It’s really telling of Halsin’s character that, left to his own devices, he chooses to found a town following the fall of the Netherbrain. He responds to the Baldur’s Gate refugee crisis by fostering a new community where the needs of orphans, refugees, and others can be met. To me, this alone implies he isn’t “anti-civilization” or “anti-urban” or whatever, as sometimes gets bandied about. We can infer from his actions that he clearly sees the value of organized social life.
Halsin often talks about balance, and I think that’s key to his stance on both nature and society. Both should have some internal degree of balance, but should also be balanced with regards to each other. Balance isn’t static. It requires effort to maintain and the actions of agentful beings will tip the system in one direction or another. I think it’s more accurate of his thinking to say the city is in a state of disequilibrium, as evidenced by an unusually extreme incidence of visible structural violence. If you let Kagha kill Arabella, Rath will make a similar argument. In his words, killing Arabella encourages disequilibrium because it will instigate more violence between the tieflings and druids. It creates conditions for a tit-for-tat revenge cycle that has the capacity to cause great disorder for little tangible benefit.
Yes, when you’re in Baldur’s gate, Halsin gives you a blanket statement about whether civilization and nature can even coexist. I read this as a knee-jerk reaction made in an emotional moment, not a well tailored 5 paragraph philosophical essay that perfectly reflects his thinking on nature/culture dualisms.
Generally, I see Halsin as anti-cruelty, not anti-“civilization”. I don’t think he would love instances of blatant creature-to-creature cruelty regardless of the context. We can argue about whether he always lives up to this ideal, but I see him as very consistent in this way of thinking.
gummygunk
kianamaiart
andulkaphoto
