View Single Post
Old 01-11-2005, 12:28 PM   #16
Terrible in War
BattleDog's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,923
Umm, okay. I that case allow me to illume, from my character's point of view.

Drago's original gripe was that Heimdall said he was "very foolish." Now this alone would have ticked our hero off, but he would have let it pass, given Heimdall's rank and the fact that he is under the Aesir's roof, so to speak. The fact that Heimdall called him a fool in public is a double insult because it causes Drago to lose face, in other words he is shamed.

Now given that bear in mind that Drago's comment that slavery is never a good thing is perfectly reasonable from a moral point of view. Why did Heimdall attack a single comment in such a way?

He could simply have said, "I disagree." So why didn't he. He's not talking to an enemy and he's not talking to Hal, someone he needs to educate. In point of fact he's talking to an older warrior who is giving his opinion on a "man" who has caused his own people considerable suffering.

Added to this, the information that Heimdall used to deliver the insult was freely given by Drago, "No I don't know why he did it but I can't see there is ever a good reason to enslave a whole planet." Drago freely admitted this, he could have said, "I know enough," or something similar, which might provoke such a comment from Heimdall.

While we analysing it should be noted that Drago will never view what the Aesir did as merciful. I said the main influence for my characters was Saxon/Viking/Celtic. For Drago the greatest glory is death in battle, something he is denied, and his adopted people would heartily agree with him. So from his point of view what the Aesir did was not only not a mercy but it was also a dishonour, it just doesn't wash.

So now we see that Heimdall has already casually handed down a multi layered insult, without provocation.

Now added to this, when Aiden expresses agreement with Drago's sentiment Heimdall uses a simplistic example to explain away that point of view, never mind that it has little or no bearing on real life.

So Heimdall has repeated the insult and again caused Drago to lose face. He has also, to Drago's mind, not provided any real basis for his own argument.

This is another insult.

Now Heimdall leaves without another word, this deprives Drago of any chance to defend himself from all these insults. It also serves to show that the whole business is, to Heimdall's mind, of little consequence. This further shames Drago, because it belittles him and his honour.

So we have yet another insult.

No Drago basically shouts an insult at Heimdall's retreating back. He uses Heimdall's own arguments to attack the same argument. This is an effort to regain some face by exposing the flaw in Heimdall's arguments. I think he does this reasonable well, considering he is no orator.


Drago has admitted fault and apologised. Not only that, he apologised first, and very quickly. What Drago did was wrong because Heimdall outranks him in the social structure and he is a guest of Heimdall's house.

If Drago were of the same or greater rank he would not have apologised, unless Heimdall apologised first. If he was of the same or greater rank and Heimdall insulted him in this way in his own house Drago would have cracked his head and thrown him out if he didn't apologise. If Heimdall did apologise under these circumstances and Drago had acted in the way he did here then he would have offered an apology for the insult he delivered. He would then have offered Heimdall a drink as a sign of good faith, which Heimdall would, of course, be obliged to accept.

If the roles were totally reversed and Drago delivered the first insult then he would have gone privately to Heimdall and offered an apology and a drink, as before. He would also have given Heimdall some other small courtesy and would have apologised again for being such a poor host.

Heimdall did none of these, instead he accepted Drago's apology and then insulted him again by telling him to control his emotions! Drago did not need to be told this, he apologised, he knew he was in the wrong.

So we have yet another insult.

Bear in mind that Drago, like my other characters, does not have a concept of hereditary monarchy or a royal dynasty. To Drago a king is for life and his sons will only inherit if they are deemed worthy. The Wise Men decide who the next king will be, not blood. This isn't especially important at the moment but it influences how Drago sees the Heimdall's acquisition of rank, i.e. royalty does not excuse your actions.

On top of all this we have to consider the implied insult, which is the general lack of concern Heimdall has shown for the entire affair, start to finish. The original insult is all the worse for the casual and thoughtless way in which it was delivered and this speaks badly for Heimdall's character. Since he apparently has no concern for another man's honour his own can be called into question. If his honour is called into question so is his word, his loyalty, his dependability in battle and his wisdom in coucil.

Essentially Heimdall has done to Drago what Hal has been doing to the Aesir all along, with similar results. Drago will continue to show Heimdall respect and obay his orders for as long as Heimdall outranks him but if he does not recieve an apology of some sort by the time that he leaves then he will think the worse of Heimdall when he next meets him.

Given all this Heimdall is lucky Drago has not pushed the matter any further.

Fly Fast,
Shoot Straight,
Live Long!

Last edited by BattleDog; 01-11-2005 at 12:51 PM.
BattleDog is offline   you may: