Remove ads

Dark Prince of Camelot

Reader mode
Gally said:
Just to offer an alternate view, Matthew doesn't know Annabelle cries for two reasons.

First, considering what you know about Annabelle (especially seeing how she's reacting to the Mordred=Morgan news) I think it's fair to say that she doesn't often break down in tears. Does she seem like the type of person who would bawl her eyes out because she can't bake? A big theme of the quest is that you don't always know what's going on in someone else's head, and that everyone else has an entire story going on in which they're the main character and you might be only a side character, or a face in the background. Another theme is that people use other people/events as representations of what they want/need. With that in mind, consider the possibility that Annabelle's tears were a culmination of a multitude of shitty things going in her life at that moment, with the baking representing something far more fundamental in Annabelle's own journey than merely brownies.

Second, consider that Annabelle is only on the verge of tears until Morgan comes in and sees her. I'd like to talk about "Rage" for a second, because that's the threadmark in which Mordred and Annabelle both witness each other's "worst days." They share a common thread about both Annabelle and Mordred being stripped of control over themselves - Annabelle crying and Mordred being paralyzed - but they also share the common thread of that stripping of control being witnessed by others. Annabelle only completely breaks down after Morgan sees her, and when we revisit the scene as Mordred, Annabelle is furious not (solely) because she broke down, but because Mordred saw her break down. Mordred's Heraldry being broken was terrible for him not (only) because of the physical effects but because he was reduced to begging for help from others. He gets angry at Gala on his birthday not (just) because she let him win, but because she let him win in front of everyone.

I don't want to interfere with the conclusions you draw about characters, but I do think it's important to remember what you know about each of the characters. Matthew not knowing about Annabelle doesn't mean he's a crazy, mind-raping asshole.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I know that intellectually. But my visceral dislike for Matthew makes me want to see it in the worst possible light, at least while I'm railing against him.
 
Gally said:
Well, I certainly can't fault anyone for that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Congrats by the way for striking that razor thin balance of hating a character because of their character versus hating how a story is using them/hating the story. I may seriously dislike many of the main cast, but that doesn't subtract from my enjoyment of DPoC. Enhances it, really.
 
[x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.
-[x] "Your eyes, they look much as his did back then. I have seen too many farcical scenes of old Camelot played out in your lives. I would show you a memory of Merlin and myself, and ask you, you as Matthew Abbot, not to make Merlin's mistakes once again as Gavin made Gwynn's."
 
[x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.
-[x] "Your eyes, they look much as his did back then. I have seen too many farcical scenes of old Camelot played out in your lives. I would show you a memory of Merlin and myself, and ask you, you as Matthew Abbot, not to make Merlin's mistakes once again as Gavin made Gwynn's."

Probably won't work, but hey, there is pain in every direction. At least we get a chance to pick the type.
 
[x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.

So much this
 
[x] "Your eyes, they look much as his did back then. I have seen too many farcical scenes of old Camelot played out in your lives. I would show you a memory of Merlin and myself, and ask you, you as Matthew Abbot, not to make Merlin's mistakes once again as Gavin made Gwynn's."
 
So, thinking back, something that struck me as odd... Nobody in The Breakfast Club seemed to find it odd that they were getting together to decide whether or not to kill Mordred after, what? Twenty-ish minutes of discussion? They're teenagers, even if they're teenagers saddled with huge responsibilities and more than a few issues. Why didn't that seem to bother any of them? The closest we got to one of them appearing uncomfortable was:
Gally said:
"Should we get started?" Annabelle asks. Her voice is clear, and strong.

The five share looks and nods, and Piper raises her head towards. "Annabelle told you what's going on, right?"

You nod. "You guys are gonna vote on whether or not to kill me."

"Um…yeah," Piper says. "Yeah, that's pretty much it. We thought we'd give you a chance to talk, before we voted. Since you helped Annabelle."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And that seems to be more surprise at our bluntness than discomfort at the situation.

Which makes me wonder... Have they done this before?
 
Comparing this to Merlin's mistakes is foolish and weak for an argument dissuading him. It's a non-sequiter, for starters, and it's disingenuous because Matthew's possible misdeed (while tremendously infuriating and dangerous) doesn't nearly measure up to Merlin's. It's a bad vote, and you should feel bad. Focus on the actual core of the issue, not an obsession with the past.
 
Last edited:
Spartan Altego said:
Comparing this to Merlin's mistakes is foolish and weak for an argument dissuading him. It's a non-sequiter, for starters, and it's disingenuous because Matthew's possible misdeed (while tremendously infuriating and dangerous) doesn't nearly measure up to Merlin's. It's a bad vote, and you should feel bad. Focus on the actual core of the issue, not an obsession with the past.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Wow, way to be an absolute ass. If you'd likely read much at all of the extensive discussion with Nevill, you'd see why the past matters. In short, the Breakfast Club shows an instinctual hostility towards us only explained by their past life bias. Unless we expose and set them against this bias, we are fighting an uphill battle in terms of this entire memory dive interaction. The important thing here isn't Gemma (yet), it's surviving this execution vote. While this ritual should be discouraged, we ought to do so in a way that leverages us the most survival potential. The core of the issue ain't Gemma, it's not getting killed.

EDIT:
See Scify's post:
Scify said:
So, thinking back, something that struck me as odd... Nobody in The Breakfast Club seemed to find it odd that they were getting together to decide whether or not to kill Mordred after, what? Twenty-ish minutes of discussion? They're teenagers, even if they're teenagers saddled with huge responsibilities and more than a few issues. Why didn't that seem to bother any of them? The closest we got to one of them appearing uncomfortable was:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why are these teenagers not acting like teenagers, and voting to kill us? The influence of their heraldries and past lives - pull that away and we are likely to see much better odds of survival.

EDIT2: I feel you are overfixating on Gemma. Our life is currently under immediate threat. I don't want to see Gemma subjected to magical electroshock therapy any more than you, but simply put, I care more about surviving in this interaction than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Scify said:
They're teenagers, even if they're teenagers saddled with huge responsibilities and more than a few issues. Why didn't that seem to bother any of them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They have killed before. To protect the world, for Great Justice, but they have killed before.

They don't see the situation differently here. Only Gavin is conflicted, because he is 'a softie', as Annabelle puts it.
 
Nevill said:
They have killed before. To protect the world, for Great Justice, but they have killed before.

They don't see the situation differently here. Only Gavin is conflicted, because he is 'a softie', as Annabelle puts it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In fairness, there's a helluva difference between killing in a fight and in cold blood, between doing it because peoples lives are on the immediate line, than doing it on suspicion and because you decided by vote. That they view Mordred as utterly irredeemable is worrying, given that Bailey should be able to see we are sincere (if I interpret Gally's description of Bercilla's powers of Inquistor-ship correctly) when we say that we don't want to do any of that again. It suggest a level of willful self delusion, or some other shenanigans floating around in their psyche.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I thought about this some more and I came up with this.

He wants to modify the way she thinks. This is because he doesn't like the way she thinks now.

If she agrees with him, and says something along the lines of yes, I do not like the way I am thinking right now and it would be nice if you did this magic thing to help me not think this way then that is okay. Because then she is the one choosing to, uh, change her mind. If no, and he does it anyway, or if he does not ask for his opinion, he is changing her mind for her.

And if that is what he wants, then the first thing that comes to mind is for me to tell him to just kill her or stop being friends with her then and make a puppet that he can have be happy in the way that he wants her to be instead because that'd be a better option than this.

Now how do I structure this into a vote...
 
Nevill said:
They have killed before. To protect the world, for Great Justice, but they have killed before.

They don't see the situation differently here. Only Gavin is conflicted, because he is 'a softie', as Annabelle puts it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh. There's a sizeable emotional difference between "You're trying to kill me and I'm trying to kill you back and now you're dead" and "we're going to sit down and discuss this and then kill this person". Even if they try to rationalize it with the "we've killed before, why is this any different?" argument beforehand, that's not really going to hold in the moment.
 
[X] You need to ask Gemma if she wants you to change her mind like this. What makes a person them is their thoughts and experiences.
-[X]Do you owe it to her as a friend to help her through this? If you feel that you owe her something, then you owe her the ability to decide who she wants to be and how she wants to think. And she may agree with you. She may say, 'yes, Matthew, I want to just not be upset anymore.' And you could try to help her do that.
-[X] She may decide that she does not want to go through with this, or that she cannot decide. You could do this anyway. That's an option you could take. You could decide that you know what's best for her, that with the way Gemma is now she's in no state to decide if she wants to be fixed and override her autonomy.
-[X]I'll say that if that is what you want to do then you lose the right to call her a friend. Should you decide to change your mind for her, do not dishonor her memory and acknowledge that you did this to assauge your own feelings when you saw her in pain. That you decided the usefulness of her heraldry was more important than her ability to choose her own fate.
-[X] One more option that I see is that you abandon this idea if she refuses and go back to the drawing board. To look for new options. This could result in nothing. But you would owe it to her as a friend to try.
-[X] I will tell you how to do the ritual. I'll give these options to you. And I will let you choose.

Mmn, is this how you format this kind of vote? Is this okay?
 
[X] You know, this is exactly how Merlin asked me about his plan to make my mother ever-reincarnating. I think I learned something from how that mess went.
-[X] Don't even start the work until you have talked it out with Gemma. I don't like it, but if she wants it, I'll tell you what I know.
 
[X] You know, this is exactly how Merlin asked me about his plan to make my mother ever-reincarnating. I think I learned something from how that mess went.
-[X] Don't even start the work until you have talked it out with Gemma. I don't like it, but if she wants it, I'll tell you what I know.
 
Chaoswilldevour said:
If you'd likely read much at all of the extensive discussion with Nevill, you'd see why the past matters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, we never actually reached a consensus. ;) I just acknowledged that your interpretation is internally consistent and makes sense if you want to look at it that way. It probably plays a part in their reasoning, but we still disagree on how much influence we ascribe to it.
Chaoswilldevour said:
That they view Mordred as utterly irredeemable is worrying, given that Bailey should be able to see we are sincere (if I interpret Gally's description of Bercilla's powers of Inquistor-ship correctly) when we say that we don't want to do any of that again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But they don't?

You know whom they consider irredeemable? The Forces of Darkness. If it were, say, Sa'Lanyah in our place, her head would have rolled by now. I don't think they would have taken her prisoner to begin with. We know Bailey didn't want to take our surrender.

They see us as a wild card, with a history of mass murder and siding with their enemies. A liability to some. An opportunity to others. They are seven different people, with different experiences and opinions, forced to work together and find some way to reconcile those opinions with each other. Hence, the vote.

This isn't even a trial, I don't think. There is no crime that is judged here. There is no presumption of innocence either, which I imagine pisses a lot of people off. There is just a simple question, can they afford to leave you alive with the stakes being what they are.

It's only Bailey who sees us as irredeemable, and our entire existence a net negative for the world. We know it stems from a very... uncompromising sense of justice. It's not a rare mindset to have. If a mass murderer says he quit - does it mean he should be forgiven? Even I believe there is a threshold after which redemption is impossible.
My personal theory on her is that Bailey/Bercila has certain issues with loyalty/treachery, and holds very harsh views on those. "Once a traitor, always a traitor"; "a enemy can be forgiven, but a traitor never"; things like that. And Mordred is undoubtedly one in her eyes. He is marked and branded forever by his actions, and his words fall of deaf ears.

I can't help but think that how the team handles Lucy will have an impact on the Inquisitor. Mordred is a stranger to Bailey, easy to dismiss, but a former friend? It might make a crack in her armor of self-righteousness.

Ginny... she wants us to repent. I see people who heard she wanted us to beg, and reared up, but to me that is oversimplifying things. Annabelle's exact words were 'to hear you say that you were wrong, that you're sorry, that you're throwing yourself at our mercy'. It isn't a matter of superiority, but of genuinity. She doesn't understand how one can be redeemed when they are completely unrepentant in the face of all the horrible things they've done. If there is no guilt, then what is there to stop it from happening again when the mood strikes us?

The rest of them aren't even bent on killing us. Piper and Matthew want to use us (though Piper wants to kill us once our usefulness runs out - she is very pragmatic and leaving a wild card alive is not worth the risk with seven billions on the line), and Gavin... he is a complicated case. He is the only one who still calls us a friend, though he supports us as much for his own sake as he does for ours.

Scify said:
There's a sizeable emotional difference between "You're trying to kill me and I'm trying to kill you back and now you're dead" and "we're going to sit down and discuss this and then kill this person".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sizeable, yeah. It comes from some of them leaning towards 'let me kill him right now!', and others going 'no, wait!', and then having to reach some kind of compromise that wouldn't tear the group apart even harder.

Their group is not a person, nor is it a hivemind. What looks like a premediated murder in cold blood after some deliberation is a result of conflicting personalities and agendas... which is currently working in our favor, I have to add. Were it not for this mechanism that restricts individual emotional impulses, we'd be dead right at the club.

For one, Gavin is bothered by what you called them out for:
Gally said:
"What do you want me to say?" Gavin shouts, slamming his hand down onto the table. "You want me to just smile while you chop off our friend's head?"

"He was never your friend!" Bailey shouts back, pointing at you. "He's a liar, he's a killer-"

"He's in good company then!" Gavin runs both his hands through hair, individual strands of pink poking every which way. "I mean – I mean, he did some bad shit, yeah? Yeah! But what, we just kill him? We just kill anyone who ever does something shitty?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...on the other hand, Bailey is bothered by the fact they have to hold a trial at all to kill us.
 
Last edited:
Nevill said:
Sizeable, yeah. It comes from some of them leaning towards 'let me kill him right now!', and others going 'no, wait!', and then having to reach some kind of compromise that wouldn't tear the group apart even harder.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're missing my point, I think, which may be my fault. I'm not talking about how they feel about the decision itself; I'm wondering about the fact that none of them seem to be even blinking about this entire situation. So less "should we kill him or not?" and more "why are we even making this decision in the first place?" Whatever else they are, they seem like they're cognizant of the fact that they're still teenagers, they seem like they are still teenagers, and thus this entire situation should be odd for them. Unless it isn't.
 
Scify said:
So less "should we kill him or not?" and more "why are we even making this decision in the first place?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because... it's a decision that needs to be made?

Do you find it strange that Bailey wants to kill Mordred outright, no questions asked? I don't. This is why my initial answer was 'they killed before'. But then some others don't want to, and we have a conflict of interests. All disputes of such caliber in the group are settled by a vote.

They have indeed done it all before. Perhaps not quite the trial where they decide someone's life or death, but all the elements were there.

I really don't know what you are getting at.
 
Last edited:
[x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.
 
[x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.
-[x] "Your eyes, they look much as his did back then. I have seen too many farcical scenes of old Camelot played out in your lives. I would show you a memory of Merlin and myself, and ask you, you as Matthew Abbot, not to make Merlin'smistakes once again as Gavin made Gwynn's."
 
x] Matthew, you are asking me, a man standing trial and facing possible execution, for advice on messing with your friend's brain. Does this sound sane to you?
-[x] Gemma isn't just your friend. She is theirs, too. If you think this is truly a good idea, why come to me in secret?
-[x] I will pass down the knowledge if you all believe there is no other way. But not to you as you are now.

I don't really like this, because the whole idea just pushes a lot of bad buttons, but it's probably the safest answer we can give.

"Your eyes, they look much as his did back then. I have seen too many farcical scenes of old Camelot played out in your lives. I would show you a memory of Merlin and myself, and ask you, you as Matthew Abbot, not to make Merlin'smistakes once again as Gavin made Gwynn's."

—This kind of thing just screams bad idea. For one, Mordred isn't in the position to make these offers without it looking suspicious.
Also frankly, Mordred needs to stop seeing them as the same people. Yes, from a meta perspective, they're trapped in a vicious cycle, but Mordred hasn't shown the ability the distance himself enough from the situation to draw real parallels. That's not even taking to account, Mordred doesn't know anywhere near as much about the past as he thinks he does, or that this statement implies.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top