Inheritance discussion

So I'm just reading the last book of the series and was thinking... why does everyone want to kill Galbatorix so badly?

Sure, he killed all the riders and dragons but what's done is done.

How is he being a bad king at the moment?



P.S. Please don't ruin anything... I just arrived at when they attack Gil'ead

They want to kill the king because he's evil! He wants power over everything. I mean he tortures people to get information out of them and plays with others who want to defeat him. Letting them think they're close to killing him then killing then killing them.

ok so I finished the book now.

But I mean... he wasn't horrible to all of the population. He just took care that he stays in power, which kings usually do anyways. Nasuada has to as well.

I'm not saying he was a good person, just that his reign wasn't all that horrible.

Rhine wrote: "ok so I finished the book now.

But I mean... he wasn't horrible to all of the population. He just took care that he stays in power, which kings usually do anyways. Nasuada has to as well.

I'm no..."

He's seducing you through the pages! Resist!

The only reason that they really had to kill him was that the wanted to restore the glory days of the Riders, when all was fair and just. And he was too powerful to just lock up. And they can't just put him in a box and toss it of a bridge. He's not kittens.

Who says the Riders will be peaceful and everything? They live forever - Eragon himself said that no one should have immortal rulers. Sure Galby is powerful, but Eragon's pretty powerful too. Maybe we should get rid of him...

Naw. I'm pretty sure that he'll manage to accidentally kill himself in some meaningless and petty way.

I'm totally team Galbatorix. Where is the oppression? Where are the ridiculous taxes? The secret police? The fugitives fleeing the country? Genocide? Closed boarders? Disappearing citizens?
All in all, Galby seemed to have a pretty good hold on the country and knew how to run it. The bad things that he did can be counted on one hand. He killed the riders in a fit of madness. But that was hundreds of years ago. He allied with the urgals. But so did Eragon and company. And anyhow, thousands and thousands of soldiers wouldn't have died if the Varden hadn't rebelled. And that's just how it is.

Galbatorix was evil and crazy from the loss of his first dragon. He killed so many innocent people. He brought back slave trade. What value do you place on freedom? He would give live humans to the Ra- Zac thats horrible and so wrong. He wanted to rule dwarves and elf's as well which would have resulted in a huge loss of life eventually. And he enslaved hundreds of dragons hearts. Holly Crap who wouldn't want to Kill Him. He is going to live forever as well so yeah he needed to be killed no alternative

Bryce wrote: "Galbatorix was evil and crazy from the loss of his first dragon. He killed so many innocent people. He brought back slave trade. What value do you place on freedom? He would give live humans to the..."

Actually, where does it say that he killed innocent people? And didn't that random cult feed themselves to the Razac of their own accord? The hearts were a bummer though.

Galbatorix was in his own little world people did mildly good under his regien only because he killed any one who anoyed him. He said that the riders stoped humans knowledge from expanding when he did the same thing. Which in my opion is rather ludicrise. Also he made shades and let them roam free in Algaesia. Besides any one who plays with bugs that dig into your skin is definatly evil.

I think that Galbatorix was definitely an evil character- well, he was supposed to be at least. he did plenty of stuff that prevented him from being a good guy, but as I said in my review:

Galbatorix is not a good villain. Why? Because he never actually does anything bad that the readers witness. Sure, he killed the riders and the dragons and betrayed them, yada yada yada. But that happened 100 years ago, and we never ‘see’ it happen, in memories or in a flashback. How are we, the readers supposed to not just care about the betrayal, but connect enough emotionally with the Varden that we agree that he should die, that we want to march with the Varden to go personally destroy him, when we just hear stories about what happened and are told that ‘it happened a while ago’? During the course of the books, we never personally witness Galbatorix himself doing anything evil. We see plenty of other people acting on his orders, but Galbatorix himself remains detached, just a distant, smoky figure in the background. We never really believe that we will fight him, so when we finally reach him Urû'baen it’s with a sense of disbelief. Even when we meet him in person he’s not evil enough. He’s too damn charming . Villains can be charming, sure, but underneath that you can still sense that they’re lunatics. Galbatorix was charming, but almost in a nice way. When he spoke, I found myself agreeing with him a frightening amount of the time. He just seems like a regular, easygoing guy who happens to be a bit extreme on some points. Quite a few of the other characters we’ve meet throughout the story were scarier and eviler than Galbatorix- and some of them were GOOD GUYS, for god’s sake. You almost- no, you really do feel sorry for him when he dies. And the worst part is that this all seems to be completely unintentional on Paolini’s part. Galbatorix fails as an ultimate baddie, and the whole book suffered as a result.

I think we were supposed to think he was evil, and I'll admit he probably wasn't the nicest guy ever. But the way it was executed was badly done. You should never be questioning whether or not the villain is evil unless that author INTENDS for it to be more ambiguous or it's one of those things where who's good and who's bad is all up to your interpretation (ex: Death Note, Dexter, Artemis Fowl, even things like Reservoir Dogs, Memento, and The Usual Suspects). Otherwise, it's just sloppy writing.

the thing about fantasy is that there does not have to be a definite line between good and evil - its not crime fiction. they are making the reader ask themselves whether the varden is doing the right thing by blurring the lines between good and bad, and i think thats intentional. why else would villagers be saying they are afraid of the varden, not Galbatorix's soldiers. and why would that random woman have called Roran a murderer and tried to empty a chamberpot on his head?

I actually felt that the book displayed some intelligent thought on this issue.

Galbatorix deserves to die, because he is a mass murderer and nearly committed genocide on the dragons.

Buuuut, by the standards of the time (lets just say "the past" by our perception) he's actually a pretty good king. Sure, he's a bit tyrannical, but all kings were in our history, so thats not really a big deal.

So I say kudos to Mr Paolini for raising this issue, and not letting the whole "evil king" thing become black and white, which it is in a lot of respected fantasy works (Lord of the Rings, being just one.)

I found myself wondering that a lot in this book, and I don't think it was dealt with particularly well (at least in this volume... I know the topic was addressed while Eragon was in training with the elves).

As a villain, he was too detached, too distant, and the "evil" things that he did were either in the distant past, were a few steps removed (done by those under him, like the Ra'zac), or were things that the Varden themselves had done as well (such as ally with the Urgals, use magic to control others, or kill innocent people). As a reader, I didn't feel hatred for him, or that the Varden HAD to win to bring him to justice... I was kind of indifferent about him, and I think that weakened the climax when it finally came time to kill him.

It seems many readers have been seduced by the King's silver tongue.

I may be remembering this wrong but didn't Murtag talk about how when he was with Galbratorax a town leader did something that the king didn't like so he decided to destroy the whole town?

Like all delusional dictators, Galbatorix saw what he did as a good thing. His primary argument was that everyone from magicians to elves were out of control, and that only he could do something about it. If they were all under his rule by force, there would be no war, only peace. When Eragon put that spell on him, Galbatorix realized the pain and the suffering that he had actually caused to all of his victims let alone the dragons. Yes Galbatorix overthrew the Riders a hundred years ago but those eldunari he controlled were still alive. A great deal of them, were tortured, killed (in body), subjugated by force and eventually driven mad by Galbatorix. Their combined pain and suffering under him were so great Galbatorix killed himself just to escape it. Eragon and Saphira needed to kill Galbatorix because as they were Rider and Dragon having no interest in serving the King, their only option under Galbatorix was subjugation or death as was anyone who opposed anything he did. The Varden represented the people who did not flourish but suffered under his rule, the elves and the dwarves joined them because they knew that if Galbatorix had the strength, he would wipe them all out if not force them to serve him. That's why both races were in hiding. Surda joined the Varden for the same reason as eventually did Eragon and Saphira. Galbatorix killing and enslaving the dragons also hurt the entire elven race as well. Yes, Galbatorix wanted to bring back the riders and dragons, but only to subjugate them as he did the eldunari, Murtagh and Thorn.

he is kind of like Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter because he thinks that his way will save bloodshed, but really he is crazy and his plan won't work

Joe Odran wrote: "I actually felt that the book displayed some intelligent thought on this issue.

Galbatorix deserves to die, because he is a mass murderer and nearly committed genocide on the dragons.

Buuuut, by ..."
...Are you serious? He didn't intend that at all. His mentality is full black and white! When Sloan is raped (yes, mindraped but it's still the same) by Eragon it's fine because he's the 'hero'. It's not a question, an issue, but the fact that he must be the villain and that's all. Like in hollywood movies of old. It's just sloppyness in pure state.

Gloria wrote: "I may be remembering this wrong but didn't Murtag talk about how when he was with Galbratorax a town leader did something that the king didn't like so he decided to destroy the whole town?"

It's the problem. Most of Galbatorix evil deeds are told not shown. We don't have, say, a town that didn't pay it's taxes on time and got destroyed by the king himself. That would've been an evil deed.

The acts that Galbatorix may have been in past tense but what he did is a great crime but he was doing a lot of present crimes as well since he forcefully made people bring out his evil.

- In the destruction of the riders the book says that with it,he ended of what was considered a golden age and of great safety. He took that away and make his subjects have fear.

- In the case of the Eldunari, they were tortured, stripped of their mental companions (for bonded dragons), and enslaving them to a point where they were mad. Shruikan is a sad case, his true rider was killed and of so much abuse from Galbatorix he was utterly mad there was no way to free him.

- For people out there that say that the Varden teamed up with the Urgals as well, there is a major difference. With Galbatorix, their minds were twisted to work for him while they agreed by their own will to fight alongside the Varden.

- I understand that most of his great crimes were not seen but it does not mean we can sweep it under the carpet. We will barely see a serial killer yet you will think he will need to be brought to justice, this is almost like that scenario.

- Galbatorix FELT the pain that he had caused and that lead to kill himself. Who will kill themselves unless the pain was great?

Erick wrote: "The acts that Galbatorix may have been in past tense but what he did is a great crime but he was doing a lot of present crimes as well since he forcefully made people bring out his evil.

- In the..."

1) We are told all that by the enemy, the ones who wish to dethrone him. If we were shown of that time, we could belief so, but it's only told, and by his enemy.
2) Again, we are only told and there's no knowledge of the edulnaris until bricks 3 and 4 with bad foreshadowing on brick 2.

3) Again... this is plainly contrievances used by Paolini and a poor excuse to boot. "No, we weren't willing to do THE THING WE MOST LOVE!" Is weak beyond question. It's another of the problems of Paolini: the abuse of the 'I can't/couldn't do anything to oppose that'. Look, I wouldn't finish this if I started rambling on this point, but the explanations is just plainly weak.

4) Just one word: ERAGON. We not only are told (his sycophants mention his deeds quite often) but shown the atrocities he commits: raping an old, tortured, man; bullying and mistreating a fucking two year girl; killing unarmed people when there were non-violent better options; and let's not forget his stalking issues. He is not brought to justice, but lauded as a hero. By that rule, the Urgals who fought on trondheim should be killed, Murtagh and anyone who served the empire purged.
5) You're speaking about a 100+ year old fellow who fought in a war and had to deal with ruling a kingdom-and there are always problems when leading a kingdom. Just think this: if you kill a man you cause said man enough pain to kill him, plus the psychological scars you cause on his family-which are brutal. Make it, perhaps, twenty or fourty deaths- a small quantity judging by the body counts that named characters accomplish in this series- and families and I can tell you that's enought pain to kill yourself. And who says he wasn't in truth a sensitive man? Again, our only accounts are those of the enemy. Hell, even the accounts of the enemy are good if you look properly: he divides his army, weakening his offensive capabilities in order to defend the cities were the populace retreated; he doesn't burn the fields so the populace can have crops (and the vardens, the oh so called defenders of good, destroy them instead of, dunno, USING THEM AS FOOD!); etc.

I said it once and I say it again: Paolini fails epicly. At first I liked his books but once I read more and started writing you notice that he makes horrendous fails.

I thought for all the build up that there was ,there simply is not enough information about Galbatorix's character. He was just not developed enough and his role is more like a guest appearance which is ironic since he is one of the major characters!

From whatever little we got to see of him ,I too felt that he was not very cruel. But to Paolini's credit he did not paint Galbatorix as pure evil. That would have been an easy thing to do. He made him more of a grey character and I liked that. In Galbatorix's mind he was doing the right thing. Even Oromis felt so, so that chain of reasoning was interesting but yeah I would have loved to see more of Galbatorix to decide how evil he was.

Its weird that people always forget that the slave trade flourishes under Galbatorix, that he employs that Razac and feeds them innocent people. That he sends an army to attack the dwarves, a sovereign nation outside of his rule. He killed all the dragons and dragon riders (but people just wave that aside as if time makes that less important?) He enslaves Murtagh and Thorn. He is an immortal ruler, which Eragon points out isnt a good thing. Also, he is a king that has absolute power, which uh... isn't a good thing for obvious reasons.
However, people are pointing out that Galbatorix seems to have gotten better and is a decent ruler. But you say it as if its a bad thing to the story? As others have mentioned, that just makes Galbatorix a more interesting and round character.

Its also hilarious in this thread the people trying to make out Eragon as a bad guy. Reading some of these comments sounded like propaganda for Galbatorix lmao.
Eragon's choices and mistakes allow the reader to decide just how good Eragon is. The fact that he messes up or acts overly harsh in scenarios makes him round. I guess you guys just want stupidly shallow characters or something that are either good or bad, but not inbetween.

Slave trade happens only in one place: Dras Leona, which is also the place where they feed innocents to the Ra'zac.

And really, they are at war with the dwarves. Just that they have spent decades with a de-facto ceasefire. Re-starting hostilities when there's a strategic need to is not "evil", it's military reality.

And really, an absolute monarchy is not necessarily a bad thing. The alternative in the middle ages, which this series is clearly inspired on, is... well, an ultra oligarchy of "nobility". Stable leadership is also pretty good for a kingdom, so him being inmortal isn't bad either.

And enslaving Murtagh and Thorn is a word a tad too disingenous, considering the amount of free leeway in functions he could still have. The whole magic oath is basically an oath of loyalty, like the one that i... just like all countries that practiced or still practice conscription.

The whole issue is that Galbatorix is not evil. He's just a middle ages' monarch. That's it. Nothing that he does is really evil, bar killing the dragon riders... whom are all dead off screen long ago. And that's the great issue: most of his evil stuff either happens offscreen or it has a fair chunk of sound logic, like *gasp* attacking the enemy.

On the other hand you have Eragon blackmailing a three-five (whatever Elva's age was) year old into going into a warzone, just so he can use her as a mine detector, regardless or the massive amount of pain it causes her. And that kills unarmed people (the captain at the end of book 3 approaches him unarmed) or people uncapable of hurting him whatsoever (the guy from that extra chapter he published online a few years later) and is generally a sociopath.

Elves that kill actually innocent people (and this is something that happens)... for reasons, really, as they take a city they could have conquered with faaaar less bloodshed than what they did get through.

Or Nasuada wanting to go full 1984 on the wizards, something that not even Galbatorix considered. Plus she does not understand how economics work.

Oh, and seeing people around her usually go for modern day values when analyzing this work: chemical warfare is a warcrime, like the one the vardens comitted during the burning plains.

You clearly don't understand what makes a character "round". Consistency is a key factor, something that the paper cut-out that is Eragon (or the rest of the "cast") lacks. Nothing sticks on it.

Holy moly. The excuses you are willing to make for this villain because you want to dislike the book is incredible.

"Slave trade happens only in one place" As if that makes it better?
"Which is the place where they feed innocents to the Razac" Exactly??????? How does that NOT support Galbatorix's being evil? He condones both the slavery and the feeding of the Razac. The Razac that he employs and does not kill, despite their evil nature and feeding on humans. But I guess that doesnt matter to you because "GALBATORIX IS WRITTEN POORLY, REEEEEE" So ridiculous...

Attacking the enemy is a military reality, sure. But who started the war? I guess you think Germany continuing WW2 is completely justified because its "a military reality"? Lol. No. Hopefully you dont say that, and in a similar way, its just as ridiculous to say the same for Galbatorix. He is the aggressor, attacking and invading the dwarves sovereign borders. So yes they are at war, but no, the war doesnt make it ok. The war is unjust.

An absolute monarchy is not necessarily a bad thing. Ok. Right. Thats why every modern civilized first world country in the modern world has monarchy in power. Oh wait. Actually theres only 6 in the world left, and none of them are first world countries with equality or powerful economies. Hmmm.
Lmao. Him being immortal isnt bad either? I implore you to say that to any student or expert of social sciences or of political sciences. Ask them, "Would it be bad or unjust to have an absolute monarch that is immortal?" Lmao. Since you clearly lack the critical thinking skills to answer that question yourself, and you will likely disregard what I say, ask a third party. Ask two. Ask 10. Ask 100.

"Enslaving Murtagh and Thorn" Uh WHAT. He made them swear in the Ancient Language to do as he says. That is enslavement even worse than slavery in the real word because slaves in the real world can escape and can technically disobey freely, although there would be consequences. Murtagh has to try to find loopholes and technicalities to allow Eragon to live or continue in freedom after fighting on the Burning Plains. AND he says that Galbatorix will punish him and fix his oaths so there cant be more loopholes. And sure Murtagh and Thorn have some leeway, but specific actions are still completely decided by another person, and they arent simply being told to do things, their minds were invaded and they were broken and they were FORCED to follow his orders. And I guess since slaves like in America before the civil war technically had some leeway, and they were fed and clothed and had shelter, i mean was it even slavery at all???? Lol. More ridiculousness.
Oaths of loyalty for conscription do not literally force actions. It is still up to the person to do just or unjust things. Also, conscription itself is EASILY arguably unjust as well. I love that you just casually ignore that aspect.

"The whole issue is that Galbatorix is not evil. He's just a middle ages' monarch."
yeah I mean thats just blatantly fallacious. Utterly.
I dont expect to change your mind, because youre clearly willing to believe whatever bullshit you think of and make exceptions for Galbatorix that you arent willing to make for Eragon or other protagonists lol
But no, Galbatorix is not just a middle ages' monarch. He is immortal. He enslaves people people by breaking into their mind and forcing their loyalty magically, he condones slavery and horrific religions and the torture and eating of humans and employment of the razac. he killed hundred or thousands of dragons and riders. He basically enslaved Shruikan, the dragon he steals after he loses his first dragon. He attacks the dwarves, a foreign sovereign nation. He runs an absolute monarchy with where the people have no say.
And just because the main bad act he did was "offscreen" doesnt make him less bad lmao
What did Sauron do on screen that made him bad? What did King Aerys Targaryen do on screen? Lmao, that argument is completely meaningless and unsubstantiated with two other majorly acclaimed and successful works.

"Nothing that he does is really evil... or it has a fair chunk of sound logic, like *gasp* attacking the enemy"
Yeah this is one of the more stupid things you said. Ive already said how I disagree that nothing he did is really evil lol, and how attacking the enemy in a war that was unjustly started is OBVIOUSLY unjust and evil lmao
I wont bother going into all that again.

And I didnt disagree that Eragon and the other protagonists make mistakes.
Thats the point is that Eragon isnt a flawless perfect character. Hell, if he was, youd probably be complaining about that instead.
Eragon has been fairly twisted by the changed his mind and body have undergone and his experiences. He's killed hundreds of people, many of whom he was in their mind when it happened, and he died with them and then returned to his mind. He is pretty numb when he fucks up, and thats not an excuse. However, he doesnt make a habit of killing innocents, he kills the razac, he doesnt ask for peoples undying loyalty, he has other peoples best interests at heart, he is digusted by the slave trade, he supports the individual sovereign nations. And he reflects on his fuck ups and mistakes and his killing and despises at great length, especially at the start, discusses how he is haunted by the people he has killed. It gets easier, and he gets a lot more numb to it, but he still doesnt revel in it. And at the end he isnt a 100% perfect character.

Yes, chemical warfare is considered a war crime. yes its bad that they did that thing. What of it? As Ive said, singular fuck ups while genuinely acting with good intentions (key word genuinely) doesnt make you evil. The United States and allied powers used chemical warfare in WW1 and other times, but we dont just automatically consider them evil.

Lmao, and no... Nasuada didnt go full 1984 on the wizards. I dont remember the EXACT wording of it I admit though, But 1984 is a huge exaggeration of what she wanted.

Holy shiiit. Yes, I do know what makes a character round.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica, "round characters are complex and undergo development, sometimes sufficiently to surprise the reader."
Consistency is not required. AND even if it was required, a characters eventual growth and development doesnt count as inconsistency LOL, good god.
I like that you openly admit to Eragon's flaws and struggles, and then call him a paper cut out. Honestly, I cant take your seriously, youre either being completely disingenuous and trolling me, or you are just too determined to think what you want to think. Either way you are just blatantly disregarding your own double standards, and disregarding what Ive said, and disregarding the truth about things in the book and things about justice and evil.