Tragic Monster or Monstrous Tragedy - The Moral Challenge of Icarium (MBotF ALL SPOILERS)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2022
- Spoilers for the Malazan Book of the Fallen.
Icarium is a fascinating character. A fan favourite, a gentle giant, a powerful warrior, a good hunter, and... well... a bit of an anger problem.
So is Icarium good or evil? Does he qualify as morally grey? Is he a victim or a monster? This is just a short video taking a look at Icarium from a slightly different perspective.
Intro and Music by Professor Trip.
If you would like to buy me a coffee or a book, Support me on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/criticaldragon
The Image of Icarium is by Corporal Nobbs
Deviant Art Page Here: www.deviantart.com/corporal--...
The most monstrous character in all of the Malazan universe is Taralack Veed, not because of his relatively modest body count, but because of his hair care product line. Veed hair gel: lick it and stick it!
Didn't he subscribe to the 'Chase' method?
@@ACriticalDragon Nah. I’m too phlegmatic to come up with such innovative methods.
@@PhilipChaseTheBestofFantasy I could have sworn you were all for a bit of spit and polish.
@@ACriticalDragon These are the kind of interactions that comment sections were made for hahahahahaha
🤣🤣🤣
But also too much information. I really do not want to know what either of you is doing with your hair. Just leave me some illusions about your personal hygiene. Please!
His rage in Reaper’s Gale is particularly memorable because he was, for a short time, a genocidal maniac .
Or we could argue that he is always a genocidal maniac but sometimes on good behaviour.
I'm late to this, but I'd argue that icarium is mirrored in korabas, but while icarium has the dubious privilege of not remembering, the otataral dragon is tormented by the knowledge that she can only destroy, and though theres only a couple of passages from her point of view, but jeez they are good.
Thought provoking as always! This particular topic actually makes me lean more towards the idea that assigning blame is fairly useless in and of itself. When it comes to making ethical judgments I'm far more interested nowadays in figuring out what will actually lead to a better world than punishing. So while Icarium has undoubtably committed atrocities on a scale that would probably make even the worst humans in history blush, what matters is how we get him to stop rather than figuring out to what extent he can be blamed for what he has done. I do think that as far as blame goes, Icarium himself cannot bear much of it as he is in fact incapable of stopping himself once he has started to rage and having raged loses all recollection of what he has done. Nearly every law we have dictates that one cannot be held responsible for one's actions in those circumstances (the case of a drunk driver not being strictly analogous as even drunk people have some control most of the time).
His minders (Mappo included) do of course play a big role in abetting his atrocities and I think this is perhaps a case where 'naive' compassion such as Mappo has is a failing. The scenario that was set up in Deadhouse Gates was as close to an ideal way 'out' as I think was reasonable for anyone to expect, and was in fact something Icarium himself (as well as another very prominent prisoner of the Azath, Gothos himself) wished to happen so that he would be capable of stopping his path of unwilling destruction. Mappo robbed him of that, condemming him to further bloodshed because he could not bear to lose a friend. Of course, it is *also* difficult to get angry with Mappo for this, and I think we would all generally agree that Mappo himself is a good guy. This action did however directly lead to the slaughter of children at Icarium's hand later on in the series. Really this is as much a betrayal of Icarium himself as anyone else, I certainly would have a hard time forgiving a friend that did something like that to me.
Icarium's salvation in The Bonehunters, while pretty much ideal for my system, was also a miraculous event, one that nobody could have anticipated barring time schenanigans. But it was nice that it did happen, and I don't think Icarium deserves punishment from others for the crimes he committed without being able to do otherwise. But I do think that the Nameless Ones generally, and Mappo in particular (perhaps even the gods of the world!) owed the world a more timely solution, though of course the former group was largely indifferent to the slaughter.
It isn't so much about blame, but about how we as readers tend to frame characters we like in more positive light and characters we dislike in negative light, regardless of the actions they perform. We make excuses and rationalise behaviour for characters we feel sympathy toward. It is a fascinating part of reader interpretation of text.
This reminds me of the start of my first reread. Whiskeyjack's introduction has him overseeing a brutal suppression of civilians, with Fiddler trying to get him to rein in the Mages. Its only once we get Lorn's PoV later in the book we understand just how bad it was, because the nobleborn brat Paran didn't understand/care in the prologue. Point of view control is a powerful thing.
I am always amazed at our ability to ignore the horrendous and evil things our favourite characters do. We justify, rationalise, and excuse, so much because we 'like' them or find them sympathetic, but the same acts would immediately cast another character as an irredeemable villain.
I absolutely loved this one! Because of the many complexities and facets of it.
When you mentioned Kallor first, I was going to call you out on Anomander, but you robbed me of that :P . I could add that if Kallor, as a general and a warlord, is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers he commanded in battle and the people those soldiers killed, then so is Anomander. In which case judging him solely by the number of souls in Dragnipur wouldn't be fair. Also, I have a theory that he knew from the very beginning what he would have to do eventually. Or at the very least that he realized at some point on the way. Him not killing people anymore wasn't only a reticence - since we know that he was aware of the situatin in Dragnipur and Anomander will always do the right thin; in this case, killing to keep the wagon going - but also an active choice, one leading straight to what happened in Toll the Hounds. He knew it was time and so he chose to stop killing. At least killing with Dragnipur. We saw him as a dragon against the Women of the First Seed. Given the many wars he has taken his Andii over the centuries, the number of people he has killed increases quite a bit.
As for Icarium... is it really Icarium that loses his temper? Is it an anger management issue? Or is it that anger, which we all feel at some point in our daily lives, is the gateway that chaos, the the most aggressive type of magic, uses in order to take hold of his body and ... well... spread chaos? I see Icarium's situation more like possession. The moment he gets angry, this thing takes over him. The power he wields is not his own. It is chaos unleashed and he is a conduit. You could blame him for destroying the Azath in order to release his father, and so say he is responsible for becoming a conduit for chao, but that is secondary responsibility at the most. Had he known this was going to happen, would he have chosen it? I don't think so.
I always wondered why do they keep it secret, why they don't tell him the truth. He is a rational creature. If you tell him what happens when he gets angry, he would actively do everything in his power to keep it under control so he doesn't get possessed by chaos and then start destroying everything that lives. Sure, there is the risk that he would want to kill himself rather than take the risk of repeating history. His history. But he could also be convinced to work against this thing. If only he knew. So some may argue that his keeprs are equally responsible.
Icarium, the man we know, would never do the things that he is unaware of having done. And since it is the magic that courses through him that does it, you could relate it to a dr. Jackel and Hide situation. One that Icarium never sought. I would say he isn't personally responsible for it, since he never made that choice and he never knew that he was doing it. And when he did find out what he was doing, he tried his best to put an end to it, one way or another. I would go with Icarium is innocent of his murders.
Thanks for this video, A.P., I never before thought of the huge number of victims Icarium left behind him.
I love it how even after all this time, each time I watch a video you made I learn something, I think of something I haven't even considered before... there's always food for thought in your videos. We're very lucky to have you, A.P.!
Cheers 🤗
Please, please watch this with CC on. I’m lmao. 😂 Poor aquarium and mapple. #ColorDidNothingWrong
Closed captions are the best with fantasy. I can recall “Beowulf” being turned into “Bay Watch” - slightly different vibe.
The telanomas are a cancer on civilization 😆
Neil Gaiman wrote a short story 'Baywolf' which I seem to recall was a semi-cyber punk Beowulf crossed with Baywatch. It might have been in his collection Smoke and Mirrors.
Thanks for the video A.P. A banger as always.
I just finished MBotF, and Icarium is one of my favorite characters, in part for some of the complexities you addressed. No idea if this is a paleontologically cold take in the community, but Icarium reminds me a lot of people with alzheimer's, dementia, etc. I worked in memory care for a while and the residents would frequently shift between gentleness and aggression, among other emotional extremes. In those situations one's conceptualization of projected morality of others' actions loosens from the fairly strict black and white mode that's at least common where i'm from. It didn't really matter whether a resident was "to blame" for the times they attacked staff or other residents, even though they physically carried out an action with a direct effect, debateably even with intent in the moment they were doing it. It didn't really matter because they were also people in great need (though it's dubious whether the system of 'care' available to them is remotely adequate to meet that need, but that's another issue).
When reading Mappo i was reminded of the relatives of some of the residents. They obviously held a deep and genuine love for their mentally failing family member, but sometimes that love would cause them to make decisions that weren't in their loved one's best interest, and were more about their own personal desires projected outward and justified to themselves as being for the benefit of their loved one. One example was a family who got their loved one prescriptions for all kinds of medications which were intended to keep the person alive longer, but resulted in the person living in a vegetative state for much of their waking life. Even when the person refused to eat for extended periods and their body began rapidly degrading they insisted on intensifying the medication and refusing hospice care which would have put the person more at ease and given them a gentler, kinder transition into death. But as it was, the last year of that person's life was hardly their own life anymore. The family eventually transferred them to hospice, and the person died within the week, but one could feel the palpable relief in the person's posture, the return of a degree of light behind the eyes, and when the person finally died, it was with a smile on their face.
PS - I can't believe you fully endorse all of Kallor's actions and model yourself after him in daily life.
You think you have a parasocial relationship with a guy...
If only I could emulate Kallor... but the chainmail chafes, and those candles set my allergies off something fierce.
As to your other points, thank you. That is a great perspective and shows how fantasy can touch on and investigate some very difficult aspects of life. What we individually see in situations, and the comparisons we draw, can be powerful and evocative.
The human condition isn't just a rendering of similar scenarios, but of something deeper that makes us look at the world anew.
Thank you for your great points.
As long as we're thanking each other, I want to express some of my gratitude for your channel. Esslemont and Erikson have played large roles in unshackling my imagination, and have shown me a much more interesting approach to epic fantasy, and your archived discussions with them are full of insights. But you yourself have given (and continue to give) me tools and perspectives to better create something cohesive out of those ideas. I hesitate to say "single-handedly", given the woefully undeniable additions of a certain nefarious nemesis, but suffice it to say you have played a significant role in getting me back into writing, which has been a source of boundless joy.
You are very welcome. I am so pleased that you have gotten inspiration and encouragement from the discussions and the videos (even those with the diabolical Nemesis).
The very best of luck with your writing, and I hope that it brings you much joy and happiness.
Also, I'm kind of embarrassed to admit how long it took me to realize that Icarium is basically Hulk.
I would love an Icarium short story or Novella. Any POV depicting maybe the lead up to and destruction of the Azath house. We know barely anything about him prior to that.
Really great discussion!
Maybe if we saw more of Icarium going full rampage in the books - and his victims firsthand, people would not see him in such a positive light. I think we see him go full ham two times only, and one of them is when Veed is pushing him into it and the other time is when he's a bit... lost and confused. His victims (although so damn many) seem just a distant number and we know how people perceive many deaths with no faces attached to them. For example, Draconus' descent in DoD (I think) shocked me dearly, since it felt a lot more... palpable. You mean just to step down on soil, he killed two armies?! Daaamn!
You have a very valid point, though. I know that when it comes to this kind of characters (and people IRL) I tend to be lenient. Why should the now innocent self be punished for deeds that were out of its control? Should Mappo have left Icarium in the Azath house? For sure, it was probably the safest for everyone, but does the gentle Icarium deserve such a fate? I admit I was glad to see Mappo make sure he didn't, but I also remember thinking that probably the rational thing to do would have been to leave him in the house....
And that's the beauty of these books. They make us ask ourselves such questions. What would you do if you were in that situation? How do you feel about this? How does this apply to real life?
Anyway, I digress.
PS. Taralack is probably the character that grosses me out the most, I felt like gagging every time he did his hair...
And yet, There is Something About Mary that a much grosser joke about hair care.
@@ACriticalDragon omg, you had to remind me of that, didn't you?
This reminds me of the short story by Ken Liu, The Reborn about an alien race that continually erases memories and go from violent to peaceful and consider themselves completely innocent if the crimes they committed that they can't remember.
Great video as always! I do think one major point you did not touch upon could be summed up by the word child-like. I might just go and make a video reply here because I do believe there is a greater point to it. There's also something to be said about who decides that a character is morally gray, the reader or the author. Should Bilbo kill Gollum? Gandalf says no and so supposedly would say Tolkien. But John Stuart Mill might have a very different answer right there and if a utilitarian was reading Lord of they Rings they should judge Bilbo according to their own ethics, making him a morally gray character. But back to Icarium, I still hope we find out more about the circumstances of his "wounding" in Walk In Shadows to have a better picture of what is going on there.
I am really not 100% sure of this, but I remember that Mappo Runt wanted to stop Icarium from knowing about his deeds out of fear that Icarium (his calm/Mappo version) might hurt himself in order to stop himself from committing such atrocities in the future. I might be misremembering, or it might just be Mappo's impression of his friend. A scene in which Icarium tries to commit suicide, is stopped and then forgets might have been interesting, but it also would have made things less gray.
So does that absolve Icarium of the atrocities he has committed?
And given that Mappo thinks this, are we sure he is right?
Icarium and Karsa start a fight after all. It is not as if Icarium is a shrinking violet who is demure and pacifist.
@@ACriticalDragon True, it does not absolve him. Icarium's narrative is written very sympathetically, at least that's how I felt about it and it's very hard to look at him objectively. Might need to read Deadhouse Gates again (not that I needed much reason)
The Malazan "Wu" world is reminiscent of Lovecraft or Canaanite, Hittite, Babylonian, Greek cosmology (fragile, teetering on chaos, deterministic, cyclical, fatalistic) where anthropopathic gods are more irrational, brutal, fickle, sadistic, malevolent than the creatures that worship them.
Now I'll admit I'm not as familiar with the latter books as I am with the earlier ones, so it may have been addressed in those and I have just forgotten (I've only read 6 through 10 once and that was years ago), but for me I think a lot would depend on how he deals with knowing and remembering what he has done. The group, their name escapes me, that made Mappo his companion kind of rob us of knowing which way to fall on the subject. If Icarium knows of his issues, and what he does, and starts seeking help to stop it happening again vs he knows what he does but carries on regardless understanding deep down, even if he doesn't want to admit it, he's still likely to do the same things again, would show us what he is really like. And he could have done that, even with his amnesia, if they hadn't gone out of their way to keep his past hidden from him. So for me they shoulder a lot of the blame in what he does, until such a time as he can make an informed decision on whether to try and change or not. If that makes sense.
He has amnesia. He cannot know what he has done as he has no memory.
Mappo could explain everything on Monday and by Tuesday he would have forgotten.
@@ACriticalDragon I guess I have amnesia as well then as I thought it was after an episode his memory went, not as regularly as that, and he'd have more time to deal with it.
That's just meant to be a joke, not a way of saying you are wrong btw! As I said, it's been years since I read them, so I am not surprised I have forgotten the details of it.
Icarium reminds me of The Nameless One in Planescape: Torment. Both have been around for a long time, have an ever increasing body count, both periodically forget who they are and are on a quest to rediscover that past in the company of someone who knows the truth but isn't telling.
The amnesia is key here. Is the person who has no recollection of ever having committed an atrocity really a continuation of the one who committed it? Physically speaking the answer is obviously yes, but where's the continuity of sapience here? The Nameless One turns into a radically different person in different incarnations because his amnesia is so total his personality itself is wiped clean and environmental influences reshape him from scratch. Icarium has a more consistent self, one that persists. This makes it feel like he should be more culpable.
Richard A Knaak had a character in his book Firedrake that vacillated between good and evil with every incarnation. So the good version would try to make reparations for what the evil version had done in the last life. It was an interesting premise.
I've personally always viewed Icarium as an extreme case of someone suffering with PTSD combined with Traumatic brain injury. He has things that trigger his fight-or-flight response (And he's a flightless bird so we know where that goes.) like someone shooting a projectile at him and his friends - like what Mappo describes preceeded the destruction of one of the pottery towns, which I see as one of the signs of PTSD along with partial amnesia. And the traumatic brain injury ( which he has at least one from being knocked out by Mappo) can further move him towards being more impulsive which is one of the most common signs if I remember correctly.
So even if these doesn't absolve him of all of the guilt in my book he is someone who should be at most institutionized or receive some sort of mental health care - which I guess Mappo was in a way providing, but ultimately the world he inhabits is not equipped to deal with such complex topic which even our modern medicine struggles with. Plus if we take into account the azathanai who were actively trying to prevent him from healing, then I would put the real blame on them instead of Icarium, as Mappo argues that if Icarium knew his history he would choose to end his own life/imprison himself in order to protect others - which he in a sense ultimately does in creating the runts.
But there isn't an azathanai trying to prevent him from remembering.
@@ACriticalDragon Well technically Mappo has been instructed in that way, wasn't he? To keep Icarium ignorant and away from civilisation. Or at least that's how I always thought about the scenes where he remembers his induction as a guardian. And then when azathanai needed something destroyed they basically had mappo eliminated and tried to break Icarium psychologically to turn him into a monster by leveraging his mental illness. That in part succeeded and in part failed - the edur then got him to fight for the first throne, but once that passed he was actively trying to remember his past and in a sense made amends - that's at least how I interpreted the last two books he was in.
But then again this could be a perfect example of the reader bias you were mentioning and I only see it because we had a lot of close contact with icarium from a benevolent POV of Mappo and others.
That wasn't an azathanai. The Nameless Ones worshhip the Azath, they are not Azathanai.
Ahhh you are of course right. I was thinking about The Nameless Ones the whole time. Even though wasn't Lady Envy(or Spite) one of the nameless ones and isn't she technically an azathanai - being a daughter of Draconus and Olar Ethil? But even if yes that is only a coincidance and the conspiracy was administrated by the Nameless ones.
Having an economics background I burst out laughing at Robin Not-Hood who steals from the rich, keeps it for himself, but then supports the local economy by spending it. Brilliant skewering of neoliberalism there AP.
On Icarium there are two important "mitigating circumstances" - one is that he is suffering from a magical injury/curse that he gained trying to free his father (what he thought was a noble act at the time, he didn't know Gothos wanted to remain in the Azath), but possibly more importantly various powerful groups and Ascendants have known about this for millennia and *nobody has bothered trying to help*, with the Nameless Ones taking it a step further and actively manipulating Icarium's life over thousands of years to hone him as a weapon for their own purposes.
The guy needs medical attention - but anyone who possibly could help has either turned their back and abandoned him - effectively guaranteeing future mass-murdering outbursts; or is actively keeping the condition in play for their own selfish ends. The only person who actually wants to help Icarium, even if he is rather naive, is Mappo, who has no power. All the people with the actual power to do something to heal (or stop) Icarium - just can't be bothered. For hundreds of thousands of years.
I read the whole tale of Icarium as really another condemnation of the capricious and uncaring nature of the Ascendants, and how the world might actually be better off without them
I am glad you enjoyed the joke. 😂
Icarium is a great, complex character, and depending on where we ascribe moral imperatives to act, to respect autonomy, to defer actions, and to consequences, we can create multiple moral models that can prove or disprove Icarium's monstrosity or victimhood.
Thanks for the great response.
Having Gothos as a father would drive anyone a little nuts.
Did not also Chaur kill multiple guards who were trying to arrest Bararhol? While the scale is much different, the underlying issue seems to be the same.
Acting in defence of another is a recognised defence against murder in a lot of jurisdictions, getting a bit grumpy isn't.
@@ACriticalDragon I don't recall they were going to kill Barathol but beating them to a bloody pulp seems to go a bit beyond self defense.
However the combination of diminished capacity and potential for excessive violence is there in both cases.
But in the end Icarium is a monstrous tragedy for a tragic person who also happens to be a monster who was being used by a third party for their own ends.
Except Icarium doesn't have diminished capacity. He is fully rationale, loses his temper, and then kills in a rage. The only alteration to his mind is that he does not then remember losing his temper and wiping out entire cities. He is fully aware of the horror of the city being wiped out as he is appalled at the remains of a city he destroyed, even if he has not recollection of doing it himself. There is a suggestion that in Deadhouse Gates Icarium has an idea that he is the problem and wants the Azath to take him to stop him committing more evil.
Chaur on the other hand lacks the cognitive capacity to understand how powerful he is or the complexity of what incarceration means. He thinks in more simplified terms.
Basically Icarium needs to start doing yoga and going on anger management courses, and maybe laying off the stimulants.
@@ACriticalDragon Or he might have CTE considering how many times he gets knocked out.
Too many healing potions.
Not Malazan but while listening I just couldn't get past Pug and the moon.
If only Icarium had Jack Nicholson instead of Mappo. Goosfraba!
Nothing in Malazan is ever either or. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thanks A. P.!
Except #KallorDidNothingWrong
:)
@@ACriticalDragon Ah well, we all seem to have our soft spots.😁
Wait, didn't Kallor burn all his subjects to ash in book 3?
Well aware im talking to an expert so I would love clarification on this aha
Nope. Any more details on this can be found in Ian C. Esslemont's Blood and Bone.
@@ACriticalDragon Yet another push towards the tales of the Malazan empire. Im certainly intrigued!
I like Icarium and thus he did nothing wrong q.e.d
I cannot fault this logic.
Much as we have little sympathy for the drunk driver who hits someone, we tell ourselves that they are responsible for their decision to drink and it doesn't cross our minds that given the choice, no one would choose being a drunk.
Furthermore, should we forgive Icarium, tragedy or monster, when it was originally his actions that created his situation in the first place when he *chose* to free his father?
Free will or determinism... 😉😁
Who wouldn't want to go save their da from evil nameless foes? Icarium did nothing wrong!
well, one can easily forsee the consequences of alcohol consumption, but not of magical injuries when trying to free someone... But I guess you were joking anyway ^^
I still hate Malik Rel a lot lot more
Oh definitely. Mallick Rel is an arse.
Icarium didn’t mean to do any of those things. Intent matters. And it’s more than just losing his temper. He is not Icarium when he loses control. He is pure destruction unleashed, and he is being used. We don’t see him lose control and destroy a civilisation in the book of the fallen, so we don’t know what led to that. The times we do see him get angry, he is pushed. So there, he is not responsible. There’s nothing to forgive 😁 ❤️
Intent matters a great deal.... but so does impact. If someone treads on your foot by mistake, they still stepped on your toes and caused you pain. That may not be as malicious as someone deliberately doing it, but for the victim the result is the same. And the person that stepped on your foot is still culpable of stepping on your foot, regardless of whether they meant to or not. Which is probably why when we accidentally step on someone's toes we still apologise. We acknowledge that while there was no intent to cause harm, we still caused harm and we were responsible for that harm.
In laws it tends to be separated out (roughly speaking) into mens rea (roughly - intent) and actus reus (roughly - the act). By that metric, Icarium may be guilty of the actus reus, but not necessarily of the mens rea.
Of course, none of that really matters to the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered. But we like him more.
:)
@@ACriticalDragon Yes. If someone steps on your toes, you can reasonably hold them responsible. They should have been more careful.
However, if someone, say Taralack Veed or one of the nameless ones, chooses to deliberately drop a heavy rock onto your toes, or if Gothos drops one there by accident, do you blame the rock? Do you hold it responsible?
Icarium had not the agency to choose not to become a tool of destruction. Without memory of having been thus used before, he can’t even take steps to prevent it. He is a victim as much as the potsherds.
In Deadhouse Gates, when Mappo tells him what he has done and will likely do again, Icarium chooses to walk into the grounds of the Azath. He would have willingly given himself up to eternal imprisonment to protect the world.
This is the only time Icarium has a choice in the matter. And that choice is what we have got to judge when we judge Icarium. He is cursed to be a monster. But given a choice, he would save the world from that monster, at great cost to himself. Surely, our choices matter more than what happens to us?
So, we can be forgiven for liking Icarium. But we probably shouldn’t have been so happy (and we were) when Icarium does not end up in the grounds of the Azath. Mappo made the wrong choice there. Perhaps he is the monster? As you say, impact matters ;)
I think that this is the danger when we try to create simplistic binaries.
He is not a puppet with no will power. Despite his amnesia he is still a thinking rational person.
To make an analogy perhaps slightly closer, if person A pokes, prods, and agitates person B, and person B then loses their temper and destroys a shopping mall, then Person A deserves a lot of blame, but that does not completely absolve Person B. Person B still committed the act.
In Icarium's case he is certainly a victim. But he is also the cause of his injury.
He created the Teblor rules before his injury. He is not fully responsible for his acts when he is in a rage, but those are still his acts.
I think he represents a character that defies easy, simplified notions of good or evil, and gets to teh heart of the complexity of the matter.
"I was just following orders".
Poliel? Mael?
That raises an interesting question, does Poliel create the disease or does the out break of the disease manifest Poliel?
Mael gets a bad rep. Lots of storms have nothing to do with him. 😂
It's not about the number one's sword kill, soldiers do it all the time in the the name of their leader. Icarium has anger issues because of magic, not by choice. He is controlled by evil. That is tragic and that is why we roots for him.M*^F^* Rel, for example, is a pure monster. He is killing people knowingly just for the sake of his own whim. Not for revenge or to avenge, ppl that are not a threat to him. He def not going to hold a sword and kill with his own hands, he use manipulation, betrayal, cunning orders etc. he is fully aware and has no regrets.
You are absolutely right, Icarium also unleashes magic and has rampaged across continents, as well as engineered societies and created generations of Teblor in-fighting causing massive multi-generational deaths. Mallick Rel on the other hand is a complete amateur next to him. Kallor could at least give him a run for his money given that not only was he an emperor of a larger empire longer than Rel has been alive, but he has also been around for tens of thousands of years as a general, a warleader, a mercenary, and a straight up killer.
Admittedly that wasn't the question or the point I was discussing.
@@ACriticalDragon I was giving example of a real monstrous character (Mel) vs a character that do monstrous things without being aware or chose too. So I guess Icarium is morally grey victim. Also, I wouldn't put Mel and Kallor in the same sentance concerning monsters, not because he give him a run for his money, as I think Kallor acted out of revenge and sense of betrayal and anger and Mel acted evil just for the sake of being evil. I have yet to know how I feel about Kallor tho.
You might be surprised by Esslemont's new book.
@@ACriticalDragon Oh wow, now I'm exited.
@@ACriticalDragon Such a tease... Was it an accident Mallick Rel sounds a bit like Machiavelli?
I don't think you can wholly blame Icarium for modern Teblor society. He did lay down some rules, apparently in a more lucid state, to save their society which got warped over time.
What if the explosion actually created Icarium the sad boy as TVBB calls him. For example, the accident created Bruce Banner out of the Hulk.
Cognitive-dissonance at it's finest (and I am certainly guilty of it when it comes to Icarium). Because we don't ever witness his utter savagery whilst commencing the destruction of civilisations on the page, it doesn't ever really happen for us, because everything we do witness, is like you say, contrary to the reality of what Icarium is.
Facts are facts though. :)
Nor according to some of the commenters they aren't. I apparently touched a nerve with some Icarium fans in the audience.