Ha, that’s just foreplay!
3 Likes
I suppose that would make sense to explain it. I find it baffling in general, especially just how popular it is, but I’m excessively empathetic and immediately latch onto characters and will fully embody the position of the MC, which makes it completely impossible for me to even hypothetically understand wanting to fuck the guy that literally murders your family in front of you (as it usually goes). It’s funny since I have nothing against most immoral characters at a base level so it sounds like I’d be a perfect fit for that, but I am very vengeance-happy and hold intense grudges so someone doing such a horrible thing to me/MC directly is irredeemable. Sounds funny, like “yeah feel free to murder people, who cares honestly, but don’t murder my people”.
3 Likes
To be honest this whole “Let’s wipe out Kalltland” thing is the one thing about him that doesn’t sit right with me, but frankly most people would hold more than a little grudge after having been through what he had been. First, they killed his family. Then he was saved by the queen and swore to be loyal to the royal family… but then Kalltland also killed that queen and her husband. And in the meantime he spent years seeing his men die by Kalltland’s hand and having to notify the families (he avoids romance because he’s had to notify so many widows and widowers that he didn’t want to make another one). I personally think it’s admirable how he chooses the mc over his childhood friend and almost-bother, then saves their ass multiple times (almost dying in the process).
Funnily enough, my mc’s (and by extension mine) main problem with Stan is that he repeatedly hurts and tries to kill Will along with the mc (and almost succeeds). I can understand why he’d kill the royal family - he wasn’t close to them on a personal level, they were tyrants to him etc. But Will? They grew up together, they were practically family. But the moment Will doesn’t side with him Stan just goes “ok guess you’ll die”
7 Likes
Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader’s romance reminded me of a romance type I dislike. I hate it when the only kinky romance options are also the evil options. I can honestly only think of one game where a kinky romance option is also a good person.
Like even outside of video games, I really dislike how I can think of many kinky evil characters in other media, but good people into kink are such a rarity.
Need more good people into kink in media lol.
14 Likes
This is well-said, and hard to explain. I totally agree with your arcadie reference, I could never justify Stan as an RO. He has little to no justification for a massacre. Then I think about Defiled Hearts: the Barbarian, and I can absolutely romance Marcus, who also killed my family.
It’s not a completely fair comparison because for Marcus, it was an order. He didn’t want to do it, but he was ordered by his superior. It was more a “my head or theirs” situation. But with Stan? I mean, that was his plan all along. He literally wanted to kill your family for his very personal agenda.
I guess I’m saying I’m absolutely with you on this, but sometimes it’s such a fine line. IDK, there’s this ineffable “rightness” or “wrongness” we each feel as individual readers and it’s so hard to tell where it crosses from one to the other sometimes.
In defiled hearts thread, so many people hate Marcus and could never romance him (even though he is the best 
) and I can’t figure out why? Yes he killed your parents, he had too. He also spared you and apparently the younger twin siblings too.
4 Likes
It’s an end justifies the means kind of situation. He uses said blood magic because it’s the only way to wield luthecium weapons, which in turn are the only way to counter Ariana’s sword and MC’s own magic. I don’t agree with it either way, but as far as we’re shown in the game, he only did that because it was the most reliable way to counter MC and their family.
(Though admittedly it’s hard to know for sure, since you never find out what he would’ve done with those weapons if he’d succeeded in killing the whole d’Arcadie line.)
I have no counter-argument for the council shit. Those were definitely unnecessary civilian casualties to get to MC.
Honestly, the biggest thing that gave credibility to what Stan was saying were the way Ariana acted after the coup. Because the more hostile and aggressive she was, the more it made me see Stan’s point about the family.
And yes, you can say that she was only acting that way because she was grieving and emotionally compromised, but the problem with that is that while it justifies her actions as a person, it doesn’t justify her actions as a ruler.
Because yes, it’s understandable that as a person she’d be grief-strieking and want vengeance. But she’s not just a person; she’s the queen of Arcadie. And as queen, she has a responsibility not just towards her family, but towards the country as a whole. And yet she says multiple times that she has no qualms going to war to outright obliterate Kalltland after killing Stan, that she wouldn’t choose more peaceful options even if they existed, and the author has even stated that she would’ve killed Stan’s family if he’d killed MC instead of her. So while it makes her a sympathetic character, it definitely doesn’t make her a good queen.
7 Likes
Wasn’t speaking on Arcadie specifically as it’s a story I despise on every level when I initially played it back in the old version here, and I actively try to forget about it because it’s incredibly triggering for me. Was talking in a more general sense, with guys like Marcus specifically in mind. He’s insufferable on a personal level to me; I hate guys who act like that in everything, just a fucking dick of a personality type. Even if he was compatible with my sexuality and didn’t murder my family I’d still never ever want to be around him.
Not gonna go into it, not the time or place or in the mood, but while I know nothing about his excuses for why he so badly had to partake in enacting a genocide on the Pict people (has never come up in my playing as I actively avoid him at all costs unless it’s an occasion where I can attempt to murder him), “just following orders” is the most spineless justification for anything and has been used to excuse the worst atrocities of particularly the 20th century, atrocities done by people on the ground, not done by those who planned them, people who could’ve said no.
Not meant to be a personal attack if it comes as such, not in a good mood and have very big emotions about everything, particularly this.
7 Likes
“ends justify the means” automatically, categorically, and irrevocably prevent hero status.
No. It’s not. We KNOW it’s not because W beats Ariana’s ass in single combat, and Ariana only gets the upper hand at the end because W stops hitting her. Presumably, Stan would not.
8 Likes
Nothing personal taken at all, and deepest apologies if I provoked a negative response, wasn’t my intent. I thought about your feedback and thought it was insightful, had my own tangential thoughts and went with that thread.
As for not liking Marcus, I get it, that was kind of my point, it’s a hard line to straddle with a character like like that. I just love the route where you can romance him while still insulting him at every opportunity. I know It doesn’t work for everyone, I just felt it was done well.
I’m certainly not belittling the family aspect either, but Marcus was ordered to do it by the Legate and in certain paths you learn that he saw you and spared you, and will try to help you find your twin siblings.
Not trying to convince you, just trying to better explain my own thoughts and why i compared him to Stan.
6 Likes
Except it is? Ariana’s sword, when enhanced with her powers, has been specifically stated to be able to cut through regular shields like butter. And when using said powers she can enhance her physical capabilities, produce large blasts that can go from just knocking people over to completely busting entire walls, and even potentially shield herself and outright create elements like fire and water as we learn when training with Nathaniel.
And her match with W was a spar: so yes, they went easy on her, but it’s just as likely she went easy on them during it. And even then, just the fact that she was able to go from knocked on her ass to having the upper hand in a single move is a clear testament to how op she is.
(Just a heads up: I probably won’t be continuing the conversation after this, since it’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on it and it’s probably getting pretty off-topic. Feel free to reply to it anyways if you want tho, and I’ll still read through what you say.)
8 Likes
W only beats her because she didn’t use her magic. It’s different on the battlefield, where she is a walking bomb.
The family, canonically, were awful warmongers who aren’t missed. The beginnings of book two show that, and Stan is still urging for peace with the Southern Tribes, while W is upset about this; he was fully with the MC’s mother’s thinking in that peace with them was silly, and they should be fully subjugated.
Internally, of course the family’s inner circle, the high ranking officials, the military leaders, are going to think the family is great. But they’re not the ones who suffered the bulk of the family’s warmongering ways.
And I haven’t forgotten that Ariana had threatened to kill the MC, too. Her support and love for them is very thin, unless they fall into line.
The family was hated by the people. Stan absolutely would’ve been the anti-hero, if the story was told from another perspective.
9 Likes
Which people are these? When do they show up? Because the only people that didn’t like me in B1 were Stan’s soldiers and the council members who thought I wasn’t bribing them enough, and neither of those count as “the people”.
My Stan isn’t urging anything, unless ghosts exist.
No dude who bleeds corpses so he can make more corpses to bleed for personal power is ever a hero, anti- or otherwise.
I assure that the dude who leads ONE QUARTER of a kingdom’s armies can, in fact, amass an army that size with zero issues, locals or no locals.
Enemy kingdoms do not count, come on.
They’re split at the end because you don’t bribe them enough. They don’t hate the royal family, they hate that they can’t squeeze you for more privileges (and then Stan kills most of them, stellar move there, Stan. So much for him being a competent general - I’m beginning to understand why neither of his campaigns ever succeeded)
11 Likes
The southern tribes; the allies who’ve been shown to split at the end; the army Stan amassed, even— you don’t get to amass an army that size, without finding enough locals who also hate the crown. Such as the one… sergeant, I think? I don’t remember her name, atm.
I also just remembered the author had said on their tumblr that if the MC and Ariana actually had surrender, like he requested in his letter, he would’ve kept his word to them.
EDIT: But I’m also done with this. We won’t see eye to eye, and I am very, very tired of hearing “what is WRONG with people who like this character?” as if it’s a moral failing.
Also, the southern tribes are part of the kingdom. They have been forcibly subjugated. And I personally think “treating those people poorly doesn’t count because they’re not the same as my people” is a real shit take. Now I’m done.
18 Likes
Uh, no they haven’t been subjugated. That’s what Stan was doing there in the first place. W is at the capital exactly to ask for more troops to conquer the lands to the south, having replaced Stan there.
They don’t count as “the people” in the sentence “The people hated the ruling family”, because in that sentence “the people” very clearly refers to “the people who are ruled by the ruling family”.
Don’t get me wrong, the mother is clearly shit (you can call her out on it), and Ariana comes off as at the edge of unhinged (I can’t recall if we ever hear from the father), but the notion that Stan, a murderous oathbreaker who kills like three-quarters of the council (a considerable amount of whom were against you) for the egregious crime of checks notes being in the same building as you, is in any way a hero, anti or otherwise, is off several rockers.
6 Likes
I’m not addressing anything with Stan, because again, we’re not going to see eye to eye.
But no, the mother or the mother’s mother forcibly annexed the souther tribes’ lands for their resources. Later, when they were still pissed about this and fighting, the mother sent Stan to negotiate with them. He went, and when he came back with their request for freedom, she decided to push the subjugation. Stan was still loyal at this point, and so he went along with it.
It’s a very Scotland and England situation, with Scotland being the southern tribes. Except they’re still at the point in time where they can still fight back.
8 Likes
If the near-entirety of the tribes are fighting, then they’re not very annexed, though, are they? Like, the south isn’t a Cyrill situation, who gets to just hang around the fort, take care of banditry, and make sure supplies keep flowing. Stan (and later W) are controlling over one quarter of the kingdom’s military and W says they need more. That’s not an annexed territory. Well, not a successfully annexed one, in any case.
To use a current example, what’s happening at the southern border (unless the information we’re given in the first game is very innacurate) isn’t a present-day Crimea situation, it’s the present-day full-on invasion of Ukraine.
The southern tribes? The southern tribes get to be called heroes (presumably. we haven’t been, and B2 is probably going to focus more on the northern border rather than the southern one). Stan does not.
EDIT: I just reloaded my save to check something else about the ending, as it turns out I DIDN’T kill Stan, I’m putting him on trial instead. I’m sure that’s not gonna bite me in the ass in B2 or anything, no sir.
1 Like
Don’t they literally just raid your Kingdom’s territories, which ostensibly mean targeting the civilians for ressources? And that’s the whole reason your mom want them taken over despite them not having the worthwhile ressources of the north (thus no attempt to get them through trade)? That’s hardly heroic.
Border disputes are unending in medieval times, that’s just how it goes, it’s a bit too easy to declare one side the hero just cause they’re losing.
5 Likes
Doesn’t that depend on the means in question? I mean, if one used good means to get good ends, even if it was pragmatic reasons, it would look hero-ish to me at least.
1 Like
A lot of families and found families in IFs are so insufferable that I’d throw myself to literal Manerkol to get as far away from them as possible. If Stanislav actually has charisma and goals beyond being a dick, you’ll soon see me cheering him on. Yaas, bitch, slaaay!
4 Likes
It’s been quite a while since I’ve played, so I honestly couldn’t tell you for sure, but the recollection I have (which might very well be wrong) is that -
I have the game installed, I don’t need to recollect shit. 
Ok, apparently the raiders are the northern Kalltlanders, not the southern tribes, which just makes Stan’s treason even less excusable. AND the MC is the one that’s going to be put in charge of relations with Kalltland, so if you tell Stan you like peace, he has even less of a reason to go through with the treason. He’s just a complete, utter uselessness of a disaster.
Also, man, I’d forgotten that Stan’s treason takes place during the signing of a PEACE TREATY, which just makes his actions go well beyond the pale.
While you’re obviously technically correct, that is never how the saying is used. Nobody goes “they won the lottery, and then used the money to feed and clothe orphans. Ah well, the ends justify the means.” It’s always referring to bad means, because there’s nothing to justify in good or neutral means.
You interact with Stan like three times, and in all three he’s trying to kill you. The one time he does anything OTHER than try to kill you he’s such a wet towel he might as well have been a shower item on the Titanic.
Additionally, his goals are dumb, have no basis in reality, and are, in fact, deleterious to anybody ever trying for a peace treaty ever again.
13 Likes