- Location
- Greece
It would be easier to just kill Malekith, honestly. Stack Assassin traits and skills, steal the secrets of the Eshin clan and train ourselves in their skills.
I never said we shouldn't do that too. It'll even be feasible earlier.
I made a post a long while back on the difference between affecting a setting, and "fixing" a setting. And for me; things like "redeem the Skaven race" and "kill the Hirned Rat" fall into the latter category. It's such a drastic shift on such a fundamental level for the setting that seeing it happen by any method over any span of time is distasteful. It's not about scale or power creep for me, but a narrative and thematic direction that I just can't get behind.
It hurts my enjoyment of the quest knowing that there's a possibility of trying to break the setting over our knee in our unmitigated hubris. It is not a realistic or achievable goal in the setting, and merely considering it strikes at my suspension of disbelief and the quest's verisimilitude. Now I expect Boney to be a better QM than to allow this without extreme preparation on the order of decades and centuries of concerted effort, pouring our every action and our entire life into the task to the exclusion of all else, only to find that it may indeed be impossible.
Ah, that I get, albeit I do not agree. I think its the difference between one seeing it as a game while the other sees it as a story.
As a game, the null hypothesis gamestate is liked, because it is, and will always be, the status quo. Moreover, it is what allows for conflict to perpetually exist, and conflict is fun. Anything that warps the game state too badly feels wrong.
As a story, however, the board is made to be warped. Indeed, many of the best stories had the board severely warped, both to the in universe better (good changed the table) and to the in universe worse (evil changed the table), in a way that made the story better and introduced new possibilities and plot threads. Even in those stories, when its done well, its not so much that the setting is fixed as it is that it is changed. I can present many examples on how making even the higher parts of the setting malleable made stories better, but I would be dropping spoilers about , like, 17 different stories, and I am unsure whether that is polite. I will , however, state that even in setting we will be doing nothing Nagash didn't also do. In conclusion, in a story, the large scale status quo being hit by a hammer after the readers internalise it is a valid way of good storytelling, albeit not the only one.
Either way, I believe the redemption of the Skaven is a story worth telling. Heck, the death of the chaos gods would be a story worth telling, but only if new problems arose afterwards (say, by new chaos gods, or by the magic being fixed and safe... but creating a magocracy, although based on how strong Mathilde will be if she kills the chaos gods, the second sounds more like something for a sequel protagonist to takle), otherwise, it'd just be a "happily even after" finale.
It kind of does hurt when you try to change it from (My) long term goal to (Our) long term goal. Because then you inevitably get pushback from people who don't like that direction and end up with many other people having to skim past a completely irrelevant discussion.
I apologise, that was not my intent. The argument about long term goals that do not have to make us go out of your way was made because people were saying "its impossible, so better not even think about it", it was not put there as a subtle way of exerting control. When I deem it achieavable on the short term, I assure you, I will put it on the table and argue fair and square. I just want to prepare early for that eventual when.