Whoa... where to begin?
Krunch, always the real-politician. He's got a shrewd mind, just like the archmage. So, the archmage and the dwarf officer have already given up on Kethenecia and just want to minimise the chaos? Does the human general know of this? Perhaps he suspects as much, which is why he was so depressed.
I noticed there's no reaction from Tavor, while Cale practically flips out and goes into emo martyr mode. Tavor keeps quiet and observes.
Poor Cale. He's such a good boy, helping the aging archmage to sit down and everything, and then the archmage flatly tells him Gamlon must be sacrificed to "the goal". Hrm. So, the "goal" is sitting around doing nothing for fear of unraveling the time line? What's so important about Kethenecia anyway, if the archmage already knows it will be destroyed? Fatalism at its best.
THere's something sick about considering your present as a future someone's past while you're living in it, and using that as a convenient excuse not to do anything... except that even if you think, no,
especially if you think the time line is set in stone and everyone's actions are
already part of it, why not simply do what you came to do? If everything is preordained, you CANNOT change/destroy the time line! But if the time line is NOT predetermined, then why not change it? Who says it will make things worse? How do you know that? Especially if you have a future time traveller sitting there who very much wants to prevent the fall of a nation? Who made you, archmage, the self-appointed guardian of the time line? (And where does that stupid Beholder fit into the puzzle?)
How does the archmage support his grand predictions anyway? WHY is the archmage so convinced that Kethenecia will be destroyed? (It's not like they know that Richard has already been busy "culling the herd".) Does the old geezer read the same prophecies as Krunch does, or did the time travellers tell him about the future they came from, off-screen?
Of course, I can understand if people want to limit time travel or prevent time travellers from interfering and changing everything at a whim, because then
all sides could try to change the outcome of events back and forth to their liking, and you'd have chaos.
"History must run its course"? Screw predeterminism. Philosophically, it doesn't work, even without time travel involved. Religiously, if I wasn't an atheist I'd consider it blasphemy because it means humans pretend to know the mind of God. But historically speaking it was very popular with the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) in the Middle Ages up to the 17th century, if I remember correctly. I could look it up, but I'm too lazy right now.
The only consistent example in literature I've read so far that elegantly unites the ideas of Free Will vs Predeterminism and "Destiny" comes from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels but especially from his (non-DW) novel "The Carpet People". The "Trousers of Time", man. Them mystics get to have their prophecies and predetermined destiny crap, and the rest of us gets to have the illusion of Free Will aka. "even the smallest hobbit can influence history, Frodo". There is not one History, but many, and Free Will means we get to chose which path to the future we will take. Since people usually can't see into the future, they don't go insane trying to second-guess history and are free to get on with their lives, which is how it should be, unless you're a History Monk. And even History Monks on Discworld can cheat from time to time...
Of course, history doesnt get unrailed by any random little thing at any given time; forget the "butterfly effect" aka popular misinterpretation of Chaos Theory; treading on an ant/killing a butterfly in the Cretaceous period a lá
The Sound of Thunder will not magically lead to a Nazi regime when you return to the present. "The sea does not care which way the little fishes swim." as the saying goes. Both mathematicians and historians agree that not every change in a system will necessarily destabilise it and set it on a different path. Only changes made at specific points in time, in the right place, will do, but if they occur, the consequences can be dramatic; such an event can be a small one, seemingly inconsequential at the time it happens, but from the point of view of historians looking back everything
seems like an unbroken string of events leading up to the inescapable conclusion.
Aynway. Where was I? I need some sleep. Been up all night, doing laundry. Stupid arthritis. Don't mind me, I'm just babbling.
Random observations:
First I thought the archmage was having aging spots. Then I thought, "No, those three spots on his forehead, they're way too geometrically spaced." In fact, unless I'm mistaken, are these gem stones? Look at the panels 8 and 9, the dots are green. In panel 9 you can see the lowest one on the archmage's forehead between the brows, and it looks convex, raised.
I notice Sooba did not try to stop Richard from killing people. I'm starting to wonder how Cale acquired his panther in the first place? Is Sooba like a ranger's animal companion? How intelligent is he? And why did Sooba, when we first saw him, attack Cale instead of the "bad guys"? Was it just meant a joke, cuz I admit, it
was pretty funny, less because of the situation itself but because of Benny's and Richard's reactions. Or was it meant to imply more and it will come up again later? And am I still making sense here?
QUOTE (Scryn @ Aug 23 2007, 06:47 AM)

How about this: Richard IS the arch-mage!
But then, wouldn't present-day Richard remember everything from this past? How he met everyone back when he was alive? Wouldn't he have known how to get to Kethenecia... no, I prefer it if characters are not stuck in a temporal loop.
I admit, Richard and the archmage
do look very similar in regard to their forehead and eyebrow areas. Hm. Perhaps the Gods of LFG baked all archmages/warlocks/wizards fom the same mold?