Given what their sins done how do you give Londo and Dellen a free pass?

[Garovorkin]

Gkar may have commited his share of sins, but to me he is not a monster. He and his people were victims and very angry ones and who could blame them wanting to lash out at the Centuri.

 

[Cell]

Gkar may have commited his share of sins, but what he did hardly makes him a monster.

I think a lot of people miss the point of early season G'Kar and Londo. They are the same exact person, just on opposite sides, that is why they hate each other so much. Both killed more than any man should ever kill, both did so in the name of corrupt nations, and both would gladly kill anyone that got in the way of their goal. The difference is that one man figured out he was on the wrong path a full two seasons before the other one did. That's what makes the last season with them so harsh. They have both finally figured it out and are both in the middle of being on the continued path of redemption for their crimes. But one man is drawn back in by powers beyond his control and pays the ultimate price for his earlier sins.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

With this, and the Byron thread, I will have to say that we have little common frame of reference, and very different views on morality, responsibility, and redemption. Frankly, to me, someone who can't see a huge difference between the oppressed striking back at their oppressors, and the actions of the oppressors themselves, has no real morality. IMO, it is that viewpoint, both on the part of the current US gov, and our enemies, that is responsible for much of our world's ills. If there is no difference, then reason, and motives, mean nothing.

 

[Garovorkin]

I remember what Londo said to Gkar. "once I had none of the power and all of the choices and now I have all of the power and none of the choices" before he had the Drak keeper put on him.

 

[Cell]

With this, and the Byron thread, I will have to say that we have little common frame of reference, and very different views on morality, responsibility, and redemption. Frankly, to me, someone who can't see a huge difference between the oppressed striking back at their oppressors, and the actions of the oppressors themselves, has no real morality. IMO, it is that viewpoint, both on the part of the current US gov, and our enemies, that is responsible for much of our world's ills. If there is no difference, then reason, and motives, mean nothing.

The idea of oppression flies out the window when the oppressors are no longer oppressed and hundreds of years later are still striking back at those that oppressed them and, as Delenn pointed out, have now become the oppressors themselves of other races. Where is the supposed justice in that? Or am I missing the moral high ground in attacking other races and subjugating them in some attempt to build your power base to get back at the people that once oppressed you?

 

[Garovorkin]

Anger and hatred in some cases may take decades to begin to abate, look at places like northern Ireland or the Basque region in Spain or the hu tu or in Nigeria you have the Ibo Huasa and Yoruba tribes who distrust each other and still are simmering over the Biafra succession in the 1960'in which a lot of people died, things take time to subside. It doesn't make it right or smart thing to do but the Narns had some serious grievances with the Centari over the occupation. In their shoes you might not be so quick to forgive the Centari republic if they wronged you and you might carry the anger for more then a bit of time.

 

[hypatia]

I just can't see someone murdering for fun/sense of power being equated with a victim who (wrong as it may be) seeking revenge. Especially if said victim sees action (against those who would enslave them again) as defense, not just revenge.

Not saying one is wrong while the other is right.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

The idea of oppression flies out the window when the oppressors are no longer oppressed and hundreds of years later are still striking back at those that oppressed them and, as Delenn pointed out, have now become the oppressors themselves of other races. Where is the supposed justice in that? Or am I missing the moral high ground in attacking other races and subjugating them in some attempt to build your power base to get back at the people that once oppressed you?

I don't know what you mean by "the oppressors are no longer oppressed."

The Narn had only cast out the Centari a few years before the beginning of B5, it wasn't "hundreds of years later." Remember, G'Kar's childhood memories of his father's lynching? We are still prosecuting crimes from the Nazi era, and the civil rights era, comparable to the time frame there. But of course, then the Centari did it all over again. And, there is never a hint that the Narns want to conquer the Centari homeworld.

One thing you hold against Byron is that he was never punished for his misdeeds as a Psi Cop, even though he showed remorse, repudiated his old ways, and did his best to lead others from that life, or prevent them entering it in the first place. Well, you seem to have a double standard, because the Centari were never punished for their much more extensive crimes against the Narn, and many other peoples, and didn't really repudiate their crimes and behavior.

 

[Cell]

I just can't see someone murdering for fun/sense of power being equated with a victim who (wrong as it may be) seeking revenge. Especially if said victim sees action (against those who would enslave them again) as defense, not just revenge.

Is it really defense though when that one nation is, at the beginning of season 1, no longer a threat to you or anyone else and yet you are still striking at them? How does that make you any better than the people who once oppressed you? And for that matter how is attacking and attempting to strike at someone that is no longer a threat for the sole purpose of revenge from years gone by any different from someone attacking and striking at someone for personal gain and a return to glory for their nation?

I don't know what you mean by "the oppressors are no longer oppressed."

It's simple, as Delenn pointed out, and the series showed, the Narn were not some pitiful people struggling to get by. They had developed themselves into a major power and were now in the middle of oppressing smaller races themselves. They had become that which they hated so much in the Centauri. So the question still remains, how can you be an oppressed people when you are now oppressing other people yourselves?

The Narn had only cast out the Centari a few years before the beginning of B5, it wasn't "hundreds of years later." Remember, G'Kar's childhood memories of his father's lynching? We are still prosecuting crimes from the Nazi era, and the civil rights era, comparable to the time frame there. But of course, then the Centari did it all over again. And, there is never a hint that the Narns want to conquer the Centari homeworld.

G'Kar is much older than you think, around 70 or so when B5 begins. So while my initial assertion of hundreds of years was an exaggeration I would say at least 50 or so years have passed since the Narn ousted the Centauri. So now, it wasn't a few years before B5 that they cast out the Centauri, unless 50 is a few.

I don't get how you can say there was never any hint that the Narns wanted to conquer the Centauri homeworld. Not only did the series undeniably show that but it also showed that they wanted to kill the Centauri wholesale and would have done so if they were actually powerful enough to do so. Their actions from day one were of a people seeking power to strike back against the Centauri, and they managed to somehow justify the crimes they were committing against other races as necessary in their bid for "justice" against their long ago oppressors.

One thing you hold against Byron is that he was never punished for his misdeeds as a Psi Cop, even though he showed remorse, repudiated his old ways, and did his best to lead others from that life, or prevent them entering it in the first place. Well, you seem to have a double standard, because the Centari were never punished for their much more extensive crimes against the Narn, and many other peoples, and didn't really repudiate their crimes and behavior.

How do I have a double standard? Point to one instance in this thread where I have said the Centrauri were right in their actions or the Centauri were a good people, etc.. Just because I am very correctly asserting that the Narn themselves had turned into war mongers doesn't mean that somehow I am elevating the Centauri. My original assertion was that G'Kar was no different than Londo and by extension the Narn were no different that the Cenaturi, this would highlight a complete lack of a double standard as I have argued very vehemently about how corrupt and war mongering of a nation the Narn were and thus that would extend to the Cenaturi as well. Maybe this is a situation where you are selectively listening to what I am saying or ascribing certain things to what I am actually saying, but no, it's clear as day in all of my posts that I have never taken any stance on the actions of the Centauri, because frankly, they aren't the issue at hand.

 

[Jade Jaguar]

 

[Elipsis]

I don't give Delenn or Londo a free pass by any means... but one thing they have over Byron is multidimensionality, particularly Londo. Londo is far and away the most complicated character in the show in my opinion. By no means do I consider him admirable or heroic, but he as a character he is very well developed throughout the series. The writing for his character is just excellent, whereas Byron is a pretty one dimensional figure... fixated on exactly one cause... he only once appears to struggle with any kind of moral complexity.

 

[GKarsEye]

I don't give Delenn or Londo a free pass by any means... but one thing they have over Byron is multidimensionality, particularly Londo. Londo is far and away the most complicated character in the show in my opinion. By no means do I consider him admirable or heroic, but he as a character he is very well developed throughout the series. The writing for his character is just excellent, whereas Byron is a pretty one dimensional figure... fixated on exactly one cause... he only once appears to struggle with any kind of moral complexity.

Is it really fair to compare character complexity between characters that were around for all 5 seasons vs a guy who was their for a half a season?

 

[Elipsis]

Is it really fair to compare character complexity between characters that were around for all 5 seasons vs a guy who was their for a half a season?

Well, the question was "Why do people like Londo and Delenn but hate Byron."

It is difficult to answer that question without comparing a character who is around for half a season to a character who is around for all 5.

I do, however, agree that we are dealing with 2 different classes of character... nonetheless I think my answer explains at least one of the reasons people like Londo so much more than Byron.