Tales under the New Moon #5: Whispers from the Dark

[Anonymoose]

I wonder if part of the reason why those memories were messing with him were due to having a part of Athena in the Heart of Sabik? Was her influence the sole cause for him remembering even if foggy his family? Or did it just make those memories stronger and last longer?

I'm tempted to explore aetherometaphysical theories associated with auracite/Sabik as a (then) receptacle of Athena's memory and crystalline accelerator one's desires / ambitions...but for the moment I'm think I'm focused more on a simple connection to Lahabrea's sentiments in Pandaemonium.

Lahabrea
These Ascians─or “Paragons,” I'm told─were ruthless in their schemes to rejoin the sundered worlds.

I have heard but a small number of their deeds, and still I find it difficult to comprehend the depths to which they were willing to sink.

To choose a path of evil, all for the sake of the star...

...I admit, 'tis a decision I would make under the right circumstances.

Although the ages may take their toll, my devotion to my duty will never waver.

Paying no heed to what might be lost, I will treat the Heart of Sabik as a mere tool for my own ends.

Never caring to look beyond the surface, I will unleash forces that I fail to truly comprehend...and remain blissfully ignorant of my hypocrisy all the while.

I think here maybe we see him on the other side of the looking glass - the moment he decides to reject the memories trying to resurface; refuse to consider them a sign that maybe he should look beyond the surface and Sabik as more than a mere tool. On this side of the mirror, he chides himself for this "moment of weakness" because - after the long years and all they have taken from him - nothing matters but his comrades, his goal, his duty, and his god.

again, it's more of the same in terms of watering down more morally questionable beloved characters

Tbh, I actually am rather surprised that they rarely mention the other side of that coin. It doesn't both me so much, because I know it's there, but I think it's worth calling attention to in prose sometimes, too. We don't have to harp on it, just acknowledge the canonical context.

My appreciation for Gaius comes from a place of how uncomfortable it is to consider him. He really was his idea of benevolent/meritocratic, he really was his idea of just, he really was his idea of virtuous. What makes him interesting is that despite his antagonistic role, he often lived up to his own ideals early on - he truly believed the strong had a responsibility to lead the way, protect the planet, and rule the weak well. He also took it for granted that nobody else's perspective had merit, and if you went against his perspective you were either misguided and in need of a strong hand or an enemy of order to be ruthlessly exterminated. Why not continue to call attention to that second part every now and then when mentioning his "praiseworthy" qualities? lol

Again, it doesn't bother me so much, because I understand Gaius to be on more of an arc of atonement than redemption, in my eyes. I think he recognizes how myopic he was and wants to make amends for it, but doesn't give a damn whether anyone else thinks that "redeems" him. But I'd agree that we tend to gloss over the caveats perhaps too much too soon.