, but if they don't raise contradictions, then the actual storyline doesn't change.

The truth of the matter is I never looked at any story I liked - say, Oban: Star Racers (because I want more people to know about it) - and though I'd watch it again if only the story went a different way. I might steal elements of it and write my own, but THAT story I like as it is.

Actually, one reason I really don't like Comic Books is because they take a story and drag it through so many revisions and expansions and extensions and so on and never really end it that it just breaks down. I'd much rather read a book and stop because it ended than read a book and stop because I can't stand it any more.

Overall, there were many, many ways to have the Statesman step down from being the face of the company, but I guess it's nowhere near as exciting to have him retire as it is for him to die...

"Doom" him to that? I guess we simply have different definitions of eternal life. Personally, that's the kind of life I'd want. Yes, the people I love would die, but they'd have lived a happy life, and I will always be able to meet and love new people. Obviously, you can't replace friends and family, but I like to think that there's room in the heart enough to manage.

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.

This *does* serve an important purpose that can't be accomplished in any other way. It 100%, completely and totally, moves the player characters out from being second-stringers, always under the shadow of Statesman.

Not "under the shadow of the Phalanx," which really, they never have been (and I'd say it could be argued that the *phalanx* was "Statesman and friends," even if the current incarnation, from well before this, was restarted by Positron.) But under the shadow of *Statesman.*

It removes that "Well, I don't REALLY have to do my best, if I fall, he'll pick it up" from the game. And I'd argue it does it at the *perfect* point. You said it would make more sense done as Incarnate content, perhaps with a level shift or two (paraphrasing.) To me, the fact we do this well into our "career" (as opposed to at or near the end - that career being 1-50, and yes, I am excluding incarnate levels as Premium players can play this too) not only passes on that torch but allows the player character to grow more, as well.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be an insult or not?


*gentle sigh* No, I've outlined again...and again....why I disagree with it. It's not me being close-minded, it's not me being pig-headed, it's not me being bigoted or anything else, and I really really want to stress that here. If anything, you're choosing to portray me as compulsively arguing without reasoning or even logic behind my opinions.


It's not nerdrage, Venture. You just handwaved away anything I said there, and distilled it to some tirade I've gone on because I didn't get my way in the story or some other silly thing. I like good writing, I thought this wasn't good writing and I said why. I don't know why, but you don't like my answers, and you think I'm being all fanboi about it.

I can't and more importantly won't argue this with you or even make any further comment. You of course can reply to this, but you just want to attack whatever you percieve as my standpoint instead of discuss...well...anything. Has anything I've said had any merit to you? I imagine not, because you opened with saying that I was essentially ranting.

I have nothing more to say, because I have nothing nice left to say. At least I know I tried.



S.

That's great... even for a few hundred years. But past that, I can't imagine it being pleasant. I'd see time really wearing on you, with death moving past being a sometime companion to a permanent one you can't go with. (Given theories of eternal expansion of the universe, it would end up with a very *dark* eternity you can't escape.)

I mean, how long can you really go seeing the world change? Parents die, siblings die - people deal with that all the time. Children die. Then you watch your grandchildren die. And great grandchildren. And on and on until you can't see whatsername's face in any of them any more. More than people, cities grow and die. Countries do. Eventually you reach geological time - what do you do if you outlive your species? When you can't even visit where your home was eons ago because it's now part of the ocean floor? When, as mentioned, the planet and the star it circles finally dies?

I don't recall if you play villainside or not, Sam, but there's one villain morality mission that I think touches on that perfectly. (And at the same time irks me, because some of my villains really wouldn't be that shortsighted.) You see yourself at three points in the future (and I'd argue that the second one, though you're ancient and godlike, shows you to be going rather insane) and the third one seems to realize just how much of a curse eternal life ends up being.

Well, of course, but I feel there were better ways to do this. Hell, the whole of the Incarnate path is pretty much one giant way to do just that. All of a sudden the Statesman is revealed to be weaker and fighting an alien conscience, and the challenges we're presented with are such that we can handle them better than he can.

It's the old "Make Superman look bad so you can make Batman look good" from the later Dark Knight books. You don't need to kill/humiliate/devastate a great hero to make another one come off as even greater. We could have simply shone brighter than the Statesman and we'd still have walked out from under his shadow without him having to die.

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.

I can honestly agree with you here, Techbot. I thought I was having a good discussion with like-minded folk about the story and discussing the finer points of what the story said. Even when you disagreed with me, you at least acknowledged I had some points and were gracious enough to outline your own so I could respond.

I can't even bring myself to respond to you as much as I think it'd be fun to discuss, really. If you want to talk in private messages, I'd be happy to do that, but I don't like becoming the arbitrary target for someone's....I dunno what...on here.



S.

We'll simply have to disagree on that part. I simply enjoy eternal or very long life as a motif and make many of my own characters either functionally immortal or many centuries old. I mentioned this before, but it was probably in another thread. What I'm saying is I just don't buy into the "curse of eternal life." The human brain is a very adaptable thing, since we're talking about humans here.

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.

Edited as you were typing, apparently. Head back.

Short form: What about when you're the only human left? And (assuming we don't kill ourselves off) what about when the rest of the species evolves past you?