Patrefans
Ria's Adventures from patreon
Ria's Adventures patreon

Godslayer Lysette: Chapter 192

🕑 Added 2024-09-01 17:01:52 +0000 UTC

Comments

Ria Corvidiva

I mean, Lysette is certainly going to try to make that a reality. Maybe not *all* the plants, of course. She recognizes that they need wood for housing, grains and fruits and vegetables for eating, grasses for the livestock to graze, and so on. But she's definitely of a mind not to unnecessarily harm plant life out of minor inconvenience. And maybe she can extend that sentiment to include not harming *people* out of minor inconvenience as well.

Dave T

I describe myself as a selfish person - all my actions are based on getting something for myself. However experience has taught me that in the long run I'm probably going to get more by doing what I can to help others. I also recognise that at some point I'm going to need help and that helping others in the meantime greatly increases the chances of that help being offered as and when I need it. I'd also like to say I think Lyse has made a seriously smart move with that tree. Imagine if all the forests and wild plants start following her, suddenly attacks on the village etc are going to face even stiffer opposition.

Bielna

I would agree to disagree, if you are fine with it. Because I do believe this enforcement you mention needs to exist, in some form chosen and organized by the community, to prevent abuse. I do not believe a system that supports inequality can work for the respect of individuals, because no matter how much you teach understanding and cooperation, there will always be those who refuse it who will emerge ; particularly among those who have tasted the power to force their decisions upon others. You can't trust me to work in our common interest. You can't even trust me to work in my personal interest, in fact. If nothing prevents me from doing it, I will hurt someone, or eventually pass my position to someone who will. This is what I believe of people, and why systems creating inequality, giving some unchecked powers over others (economic, divine or otherwise) cannot sustainably provide mutual benefits. I recognize the merits of your approach, but I believe its risks and drawbacks would win out, in the end.

Jessica

But I can't enforce those agreements and bindings. So whether or not we make these agreements explicit my life still depends on your understanding of their reason. Otherwise there would have to be a warrior culture forcing everybody into a monolithic inequality in an arms race between the need for individual strength to allow for greater freedom in the society and the societies need to match that strength to defend against it, or there would have to be a police force exchanging that protection for servitude to them. So it is an increase of understanding that will lead to peaceful liberty not an increase in enforced equality and that understanding requires diversity if not inequality because the root of our struggle is seeing our neighbor having something and coveting it.

Bielna

Yes, but then I have a choice of whether I value your life of your muffins more, and you have no recourse if you don't like my decision. And sure, in the short term, maybe I'll prefer the muffins. But eventually, there will be a situation where that will change (out of utilitarianism or cruelty), if not between us, then between those who will come after us and inherit the system we left behind. Equality does not have to equate identity, though. I might have worked on my strength while you worked on your baking, but then we should have rules and bindings ensuring I can't use that strength unduly against you. That way, though our abilities wouldn't be the same, our power upon each other would be equal.

Jessica

"mutual benefit can never come from a system that increases the gap between people" And I don't think that is the case. There is strength in diversity not in equality. As such there is diverse inequality or monolithic inequality. The former is mutually beneficial while the latter is not. Imagine you are an ambitious cultivator ever increasing your strength while I just chill in my cottage. As long as you know and value that you can always drop by for tea and muffins after a fight and I know you'll keep me safe for that, we can live mutually beneficial even though there is an increasing gap between us. It's just when you decide to use your strength to force me into your war effort that I lose my life and you your muffins.

Ria Corvidiva

Which, I think is the difference between the platonic ideal of commerce between two relative equals, both truly free to trade or not based on selfish benefit, and between two disparate parties, where the more powerful one can lock the weaker one in to onerous 'terms and conditions', or when dealing with goods such as food, medicine, and shelter that people cannot live without. Lyon is used to thinking about trade as being trade among near-equals, and hasn't quite grasped that it's less 'two cities allying' and more 'a nation-state is imposing its military will upon a 'protectorate' Lysette at least acknowledges that she's not completely free of fault, but is trying to navigate matters as best she can (including with the limited knowledge she has)

Bielna

I do agree that someone can help themselves by helping the community, but what Lyon doesn't understand is that mutual benefit can never come from a system that increases the gap between people. Not in the long term, at least, only in short term. That's true for trading, and that's true for divinity. His statement, while well-intended, is naive. The divine powers that not just the current pantheon, but even Lysette, Serrena and Mirae hold are tools for dominance and oppression, because the system is inherently made to increase the gap between mortals and deities. Even if they try to use their divinity responsibly, as long as their purpose remain to gain power (actively or accepted as a matter of fact and nature) while mortals are bounded far below them, the contradiction between desiring equality and accepting inequality as the order of the world will eventually tear their intentions apart, or be perverted by others. That's what Asterion is all about. Belief that as a god, he is inherently superior, that power makes right and that hierarchy is how things should be, that his own power and superiority serves the world. Which we know from seeing the point of view of mortals, is wrong. Yet, he could also make the point that his selfish actions are a net benefit for everyone, and might even be right, except he doesn't acknowledge that said benefit is very, very skewed. And while he's an asshole, the way divinity works favors his approach by giving deities the power to dominate mortals and Aimarion. And at the same time, it is something inherently hostile particularly to Reciprocity (inequality between mortals and deities means inequality of treatment) and somewhat to Ambition (special powers given to select people that others can't hope to match or achieve). That's also a core difference that comes out from their speech. Lyon states that selfishness is fine as a general rule based on his trading experience, leads to mutual benefit, despite numerous examples of how gaps between people are harmful. Lysette acknowledges that selfishness is necessary in the short-term, to take down Asterion and change the world, but she doesn't state that furthering such inequality is how the world should actually work, when striving for something better ; quite the opposite, she states that deities being allowed to act without concern for mortals is a root of evil.

Jessica

There's a difference between the good kind of selfishness that Lyon proposes and the bad kind that Lysette fears. Instead of getting a bigger piece of cake you can work to make the cake itself bigger and in the latter case you might end up with more cake for yourself than in the former. The difference is whether you work towards your own comfort or towards having more than everybody around you regardless of how little that is. The former is what would actually be selfish while the latter is what we usually call selfish even though it would be better described as antagonistic. The problem with capitalism and economics is that they defend the former but implement the latter.

Ria Corvidiva

There's a very, very thin line that separates 'accruing power within the system' and 'succumbing to the power of the system'. And since learning about being a demon and exactly what that entails, Lysette knows she's especially vulnerable to falling into the abyss. And she very much does not want that at all!

Bielna

Let's be honest, Lyon, that comparison doesn't work as well as you think it does. It's nice to be optimistic but there is no way a system in which deities are free to be selfish, growing more powerful being able to impose their will upon mortals, while the gap in power means mortals have zero recourse against deities acting with unfairness or cruelty, can be described as "mutually beneficial". It can only lead to injustice and the powerful gaining much more than they deserve in the long run, even if on short-term someone might "act nice" despite having more power than others, usually for their own benefit. Much like how trading can benefit to all parties, as in your example, but an economic system designed to increase the gap between the rich and the poor is profoundly flawed ; so is too the unbridgeable gap between deities and mortals. Lysette knows that the power gap is shitty and should not exist, and though she can't give up that power now while the gods threaten Aimarion, she does not take that selfishness as a granted right ; on that aspect, she certainly displays far more wisdom and experience than Lyon.


More Creators