Are Makuta Krika and Icarax really good guys?

[Zox Tomana]

 

From the "Abilities and Traits" section of the Makuta page:

 

All Makuta were created with an innate character flaw that many view as a curse on the species. They all have immense pride in their abilities, lust for great power, and believe themselves to be superior to all other beings.

The Teridax page claims the same thing. The page on Alternate Teridax says he and the other Alternate Makuta's purge of their inner Shadow was them overcoming their curse, so it is inherent to Makuta across realities. I suppose it is a sort of truthful (fictional) racism, but the MU inhabitants aren't quite races as humans know them (for instance, in Time Trap, Vakama claims that all Ta-Matoran are mathematicians at heart, and that doesn't seem as racist as saying the same thing about Asians).

 

I'm not sure where they're getting this -- I'd like to see official quotes on it. It may be an assumption of whoever worded that sentence. My guess is they may be referring to 1) the nature of the antidermis molecule they're made of, or 2) a genuine personality trait, that just happened to be copied into all of them for some reason (those two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). They could be "personality clones" in certain ways, without that being an essential part of the species. And then, the "some" who "view" that as a curse on the species would be viewing it this way in error. I think...

 

If I remember correctly, the bit on BS01 came from Greg quotes. At some point, Greg stated that the Makuta species either had some kind of curse or were seen to have a curse on their species, and when asked he clarified that the curse of the Makuta was their immense pride and sense of superiority. There was even a good amount of debate when the info was added about the language of the sentence and the validity of the info when it was added, but I couldn't give you a link or general idea of where the quote is because of the Great Transitions wiping all that data a couple times over.

[ALVIS]

Actually, the BS01 page might be getting that from some of Krika's dialogue. (Who knew we'd end up on the original subject of this thread?) He always espoused the idea that the Makuta were somehow "cursed" to be the bad guys. Of course, those are the words of someone who was still an atrocious person, but deceived himself into thinking he was better than that. (There are lots of examples of those sorts of villains; Redcloak from The Order of the Stick stands out the most to me. So much.)

 

See, the argument of "but they're artificial life-forms, they're not humans" doesn't cut it for me, for reasons I explained above. True, these characters are artificial and created for a purpose, but we can all agree that they're people, right? In the context of the story, they are people of diversity and characterization comparable to humanity, because for the first 8 or 9 years of the story, they were the most direct human analogues in BIONICLE. Saying/implying their personalities are coded into them doesn't sit well with me, because fiction is birthed from humans, and ultimately reflects its creators' views on the human condition and the way our world works. That's why the "inescapable nature" of the Makuta worries me: not because it's "racist against Makuta", but because it suggests that the authors didn't bat an eye at an entire species being condemned to evil and depravity because of their essential nature.

[fishers64]

3) Are all Makuta in existence affected by the curse? Whether member or outcast, with or without armor?

 

3) Yes

 

Okay, here we go...

 

3. This is concerning the recent info about the Makuta curse that's come up in the OGD. Just to make sure I've got this right:

a. The Curse is the Makuta's never-ending lust for power, and the overconfidence to constantly act upon this lust. Is this right? That said:

b. Is this just a metaphorical curse, in that it's a personality trait shared by all Makuta that will bring about their downfall in a decidedly curselike fashion? Or is it a literal curse, just more subtle, put on the Makuta by their creators or by some other outsider?

c. Does anyone in the Bionicle universe see it as a curse?

d. Does this curse factor into the Plan in any way? I know the Plan was inspired by it, but is there any special provision for dealing with its effects?

e. So what's up with Miserix then? Was he able to resist the curse's effects or something?

3) Their curse is ambition, pride and arrogance.

3b) Metaphorical, it's part of their nature

3c) Most likely, yes.

3d) It's not something you plan for, it's a part of who they are.

3e) No. Miserix's ambition simply takes a different form. He saw a surer path to power by staying obedient to the will of Mata Nui rather than rebelling.

 

 

 

 

1) You stated that it was their pride and over-confidence. Seeing that Teridax overthrew Miserix to achieve the goal of overthrowing Mata-Nui, was the curse implemented in Teridax first/only?

 

1) No, it was always present, it was a flaw in their nature from the start.

* * *

3) Have we seen/heard the being/thing that implemented this curse?

3) It wasn't someone going, "I now curse you ." It was simply a part of the nature of their species, the same way many humans tend to be cursed with the idea that we are the only species that matters.

Edited March 21, 2014 by fishers64

[bonesiii]

See, the argument of "but they're artificial life-forms, they're not humans" doesn't cut it for me, for reasons I explained above. True, these characters are artificial and created for a purpose, but we can all agree that they're people, right? In the context of the story, they are people of diversity and characterization comparable to humanity, because for the first 8 or 9 years of the story, they were the most direct human analogues in BIONICLE. Saying/implying their personalities are coded into them doesn't sit well with me, because fiction is birthed from humans, and ultimately reflects its creators' views on the human condition and the way our world works. That's why the "inescapable nature" of the Makuta worries me: not because it's "racist against Makuta", but because it suggests that the authors didn't bat an eye at an entire species being condemned to evil and depravity because of their essential nature.

That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, it's undeniable that genetics influences behavioral differences between animals. This doesn't make any animals inferior to others, but it does mean they might have "nature" to behave one way versus a totally different type of animal behaving another way right from birth. Many animals for example will learn to stand moments after being born, while others can't (humans can't either). That's behavioral... My understanding is that it's that there's only one species of sapient being in reality -- but does that mean it's wrong to tell stories where there's different species of sapients? And then if you do, do they all have to have the exact same personality tendencies as humans?

 

Can there be Klingons who tend to want to be more combative, for example? Or Vulcans whose emotions tend to run wild unless they control them? Or for that matter Vorox becoming animalistic? We can't deny such things are possible. But it definitely opens up dangerous gray areas where racists could take advantage of differences and say it implies superiority and all of that. (That's a problem even between different personality types within "races" too, as I've talked about for years on here.)

 

What I mean about the artificial thing is that it does become a little more obvious to the fans that they wouldn't necessarily be just like humans. But then you have Vorox...

 

The bottom line to me is that in today's society, thankfully it's unthinkable that LEGO could have intended it to mean "they have real differences and they're people, and humans are people, so their differences could mean racism is okay". Actually, you could make a case that by saying this fictional species having a flaw to see themselves as superior is in and of itself a condemnation of racism by definition; by calling it a "flaw" it means LEGO disagrees with any person being superior to other people.

 

But then, what I think you're driving at, saying that this flaw is inherent to the species... does seem to undermine that. It seems unnecessary to me, unless Greg means that it comes from the antidermis they're made of.

 

 

Now I could get into the whole equality variety strengths/weaknesses thing if people want me to here. It's true that individual humans have inherent weaknesses; I know I do. But this is getting long and I'm short on time... In short, they balance out with strengths. (So in my philosophy, all Makuta, I guess, would then have corresponding strengths. But what they would be, I'm not sure.)

[fishers64]

(So in my philosophy, all Makuta, I guess, would then have corresponding strengths. But what they would be, I'm not sure.)

 

42 Kraata powers?

[Azani]

Actually, the BS01 page might be getting that from some of Krika's dialogue. (Who knew we'd end up on the original subject of this thread?) He always espoused the idea that the Makuta were somehow "cursed" to be the bad guys. Of course, those are the words of someone who was still an atrocious person, but deceived himself into thinking he was better than that. (There are lots of examples of those sorts of villains; Redcloak from The Order of the Stick stands out the most to me. So much.)

 

See, the argument of "but they're artificial life-forms, they're not humans" doesn't cut it for me, for reasons I explained above. True, these characters are artificial and created for a purpose, but we can all agree that they're people, right? In the context of the story, they are people of diversity and characterization comparable to humanity, because for the first 8 or 9 years of the story, they were the most direct human analogues in BIONICLE. Saying/implying their personalities are coded into them doesn't sit well with me, because fiction is birthed from humans, and ultimately reflects its creators' views on the human condition and the way our world works. That's why the "inescapable nature" of the Makuta worries me: not because it's "racist against Makuta", but because it suggests that the authors didn't bat an eye at an entire species being condemned to evil and depravity because of their essential nature.

There isn't a mention of how or if the curse necessarily limits a Makuta. It easily could, and did, but Greg doesn't suggest or say that it would be impossible for a Makuta to avoid an evil lifestyle if they were able to avoid their natural pull toward pride and ambition. A human can minimize the effect that a certain tendency has on his or her actions, depending on the strength of the tendency. Sure, arrogance and ambition are a bit tough, but the Makuta can already fly, use heat vision, and read minds. Can changing ones tendencies be that hard?

[Katuko]

That makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, it's undeniable that genetics influences behavioral differences between animals. This doesn't make any animals inferior to others, but it does mean they might have "nature" to behave one way versus a totally different type of animal behaving another way right from birth. Many animals for example will learn to stand moments after being born, while others can't (humans can't either). That's behavioral... My understanding is that it's that there's only one species of sapient being in reality -- but does that mean it's wrong to tell stories where there's different species of sapients? And then if you do, do they all have to have the exact same personality tendencies as humans?

It is not inherently wrong to mark one species as violent and dangerous, but I think precluding their ability to potentially change would be a bit heavy-handed. Always Evil races are common in fiction, a prime example being Tolkien's orcs: Bred to kill and conquer, and they revel in it. However, Tolkien's version of sadistic, war-hungry does not need to be the only type. The early animated Lord of the Rings movie even have a pack of orcs who sing about how they don't want to go to war, but that they are forced to by dark lord Sauron.

 

Can there be Klingons who tend to want to be more combative, for example? Or Vulcans whose emotions tend to run wild unless they control them? Or for that matter Vorox becoming animalistic? We can't deny such things are possible. But it definitely opens up dangerous gray areas where racists could take advantage of differences and say it implies superiority and all of that. (That's a problem even between different personality types within "races" too, as I've talked about for years on here.)

Marking a few members of the "Always Evil" species as Good is a nice way to create realistic diversity in a series, I feel. Fantasy stories usually "need" a black-n-white morality in order to fuel the main conflict and let the heroes shine, but I like the ones with dark gray vs light gray much better. Rich Burlew, author of Order of the Stick is fond of bringing up the problems with labeling one species/race as "Always Evil". For example, we have the Hobgoblins, a somewhat violent race that live as outcasts and are regarded as monsters, much like Tolkien's orcs. Whenever humans and other species meet them, it is usually due to a raid on a village or something. Hobgoblins are the primary force in the wanna-rule-the-world bad guy's army. And yet -- when they actually take a city, it is shown that the hobgoblins there quickly settle down and are content not to seek out more battles. They are disgruntled with how humans oppress them, and they soon have leaders, a flag, established trade routes with other cities, etc. It is heavily implied - especially in one villain's backstory - that if they were just left alone they would slowly lose the Always Evil moniker over time.

 

The bottom line to me is that in today's society, thankfully it's unthinkable that LEGO could have intended it to mean "they have real differences and they're people, and humans are people, so their differences could mean racism is okay". Actually, you could make a case that by saying this fictional species having a flaw to see themselves as superior is in and of itself a condemnation of racism by definition; by calling it a "flaw" it means LEGO disagrees with any person being superior to other people.

Well, Rich Burlew has expressed his views on the matter as fantasy fiction being a close analogue to the real world, and often you will see "the enemy" carry traits of foreign nations while the heroes carry traits of your own nation. After all, we usually take a human, copy-paste and add some pointy ears... boom, you have anew race/species. If the shape of the being is humanoid, then it is usually either a human with vague differences (and thus we usually treat them as having human ways of thinking) or they are completely alien in most every way. But as long as they are similar to humans, they will usually be treated as human(-like) by both the writer and the readers. Burlew also says that fiction is mostly useful when it tells us something about society, and that the rest is mostly escapism. He is opposed to the idea of Always Evil races that are just cannon fodder for the heroes, and I tend to agree.

 

Still, the Makuta are such a small group of people it's hard to find much variance in them, especially when they were intended as villains and clear targets for the heroes. I actually felt they had enough differences to make them interesting, as even Teridax was willing to be "friendly" with the heroes if he felt it was needed. Krika showed some signs of restraint and remorse in his evil, and you could interpret Mutran as a contrast of mindset to Gorast -- at least when you take his remarks about her in his journal into account.

 

But then, what I think you're driving at, saying that this flaw is inherent to the species... does seem to undermine that. It seems unnecessary to me, unless Greg means that it comes from the antidermis they're made of.

It may just be that being given such extreme amounts of power plus the job to technically rule the universe, it comes to them just like that. If we assume their Shadow powers also have a vague influence on their emotions (it feels "sadistically good" to use them, kinda?) then that would make them lean to Evil more easily than some powerless Matoran created to be a crafter. People in power tends to want to keep that power, after all.

 

Actually, the BS01 page might be getting that from some of Krika's dialogue. (Who knew we'd end up on the original subject of this thread?) He always espoused the idea that the Makuta were somehow "cursed" to be the bad guys. Of course, those are the words of someone who was still an atrocious person, but deceived himself into thinking he was better than that. (There are lots of examples of those sorts of villains; Redcloak from The Order of the Stick stands out the most to me. So much.)

What I like the most about Redcloak is that he now knows exactly what he's doing (he's had a few realizations along the way), but he believes himself to be past the point where he can turn around. Even though his plan to ally with a lich has cost him pretty much everything - family, his fellow goblins, the ability to be in control - he keeps trucking because he has to. That said, his anger still gets the better of him on several occasions, such as when gets frustrated and starts screaming at a Paladin to "tell me! Tell me what I need to know!".

 

I like that Redcloak keeps bringing up this fact - that he is aware. He knows that the lich is a loose cannon that he cannot directly control, and that the plan to rule the world relies on wildcards that may actually doom the planet altogether. He knows that when he threatens to kill innocents to get the Paladin to talk he "might as well grow a mustache and twirl the ends", but it's the only method he's got left that might get him to talk at all. When it finally becomes clear that the Paladin does not know anything, he actually calls off the executions despite hating humans and human Paladins even more. He saw no point in it anymore.

 

His end motivation is not explicitly "I want to kill everyone who is not a goblin" but rather "I want a world where goblins are considered equal to every other race".

 

 

Krika is interesting to me for the same reasons: He is aware that what The Plan would potentially be very, very bad for everyone, but at this point it is so far along that there's no way he can steer completely clear of it. His best bet was to make Gali (whom he judged as the most reasonable Toa, I guess) stop trying to awaken Mata Nui at that point in time. Krika knows - perhaps just instinctively - that if Mata Nui awakens the Makuta are doomed, and if Teridax gets in charge he would be likely to just kill off everyone who don't obey him as slaves. It's a lose/lose situation for him, and he tried to choose the smaller loss. After all, even if the plan fails I imagine it would be easier to flee and hide somewhere than it would be to live under all-seeing Terdiax the Terrible. He is kinda like Sauron, once he gets in charge.

 

I also enjoy seeing villainous characters like Dark Hunters act out their roles in the war - despite being definitely "Evil" due to their brutal methods and willingness to take what they can, they still join the heroes' cause near the end. They fight for themselves, perhaps, but they do not needlessly bring destruction just for the heck of it like Icarax might do.

 

Can changing ones tendencies be that hard?

There is a trope called "Becoming The Mask". It refers to when a character goes undercover as a Good Guy, but after a long time of acting out the role it starts coming naturally to them, to the point where they realize that they no longer want to be the villain they originally set out to be. In real life, this is possible too, as after a while you get used to a certain way of life, and if it's comfortable you will naturally be resistant to change. Still, it depends very much on the person. For example, someone with little empathy and a sadistic streak could very well just enjoy saying "haha, I'm not actually your friend!" as they stab you in the back, while another person in the same role would confess and abort the mission, or just quietly ignore the opportunity to backstab you. Yet another person may decide to get away, to take what they came for and slip away unnoticed, so they never have to confront you about it at all.

 

People's emotions, tendencies, and willingness/ability to change are vastly different from each other, so we can't really predict anything. But that is also the reason why some get annoyed with both heroes and villains being copy-paste versions of each other. After all, 4 people saying "We need to stop the bad guys!" is not as interesting as one being there to save the world due to his ideals, one being a pacifist who wish to broker peace without bloodshed, one being thirsty for glory in battle, and the last one tagging along mostly because they have been forced to. The latter group will likely have more interesting dialogue; though as BIONICLE itself shows us with the Toa, you can have several heroes with the same motivation also have distinct personalities. It's just that villains usually are more of a "these guys fight the heroes or something" kind of deal, as opposed to the "the story revolves around these unique characters" treatment that heroes usually get.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Katuko

[Chro]

 

(So in my philosophy, all Makuta, I guess, would then have corresponding strengths. But what they would be, I'm not sure.)

42 Kraata powers?

 

So very fitting. They're bound to always be ambitious and arrogant, and the thing balancing this weakness is the power to back up their arrogance and ambition.

 

Anyway, I apologize for inadvertently starting a debate about racism in Bionicle.

 

Edited March 21, 2014 by Chro

[bonesiii]

42 Kraata powers?

Lol. I mean personality-wise. I guess confidence?

 

It may just be that being given such extreme amounts of power plus the job to technically rule the universe, it comes to them just like that.

Yeah that's what I was thinking earlier. I guess until we meet a Makuta who has a glitch so that they have no powers other than just being antidermis, and lives entirely ignorant of the role of what Makuta were supposed to do, we don't know what they'd be like.

[fishers64]

 

42 Kraata powers?

Lol. I mean personality-wise. I guess confidence?

 

It also may be that they are more logical and open to whatever method of getting what they want. They are very efficient - it's just that everyone else disagrees with their methods of logic, and even among themselves their selfishness gives them different ideas of what makes sense.

 

I might be blinded a little bit by Teridax the stategist, but even Krika recognized a lose-lose situation and tried a strategy to fix it. Icarax, while complaining that complex strategy was useless, adopted a simple one - dead enemies don't retaliate. While Gorast might be an exception, most of them seem to have a predesposition for logic and strategy - it's just that they chose to use that the help themselves rather than others.

[Azani]

 

Can changing ones tendencies be that hard?

There is a trope called "Becoming The Mask". It refers to when a character goes undercover as a Good Guy, but after a long time of acting out the role it starts coming naturally to them, to the point where they realize that they no longer want to be the villain they originally set out to be. In real life, this is possible too, as after a while you get used to a certain way of life, and if it's comfortable you will naturally be resistant to change. Still, it depends very much on the person. For example, someone with little empathy and a sadistic streak could very well just enjoy saying "haha, I'm not actually your friend!" as they stab you in the back, while another person in the same role would confess and abort the mission, or just quietly ignore the opportunity to backstab you. Yet another person may decide to get away, to take what they came for and slip away unnoticed, so they never have to confront you about it at all.

 

People's emotions, tendencies, and willingness/ability to change are vastly different from each other, so we can't really predict anything. But that is also the reason why some get annoyed with both heroes and villains being copy-paste versions of each other. After all, 4 people saying "We need to stop the bad guys!" is not as interesting as one being there to save the world due to his ideals, one being a pacifist who wish to broker peace without bloodshed, one being thirsty for glory in battle, and the last one tagging along mostly because they have been forced to. The latter group will likely have more interesting dialogue; though as BIONICLE itself shows us with the Toa, you can have several heroes with the same motivation also have distinct personalities. It's just that villains usually are more of a "these guys fight the heroes or something" kind of deal, as opposed to the "the story revolves around these unique characters" treatment that heroes usually get.

 

There definitely isn't much variety in the motives of the individual Makuta. There was never a single one who regretted joining Teridax and assembled enough courage to defy him for the forces of good, however, that probably stems from the amount of fear which they hold in Teridax. It's just as boring to have an entire organization of irredeemably evil villains as it is to have an entire group of perfectly selfless and confident heroes; the difference is, it's harder for villains to become heroic than it is for heroes to become evil, and thus it takes more courage and good-nature for villains to rebel than for heroes to do so. In literature, the villains are often simply not allowed as much freedom to doubt their cause as their heroic counterparts are. If a Makuta wavered in his devotion to the plan, then Teridax would attempt to have him killed; if a Toa wavered in being devoted to the cause of defeating Teridax, then his teammates would likely be more merciful.

 

Icarax didn't attempt a different goal than Teridax, so he never strayed from the path of evil in his complete disregard for intelligent life. But Krika did attempt to save the Toa Nuva, even if it was partially for selfish reasons, and that took a massive amount of courage from him. Of course, he had to circumvent his selfish nature also. He's at least a little bit more good than the other Makuta.

[bonesiii]

But Krika did attempt to save the Toa Nuva, even if it was partially for selfish reasons, and that took a massive amount of courage from him. Of course, he had to circumvent his selfish nature also. He's at least a little bit more good than the other Makuta.

Again, no he isn't. Greg stated explicitly that he's just as evil as the rest of them. See my first reply in this topic, or Jag's post with the actual quote. And how could he not be? His inner light is drained as much as the others. He has no choice now; he has to be fully evil. That's how it works.

 

But as I mentioned, it's possible that before the light draining, he might have been a little more good. I see him as someone that, if you could cure just one Makuta of the Shadow mind effect, he'd be the top candidate, and hope he might actually have a chance to become a good guy. But in the 2008 plot, he wasn't.

 

Other posts here explain why didn't just kill a Toa Nuva. Basically he knew he couldn't get away with it. As for whether it took courage, I'll let yall decide that, but consider -- it could easily take less courage given that he thinks there's a higher risk of dying by going along with the plan. You could argue that Gorast was more courageous for risking letting Mata Nui take over and wipe them all out easily. (Courageous in an evil sense though.)

Edited March 25, 2014 by bonesiii

[Azani]

 

But Krika did attempt to save the Toa Nuva, even if it was partially for selfish reasons, and that took a massive amount of courage from him. Of course, he had to circumvent his selfish nature also. He's at least a little bit more good than the other Makuta.

Again, no he isn't. Greg stated explicitly that he's just as evil as the rest of them. See my first reply in this topic, or Jag's post with the actual quote. And how could he not be? His inner light is drained as much as the others. He has no choice now; he has to be fully evil. That's how it works.

 

But as I mentioned, it's possible that before the light draining, he might have been a little more good. I see him as someone that, if you could cure just one Makuta of the Shadow mind effect, he'd be the top candidate, and hope he might actually have a chance to become a good guy. But in the 2008 plot, he wasn't.

 

Other posts here explain why didn't just kill a Toa Nuva. Basically he knew he couldn't get away with it. As for whether it took courage, I'll let yall decide that, but consider -- it could easily take less courage given that he thinks there's a higher risk of dying by going along with the plan. You could argue that Gorast was more courageous for risking letting Mata Nui take over and wipe them all out easily. (Courageous in an evil sense though.)

 

I don't think that i was aware that by draining one's inner light, one actually removes even the possibility of not being evil. As in, the choice to be good is removed. And yet, regardless of that, if the Toa Nuva had followed Krika's suggestion and left Karda Nui, then things would have gone a lot better for the forces of good. No one would have woken up Mata Nui right away, so Teridax would have been forced to withdraw his essence from the robot, and somehow force them to wake him up with his spirit inside. And then his plan would have stood a much greater chance of being revealed, and it would all begin to fall apart.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Artakha's Nephew

[bonesiii]

And yet, regardless of that, if the Toa Nuva had followed Krika's suggestion and left Karda Nui, then things would have gone a lot better for the forces of good.

In the short term, maybe. But Bara Magna was apparently going to collapse if the Reforming wasn't done to stabilize it, killing the Agori/etc. Teridax's takeover was necessary for that. And who knows but the other Makuta might not have found some other way to restart the heart eventually and Teridax's reign could have come anyways, but with more time for him to prepare and grow accustomed to the system? Krika likely would have been killed regardless, and the other Makuta might hunt down the Toa and force them to do it. They'd show their hand, true, but still might have pulled it off. Infect their masks... antidermify them, etc.

[Kopekemaster]

I wouldn't really say that they were "good guys", more like Makuta who had plans of their own, and thought that telling the Toa would benefit their plan.

[fishers64]

 

And yet, regardless of that, if the Toa Nuva had followed Krika's suggestion and left Karda Nui, then things would have gone a lot better for the forces of good.

In the short term, maybe. But Bara Magna was apparently going to collapse if the Reforming wasn't done to stabilize it, killing the Agori/etc. Teridax's takeover was necessary for that. And who knows but the other Makuta might not have found some other way to restart the heart eventually and Teridax's reign could have come anyways, but with more time for him to prepare and grow accustomed to the system? Krika likely would have been killed regardless, and the other Makuta might hunt down the Toa and force them to do it. They'd show their hand, true, but still might have pulled it off. Infect their masks... antidermify them, etc.

 

In further case, even if they could get Makuta out of Mata Nui's head and Mata Nui back where he belonged, it might not have been possible to restore SM with just one robot.

 

And there's evidence that the Great Beings wanted Mata Nui to find the knowledge in the volcano and the power source to power up the prototype in the desert to ensure that happening.

[TERIDAX941]

 

 

And yet, regardless of that, if the Toa Nuva had followed Krika's suggestion and left Karda Nui, then things would have gone a lot better for the forces of good.

In the short term, maybe. But Bara Magna was apparently going to collapse if the Reforming wasn't done to stabilize it, killing the Agori/etc. Teridax's takeover was necessary for that. And who knows but the other Makuta might not have found some other way to restart the heart eventually and Teridax's reign could have come anyways, but with more time for him to prepare and grow accustomed to the system? Krika likely would have been killed regardless, and the other Makuta might hunt down the Toa and force them to do it. They'd show their hand, true, but still might have pulled it off. Infect their masks... antidermify them, etc.

 

In further case, even if they could get Makuta out of Mata Nui's head and Mata Nui back where he belonged, it might not have been possible to restore SM with just one robot.

 

And there's evidence that the Great Beings wanted Mata Nui to find the knowledge in the volcano and the power source to power up the prototype in the desert to ensure that happening.

 

You're right about reforming SM would've been impossible with just one robot, but actually the GB were going to build another robot, after they finished Mata Nui's but for some unknown reason they didn't, so Mata Nui had to use the prototype. That's why it was so unstable, and if it wasn't for the Mask of Life, it would've exploded again.

[fishers64]

You're right about reforming SM would've been impossible with just one robot, but actually the GB were going to build another robot, after they finished Mata Nui's but for some unknown reason they didn't, so Mata Nui had to use the prototype. That's why it was so unstable, and if it wasn't for the Mask of Life, it would've exploded again.

 

 

True, but they didn't build the extra robot.

 

So my theory is that they planned for the contingency that the second robot wouldn't be built, and that plan was what Mata Nui ended up doing. (Granted, it's just a theory, it's still out there and debunkable, despite the fact that it's so old.)

[LewaLew]

I apologize for not reading everything, but, y'know, college, and I'm just visiting.

 

I think we are viewing this incorrectly as saying that the Makuta have a devotion to evil. This is, I believe, a warping of their true goals. The Makuta, like other villains, don't see themselves as evil, although they readily recognize that others do see them that way. I think the difference between moral light and moral shadow is essentially the difference between selflessness and selfishness. For example, Alt. Teridax is devoted to his duty. He has no concern for his own fate, because he is devoted towards the task he has been given (which can be summed up by the Three Virtues). Core Teridax, however, is totally selfish. Every act of his is based upon his own desires and goals.

 

Let me run down through the other Makuta as an example.

 

Gorast: Devoted to the Plan with almost religious fervor, because she believes it is her ticket to power. She has no real loyalty to Teridax outside of the fact that he is the one with the Plan. (Teridax, for his own selfish reasons, has somehow managed to convince many of the Makuta that he is trustworthy, as evidenced by their loyalty to the plan. The only ones who don't go along are those who don't trust him, like Krika, Icarax, and Miserix.)

 

Bitil: His focus is totally on his advancement in the Brotherhood. He supports the plan because he sees it as a way to break free from the lackluster position that the other Makuta have imposed on him.

 

Chirox and Mutran: Both are only interested in their own personal glory, hence their rivalry over who gets credit for certain Rahi.

 

Antroz and Krika: Both are the most calculating Makuta of the Brotherhood, besides Teridax himself. While Antroz seems to actually believe he's better off under the plan by a significant margin, Krika is much more pessimistic about his prospects, and his support for the plan is almost purely out of peer pressure.

 

Vamprah: He cares for hunting alone. As a result, he likely supports the plan for the same reasons as Krika. After all, if the Makuta were to kill him for standing with Miserix, he couldn't hunt any more.

 

In terms of beings with inner light, the only other one we have is Umbra. His selflessness is displayed in his total devotion to his duty (once again, Three Virtues).

 

In other words, it seems to me like those with inner light show selflessness through adherence to the Three Virtues, while those with only inner shadow are devoted to a single vice: selfishness.

 

Also, if you please, don't get into any racism discussion here. It doesn't end well. I remember a similar incident involving the Space Police theme back when I was a Reference Keeper. I think the most important thing to remember is that all living things in the MU are essentially robots with a specific program, not human beings. Makuta are programmed with that selfish tendency, which is apparently an unintentional flaw. Of course, the very fact that the MU inhabitants even have personalities is an unintentional programming flaw. The bottom line is that talking about unintentional racism/xenophobia in LEGO themes is a bad idea. It's been done before, and it didn't end well, and I remember, because I started the thread that was locked for it.

[Wazdakka]

 

I don't think that i was aware that by draining one's inner light, one actually removes even the possibility of not being evil. As in, the choice to be good is removed. And yet, regardless of that, if the Toa Nuva had followed Krika's suggestion and left Karda Nui, then things would have gone a lot better for the forces of good. No one would have woken up Mata Nui right away, so Teridax would have been forced to withdraw his essence from the robot, and somehow force them to wake him up with his spirit inside. And then his plan would have stood a much greater chance of being revealed, and it would all begin to fall apart.

 

Hold on... I think that Krika is better than the rest of the Makuta because he fought the Plan, while Icarax simply wanted to kill things and didn't like Teridax (in oversimplifcation). But I don't understand why we seem to think that getting rid of the inner light and replacing it with inner shadow will automatically make you evil - is this saying that beings of shadow are implicitly evil no matter what?

 

Regardless, in my opinion, Krika tried to stop the universe from being taken over by a megalomaniac and even saved a life (Gali) to do so. He even lost his own life trying to stop the Plan.

[Master Inika]

Gorast: Devoted to the Plan with almost religious fervor, because she believes it is her ticket to power. She has no real loyalty to Teridax outside of the fact that he is the one with the Plan. (Teridax, for his own selfish reasons, has somehow managed to convince many of the Makuta that he is trustworthy, as evidenced by their loyalty to the plan. The only ones who don't go along are those who don't trust him, like Krika, Icarax, and Miserix.)

I don't agree with this point. I don't recall any implication that Gorast's fanatical loyalty to the Plan was vested in self-interest. I assumed that, like a real religious fanatic, she supported it because she somehow saw it as ethical. She also struck me as, like Spiriah, more of a natural follower than leader, but more competent in other respects.

[bonesiii]

Hold on... I think that Krika is better than the rest of the Makuta because

It pays to read the whole topic before posting; this was debunked on the first page and I've repeated it several times. See the Greg quote in Jag's post:

 

http://www.bzpower.com/board/topic/12346-are-makuta-krika-and-icarax-really-good-guys/?p=653476

 

Whatever were to follow this snippet I've quoted here, it thus can't matter to that. He wasn't any better (at that time). Specifically, you've confused evil competing with evil for good standing up to evil. I like to think that had his inner light been restored he'd have more of a chance of reforming than most and this might help, but only in a "go through the motions of acting good, thus get practice for if you later do turn good" sense. We should be honest that he didn't actually do it for good reasons at all, and things like that happen.

 

But I don't understand why we seem to think that getting rid of the inner light and replacing it with inner shadow will automatically make you evil

Simply because that's what's canon. It's just like an infected mask or antidermis, except it's in you rather than outside forcing its will on you like a puppet; your own brain becomes evil, but it is reversible (at least for those who didn't choose it willingly, like the Av-Matoran who were attacked by Shadow Leeches).

[LewaLew]

Gorast was much more of a team player, but that probably was because she believed the plan would inevitably benefit her. A rising tide lifts all boats and stuff like that.

[SarracenianKaijin]

No.

 

They just assume they have something akin to "morality". They don't.