The Grey Pilgrim's ideology in a nutshell (SFW)
oglaf.com/cure-light-wounds/Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:57 AM UTC
3424
oglaf.com
I love how people ignore the 99.999999% of the time that he actually SAVES and HEALS people, and instead focus on the 0.0000001% when he has to do something else
16
People's hypocrisy about the Pilgrim amazes me. It's ok for Catherine to do something nasty for the greater good of Callow, but the moment the Peregrine is any bit ruthless in the name of protecting half a continent from the Dead King and Black, suddenly he's an unforgivable monster.
8
The thing is that we see Cat as human. We can understand her.
He's still human in the latest interlude, but in the present Pilgrim is a different man.
A mercy kill isn't the same as choking your nephew with a pillow. His nephew wouldn't even have been a bad ruler. He just wasn't the ruler Above wanted.
He murdered a village to kill/capture Black. Simply because it was convenient. He could've found another way, he just didn't. Sinking the ships should have been doable with a band of heroes, it wouldn't have killed as much legionaries, sure, but the village wouldn't have needed to be sacrificed and it would have served the same purpose.
What does Pilgrim's regret matter, if it changes nothing?
For all his lofty internal dialogue, he's causing as much unnecessary suffering as he relieves.
He's like the Black of the heroes. One sin, one grace. Only Black doesn't bother with the whole patronising "It's for the greater good"-rationalisation. Pilgrim is little more than Above's enforcer by now. The idea that he could be wrong doesn't even occur to him.
In a way, he's Cat's "Darth Vader". He's an enforcer of the opposing side that represents what what she could become in the future. A monster.
4
His nephew wouldn't even have been a bad ruler. He just wasn't the ruler Above wanted.
Actually his nephew was planning a war of revenge against Procer; which would have killed tens of thousands of people and Levant probably would have lost, all for no real gain. That doesn't sound like a good ruler to me.
He could've found another way, he just didn't.
We don't know that. It's obvious that the Pilgrim's power comes with limits; he seems to only be able to intervene in stories in specific ways. At the Battle of the Camps he only acted after the Evil side had struck a serious blow. This also fits with what we know of Name lore, resurrection is usually the province of pure healer Names, yet he can also use offensive powers. It makes sense for this to be balanced out by additional restrictions on how and when he can act.
Between that and the fact that Black is also an expert on Name lore and avoiding stories; it is entirely possible that the plague plan was the only viable option to stop Black cold before he could do further damage.
For all his lofty internal dialogue, he's causing as much unnecessary suffering as he relieves
Arguable at best. Two thousand townspeople and two thousand legionaries versus the tens of thousands those legionaries would have gone on to kill through sacking cities and causing starvation? I'd say the Pilgrim came out ahead on the suffering calculation. That's not to say the entire action wasn't shady as hell at best and utterly monstrous at worst, just that it fits his argument of 'necessary sacrifices to prevent greater suffering in the future'.
The idea that he could be wrong doesn't even occur to him.
I don't think that's true. He outright admits that Cat is right about the heroes of the west's failure to aid Callow sooner. He knows damn well that he can be wrong, he just believes that Cordelia's dream for the future is better for Calernia as a whole than Cat's focus on Callow.
3
Actually his nephew was planning a war of revenge against Procer; which would have killed tens of thousands of people and Levant probably would have lost, all for no real gain. That doesn't sound like a good ruler to me.
Since the Gods above seem to be planning to indirectly destroy Procer with the crusade, one might wonder what the point of stopping his nephew was.
Also, his nephew was innocent of the crime he was killed for. He hadn't started a war with Procer yet, had he?
It doesn't matter why he did it, it's morally the same as killing people because they might become heroes.
Couldn't Pilgrim try to convince him or renounce his nephew in public? Levant seems to worship the ground named walk on. It wouldn't be that hard. Pilgrim just didn't.
We don't know that. It's obvious that the Pilgrim's power comes with limits; he seems to only be able to intervene in stories in specific ways. At the Battle of the Camps he only acted after the Evil side had struck a serious blow. This also fits with what we know of Name lore, resurrection is usually the province of pure healer Names, yet he can also use offensive powers. It makes sense for this to be balanced out by additional restrictions on how and when he can act.
He had a band of heroes with him. They must have infected the villagers BEFORE The Black Knight and his legions arrived. Pilgrim had the advantage AND time to sabotage the ships if needed.The game was rigged in Pilgrim's favour. He held all the cards. And he still chose convenience over morality.Pilgrim's powers and restrictions have little to do with this.
Between that and the fact that Black is also an expert on Name lore and avoiding stories; it is entirely possible that the plague plan was the only viable option to stop Black cold before he could do further damage.
Damage to the crusade, not the people. If Pilgrim really wanted to protect the people of procer, he wouldn't have unleashed a plague on a village.
Arguable at best. Two thousand townspeople and two thousand legionaries versus the tens of thousands those legionaries would have gone on to kill through sacking cities and causing starvation? I'd say the Pilgrim came out ahead on the suffering calculation. That's not to say the entire action wasn't shady as hell at best and utterly monstrous at worst, just that it fits his argument of 'necessary sacrifices to prevent greater suffering in the future'.
Then why does Pilgrim support the crusade? If a crusade wouldn't have been started, Praes would have left the rest of Calernia alone. Which would mean less suffering in the long run. If he had choked Hasenbach to death with a pillow, tons of suffering could have been prevented.
But Pilgrim supported the crusade because the Gods above wanted it. Pilgrim doesn't use his "principles" to decide on his course of action, he uses them to justify the actions he performs in service of the gods above.
I don't think that's true. He outright admits that Cat is right about the heroes of the west's failure to aid Callow sooner.
This isn't Pilgrim reflecting on his own actions. This is Pilgrim judging the actions of others.
What matters to Pilgrim is what matters to the gods above. That a good-aligned nation became more evil-aligned. It's not about helping the people of Callow, it's about denying the gods below a nation.
Pilgrim knows that some of his actions are wrong, but he never asks himself if they were necessary. He just believes they are.
He knows damn well that he can be wrong, he just believes that Cordelia's dream for the future is better for Calernia as a whole than Cat's focus on Callow.
Pilgrim's goals and Cordelia's goals are different.
The gods above practically hijacked Cordelia's crusade. Pilgrim doesn't actually support her or her goals.
1
[deleted]
6
What awful things has he done onscreen? I'll start you off: the plague. What else?
1
Oh man, I haven't thought about Oglaf in so long. I stopped reading because it felt like it was going downhill, but some of the early strips are still so good.
9
Kronar and the Scented Candles is one of the best ever, and that's quite recent.
8
Are these...written words?
Sorcery.
8
I don't think euthanasia is a particularily bad thing.
Moreover, Peregrine actually does have literal proof of a benevolent afterlife existing for those who died Good.
7
I don't think euthanasia is a particulalry bad thing either, but when it involves intelligent beings (and the wyvern seemed to understand speech), it's supposed to involve consent.
3
So what's the solution here? Have him die slowly and painfully while rampaging across the countryside and killing others because the barely sapient creature can't possibly understand that it will die either way?
3
I think it makes sense from a mortal perspective, but it's incredibly suspect for a divine power to explicitly empower agents to kill.
Seems to me like they didn't just withhold their divine muscle from saving it, but actively desired an agent willing to kill as they deem necessary.
1
At this stage he’s not the Grey Pilgrim, he’s just a priest who knows a bit of healing, there are probably countless similar scenarios. And empowering every minor priest would invite Below to make their own move.
2
It doesn't seem to necessarily understand speech any more than say, dogs do, and we generally do not ask dogs for consent before putting them down if and when necessary.
3
literal proof of a benevolent afterlife existing for those who died Good.
cite? we've seen continuity of consciousness after death but afaik there's been no evidence of an afterlife. for all we know, souls that aren't preserved after death simply disintegrate...
2
Resurrection left a scar on the soul, always. No one could be ripped from the embrace of the Gods without finding Creation and faded and brutish place for the rest of their days, even if the memory of the Heavens was withheld.
https://practicalguidetoevil.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/interlude-kaleidoscope-ii/
4
Ok, that particular panel is SFW, but Oglaf as a whole really isn't.