My Tolwyn Essay

I'm sorry for even mentioning Thrawn to begin with! Seems like it's being thrown about too much now. Instead, lets compare Tolwyn to MacArthur again. :)

Anti-Tolwyn reveree is kinda silly. It's like you're saying "He made this mistake, so everything he did previously was a mistake also and thus possibly evil.". The thing is, Tolwyn is the most fleshed out WC character and, esp by the end of WC4, the most human by far. His hubris got the better of him, just like any other truely tragic character.

If you see it from a broader perspective, you'll see that he was actually trying to help humanity. It wasn't like Tolwyn got up in the morning and said "I'm an evil, evil man. What evil things can I do?"
 
Originally posted by Zim
I agree, Thrakhath is no Thrawn, but he sure knew his tactics.

Was he behind the whole 'Hobbes' stuff?

Zim
Click to expand...

It's not clear in the PC version of the WC3 game, because they didn't include his farewell message to Blair, though it did make it on the Playstation version. The file is over in the files section, called The Hobbes Explanation. https://www.wcnews.com/files.shtml#wc3

Before I go on, to save myself excessive long senetences, Hobbes is my shorthand for the perosnality we knew in the games and novels up to WC3. Ralgha is the personality loyal to the Kilrathi Empire.

The novelization of WC3 explains that Thrakath came up with the plan to create the Hobbes personality and overlaid it on Ralgha. Hobbes was a construct and not a real individual. During WC3 the Prince sent a code which "woke up" Ralgha. He remebered what he did as Hobbes, but his true personality was loyal to the Empire. Therefore he was forced to "betray" Confed.

There have been a couple other views of these events argued here on the board. These are not canon because there is no offical endorsement of them. They are done, I think, partly out of sentimentality to Hobbes, who most of us really liked.

The first one is that Hobbes was never intended to go to Confed. Instead he was designed to seek out, join and then "betray" the rebellion emerging on Ghoarh Khar. Unfortunately the rebellion sent him to Confed to turn over his ship. Before Thrakath could do anything about it, Hobbes was out of his reach. Trakath, who does take the long view, when things go wrong, decides that it might be advantagous to have a sleeper agent in Confed and waits for the right time.

The first one, which part of me likes, because I really did like the Hobbes character, that the "true" story is that the disaffected Hobbes we meet in Freedom flight and the games is the true personality. The loyal to the Empire personality is the overlay and was done at the time of his interrogation. Again the thinking is that the Prince wanted to do something about the rebellion, and events got out of his control. Some have argues that the Prince was able to "waken" Ralgha during SO1 and then put him back into the Hobbes personality to enable him to escape from the Bonnie Heather.

Like I said all of this is speculation. The only facts the games/novels say, is that Hobbes was a personality overlay Trakath placed on his loyal subject Ralgha nar Hhallas. Trakath "woke up" Ralgha who remebers everything he saw as Hobbes, but his loyalty is to his Prince, so he "betrays" Confed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Wedge009
(...)
I do because I can, putty tat. Yes, I know AI can never compete, but he's as easy to kill as Seether. :)
Click to expand...

No, he isn't! <runs out of room crying like a little girl> ;)

Of course, everyone is easy to kill if you de-cloak behind him and then launch a full salvo of missiles at him. :) According to the manuals and novels he is a very good pilot.
 
Originally posted by Raptor
...the last third of the series was pretty much a non-stop series of defeats for Thrawn... it's not like Thrawn was cut down in his moment of triumph.
Click to expand...
Sorry for going back to Thrawn (I wouldn't compare him to Tolwyn in the first place) - that's an interesting perspective on the last novel, but at the very least, Thrawn realised that the New Republic fleets would be at Bilbringi. Had he won there, that would have been a triumphant moment. I still find it a bit unrealistic that he simply knew the Republic would be at Bilbringi, but then so is discerning behaviour from a culture's artwork. :) You'll also admit that at the very least, he realised that something was different about the Noghri.

Originally posted by Raptor
If it's cowardly to use cloaked fighters to destroy a planet killer deployed by people you're at war with and protected by an entire carrier battlegroup, then how much more cowardly is it to use cloaking fighters to destroy refugee transposrts and drop bio-weapons on civilians?
Click to expand...
Or to use cloaked fighters to infiltrate and destroy an entire homeworld.

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
This anti-Tolwyn stuff sort of bugs me, though...
Click to expand...
When I had only played WC2, I really didn't like Tolwyn, though I suppose that was deliberate. After playing the Special Ops, he seemed much friendlier. But I noticed he went back to his anti-Blair sentiment in WC3, and after his actions in WC4, I really didn't like him at all. But now, after hearing about his reasons and actions as detailed in the novels, I understand him a bit better, and accept his fate as one of those tragic things which you wish never happened, but is a whole lot more meaningful because it did.

Originally posted by LeHah
It wasn't like Tolwyn got up in the morning and said "I'm an evil, evil man. What evil things can I do?"
Click to expand...
Although that is an amusing way to think about him. :)

Originally posted by Shane
The first one is that Hobbes was never intended to go to Confed. Instead he was designed to seek out, join and then "betray" the rebellion emerging on Ghoarh Khar.
Click to expand...
Please make sure you realise that there are three Hs in Thrakhath, Shane. ;)

Isn't it accepted that Thrakhath implemented the personality overlay before the Ghorah Khar rebellion? This 'speculation' doesn't contradict official lines does it?

Originally posted by Shane
The [second?] one, which part of me likes, because I really did like the Hobbes character, that the "true" story is that the disaffected Hobbes we meet in Freedom flight and the games is the true personality.
Click to expand...
I like this story too, but this one does contradict official lines, and so I must accept that this explanation is not possible. Yet another tragic story in WC.

Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Of course, everyone is easy to kill if you de-cloak behind him and then launch a full salvo of missiles at him. According to the manuals and novels he is a very good pilot.
Click to expand...
Why de-cloak? That sounds very wrong. Uncloak is more correct, IMHO. And yes, I know you didn't come up with that Mekt.

Cloak or no cloak (remember WC2?), Thrakhath is easy to kill. And of course Thrakhath has to be a very good pilot. But it seems he rarely flies later in his career, so he's obviously lost practice! I doubt someone of his stature would deign to use a mere simulator to keep his skills up. :)
 
Oringinally posted be LeHah
Anti-Tolwyn reveree is kinda silly. It's like you're saying "He made this mistake, so everything he did previously was a mistake also and thus possibly evil.".
Click to expand...


Awwww. So you can bring up Tolwyn's success when it suits you, but pointing out his past mistakes and failures is somehow unfair? Or are we meant to buy that Tolwyn had never never ever made a mistake in his life until we got to WC4?

Actually, I'm not claiming that everything he did before WC4 was wrong. However, as his past military victories have been used as justification in this thread for claiming that he somehow knew better than anyone else, I was using his past history to point out that he has made quite a few mistakes and wrong calls in the past, so he is neither infallible nor omniscient. As his befeats with the Behemoth and in WC4 show, he has no more ability to predict the future than anyone else. That's what I was getting at, not trying to bash what he has done in the past. Now, if those who try to defend Tolwyn's actions want to keep the debate entirely what happened in WC4, then I'm happy to do that. Alternately, if they want to examine what happened in light of his past (which would include his failures as well as his successes), then I'm happy to do that, too. If his past is used as a defense though, then it's only fair that past is cross-examined to the fullest extent, rather than simply accepted as a glowing testimonial.

The thing is, Tolwyn is the most fleshed out WC character and, esp by the end of WC4, the most human by far. His hubris got the better of him, just like any other truely tragic character.
Click to expand...


This I agree with. What brought Tolwyn down in the end was the sheer arrogance of thinking that his way was the only one that could help humanity. And I'd call genocide and crimes against humanity a lot more than just a "mistake".

If you see it from a broader perspective, you'll see that he was actually trying to help humanity. It wasn't like Tolwyn got up in the morning and said "I'm an evil, evil man. What evil things can I do?"
Click to expand...


Again, we come back to the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Tolwyn might have been trying to help humanity (or at least that small portion of humanity that he deemed worthy of survival) but the broader perspective is that he plotted to kill billions of citizens of Confederation in cold blood. He violated the Confederation's laws and subverted its government because he was supremely convinced his way alone was right, and he was rightly punished for that. And he fact that he believed he was doing the right thing doesn't make one bit of differance to those who died, and all the others who would have died if he hadn't been stopped.

Re: Wedge's point about using using a cloaking fighter to destroy Kilrah being cowardly. We Kilrathi feel quite the same way, human. :) As for Thrawn, (and no, I'm not comparing him to Tolwyn here, LOAF) neither having suspicions about the Nogiri or being right about Bilbringi helped all that much. At the point he died, the battle was already turning gainst the Empire.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor
Awwww. So you can bring up Tolwyn's success when it suits you, but pointing out his past mistakes and failures is somehow unfair? Or are we meant to buy that Tolwyn had never never ever made a mistake in his life until we got to WC4?
Click to expand...

Not at all. :) I'm just saying that it seems some other people have the inclination that since Tolwyn was evil in WC4, he must have been evil through out the rest of the series. The man has failures and short comings, I'm sure. That's what makes him more human than less fleshed out characters like Flash, Hawk or even Maniac (who finally got a good amount of characterization in WC:p).

If his past is used as a defense though, then it's only fair that past is cross-examined to the fullest extent, rather than simply accepted as a glowing testimonial.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's only fair.

What brought Tolwyn down in the end was the sheer arrogance of thinking that his way was the only one that could help humanity. And I'd call genocide and crimes against humanity a lot more than just a "mistake".
Click to expand...

I still detest that you use the term arrogance when refering to "Old Geoff". I can't think of a term to replace it, but it just doesn't seem to fit to me.

No, his attempt at genocide wasn't at all a mistake. It was it's inteded purpose that went off the mark. ;)

Again, we come back to the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Tolwyn might have been trying to help humanity (or at least that small portion of humanity that he deemed worthy of survival) but the broader perspective is that he plotted to kill billions of citizens of Confederation in cold blood.
Click to expand...

I still wonder how many Confed civilians would have died in the end. And would Tolwyn do the same for ConFleet and the rest of the military?
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
(...)

When I had only played WC2, I really didn't like Tolwyn, though I suppose that was deliberate. After playing the Special Ops, he seemed much friendlier. But I noticed he went back to his anti-Blair sentiment in WC3, and after his actions in WC4, I really didn't like him at all.(...)
Click to expand...

When I first played WC4, I liked Tolwyn at the beginning of WC4 (I let him free when captured) because I thought he acknowledged Blair's exploits at last.

(...)

Why de-cloak? That sounds very wrong. Uncloak is more correct, IMHO. And yes, I know you didn't come up with that Mekt.

(...)
Click to expand...

Hmm, English is not my mother tongue but I am pretty sure to always have heard about "decloaking fighters". Never mind...
Yes, I remember WC2 (the first time I saw the prince!) and Thrakhath's defeat. But again: Who isn't easy to kill in WC2 when alone? ;)
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
Please make sure you realise that there are three Hs in Thrakhath, Shane. ;)

Isn't it accepted that Thrakhath implemented the personality overlay before the Ghorah Khar rebellion? This 'speculation' doesn't contradict official lines does it?

I like this story too, but this one does contradict official lines, and so I must accept that this explanation is not possible. Yet another tragic story in WC.
Click to expand...
I often screw up the spelling of his name which is why most of the time I either refer to him as the Prince or Thrak :)

As for the personality overlay, it has not, to the best of my knowledge, been established when it was done, but it would have to have been before he "defected." I'm not sure if you've ever had a chance to read Freedom Flight or not. One of the early scenes of the book has Hobbes meeting with a Priestess of Sivar who is part of the rebellion on Ghorah Khar. I don't think any shooting has started, at this time it sounds like the core of the leadership for the rebellion has been formed. They want to send Hobbes and his ship to Confed in an attempt to get support from Confed for their rebellion. The surrendering of his ship, they hope, will be seen by Confed as an act of good faith. The successful uprising on Ghoarh Khar was some time after the Firekka campaign, I'm sure LOAF has the date.

I think the main reason folks came up with the smoke out the rebels idea came about was some folks had a tough time believing the Prince would have believed it possible that he could get a Kilrathi in to a critical place and time to use him. Though, that is exactly what a sleeper agent is supposed to do. Like I said, these are all possible alternate interpretations of the facts, and not accepted as canon.
 
As for Tolwyn, I would say that he was arrogant, no matter whether he was an excellent commander or not, which he was. So was Patton.

His fall didn't happen all at once, either. He survived decades of warfare against a species that lived for it. He fought them so long that he became closer to them than he was to his own species. And he saw enough screwups on the part of the civilian leadership when they meddled in military affairs that he started to think that they didn't know anything at all.

So, by the time WC4 rolls around, he has this deep-running distrust of the civilian government, and mentally he has become more a Kilrathi than a Human.

As the promo for WC4 says he was "one man, deranged by war." Near-endless conflict had made him a man who knew nothing else, no other way than the way of violence. As Nietzche said, "For when one looks long into the abyss, one risks being consumed by it." Tolwyn was consumed by the abyss and became the monster who unleashed the gen-select on Telamon and deliberately tried to provoke a war on a people who posed no threat and just wanted to be left alone to live their lives.
 
Originally posted by Fenris
As for Tolwyn, I would say that he was arrogant, no matter whether he was an excellent commander or not, which he was. So was Patton.
Click to expand...

Calling Patton arrogant is a very, very stupid thing. Patton got the job done and did it effectively and was a goddamned good general. I don't think you can call someone arrogant if they can back it up like he can. Same applies for Tolwyn.

So, by the time WC4 rolls around, he has this deep-running distrust of the civilian government, and mentally he has become more a Kilrathi than a Human.
Click to expand...

I agree with the beginning of this statement, since Tolwyn really didn't trust anyone, even Blair, despite his service record. In the end, Tolwyn wasn't a Kilrathi but a Roman, bringing to mind the old axium "If you want peace, you must prepare for war."

As Nietzche said, "For when one looks long into the abyss, one risks being consumed by it.".
Click to expand...

Get the line right. ;)

"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
 
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
When I first played WC4, I liked Tolwyn at the beginning of WC4 (I let him free when captured) because I thought he acknowledged Blair's exploits at last.
Click to expand...
I thought the friendliness at the start was false, or forced, anyway, having experienced only the Tolwyn of the games. I still let him go anyway, because I didn't want to risk Confed raining fire if they found out about him. Of course, it turned out to be one of the less significant choices in the game, anyway.

Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
Hmm, English is not my mother tongue but I am pretty sure to always have heard about "decloaking fighters".
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm not blaming you, I think that's how everyone refers to the action of coming out of a cloak - it just sounds wrong to me. :)
 
LeHah: I will call Patton arrogant. Yes, he got the job done, but at a cost that could have been avoided. Too many men died who didn't have too under his command.

And hey, it's been a long time since I read the line, gimme a break.
 
Don't be a pompous airhead. You couldn't do better than Patton, so don't give me any bullshit that too many men were lost. Get some actual understanding of military tactics, followed by a backbone and then we'll talk.

Cost cost cost. One death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic. Cold hearted, but true and I don't think you like swallowing bitter medicine.


Originally Posted by Zor Prime
Tollwyn was a good commander and all, but in the end, he was just too pasionate about his job.
Click to expand...

That's the best goddamned description of Tolwyn I've heard yet. Completely, and utterly the truth.

BTW, Tolwyn has one L, not two. ;)
 
Originally posted by Zor Prime
Tollwyn was a good commander and all, but in the end, he was just too pasionate about his job.
Click to expand...

I would be more inclined to say that he become so passionate about one aspect of his job (defending Confed from alien threats) that he lost sight of the place his job had in the greater society. In a democracy, the military has to be subordinate to the lawfully elected government, which ultimately represents the people. And of course, the military, just like everyone else, has to be answerable to the law. Tolwyn wanted to achieve his goal so much that he was willing to shatter all that. In other words, he fixated so much on defending Confed against outside threats that he he didn't realise his own actions threatened to destroy everything that was good about the Confederation from the inside.

Regarding the use of the word "arrogant", to describe Tolwyn's actions in WC4, I think that it *is* arrogant for any one man to think he can unilaterally decide humanity's future, to say nothing of thinking you can decide what the "ideal" human is, and killing all the billions of people who don't measure up to your standards. As Paladin said at the end of TPOF, that path's been tread before. Whether Tolwyn himself can be called arrogant is debatable, but certainly his views and actions in WC4 were.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Shane


It's not clear in the PC version of the WC3 game, because they didn't include his farewell message to Blair, though it did make it on the Playstation version. The file is over in the files section, called The Hobbes Explanation. https://www.wcnews.com/files.shtml#wc3
Click to expand...

i downloaded that but i cant play it. how do i?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by LeHah

Calling Patton arrogant is a very, very stupid thing. Patton got the job done and did it effectively and was a goddamned good general. I don't think you can call someone arrogant if they can back it up like he can. Same applies for Tolwyn.
(...)
Click to expand...

Being arrogant doesn't mean that you are incompetent. Very able personalities can be quite arrogant because they know how good they are and that the others need them. Now, I didn't know Patton personally, nor do I know anybody who knew him but only because he is successful doesn't mean that he is not arrognat (or vice versa).

Wedge: I knew you didn't want to criticize me. :)

Well, you were right in the end that Tolwyn's friendliness in WC4 was false but I fell into it. But I got a suspicion when I once failed and got the "busted out" ending and Tolwyn refused to shake hands with Blair. I was really disappointed... :( (now that is arrogant behaviour IMO).
 
Originally posted by $tormin


i downloaded that but i cant play it. how do i?
Click to expand...

You have to unzip with something like Winzip. I believe it is an .rm file, so you'll need real player, which you can get at http://www.real.com

As for the talk of Tolwyn being arrogant, that's one of those words that depending on which dictionary you look at the meaning varies. The following three are from Webster, Dictionary.com and Encarta

1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance
2. exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance in an overbearing manner
3. feeling or showing proud self-importance and contempt or disregard for others

I can clearly see Tolwyn by WCIV falling into the #3 definition, particularly the latter part of the definiton. I agree with the comment that he was too passionate about the job of protecting confed from aliens. Actually, I think the word passionate should be repalced with obsessed. Towlyn by the time of WCIV was mentally ill, criminally insane, whatever.
 
LeHah, give me rank and service record before you claim a superior knowledge of military tactics. Until then, all your claims of my ignorance and incompetence are empty hot air.

You want an example of Patton's arrogance? Driant. He insisted that they attack and attack, and could not allow an attack by Third Army to fail, in an attack that in the end served no useful purpose. He threw hundreds of men into a meat grinder that they ended up having to pull back from. He wasn't the one who paid the price for this, it was the men who fought and bled and died in that fort. If you can blithely order men to die who don't have to, you don't belong in command, in fact you should be shot. If you ever consider military service, LeHah, I would urge you to reconsider. Stay the f*** out and let real soldiers do the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top