Nasuverse You're trapped in FRO!
- Thread starter daniel_gudman
- Start date
Did the author say they took out Zouken somewhere? The story seems like it starts from the Fate Route. That means Zouken is alive and Shirou doesn't know anything about it. He's far from an expert in Magecraft, remember, so it's quite possible he's not very familiar with soul issues.
Illya knows about this stuff and knows about Zouken since he was one of the founders of the Grail system. Probably part of her motivation for not taking Shirou along against the boss was that she didn't want him to find out. If there were hints about the sort of foul magic Zouken does and what might be happening to Sakura, then Shirou would probably recklessly throw himself against Zouken once they get out. Illya might think that could get Sakura killed (which would upset Shirou). More significantly, Illya would be worried it might get Shirou killed, which she definitely doesn't want.
Probably the closest thing to Soul Transference Shirou has seen is Servants. So I don't think he'd know there're any problems with it.
Illya knows about this stuff and knows about Zouken since he was one of the founders of the Grail system. Probably part of her motivation for not taking Shirou along against the boss was that she didn't want him to find out. If there were hints about the sort of foul magic Zouken does and what might be happening to Sakura, then Shirou would probably recklessly throw himself against Zouken once they get out. Illya might think that could get Sakura killed (which would upset Shirou). More significantly, Illya would be worried it might get Shirou killed, which she definitely doesn't want.
Probably the closest thing to Soul Transference Shirou has seen is Servants. So I don't think he'd know there're any problems with it.
What Touko did is actually really difficult stuff.
Before she came along the consens among puppeteers was, that an artificial body can only be superior or inferior to a real body. Then Touko comes along and kicks reason to the curb an proceeds to make a puppet that is indistinguishable from the real thing. As a result, whenever Touko dies, her soul gets transfered into the puppet, because Gaia cannot distinguish between her real body and the puppet body.
What Zouken did is different. He changed his body into a colony of worms. Every worm is part of his body, with the most important worm currently residing in Sakura's heart. Additionaly the worms have the ability to replicate his human body by consuming a human (probably to obtain the necessary material or DNA). It wouldn't be incorrect to call him a lich, with the heart worm serving as a phylanctery.
tl;dr Touko is a soul that jumps between bodies, while Zouken is able to rebuild his body from scratch, as long some of his worms survive.
Before she came along the consens among puppeteers was, that an artificial body can only be superior or inferior to a real body. Then Touko comes along and kicks reason to the curb an proceeds to make a puppet that is indistinguishable from the real thing. As a result, whenever Touko dies, her soul gets transfered into the puppet, because Gaia cannot distinguish between her real body and the puppet body.
What Zouken did is different. He changed his body into a colony of worms. Every worm is part of his body, with the most important worm currently residing in Sakura's heart. Additionaly the worms have the ability to replicate his human body by consuming a human (probably to obtain the necessary material or DNA). It wouldn't be incorrect to call him a lich, with the heart worm serving as a phylanctery.
tl;dr Touko is a soul that jumps between bodies, while Zouken is able to rebuild his body from scratch, as long some of his worms survive.
Not sure if I'd make a familiar or not, nor what sort I'd make if I did, but I'd certainly study the concept. It's not something I'd decide on the spur of the moment.
Having a small group of non-sapient (but communicative) familiars to act as scout/spies, or even as distractions/player adds in combat, does sound very useful. Making a sapient familiar seems more morally questionable, no?
Having a small group of non-sapient (but communicative) familiars to act as scout/spies, or even as distractions/player adds in combat, does sound very useful. Making a sapient familiar seems more morally questionable, no?
I think it depends on the situation and type of bond. For one, I'd be more disturbed by a person that uses human familiars with no intelligence more than a person that has a talking dog for companionship as an example.
If you are of the opinion that all intelligent familiars are slaves and bad. Then you will probably hate all the shows involving them like Arf, Raging Heart, the Wolkenritter, and Bardiche from Nanoha, Megaman and Roll from Megaman, Len from Tsukihime, Keroberos from Cardcaptors, Chachamaru from Negima, etc.
If you are of the opinion that all intelligent familiars are slaves and bad. Then you will probably hate all the shows involving them like Arf, Raging Heart, the Wolkenritter, and Bardiche from Nanoha, Megaman and Roll from Megaman, Len from Tsukihime, Keroberos from Cardcaptors, Chachamaru from Negima, etc.
That's not what I am saying. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot more ways to do wrong to a sentient being than abuse them. Unless perhaps you define abuse so broadly that it's not a helpful way to distinguish good and bad behavior.
If you make something intelligent, then you have to be prepared to let it go its own way if it wants. If it doesn't want to do what you designed it for, that's tough luck. It's especially tricky with Magecraft since you need to feed it Prana -- if you stop powering it then you're a murderer.
I'm not sure any of your examples have that problem. Raging Heart wants to work with Nanoha (and Yuuno is fine with that). Megaman and Roll similarly want to be doing what they are doing. Chachamaru is supported in doing what she wants. With the ones I am familiar with, personality, thoughts, and wishes are supported and encouraged. (At least in so far as they come up).
But that's because it is easy to imagine everyone being great friends. The far more difficult problem is when the familiar decides it doesn't like you or doesn't want to do whatever you made it for. It's not all that common in fiction (relatively speaking), but it could certainly happen. As humans show your "kids" often don't follow your plans and you're a complete jerk if you insist on it against their wishes.
Again, this is especially tricky with intelligent Familiars in the Nasuverse, since you now have a moral obligation to keep them alive and that costs prana.
I think you are gravely mistaken to think the rights of the dead are more important than the rights of the living.
If you make something intelligent, then you have to be prepared to let it go its own way if it wants. If it doesn't want to do what you designed it for, that's tough luck. It's especially tricky with Magecraft since you need to feed it Prana -- if you stop powering it then you're a murderer.
I'm not sure any of your examples have that problem. Raging Heart wants to work with Nanoha (and Yuuno is fine with that). Megaman and Roll similarly want to be doing what they are doing. Chachamaru is supported in doing what she wants. With the ones I am familiar with, personality, thoughts, and wishes are supported and encouraged. (At least in so far as they come up).
But that's because it is easy to imagine everyone being great friends. The far more difficult problem is when the familiar decides it doesn't like you or doesn't want to do whatever you made it for. It's not all that common in fiction (relatively speaking), but it could certainly happen. As humans show your "kids" often don't follow your plans and you're a complete jerk if you insist on it against their wishes.
Again, this is especially tricky with intelligent Familiars in the Nasuverse, since you now have a moral obligation to keep them alive and that costs prana.
I think you are gravely mistaken to think the rights of the dead are more important than the rights of the living.
The last dood didn't mention rights or their priority in relation to each other. He/she/tentacles said, humanoid familiars would disturb him/her/it.
Also, that's a questionable assertion. It's equally as plausible that a sapient being that can't sustain itself and chooses to cut ties with its source of sustenance anyway has committed suicide.
Also, that's a questionable assertion. It's equally as plausible that a sapient being that can't sustain itself and chooses to cut ties with its source of sustenance anyway has committed suicide.
Fair enough. But it's a bias against non-human entities.
This is where people supporting slavery comes in, because that what you just advocated. The familiar should serve its creator even if it doesn't want to and has to do things it hates.
More significantly, it would be suicide if the familiar could choose to not be fed Prana (which I am not sure if that's even generally possible). It's murder if the creator decides to cut it off. The creator is the one that decided to make a sentient being and he has to bear the responsibility for that. You don't get a free pass to kill an intelligent being just because it doesn't act the way you want.
This is where people supporting slavery comes in, because that what you just advocated. The familiar should serve its creator even if it doesn't want to and has to do things it hates.
More significantly, it would be suicide if the familiar could choose to not be fed Prana (which I am not sure if that's even generally possible). It's murder if the creator decides to cut it off. The creator is the one that decided to make a sentient being and he has to bear the responsibility for that. You don't get a free pass to kill an intelligent being just because it doesn't act the way you want.
Nice strawman. It's good that you're moving away from murder into slavery, but a little less hyperbole would be appreciated. Maybe you'll even work your way down to littering or jaywalking.
Familiars are traditionally a contractual obligation between informed, consenting beings. I see where you're coming from, in that a created familiar doesn't necessarily have a free choice in the matter, if their survival is dependant on their service. That's getting into a murky area of ethics.
I guess the choices for those who are ethically and morally inclined are; non-sapient created familiars, sapient non-created familiars, or sapient created familiars with whom negotiation takes place.
Or, y'know, be a traditional asshat magus and not give a fuck about the entire issue - they care little enough for people and volition in the traditional definition, let alone the non-traditional kind.
Familiars are traditionally a contractual obligation between informed, consenting beings. I see where you're coming from, in that a created familiar doesn't necessarily have a free choice in the matter, if their survival is dependant on their service. That's getting into a murky area of ethics.
I guess the choices for those who are ethically and morally inclined are; non-sapient created familiars, sapient non-created familiars, or sapient created familiars with whom negotiation takes place.
Or, y'know, be a traditional asshat magus and not give a fuck about the entire issue - they care little enough for people and volition in the traditional definition, let alone the non-traditional kind.
Where's the hyperbole?
If you create something that is dependent on you for survival then you are responsible for it. If you neglect that responsibility and it dies, then you are responsible for that and it's murder. Just like if you have kids and stop feeding them, then you are guilty of murder if they die of starvation.
If you force an intelligent creature to do what you want and serve you regardless of its wishes, then it is slavery.
Considering I started this entire line of conversation to point out where there are moral issues with familiars, I'm not seeing the Strawman here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were proposing a Familiar deciding it would rather BE DEAD than serve a particular person was committing suicide. I merely was stating that for that to happen, it must REALLY not want to do what is being demanded of it. So really it has a choice between dying or slavery. Neither are good options and both are something the master is forcing upon it.
Now sure, there's the potential for healthy relationships between a master and familiar. That's not what I brought up for discussion though. Furthermore, when you create a sentient being you are not going to know what sort of relationship you are going to have with it. Maybe it will be like Megaman and Dr. Light. Or maybe it will be like Evangeline and Chachamaru (where the being decided she wanted to go live with and serve someone else).
Let's take that Chachamaru example for a closer look. If Evangeline had decided to force Chachamaru to stay and serve, then how is that not slavery? If Chachamaru, left with no other options, had decided to die rather than do that, then how does that get Evangeline off the hook, ethically speaking? (It doesn't get Evangeline off the hook legally either, for what it is worth).
We could do a similar examination with Nanoha and Raising Heart (RH). If RH had decided to go by to Yuuno and Nanoha stopped RH from doing that and forced it to serve her, then how would that not be slavery? The same if we go with canon RH and have Yuuno forcing it to back to serve him.
It can get murky even with a contract. I'm not sure that fundamentally changes anything. Especially if the being needs the contract to survive. But yes, we were talking about beings someone creates.
It isn't like forcing someone to do a lot of stuff they find horrible is ok just because you have a service agreement. Nor does having such an agreement make it ok to terminate your employee. If they need prana to survive then any agreement is going to be under duress.
Magical Contracts and needing Prana to live doesn't get people off the ethical hook. It actually makes it far easier to get in ethical trouble. It makes it far, far harder to cut ties with others and places a much heavier burden on the Prana Source / Master.
Or sapient familiars that have a way to supply their own prana. Or sapient familiars where the creator accepts the responsibilities in creating them -- neither is a good idea for amateurs though.
Non-sentient familiars that are more like animals still raise potential issues akin to animal abuse and the like too.
It's a given the average Magus is something of a monster. I was just pointing out how it can come up with familiars.
Anyhow, the point of me bringing this up is that you are likely going to have players who haven't given this a second thought and wind up in a terrible situation because of it. It can be used as an idea for subplots and the like.
This is an issue that FS/N does not overlook. Did you somehow miss all the Servants that are pissed off about their masters? Lancer (wrt to Kotomine), Caster (wrt her Original Master), and Rider (wrt Shinji) in FS/N alone are the clearest examples. They all get forced to do stuff against their will.
If you create something that is dependent on you for survival then you are responsible for it. If you neglect that responsibility and it dies, then you are responsible for that and it's murder. Just like if you have kids and stop feeding them, then you are guilty of murder if they die of starvation.
If you force an intelligent creature to do what you want and serve you regardless of its wishes, then it is slavery.
Considering I started this entire line of conversation to point out where there are moral issues with familiars, I'm not seeing the Strawman here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were proposing a Familiar deciding it would rather BE DEAD than serve a particular person was committing suicide. I merely was stating that for that to happen, it must REALLY not want to do what is being demanded of it. So really it has a choice between dying or slavery. Neither are good options and both are something the master is forcing upon it.
Now sure, there's the potential for healthy relationships between a master and familiar. That's not what I brought up for discussion though. Furthermore, when you create a sentient being you are not going to know what sort of relationship you are going to have with it. Maybe it will be like Megaman and Dr. Light. Or maybe it will be like Evangeline and Chachamaru (where the being decided she wanted to go live with and serve someone else).
Let's take that Chachamaru example for a closer look. If Evangeline had decided to force Chachamaru to stay and serve, then how is that not slavery? If Chachamaru, left with no other options, had decided to die rather than do that, then how does that get Evangeline off the hook, ethically speaking? (It doesn't get Evangeline off the hook legally either, for what it is worth).
We could do a similar examination with Nanoha and Raising Heart (RH). If RH had decided to go by to Yuuno and Nanoha stopped RH from doing that and forced it to serve her, then how would that not be slavery? The same if we go with canon RH and have Yuuno forcing it to back to serve him.
It can get murky even with a contract. I'm not sure that fundamentally changes anything. Especially if the being needs the contract to survive. But yes, we were talking about beings someone creates.
It isn't like forcing someone to do a lot of stuff they find horrible is ok just because you have a service agreement. Nor does having such an agreement make it ok to terminate your employee. If they need prana to survive then any agreement is going to be under duress.
Magical Contracts and needing Prana to live doesn't get people off the ethical hook. It actually makes it far easier to get in ethical trouble. It makes it far, far harder to cut ties with others and places a much heavier burden on the Prana Source / Master.
Or sapient familiars that have a way to supply their own prana. Or sapient familiars where the creator accepts the responsibilities in creating them -- neither is a good idea for amateurs though.
Non-sentient familiars that are more like animals still raise potential issues akin to animal abuse and the like too.
It's a given the average Magus is something of a monster. I was just pointing out how it can come up with familiars.
Anyhow, the point of me bringing this up is that you are likely going to have players who haven't given this a second thought and wind up in a terrible situation because of it. It can be used as an idea for subplots and the like.
nick012000 said:
Intelligent familiars are slaves? I guess someone forgot to tell that to pretty much every Servant ever! 
Except murder doesn't require that at all. Neither the law nor colloquial uses of the word require malice aforethought. It's purely optional.
Legally, Murder in the First Degree can be premeditated murder. It can also be killing without premeditation as part of another crime (in the US typically this must be a felony). Murder In the Second Degree just requires intent to kill, but does not require premeditation. Depending on how the law would treat sentient familiars, cutting off Prana is either First or Second Degree Murder.
Colloquially it is just killing something inhumanely or barbarously. This also fits. The guy that kills his sentient familiar because it doesn't do what he wants and he doesn't consider it has rights has definitely killing inhumanely (especially since prana depletion is a lot like starvation).
Though for what it is worth, deciding to kill a Familiar by stopping its supply of Prana does require malice (e.g. "intent to harm"). You don't get off free just because you don't consider the victim to have rights. Since it takes time for the Familiar to die (in all likelihood) this allows for it being a very deliberate act, which is close enough to the principle of premeditation since it's a reversible decision up to a certain point.
Maybe you should look up important words before posting. We'll waste less time that way.
Legally, Murder in the First Degree can be premeditated murder. It can also be killing without premeditation as part of another crime (in the US typically this must be a felony). Murder In the Second Degree just requires intent to kill, but does not require premeditation. Depending on how the law would treat sentient familiars, cutting off Prana is either First or Second Degree Murder.
Colloquially it is just killing something inhumanely or barbarously. This also fits. The guy that kills his sentient familiar because it doesn't do what he wants and he doesn't consider it has rights has definitely killing inhumanely (especially since prana depletion is a lot like starvation).
Though for what it is worth, deciding to kill a Familiar by stopping its supply of Prana does require malice (e.g. "intent to harm"). You don't get off free just because you don't consider the victim to have rights. Since it takes time for the Familiar to die (in all likelihood) this allows for it being a very deliberate act, which is close enough to the principle of premeditation since it's a reversible decision up to a certain point.
Maybe you should look up important words before posting. We'll waste less time that way.
Bob robs a bank and lock people in the vault so they can't call the police. Bob is stupid and doesn't know that the air will run out. 10 people die. He can be convicted of Murder and there's no intent. At least in a lot of places (such as the State of Ohio or in England). It's possible there are States or Countries where this isn't true.
In a lot of places killing people (regardless of intent) while committing a major crime is Murder of some sort.
In a lot of places killing people (regardless of intent) while committing a major crime is Murder of some sort.
Drachasor said:
nick012000 said:
Intelligent familiars are slaves? I guess someone forgot to tell that to pretty much every Servant ever!
nick012000 said:
Drachasor said:
nick012000 said:
Intelligent familiars are slaves? I guess someone forgot to tell that to pretty much every Servant ever!
It would be completely different if you had enough power to force your familiar or servant to do what you wanted no matter what. Berserker and Illya are probably a better example of this.
You're really missing the point (and changing your argument) by focusing on the Master/Servant partnerships that work well. The potential for abuse is there and could easily be an issue. Especially if the master demands certain behaviors from the familiar.
Berserker's a probably masochist that gets off on being enslaved, and he definitely feels very positively towards Ilya (as is demonstrated by his last words and final actions in UBW). In one of his legends, Hercules was enslaved by a queen and forced to crossdress and do women's work for a year in punishment for a crime he committed, and when the year was up, he married her. Seriously.
So, yeah, enslaving someone when they've got a sexual fetish for being enslaved is probably going to have far fewer negative consequences than trying to enslave pretty much every Heroic Spirit ever. Like Lancer, who either murders Kotomine or dies fighting his buddy Gilgamesh given the opportunity, Caster, who murders the mage who enslaved her, Saber, who got into heated arguments with Kiritsugu (and only refrained from something more extreme because of her sense of chivalry), Gilgamesh who conviced Kotomine to murder Tokiomi, or Rider who only refrains from murdering Shinji because it'd make Sakura sad.
So, yeah, enslaving someone when they've got a sexual fetish for being enslaved is probably going to have far fewer negative consequences than trying to enslave pretty much every Heroic Spirit ever. Like Lancer, who either murders Kotomine or dies fighting his buddy Gilgamesh given the opportunity, Caster, who murders the mage who enslaved her, Saber, who got into heated arguments with Kiritsugu (and only refrained from something more extreme because of her sense of chivalry), Gilgamesh who conviced Kotomine to murder Tokiomi, or Rider who only refrains from murdering Shinji because it'd make Sakura sad.
Well, this topic derailed quickly.
I'm not sure If my definition of abuse is unusually broad but I do think keeping a familiar against it's will is abuse yes.
As for the sanctity of the dead and the living. Since your previous statement made it seem like you believe any development of intelligent familiar is bad. My example was to point out that someone using non sentient humans as familiars was far more disturbing than a happy bond between an intelligent familiar and master. Which my later examples were made to emphasize.
Anyway, I'm kind of confused about what your argument is for. Are you ok with the creation of intelligent familiars? Or are you against the creation of intelligent familiars?Is honestly curious
I'm not sure If my definition of abuse is unusually broad but I do think keeping a familiar against it's will is abuse yes.
As for the sanctity of the dead and the living. Since your previous statement made it seem like you believe any development of intelligent familiar is bad. My example was to point out that someone using non sentient humans as familiars was far more disturbing than a happy bond between an intelligent familiar and master. Which my later examples were made to emphasize.
Anyway, I'm kind of confused about what your argument is for. Are you ok with the creation of intelligent familiars? Or are you against the creation of intelligent familiars?Is honestly curious