#i am drinking all this meta like fine wine
I’ve been seeing quite a few interesting meta posts about Zerxus and Asmodeus, and how Zerxus’ actions towards Asmodeus are signs of equally deep compassion and arrogance in thinking he personally can fix the lord of the hells by being kind. But what I’m surprised not to have seen is discussion of how the same character trait can be either positive or negative depending on the narrative.
Because do you know who Zerxus reminds me of? Jester.
Jester knew the Gentleman was a liar and a crime lord and generally bad news. She knew Artagan had decieved not only her but all his followers about being a god. She knew Essek started a war. And despite having been hurt and risking being hurt again, she stood by all of them.
And she was right. Her unconditional love was part of the reason all three of these idiots came to grow some morals. The Gentleman stepped away from crime and got back together with Marion. She stood up to a literal god for Artie and he saved her from its wrath rather than selishly letting her share his punishment (thereby unkowingly also saving himself). Essek risked his life to fight Lucien and Trent by their side.
In the narrative of campaign 2, Jester made the right choice to extend trust to the untrustworthy. But Calamity is by definition a tragedy, and we all already know Zerxus is making a mistake for which the whole world will pay dearly. But he doesn’t know, can’t know, because no one knows what kind of narrative they are in until it has reached its end. We all must simply choose our actions and see what happens.
And this is a tragedy. Kidness or cruelty, compassion or evil, action or inaction, nothing can change that. Zerxus’ choice was kindness. And so, this time, kindness will be our downfall.
