Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="radferth" data-source="post: 4925797" data-attributes="member: 5791">Having thought more about this overnight, I think my personal line has as much to do with how things are presented.  The way Vance presents characters like Cugel and Liane (who horribly tortures a woman to death in the first book, but comes to bad end soon enough) seems to say the being a depraved killer is just a lifestyle choice.  Perhaps he is trying to make some larger point that is lost on me, but to me is just seems he is glorifying violence against women.Set mentions Riddick, and I found his character (from the first movie) quite interesting.  All the other characters treat him like he is homicidal maniac, when is actually merely a thug with no respect for human life, who has become a thug with some respect for human life my the end of the movie.  He is supposed to have done some horrible things in the past, but we don't see any of that, what we are shown is, perhaps, the beginning of his redemption.  Of course, in light of the sequel, it turns out we were actually being shown was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt at starting yet another anti-hero francise, but I still like the first movie.  Maybe I'm too forgiving because I really like "hard" sci-fi movies, and hardly ever find any worth watching.I guess what defines the line for me is not so much how evil the protagonist is (although that does matter), but how "evil" the author is.  I could live with Cugel being evil if it were shown with less glee.  Maybe Vance is trying to show me what it might me light inside a sociopath's head, but that is no place I want to be.</blockquote>

Verification