Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK - Gawain and the Black Knight (15/38)

This was a bit of a sad chapter. I'd give you the title of the next chapter, but I think it would give away even more than the previous one did.

Wow, I did not expect to be right on this one. Of course, now I wonder if the regent is allowed to make decisions for the princess. And even if he manages to smoothtalk her, she still has her Gawain clothes and will soon learn just how much he bleeds the kingdom dry.

Michael

PS: I just figured out the title. At least the Gawain part. Yeah, I'm slow
PPS: Lex has made Mxy his enemy? bwahahahahaha

Whoa! Lex went further than I thought he would! (Of course, that's his character - he's bold.)

Not a good thing for Clarkent, for a humble stable boy to attract the irritated attention of the new Regent. Why do I think that there may be attempts on Clarkent's life?

Poor Loisette.

And who's the mysterious magician that Lex refuses to appoint?

This was a sad chapter, but I was so glad that Loisette instinctively went to Clarkent for comfort!

I did want King Samuel to find redemption somehow; it's sad to think that he died without ever being able to unburden his soul or to connect with his daughter.

Somehow I sense that things are really going to start heating up in this story now! It's always good when Clark and Lex become enemies!

Amber

Michael--
*grin* I rather like the title!

Heh heh. That's thing about being a bad guy, isn't it? You make other bad guys angry.


Iolanthe-- Yeah, Lex is a bold guy, and him having any kind of power is a bad bad thing....


Amber-- Yeah, it was fun to have Clarkent comfort Loisette at least. As for King Samuel, well, I guess death isn't always good at waiting for the right time to take people. But I think Samuel was too broken to be repaired.

I guess the good guy needs a bad guy to define himself by, eh?

That's a very interesting thought. Does it mean that a "good guy" can't be a good guy without a "bad guy" poking and prodding him to support the good and fight the evil? Or does it mean that the "good guy" and his heroic characteristics already exist but are brought out into the open and highlighted by the actions of the "bad guy?"

If the first is primarily true, then the good guy really isn't good unless he's fighting evil. But if the second is primarily true, then he's good whether he's opposing evil or not.

I think - and I'm not adamant on this - that the second is primarily true, else the "good guy" would have to make a conscious decision every time he/she was faced with a "bad guy" as to whether he/she would oppose the evil. If the "good guy" is predisposed to oppose evil, then the second statement would be more true.

But it's a neat question. And it's framed within a very interesting story. I'm waiting for Peri the White's swordsmanship lessons to be needed. That will give Alexander (or Tempos, or both) a rude shock.

Ready for more!

Terry--
I had a really long response to this that was a bit of a ramble, so I'm starting over.

I think "good guy" depends on the other half of the dichotomy. If there were no villains, there would be no "good guys." I think someone who becomes a "good guy" usually does already have positive qualities (just like a fireman, who risks life and limb to save people), but I also think you can't call a person one of the "good guys" when he or she isn't fighting evil. If everyone was female, then there wouldn't be the "male" part of the binary opposition--there would only be people. I think if there's no evil to compare against, then a superhero can't be a "good guy"--to be a "good guy," you have to fight against evil. That's not to say you can't have good qualities (like wanting to help people rather than focusing only on number one). It just means there's nothing for hope to focus on. Nobody really hopes that someone will want to do something--but that someone will do something.

Don't know if any of that makes sense, but I tried.

*grin*

I think I'm in danger of wandering off-topic, but here goes.

We have to be careful with statements like this. If "good" is only apparent in opposition to "evil," then we're talking about a relative ethical system where there are no hard and fast rules about right and wrong. I understand that in order to show that one is good, one must oppose something which is bad. But unless the "good" is already there - and measurable against an unchanging standard of good and evil - then we can't be certain that we're doing "good" when we oppose something we consider "bad."

For example, Clarkent believes that Alexander's policies of crushing taxation and encouraging corruption in the ruling class are evil. But unless he has some objective standard of right and wrong against which he may measure the Regent's behavior, there's no way to know that Alexander's actions are bad. Justice and equality under the law aren't just nebulous concepts, they're rules every society strives to live by, even if different societies define those concepts differently. In all the Authurian tales I've read, either the church or the laws of chivalry (which were derived from church teaching) are the standard of right and wrong.

And in this story, Clarkent's decision to actively oppose the Regent is complicated by the fact that he lives in a monarchy with a strict social class structure. One must wed within one level of one's class or risk losing one's social position. Alexander's desire to wed the late king's daughter is socially acceptable - but Loisette's desire to be with Clarkent is most definitely not. And commoners are absolutely forbidden to thwart the desires of the nobles, irrespective of the legality of the actions of said nobles.

All in all, Clarkent is risking not only his life but his adoptive parents' lives. And he's doing this not because he "feels" that Alexander's actions are wrong, but because he knows that they're wrong because there's an objective standard by which all actions are judged.

The reason I know this is because Alexander is still trying to appear kind and benevolent to the common people. If they were to revel against a just king, all of the nobles - including the ones who are not corrupt - would join together to crush the rebellion. But if the peasants revolt now, the honest nobles (surely there are some left) would not be so eager to prop up a corrupt monarch.

"Trust your feelings, Luke!" is lousy advice. Trust the objective standard of right and wrong, Clarkent. You won't go wrong if you're following the right.

*grin* This is fun.

I agree that binary oppositions are dangerous. But I also think that it is impossible to have wholly objective standards of right and wrong. I think it's always situational.

Take, for instance, Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." In this story, Omelas is a utopia. However, for this utopia to exist, there must be one child who has to live in absolute misery--covered in his/her own filth and living the worst sort of life imaginable. Whenever someone comes of age, this truth is revealed to him/her. Then, this person has to make a choice: stay in this utopia where only one person suffers...or walk away into the unknown. Logically--dare I say "objectively"?--this is okay. One person suffers so that everyone else can live amazing lives. But this is not clean-cut morality--even if someone makes the choice whether to stay or leave, there are probably still doubts remaining. Similarly, one person may say, "I would never kill anyone," only to be willing to shoot one person to save millions.

I think part of being a superhero is often having standards--but also facing those tough choices where no amount of objectivity will make said superhero feel better about a certain choice. A superhero shouldn't kill anyone--but what if it's the only way to save everyone?


Do you mean Clarkent's individual objective standard, or are you talking in a more general sense (the church, chivalry, etc.)? And while he may have a standard, I really would hate to say that such a standard is objective. An objective standard should be able to apply to everyone situation, shouldn't it? But I think situations are important--thereby making it seem a little more subjective. For instance, maybe Clarkent believes everyone should be happy (this wouldn't necessarily be a standard that everyone disagrees with). Maybe he also believes that there is an important division between classes--after all, should Geralph be able to have as much influence on the kingdom as the monarch? But these two standards (and it may be that I'm applying the word "standard" wrong)--support happiness, support the monarchy--come into conflict through his interest in being with a princess. Can objective standards come into conflict like that? Or is it just a matter of prioritizing standards? And if it's about prioritizing standards, does that lose some objectivity?

You're right, of course, about Alexander's attempts to appear benevolent being important to keeping down revolt. However, while even honest Nobles may not be eager to prop up a corrupt monarch, there's again a conflict of interest. I've tried to avoid mentioning church stuff in this story, but it is a medieval setting. During medieval times, the monarch was viewed to be God-appointed. If it was a bad monarch, well, maybe God was punishing the people. But the standard was that the monarch should not be killed since he or she was appointed by God--regardless of how good a ruler that monarch made. Assassination plots were made in spite of this standard. A good ruler was wanted--but what the people wanted had nothing to do with what was deemed "right." Individually, people had different standards from this state- and church-supported one.


But can standards be wholly objective? For the sake of the galaxy, Luke Skywalker should have been willing to kill his own father--but those pesky feelings ("I like family," "Murder is wrong") got in the way...and led to a happy(ish) ending anyway. And it wasn't that he hadn't killed before--after all, he destroyed a space station with countless people on it (possibly even "innocent" prisoners).