Mushoku Tensei ~Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu~ - Vol. 13 Ch. 62 - Beneath the Mask

[nobaka]

Spoiler

@cor3zone
you're ignoring my answer. It's not about rudy or whether she can trust him. it's about the most powerful people in the most powerful kingdom trying to murder her friend. sylphy takes her duty very seriously, and even beside her work ethic, she's loyal. she outright explains the depth of her loyalty later as a hypothetical situation, and rudy does not come out on the winning side, ariel does.

Mod Note: Please use spoiler tags when talking about chapter-specific or future events.

 

[cor3zone]

@nobaka
You're ignoring me too. Sylphie knows Rudy wouldn't hurt her by killing her friends. At least the Sylphie as presented thus far. Use fucking spoiler tags, asshole.

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone Everybody else definitely factors into this because her decision affects everyone, whether positively or not. No, she doesn't know enough about Rudeus to know that since they've only known each other for 2 years when they were kids and it's already been 8 years since then. She herself knows how different he is back then just looking at the surface personality and who knows how much he changed inside. Right now, Rudeus is as much of a mystery to her as Fitts is to Rudeus. The only difference is that Sylphy knows his name. Also, like it or not, the princess is a huge factor into this because if she tells Sylphy to never reveal her identity, she won't. Sylphy has matured enough to know that the world doesn't revolve around her.

Also, yes, Rudeus would've actually killed Ariel if he was given enough reason to. Here's your reason: Luke's family played a huge role in the execution of Sauros. The trio knows this and they also know that Rudeus was a servant of Sauros. Now, Rudeus is definitely mature enough to not seek revenge over this since he knows that it's necessary (people need a scapegoat), but knowing him, had he not rationalized it immediately or had Eris been much more distraught over the news, Ariel would be dead

Spoiler

(along with everyone in the academy). By this point in the story, he has already attempted at least one genocidal act.

The problem is that nobody in the story knows all of the information above at once, especially regarding Rudeus' personality.

 

[cor3zone]

@adfjs
You're still disregarding the fact that said princess already gave Sylphie permission. She literally has permission from the person in question to disregard her safety, and she's in love with Rudy still. Would you believe someone you love is the kind of monster that could do what you suggest?

All of this is a moot point though, since she obviously doesn't believe Rudy would do bad shit. She wouldn't love him then, and since she's afraid of losing him she still does. My only point to start was that she doesn't have the right to think about losing him; she has already given up on him by hiding.

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone Yes, she gave her permission. Doesn't change the fact that him being an assassin is still very likely in their eyes. Her being in love with Rudeus isn't really relevant in regards to him being a monster because, well, it's the truth. I'm not sure about Sylphy but

Spoiler

Eris would certainly love him way after he was beyond redemption and much more evil. Since everyone in the story comments that Sylphy loves him more than anyone else then by that logic, yes she will still love him.

She doesn't believe Rudy would do bad shit? Does she, now? Are you sure about that? 🤣 I'd say press [X] to doubt.

Spoiler

For some reason, nobody doubts each other in the series more than Rudeus and Sylphy. One of the reasons why I'm not really a fan of their relationship.

 

[cor3zone]

@adfjs
There you go again. Since she has permission, there is no "in their eyes". The decision rests solely on Sylphie, and that's a fact. Maybe they are a factor in her thought process, but they have quite literally no part in the actual decision making.

If he's a monster, then so is she for still loving him. Which makes the whole thing about 'not hurting' someone a really silly point. Unless Sylphie is just unbelievable selfish, and just doesn't want her people in particular hurt. Which would make her on par with, or worse than, Rudy anyway. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Sure, maybe she would believe he does bad shit. But that he would do the single thing that would hurt her the most at this moment? No way. If she would, she's a shit character and doesn't even deserve being with shit-Rudy.

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone

Spoiler

Dude, she thought he killed her friends at their wedding day while she was talking to her long-lost family member. She also genuinely thought that he's going to kill their newborn baby because of the green hair colour (a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). I don't see how much hurting it'll need to surpass that.

The princess gave permission but also know there's a risk that can only really be revealed once it's in front of their faces. You don't have to 100% know you're safe to give permission. Sylphy knows those two things and it will influence her in making the decision.

Spoiler

Ariel would only really trust him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy later in the story.

Them being part of her thoughts on the decision makes them have a part in the decision. Sure, she can make the call anytime but it's incorrect to say that they play no part in it.

 

[cor3zone]

@adfjs
No, it's not incorrect. A king has to consider each of his subjects when making decisions. Does that make the lowest peasant part of making the decision? Does he have a say in the matter? Does he hold responsibility for the consequences? Hell no. Giving permission is handing away both authority and responsibility. The princess laid the burden completely on Sylphie, literally removing herself from making the decision. Do they still influence Sylphie's decision? Sure. But in the end only Sylphie will make the decision. Did the princess make the decision that Sylphie wouldn't reveal herself thus far? Will she make the decision that she eventually does? No, and no. Only Sylphie will.

Seeing as she hasn't thus far, maybe you have a point in that she doesn't trust Rudy. That means she doesn't deserve him, since mutual trust is extremely important. Which makes her a shit character, I guess. Also, thanks for using spoiler tags. I'll just assume they support your points?

Edit: minor grammar error

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone No, the flaw in your example is that the difference in rank between a king and a peasant too great that any decision the king made would've been objected by the nobilities in charge of those peasants. Because peasants give them crops, go to their armies, and give them manpower on other crafts. Not all peasants would be heard by the king, but they would be taken into consideration by those above them and those above them would be taken into consideration by those in the higher hierarchy until we get to the king. On the grand scheme of things, peasant's opinion is taken into consideration and they take matters into their own hands (especially if we're talking about kings before the LMP where kings aren't that powerful) and they do have a say in the matter. Also, yes, they take responsibility because whatever the king would decide will affect the peasants whether it to go to war, plant new crops, or build a road. Of course, they aren't the only thing that matter (they are pretty important though) so it's not like the peasants' opinion would always sway the king's.

Now, back to the matter at hand. We are talking about here a decision a bodyguard with consideration to her liege. One call can gain them a powerful ally or just handed their most dangerous threat the keys to their room. She does trust him, it's just due to the fact that she knows her version of Rudy is an idolized one and she barely knows anything about him like the fact that he doesn't worship Millis, it can be very inconsistent. She trusts that he's a good person but knows that there's a justification for him going nuts and killing her friends. Just because someone's a good person doesn't mean that they won't reach for a knife if they're in front of a person who has a hand in murdering a family member. She herself knows this. Like, how would she herself react if she confronted the person who's the reason for the Metastasis event that killed her entire family and millions of people be?

Spoiler

I suspect that you'll get to see Sylphy herself be the example next chapter.

I wouldn't go as far as to call her a shit character because she's a pretty great one, all things considered. She's much more nuanced than most people think. However, she's definitely not the best one IMHO, especially when compared to the other two female leads.

Yes, the spoilers would have expanded my points and given examples to it. If you're unwilling to spoil yourself and that'll enhance your experience, then that's totally okay. That's the end goal here anyway: make people enjoy the story. You'd have to wait for years to get to the spoiled section (that or the anime would show it in S2+) and actually understand many of the points I brought up but if you're fine waiting then that's okay.

 

[cor3zone]

@adfjs
Sure, maybe my example was a bad one. Say a king handing authority to his general during war then. The general will listen to the king, of course, but the decisions would still rest with the general. Say the king wants a direct assault, but the general knows that would result in a huge loss. The direct assault won't happen, and any consequences will lay on the general. Win, general gains prestige. Lose, general loses prestige, possibly life as well. The only thing the king stands to gain or lose from is appointing the general. Win, had nothing to do with the king's tactics. Lose, maybe loses his life but as a result of the war itself, not of having poor tactics. The logic still stands. Let someone else make a decision, by handing them the permission to, and you remove yourself from the decision. You don't make the decision, so you aren't directly in control or responsible. The peasant gives the king permission simply by being a subject, i.e. not revolting or leaving. The king is nothing without his subjects, so he must consider the lowest peasant. Lose control of food production, you're dead mate. The king may have more power than the peasant, but all his power comes from the peasant.

Also, yes, they take responsibility because whatever the king would decide will affect the peasants whether it to go to war, plant new crops, or build a road.

You're confusing 'consequence' with 'responsibility'. The peasant has to deal with the king's decision, but is not to blame for it. All of the consequences, none of the responsibility.

Poor choice of words on my part. She's not a shit character since, like you said, she's quite complex. She's a shit person.

 

[Artaris]

ahh... im reading too fast

 

[adfjs]

She's not a shit character since, like you said, she's quite complex. She's a shit person.

I guess we would agree to disagree on this point. Not her fan since there are better ones than her but I do still think that she's a pretty good character and good person. I guess your definition of a good person is someone who does and thinks things perfectly, which in this case nobody in this series will be. I don't even need a spoiler tag for that.

No, I'm not confusing consequence with responsibility either. Sometimes, it's quite the same, especially when we're talking about things on this scale depending on the circumstances.

A king giving a general a demesne could also be affected by the peasants because kings generally don't just give generals a piece of land "just because." A general may have been assigned there in order to quell a local revolt, for example.

The peasant gives the king permission simply by being a subject, i.e. not revolting or leaving. The king is nothing without his subjects, so he must consider the lowest peasant. Lose control of food production, you're dead mate. The king may have more power than the peasant, but all his power comes from the peasant.

Thanks for supporting my point in my previous reply, I guess?

As for the general's tactics, your example is still flawed since that's a false dichotomy. There are many, many other options other than simply appointing the general and not go for a direct assault or not and go for a direct assault. You could, for example, have a second opinion (there aren't just one general in the army) or delay the direct assault by using the environment by, for example, positioning your men in a way that your opponent would go through web mud first before getting to you, making it easier for a frontal attack. You don't remove yourself from the consequence of a decision because it's still your decision that led to it. Besides, in a campaign where the king is present, the final call is still always the king. If you're talking about before the troops sortie, thus your sentence about appointing generals, you should know that how you'll attack an enemy wouldn't be discussed in a throne room. It will be discussed in a war council. A king not present there wouldn't have been able to voice his desire for a direct assault and if he was there, he'd still make the final decisions, not the marshal commanders. Regardless whether the commanders were successful or not, he'd still reap the consequences of it. His vassals would be there to also see how he'd act should it be a success or a fail. If a king, somehow, convinced everyone about what he wants before he has any information in it, then it'll still reflect poorly on him, possibly even worse. A king who wastes money on losing wars, appointing stupid generals, and acts tyrannically would be in trouble once an opposing faction within the court becomes too powerful and they might just replace him. This happens quite a lot, actually. To expand on your own words, the king is only as powerful as the faction in his court that supports him and his army.

 

[adfjs]

@Artaris It seems so. Many of us just reread the story for the meantime while waiting for another month.

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone

My final reply is to reemphasize a point that seriously needs to be acknowledged:

Just because someone's a good person doesn't mean that they won't reach for a knife if they're in front of a person who has a hand in murdering a family member.

Also:

Rudeus tried to drown an entire city full of innocents when he was 10 simply because they were being threatened by an individual. When that failed, he killed a bunch of monsters and left their corpses there, fully knowing it'll become a zombie and will attack and kill the people inside the city a little later. This happened early in the story so it's not a spoiler.

 

[cor3zone]

@adfjs
You've driven this quite beyond the scope, and are now pointing at allegedly flawed examples rather than flawed logic.

Responsibility requires an active role in the making of the consequences. If someone murders me, I suffer the consequence but I am not (repeat, fucking NOT) responsible for my own death. I didn't kill myself, so I am not responsible. The murderer is. The princess didn't order Sylphie to remain hidden (almost the opposite, in fact), so she is not responsible for it. Sylphie is. The king makes choices that lead to famine. The peasant starves but did not make the choice to, so he is not responsible for it. The king is.

It's quite simple. She chose to hide; she chose to not be with Rudy; she chose to be miserable. Whatever her reasons, she chose this. She has no right to lament the situation, since she is continuously making the choice to maintain it. That has been, is, and will be my only point until she chooses differently.

Whatever, it seems we will never agree. Thus, I am also moving on. Also, TL;DR on your counter to the 'general' example. You already proved you're more interested in nitpicking than actual logic. Enjoy your manga.

 

[fridgebro]

and this is where i stop reading. i had hoped the author would end this terrible arc here, unlike the ln, and incorporate the necessary characters into an actual story. but that's giving clearly giving him too much credit. see you in 6 months, when hopefully this hell is over.
can't believe people are actually defending this lazy arc.
"just kidding", holy shit.

 

[Hexador]

What color is Fitz’s (Sylphies’) hair supposed to be?

 

[Ricardo_Rick]

@Hexador before the incident: Green, after the incident: white, that's one of the reasons of why rudy does not recognize her

 

[adfjs]

@cor3zone Well, I'm actually a historian specializing in medieval society and although I generalized a lot in my replies, your examples are just glaring with all the wrong I see all the time. Don't get mad just because your examples are dismissed because it's flawed. I'm sure you can come up with something valid next time. Maybe actually use an example you're a tiny bit familiar in as a starter. I won't even give your drivel about murderers the honour of a rebuttal. Either way, I've already had my laughs on your last reply.

Just to point out that while you're busy hating on a fictional character, you've missed the fact that I'm not disagreeing that she's not telling Rudeus her identity and that she can make the choice of revealing it at any time. I don't think anyone reading this would disagree. What we are (supposedly) disagreeing about is the reasoning for it. We've already provided the valid reasoning for it while you're dismissing it as irrelevant. Now, you're complaining that people don't use your flawed logic? Hilarious.

 

[adfjs]

@Hexador Sylphiette's green hair turned white when she was teleported. Rudeus has no way of knowing Sylphiette's white hair and Ariel and Luke have no way of knowing her green hair (she hasn't told anybody).