Godwin or Barrows (spoilers)

[Vincent Vingerhut]

From an ethical/moral way and based on their actions, which fraction was actually worse for Falena?


Although they balance eachother out throughout the game, I believe in the end Barrows was worse. Because they sought to enrich themselves through the missery of the people (like lordlake). Godwin, altough starting a civil war by seeking a coup d'etat, sought to strengthen the Falena rather than personal enrichment. Also even in the end, Marshal did not use the rune to defeat his enemies. He only melted the waters to seek the attention of Hero and his company. Especially during the event when Barrows visits you at his mansion at night and you accept his request, his evil intentions are revealed at best.

[Buff]

easily godwins are worse. look at what they did on their invasion of the sun palace. if it wasn't for them ferid and arshtat would be alive. but then again if it wasn't for the barrows arshtat wouldn't bear the sun rune. but i still say the godwins did more damange.
_________________


Devoted protector of Ferid and Arshtat

[Camus the Noble]

The Godwin faction, at the very least, sought what was best for Falena, although their methods were certainly not what most of us would consider morally correct. Like Jowy, Gizel thought that the only way to create a great Falena was to create a strong authoritarian state, and he used everything in his arsenal to achieve that goal. In the end, Marscal essentially did with the Sun Rune what Leon Silverberg did with the Beast Rune; he realized that the war was over, that he had lost, and wanted the incarnation of a perceived harmful True Rune to be defeated by his conquerors.

By contrast, the Barows faction (although Salum Barows was really the only effective member of the clan) never strived toward anything other than its own selfish advancement. Salum stole the Dawn Rune and conspired to create his own kingdom in East Falena. In retrospect, that was a rather stupid move, as that nation would almost certainly be eventually conquered by West Falena; even at that point it must have been painfully obvious. Gizel was not the type of person to let Falena continue to exist in two seperate states, and he had the superior military force as well as the pretense of legitimacy with regards to foreign nations.

Although neither faction can really be considered "evil" in the sense of "malevolent," I consider the Godwin faction to be more morally reprehensible on a practical level because of the "kill all beavers and dwarves" idea. (Does anyone know who was behind that scheme? It seems sort of out of character for Gizel or Marscal, but they do seem like the most probable candidates.) So, to answer your question as to who actually left the most negative effect on Falena, I would say that it was the Godwins. (However, the Godwins certainly did simply had a greater capacity to do so, as a result of the Barows' sheer incompetence.) On a philosophical level, however, the Barows faction is worse. The Godwins only wanted to make their nation stronger, which is, regardless of their methodology, a nobler goal than that of the Barows, who had only selfish purposes.

[Rune hunter]

I think Godwin is worse. Genocide,rebellion, using sick and twisted assassin who happened to kill godwin wife. The list goes on and on. Even if Godwin intentions were good it does not justify what he did.

Personally i don't think Barrows originally wanted to create there own nation. In fact his goal was at least decent. He wanted to create friendly ties with Armes. Even though Armes invaded and conquer most of Barows land. His goal was mearly money and power(and by obtaining this Falena could obtain peace.) Unlike Godwin who would have taxed the people, take all the young men, send people to a senseless war of conquest and possibly endangering Falena by using the Sun Rune.

On my first playthough i knew that godwin would most likely be the reason for the war and during the sacred games i wished that Barows would win becouse even though they were manipulating at least a war would not break out.

[Username]

In the end the Runes are the true source of evil. The power of the Sun Rune was more than likely what drove the Godwins to try and "clean" Falena. But then again hate or more better put a sense of highness above the "lower" races had to exist.

But in Suikoden black and white are always kicked away by gray. Which one was worse? You can't blame them for thier actions.
_________________

The pursuit of symmetry... Death The Kid, Patty and Liz.

SSBB Friend Code: Ace / 4339-2163-7352

[Archy]

Barow (Salum only) are definitely worse than the Godwins. The barows are seilfish. They do not give a damn about Falena, all they care about is money. the Godwins wanted a better Falena, although their methods are questionable, and obviously more bloody than the Barows. However, bing more bloody doesn't mean you're more wrong. It's more on what your goal is.
_________________

[El Regrs]

I don't think there's really a difference of evil between the two. They were both equally bad. Except one tried to hide it, and the other poorly justified it. I still don't buy those speeches Gizel and Marscal give you. I think Marscal was bitter and lost faith in the royal family after the death of his wife (and other nobles), so he wanted to be in control of things, while Gizel was just a brat with too much time on his hands.

Salum and, temporarily, Euram were just as bad. I'm not sure what Salum's true motive was, but like Godwin, he also lost family to the Nether Gate. And he hurt just as many people as the Godwins. Only he did it all with a smile on his face.

I'm thinking that the scars from all the noble-murdering were long-lasting for both the Godwins and Barows, and instead of seeing that Falena doesn't revolve around their own personal pain--instead of seeing what a better queen Arshtat was (for example, she made Nether Gate disband, and she, Haswar, and Sialeeds made that pact to ensure there'd be no bloody competition for the throne...this was all to prevent a repeat of what happened between her mother and Haswar's mother)--they had to stir up things and build dams and hurt people and incite riots and steal runes. There may be some grey here, but I don't think there's any justification for what either Barows or Godwin did.

[Rainrir]

Well....I think their policy (not their actions and intentions) are BOTH right in some sense.

Godwins were right that a powerful military and the existance of a superweapon (The Sun Rune) can help in perserving the Falaenian throne and, at least, secure the Falaenian Prosperity from a FOREIGN aggressor. Look at Swiss in WW2, Hitler never had the balls to invade this relatively small country because its armed forces(which every male citizen is a reserve soldier..yes its conscription) is relatively large for a small nation and it was effective, modern and well-equipped force.

Of course...should conventional arms fail for the Falaenians, they can still rely on the Sun Rune which is also power as our own nuclear weapons but unlike nuclear weapons, is not duplicatable. They never have to USE it..but the fact that its use is a POSSIBILITY discourage other nations to invade...even if they possess True Runes themselves (MAD..Mutally Assured Destruction..but not profilirable as there are only so many True Runes)

However, the Godwin stance that Falaena should be AGGRESSIVE and start conquering other nations is flawed. Hmm..not that I need to say anything, but take a look at aggresors both in the past and the present..You will get a pretty good idea. Financial burnout, native resistance and a populace unhappy about a decision to invade another nation, fighting needless wars will cripple Falaenian power and prosperity somewhat.

The Barrows believe that the cooperation between Armes and Falaena through trade is also correct. While trade relations ALONE do not prevent wars (proven by...World War 1) , extensive trade between nations(and I DO mean extensive,
not those "allow-this-not-that-trade agreements") helps their people to understand and be more tolerant to each other. Notice how port cities are almost always more tolerant and liberal in ancient times? Trade and increased contact with foreigners is one of the reasons why.

Furthermore, people and governments will be more unhappy with an idea of a war with a nation where they have extensive economic investment in (Falaenians owning farms/plantations in Armes, Armes having stores in Falaena etc.). Should Falaena/Armes trade relations reach that kinds of levels, it is rather safe to assume that a war between them will not happen..unless something drastic happens.

Of course, Barrow's stance that complete reliance on trade to promote peace and properity between the two nations is also flawed. Unfortunately, both nations are still monarchies....and prone to what I call the "three generations" effect where a tyrannical and uncompetent monarch will eventually assume power. Even in democracies this can happen, look at Germany in the Hitler Era and some of the African democracies..
Lets say Armes' next Emperor/King is from the more aggressive clans...and he really wants to start a war with Falaena. Times like this a powerful military will serve as a deterrent for Falaena to perserve the throne and the safety of the people.

Of course, Barrow's TRUE intent is less then noble..

That is why I do not believe in either side being completely correct in their ideals on how Falaena should proceed with its future. Both sides have good ideas that will benefit Falaena, but the extremes (not to mention intent) of the two noble houses can bring nothing but ruin if they are not modified and some parts of those ideas compromised. This is obviously something none of them are willing to do...heh...

[mumbay]

I say their actions are worse and seeing their actions i see that Godwin is worse since they attacked the Sol Falena castle when it was known that they would get some power. Instead they use Nether gate and such and more over cheated in the Sacred games. How sacred is that. Also burning down a village is bot my idea of a good intention. It is more over just horrible.

Barrwos on the other hand just incited the riot, got lordlake burnt to they ground, and stole the Dawn Rune. IN my opinion Godwin's were worse by a hair. the barrows are almost as worse since the whole lordlake incident.

[Prince Falenas]

How could anyone think the Godwins are better for Falena than the Barows?! Godwin had Nether Gate (who were the same group that killed his wife, mind you) go try to wipe out the Beavers and the Dwarves! A homogeneous Falena is a Falena I wouldn't want to live in!
_________________

Thanks, Dew Dust!

[John Layfield]

While I'm sure coming to the realisation that they both have good and bad points has shocked so many of you that you feel compelled to point it out and then not answer the question, I think I'll do just that. :wink:

So, in the case of which faction was worse for Falena? They both would have eventually brought about the demise of the nation. Fact is, the Godwin faction would have been a violent expansionist dictatorship which would have quickly earned the ire of the international community leading to its downfall even with the Sun Rune, as postulated by Salum Barows.

Meanwhile, Salum Barows had planned to sell out his territory to New Armes which would have thrown the country into war. Of course, the end result, if all went as planned, would be the eventual annexation of all Falena by New Armes.

As a side-note, I think that the Godwin policy of genocide marks them as more reprehensible than the Barows family. Not to exonerate Salum, of course.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.

[Prince Falenas]

[Calvin]

From an ethical and moral standpoint, the Godwin's were worse. Had they had it there way they would have commited genocide against two races.

While I believe it true that the Godwin's at least thought that they were loyal to Falena, the Barrows house, it seemed, could care less. They were poised to sell the nation out to Armes and create a nation of their own. And while the Barrows directly contributed to the destruction of Lordlake, they never attempted Genocide.

So, while both were obviously morally bankrupt, if I had to pick the greater of two evils, I'd pick the Godwins.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

[mumbay]

Uyhh i think we should bring up the fact that no one is evil they just have different points of views on the way actions should be done and such

[John Layfield]

That's a pile of hooey. If you don't think the genocide of an entire species for a pathetic reason such as cultural homogeny is evil then you're most likely morally bankrupt.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.