OnlineBookClub.org

King Cortex and Cormay killed Sconce so Cortex could initiate an alliance with Cormay, which would eventually bring the Chosen to his side and help him resist the Faithful, who Cortex viewed as a threat to the Kingdom. Cortex deliberately killed Sconce because he could not work with both Cormay and Sconce. Does this speak much to his character? Do you think a leader, especially a King, should explore every avenue to guarantee the safety of both his supporters and opposers? Was Cortex's decision justified, especially as a desperate attempt to shield the Kingdom from more destruction by both the s'orne and the Faithful, considering Darkton would then be considered as the most powerful city in the kingdom following the s'orne attack on Guerdon and Crystal cities?

Well, it depends. I agree that in some cases there needs to be a major sacrifice to establish a greater sense of safety and peace, especially within the people of a certain kingdom. However, the example these leaders would present to their people is not of safety but of tragedy. Sacrificing anyone for this matter just shows weakness.

I was surprised by King Cortez's ruthless move, as I didn't expect it. Some might argue that he did it for the benefit of the kingdom, as he saw Sconce as an obstacle to securing Cormay's alliance, which he believed was crucial for the kingdom's survival. However, a skilled leader should have the ability to maneuver and forge alliances without resorting to violence. While Cortez's focus on protecting the kingdom might be commendable, killing Sconce could be seen as a failure of diplomacy. A truly adept leader would explore other avenues to reconcile differences before resorting to violence.

The king's choice is far from ideal, and others already pointed out how it went against any diplomacy effort a king is supposed to make. However, facing what looks like a sudden s'orne invasion, the king felt he needed a quick solution and diplomacy can go on very long before reaching an agreement.

There shouldn't be need for leaders to sacrifice other leaders to forge an alliance. I think there should be so kind of manuever to this.

King Cortex's decision to sacrifice Sconce for the sake of forging an alliance with Cormay is a complex one, reflecting the often murky waters of leadership and decision-making in times of crisis. It does indeed speak volumes about his character, revealing a willingness to make difficult, even morally questionable decisions for what he perceives as the greater good. In the context of protecting his kingdom, Cortex's choice might be seen as a necessary evil, a harsh reality of leadership where the ends justify the means.

However, this action also raises important questions about the responsibilities of a leader. Should a king prioritize the immediate safety of his kingdom over the principles of loyalty and justice? Cortex's decision, while pragmatic, seems to overlook the potential long-term consequences of such a betrayal, both in terms of trust within his own ranks and his moral integrity.

In the grand scheme, whether his decision was justified is a matter of perspective, hinging on one's values about leadership, loyalty, and the costs of war and peace. It's a decision that undoubtedly shapes the narrative and the dynamics within the kingdom, setting the stage for further developments, especially considering the newfound power of Darkton in the wake of recent attacks.

King Cortez was morally wrong for sacrificing Sconce. First, he was a stand-in king and should not have made a political move that could lead to disaster. I expect in a sequel, Sconce's death could lead to his people revolting and attacking the kingdom.

Zanne Crystle wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 09:14 I was surprised by King Cortez's ruthless move, as I didn't expect it. Some might argue that he did it for the benefit of the kingdom, as he saw Sconce as an obstacle to securing Cormay's alliance, which he believed was crucial for the kingdom's survival. However, a skilled leader should have the ability to maneuver and forge alliances without resorting to violence. While Cortez's focus on protecting the kingdom might be commendable, killing Sconce could be seen as a failure of diplomacy. A truly adept leader would explore other avenues to reconcile differences before resorting to violence.

I couldn't agree more! There is something quite wrong about resorting to violence to defend the kingdom. What kind of message does this translate in the end? That the people should do it as well?

In realities and from scenes I have watched in war/historical movies, kings can go any miles to the least of things to do to prevent an attack or greater harm that looms on their kingdoms. I will say this idea is derive from history and how it is often done by past kings. Hence, I will say this peculiarity of the book has a logical base.

No one should sacrifice other people just for their own bit after all that is someone who has a family I truly believe there is always a solution that doesn't resort to violence

I disagree with the notion that sacrificing someone for an alliance is acceptable. It is unethical.

I can see the argument that it was a strategic play, securing Cormay's alliance to face the bigger threats. But, and it's a big but, a top-notch leader should have the finesse to navigate these waters without resorting to the sword. Diplomacy is a skill, right?

Sure, protecting the kingdom is a top priority, and I can respect that. But killing Sconce feels like a shortcut that might come back to bite Cortez. A true leader, in my book, would exhaust every other option before jumping to the drastic measure of taking out a fellow leader. Or had he already exhausted all options and this was the last ditch effort he had?

A leader should make every endeavour to ensure the safety of its own people. Also to look for peaceful resolution of the issues with the opposer. Although, there are situations which makes the leader or king to take the decision which is not ethical - to survive, to lead, and to protect the people of his own.

In a word, no. In any ongoing relationship there needs to be a sense of trust. There must have been another way that we couldn’t see. Having said that, though, I do realize that some sort of sacrifice had to be made. Preferably one that brought benefit to everyone involved.

I firmly believe that no circumstance ever warrants sacrificing the wellbeing of others in pursuit of one's own interests.