Terry Goodkind Political Genius & Brilliant Writer!

[18-Till-I-Die]

Objectiveism is, near as i can tell from my brief experience on Wikipedia, some kind of wierd cult that worships selfishness.

The idea, if i grasp it, is that selfishness is required for civilization to function. Without selfish people mankind would die out. This is basically the plot to Atlas Shrugged, judging by the plot summary.

To sumit up better...has anyone seen that indie movie where all the illegal workers in the US vanished overnight and civilization collapsed because middle-class people refused to do any work? Ok, it's like that but in reverse, instead the idea is that if all the execs and businessmen on the planet "went on strike" then civilization will collapse because everyone else is too giving to help society. Or some such.

The basic worldview of these people seems to be that narcissism and selfishness is all that seperates us from the apes.

[darthbob88]

I apologize if this question is asked already, but I have trouble reconciling the idea that "altruism is bad", that it's immoral and irrational to help others at no gain to yourself, with Richard's going off to rescue Kahlan, avenge his father, or save world and everybody on it. How is that not the eee-vil altruism?

Ho ho ho! I have, in fact, raised that point already! Obviously it means that the Sword of Truth series is a load of hypocritical and inconsistent bollocks.

Well, perhaps except for the revenge angle and the bit about Richard getting some Mother Confessor poontang, but as for the World...

Ah so. I didn't see it, but I see no reason to dispute the point. As for the World, the only reason I can think of would involve Richard's anger at having his very own personal country destroyed by some evil bastard. Yes, Sword of Truth is a bunch of dreck, but one must give credit where it's due. I have yet to find a better paperweight, doorstop, or ballast/trim weight.

[Enforcer Talen]

Objectiveism is, near as i can tell from my brief experience on Wikipedia, some kind of wierd cult that worships selfishness.

The idea, if i grasp it, is that selfishness is required for civilization to function. Without selfish people mankind would die out. This is basically the plot to Atlas Shrugged, judging by the plot summary.

To sumit up better...has anyone seen that indie movie where all the illegal workers in the US vanished overnight and civilization collapsed because middle-class people refused to do any work? Ok, it's like that but in reverse, instead the idea is that if all the execs and businessmen on the planet "went on strike" then civilization will collapse because everyone else is too giving to help society. Or some such.

The basic worldview of these people seems to be that narcissism and selfishness is all that seperates us from the apes.

From what I recall about my philisophy class, its an expansion on egoism, where if you focus on whats good for you, everything works out.

IE, I dont commit crimes cuz I dont want to go to jail. Of course, it assumes everyone is rational. . .

[Haminal10]

If I recall correctly, it wasn't altruism per se that Richard was against. It was the mandatory, state enforced "altruism" of sacrificing everything you have. It would be the difference between seeing a homeless person on the street, and offering him a job sweeping the floors, as opposed to someone forcing you to hire the homeless person, and give him a job that he is unqualified to do (this was the SOP for the Imperial Order). I realize that the Imperial Order is really nothing more than a comic book version of communism, only more eeeeevil, but thats why they call it fantasy.

As for Violet, that bitch got what she richly deserved. When Richard kicked her, I wasn't even really seeing her as an 8 year old child. She was just an evil character who had been tormenting people for the entire book. Terry Goodkind is really good at creating characters that are soooo asking for their just desserts, and then having them get it in a spectacularly bloody fashion.

All in all, I enjoy the SOT series, and I am really looking forward to the last book coming out later this year.

[Enforcer Talen]

I was unhappy with the IO. Book 3, they were professional and brutal, and Janang was a highly capable dictator.

As the books went on, he became an angsty ideologue, and his empire was barely functional.

[Connor MacLeod]

Terry Goodkind = "Ayn Rand plays D&D".

With an ever growing lesser emphasis on D&D. Magic is purely a sideline to his preaching.


Although I was thinking more of David Brin myself. Without the persecution complex (at least as far as I am aware of.)

[Connor MacLeod]

I was unhappy with the IO. Book 3, they were professional and brutal, and Janang was a highly capable dictator.

As the books went on, he became an angsty ideologue, and his empire was barely functional.

The real problem with book three and onward is that it seems that Goodkind completely forgets about everything he's built up to beforehand. The Creator? Who? The Keeper? He's not been a relevant factor in the stories for how long now?

i could have tolerated the Imperial Order as another badguy if Goodkind hadn't decided that his novels became some sort of pulpit for preaching his crap, and that's all it really is, thinly disguised as fantasy. the fifth book was the most intolerable to me because all his preachy and self absorbed BS tookup such a massive part of it. I could actually read it if he confined himself to the magic and fighting bits, but he never does. Progressively, more and more of his books have been taken up with him preaching more and more about his pseudophilosophy on everything, and it becomes both tedious and offensive (much how Robert Jordan becomes unreadable because of the minutae he bogs his books down with.)

I'm lucky the local library carries his stuff on audio books at least, it makes it easier to keep up (and to fast forward through the preachy shit.)

The best "adult" fantasy I've been able to put up with in awhile would be George RR Martin, and I find that even that gets tedious at times because he seems to just LOVE political twists and drama and dialogue, and at times it becomes tedious having to trudge through the "days in the liveS" of characters (FEast of Crows was like that for the most partt, I find.)

I do admit I am rrather fond of David Weber's fantasy novels (the Tomanak ones.)

[Connor MacLeod]

oh and the whole "kicking the little girl" thing that's taken up so much of what should be rightly saying what a preachy pompous asshole Goodkind is? IIRC that bit was towards the tail end of him getting his Sadomasochism lessons from Mistress whateever the fuck her name was. (What, no ball gag and gimp mask?) and IIRC he was rather "out of it" by that point (who wouldn't be?)

While I do agree that that kicking her as hard as he did was excessive, I question whether he actually had the presence of mind (or muscular control) to only disable her. Disregarding for a second how bloody contrived it was, that is (and what a super-wizard Richard is, when plot dictates.)

[Imperial Overlord]

One thing I noticed before I stopped reading the series was that Goodkind has an unparalleled ability to build strawmen. For big book epic fantasy I go with Steven Erickson's Malazan Books or R. Scott Baker's Prince of Nothing (and not just because they're Canandians ). That both of them produce books faster than Martin is a nice bonus (not that I dislike Martin's work).

[Ted C]

i could have tolerated the Imperial Order as another badguy if Goodkind hadn't decided that his novels became some sort of pulpit for preaching his crap, and that's all it really is, thinly disguised as fantasy. the fifth book was the most intolerable to me because all his preachy and self absorbed BS tookup such a massive part of it.

You made it through book 5? I got sick of his crap before getting through book 4.

[Gaidin]

The real problem with book three and onward is that it seems that Goodkind completely forgets about everything he's built up to beforehand. The Creator? Who? The Keeper? He's not been a relevant factor in the stories for how long now?

Ugh yea...that's annoying. Up until book 9, Goodkind has made a point to have every book be a standalone with some little nod of his head to events in previous books.

He finally made a 'series' out of something with the trilogy he's ending it on. Which, amusingly, when he's not preaching, it actually has some fun stuff happening. Richard lost his powers in book 10 <grins>.

[Enforcer Talen]

He did that in a lot of the books, for one reason or another. Mord-Sith, Sister of the Light Collar, Kahlan will get killed if he uses his pwoers, etc, etc

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Again: The intents and acts of one who is morally immature cannot legitimately be labeled evil, since that label implies a moral position, and the capability of forming such. Your "points" are nothing but a laundry list of cruel acts of one morally immature, and thus are not an adequate counterpoint.

We are talking about a child who is conciously deciding to commit or have others commit on her behalf rape, murder, and torture. She has displayed textbook sociopathy throughout the story, willingly has others killed, and was presently engaged in gleefully torturing another human being. If you say that, at 8 or 9, you did not have the basic moral foundation to know those things were wrong... I would like to know how. For comparison, the princess's playmate, Rachel, (who was even younger than the princess and had lived alongside the princess for the past several years) was unambiguously asked (as part of a test by the queen's wizard) about if killing and torturing was wrong, and responded that they, suprise, were. I cite this to show that if an even younger child who had been exposed to the same surroundings for the past few years knew it was wrong, then it gives us a way to assess what the princess should know.

Meaninless definition. You assert that maiming her makes her less likely to retaliate, than concussing her.

Would it indeed.

Yes, in fact, it would.

Patients with mild head injuries typically have concussions. A concussion is defined as physiologic injury to the brain without any evidence of structural alteration. Concussions are graded on a scale of I-V. A grade I concussion is one in which a person is confused temporarily but does not display any memory changes. In a grade II concussion, brief disorientation and anterograde amnesia of less than 5 minutes' duration are present. In a grade III concussion, retrograde amnesia and loss of consciousness for less than 5 minutes are present, in addition to the 2 criteria for a grade II concussion. Grade IV and grade V concussions are similar to a grade III, except that in a grade IV concussion, the duration of loss of consciousness is 5-10 minutes, and in a grade V concussion, the loss of consciousness is longer than 10 minutes.

As many as 30% of patients who experience a concussion develop postconcussive syndrome (PCS). Approximately 20% of adults with PCS will not have returned to full-time work 1 year after the initial injury, and some are disabled permanently by PCS. PCS tends to be more severe in children than in adults.

Especially relevant parts bolded. I think we can both agree that it would require a Type V concussion at the least to disable her in the manner we are talking, correct? This is leaving aside the fact that Richard is not a medical expert and will have no way of knowing exactly how much force to apply to get a Type V concussion, rather than permanant brain damage. And the fact his method of doing so would be a boot to a child's head.

If you don't have a short term memory, I imagine you were deliberately attempting to strawman my position.

You know, how about we clearly define our positions, hmmm? You keep saying I am strawmanning yours, and for all I know I am. So how about we lay it out, nice and simple, right here. I'll even go first!

It is my contention that Richard was justified in using whatever force was needed to enact the cessation of torture on him and protect those that the princess was credibly promising to have killed. Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better, but he is morally justified in using whatever force required to end the direct torture and credible direct threats. Following from this, this is not one of the more egregious examples of Terry Goodkind's horrible morality, displayed throughout his soapbox of the Sword of Truth series.

Now, for reference, here is my first post where I stated this position:

While I'm by no means a fan of Goodkind, that little girl was actively torturing (with a device of indescribable pain) Richard at the time. There are very good examples of his horrible morality, but this is not one of them.

[Lord Zentei]

Amazing. And after two days of lurking, you come sniveling back. And just why did you only respond now? What the fuck is this crap?

We are talking about a child who is conciously deciding to commit or have others commit on her behalf rape, murder, and torture. She has displayed textbook sociopathy throughout the story, willingly has others killed, and was presently engaged in gleefully torturing another human being. If you say that, at 8 or 9, you did not have the basic moral foundation to know those things were wrong... I would like to know how. For comparison, the princess's playmate, Rachel, (who was even younger than the princess and had lived alongside the princess for the past several years) was unambiguously asked (as part of a test by the queen's wizard) about if killing and torturing was wrong, and responded that they, suprise, were. I cite this to show that if an even younger child who had been exposed to the same surroundings for the past few years knew it was wrong, then it gives us a way to assess what the princess should know.

You know, not all children are equal, especially spoiled ones. As I have said before, there is a reason we don't try children as adults.

Especially relevant parts bolded. I think we can both agree that it would require a Type V concussion at the least to disable her in the manner we are talking, correct? This is leaving aside the fact that Richard is not a medical expert and will have no way of knowing exactly how much force to apply to get a Type V concussion, rather than permanant brain damage. And the fact his method of doing so would be a boot to a child's head.

Fair enough on the concussion, though your contention that Richard cannot know what he is doing is hardly credible given that he is supposedly an experienced warrior. However: you failed to answer the following:

As soon as Richard did grevious harm to the princess, he was transferred out due to the queen wanting to execute him. So, basically, anything short of making them mad enough to kill him (torture has been established as fine) wouldn't work.

So, being sent out to get executed was his intent.

Was he really "fighting back" against her in order to end her torture? Also, Gaidin had the following to say on the matter:

He's not fighting against the person torturing him. He's not fighting back at all, and is quite content with the fact that the others got away. He's long since, essentially, analyzed his situation and come to the conclusion that he really can't get out of it. For all intents and purposes, he really can't due to the nature of a mord-sith's powers. At least, he can't get out of it at that stage of his own powers. If the princess had done and said nothing about Kahlan, he'd have taken everything the girl offered and kept right on with his "Yes Mistress Denna" routine. In the end the story wouldn't have changed at all, because he'd have eventually gone to the People's Palace anyway, and then broken his partition at the same time.

Which seems to contradict your statements.

If you don't have a short term memory, I imagine you were deliberately attempting to strawman my position.

You know, how about we clearly define our positions, hmmm? You keep saying I am strawmanning yours, and for all I know I am. So how about we lay it out, nice and simple, right here. I'll even go first!

It is my contention that Richard was justified in using whatever force was needed to enact the cessation of torture on him and protect those that the princess was credibly promising to have killed. Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better, but he is morally justified in using whatever force required to end the direct torture and credible direct threats. Following from this, this is not one of the more egregious examples of Terry Goodkind's horrible morality, displayed throughout his soapbox of the Sword of Truth series.

Now, for reference, here is my first post where I stated this position:

While I'm by no means a fan of Goodkind, that little girl was actively torturing (with a device of indescribable pain) Richard at the time. There are very good examples of his horrible morality, but this is not one of them.

I have already stated that she does not get a free pass on torturing him. I have also said that "if incapacitating her with maiming is justified and neccesary, then incapacitating her without same is that also", implying that minimum force should be used. In light of that, this:

And, indeed, the guy is actively being tortured, which is the crux of this whole argument. He is fighting against the person torturing him and threatening the lives of everyone he loves. You are saying he shouldn't have fought back in what is virtually the only way it could be stopped... because the person was eight or nine. Perhaps you would also let a nine year old execute your parents or wife if the only way you had to stop him was permanantly maiming or killing said child?

Is a damned strawman, and frankly stupid.

More particularly, this:

Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better

...is something you have not said before now. In fact, one might gather from your posts that your position was that using minimum force was not a moral requirement.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Amazing. And after two days of lurking, you come sniveling back. And just why did you only respond now? What the fuck is this crap?

Believe it or not, fuckwad, some of us have lives and do this in what little spare time we have. Indeed, some people even post on message boards because it does not require you to instantly reply! Has it not occured to you that it's finals week across a good portion of the US? I mean, it's not like there have been threads on the subject already posted in other sections... wait! There have been!

You know, not all children are equal, especially spoiled ones. As I have said before, there is a reason we don't try children as adults.

And? That's it? Was there a refutation in there somewhere? I've given reasonable in-universe evidence to assume she knew damn well that it was wrong, and furthermore assert that 9-year-olds at large know that infliciting horrendous pain and torture upon other people is undesirable. You then throw up your hands and say "Oooga booga! We can't judge someone as evil/sociopathic/a little bitch until they hit <insert abitrary age>!" The girl is obviously evil/bad/whatever the hell you want to call it. Is it the same level of bad as an adult with a lifetime of experience who does the same thing? No. Please show me where I said that. But she is an evil little shit, and you will notice that we still try children, even if it's not as adults. A kid can still need some time in correctional facilities (be they psych ward or whatever) for their evil acts.

Fair enough on the concussion, though your contention that Richard cannot know what he is doing is hardly credible given that he is supposedly an experienced warrior.

What? An experienced warrior? Dude, he had only been in a handful of fights his entire life until the 3 months the story covers, and the only reason he doesn't get his ass kicked constantly is that his sword has massive jedi-fu going on, speeding up his perceptions in battle, giving him stamina, and cutting through other swords. In the second book he gets some massive-super-awesome warrior powers, but for the first one he is just some guy with a magic sword.

So, being sent out to get executed was his intent.

No, but it was a happy bonus of it. I never argued that he was trying for some overarching get-me-out-of-here goal, I just pointed it out as a side benefit that he wouldn't have had otherwise.

Was he really "fighting back" against her in order to end her torture? Also, Gaidin had the following to say on the matter:

*snip*

Which seems to contradict your statements.

Uh, yes? I think I remember saying he was protecting the people close to him, too. His power was held so he couldn't fight back, but when he felt sorry for her it let him tap into the "Uber secret love/sorrow power" that let him do so. It was his sorrow and pity for the princess that let him access that power, and having access to that power is removed from the use of said power, namely to attack the one you are loving/pitying. Therefore Gaiden's statement is in error. Observe:

Richard actually felt sorry for the little Princess. The sadness for her came over him in a wave. At that feeling, he was suprised to feel the thing within him that had come awake rise up.
Princess Violet squeezed her eyes shut and stuck her tounge out as far as she could. It was like a red flag.
The strength of the awakened power exploded through him.
*insert previously posted boot to face scene*

Now, if you want me to try and explain what Goodkind was thinking when creating such an idiotic way of getting that power, I'm afraid that's beyond me. To kill someone with it, you have to love, pity, or forgive them. Plot device, ahoy.

I have already stated that she does not get a free pass on torturing him. I have also said that "if incapacitating her with maiming is justified and neccesary, then incapacitating her without same is that also", implying that minimum force should be used. In light of that, this:

And, indeed, the guy is actively being tortured, which is the crux of this whole argument. He is fighting against the person torturing him and threatening the lives of everyone he loves. You are saying he shouldn't have fought back in what is virtually the only way it could be stopped... because the person was eight or nine. Perhaps you would also let a nine year old execute your parents or wife if the only way you had to stop him was permanantly maiming or killing said child?

Is a damned strawman, and frankly stupid.

More particularly, this:

Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better

...is something you have not said before now. In fact, one might gather from your posts that your position was that using minimum force was not a moral requirement.

And that looks like the core misunderstanding. I was assuming that any rational person would try to use the minimum force needed in such a situation, and didn't bother stating it. In fact, if you'll look at what you quoted there, you will see that I said "if the only way you had to stop him" implying that no lesser methods would do because they would, of course, be preferable. Compounding this was the fact that you have not read the books and kept insisting a lesser application of force (the concussion) would have worked, when it obviously would not have due to the situation portrayed.

So, apologies for assuming rationality. I'll have to be more careful debating you in the future.

[Gaidin]

Fair enough on the concussion, though your contention that Richard cannot know what he is doing is hardly credible given that he is supposedly an experienced warrior. However: you failed to answer the following:

Only at the tail end of book 2 does he learn to fight in any way that speaks of experience. In book one he's just a woods guide with a wank sword.

[Gaidin]

Yay posting at the same time awesome.

Anyway, Ar-Adunakhor...The point of that love, forgiveness, and plot device power is all due to Terry Goodkind's idea that all magic has two sides to it, opposite sides. Those two types of things put together in one thing is just convoluted though.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

Yay posting at the same time awesome.

Anyway, Ar-Adunakhor...The point of that love, forgiveness, and plot device power is all due to Terry Goodkind's idea that all magic has two sides to it, opposite sides. Those two types of things put together in one thing is just convoluted though.

It would be pretty cool if he had actually kept that idea for more than fifty pages of the first book.

[Lord Zentei]

Amazing. And after two days of lurking, you come sniveling back. And just why did you only respond now? What the fuck is this crap?

Believe it or not, fuckwad, some of us have lives and do this in what little spare time we have. Indeed, some people even post on message boards because it does not require you to instantly reply! Has it not occured to you that it's finals week across a good portion of the US? I mean, it's not like there have been threads on the subject already posted in other sections... wait! There have been!

No, I mean that you have been around the board anyway. But whatever.

You know, not all children are equal, especially spoiled ones. As I have said before, there is a reason we don't try children as adults.

And? That's it? Was there a refutation in there somewhere? I've given reasonable in-universe evidence to assume she knew damn well that it was wrong, and furthermore assert that 9-year-olds at large know that infliciting horrendous pain and torture upon other people is undesirable. You then throw up your hands and say "Oooga booga! We can't judge someone as evil/sociopathic/a little bitch until they hit <insert abitrary age>!" The girl is obviously evil/bad/whatever the hell you want to call it.

Whatever I want to call it? Sure.

Is it the same level of bad as an adult with a lifetime of experience who does the same thing? No.

And thank you for that.

Please show me where I said that. But she is an evil little shit, and you will notice that we still try children, even if it's not as adults. A kid can still need some time in correctional facilities (be they psych ward or whatever) for their evil acts.

Psych ward. Yes indeed. As in, to undo or migitate the effects of fucked up parenting.

So, being sent out to get executed was his intent.

No, but it was a happy bonus of it. I never argued that he was trying for some overarching get-me-out-of-here goal, I just pointed it out as a side benefit that he wouldn't have had otherwise.

So, in other words, he was not attempting to escape or end the torture. It was just a coincidence that he escaped as a result of his action.

Uh, yes? I think I remember saying he was protecting the people close to him, too. His power was held so he couldn't fight back, but when he felt sorry for her it let him tap into the "Uber secret love/sorrow power" that let him do so. It was his sorrow and pity for the princess that let him access that power, and having access to that power is removed from the use of said power, namely to attack the one you are loving/pitying. Therefore Gaiden's statement is in error.

How, precisely does that contradict the statement that he was not fighting against his torturer because he had resigned himself to not escaping? And how does maiming the girl prevent her vengeance against the Mother Confessor when she would be captured? It seems to me that maiming her would only delay his torture, not end it, and exasperate the MC's situation when she got caught. Hence I find it incredible that said maiming was neccesary in any way.

And that looks like the core misunderstanding. I was assuming that any rational person would try to use the minimum force needed in such a situation, and didn't bother stating it.

Richard does not strike me as rational. He is the one we are discussing, not I.

In fact, if you'll look at what you quoted there, you will see that I said "if the only way you had to stop him" implying that no lesser methods would do because they would, of course, be preferable. Compounding this was the fact that you have not read the books and kept insisting a lesser application of force (the concussion) would have worked, when it obviously would not have due to the situation portrayed.

You have not explained how the maiming was neccesary to stop the torture, hence this argument holds no merit. In fact, you have been harping on a "reasonable amount of time", mentioning that he got rescued, when it is now clear that he did not expect any rescue, hence that "reasonable amount of time" angle has been a red herring from the get go.

So, apologies for assuming rationality. I'll have to be more careful debating you in the future.

And my apoligies for assuming clarity.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

No, I mean that you have been around the board anyway. But whatever.

You are just spouting bullshit, cockmonger. I've briefly checked the site without logging in as I always have, but haven't even attempted to reply to anything due to lack of time. If you want, check my posting history and stop spewing shit.

Whatever I want to call it? Sure.

And thank you for that.

Are these examples of what passes for your version of a rebuttal, or are you merely patting yourself on the back for whatever strawmen you think you knocked over?

Psych ward. Yes indeed. As in, to undo or migitate the effects of fucked up parenting.

...And? Every evil shit has an excuse, be it "Mommy didn't love me." or "God said we should in this book." This does not excuse the actions, merely shows how they came about.

How, precisely does that contradict the statement that he was not fighting against his torturer because he had resigned himself to not escaping?

Because he hadn't? Show me where he had, please, because I sure as hell can't find it. In fact, directly prior to the princess scene, he was thinking about various things he could do to escape. Of course, all he had come up with so far was killing himself or taking advantage of some flaws he had found in his torturer's methods. Not promising, but it clearly shows he was still thinking of ways to get away, and it's not like he lacked time. He did eventually lose the will to escape after being broken. In fact, it was explicitly stated when he eventually did. It was also after the incident with the princess, not before.

And how does maiming the girl prevent her vengeance against the Mother Confessor when she would be captured? It seems to me that maiming her would only delay his torture, not end it, and exasperate the MC's situation when she got caught. Hence I find it incredible that said maiming was neccesary in any way.

As I previously stated but you were too damn dense to read, her attacks on the MC are pure vendetta because she had embarassed the princess. Remove the princess, and you remove the threat.

Richard does not strike me as rational. He is the one we are discussing, not I.

A rational person in a debate would also assume so, especially when it would show all of the comments relating to it in a far more rational light.

You have not explained how the maiming was neccesary to stop the torture, hence this argument holds no merit. In fact, you have been harping on a "reasonable amount of time", mentioning that he got rescued, when it is now clear that he did not expect any rescue, hence that "reasonable amount of time" angle has been a red herring from the get go.

Strawman incorporating a flawed assumption, notably that he had given up on escape. Furthermore, I think it's clear that maiming a person stops them from harming you for the duration of their incapacitation. How, exactly, do you not understand that?

Also, if you are going to try to say "But, hur hur, what about the other Master Torturer! Incapacitating the princess would still leave him tortured, just not by her!" then I would like to point out the following:

First off, it would stop the princess from torturing him, and she wanted to torture him for the sake of seeing him squirm, and stated she didn't give a damn if he died. His other torturer had been directed to torture him for information, and intervened to stop him from dying numerous times. There is quite the difference to your well-being there. Furthermore, I would suggest that the fewer people you have torturing you, the better. Fight back against who you can, when you can.

Secondly, as stated numerous times, it would stop the vendetta on those he loved, keeping them safe. By the time she recovered (for all he knew) Rahl would be dead, the MC and friends would be surrounded by an army, and if the princess had tried shit she would have had her country invaded.

Now, once again, please address my main point of contention, all the way back from my first post:

It is my contention that Richard was justified in using whatever force was needed to enact the cessation of torture on him and protect those that the princess was credibly promising to have killed. Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better, but he is morally justified in using whatever force required to end the direct torture and credible direct threats. Following from this, this is not one of the more egregious examples of Terry Goodkind's horrible morality, displayed throughout his soapbox of the Sword of Truth series.

Now, for reference, here is my first post where I stated this position:

While I'm by no means a fan of Goodkind, that little girl was actively torturing (with a device of indescribable pain) Richard at the time. There are very good examples of his horrible morality, but this is not one of them.

[Lord Zentei]

You are just spouting bullshit, cockmonger. I've briefly checked the site without logging in as I always have, but haven't even attempted to reply to anything due to lack of time. If you want, check my posting history and stop spewing shit.

Hey, sure. But it was only chance that I checked up on the tread again, since I thought you had left on seeing you around. I have taken breaks due to time issues myself before, though I usually give a headsup.

Whatever I want to call it? Sure.

And thank you for that.

Are these examples of what passes for your version of a rebuttal, or are you merely patting yourself on the back for whatever strawmen you think you knocked over?

That a child's cruel acts are less bad than an adult's equivalent acts rather supports the assessment that one cannot apply the same label to them, that is "evil", which implies more than just inflicting harm but inflicting harm despite moral maturity. But perhaps the problem is simply that we use the word "evil" differently?

Psych ward. Yes indeed. As in, to undo or migitate the effects of fucked up parenting.

...And? Every evil shit has an excuse, be it "Mommy didn't love me." or "God said we should in this book." This does not excuse the actions, merely shows how they came about.

Applicable to adults, indeed. Not to immature children, who incidentally are still in the process of being raised to be an asshole. But again, we seem to be using the term differently.

How, precisely does that contradict the statement that he was not fighting against his torturer because he had resigned himself to not escaping?

Because he hadn't? Show me where he had, please, because I sure as hell can't find it. In fact, directly prior to the princess scene, he was thinking about various things he could do to escape. Of course, all he had come up with so far was killing himself or taking advantage of some flaws he had found in his torturer's methods. Not promising, but it clearly shows he was still thinking of ways to get away, and it's not like he lacked time. He did eventually lose the will to escape after being broken. In fact, it was explicitly stated when he eventually did. It was also after the incident with the princess, not before.

I had already asked whether getting himself killed was a plan of his.

Anyway, see two points below this one.

And how does maiming the girl prevent her vengeance against the Mother Confessor when she would be captured? It seems to me that maiming her would only delay his torture, not end it, and exasperate the MC's situation when she got caught. Hence I find it incredible that said maiming was neccesary in any way.

As I previously stated but you were too damn dense to read, her attacks on the MC are pure vendetta because she had embarassed the princess. Remove the princess, and you remove the threat.

That statement contradicts the text in the OP. See last point of this post.

You have not explained how the maiming was neccesary to stop the torture, hence this argument holds no merit. In fact, you have been harping on a "reasonable amount of time", mentioning that he got rescued, when it is now clear that he did not expect any rescue, hence that "reasonable amount of time" angle has been a red herring from the get go.

Strawman incorporating a flawed assumption, notably that he had given up on escape.

This is yours, right?

I never argued that he was trying for some overarching get-me-out-of-here goal, I just pointed it out as a side benefit that he wouldn't have had otherwise.

I rather went by the assumption that this statement of yours was indeed accurate.

Furthermore, I think it's clear that maiming a person stops them from harming you for the duration of their incapacitation. How, exactly, do you not understand that?

I am well aware of the fact that maiming a person stops them from harming you for the duration of the incapacitation. You answered that point yourself already:

Then do tell, genius what would that have done to stop the torture when the girl got up and was fucking angry at you, but you were unable to retaliate again due to having dislocated arms, broken ribs, and no muscular control?

Which applies to her returning after the maiming also, in case you were unaware of the fact. I assert that the fact that she is out of it for a considerable time does not make the chances of retribution from her or her guardians neglible.

Also, if you are going to try to say "But, hur hur, what about the other Master Torturer! Incapacitating the princess would still leave him tortured, just not by her!" then I would like to point out the following:

First off, it would stop the princess from torturing him, and she wanted to torture him for the sake of seeing him squirm, and stated she didn't give a damn if he died. His other torturer had been directed to torture him for information, and intervened to stop him from dying numerous times.

Until she recovers. At best, he has delayed her torture, he has not stopped it. And torturing him for information is not the same as punishing him for maiming her, which is indeed what they chose to do.

Secondly, as stated numerous times, it would stop the vendetta on those he loved, keeping them safe. By the time she recovered (for all he knew) Rahl would be dead, the MC and friends would be surrounded by an army, and if the princess had tried shit she would have had her country invaded.

Would it really:

Princess Violet glared at him. "My mother says that Confessor Kahlan will come back and that we'll have a surprise for her the next time she comes here. I just want you to know because my mother said you'll be dead by then. My mother says I get to decide what to do to her.

Note the "we". Based on that Kahlan would have been captured anyway, and the princess' incapacitation would not have prevented it.

Now, once again, please address my main point of contention, all the way back from my first post:

It is my contention that Richard was justified in using whatever force was needed to enact the cessation of torture on him and protect those that the princess was credibly promising to have killed.Due to the princess being a minor, the less force he uses the better, but he is morally justified in using whatever force required to end the direct torture and credible direct threats. Following from this, this is not one of the more egregious examples of Terry Goodkind's horrible morality, displayed throughout his soapbox of the Sword of Truth series.

The key word here is "cessation".

[Ar-Adunakhor]

I'm going to have to belatedly concede, though I do hope we can pick up again some other time. Sorry for the long delay.

[Lord Zentei]

I'm going to have to belatedly concede, though I do hope we can pick up again some other time. Sorry for the long delay.

Hey, no sweat; as long as I know you're not responding because you're tied for time and haven't been eaten by an evil not-chicken or something.

[Setzer]

Did Valberg put up Richard Rahl's brilliant military strategy when he was outnumbered and in hostile territory?

[Enforcer Talen]

Which one? He had that situation a couple times.