The keepers are wrong. (potential spoilers)

[Nechlord]

I fundamentally disagree with the whole idea that just because an area of magic is dangerous you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Simultaneously you shouldn't just use it liberally like Isidora.

How about instead you practice and study the magical techniques on animals ( as is done in the real word with some studies), then when you've managed to do that safely (remove pain without stripping all emotion) you can then attempt trials on willing subjects.

The idea that its literally all or nothing is just so fundamentally bad.

The same line of logic happens with Sebastian Sallow, he fully embraces the dark arts and his uncle fully denies it even destroying the relic, how about instead you guide your nephew to study the artefact without becoming corrupted or put limitations in place.

[Red Velvet]

100% agree, I can only imagine how many centuries wizards had to take to fully enslave the elves + brainwash them into thinking that they actually liked it. It could have been like an unbreakable vow that the head of the elves made to save his species from extinction but, highly unlikely in my mind, and I'm not sure if we've ever gotten an answer about if the elves were just born like that, simply to serve humans/wizards, or if they were manipulated at some point in time

[Tenshin51]

Originally posted by Nechlord:

My main issue with the story is the way its presented. Its not presented as two morally grey sides, its presented as one side being good and the other evil. Even with ranrok, I feel as though he'd be a more interesting villain if he was more morally grey and they leaned a bit more into there being valid reasons for the goblin rebellion, rather than just a power hungry goblin who becomes a supremacist towards the end, IMO Ranrok just doesn't have the necessary gravitas to work as a pure evil villain.

Do some side quest it reveal why Ranrok is angry with humans. Wizard people are pricks anyone that are not wizard people are treated poorly.

[Nechlord]

Originally posted by Tenshin51:

Originally posted by Nechlord:

My main issue with the story is the way its presented. Its not presented as two morally grey sides, its presented as one side being good and the other evil. Even with ranrok, I feel as though he'd be a more interesting villain if he was more morally grey and they leaned a bit more into there being valid reasons for the goblin rebellion, rather than just a power hungry goblin who becomes a supremacist towards the end, IMO Ranrok just doesn't have the necessary gravitas to work as a pure evil villain.

Do some side quest it reveal why Ranrok is angry with humans. Wizard people are pricks anyone that are not wizard people are treated poorly.

I get that, I know the story about wizards being a prick to him, but most of his dialogue becomes towards the end of the game about getting power for himself and placing goblinkind above all others rather than just getting equal treatment.

[Shahadem]

Wizards are not big on experimentation.

To be fair the medical community in the middle of the 19th century wasn't either.

[Shahadem]

Originally posted by Tenshin51:

Originally posted by Nechlord:

My main issue with the story is the way its presented. Its not presented as two morally grey sides, its presented as one side being good and the other evil. Even with ranrok, I feel as though he'd be a more interesting villain if he was more morally grey and they leaned a bit more into there being valid reasons for the goblin rebellion, rather than just a power hungry goblin who becomes a supremacist towards the end, IMO Ranrok just doesn't have the necessary gravitas to work as a pure evil villain.

Do some side quest it reveal why Ranrok is angry with humans. Wizard people are pricks anyone that are not wizard people are treated poorly.

Coincidentally goblins are bigger pricks. I mean if we are going to judge all of humanity by the worst individuals then we must also judge all goblins by the worst individuals.

[Nechlord]

Honestly also I don't trust goblins on the whole ownership thing. If it was a rental agreement why didn't you make the wizard sign a contract at the time? You know wizards see ownership as a permanent thing, honestly the whole thing reeks of a scam used by goblins to reclaim items then sell them again and repeat the process, which is not surprising given their affinity for finance and money making.

[Shahadem]

Originally posted by ShaggyPlays:

If there is one thing I learned from the story is that there really is no good side no matter what you choose. Lets take the Ravenclaw Gobbstone sidequest for example, you give them back to her she goes back to tormenting her classmates and being a brat, you keep them and she is upset and has a horrible time.

I don't see the nuance here.

Sounds like she is a brat and you shouldn't give them to her since she is a terrible person. Who cares that she is upset about not being able to torment her fellow classmates.

[Shahadem]

Originally posted by Nechlord:

Honestly also I don't trust goblins on the whole ownership thing. If it was a rental agreement why didn't you make the wizard sign a contract at the time? You know wizards see ownership as a permanent thing, honestly the whole thing reeks of a scam used by goblins to reclaim items then sell them again and repeat the process, which is not surprising given their affinity for finance and money making.

That is my take on it as well.

You want to prove it was just lent out, then show me the carfax.

[Apokalypt]

I can't take any discussion about dark arts seriously, while we casually just murder anything that comes in our way even without the unforgivable curses.

Honestly, if someone wants to see me dead, I rather have him use Avada instead of blowing my body to pieces.

[[BLK] Telu]

Animal testing is not banned by the geneva convention ? :p

[Doom_Slayer]

Originally posted by Nechlord:

I fundamentally disagree with the whole idea that just because an area of magic is dangerous you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Simultaneously you shouldn't just use it liberally like Isidora.

How about instead you practice and study the magical techniques on animals ( as is done in the real word with some studies), then when you've managed to do that safely (remove pain without stripping all emotion) you can then attempt trials on willing subjects.

The idea that its literally all or nothing is just so fundamentally bad.

The same line of logic happens with Sebastian Sallow, he fully embraces the dark arts and his uncle fully denies it even destroying the relic, how about instead you guide your nephew to study the artefact without becoming corrupted or put limitations in place.

I think you are missing the point, it wasnt just that taking peoples pain away was morally wrong, the magic and the way she used it corrupted her mind more and more over time until she was out of control, this is the exact parallel with Sebastian.

[Zorlin]

(spoilers)
i mean this and sebastian's storyline are so stupidly black and white, this or that, no grey, that it bugs me. I went the "control the power" ending, and the "relic" ending with sebastian.
i mean, i woulda called the keepers out for hypocrisy and told em to ♥♥♥♥ off for literally killing cursing isidora who didn't even raise her wand, it was RACKHAM who attacked her first. No room for disagreement, simply because she used a type of magic they thought was 'wrong'.
and for the sebastian thing...dude our character is so stupid, I woulda expelliarmus'd the ♥♥♥♥ outta sebastian, why tf did we watch him kill Solomon? why can we either completely condemn him and the dark arts, or support the murder of solomon? why can't we be like "uh, dude, that was way too ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up, you let your emotions get the better of you, and you're the reason why people think the dark arts corrupt. learn from this."

[Nechlord]

Originally posted by Doom_Slayer:

Originally posted by Nechlord:

I fundamentally disagree with the whole idea that just because an area of magic is dangerous you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

Simultaneously you shouldn't just use it liberally like Isidora.

How about instead you practice and study the magical techniques on animals ( as is done in the real word with some studies), then when you've managed to do that safely (remove pain without stripping all emotion) you can then attempt trials on willing subjects.

The idea that its literally all or nothing is just so fundamentally bad.

The same line of logic happens with Sebastian Sallow, he fully embraces the dark arts and his uncle fully denies it even destroying the relic, how about instead you guide your nephew to study the artefact without becoming corrupted or put limitations in place.

I think you are missing the point, it wasnt just that taking peoples pain away was morally wrong, the magic and the way she used it corrupted her mind more and more over time until she was out of control, this is the exact parallel with Sebastian.

Except respectfully there's literally no evidence that the magic corrupted her, quite to the contrary actually what she did fits perfectly in line with her character and motivations before she even started using it. She always wanted to remove people's pain and there is no indication that she even knew of the husk issue.

[Nechlord]

Originally posted by TTV_Zorlin3321:

(spoilers)
i mean this and sebastian's storyline are so stupidly black and white, this or that, no grey, that it bugs me. I went the "control the power" ending, and the "relic" ending with sebastian.
i mean, i woulda called the keepers out for hypocrisy and told em to ♥♥♥♥ off for literally killing cursing isidora who didn't even raise her wand, it was RACKHAM who attacked her first. No room for disagreement, simply because she used a type of magic they thought was 'wrong'.
and for the sebastian thing...dude our character is so stupid, I woulda expelliarmus'd the ♥♥♥♥ outta sebastian, why tf did we watch him kill Solomon? why can we either completely condemn him and the dark arts, or support the murder of solomon? why can't we be like "uh, dude, that was way too ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up, you let your emotions get the better of you, and you're the reason why people think the dark arts corrupt. learn from this."

I support this, if the dark arts where inherently corrupting they'd be banned nation wide not only the three unforgivable curses. I think what is corrupting is using them in a bad way (i.e murder) as it damages the soul, but other dark spells like sectumsempra are shown to be used multiple times with no ill effect on the user. The keepers also in the resolution attack her as you mentioned and come across as evil whilst she comes across as misguided at best.

[annedoe]

Originally posted by Red Velvet:

OH forsure, out of all 4 keepers, he was the only one I didn't like, just a little too pompous for me, and he definitely should have been reprimanded in some way shape or form for using the curse.
I forget when the ministry technically banned the unforgivables but when they killed isidora was like, what, 100(?)ish years before the story takes place no? Its possible the unforgivables weren't all that unforgivable at that point in the timeline and more or less just frowned upon.
But yeah he could have just joined in on the disarm chain, to make it a 3v1 expelliarmus, I mean the other 2 practically had her themselves i doubt it would have taken much effort

Minstry made the Unforgiveable Curse that in 1792. That was 100 years after Statue of Secery was passed in 1690s. The Minstry itself wasn't founed until 1707. If I remember correctly there was a "Confederate of Warlocks" which pre-dates the Minstry of Magic.