Goodkind XII

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Has anyone else the episode of Invader Zim with the Chicken That Is Not A Chicken (but actually a man in a chicken suit who thinks he's a chicken)?

"Chickenfoot is a mass of chicken evil!" indeed.

That must surely be what Goodkind is referring to, no?

[Guest Raidne]

Yes, Goodkind is fond of Ayn Rand's work. If you read the Fountainhead you would be a fan of hers as well.

Gee, I don't know. If I couldn't even get through The Brothers Karamazov, how could I ever think of attempting to read an intellectually rigorous work like The Fountainhead?

Oh, and I think it's weird when women characters act like they like to get raped. Unlike Terry Goodkind.

[MinDonner]

Original | scoobydew's comment | My reply

* Richard Rahl is the hero. He wields the Sword of Truth, which has the word "Truth" embossed on the handle. He is also a War Wizard, which is basically a type of rare wizard that can do all sorts of special magic. He is used as the paragon of morals and virtue, and of Objectivist doctrine. He wears what is described as a "war wizard outfit."

------------Yes, but remember that the books are not only about objectivism but also about romanticism which is the representation of human beings in their greatest light rather than as the shit that seems they are usually portrayed as by say all religions.

"Wicked are thee so we shall need to repent for our sins". Nonsense.

A few points here - Richard is certainly not portrayed as "a human being in (his) best possible light" - he often makes choices that most of us find abhorrent, for example slaughtering unarmed protestors. When this happens in the real world (eg. Tian'anmen Square) it is rightly condemned, but Goodkind typically makes excuses for Richard's actions so he can still be the unsullied hero. Instead of SHOWING us that Richard is good, by having him do good things, he TELLS us that Richard is good despite all the atrocities he commits.

Also, we are not arguing that religion is better or worse than Objectivism; some aspects of religion are bad and some are good, but the topic isn't really relevant. I am an atheist and I still think Objectivism sucks.

* While being tortured by the enemy, Richard used his magic power to kick an (evil) 8-year-old girl in the jaw in a convoluted escape plot; the phrase used by Goodkind to describe this power is "Richard's thing rose up in him".

----------Not exactly. Richard is captured by a torture expert called a Mord-Sith who immobilizes him through magic. He is able to partition his mind in order to save his core self from the evil inflicted on him and eventually he is able to reach his inner power which allows him to now control his body in order to escape, although briefly. He demonstrates this new found ability by kicking the princess, who also was torturing him, and showing visually that he hasn't given up his will to be free.

Kicking a little girl in the face is not an acceptable thing for a grown man to do under any circumstances. If Richard had done this to try to escape from his torture, or if the girl had been an active threat, then perhaps it would have been more understandable, but we would expect a "good" man such as Richard to at least feel bad or guilty about it afterwards. Simply doing it to demonstrate that he still has free will is a poor excuse.

* In one book, Goodkind creates a nation of pacifists as a strawman argument to display why Pacifism is Wrong. The pacifists stage a peaceful demostration to stop Richard from going to war; Richard slaughters the protestors, who are "armed only with their hatred for moral clarity."

--------No. Not true. Richard deals with people who are looking for peace but who end up getting murdered by "people" calling themselves the Imperial Order who believe that man is the crap of the world and that anyone who doesn't believe this is a heathen who needs to be purged by rape, torture, or forced conversion. He tries to save them by telling them not to bend over so easily.

The various political systems created by Goodkind to demonstrate his opinion of other philosophies are just a joke. It is never explained how these "pacifists" came to have an empire in the first place - it's not a well-crafted political system, it's just an excuse for TG to say "Aha! If you refuse to fight, you're stupid and you can't defend yourself!" and then "prove" this with the situation he's set up. Similarly with the Imperial Order - there is no parallel to this in human history (if you discount the distorted Reds Under The Beds view of Communism and a similarly warped view of Islam) as a society like that simply wouldn't function. In the short-term, maybe, but not for long enough to have built up an empire of that size.

Anyway, Richard's actions in this context - encountered by a crowd of unarmed people begging him to stop the war, he cuts them all down with his sword so he can get through. If American troops had opened fire on a peaceful protest, would you have agreed that that was justified?

* Richard learns super fighting skills just by holding his sword; he also learns things like how to grab arrows out of the air and advanced algebra. Later, he can learn this from any sword, not just a magic one.

---------No, again, not true. He had sword fighting ability prior but when he held the Sword of Truth it gave him some knowledge of those who had used it before him. His wizard ability gave him the ability to snatch an arrow or two by instinct out of the air kind of like the force powers in those realistic movies known as Star Wars 1-6.

You don't deny that he learns extra skills from his sword, which is fair enough - but this gives him the super ability to defeat 30 trained fighters at once, which seems a little silly. Even Luke Skywalker had to train.

* Richard, while captured by the enemy, manages to steal a sword by pretending to stretch, then kills several dozen soldiers before being captured again. The captain of the guard is so impressed that he asks Richard to be on his sports team. (Yes, this really happens!)

-----------Yes, this is true but know that the captain of the guard is of the Imperial Order and they are impressed by all things violent. They also have no idea who Richard really is. The sport which is called Ja La Din(The Game of Life) would make rugby look like a pillow fight.

If Charles Manson had been really good at baseball, do you think they'd have let him out so he could bring victory to the warden's favourite team?

* Richard makes very long speeches. Very, very long speeches.

-----------No, sort of. He makes a long-winded speech in the eighth book Naked Empire which was considered the worst book in the series. If he opens his mouth in other books its usually with a point and usually only briefly.

Fortunately, most of his speeches were too long for Moose to post so I'll have to leave this one for someone else to answer.

* Richard's latest battle tactics are simple - his army of D'Harans is too small to take on the huge enemy army, so instead he orders them to go to the enemy homeland and slaughter all the civilians, removing the ears of anyone who preaches the enemy faith. Because this is the only moral thing to do.

-----------Partly true. He and his forces are greatly outnumbered(500,000 vs 15,000,000+) so he orders them to attack the huge homeland of the Imperial Order and to kill all those who support(by supply trains) the huge invading army. He only mentions to one of the key platoon leaders to remove the ear of anyone who insights the people of the Order to fight the heathens to the north. It's dramatic but since it's words on a page you have to have something colorful to say.

It sounds like you're not entirely convinced by this yourself. There are lots of "colourful" events in the books, but it doesn't make them good.

* Kahlan is Richard's wife, and a Confessor, which gives her the power to magically bind men to her will as permanent slaves. She is almost raped at least 9 times throughout the series, but always manages to escape/be rescued in the nick of time. On one occasion, she is attacked by a chicken "...but it was not a chicken. It was evil incarnate." It has an evil cackle.

----------Partly true, again. She has a magic that was passed down her family line from wizards long ago that gives her the power to discover the truth about corruption that was plaguing the lands she is from. The magic she has destroys the individuality of the person she uses it on though and makes them loyal to her for as long as they live. The men and the women, including Kahlan, are fighting for their survival so yes attempted rape does happen from time to time. The Smurfs it is not. The chicken was kind of like a Demon in disguise.

Yes, attempted rape (and actual rape) does happen in real life, but so do bulimia, dysentry and animal abuse. None of these are described in such lip-smacking detail as Goodkind likes to use with his almost-rape scenes. His obsession with having his female characters molested is pretty sickening.

* At one stage, Kahlan has to lead an small army in a fight against a large one, in winter. Her cunning plan is to have all the soldiers strip naked and paint themselves white, so the enemy will think they are ghosts. Surprisingly, this works.

-------Yes, it's true. The army she is fighting against is very superstitious and drunk on a previous victory so Kahlan and about 100 young soldiers race through the enemy camp and kill anyone they can to lessen their numbers. This is only one attack. Another is poisoning the food. They eventually whittle the camp down to nothing.

The poisoned food makes it a very little bit more plausible, but on the whole the scene is ludicrous. Not only is Kahlan's army smaller and less experienced, it's also the middle of winter and they are fighting naked. That's rather silly, and not even slightly believable.

* One of the enemy soldiers breaks into Kahlan's camp and kills a wizard. Kahlan orders that he be tortured to death slowly over several hours.

-------Yes. This one assassin kills a beloved friend so she indirectly orders him tortured over many hours. The wife of the good guy who died was the one who pushed for it. Shocking I know.

These are supposed to be the good guys. Torture is plain out-and-out no-questions-asked EVIL. More than shocking, it invalidates any claim they have to being morally superior to the IO.

* Betty is a goat, who is noble (I'm not sure why). Betty is possessed by an evil spirit, but rescued by Richard.

-------No, not true. Betty is a goat who is as noble as the turd sailing down my toilet. A wizard-like being uses magic on Betty as a way to spy on Richard and his camp through her eyes.

Fair point - why is Betty noble? I thought it was just a given that the Goat is a Noble Beast, but can't find it in the quote...

* Zeddicus Zul Zoroander is a wizard, and also Richard's grandfather and mentor. He says "Bags!" a lot; this is possibly intended to be a swearword.

-------Yes, true. Goodkind says he won't include profanity in this books so he uses Bags as an alternative. Shame on him darn it.

It's funny how namble sex and graphic rape'n'torture scenes are OK, but not some naughty words...

* Nicci is an evil sorceress who likes to torture people. She is converted into a good guy when Richard carves a statue of Life (a man and a woman looking happy and alive, or something) and she falls to her knees and weeps with joy. She avoids recognition by taking her top off; the men are so distracted by her boobs that then never look at her face.

--------No, not true. Richard does carve a statue for his carving job that he has after having lived in the Imperial Order's Old World for awhile and after seeing the decay of humanity that those people live with. The Life statue is just so unusual for the people there who have lived under the Imperial Order doctrine that it is the final trigger for rebellion. This is part of Book 6 Faith of the Fallen which is my favorite book in the series.

Nicci does not take her top off to distract men. She is described though as one of the most beautiful women alive so men tend to get distracted by her looks.

You've probably forgotten the passage in question - she does do exactly that, and no-one recognises her because she has her baps out. Those IO guards are pretty stupid

* Nicci tries to seduce Richard; her plan is to have sex with his brother in front of him and invite him to join in. She is surprised when this doesn't work.

-----------No, wrong character. Nadine, a childhood acquaintance, is the one who does this. She is a stupid side character that I believe she was 15 or 16 at the time of the incident so dumb was definitely on the menu. Just a way for Goodkind to have a four-way arc with Richard's brother Drefan.

(Already been through this) - Yeah, I know, I got it wrong, but it was corrected as soon as someone pointed it out...

* Nicci still tortures people in the service of the good guys, but now it's OK because she's doing it for the right reasons.

-----WTF= What the Fuck. Bullshit here.

Absolutely true, it happens - follow the link from the blog

* Drefan is Richard's brother, or maybe he isn't really (not sure about this). He starts off pretending to be a good guy, and then tries to outlaw fire with a moving speech about a housefire that reduces the crowd to tears. He then turns out to be bad, but Richard kills him by ripping his spine out through his stomach. Despite this, he is still able to have one last go with a sword before expiring.

---------No, and again a mix up of characters. Richard's brother Michael gives the house fire speech which killed their mom. Richard does eventually fight Drefan and does give a spine wound to him. They are both nearly dead after the fight.

Not just a spine wound, Richard ripped out the guy's spinal column. That's not something that you can recover from and give another swing with your sword. I know it's fantasy but you have to consider the basic limitations of human anatomy! Otherwise Jaime could just regrow a new hand...

* Darken Rahl is the first bad guy, who turns out to be Richard's father, is killed by Richard at the end of the first book, but still manages to come back in several sequels. He had a cult of "Lord Rahl worshippers" - these worshippers now worship Richard. His female leather-clad torturers, the Mord Sith, now also serve Richard.

---------Not exactly. Richard is a Rahl although he didn't know this until later books and by defeating Darken Rahl he was recognized as the new Lord Rahl. This recognition is part of the old magic of D'Hara and makes Richard their new leader.

The D'Haran army were described in the first book as being just as bad as the IO, but as soon as Darken is dead they are all noble and happy and follow Richard's way of righteousness. That's quite strange in itself.

* Jagang is the leader of the Imperial Order, who are the main bad guys. Their philosophy is a bastard mix of communism and Islam, where everyone has to serve the collective and will go to heaven if they die in battle (or somesuch). Goodkind spends several pages at a time detailing the atrocities committed by the IO, in case we were in any doubt about whether they were the bad guys. They also make captured enemies eat their own testicles.

---------Sort of true. Goodkind does go into detail on how bad these bad guys are. I don't remember the testicle eating contest but I do remember the children made to starve to death by these guys. Again, this ain't Disney.[/color

That's another bit I got wrong, the IO like to eat testicles, Kahlan makes someone else eat them.

* Goodkind has some trouble with irregular past participles; he also overuses the words "thing" and "instantly," and parts of anatomy behave in peculiar ways (especially eyes). Many points are stated and re-stated to the point of utter redundancy.

---------I'm going to go with Huh.

People like to pick apart everthing but I will say that more words on paper equal more money when published so yes it's financial.

I can't remember which word it was, something like "striked" or "shined" which he uses instead of "struck" or "shone" - either way, his grasp of grammar isn't that great and his editors seem happy to keep it that way. As for excusing his redundant repetitions on the grounds that he'll get more money for more words... you're just making excuses now, aren't you?

* Ayn Rand is Goodkind's hero. People who Goodkind disapproves of are treated in other ways, such as the evil emperor Bertrand Chambor and his evil wife Hildemara, apparently based on the Clintons..

----------Yes, Goodkind is fond of Ayn Rand's work. If you read the Fountainhead you would be a fan of hers as well.

The initials are the Clintons and, like any of us, Goodkind treats people he doesn't like less favorably.

I don't know, that's pretty lame, putting your real-life enemy in your book as a bad guy. That's what primary school students do, surely? As for Ayn Rand, from what I know about her philosophy I suspect The Fountainhead would piss me off lots and lots.

Finally, this is all to discredit Terry Goodkind.

Nope, he does that pretty well by himself.

[Jaxom 1974]

Very well reasoned, Mindonner! Truly, you are a champion of Moral Celery!

[scoobydew]

Hi Mindonner(Susi).

Thanks everyone for all the responses to my answers to all the statements about Goodkind's work.

With that said, let me state that yes the violence in his books is too too much at times to tell his stories. I agree. I cringed when I read the torture scene in his first book Wizards First Rule. I actually skipped part of it because I couldn't stand it. I don't like reading about rape, murder, rape, and some more rape.

I wish he was more talented but he is expressing some pretty nasty things in his writing and they do get the reader and non-fan emotional about what he types(case in point: this forum thread is a perfect example on how the guy can get you worked up even though you probably never wanted to be about his books). You fell for it even if you don't admit it but actions speak and look at all the threads and comments about this guy.

Oh well. The guy has many times more money than we do. Is rent due soon? Bet you Goodkind doesn't need to work another day in his life if he wants to.

In all honesty,when I read his books I wasn't looking for the holy grail of logic since dragons, magic swords, and wizards don't exist. It's very farfetched. Like superheroes who wear tights and fly about.

Come on people. Think. Don't just pick pieces out of it and say "oh my I can't believe the people in the book are acting that way. No one with half a brain would do that or say that unless they were immoral or drugged".

Of course they wouldn't but again let me say that the central character in his book has a magic sword. Magic is not real. Gars are made up. Goodkind makes references to the real world but he is not saying go stab a mexican who crosses the border illegally. Unless I missed that book.

Your all being way to nitpicky and i'm sure someone is going to shake their fist or engraved signed bookmark my way and say golly gee don't you tell us that because here you said "blah blah blah" but I say "blahblah blah blah" which makes me smarter and better than you.

Does it matter? Really does it?

I have to laugh about this.

Point after point about these things:

1. Richard shouldn't of kicked the kids face in the first book. Very bad. I agree.

2. Richard shouldn't of said go cut ears off the bad guys. Yes it is silly stuff.

3. Nicci's boobies are weapons against men. As a guy, yes boobies can easily mesmerize me into a silent stupor.

4. Rape is bad and women in his book are raped or will be raped.

Yep, stupid stuff to put in there but it did get everyone to talk about it ad nauseum.

5. Goodkind can't spell. Neither can most of us.

6. His website only allows those who like him to post. No duh. Do you think he should allow negative comments on there just so he can be saintly? Less book buyers equal less money folks.

7. Chicken that is not a chicken was a bad idea. Yes it was. Enough said.

Someone said there are good and bad things in the Bible. I will add that there is good and bad in all things and yes even the SOT series has its ups. My, my that was easy and obvious. Right?

Like this thread I could pick Goodkinds books apart forever. I could do the same for Robert Jordan as well with his long long long descriptions and unpronouncable names but I won't. I could say that the word Tolkein used for Hobbit is stupid and that George R.R.R.R. Martin should of used John Smith as an easier pen name.

I'm done. Later, Scooby.

P.S. Susi, I found your site by looking under contact I believe. Don't be paranoid.

I'm too good looking to be a stalker anyways.

Ooops, meant to say Susi that I found your contact email on your site I found your site when I googled the search term "He is used as the paragon of morals and virtue". Later again.

[Big Brother]

>>>These are supposed to be the good guys. Torture is plain out-and-out no-questions-asked EVIL.>>>

Errr...So, is the USA an evil empire now?

[Feral Bonsai]

P.S. Susi, I found your site by looking under contact I believe. Don't be paranoid.

I'm too good looking to be a stalker anyways.

You are going to have to ante up now...

[Lady Pendleton]

I love how Mystar defends Goodkind by saying these quotes are taken out of context. That’s hiralous. You can take a sentence or two out of context. Whole paragraphs aren’t taken out of context.

Oh, dear Jesus. If you don't mind getting advice from a complete stranger, please don't ever deal with anyone on the internet named "Mystar". I thought I'd never see that name again.

This is one of those "trust me" things. I'd rather not have to explain

*shudders*

[Red Templar]

Oh, dear Jesus. If you don't mind getting advice from a complete stranger, please don't ever deal with anyone on the internet named "Mystar". I thought I'd never see that name again.

This is one of those "trust me" things. I'd rather not have to explain

*shudders*

You don't need to explain. Trust me.

[scoobydew]

Mindonner which book do you think this happened in? I've read all of them and none of them have Richard slaughtering pacifists.

"- he often makes choices that most of us find abhorrent, for example slaughtering unarmed protestors.

Anyway, Richard's actions in this context - encountered by a crowd of unarmed people begging him to stop the war, he cuts them all down with his sword so he can get through. If American troops had opened fire on a peaceful protest, would you have agreed that that was justified? -"

Richard never did this. Sorry but someone must of posted this and someone must of agreed that it happened so you must of come across it and believed it like many others.

For Example:

In book 5, the people of the land of Anderith protested against Richard and his forces and he and his men peacefully went from town to town warning them that if they do nothing against the approaching Imperial Order army that they would be murdered by them(the Imperial Order).

The people of Anderith rejected him saying he was just as bad as his bad guy father. They had a huge candlelight vigile to show Richard Rahl that peace is the way but when the Imperial Order came into the peaceful land they were murdered and subjected by the bad guys.

Richard could only help the one's who did believe him escape to the north as he heard reports of the slaughter.

There was also in book 7 The Pillars of Creation a few isolated towns of people who were also pacifists and they were also being attacked by the Imperial Order. Richard went there and showed them that they will only gain their freedom if they fight. Eventually they did and won against the invaders.

Yes, it was very similar to book 5. It seems a theme that Goodkind repeats but it is a story not reality.

As for kicking the little evil princess in book 1, you have to have read the book to know what they did to him. This is no excuse for that violent act of kicking her face. It wasn't meant as an all encompassing report on Richards good/bad character but if you did read the book you would know that the guy was DELIRIOUS, half-starved, and to reiterate he was nearly incoherent.

Again, not an excuse for the violence depicted. Just thnk about what I typed though instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

Richard the good guy:

In another scene in the book Richard cuts(with scissors) the hair of a little girl Rachel and makes her laugh. He doesn't spend the whole book stomping little kids or beating up old ladies. Just FYI.

In another scene, Richard says to Kahlan watch this as he raps a spoon in an empty bowl to wake Old Zedd up from his sleep. Zedd has a huge affinity for food and this wakes him up. Zedd sleepily says "breakfast?" as Richard and Kahlan smile at his child-like face.

Richard and Kahlan are shown protecting people countless times in the books.

I think that is a wonderful human trait. Maybe some don't?

There are some great things in these books. Much more than the bad things that have been mentioned repeatedly.

Raimi obviously has looked beyond the bad. Is Sam Raimi an untalented hack? Nope.

So why would he want to make a miniseries from supposedly awful books. The answer is he wouldn't.

The point is if you are going to dislike what the man writes please read ALL the books and not the quotes from people on forums and website blogs.

If you like to pick bits out of the book what you didn't like then so be it but I will say that if you hated Book 1 then why did some of you continue reading the series? That doesn't sound logical.

As I said before the guy can buy and sell you many times over so he must be doing something a little right.

Repeat the next sentence 50 times:

Remember Goodkind's stories are not taking place in the real world.

Got it. Good. :|

[Moosicus]

Mindonner which book do you think this happened in? I've read all of them and none of them have Richard slaughtering pacifists.

It was in Naked Empire. You can read about it here.

[Werthead]

You don't need to explain. Trust me.

Quoted for Truth, and then some.

[Red Templar]

There are some great things in these books. Much more than the bad things that have been mentioned repeatedly.

Raimi obviously has looked beyond the bad. Is Sam Raimi an untalented hack? Nope.

So why would he want to make a miniseries from supposedly awful books. The answer is he wouldn't.

I'm not sure this is a good argument. Many, many big name directors have made movies from awful books. However, a good director will only use the book as a guideline, and will change it to make it more screen friendly. Sometimes this succeeds, and sometimes this fails. But the end product movie is a far different creature than the original book.

[Elrostar]

Mindonner which book do you think this happened in? I've read all of them and none of them have Richard slaughtering pacifists.

It was in Naked Empire. You can read about it here.

Aah, it's been a while since I've read that QotD. I'm so glad it was kept. Pure gold.

And let us remember, please, that TG considers Richard to be a paragon of virtue, after all, as he has stated repeatedly. After all, he looks people in the eye, or something to that effect. I can't remember the exact quote from that interview about Phantom, but it was something like that, wasn't it. I think that's what TG said was how you could tell that Richard was a good person, or at least one example of it.

[Moosicus]

I'm not sure this is a good argument. Many, many big name directors have made movies from awful books. However, a good director will only use the book as a guideline, and will change it to make it more screen friendly. Sometimes this succeeds, and sometimes this fails. But the end product movie is a far different creature than the original book.

I just assumed Raimi lost a bet, or something.

[scoobydew]

"---

Mindonner which book do you think this happened in? I've read all of them and none of them have Richard slaughtering pacifists.

It was in Naked Empire. You can read about it here.---"

That's not exactly correct. It did happen but now it's out of context.

Here is some more of that:

-----------Richard's army did not pause as they tore through the ring of protectors, now on the run, but continued on to the maze of buildings among grassy open spaces dotted with trees. The soldiers who were outside began to realize that this time they would have to protect themselves, that the people of the city could no longer do it for them. These were men used to slaughtering defenseless, docile victims. For more than a year of occupation they had not had to fight.-------------

What you didn't read is that Richard and the people of those lands who chose to be free were now fighting against not only the brutal occuping invaders who had been there a whole year but those who sympathized with the invaders because it gave them good fortune to turn in their fellow villagers. It saved them by being traitorous to past acquantances.

The invaders kept insurrections down by having the people do it for them by turning in friends and family.

Sounds like Germany during the Nazi horror doesn't it?

Anyone who is Jewish or has sympathy for the Jew must be turned in by you if you are on the good side of God."

Did you think the SS knew every Jew in Germany by looking at them? Nope. Friends and townspeople turned them over to save their own hides out of fear and self survival.

Just like those "pacifists" in Goodkinds book. If someone were going to tell some evil men, who wanted to kill you and your family and your kids dead, where you are today would you side so easy with them and just let them go about their business?

If they peacefully blocked you from leaving your house so the bad guys could easily find you to "off" you would you be so kind-hearted to them and gently push them away?

Maybe even politely ask them to move. Please, pretty please with sugar on top. Thought so.

Do you understand what Goodkind was doing here?

Perhaps it is too mature a theme for some.

All they read was "evil war monger Richard killed some unarmed peaceful hippie-like folk because they didn't side with them."

[Moosicus]

Do you understand what Goodkind was doing here?

Perhaps it is too mature a theme for some.

We already have one mystar, but thanks for playing.

As for the hippies, you may be right that some were turning in their neighbors to the Order, but most of the people there were just working, cooking and cleaning for the soldiers, and living in pure terror of them. They're so obsessed with their screwy philosophy, that there is no excuse for violence, ever, that they thought they were doing the right thing by protesting between Richard and the Order. Somehow thinking that they could put a stop to the fighting by getting peacefully in the middle of it, I guess. The Nazi comparison is way off base, as the Bandakarran(sp?) people are indistinguishable from one another, and have a very close knit community (large groups and families always sleeping in the same room, for example). There is no base of hatred from which one might turn in another, as was the case in Germany. The only reason would be extreme duress, which the Order was quite good at inflicting. Besides, if there is a group of unarmed hippies between you and the people you really want to kill, why not go around them, wait for a more opportune time, find some new strategy other than chopping through the defenseless people.

[scoobydew]

The people of "peace land" who sided with those who enslaved would do anything to keep that peace as long as it didn't bloody their own hands. Goodkind explains that in the book.

You need to re-read Naked Empire "The Mad Moose".

As for the comparison with the Nazi's, Jews, and the other Germans, how am I way off?

You can distinquish the good/bad hippies by their actions.

The Nazi's(Imperial Order) were enslaving the Germans(both rebellious Richard-sided pacifists and non-Richard sided-pacifists). The Jews, anyone not on the Imperial Order side of acceptance(non-Richard sided pacifists), would need to be eliminated for the occupying state to succeed.

Although, Goodkind didn't go to each house to see if they were quietly turning in their pacifists friends, it's pretty obvious that that peace was more important than anything to them to maintain since it insured they would live peacefully.

If you read the quote from Naked Empire you would see that they vehemently wanted Richard's group to stop. They fought them with their fists(seems like a weapon to me but maybe i'm wrong here).

Also, in the book, Goodkind says that they were being mobbed by these people from all side streets. (A semi-peaceful crowd can turn angry very easily even in our world.)

Again, to point out, they have sided with the Imperial Order.

They are attacking you with numbers and fists and protecting the occupying army. The same army that killed/raped your family.

The pacifists became the enemy. Goodkind explains this using many more words then we have quoted here.

Again, maybe it was too mature a theme for some.

[Moosicus]

Though it's odd that the hippies lashed out at Richard and co. with their fists it shouldn't be too surprising. The quote begins with the hippies marching with arms linked, chanting inane hippie slogans. Then Richard starts cutting them to pieces, hacking off heads and limbs, etc. One might expect panic to set in and a fight or flight instinct to take over. It's perverse to think that the hippies "attacked" Richard, instead of simply protecting themselves. And if that is completely out of character for the hippies, blame the author. I still don't recall the hippies turning each other in to the Order in order to gain favor, or protection, or some insidious purpose. At the beginning when the Order first came along to their empire, the hippies just gave in to whatever demands the Order made, including turning over their women to the Order's pleasures. IIRC, the women were just as willing to go as the men who handed them over. They weren't happy about it, but all agreed it was the only way. Your comparison to the Nazis would be more appropriate if the Jews had all marched to the concentration camps of their own accord.

[Red Templar]

Again, maybe it was too mature a theme for some.

Obviously, it is too mature for me. I guess I'll go back to reading Tolstoy and Hemmingway.