I'm in need of some GW1 people to explain Palawa Joko to me.

[Athrenn.9468]

Officer caste makes sense and so does the shift in recruitment, I think. 250 years ago it may have made sense to 'recruit' solely from living/dead Sunspear defectors but now we're seeing a severe shortage of wild Sunspears to 'recruit' from. That means they need to diversify their portfolio to replenish their losses in order to keep the officer caste growing strong. To do that, they recruit the best and brightest servants of the empire who compete for officer positions.

[Squee.7829]

Attrition from age, no, but there are a lot of other things that can kill what amounts to a special forces soldier. They might not ever lose members to old age, but they'll lose members. And at some point Joko would have to be less picky about where those replacements come from.

[Torolan.5816]

One of the hero points is that of an undead General that wants just to rest in peace and forget about Joko. I think that speaks pretty much about how sick some of even his undead high ranking officers are of his practices and antics.

And spüeaking of voluntaries, isn´t there a mission where you storm the bonehouse to save people who had been kidnapped and are about to be turned?

[Squee.7829]

I don't think Joko is really all that picky about how he gets his risen soldiers. He's a pretty shady guy. He committed genocide just to redecorate his home a bit. He's definitely fine with taking and killing a few citizens against their will.

[mercury ranique.2170]

Palawa Joko is neither good or bad. He has been a big fan of necromancy and dead magic, while others dis-aprove of that. He kills a lot, but to him dead is not the end and so not a bad thing.

From his early days we don't know much about his relation to the sunspears. He claims he was the last primeval king, but this is disputed by the last kings and queens of the dynasty. How this dispute evolved in that time and if the sunspears (who where guards of the primeval kings then) acted against Joko is unknown. It might have been a cold war conflict. Or just a fabrication made up years later. Nobody knows.

Years later that was a conflict between Joko and the Vaabians and the Kournans. There is actually no mention of the sunspears being part of it. Joko lost and was imprisoned. We do not know (as far as I know) if the Sunspears had evolved yet from guards of the kings to protectors of Elona

Again we jump forward, to the time of Nightfall. The sunspears invaded Kourna and later Vaabbi to fight Nightfall and Abaddon. In the process, they freed Joko (by accident) when they where looking for a way across the desolation.

So till then, there is no actual sign of conflict between the sunspears and Joko. When Joko later on diverted the Elona river and was again in open war with Vaabi, the Sunspears (sworn protectors of all of Elona) did take up arms against him, and had great losses.

So in short, till after the events of GW1, we don't really know if the sunspears ever oppossed Joko and in what way. If any, their part was rather small. I imagine the change in that comes of the guilt felt by the sunspears for releasing him from prison, but that is pure speculation.

[Athrenn.9468]

On the contrary, Joko as an intelligent villain would be wise to abstain from violating the loved ones and property of his subjects. It would take a ruler of such quality to maintain a stable 150 year regime, for that is the nature of how kings successfully hold on to power. Those who do the opposite never hold on to power for long because they are undermining their own authority and sowing the seeds of rebellion and civil war.

It makes him hated above all things, as I [Niccolo Machiavelli] have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

A wise king who wishes to rule forever would distance himself from atrocities and punish his most hated servants who garner displeasure from the populace. By doing this, Joko would be prolonging his rule at the expense of a few sacrificial lambs which is perfectly in line with his character.

[Squee.7829]

Did you just try to explain why genocide isn't a "shady" thing to do? I am so stoked you are not a world leader right now.

Or are you misunderstanding me? I in no way implied Joko wasn't smart. Just not a good person. And you really seem to be caught up on Machiavellian philosophy, which is widely seen as unscrupulous and generally a "handy guide to being a tyrant". It's intelligent, sure. And not at all incorrect, but not in any way a favorable foundation for fair and just government.

[Yereton.8647]

Years later that was a conflict between Joko and the Vaabians and the Kournans. There is actually no mention of the sunspears being part of it. Joko lost and was imprisoned. We do not know (as far as I know) if the Sunspears had evolved yet from guards of the kings to protectors of Elona

Just to contradict you here. The Sunspears were one of the forces that allied with Turai Ossa. This is mentioned somewhere in GW2, but you can see this also in the Bonus Mission Pack Battle of Jahai.

As for when they transitioned from the Sunspear Guard to the Order of the Sunspears, it should be during the era of the Primeval Kings, since I vaguely remember that they were an order before the Shattered Dynasties Era.

[Torolan.5816]

At the beginning of the last year, I would have been pretty shocked how many people would step up to defend or justify a guy like Palawa Joko. But after who won the election in the USA I am not that terribly surprised anymore.

To me he clearly has the role of Skeletor, Mordred, Johan OhneLand, Starscream or Scar from the Lion King. He is the one that is bitter, dillusional, entitled and jealous because he cannot stand to be only the second in line. He suffers from the same problem as Johan OhneLand, he has a hero in Turai Ossa he could never fully defeat or replace in both literally and an historical context and he is NOT the rightful ruler of anything as I believe the primeval kings that he never was one of them. If that were not the case, why would he send minions to torture them? He is the king of his land, he does not even need to be a primeval king. It is because he can´t be the bigger man and his ego simply demands him to be a primeval king. And even with all his power, he is still just a second grade power who can be pushed around by the likes of Balthazar and Kralkatorik.The one advantage he has over Johan was that he is immortal and is a competent schemer, and Johan had at least the birthright to be a ruler.

[Athrenn.9468]

@Squee.7829 said:Did you just try to explain why genocide isn't a "shady" thing to do? I am so stoked you are not a world leader right now.

Or are you misunderstanding me? I in no way implied Joko wasn't smart. Just not a good person. And you really seem to be caught up on Machiavellian philosophy, which is widely seen as unscrupulous and generally a "handy guide to being a tyrant". It's intelligent, sure. And not at all incorrect, but not in any way a favorable foundation for fair and just government.

Oh how cute, it's someone getting personal in a forum debate. And here I thought we were discussing fictional characters and how to write for them. It would appear that some people find it difficult to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Believe it or not, but there are some writers who appreciate a well written antagonist. Not everyone does, especially not those who think that bad people are just crazy and do evil things because they're just so darn evil. Your logic is so backwards if you actually think that people who know how to write absolute monarchs who know how to hold on to power must be evil themselves. I suppose that makes G.R.R. Martin the devil himself, hm? Take a step back and realize that we're talking about writing fantasy fiction here, not debating policies at the U.N. If a writer has trouble portraying villains with multifaceted traits, a strong motivation for their actions and an intelligent strategy for carrying out their plan then they're not much of a writer at all.

Joko has a very clear cut motivation as far as we can tell: rule over Elona forever. So far, he has a 150 year track record which shows that he knows how to maintain his basis of power. A character like that can't behave like an idiot when history shows that he's much more intelligent than that. Any ruler who has maintained a century and a half regime will have learned that violating the loved ones and property of his subjects will make him hated by them, which is why he would abstain from doing so and allow his servants to take the blame for him whenever possible. Joko himself must be loved by the populace and maintain a clean image. That is why he would, in fact, be very conscientious about where he gets his dead bodies from to fuel his army. It doesn't matter whether he's a good person at heart or not—that is completely irrelevant—only that he appears virtuous to his people so that they will both love and fear his rule.

[Squee.7829]

I'm not trying to get personal, although my last post was a bit (edit: very )accusatory, so, fair. But the point was that someone showed an example where people were forced against their will to become risen, and you, I think, explained that "Joko won't do that, because that's stupid and Joko is not stupid." But he did. We saw it. It's happening. Sure, some people volunteer and think it's an honor, but he also forces the unwilling.

Again, because I don't know if you missed it, I specifically said Joko is not stupid. But he is absolutely a tyrant. Or, as I said it, a "shady " person. He is an effective ruler. A good one? I would say not, as his "Machiavellian " style is basically an inhumane way of controlling a population. Effective and good are not necessarily the same thing. And I don't know what you're getting at with the whole "this is fictional" thing. Like...yeah. Obviously. Who ever brought the real world into this? I mean, real or fiction, a tyrant is a tyrant.

And he clearly doesn't appear as virtuous as you seem to think. You're only seeing Vabbi and how the clearly indoctrinated people view him. And of course they love him. They're indoctrinated. He even debased the education system to do so. But outside of Vabbi you see people who work because they're afraid. Not because they're inspired. They constantly scheme to escape the region, not just for the forged, but also to escape the awakened. 150 years of rule isn't a sign that people must love him as a ruler. It could be a sign he's just really good at making the citizens too weak or stupid to fight back.

[Athrenn.9468]

@Squee.7829 said:Who ever brought the real world into this?

points at your post above

@Squee.7829 said:I am so stoked you are not a world leader right now.

But apology accepted, I'm not going to belabor this point.

As to your other points, the examples that we've seen in-game of Joko's servants forcing peasants against their will to be Awakened are not the same as Joko himself giving the order. By distancing himself from his servants who tarnish his name and punishing them accordingly, he's giving himself an escape route where he can deny any accusations of immorality while creating the appearance of a fair and just ruler who punishes those who do wicked things. Even if he does not truly believe that these actions are evil, he must be a hypocrite by political necessity and condemn his servants when their actions threaten to expose him as a tyrant. A successful tyrant must be both loved and feared by his subjects; it isn't enough to be one or the other.

This strategy is obviously effective. In the Bonestrand, we witness the daughter of a village elder stage an armed rebellion against the local clanmarshal. If the dynamic event succeeds, this is the dialogue we're rewarded with:

Zuri Odili: Praise Joko, it's finished. Finally. Now maybe we can work the fields in peace!Speaker Bakari: Well done, Zuri. You were right! The clanmarshal and the vizier abused their power to save their own skins.Speaker Bakari: The poisonings, the sabotage... I just wish I'd seen it sooner.Zuri Odili: You did the right thing. We wouldn't have won without your help.Zuri Odili: Hopefully King Joko returns and sets things right. Until then, we'll keep producing for the empire.Speaker Bakari: You take care of the village. I'll take care of things here.Zuri Odili: Let's work together to maintain the peace as best as we can. Good luck.

This is the power of plausible deniability and scapegoating—a tyrant who casts blame on his underlings and then allows them to fall is one who will hold power for a very long time. Every time a clanmarshal or vizier does something that the people don't like he can allow them to take the fall, have them executed and then accept the glorious renown of being their savior. As we can see by this event dialogue, his subjects do believe that he is a benevolent and viruous king and that is part of why he is so successful in maintaining his regime. He knows how to accept all the glory from the actions of others while condemning individuals for their immoral behavior.

[Squee.7829]

"I am so stoked you are not a world leader right now."Yeah, that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but it was a stupid thing for me to say to a stranger and assume they wouldn't take it personally.

As for the rest, I think we're generally arguing the same side. He's evil and tyrannical, but good at it.

[Athrenn.9468]

The irony of the word "tyrant" is that its pejorative meaning was never intended when the word was first used by the Greeks.

As Rousseau wrote in 'The Social Contract', In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word 'tyrant': they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate.

Originally in Greek the word was not applied to old hereditary sovereignties (basileiai) and despotic kings, but it was used of usurpers, even when popular, moderate, and just (such as Cypselus of Corinth), however it soon became a word of reproach in the usual modern sense. (Source)

Of course, the Greek definition of the word begs the question: how does one become an old hereditary sovereign? Usually, by having an ancestor who was a tyrant who usurped the throne from someone else and managed to maintain their rule long enough to pass it on to the next generation. So really, a tyrant in the Greek sense was just "new money" while hereditary sovereigns were "old money"—every royal lineage has to start somewhere, and that "somewhere" was called tyranny.

In the modern sense, the word "tyrant" has picked up all sorts of negative connotations that were not there at the very beginning. This is most likely because of how our culture has evolved to reject the idea of absolute monarchies, empires or usurpers. If you were from a culture where usurpation happened frequently then it might simply be the norm and no one would look down on it. From the perspective of the Greek tyrants, power held by hereditary rulers was only as legitimate as their military and political prowess used to secure their station in society and all rulers, hereditary or not, could all trace their lineage back to some tyrant or another. That was why it was quite an acceptable term to call one's self a tyrant—there was no moral connotation in its original usage, just the objective fact of where a king obtained his crown from, be it inheritance or force.

In Ancient Greece, the only difference between tyranny and inheritance of rule was how that power was acquired. The people might accept a tyrant as their king and reject the old lineage or vice versa but the mechanics of how a king held on to power were the same. In the modern sense, the word 'tyrant" is used often to denote an illegitimate ruler which in a 21st-century sense often implies the lack of democratic process. But if we were to step into the world of Tyria where even the great King Adelbern was a beloved tyrant of the late 11th century (I.e. A king who usurped the throne from an unpopular ruler), the definition of tyranny changes according to the cultures of the fictional world.

Whether Joko is a tyrant by our world's modern standards is arbitrary compared to how he is viewed by the cultures within the setting. If the cultural values and mores of Elona compare to Ancient Greece then the people of that country might not be bothered by the idea of Joko being a tyrant. "But he usurped the throne through brutal conquest," a visiting Krytan might say to a subject of the empire. "So what?" they might reply. "The charr conquered Ascalon by force and your queen recognizes their government as legitimate. Until five years ago, they were bombarding the walls of Ebonhawke with siege weapons with the intention to kill them all and now you call them friends. We recognize our king as the rightful ruler of Elona and that's that." Just as the Ancient Greeks saw tyranny as a normal part of society, no different than hereditary rule in terms of which is the morally correct way to inherit the throne, so too might a fantasy culture in the world of Tyria believe that what Joko is doing is morally justifiable.

[Aaron Ansari.1604]

@Athrenn.9468 said:

Whether Joko is a tyrant by our world's modern standards is arbitrary compared to how he is viewed by the cultures within the setting. If the cultural values and mores of Elona compare to Ancient Greece then the people of that country might not be bothered by the idea of Joko being a tyrant. "But he usurped the throne through brutal conquest," a visiting Krytan might say to a subject of the empire. "So what?" they might reply. "The charr conquered Ascalon by force and your queen recognizes their government as legitimate. Until five years ago, they were bombarding the walls of Ebonhawke with siege weapons with the intention to kill them all and now you call them friends. We recognize our king as the rightful ruler of Elona and that's that." Just as the Ancient Greeks saw tyranny as a normal part of society, no different than hereditary rule in terms of which is the morally correct way to inherit the throne, so too might a fantasy culture in the world of Tyria believe that what Joko is doing is morally justifiable.

That said, we do have a sense for what the political mores of Elona were- namely, that the provinces were ruled separately, with none interfering in the internal affairs of another, and each retaining the right/privilege of determining their own style of governance. None of them had that Ancient Greek style society where absolute rulers were frequently usurped by one another; the closest, Kourna, only suffered a single line of descent to rule them, based on past heroics... and those heroics were, of course, vanquishing Palawa Joko. Under that context, we can readily say that the people of Elona circa. 1100 A.E. would've condemned Joko's current style of governance, regardless of what label they used to do so.

Modern Elona is a different story, but if the crux of your argument is the greater context preceding any given tyrant's rule, that's not relevant. Alternatively, you might say that it's the length of time or the passing of generations that matters, and not the comparison to previous rulers, but that's where a lich who can rule for a hundred and fifty years starts breaking down our real-world methods for assessing such things.

[Athrenn.9468]

@Aaron Ansari.1604 said:

@Athrenn.9468 said:

Whether Joko is a tyrant by our world's modern standards is arbitrary compared to how he is viewed by the cultures within the setting. If the cultural values and mores of Elona compare to Ancient Greece then the people of that country might not be bothered by the idea of Joko being a tyrant. "But he usurped the throne through brutal conquest," a visiting Krytan might say to a subject of the empire. "So what?" they might reply. "The charr conquered Ascalon by force and your queen recognizes their government as legitimate. Until five years ago, they were bombarding the walls of Ebonhawke with siege weapons with the intention to kill them all and now you call them friends. We recognize our king as the rightful ruler of Elona and that's that." Just as the Ancient Greeks saw tyranny as a normal part of society, no different than hereditary rule in terms of which is the morally correct way to inherit the throne, so too might a fantasy culture in the world of Tyria believe that what Joko is doing is morally justifiable.

That said, we

do

have a sense for what the political mores of Elona were- namely, that the provinces were ruled separately, with none interfering in the internal affairs of another, and each retaining the right/privilege of determining their own style of governance. None of them had that Ancient Greek style society where absolute rulers were frequently usurped by one another; the closest, Kourna, only suffered a single line of descent to rule them, based on past heroics... and those heroics were, of course, vanquishing Palawa Joko. Under that context, we can readily say that the people of Elona circa. 1100 A.E. would've condemned Joko's current style of governance, regardless of what label they used to do so.

Modern Elona is a different story, but if the crux of your argument is the greater context preceding any given tyrant's rule, that's not relevant. Alternatively, you might say that it's the length of time or the passing of generations that matters, and not the comparison to previous rulers, but that's where a lich who can rule for a hundred and fifty years starts breaking down our real-world methods for assessing such things.

I would say that whether tyranny is seen as evil or morally neutral depends on the cultural context where whatever character traits are deemed desirable in a given time period are held as virtuous whereas undesirable traits are condemned as wicked. If Elonian society acknowledges that Joko usurped the throne from the merchant princes, warmarshals of Kourna and council of Istan then he may well be considered a tyrant, but their 14th-century values would determine whether they find his tyranny desirable or not. In the case of Zuri, it would appear that there are examples of dissenting members of the indigenous population who do find his rule desirable and so even if he was considered a tyrant by the people there would still be some (I say "some" because the percentage of the population who holds this view cannot be measured by us at this time) who would say that he is a virtuous tyrant.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

So I've decided to go after the Lost Lore pages in Vabbi and the guide mentioned one in the Boneyard.Saw the talk already in here before and I've been there before, but I thought it was simply thought it was a huge gigantic lost temple-like area with many sand portals. I've looked down before but didn't really see much... until today.

Now I'm seeing those named as "Discarded Awakened" and decided to head down to get a closer look. Many of them bundled together, some look really saddened and depressed and such which got me to start wondering on something... is there a way to have the awakened and have them out of Joko's grasp?Like I guess I was looking at the whole situation when I first made the topic like the Modern Elonians as of course most of what I've seen was on the outside and I've had 0 experience with any GW1. I guess due to what I was seeing, I was liking Joko but the thing is in general as I've only seen him a few times, I was more liking the Awakened than Joko himself.

I think all of the Awakened that was discarded shouldn't've been discarded, even without knowing why they were or who they were. Some might not be soldiers or warriors or workers, but I think all of them would've been useful in some way.I've seen one that look like one of the generals/soldiers down there that's trying to make the best of the situation and playing on drums. He maybe didn't have what it takes to be a soldier, but he could've been a musician like one of those at The Promenade.

Just from being in the Boneyard I'm really starting to not like Joko from just that experience and kind of pissed off, but I really want the Awakened to stick around. Is there a way to at least allow people "if" they want to be Awakened to come back Awakened without Joko? I mean right now with Joko's absence, they're still Awakening people... right?Could have a reformed government where the living and the dead can live together without him and of course if an Awakened would like to finally go back to sleep, they could do so without ridicule or worry of maybe being thrown into that boneyard.

I don't know, I'm one of those types with a huge fascination with dead and to branch out from that with fantasy and fiction, the undead as well.I'm really annoyed with the whole "Discard Awakened" situation.

[Athrenn.9468]

Realistically, all of them could be put to good use cleaning up the mess that Balthazar's army made in Vabbi and replace all of the losses of Vehjin Palace. The maps are eternally frozen in time so we'll never see it happen on screen but someone needs to repair the damaged infrastructure which is extensive enough to require more manual labor they currently have in the field.

[draxynnic.3719]

On the topic of Joko being a Primeval King...

I'm, personally, of the opinion that there is some basis to this claim, but there's also a good reason why the genuine Primeval Kings reject it. Maybe he had good reason to think he should be the heir, but was skipped over due to some reason of politics or rules of succession. Maybe he was stripped of rank for some real or trumped-up crime. Maybe simply becoming a lich was enough to disqualify him. While we don't have any reference to him during the Primeval Dynasty period, his behaviour is consistent with one who was passed over or thrown out and who has a chip on his shoulder as a result.

@Ayumi Spender.1082 Free-willed Awakened existed in GW1: the Desolation was filled with Awakened who rebelled against Joko. Either his imprisonment after his defeat by Turai weakened his control, he's modified the Awakening process since to ensure control, or there are some he enforces control over and some he leaves free-willed if he thinks they'll be loyal.

@"Athrenn.9468" The term 'tyrant' certainly did have a different meaning to the ancient Greeks, but it's not really relevant to this discussion: most people will take 'tyrant' to be the modern definition unless otherwise specified. And we have a number of examples of how Joko's rule is cruel and oppressive, and judging by the Daybreak trailer we'll see more next week.

He may be a pragmatic despot, but that doesn't mean he's a good ruler. The PC is probably right when (s)he says that Elona would probably be better off without Joko. Saying it to Joko's face might have been a mistake (a smarter ploy might be to say "Those chains could only be broken by Balthazar or by killing Balthazar, and I'm off to do the latter"), but it's probably still the truth. Removing Joko may cause some chaos for a decade or two, but that may be better than an eternity of Joko.

[Athrenn.9468]

Of course it's relevant to the discussion of how characters within the world of Tyria native to Elona would see Palawa Joko as a ruler. We're talking about a fictional society of people with different cultural values which defines how they understand the concept of tyranny. The existence of a real world culture that doesn't see tyranny—the act of usurpation—as an inherently evil thing means that we can't assume that the people of 14th century Elona see it as inherently evil until it's been proven. Even the term "despot" was coined in the late 17th century by political opponents of King Louis XIV as an attack against his "arbitrary" use of power. (Source) There is no objective measure of whether a ruler is a despot; it's a political strategy, a plot, a piece of propaganda that rival powers will use to try and persuade the population that a ruler's basis of power is illegitimate. If they succeed, then they will have usurped the ruling monarch, thus beginning the cycle of tyranny and usurpation anew—because remember, a tyrant is just another word for a ruler who has claimed power through usurpation or illegitimate means.

If anyone in the world of Tyria is going to call Joko a despot it's going to be his political rivals (E.g. Sunspears, defectors, exiles), not those who are happy with his rule. You can find NPCs across Vabbi and the Desolation who do believe that Joko is a good ruler which means that public opinion within his own empire seems to be on his side, even when they turn against individual petty rulers such as the clanmarshal and vizier of the Bonestrand. "Despot" is never an objective term, it's a word used by people who have a political agenda against a ruler. The people within his empire who are happy with his rule are just going to call him a king, and in some cases, a good one.

"The PC is probably right."

According to who? The fictional characters in this setting, or according to you? The characters seem to be divided on that question with some factions on Team Joko and others on Team Anti-Joko. You can't deny that fact when it's presented in game so clearly. It's a complicated subject with varying opinions that doesn't have one right answer.

[draxynnic.3719]

It's not relevant because it's not the definition people are using. End of story.

People aren't condemning Joko because he's not the heir of a royal house. Heck, I said in my above post that it's entirely possible that he is, and may have only missed out on legitimately assuming the throne due to politics or a technicality.

People are condemning Joko because he seized Elona in an, as far as we know, unprovoked invasion. (Yes, the charr invaded Ascalon, but as far as we know, none of the charr who were involved in that are still around. Joko is the same Joko that launched both invasions of Elona.)People are condemning Joko because he was responsible for the ecological and agricultural collapse of Kourna.People are condemning Joko because he burned what was possibly the greatest library before the founding of the Durmand Priory and rewrote history for his own glorification.People are condemning Joko because he responds to someone speaking out against him by cutting out their tongue, blinding them, killing and Awakening them hoping to have mental control over them, and when that fails, abandoning their body to lie in a desert for eternity.People are condemning Joko because he maintains control through a secret police that exiles people into what is effectively a slave camp, isolated from their friends and family forever, for the merest hint that they aren't happy with how things are.People are condemning Joko because it is apparently standard practice among the exile camp for anyone who doesn't meet quota to be executed and Awakened.People are condemning Joko because his undead viceroys apparently consider it perfectly acceptable to poison the people they are responsible for in order to create more corpses for Awakening - and whatever fig leaf Joko may claim about having not given the orders directly, who are his viceroys taking their cues from?People are condemning Joko because he has a harem whose occupants are apparently there because that is the only way to prevent suffering among the communities they came from.People are condemning Joko because he conspired with a fallen god in order to steal the souls of the dead from the Domain of the Lost.People are condemning Joko because the last thing we heard on leaving the Domain of the Lost was Joko anticipating the tortures he would inflict when he escapes.In less than a week, people will probably be condemning Joko for putting people in those hanging cages we saw in the trailer for the next season.

The modern definition of "tyrant" is "a cruel and oppressive ruler". That sounds like a pretty long list of acts of cruelty and oppression to me - and I think I've probably missed a few. The label fits, and trying to change the label by an ancient definition is arguing semantics, and semantics that have been obsolete for centuries.

Against this, you have... people who have bought into the propaganda, and people who are working in his breadbasket area - as long as they're south of the wall, and haven't been poisoned by the local administration - having sufficient food.

[Narcemus.1348]

And, of course, for the whole sale genocide, or at least attempted genocide, of the Elonian Centaurs. If he didn't kill them all, then he at least created history to reflect that. And while fighting off a Centaurs rebellion might be one thing, he could have subdued them like everyone else, but he decided to go ahead and kill whatever innocent women, children and elderly individuals existed at the time to make a point. Cruel...

[Athrenn.9468]

"People." "Modern definition." "Obsolete for centuries." Where? In our world, not Tyria. You seem to be missing the point. The people who condemn Joko are players—people living in liberal democratic societies with different norms and ideas than the characters in the setting. What players believe about a fictional character is irrelevant when we're discussing how the people of Tyria would behave. If you've read any epic fantasy, you should know this.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, Khal Drogo at 30-some years old married a 13 year old Danaerys, watched a dozen people die at his wedding for entertainment and keeps slaves. By modern standards, that would make him a horrible person—not in Essos. In secondary world fantasy, cultures are allowed to be different than on Earth. They're allowed to seem strange, medieval, and shockingly backwards to modern viewers and the people within those world's will treat those exotic behaviors as normal.

Of course it's relevant to discuss the different norms and ideals of other historical cultures if they might inform the norms and values of 14th-century Elona. That's where writers of fantasy get their ideas from, after all. End of story.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@Athrenn.9468 said:"People." "Modern definition." "Obsolete for centuries." Where? In our world, not Tyria. You seem to be missing the point. The people who condemn Joko are players—people living in liberal democratic societies with different norms and ideas than the characters in the setting. What players believe about a fictional character is irrelevant when we're discussing how the people of Tyria would behave. If you've read any epic fantasy, you should know this.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, Khal Drogo at 30-some years old married a 13 year old Danaerys, watched a dozen people die at his wedding for entertainment and keeps slaves. By modern standards, that would make him a horrible person—not in Essos. In secondary world fantasy, cultures are allowed to be different than on Earth. They're allowed to seem strange, medieval, and shockingly backwards to modern viewers and the people within those world's will treat those exotic behaviors as normal.

Of course it's relevant to discuss the different norms and ideals of other historical cultures if they might inform the norms and values of 14th-century Elona. That's where writers of fantasy get their ideas from, after all. End of story.

Like the Julius trial.I think anywhere in the modern world would consider it uncivilized and barbaric to even think about having a mortal fight in a court area to decide it the person is guilty or innocent.

[Athrenn.9468]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@Athrenn.9468 said:"People." "Modern definition." "Obsolete for centuries." Where? In our world, not Tyria. You seem to be missing the point. The people who condemn Joko are players—people living in liberal democratic societies with different norms and ideas than the characters in the setting. What players believe about a fictional character is irrelevant when we're discussing how the people of Tyria would behave. If you've read any epic fantasy, you should know this.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, Khal Drogo at 30-some years old married a 13 year old Danaerys, watched a dozen people die at his wedding for entertainment and keeps slaves. By modern standards, that would make him a horrible person—not in Essos. In secondary world fantasy, cultures are allowed to be different than on Earth. They're allowed to seem strange, medieval, and shockingly backwards to modern viewers and the people within those world's will treat those exotic behaviors as normal.

Of course it's relevant to discuss the different norms and ideals of other historical cultures if they might inform the norms and values of 14th-century Elona. That's where writers of fantasy get their ideas from, after all. End of story.

Like the Julius trial.I think anywhere in the modern world would consider it uncivilized and barbaric to even think about having a mortal fight in a court area to decide it the person is guilty or innocent.

Very true. I believe that the U.K. abolished trial by combat in 1819 according to this source (http://iancpilarczyk.com/is-trial-by-combat-still-a-possible-form-of-legal-action/) but before the early 19th century it was a perfectly legal way of resolving a court case. It had been forgotten for a long time and fallen into disuse by then but in medieval England it was quite normal to demand that God should judge the victor innocent should they or their champion survive.