In the wake of FCG' fate I've been thinking about death in ttrpgs, and how it kind of exists on three levels:
There’s the gameplay level, where it only makes sense for a combat-heavy, pc-based game to have a tool for resurrection because the characters are going to die a lot and players get attached to them and their plotlines.
Then there’s the narrative level, where you sort of need permanent death on occasion so as not to lose all tension and realism. On this level, sometimes the player will let their character remain dead because they find it more interesting despite there being options of resurrection, or maybe the dice simply won’t allow the resurrection to succeed.
Then, of course, there’s the in-universe level, which is the one that really twists my mind. This is a world where actual resurrection of the actual dead is entirely obtainable, often without any ill effects (I mean, they'll be traumatized, but unless you ask a necromancer to do the resurrection they won’t come back as a zombie or vampire or otherwise wrong). It’s so normal that many adventurers will have gone through it multiple times. Like, imagine actually living in a world where all that keeps you from getting a missing loved one back is the funds to buy a diamond and hire a cleric. As viewers we felt that of course Pike should bring Laudna, a complete stranger, back when asked, but how often does she get this question? How many parents have come and begged her to return their child to them? How many lovers lost but still within reach? When and how does she decide who she saves and who she doesn’t?
From this perspective, I feel like every other adventurer should have the motive/backstory of 'I lost a loved one and am working to obtain the level of power/wealth to get them back'. But of course this is a game, and resurrection is just a game mechanic meant to be practically useful.
Anyway. A story-based actual play kind of has to find a way to balance these three levels. From a narrative perspective letting FCG remain dead makes sense, respects their sacrifice, and ends their arc on a highlight. From a gameplay level it is possible to bring them back but a lot more complicated than a simple revivify. But on an in-universe level, when do you decide if you should let someone remain dead or not? Is the party selfish if they don’t choose to pursue his resurrection the way they did for Laudna? Do they even know, as characters, that it’s technically possible to save someone who's been blown to smithereens? Back in campaign 2, the moment the m9 gained access to higher level resurrection they went to get Molly back (and only failed because his body had been taken back by Lucien). At the end of c1, half the party were in denial about Vax and still looking for ways to save him, because they had always been able to before (and had the game continued longer it wouldn’t have surprised me had they found a way). Deanna was brought back decades after her death (and was kind of fucked up because of it). Bringing someone back could be saving them, showing them just how loved and appreciated they are. Or it could be saving you, forcing someone back from rest and peace into a world that's kept moving without them because you can’t handle the guilt of knowing you let them stay gone when you didn’t have to. How do you know? How would you ever know?
456 notes
·
View notes
something that gets to me a lot when people suggest iroh was wrong for not intervening during the agni kai is like... can we just think through what would have happened if he'd tried?
before i say this, i want to also say that intervening in abuse in real life is also a difficult, complicated, and often inaccessible process. that doesn't mean people shouldn't try or that i think it's right things are that way - but there are legal parameters to what one is allowed to do in a situation where they witness or suspect abuse, particularly for things that are not universally recognized as inappropriate and abusive behaviors.
with that in mind:
the agni kai is a culturally sanctioned, violent, ritualistic duel. that doesn't make what ozai does right, of course, but it does make intervening that much harder. ozai was pretty obviously breaking the acceptable terms of an agni kai (because we may not know all the rules, but even if it's not an official standard, attacking a surrendering opponent is pretty much universally recognized as bad form. evidence that this is also true in-universe is that azula deliberately uses this cultural value to her advantage by faking her surrender when fighting iroh, zuko, and the gaang so that they'll stop attacking and she can strike iroh in bitter work. edit: i misspoke, this was the chase. whoops!) therefore, one could argue that someone (such as iroh) would have been in the bounds of their rights to step in during the agni kai. and i agree! he absolutely would have been, at least morally. but legally, he is living under the imperalist rule of his brother, so... acting like it's so simple ignores the power imbalance not just between zuko and ozai, but iroh and ozai at this stage of their lives.
sure, iroh was once next in line to be firelord, but that hasn't been true in a few years by this point, and ozai is now the absolute monarch of their nation. iroh can't appeal to a higher authority or report the danger zuko is in because ozai is the highest authority in their nation, and he's the one posing a danger to zuko.
some might argue, then, that iroh should have physically intervened, but again, i think it's important we consider context. because again - ozai is the absolute authority of the fire nation at this point. defying him in this way would be treason, and ozai has plenty of guards and other military officers under his rule that could fight iroh for him, even if ozai didn't deign to do it himself.
iroh is a powerful bender and a good fighter, but he's one man and unlikely to be able to gain the upper hand in a fight where he's so clearly outnumbered by people loyal to the regime, which ozai currently leads. the most likely results of iroh's potential intervention, in my opinion, would have been his getting arrested or killed, and zuko still getting burned and banished, only now without iroh coming along to look out for him. if he had tried to physically intervene, it would have been on the frankly very slim chance that he could have somehow managed to fight off ozai/guards/military officers, remove zuko from the situation, and safely get himself and zuko out of the palace...
and, in the wise words of iroh himself, then what? they wouldn't have the (already somewhat meager, compared to zhao's or azula's) resources they have in book one, yet they absolutely could not stay on fire nation soil at that point. maybe they could have figured something out??? like, i don't know how. (the part of my brain that likes thinking up aus and then never writing them imagines maybe he contacted the white lotus and hid out until they came, but i digress.)
but again, there's nothing iroh could have done in this situation that wouldn't have been risking not only his own, but zuko's safety. zuko's safety was already compromised in the agni kai, of course, but iroh maintaining his own safety meant he would be available to try and protect zuko in the long-term.
none of this means that i don't think iroh felt ashamed and guilty about his inaction (he quite obviously did, based on the way he recounts the story and how he "looked away" in the storm.) and i also don't think it would be totally unsympathetic or wrong for zuko to have some amount of resentment for it, either (i think this is less based in canon, but i've seen it in fics - where they otherwise clearly have a largely positive relationship - and i think it can be done well and add to the dynamic in an interesting and meaningful way.) it's obviously awful that this was done to zuko. but the nature of abuse is that it can often leave people, both the victims and the witnesses, with very few, if any, good choices. and that's tragic, but the onus of that tragedy will always be on the abuser - in this case, on ozai.
69 notes
·
View notes
Much as it would’ve been interesting to see Ashton carry both shards, I think that there could’ve been no harder wake up call for them than to try to absorb it, survive, and still be rejected. Had he died obviously he would’ve learned nothing because he would be busy being dead (and his ghost would probably dig deeper into a 'that’s typical nothing good ever happens to me' mentality). Had he lived and successfully absorbed the shard, he would’ve felt validated and correct in his decision, no matter how angry everyone was or how close he came to dying.
But surviving and failing? He can’t claim the universe is uniquely out to get him and revel in a justified anger and resentment, because he survived against impossible odds. But he also can’t feel like he was in the right. Lately he's been bouncing between 'I'm not owed anything and the gods hate me specifically' and 'this is my fate and birth right and what I'm owed', but this result supports neither of those extremes. The gods don’t hate him and aren’t uniquely out to get him. He isn’t special and chosen and meant to carry all the power that he wants. He's just a guy, and he fucked up. I feel like this is forcing him to see the role he himself has played in his own misery, and is setting him up to grow beyond the arrogance, entitlement and resentment that led him to try and take the shard to begin with and has given rise to his vocal dislike of the gods. Maybe it’s even setting him up for a Luxon arc, as that would let him embrace the chaos that has saved him instead of the past and blood ties he went looking for, and to work through his feelings regarding the gods without having to work with the main pantheon (that may be too much for his pride).
127 notes
·
View notes