It's true. How many times have you thrown a cursed ring into the deepest depths of the ocean, then when you get back home and have a cup of tea, there it is?Welsh Halfwit wrote:1. Indestructible.GameCobra wrote:Why do I get the feeling going to see King is not going to produce the expected results - because King very likely trashed or sold the statue at this point? X3
2. If he sells it, it'll just come back.
Nobody wrote:Where was this said? I can't find it in the archives.Argent wrote:Don't forget that Pete promised "equivocation between human and animal kind", not "equality".
So now you're going to Great Kitsune? And do you know where find him? I would also consider to go back to Thomas, to let him talk with Keene about his transforming and of the fact he saw a sort of hologram of Pete speaking to him in the temple... Oh, in five on a scooter. 
Keene doesn't need the sunglasses, though, there's already the windshield. He always wants to look cool. 
You're right, Poncho, but don't worry, in some parts of the world they already use so. 
Hmmmm, we don't have a reindeer in the cast yet, do we?Frank wrote:Or the wish fulfillment department is staffed by reindeer and they get a kick out of seeing Thomas feel their painsNHWestoN wrote: Except for Thomas, of course. Santa can't stand him. Besides, Thomas is what Sofie wants for Christmas, and Santa likes Camels.
...or HP! shippers
Yet.NHWestoN wrote:
Hmmmm, we don't have a reindeer in the cast yet, do we?
It's not entirely the same because there is a lot more evidence to support the Pete thing versus the Lois thing. We can't wait around for someone to literally say "this was the plan all along" because that is never going to happen. This is the closest we're going to get to a definite answer to Pete's plan.VeryAngryDeer wrote:I don't think so. Its the same with Lois speculating that the transformations are contagious - just because a character says it in the comic, doesn't mean my speculations on the forum are true, no matter how much effort I put into talking about it.fenrirblack wrote: Even if that is technically true, it makes more sense to assume Rick is basically putting the age old question to bed by purposely adding that line. Read between th lines do to speak but in this case out right saying this was Pete’s intent. Of course for the sake of story Keene can’t say for sure because that wouldn’t make sense but Rick in this manner can.
Given that the Celestials have massive amounts of power to affect reality, and the Game allows them to interfere with free will on the basis that it must be for the affected person's own good... is it really more likely that Pete would turn everyone into animals rather than just change everyone's perceptions of human-animal relations?
On the other hand, its Henry Milton who made the deal with Pete. A man who wanted to be an animal so much that he goes around in Heaven with a ferret body. This is a man who I would not be surprisedif he just assumed that everyone would be like him and think being an animal was better than a human. Pete's deal with Henry could have been to turn everyone into animals, while Keene's modifications to the deal were to push it more to the socio-political changes.
I disagree that there is more evidence. As others have noted, some of the evidence would even contradict your point.fenrirblack wrote:It's not entirely the same because there is a lot more evidence to support the Pete thing versus the Lois thing. We can't wait around for someone to literally say "this was the plan all along" because that is never going to happen. This is the closest we're going to get to a definite answer to Pete's plan.VeryAngryDeer wrote:-snip-
The problem with affecting perception is that they literally can't do that. How is changing peoples minds or memories that different from simply taking over and effecting their free will? They're still altering people's feelings and minds which as we've seen is illegal and impossible without consent. Besides its Pete, I doubt he would really put too much though or effort into coming up with a complex plan of socio-political nonsense versus just taking the simplest method, one that he has shown to be fond of as he has done it repeatedly so far.
That's still not interfering with the free will as much as the actions taken. It's more complicated than that. King said that Pete can't override his actions just the physical conditions around him as well as his body but not his mind. That is the difference. Pete could change the biology and even the landscape if he wanted but not who someone is or force them to act against their own desires. It's commonplace in stories for beings such as Pete to interfere with the surroundings and Influence someones actions but not those actions themselves. What Kitsune is referring to in that scene is that King is part of the Game and stuck as a dog but every choice he makes is still his own to choose. Pete and the rest altered King's situation but not his own ability to choose how to adapt and survive. If he wanted to run away and join the circus he could but he chose not to which again is part of his free will.VeryAngryDeer wrote:I disagree that there is more evidence. As others have noted, some of the evidence would even contradict your point.fenrirblack wrote:It's not entirely the same because there is a lot more evidence to support the Pete thing versus the Lois thing. We can't wait around for someone to literally say "this was the plan all along" because that is never going to happen. This is the closest we're going to get to a definite answer to Pete's plan.VeryAngryDeer wrote:-snip-
The problem with affecting perception is that they literally can't do that. How is changing peoples minds or memories that different from simply taking over and effecting their free will? They're still altering people's feelings and minds which as we've seen is illegal and impossible without consent. Besides its Pete, I doubt he would really put too much though or effort into coming up with a complex plan of socio-political nonsense versus just taking the simplest method, one that he has shown to be fond of as he has done it repeatedly so far.
As I said; "the Game allows them to interfere with free will on the basis that it must be for the affected person's own good"
They absolutely can do that, and they can do it without consent, its just heavily restricted.
Pete chose his wording to get out of any potential legal trouble that he might find himself in which even at that point I doubt he would bother with considering the entire premise was that of a role-playing game.Argent wrote:Don't forget that Pete promised "equivocation between human and animal kind", not "equality".
Either he's not the smartest demigod in the pantheon or he was playing shenanigans with his followers from the start.Google wrote:e·quiv·o·ca·tion /iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n/ noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"
So what you are saying is that Pete could not be behind the transformations of Marion and Lois, but another Celestial could be? If so, then said Celestial probably has a grudge against humanity (or is Dino-Demon trying to make Keene happy).fenrirblack wrote:That's still not interfering with the free will as much as the actions taken. It's more complicated than that. King said that Pete can't override his actions just the physical conditions around him as well as his body but not his mind. That is the difference. Pete could change the biology and even the landscape if he wanted but not who someone is or force them to act against their own desires. It's commonplace in stories for beings such as Pete to interfere with the surroundings and Influence someones actions but not those actions themselves.
Robotech_Master wrote:Or does he? I mean, he did mention it while hanging out at Keene's hot tub party. Keene wasn't in that strip, but they could have met up sometime off-panel during that affair.Welsh Halfwit wrote:No. Keene doesn't know Kitsune's 'helping' their Mom, nor that he's also got a Kidsune form. He DOES know King has that 'statue' that Kitsune likes to use...LunarFox wrote:Well, if they go see GK, won't that mean the fox kits too?
I suppose we'll find out on Monday whether Keene goes to the tree, or to King's place. I'm personally betting on the tree.
No. Keene doesn't know Kitsune's 'helping' their Mom, nor that he's also got a Kidsune form. He DOES know King has that 'statue' that Kitsune likes to use...Welsh Halfwit wrote:LunarFox wrote:Well, if they go see GK, won't that mean the fox kits too?
It is interesting because Keene has never personally met Kitsune as far as we've seen in the comic or spoken to one another. Any relationship they have happened off panel so there is no guarantee where they will end up. For comedic purposes, the wolf house. For narrative purposes, the treehouse.Startrekfan47 wrote:No. Keene doesn't know Kitsune's 'helping' their Mom, nor that he's also got a Kidsune form. He DOES know King has that 'statue' that Kitsune likes to use...Welsh Halfwit wrote:LunarFox wrote:Well, if they go see GK, won't that mean the fox kits too?
...or does he?
On top of how convenient it would be for him, a large part about the dispute was how quickly the equalizing would be happening. Pete was of the stance that change should be fast.VeryAngryDeer wrote:It looks like the simplest method, in that changing the socio-political situation would require more planning on Pete's part... but transforming everyone into animals is by no means guaranteed to fulfill the promise of equality, especially not in a reasonable amount of time. If Pete puts in the extra effort to make sure its done right first time, he won't have to come back and fix things if it goes wrong.
Your definition of free will is too narrow. This is what Rick Griffin said on the matter. Additionally, "the free will and agency rule" was part of the duel. It might not matter anyway if the plan was to fulfill the promise after he won.fenrirblack wrote:That's still not interfering with the free will as much as the actions taken. It's more complicated than that. King said that Pete can't override his actions just the physical conditions around him as well as his body but not his mind. That is the difference. Pete could change the biology and even the landscape if he wanted but not who someone is or force them to act against their own desires. It's commonplace in stories for beings such as Pete to interfere with the surroundings and Influence someones actions but not those actions themselves. What Kitsune is referring to in that scene is that King is part of the Game and stuck as a dog but every choice he makes is still his own to choose. Pete and the rest altered King's situation but not his own ability to choose how to adapt and survive. If he wanted to run away and join the circus he could but he chose not to which again is part of his free will.
fenrirblack wrote:Argent has already pointed out that it was never "equality" in the first place.Argent wrote:Don't forget that Pete promised "equivocation between human and animal kind", not "equality".
Either he's not the smartest demigod in the pantheon or he was playing shenanigans with his followers from the start.Google wrote:e·quiv·o·ca·tion /iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n/ noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"
It must have been slip of the tongue by Pete there because in other instances (to name a few) they talk about real equality. It's possible the woodland critters misinterpreted Pete, but there's no reason for Dragon to be at odds with Pete about "equivocation".rickgriffin wrote:Pete’s promise was to equalize man and animal. This is a broad sort of promise, and he had all intention of keeping it; he would not care to make a promise to mortals that he didn’t want to do (even if it’s crazy), because why would he need to.
fenrirblack wrote:Pete chose his wording to get out of any potential legal trouble that he might find himself in
rickgriffin wrote:It’s more a legal obligation than an escape clause.
You're thinking to grandiose again. The stakes of the game were never to save the world. As Sabrina says, "Think of it as two sides of a football game. You can take it seriously if you want [but it's not]... Just because there's two sides doesn't mean they're good and evil." The stakes were more personal. The reason Heaven's Not Enough, part 3 happened (other than because King would never turn down an opportunity to spite Pete) was only because King was afraid being Pete's avatar would "irrnversably affect her" It's backwards to assume there must be a world level threat to have a good conflict then make up one and call it evidence.fenrirblack wrote:Even looking at it from a story telling perspective, changing the socio-political aspect of the world would be terrible stakes for the story and honestly would not be worth fighting against which again was the entire point of the Game story arc was to stop Pete from winning and therefore destroying the world as we know it.
It makes it crystal clear that changing everyone into animals was not Keene's plan with the mana as it has been firmly established keene doesn't agree with what he though Pete's plan was and it also helps take the discussion from talking about the source of Lois and Marion's transformation to the subject of visiting Great Kitsune.fenrirblack wrote:Ask yourself this, what possible reason would Rick have for having Keene say that if wasn't true?
King saying that is another example of a character speculating in-universe, without out-of-universe knowledge. He could be right or wrong, and Pete trapshim in the cage because its what King dared him to do. Given that Kitsune specifically says "your choice can be overridden", I think that proves my point.fenrirblack wrote:-snip-
like that ancient fifties horror movie, it becomes "The Beast That Would Not Die!".Dissension wrote:Y'all ever wonder how it feels to misunderstand what a word means and have people base their opinion of a character on that and bring it up constantly?
The first example involves about the most unreliable witnesses in the book other than perhaps Bino. The second is still second hand, you can't assume Dragon knows exactly what he promised Henry Milton. All we know from the second is that if Pete was being sneaky in the wording he's not dumb enough to reveal it when he doesn't need to.
I've brought it up twice now, as far as I can recall, and my opinion of Pete was already pretty much set by that point.Dissension wrote:Y'all ever wonder how it feels to misunderstand what a word means and have people base their opinion of a character on that and bring it up constantly?
Well, if they're going to see Kitsune, I'd assume they'd go to King's house where the statue is kept. How Lois concluded Kitsune was involved, I do not know. I also don't know how Keene would know about King's statue. More mysteries for Monday maybe...…….Startrekfan47 wrote:No. Keene doesn't know Kitsune's 'helping' their Mom, nor that he's also got a Kidsune form. He DOES know King has that 'statue' that Kitsune likes to use...Welsh Halfwit wrote:LunarFox wrote:Well, if they go see GK, won't that mean the fox kits too?
...or does he?
I don't think she's concluded that he's involved. She's been told a demi-god's involved and, of the ones that were here, only Kitsune is available. He MIGHT provide an answer.NHWestoN wrote: Well, if they're going to see Kitsune, I'd assume they'd go to King's house where the statue is kept. How Lois concluded Kitsune was involved, I do not know. I also don't know how Keene would know about King's statue. More mysteries for Monday maybe...…….
On the topic of Rick‘s example there, Pete basically did that very thing with keeping King from saying “Joel” but Kitsune put a stop to it which says that even that level of control was unacceptable.Champion Wallace wrote:Your definition of free will is too narrow. This is what Rick Griffin said on the matter. Additionally, "the free will and agency rule" was part of the duel. It might not matter anyway if the plan was to fulfill the promise after he won.fenrirblack wrote:That's still not interfering with the free will as much as the actions taken. It's more complicated than that. King said that Pete can't override his actions just the physical conditions around him as well as his body but not his mind. That is the difference. Pete could change the biology and even the landscape if he wanted but not who someone is or force them to act against their own desires. It's commonplace in stories for beings such as Pete to interfere with the surroundings and Influence someones actions but not those actions themselves. What Kitsune is referring to in that scene is that King is part of the Game and stuck as a dog but every choice he makes is still his own to choose. Pete and the rest altered King's situation but not his own ability to choose how to adapt and survive. If he wanted to run away and join the circus he could but he chose not to which again is part of his free will.
Whether or not hybrid motives for stopping it were to save the world or not is not the point. What would have happened if Pete won? He would have kept his promise which would have caused chaos. King and most of them didn’t know if this fact but that doesn’t mean that those stakes weren’t there. It was established that if Pete won it would have been bad no matter what he would have ended up doing. Again Keene said that was Pete’s plan and it would have been chaos so there is evidence in the comic.Champion Wallace wrote:You're thinking to grandiose again. The stakes of the game were never to save the world. As Sabrina says, "Think of it as two sides of a football game. You can take it seriously if you want [but it's not]... Just because there's two sides doesn't mean they're good and evil." The stakes were more personal. The reason Heaven's Not Enough, part 3 happened (other than because King would never turn down an opportunity to spite Pete) was only because King was afraid being Pete's avatar would "irrnversably affect her" It's backwards to assume there must be a world level threat to have a good conflict then make up one and call it evidence.fenrirblack wrote:Even looking at it from a story telling perspective, changing the socio- aspect of the world would be terrible stakes for the story and honestly would not be worth fighting against which again was the entire point of the Game story arc was to stop Pete from winning and therefore destroying the world as we know it.
That could have been done a million different ways but Rick worded it the way he did to purposely tell us something.Champion Wallace wrote:It makes it crystal clear that changing everyone into animals was not Keene's plan with the mana as it has been firmly established keene doesn't agree with what he though Pete's plan was and it also helps take the discussion from talking about the source of Lois and Marion's transformation to the subject of visiting Great Kitsune.fenrirblack wrote:Ask yourself this, what possible reason would Rick have for having Keene say that if wasn't true?
Kitsune practically did say it when he told Pete he couldn’t just take over Kong’s mind without consent.VeryAngryDeer wrote: King saying that is another example of a character speculating in-universe, without out-of-universe knowledge. He could be right or wrong, and Pete trapshim in the cage because its what King dared him to do. Given that Kitsune specifically says "your choice can be overridden", I think that proves my point.
From what Dissension said I think we can put this to rest with what Pete said in the trial in heaven was supposed to mean equality. I didn't even realize it didn't technically until you pointed it out.Argent wrote:The first example involves about the most unreliable witnesses in the book other than perhaps Bino. The second is still second hand, you can't assume Dragon knows exactly what he promised Henry Milton. All we know from the second is that if Pete was being sneaky in the wording he's not dumb enough to reveal it when he doesn't need to.
If you do in fact think changing the socio- aspect of the world would lead to chaos, would've been bad for the world, and were present stakes, then why did you say if would not be worth fighting against and terrible stakes for the story? You're contradicting yourself.fenrirblack wrote:Whether or not hybrid motives for stopping it were to save the world or not is not the point. What would have happened if Pete won? He would have kept his promise which would have caused chaos. King and most of them didn’t know if this fact but that doesn’t mean that those stakes weren’t there. It was established that if Pete won it would have been bad no matter what he would have ended up doing. Again Keene said that was Pete’s plan and it would have been chaos so there is evidence in the comic.
Looking back from a logical standpoint I think King made the wrong choice to intervene and end the game for reasons you said plus a few others. However, I forgive King because you can't expect your heroes to act logically all the time. The best tragic heroes are those that think they're doing something noble but because of factors they don't know or wont accept it's not. I strongly disagree that the entire Game arc was a huge waste of time. Sometimes a story is about the journey more then the destination. Calling it a waste of time would devalue all the fun of reading the arcs that came before Heaven's Not Enough.fenrirblack wrote:Shifting gears for a second, the stakes of King’s fear or Bailey in danger can barely qualify because there is little evidence that Bailey would have been affected and King “saving her” at the last second, noble as it was, seemed redundant considering it was almost over anyway. By not raising the stakes higher (or at all) then the entire Game arc was a huge waste of time because none of it would have mattered in the grand Scheme. It would have ended, everyone would go home a little worse for wear, and King would still probably make the choice to stay a dog.
Not everything has a triple meaning. If you look too far into something all you'll see is yourself. You can't always craft the perfect thing to say with both flow and no ambiguity every time.fenrirblack wrote:That could have been done a million different ways but Rick worded it the way he did to purposely tell us something.Champion Wallace wrote:It makes it crystal clear that changing everyone into animals was not Keene's plan with the mana as it has been firmly established keene doesn't agree with what he though Pete's plan was and it also helps take the discussion from talking about the source of Lois and Marion's transformation to the subject of visiting Great Kitsune.fenrirblack wrote:Ask yourself this, what possible reason would Rick have for having Keene say that if wasn't true?
I was going to make a point about how total mind-control can't really be seen as being for someone's own good...fenrirblack wrote:Kitsune practically did say it when he told Pete he couldn’t just take over Kong’s mind without consent.VeryAngryDeer wrote: King saying that is another example of a character speculating in-universe, without out-of-universe knowledge. He could be right or wrong, and Pete trapshim in the cage because its what King dared him to do. Given that Kitsune specifically says "your choice can be overridden", I think that proves my point.
That quote is about the Playing the Game. Jigsaw could say that exact same thing when he’s about to kill someone and say “it’s for your own good.” If you put someone in a life threatening situation or hold them against their will and call it “good for them” that doesn’t mean that they can’t fight back or resist.
You're not the only one to bring it up, and it's already been explained to you (and to everyone generally) that this was a writer's error, so you can kindly stop bringing it up as if it means anything in the comic universe.Argent wrote:I've brought it up twice now, as far as I can recall, and my opinion of Pete was already pretty much set by that point.Dissension wrote:Y'all ever wonder how it feels to misunderstand what a word means and have people base their opinion of a character on that and bring it up constantly?
Saying that we should take Keene's assumption as literal truth is hardly an example of triple meaning. In fact it's literally the simplest reading. And I've reread the conversation between you two like a half dozen times to make sure I'm not missing something, but yeah, Fenrir is saying take the most basic reading of Keene's statement as truth from the author. It's fine to be skeptical, but Fenrir's is also a very valid reading of it, and extremely hard to argue againstChampion Wallace wrote:.fenrirblack wrote:Ask yourself this, what possible reason would Rick have for having Keene say that if wasn't true?
.
.
Not everything has a triple meaning. If you look too far into something all you'll see is yourself. You can't always craft the perfect thing to say with both flow and no ambiguity every time.
For your own good is biassed no matter how you look at it. In King's case it was for own good because his life was a total dumpster fire and he benefited substantially from it which was Kitsune's goal or part of his overall plan. The easiest thing to say is that if the individual is happier, healthier, and generally better off after the fact then it was "for their own good."VeryAngryDeer wrote:I was going to make a point about how total mind-control can't really be seen as being for someone's own good...fenrirblack wrote:Kitsune practically did say it when he told Pete he couldn’t just take over Kong’s mind without consent.VeryAngryDeer wrote: King saying that is another example of a character speculating in-universe, without out-of-universe knowledge. He could be right or wrong, and Pete trapshim in the cage because its what King dared him to do. Given that Kitsune specifically says "your choice can be overridden", I think that proves my point.
That quote is about the Playing the Game. Jigsaw could say that exact same thing when he’s about to kill someone and say “it’s for your own good.” If you put someone in a life threatening situation or hold them against their will and call it “good for them” that doesn’t mean that they can’t fight back or resist.
... but then I started wondering who in-universe is deciding what counts as "for your own good". In terms of the Game, it would be Kitsune's job to do that... but he's also supposed to be impartial, so how do you stay impartial when you're supposed to be making decisions about something as subjective as morality? Are they all working on an agreed morality created by a being higher on the divine totem pole than them?
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is about Jigsaw. Unless he was a Celestial in the Housepets universe, it doesn't seem relevant. And the whole point was about changing someone's will - its rather difficult to resist that after the fact.
Poor choice of words on my part because I forgot about something super important that you reminded me of and that is the entire journey developed and grew King's character which was accomplished not to mention the other characters that were developed along side him. No matter how it ended, King was developed far from when he first appeared as Joel.Champion Wallace wrote:Looking back from a logical standpoint I think King made the wrong choice to intervene and end the game for reasons you said plus a few others. However, I forgive King because you can't expect your heroes to act logically all the time. The best tragic heroes are those that think they're doing something noble but because of factors they don't know or wont accept it's not. I strongly disagree that the entire Game arc was a huge waste of time. Sometimes a story is about the journey more then the destination. Calling it a waste of time would devalue all the fun of reading the arcs that came before Heaven's Not Enough.fenrirblack wrote:Shifting gears for a second, the stakes of King’s fear or Bailey in danger can barely qualify because there is little evidence that Bailey would have been affected and King “saving her” at the last second, noble as it was, seemed redundant considering it was almost over anyway. By not raising the stakes higher (or at all) then the entire Game arc was a huge waste of time because none of it would have mattered in the grand Scheme. It would have ended, everyone would go home a little worse for wear, and King would still probably make the choice to stay a dog.
I don't think there ever was a socio-whatever change because that doesn't even exist. There was never a mention that was the ever the plan. Say what you want about Keene's assumption but that is more relevant because it is mentioned and nothing else was as far as what Pete intended to do if he won and kept his promise to "equalize humans and animals".Champion Wallace wrote:If you do in fact think changing the socio- aspect of the world would lead to chaos, would've been bad for the world, and were present stakes, then why did you say if would not be worth fighting against and terrible stakes for the story? You're contradicting yourself.fenrirblack wrote:Whether or not hybrid motives for stopping it were to save the world or not is not the point. What would have happened if Pete won? He would have kept his promise which would have caused chaos. King and most of them didn’t know if this fact but that doesn’t mean that those stakes weren’t there. It was established that if Pete won it would have been bad no matter what he would have ended up doing. Again Keene said that was Pete’s plan and it would have been chaos so there is evidence in the comic.
Except that the Celestials' consent argument started over whether or not Pete was allowed to transform King against his wishes. Its not said that the consent rule applies differently between mind and environment. So despite my earlier meanderings, I'm pretty sure Pete going for total mind control was against the rules because it didn't make King a better person in any way.fenrirblack wrote:For your own good is biassed no matter how you look at it. In King's case it was for own good because his life was a total dumpster fire and he benefited substantially from it which was Kitsune's goal or part of his overall plan. The easiest thing to say is that if the individual is happier, healthier, and generally better off after the fact then it was "for their own good."
The point about Jigsaw was that there is a difference between forcing someone to do something physically versus using supernatural powers. Jigsaw was an example for someone using force in a physical sense which is basically what Pete was doing to King and calling it "for their own good." Getting back to the original original point, another way of saying it would be external manipulation of one's will versus internal. Pete and the other celestials can alter the external stimuli to force someone to act against their will but not internally manipulating them at least without consent.
There is a point where we needed to stop andwe haveclearly passed itSeanWolf wrote:Personally? I THINK we're all honestly looking too deep into this whole arc to find some hidden clues or reasoning behind certain events. Is it fun to speculate? Yeah, I mean I've done it a few times myself (Heck, I like making readers of my stories speculate as to what would happen next and such). But, lately (especially with this series of arcs with Lois and Marion), we've REALLY been turning into speculators and 'Finders Of Hidden Meanings'. Just saying...
Before this thread? Google says I actually brought it up three times and I can't find any comments like that after any of them until now.Obbl wrote:it's already been explained to you (and to everyone generally) that this was a writer's error
Monday will come. Always has so far.VeryAngryDeer wrote:Except that the Celestials' consent argument started over whether or not Pete was allowed to transform King against his wishes. Its not said that the consent rule applies differently between mind and environment. So despite my earlier meanderings, I'm pretty sure Pete going for total mind control was against the rules because it didn't make King a better person in any way.fenrirblack wrote:For your own good is biassed no matter how you look at it. In King's case it was for own good because his life was a total dumpster fire and he benefited substantially from it which was Kitsune's goal or part of his overall plan. The easiest thing to say is that if the individual is happier, healthier, and generally better off after the fact then it was "for their own good."
The point about Jigsaw was that there is a difference between forcing someone to do something physically versus using supernatural powers. Jigsaw was an example for someone using force in a physical sense which is basically what Pete was doing to King and calling it "for their own good." Getting back to the original original point, another way of saying it would be external manipulation of one's will versus internal. Pete and the other celestials can alter the external stimuli to force someone to act against their will but not internally manipulating them at least without consent.
Based on that, I think the socio-political change would be a viable solution to Pete's promise because it does fall under the "for your own good" rules exemption. Making people not be bigots against animals would leave them happier, healthier and generally better off. The only problem is that people wouldn't like having their mind changed, but the rules as they've been explained don't care about that.
There is a point where we needed to stop andwe haveclearly passed itSeanWolf wrote:Personally? I THINK we're all honestly looking too deep into this whole arc to find some hidden clues or reasoning behind certain events. Is it fun to speculate? Yeah, I mean I've done it a few times myself (Heck, I like making readers of my stories speculate as to what would happen next and such). But, lately (especially with this series of arcs with Lois and Marion), we've REALLY been turning into speculators and 'Finders Of Hidden Meanings'. Just saying...
lets keep going and see what happens
But will it come soon enough for me poor, old 'eart?NHWestoN wrote:Monday will come. Always has so far.
