Threads Of Destiny(Eastern Fantasy, Sequel to Forge of Destiny)

[JohnnieBoy123]

Not necessarily. It depends how we choose to protect. We can protect all parties involved by mediating the conflict or by breaking up a fight.

Click to shrink...

We have decided that the point of protecting someone is to ensure they have the ability to Choose. If one person we wish to protect truly Chooses to harm someone we care about, then we cannot break up the fight for that deprives them of their Choice.

We can mediate and make sure that they do indeed want to do it but once their mind is made up then things get dangerous. And, as a Baroness, we have people we have a social obligation to protect that do wish to harm people we care about.

 

[Erebeal]

Ling Qi has never pretended that all choices are equally valid or valuable. Indeed quite the opposite. To abstract "choice" away from all context and history and her beliefs is an absurdity imo.

 

[JohnnieBoy123]

Ling Qi has never pretended that all choices are equally valid or valuable. Indeed quite the opposite. To abstract "choice" away from all context and history and her beliefs is an absurdity imo.

Click to shrink...

I don't think LQ will actually just stand by while someone hurts her loved ones. That's silly.

My concern is that this will be a vulnerability when we go to break up said fights. That we'll go to break up said fight and our techniques will fail before an incoming attack because we've decided on a poor foundation for our defense.

And, again, this was a problem for Huisheng: we saw that he decided that it was okay for his disciples to slaughter each other in the name of Choice.

 

[Erebeal]

I really don't think that's a major concern unless LQ goes down some major rabbit holes. Her concern with "choice" and "power" has always been in the context of harm and the lack of power and resources forcing people (her) into invalid "bad" choices. She isn't some kind of free choice relativist, even though she acknowledges the importance of accounting for different viewpoints.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

We have decided that the point of protecting someone is to ensure they have the ability to Choose. If one person we wish to protect truly Chooses to harm someone we care about, then we cannot break up the fight for that deprives them of their Choice.

Click to shrink...

Sure we can. To return to my previous example about life, deciding the point of protecting people is to preserve their lives does not mean you can't kill a particular person to protect the lives of others. That in no way violates the principle in question. Similarly, restricting someone's choice to, say, enslave other people is a completely reasonable thing for someone who is all about protecting choice to do.

We can mediate and make sure that they do indeed want to do it but once their mind is made up then things get dangerous. And, as a Baroness, we have people we have a social obligation to protect that do wish to harm people we care about.

Click to shrink...

Removing people's ability (and thus choice) to restrict the choices of others is entirely reasonable and consistent and I see no reason at all why Ling Qi wouldn't do that as necessary. The point is to maximize people's choices as much as possible, not to never interfere in any choice in the least way. This is about what we protect, not about what we never interfere with.

I don't think LQ will actually just stand by while someone hurts her loved ones. That's silly.

My concern is that this will be a vulnerability when we go to break up said fights. That we'll go to break up said fight and our techniques will fail before an incoming attack because we've decided on a poor foundation for our defense.

Click to shrink...

This is not how things work, not at this level anyway. This is a concept definition, not an Insight, and has no direct bearing on combat and won't for a very long time to come, by which point it will have altered pretty profoundly in one way or another.

 

[Anderein]

I'm saddened that we decided on Choice. It's a very dangerous position to take for our defense.

Do we really want to have our defenses crumble should someone we happened to protect try to hurt someone we care about? We have a large number of people on "our side" who oppose what we stand for and wish to harm people we seek to protect. Under the option we chose, we will be at a disadvantage when trying to stop any resulting violence.

To say that Protection is to preserve our world leaves room for other stuff like Freedom to override it when it becomes necessary, especially as we already know that asserting our will over our community can destroy said community.

That said, I'm okay with this if we are willing to truly stand for it. Let Choice be paramount even as our loved ones slaughter each other. After all that was the scenario that Grandpa Nightmare gave to Huisheng and he concurred that it was correct.

Click to shrink...

"both your own and of those you shield" makes it clear that she's choosing whose Choice to protect. If it was "those you shelter," then that could be passively decided, but a shield only works when you move it: it's an active decision. That definition can't shackle her in and of itself because no one is under her aegis until she decides so, and she can withdraw that shield if she so chooses.

Active versus passive is a pretty important distinction here, I think.

 

[JohnnieBoy123]

I really don't think that's a major concern unless LQ goes down some major rabbit holes. Her concern with "choice" and "power" has always been in the context of harm and the lack of power and resources forcing people (her) into invalid "bad" choices. She isn't some kind of free choice relativist, even though she acknowledges the importance of accounting for different viewpoints.

Click to shrink...

Its definitely a concern! We don't want Jaromila to get hurt (right?) but we also have an obligation to protect imperials. It would be very easy for violence to happen between an imperial and Jaromila should something go wrong.

 

[Elsecaller]

And, again, this was a problem for Huisheng: we saw that he decided that it was okay for his disciples to slaughter each other in the name of Choice.

Click to shrink...

Rereading it, it says that his disciples were slaughtered not that they slaughtered each other.

"What words from failure and ruin. You, whose Way was broken, whose disciples were slaughtered, whose ideas were forgotten. Whose teaching brought about disunity, pain and loss."

Brother Darksong stalked the hell of the Emerald Seas failures. At his hooves sprouted burning blades, casting lurid light on empty trampled faces. At his head, a halo, a mandala of false hopes and broken dreams, and a million, million ruined lives. His body, a cloak of black tar, apathy and abandonment, mindless repetition of ritual, the termination of thought. In the eyes of the corpses, a pitiless radiance that could not stop.

"And yet, I am here," said the thief. "I live, not as the Pure One, for he too was wrong by degrees. My Way is unbroken, because it is not mine alone to begin with. Old and dusty it might be, it merely awaits new feet. There is no virtue in stagnation, in fearing the lash, in seeking silence. Choice is pain. Choice is strife. Choice is disunity. Choice is life, the grand dream of the Nameless."

Click to shrink...

I took it more that he caused a mini civil war between his faction and the orthodox faction, not that his disciples killed each other.
He does believe that disunity and strife is a part of choice and that's fine in his option though.

 

[Axel Fones]

[X] The purpose of protection is to preserve your World, to maintain the community, the things and people you have.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

Its definitely a concern! We don't want Jaromila to get hurt (right?) but we also have an obligation to protect imperials. It would be very easy for violence to happen between an imperial and Jaromila should something go wrong.

Click to shrink...

Sure. And absolutely nothing stops us from interfering in that if we believe one side is the aggressor and trying to harm the other.

 

[JohnnieBoy123]

Sure. And absolutely nothing stops us from interfering in that if we believe one side is the aggressor and trying to harm the other.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely, and there's also nothing stopping a flawed Concept from causing one of our defensive techs to fail at the moment of truth.

Because that's what Concepts do: they help decide which tech wins in a clash.

 

[Lena27]

I think we shouldn't take these things too literally. I don't think LQ will either. She can prioritize who is closest to her (one of her spirits vs. an ally of convenience, ect) and do her best shield everyone from harm. If the situation you suggested comes to pass, she can do her best to ensure the least amount of harm is done by mediating, and then if certain people are still set on their course, meet them with the minimum amount of force necessary to negate harm. Or simply shield the one being attacked.

Sure. And absolutely nothing stops us from interfering in that if we believe one side is the aggressor and trying to harm the other.

Click to shrink...

In this case, it would depend on whose in the right and what the best way to prevent harm would be. These situations are complicated and I don't believe finding a third option, like we did with Sixiang, is impossible.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

Absolutely, and there's also nothing stopping a flawed Concept from causing one of our defensive techs from failing at the moment of truth.

Because that's what Concepts do: they help decide which tech wins in a clash.

Click to shrink...

That wouldn't be against the Concept, though, is my point.

Also, that this is not actually quite how Concepts work at this level. Eventually, it'll be pretty close to true, but it isn't now and by the time it is our Concepts will have changed pretty profoundly.

 

[JohnnieBoy123]

That wouldn't be against the Concept, though, is my point.

Also, that this is not actually quite how Concepts work at this level. Eventually, it'll be pretty close to true, but it isn't now and by the time it is our Concepts will have changed pretty profoundly.

Click to shrink...

That is how Concepts work at this level. Taken from the front page:

The numeral indicates how integrated and well understood a concept is by Ling Qi, and how much more potent than baseline techniques utilizing that concept are for her. Concepts with a 0 beside them are available, but have not yet been studied.

...

Concepts may be studied directly through Dao Projects, or leveled up by completing related Art projects. Leveling up concepts will empower, shift and shape the function of your domain. New concepts are acquired through simple and advanced Insights.

Click to shrink...

emphasis mine.

"TYIM fails before an imperial attack because we need to protect imperials and they want to hurt a barbarian friend" is a possibility

 

[Glau]

Sure we can. To return to my previous example about life, deciding the point of protecting people is to preserve their lives does not mean you can't kill a particular person to protect the lives of others. That in no way violates the principle in question. Similarly, restricting someone's choice to, say, enslave other people is a completely reasonable thing for someone who is all about protecting choice to do.

Click to shrink...

Isn't this just saying that preserving as much choice as possible is the best way to preserve your World, to maintain the community, the things and people you have?

I'm not sure how to separate the two options in this framework, since you seem to be phrasing the second in terms of the first, or saying that the second is completely contained within the first.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

That is how Concepts work at this level. Taken from the front page:

emphasis mine.

"TYIM fails before an imperial attack because we need to protect imperials and they want to hurt a barbarian friend" is a possibility

Click to shrink...

Leveling up Concepts has specific mechanical effects on the Domain, which can be seen in the Domain's rules. It changed significantly post Tribulation when we got Communication, for example. The specific wording of low level concepts? Not so much with the mechanical relevance as of yet.

Eventually, when we hit a higher power level, that sort of thing will be much more relevant mechanically, but right now it's purely philosophical rather than mechanical for the most part. It will grow into mechanical relevancy, but it will also change in wording several times between now and then.

Isn't this just saying that preserving as much choice as possible is the best way to preserve your World, to maintain the community, the things and people you have?

I'm not sure how to separate the two options in this framework, since you seem to be phrasing the second in terms of the first, or saying that the second is completely contained within the first.

Click to shrink...

The choice option doesn't take ownership of people or apply itself only to people and things who are ours, it applies to anyone we choose to shield. That's a pretty huge difference, IMO, and my reason for voting for the Choice option. I like choice-based ethics well enough, but my actual motivation was to make the protectiveness less paternalistic and less of a claim of ownership.

The choice option is also more open to going out and helping people we've never met before, as protecting the choices of random people outside our own community is very much an option for it if we choose to do so...things like that are much less of a thing for the second option, which seems much less interventionist in who it deems we should protect.

Basically, as I said I like choice-based ethics, but that's actually got very little to do with why I voted for the choice option., I largely voted for it because the other option had problems.

 

[Oliver_Twister]

I'm saddened that we decided on Choice. It's a very dangerous position to take for our defense.

Do we really want to have our defenses crumble should someone we happened to protect try to hurt someone we care about? We have a large number of people on "our side" who oppose what we stand for and wish to harm people we seek to protect. Under the option we chose, we will be at a disadvantage when trying to stop any resulting violence.

To say that Protection is to preserve our world leaves room for other stuff like Freedom to override it when it becomes necessary, especially as we already know that asserting our will over our community can destroy said community.

That said, I'm okay with this if we are willing to truly stand for it. Let Choice be paramount even as our loved ones slaughter each other. After all that was the scenario that Grandpa Nightmare gave to Huisheng and he concurred that it was correct.

Click to shrink...

I sincerely doubt that a new secondary concept that we lack sources for will usurp Ling Qi's current defensive concepts. Firstly, it's too low-leveled compared to other concepts, and secondly, it'll need a lot of narrative development to truly replace other concepts.

And I don't think it's fair to judge a concept before it's had time to develop. We don't even know how Ling Qi defines Choice because it's yet to settle fully in her Domain and Way.

 

[Glau]

The choice option doesn't take ownership of people or apply itself only to people and things who are ours, it applies to anyone we choose to shield. That's a pretty huge difference, IMO,

Click to shrink...

Ok, but the first thing being 'owned' in that statement is the entire world. And I get that Ling Qi regards herself as greedy, but reading that as her making a making an ownership claim over the entire world seems like a bit much. Or even over the community. To have your own community is to be a member of it, not an owner, right?

So I'm not sure why 'choice' is being read to exclude the possible negative situations brought up, but 'the things and people you have' is being read to be domineering and jealous.

Those scenarios are also easy to exclude once you assume that being controlling drives people away from you. So all the passive/controlling possibilities would conflict directly with the whole idea of preserving people and communities.

Not saying I buy into that 100%, just saying that one should be equally charitable to each option.

Personally, my worries about the second option revolve around stasis rather than domination. Sometimes things have to change to become better, and trying to preserve them as they are prevents that, leading to situations like the hui.

 

[Erebeal]

Yeah, and the stasis concerns can be managed via SCS insight and motion: to preserve and maintain the world, it must endlessly change and adapt.

 

[Glau]

Yeah, and the stasis concerns can be managed via SCS insight and motion: to preserve and maintain the world, it must endlessly change and adapt.

Click to shrink...

I don't think setting up conflicts between insights is a good idea for managing them... My belief is that we need to have a complete, coherent, self-contained domain for our path to remain open to white. So contradictory insights become landmines.

From that perspective, choosing 'choice' is the correct move, because I agree that resolving the conflict between wanting good for people and wanting them to make their own choices is more doable than resolving the conflict between knowing endings deeply, and trying to preserve ephemeral things.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

Ok, but the first thing being 'owned' in that statement is the entire world. And I get that Ling Qi regards herself as greedy, but reading that as her making a making an ownership claim over the entire world seems like a bit much. Or even over the community. To have your own community is to be a member of it, not an owner, right?

Click to shrink...

It says 'your world', not 'the world', which usually indicates that it's talking about one person's particular experiential world not the world as a whole. And sure, possessive terminology isn't always about ownership, but it literally talks about 'our' people and objects in similar terms which is...not a good sign.

So I'm not sure why 'choice' is being read to exclude the possible negative situations brought up, but 'the things and people you have' is being read to be domineering and jealous.

Click to shrink...

Choice isn't being read to exclude all negative situations, it's being read to exclude a particular negative situation that doesn't make a lot of sense (specifically, the idea that you can't stop people from removing choices others...that is just not how that works).

The actual big negative of going choice-based is that we very much cannot protect people from themselves and their own choices. That's good in some ways in terms of avoiding being too paternalistic, but it has definite and serious down sides, they just aren't the ones you or other people have been bringing up.

Those scenarios are also easy to exclude once you assume that being controlling drives people away from you. So all the passive/controlling possibilities would conflict directly with the whole idea of preserving people and communities.

Not saying I buy into that 100%, just saying that one should be equally charitable to each option.

Personally, my worries about the second option revolve around stasis rather than domination. Sometimes things have to change to become better, and trying to preserve them as they are prevents that, leading to situations like the hui.

Click to shrink...

I mean, trying to preserve something in its current state when people try to change it is the very definition of controlling behavior. So I'm not really seeing this as a big distinction.

 

[Erebeal]

The actual big negative of going choice-based is that we very much cannot protect people from themselves and their own choices. That's good in some ways in terms of avoiding being too paternalistic, but it has definite and serious down sides, they just aren't the ones you or other people have been bringing up.

Click to shrink...

I mean we could easily do that. As has been noted, choices can close off other choices. If someone is going to do something self-destructive that would close off their broader choicespace and opportunity for flourishing one could absolutely justify protecting them from that.

 

[DeadmanwalkingXI]

I mean we could easily do that. As has been noted, choices can close off other choices. If someone is going to do something self-destructive that would close off their broader choicespace and opportunity for flourishing one could absolutely justify protecting them from that.

Click to shrink...

All choices close off future choices. Protecting choice has to mean protecting even those you disagree with to some extent or you're not actually protecting choice at all.

You can probably stop someone from doing something immediately suicidal, and you can present information and argument, but if someone just wants to marry someone else who's a fundamentally bad choice for them, you're very rarely gonna be able to stop them within the context of protecting choices.

 

[JohnnieBoy123]

So I'm not sure why 'choice' is being read to exclude the possible negative situations brought up, but 'the things and people you have' is being read to be domineering and jealous.

Click to shrink...

I mean, its in character.

Ling Qi grew up with basically nothing and nobody. She killed the closest person she had to a parent while living on the streets to get a blanket for the night. She knows that when the chill of winter comes she will betray the people she cares for because she's done it three times (mother, blanket guy, and Shen Hu in the Bloody trial).

Because of this she cannot help but see herself as unworthy of love. She must constantly prove herself to everyone around her because the moment she doesn't they will all abandon her like the piece of filth she is. To expect any reciprocity is absurd: she's a greedy thief and they deserve better.

This inherently creates a degree of distance between herself and those around her. Zhengui's lack of personal experience meant he misinterpreted it as Ling Qi wanting to abandon him but Linqin and Sixiang have the better of it: LQ cannot help but see herself as something unworthy of the love of those around her and cannot imagine them giving themselves to her.

This happens to connect with the experiences of high nobility, for whom familial affection often truly is either absent entirely or deeply conditional upon performance. Her social circle is mostly high nobles for this reason (her talent being sufficient that their families are comfortable with her interacting with them).

There is, in truth, no danger at all of LQ being too possessive as she's carved the need to respect the wishes of her family into her very soul. At worst she'll need too much affection/attention and people will find that offputting (after all, she was comfortable sharing literally every moment with Sixiang). Rather the danger is that she won't reach out for help when she needs it and won't express her needs because asking for the bare minimum of support is "greedy".

This is related to why, though Yrsillar has made it clear that it won't happen, I could definitely see LQ in a polyamorous relationship: she seems like exactly the sort of person who would want to constantly be surrounded by lovers and having several lovers would reduce the burden on them substantially.

 

[Erebeal]

This is related to why, though Yrsillar has made it clear that it won't happen, I could definitely see LQ in a polyamorous relationship: she seems like exactly the sort of person who would want to constantly be surrounded by lovers and having several lovers would reduce the burden on them substantially.

Click to shrink...

I mean LQ is also kind of very low maintenance in that she'll be happy spending most of her time meditating and doing push-ups on her own

(low maintenance in the sense of social interaction that is. Not financially )