Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Analyses using Supersocion Theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Analyses using Supersocion Theory

    From my vantagepoint, the 2008 presidential election is not so much about politics as usual, as it is a rejection of it on the basis of supersocion-relevant conceptualizations.

    People have likes and dislikes due to innate attractions and repulsions. (Fi) As humans, we choose our relationships, our friendships and alliances, on the basis of these themes. The specific reasons for our choices are as varied as the socion itself; I'm just describing my basis for political alignment as a factor of chemistry between myself and others, owing to my instinct Te and its need for Fi.

    An LII will tell you that every disposition plays a social role. The eight psychic divisions, owing to dichotomies of scale vs quality, change vs continuity, and collectivism vs individuality, each have vital roles to play in the health of society. Each of these dichotomies implies variation of purpose, however, and so it is often the case that the eight contexts of understanding they conjunct between themselves are at cross purposes to each other. In particular, change prefers to stick with change whatever its flavor, and continuity feels most comfortable with continuity. Much of these alliances are historic, however, and are worn through time as much as through chemistry. (the question of where these alliances originated from is beyond the scope of this analysis.) In America, there are three major alliances, two of which exist as persistent cores (bases) of its dominant political parties: theoconservatism, neoconservatism, and empiricism constitute the base of the Republican party; liberalism and consensarianism constitute the base of the Democratic party. Progressivism and libertarianism are non-committal to the ideal of a Democratic party, but the natural affinity to liberalism binds them to it of their own will and empiricism's distrust of democracy has revived the ancient Romanesque split between the rich and the poor, setting them at odds with libertarianism. (at least publically; behind closed doors the situation is often very different) Individualism finds itself somewhat at odds with American culture and is largely indifferent to American politics. (this is the largest non-voter bloc.)

    The glue binding the two-party system together is the sheer strength of the tradition itself. American empricism long ago chose to respect the two-party system as an institutional norm, and lended its loyalty to social conservatives (specialists) as a hedge against what had been since the French Revolution a persistent alliance between adaptism and universalism. It was the threat of such a widespread unity of change that encouraged the institutionalization; in reality, no such unity ever took place because the nation was founded on profoundly apolitical principles that many universalists and even. A split between the rich and poor soon proved evident, however, leading the "working man" of the Industrial Revolution who slaved thanklessly after the empiricist industry magnate (a corrupt form of social evolution) to commit to the universalist quest for greater equality and equity. Ultimately the problems of American politics lay in the problems of the nation itself, sowed into the national fabric by the likes of Alexander Hamilton and his Bank of the U.S.. (the legacy of which foreshadowed the original Republican vs Democrat split) It was, as is today, a matter of the need to institutionalize vital aspects of the nation's infrastructure only to see those institutions take on a life and vitality of their own. (in recent years this tendency has demonstrated itself as particularly burdensome to the conduct of the nation and its work.)

    Abraham Lincoln established the Republican party on the most noble of aims. Although its character was changed by the change-averse Whigg legacy after his death, many progressives hung close to the idealized image of the party, including Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, who became president after William McKinley was assassinated, cast himself as a maverick who could bring the nation together in pursuit of common goals. Like many Americans, Roosevelt was alarmed at the fusion of American tradition with the Industrial Revolution: life in many cities was appalling, as Upton Sinclair did his part to expose in The Jungle. Too, logging efforts were destroying much of what made America an enjoyable place to live, the heritage of free wildlife and breathtaking forest vistas. When Roosevelt, who was not intended by conservatives to have ever taken office, was succeeded by Taft, progressives around the U.S. began to see what the character of the Republican party really was. After four years of misadministration by Taft, Roosevelt made a challenge to Republicans to follow him again in a new run for the presidency, or to leave the party. The Repubicans nominated Taft, and TR and all the other progressives left the Republican party, never to return.

    Around the same time TR was working for re-election, Woodrow Wilson was gathering an alliance of academics, social reformers, and working people. This alliance became the new face of the Democratic Party, and after TR's defeat progressivism was firmly on board as well.

    Since Wilson, the face of American politics has changed little. What has changed are the relationships between the divisions. The gentleman's unity of the 19th and early 20th centuries gradually vanished under the weight of two world wars and the Cold War. Partisan vitrol was enflamed by a new age of extremist philosophy that held the exhaltation of egocentric experience as the sunnum bonum of individual aspiration. (Barack Obama is on record as calling this trend the "dorm squabbles of the 60s") In the 90s this view moderated to "political correctness": a viewpoint that everyone had something to contribute and that somehow they all had to be integrated into one utopian solution to social delimma. Now, six years into a war with muslim extremists and gripped by irrational squabbles between Shias and Sunnis, Americans are in a very anti-extremist mood. This mood extends father than just violent extremism: the psychic domains themselves are under scrutiny as a measure of the self. The gap between the baby-boomers and their children is framed in terms of tolerance for intolerance vs intolerance for intolerance. The battle for the Democratic nomination is a matter of "fighters" who appeal for a continuity of a partisan acrimony increasingly dominated by an extremely driven minority of rival wills, versus peacemakers who have lived the consequences of the baby-boomer's self-indulgence. Americans as a majority look on with disdain at a president who was so rattled by a surprise attack on their own soil that he gave himself completely to social conservativism in both virture and vice, thriving on partisanship and engorging himself with the advice of addled and confused neoconservative hawks who, unable to understand what they face in the inextricable, seemingly divinely ordained complexities of the Middle East, are attempting to project their fears onto familiar adversaries. As a president many regard him among the worst for refusing to remove himself from his ideological comfort zone at the expense of the nation. Simultaneously they look on the Clintons' opportunistic political wholism as hardly better, exhalting the nation's extreme actors who in their quest for dominance came into untold wealth and influence above the psychological needs of the dispondant majority. The Democrats may well be ready to walk by Obama down the road to total individuation, even if they aren't sure what lies at the end of it.... Or, maybe they are.

    The Republican contest is a battle of wills versus Bush's legacy and the apprehension of the real state of the world the United States is part of. The theoconservative Mitt Romney is utterly unapologetic for Bush's conduct, while facing the inner demons of a religion even many evangelicals believe absurd. Rudy Guiliani hosts empiricism's bid to reclaim dominance of the party... but does he really trust democracy, and can he be trusted with power? Fred Thompson looks on with admiration at the national urge toward individuation, but is uncertain a conservative presidency would be up to its challenges. Most mysterious of all is Mike Huckabee, who carefully plots his course to the nomination, but in service to what end? John McCain is a relic, a person deeply at odds with his very soul and a revolutionary among stasists.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Supersocion Analysis of Shining Force Neo

    His type is ENFj. He's a consensus leader: he's very liberal about using the phrase "Come on guys", as well as the infamous "you'll never get away with this!" (which, I might add, has context in view of the consensus leader's awareness that everyone wants to be a part of the group -- wronging the group disconnects oneself from it emotionally, and for that a price is paid).

    Max's exertion type has not yet been determined, because I find it very difficult to type consensus leaders. Max is very self confident (he is lauded by his peers and generally treated like a hero even before the game really begins) and is determined to fulfull what he believes are his own responsibilities to society. I believe him to be a traditionalist due to his strong relationship with his father (a libertarian), and because the antagonists all appear to be communitarians and individualists. There is also a general reverence for culture in the game.

    An ENTp, very obviously: he has a soft-spot for good food. He takes criticism of his motives quite personally. At the crucial moment he is unable to act in such manner as to oppress his wayward son, despite his son's intention to kill him. Gaia's sacrifice become the fire that drives Max. (the subject was transmuted by self-sacrifice into an object) There is a deeper theme to this confrontational immanant's tragedy, however: it is the coming to terms with his own subjective self -- with his own guilt for not saving his adopted son, Vandolf, who now has come to kill him. Gaia can save others, but he cannot save himself because to defend himself would to his mind cross the line over into extremism. It is the price paid by man's true defender: the only way to maintain the purity of the defense is to wield the object only in defense of the subject that is oppressive. Although Vandolf did indeed intend to kill Gaia, this only because he knew Gaia would try to protect the Force Crystals. For Gaia to use oppressive force to save the Crystals -- and not other people -- would mean giving in to he own fear: he does not know that the destruction of the crystals means certain disaster, only that he believes it does. The defender immanent cannot fight on behalf of his fear, or for his ideals; for if he does, he may become no different than the oppressor who defends not those dear to him, but his own fears. Gaia failed the 2nd transcendent function: he could not distinguish between what he feared for himself and what he feared for his beliefs, and so demurred on the matter of his own defense. Gaia dies for lack of knowledge of his own soul.

    An ISFj type, and a visionary leader. Proper understanding of her requires observation of what it means to be a member of the Clan of the Moon. The Clan of the Moon is described in the narrative as being "those who turn their hearts to darkness". Additionally, everyone is described as having the potential to be one of the Clan of the Moon; however, some people are said to have the Clan's mark, and are thus particularly disposed to it. There are two people described as having the mark of the Clan, Meryl and Vandolf, and the only personality trait they appear to have in common is the trait of extremism. It also makes sense that the Clan of the Moon is essentially hated by the people, regarded somewhat as the West views radical terrorism today. (itself, we note, a phenomenon of radical immanance) Meryl's is a transcendent form of extremism -- a sense of identification with the radical subspectrum and a sense of sharing in the responsibility for the condition. We cannot really see the more disagreeable side of her personality because she is a protagonist and besides that, of few words even to Vandolf. Meryl's approach to transcendence is to maintain a steady position and to force the other side to come down to her level: she does not look for harmony, but waits for it to come to her while signaling her willingness to accept it if it is found. She thus has something in common with the radical who takes up position against that which is perceived of as threatening their own beliefs, and holding their ground until the oppressor relents. Meryl's is a complicated case because she knows already that she is wrong: what she wants is for another to admit that they too, are in the wrong with them.

    ENFp. Elsewise manipulative, a leader, and a shadow type: your basic nefarious bad guy. I got the impression this guy was an expansion of the Loki archetype that was first introduced in Valkyrie Profile. Like most RPG villians, he's a radical immanent. He knows very well what he wants and is extremely hateful for being denied the caring he has seen others receive on basis of their own deferred wants. Like all shadows Vandolf is impulsive and is determined to get his way whenever he wants it. His tragedy is that to him deference of his wants is a denial of his basic nature, and to accept membership in the community by deferring on the fulfillment of his desires would amount to self-denial. Because self-denial is anathema to him, and his wants so ideologically aligned (the subservience of others directly to him) he has no hope of reconciliation with humanity. The caring majority of people seem to him like a monster threatening to take away the noble demon within: the memories and regrets of what might have been stand in sharp conflict with his determination to satisfy his own desires; the accusations against him of "not going with the group" and "not caring about other the way he cares about himself" endlessly hammer his mind in a universal refrain. He cannot escape the fact that no one cares about him, because he will show care to no one. But Max does care in the end, because Max learns to look deeper beneath the personality and even the soul, and to see the tortured consciousness within. Although Max cannot care about a personality that is impulsively reckless in its pursuit of its wants, he can take pity on the consciousness which is effectively burdened by its own crisis of confidence, that it has confidence in all the wrong things. Max learns pity for the shadow and even for the radical which despises his beliefs, because these are only visors through which consciousness perceives itself. Within that shell of a person lies a subjective experience of life and self that is burdened by its own limitations, as though it knows only to speak its own language in a foreign land and has no confidence in its ability to learn the native tongue. Through his pity, Max breaks through the spell of radicalism and redeems Vandolf. It does not matter that Vandolf's greatest torment was rendered by Max's pity of him; what is important is that Vandolf observed that this pity could be shown to later persons of his kind, and so learned, albiet belatedly (as with all radical immanents), to care for another by empathizing with the would-be next occupant of Dark Castle. The final fall of Dark Castle is symbolic of the transition from one conflict to another -- the new threat to the individual is pity --, although it wears the guise of closure.

    The Ordeal of Light
    A metaphor for the transcendent function. Max reconciles with the subject, the object, and finally the resolving third. The subject (the first demon) inquires as to his motives for seeking the Power of Light; the object makes clear what will be required of him in exchange for the power; and the resolving third explains what the power of light really is. (the ability to correlate expression with want, in Max's case as an ENFj). Max must meet the demands of all three, in a sense of monolithic struggle, to understand what it means to be a "shining force" who can bear the burden of the transcendent consensus leader. (the kind of charismatic potential that can persuade a people to destroy themselves...).
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-23-2008 at 07:11 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Supersocion Analysis of Wild Arms 3

    Virginia Maxwell

    The protagonist. A consensus leader who learns early on that she can't manage by herself when she encounters some difficulty defeating the bandits who have raided her village. She defeats the leader easily, but his enraged followers prove a problem. Ironically, it's not clear at the beginning of the game that she is the actual protagonist. Her prominence appears as the other characters begin to diminish in the face of various personal insecurities, and realizing how much they need each other increasingly adhere to Virginia's judgement.

    Virginia's position of weakness as an individual is evident in her statistics: she is the weakest character and her only specialty is group healing. (a command that is useless when she is alone). Her role of healer is symbolic of her role as a leader: she does not take on the enemy directly but strategically reinforces the stronger characters in the group. This role is symbolic of her position as unifier of the group, and testament to the increased potential individuals acheive through such unity.

    Virginia demonstrates traits of consensus interest leadership, defined as condensation of a political group around a common interest of interaction with the rest of the world in such way that the world will accept at the immediate time and place. The alter ego of political interest represses squabbles within the group by identifying goals common to all members, then quashes them with the awareness of objective pressure from without. This scene from the game demonstrates the tactical gambit of the consensus interest leader in play:

    Gallows: Man, am I full! And what a good cook she is! She hooked us
    up good.

    Clive: I wouldn't worry about the tab. Not only did we have our
    goodbye party, but we got a valuable lead as well...

    Gallows: Yeah, you got a point. Anyway, what do you all think about
    the information she provided? Do you want to go

    Jet: I'm goin'. I don't care what you guys do. I prefer working
    alone, anyway.

    Gallows: So, the legendary Eternal Sparkle...

    Clive: In ages past...our world was ruled by a race of wicked
    demons, until they were pushed to the brink of extinction.
    The demon knight assigned three followers to protect a
    treasure. That treasure was the Eternal Sparkle. The three
    followers transformed themselves into seals to protect the
    Eternal Sparkle, awaiting the return of the demon knight.
    And one of those seals lies nearby this town. That's what
    she said, right?

    Gallows: It's the 'sparkle' part that makes you think it's some
    kind of gem, don't it? Aren't the legends full of these
    things? Unless we're sure it's worth something, I don't
    want any part of it. I'm outta here.

    Clive: An old legend, huh? Hmm...Considering that they remain
    strong...Either this lea is a red herring, or, even if it
    is true, then there's no doubt that it would be hazardous.
    I have nothing better to do, but I'm just not enthusiastic
    about the prospects.

    Jet: Don't worry about it. Our partnership ends here. Once outside,
    we'll scatter in the wind. I'll head out alone. I've always
    been alone, and I like being alone.

    Virginia: There you go again! You can only do so much by yourself.
    If we stay together, we can do that much more! The four
    of us have different likes and dislikes, so we should
    all support each other. Who cares if its tough? As long
    as there's four of us, there's always a glimmer of hope
    in the darkness. We released the guardians! The four of
    us together can make a great team!

    Clive: Hmm...I didn't expect that after our farewell celebration.
    Have you been thinking about that?

    Virginia: The first meeting might have been a coincidence. But we
    didn't come all this way due to our individual strengths.
    We did it as a team! Someday I want to say it wasn't just
    coincidence; it was fate. Guys, let's make our mark as

    Gallows: Uh...Hahahaw...Well, that was a mouthful.

    Virginia: Hey, did I say something funny? Am I missing something?

    Gallows: Yeah, you're missing something! Never thought anybody
    could say stuff like that with a straight face. But you
    do have a point. Drifters would never leave their mark if
    all they did was drift.

    Virginia: You mean...?

    Gallows: You betcha. I'm all for it! And you ain't got anything
    else to do, right?

    Clive: Oh, well...I suppose you're right...Hmmm...All right. I'm
    game. I consider it prudent for all of us to pool our
    resources until we're able to set individual goals.

    Virginia: Yippee! We're a team! Now, we're all gonna seek out the
    Eternal Sparkle!

    Jet: Not so fast!

    Virginia: Huh? What, you got some kind of problem?

    Jet: Yeah! A big problem!

    Virginia: That's funny...I thought you couldn't wait to head out
    treasure huntin'?

    Jet: I'm not talking about that! I'm talking about you pestering me
    on my way!

    Virginia: (What nerve!)

    Jet: I work alone. And I don't have time to play with wannabe

    Virginia: Wannabe Drifters!? Okay, tough guy! You say you work
    alone, so fill me in! Tell me what you've done! Tell
    everyone here all about the great things you've been
    able to do all by your fantastic self! Hey! I'm talkin'
    to you! Oh, before you start mumbling excuses, let me
    ask you what you were doing in the car with the Ark
    Scepter? You were plannin' on makin' off with it,
    weren't you? And what happened? You blew it! You
    didn't have what it takes to steal it, cowboy! And
    here you are, sayin' you work best when you're alone.
    Where did you get such a big head?

    Jet: Wh-Why you...That's...That's not--Arrgh! I wasn't the only
    one after that cargo that night!

    Gallows: Whoa! Hey...uh...That's all beside the point! So, like...
    Yeah! We're know...Who cares if we're wannabe
    Drifters? We can take it easy and have fun while we
    venture into the unknown! Right? Right?

    Clive: Perhaps you are right. Look, leader...

    Virginia: Me!?

    Clive: Who else? This is your idea, isn't it? So, leader...let us
    reaffirm our collective purpose.

    Virginia: Well...We have three goals: To find the ruins where the
    Eternal Sparkle lies...To work as a team...And, lastly...
    To make the Eternal Sparkle ours!

    Jet: See, that's why I work alone...

    Gallows: Give it a rest, hero. You're just hurtin' yourself.
    Besides, when it comes to persuasion, she trounces all
    of us hands down.

    Virginia: Were you two listening?

    Gallows: Oh, of course. And we're looking forwar to workin with
    ya, leader.

    Jet: Speak for yourself, punk!
    From this scene it is clear that the consensus interest leader possesses strong arguments for group integration: alone people face each other's divergent interests, and collective aspirations are impossible to acheive alone in the face of unified opposition. The existence of Janus Cascade's renegade group, and the presumption of their being under a sort of contract by an as-yet unknown third party of at least some means, is a external situation pointed to by Virginia as a cause belli for the group's cohesion: other people have their own interests which are apparently in opposition to the member's own, and they have already coalesced around a common social strategy which stands to succeed at the group's collective expense.

    Werner Maxwell

    Virginia's father is an evolutionary statement of the "wayward father" archetype. Much of the tradition of the "defeated" father who is suceeded by the "victorious" son or daughter stems from the fact that the alter ego needs energy if it is to shine in its role as validated defender of principle (under the transcendent function). The father and mother roles are experienced through the father or mother archetype, depending on the sex of the person: validation of the archetype requires filtration of the parental figure's advice depending on whether or not it is coherent with the individual's own political philosophy. Whatever the philosophy of the parental figure, the individual establishes firmly their own independence and determination to go their own road. (although the influence of the parent as a "guiding hand" may linger, especially if the parent has shown good judgment in the past).

    Werner Maxwell is most notable for his traits of resolvant immanence and social corruption. He is not who he claims to be, having died in the Yggdrasil incident and then been re-created by the information Hyades as a living memory of the original man. The Yggdrasil debacle is itself a stain on his soul: he tried as a factor of his corruption to tap the well of idealism and ended up unleashing its monstrosity upon the world.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    But there is another side to this man. The ego corrupted is compensated for somewhat by purity of intention on the part of the alter ego: Maxwell retains his love for his family and for those he cares about. He stayed true to his ideal that radicalism has a place, but only for the greater good. The existence of radical energies which reach to fill a black hole in the fabric of society by providing comforting (if unfounded) belief in the face of depressing conditions offers Maxwell his place. He is hope for Virginia, a shadowy figure who lurks in the darkness only to come out in the light at the darkest moments. The theme of Wild Arm 3 is opposites, and Werner provides the vital foil to the radical corruption and depressingly frank testimony of the golem, Asgard in those pivotal moments when the hopeless energies of reality come to the fore so with such raw ferocity as to overcome anything which stands in their way. Belief in the impossible, if only for a moment, can sustain the soul as a barrier to reality which may seem so suffocating and inescapable as to compell the necessity of death.

    [more to come]


    The golem Asgard is created by one of the three Prophets, Melody. Like his creator, Asgard is a radical. He is named "the Fortress" for his nearly indomnitable fighting capacity. Asgard is remarkable chiefly for his child-like origin: he is born with a blank slate and gradually assumes a personality by accruing memories about the world around him. These memories are fed through a personality processor, allowing Asgard to ultimately acheive emotion and even a sense of self. It is plausible that socionics, sufficiently developed, could become the basis for such a personality processor, and that robots could be built to utilize it in such manner as to acheive sentience. Perhaps they could be put to work as miners on other worlds far from earth.

    Asgard's defining personality trait is radical corruptism. The radical corruptist is a radical who does hide from fear; instead, the face it head on and with all of their might. Asgard's determination to live life meaningfully in defense of his master -- to even orchestrate his own death on behalf of his ideals -- is to my mind a demonstration of true courageousness. I am reminded of Beethoven, who said that if suffering was his fate then he would "seize fate by the throat". Beethoven did not delude himself into believing that there was a cure for his deafness, yet unknown and lurking just around the corner. He confronted the hopelessness of his situation while barely blinking an eye. This courage allowed him to portray individualism in terms that could be universally accepted: he bridged the gap between the ideal and the real, and expressed the ideal as something which the real could aspire to.

    Asgard's embrace of reality in all of its forms allows him success where his masters chronically fail. Realizing that he is essentially immortal, Asgard travels through time by shutting himself down; allowing archeologists to excavate him as an artifact; and then when his masters are nearly defeated suddenly comes to life after thousands of years hibernation. This after he has been thrown thousands of years into the past by a spell of the protagonists. He is a symbol of the power of ideological loyalty when successfully reconciled with objective conditions. Asgard's ideological impurity is not only his own salvation, but ultimately Filgaia's as well.

    Ironically, what to Asgard is a source of strength and fortitude is from the player's standpoint a rationale for his masters' indefinite damnation. The radical dares not hope, yet we observe that an example has been set forth to them for just that purpose. If Asgard can face the truth -- that he is a creature born to fight in a world that needs peace -- then the question arises: why can't his masters? If anything, Asgard offers a final, indisputable rationale for the conduct of battle against those who would arbitrarily pollute reality with ideals which are impossible, implausible, and impractical. For Asgard the Golem, is but a vehicle for the exposition of the radical mind's true intention and desire: to fight; to defend; to lose and to die. It is a grim revelation, but at least we can take some comfort, somehow, that our opponent lives to fight and takes as much pleasure in its conduct as most of us do in the experience of peace. Still, there is something essentially hopeless about all of this, that our hero is determined to contest us even as he laments the inevitability of his choice in the same. But if we do give in, then even for them all is truly lost: Beethoven lived not for his music, but for its role in inspiring others. As Asgard accepts the cessation of his own experience, he counsels Jet to look more closely at the wonders around him, and to remember them fondly in his place. The corruption of one's own inescapable darkness is assauged by the promise of purity's shine in others.

    [Asgard attacks.]

    Virginia: What are you doing!? You know very well there's no more
    reason to fight!

    Asgard: But there is! Fighting is my reason for existing!

    [The party defeats Asgard.]

    Asgard: As a golem created to act as my master's shield...Not once did
    I regret this life...All my memories I have accumulated from
    battle...They may be nothing but simple battle data, but this
    has granted me a heart. These memories helped me to discover
    pride and joy during battle! I was able to feel alive! Because
    of these memories, I had hope for tomorrow.

    Jet: Memories...That's what I lack...That's what makes me an oddity
    even though we're both creations...

    Asgard: You consider yourself an oddity, because you turn your eyes
    away from the truth and refuse to accept it. You say you have
    no memory, but you are just using that as an excuse.

    Jet: Then...What am I supposed to do?

    Asgard: The answer should already lie within you. All you need to do
    is acknowledge and accept it. From one artificial life-form to
    another, let me ask you this; what is your purpose on this
    planet? What is your answer?

    Jet: I...My reason to live is...I have no memories...That's why I
    refuse to fight to protect the memories of this planet!

    Virginia: Jet!?

    Jet: Chill out...You know...I kinda had fun hanging out and travelling
    with these chatterboxes. I was able to experience disgust, shock,
    and anger, more so than when I travelled alone...But the thing wasn't all that bad...So, I've decided to fight in order
    to make my own memories. And I wanna do it protecting this
    planet. Alonside these chatterboxes...That's the reason I fight!

    Asgard: I would like you to weave memories over this planet in my
    place...Even a vacant heart can be filled with memories...
    Even an artificial life-form can discover a reason to live!
    I wish you godspeed...

    Jet: Yo, wait a minute! You didn't come here just to tell me that!
    You came here to fight us, didn't you!?

    Asgard: Obeying <orders> is a golem's destiny. I must obey my
    master...And I do this by my own will..My desire to carry out
    my order brought me here, so that you may send me to the
    netherworld to meet my master...[If ASK System is not picked,
    skip down to Jet's "Yo! Do you even..." line.]

    <Orders> Jet: Orders...? You mean you carried out an order to get
    beaten by us!?

    Asgard: That is untrue...My orders are to act as a shield to protect
    my master...However, I needed to find a way to follow my
    master to the netherworld, so that I may carry out his
    orders there...This was by my own accord...and the very
    reason I fought you. I knew you would be my ticket to the

    Jet: Yo! Do you even realize what you're saying!?

    Asgard: Worry not...By no means did I throw this fight. For as long
    as a golem is a golem, there is a fundamental rule he must
    follow. 'A golem must secure his own safety to the best of
    his abilities.' You are the true victors.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-30-2008 at 06:01 AM.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    6 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post

    [more to come]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    11 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    Added the Asgard segment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts