...Am I supposed to like Parvos Granum?

[-SilverWolfPrime-]

Ever since Deadlock Protocol, I've been so confused by this guy. At first I loved him so much since he seemed to be completely different from any other Corpus leader we've seen so far, but recent content suggests he's not necessarily a friendly force. I guess I might have misinterpreted some things from the Deadlock Protocol, but am I supposed to like this guy? He is supposed to be a sort of good guy for the Tenno or is he just another foe to face?

I'd love to hear more of the lore behind it, this is one of the most perplexing characters in the lore to me.

[Pinegulf]

>I've been so confused by this guy.

Good. Too obvious is mark of bad writing. 

[LarenaBot]

Hes a pragmatist who wants to kill the Sentients like we do, but that doesn't mean he's good. At the end of the day he is still Corpus, anything that hurts the bottom line goes bye bye, and while that includes the Sentients it does also include us.

Don't forget that he tried to trap us in his void permanently.

And if you listen to his lore entries in the codex, it's very clear he's not as different from the Corpus as he pretends. He dresses it up pretty but hes still a soulless money grabber. 

[(NSW)Greybones]

Oooh, interesting. It’s been a bit, but I remember when I met Parvos, I had a distinct impression of “Oh, he seems clever”, quickly followed by “…What a dangerous person I have unleashed upon the system”.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

23 minutes ago, -SilverWolfPrime- said:

Ever since Deadlock Protocol, I've been so confused by this guy. At first I loved him so much since he seemed to be completely different from any other Corpus leader we've seen so far, but recent content suggests he's not necessarily a friendly force. I guess I might have misinterpreted some things from the Deadlock Protocol, but am I supposed to like this guy? He is supposed to be a sort of good guy for the Tenno or is he just another foe to face?

I'd love to hear more of the lore behind it, this is one of the most perplexing characters in the lore to me.

This is what writing real antagonists/  characters looks like.

With the reveal of Parvos, he served the distinctive role to throw Nef into stark relief. Nef was a cartoonishly evil person, with no redeeming qualities and seemingly no motives beyond “am Corpus, get money.”

Parvos’ introduction, him tearing down Nef is almost tacit acknowledgement from DE about how weak of a character Nef was, and lined Nef and Parvos up side by side in that exchange to showcase their new character.

We in western audiences have a strong propensity to like the villains of stories, and sometimes even root for them. This lack of moral clarity you’re feeling is indicative of good writing.

Just because Parvos has motives that don’t benefit us, doesn’t mean he can’t be intelligent, or even likeable.

So don’t worry, I see this as working as intended. For more examples of this, feel free to read most books.

[(PSN)Kakurine2]

He seems like a self serving chap that we can't trust but isn't our direct enemy.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

10 minutes ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Oooh, interesting. It’s been a bit, but I remember when I met Parvos, I had a distinct impression of “Oh, he seems clever”, quickly followed by “…What a dangerous person I have unleashed upon the system”.

Yeah, at least with Nef it was easy to get all of him in a single frame. He was a bad guy that was greedy, and it was hard to imagine him gaining the support of anyone that wasn’t equally as cartoonishly evil.

Parvos on the other hand, seems much more dangerous. Dangerous in the sense that he could get just about anyone to join his cause, and genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do. Aided by a not unsubstantial amount of corpus oil to grease the palms of those yet undecided.

[TARINunit9]

Score seems to be 3-1 "no we're not supposed to like him"

+He's nice to the Solaris

-He's a rude and callous to us. Every Tenno ally in the game is either outright polite or at least tactful toward us, but Parvos is not

-He killed Tenno in the past in an extremely gruesome display of self-defense, and he was more than willing to kill us during the quest just because we were in the way

-He's using us as test subjects for his Parvosisters program

[(PSN)Oakrux]

Dudes been stranded for years with no one to talk to except Proteas booty. He’s too socially maladjusted to make the call either way.

But traditionally people with gold body parts are bond villains not Bond girls. 

[Elenortirie]

Well at the end of Deadlock Protocol he did sent tenno invitation to his new board, didn't he?

As for the souless cashgrabber, the main difference between him and modern corpus I see is that his belief was that everyone should be given chance to prosper if they are smart enough to get there. With emphasis on actually working up for it. Modern corpus on another hand are full on exploitation of other people work to their benefit. Case in point - Nef Anyo. he was basically corpus Ruk that would be hardly distinguishable from other corpus, while running his little digging to sell orokin/tenno artifacts. He only rose to prominence after kicking of a "void cult" to scam people out of their credits with promise of "gib me money and eventually you will just become rich lul".

Him trying to trap us in granum void.... I took it less as intential attempt at setting a trap, and more as a consequence of his grander scheme to return to normal space. He wanted out, his way out involves some random tenno to get trapped in his stead? "well sucks to be that tenno I guess".

So I would say he is intended to be a very grey character - probably slightly less S#&$ than current board of corpus, but still not a "good guy".

[Wiz3rd]

Parvos isn't exactly a stereotypical villain, but make no mistake - he's no good dude either.
Or at least not on our side.

[Chewarette]

He's on whichever side will benefit him the most.

[TARINunit9]

24 minutes ago, Elenortirie said:

Well at the end of Deadlock Protocol he did sent tenno invitation to his new board, didn't he?

That's what it looks like on first read.

I just read it twice a few minutes ago. And on a second read... I start to notice things. "Perhaps a father should abandon his children." And "Life's just a bargain like any other."

At best he's a sociopath with a noble cause. At worst he's the Devil, using his silver tongue to lure you in. Hmm, Devil, that sounds familiar...

[Elenortirie]

1 minute ago, TARINunit9 said:

That's what it looks like on first read.

I just read it twice a few minutes ago. And on a second read... I start to notice things. "Perhaps a father should abandon his children." And "Life's just a bargain like any other."

At best he's a sociopath with a noble cause. At worst he's the Devil, using his silver tongue to lure you in. Hmm, Devil, that sounds familiar...

Well I understood that part that he considers possibility that it may be too late for main corpus to get reformed back into original shape he imagined.

Eh I would say he is just extreme case of competent businessman. Extreme because he looks on *everything* from businessman's perspective.

In case of tenno invitation, I would say that looking at his history with protea, he understands the benefits of having tenno by his side. For further analysis tho I would need to see story explanation for sisters.

[vegetosayajin]

41 minutes ago, Wiz3rd said:

Parvos isn't exactly a stereotypical villain, but make no mistake - he's no good dude either.
Or at least not on our side.

He is not on a side of a genocidal biomechanical beings that destroy everything that's close to them ... I think he is on to something there. :D  

[ebrl]

1 hour ago, (PSN)CambionDrift said:

But traditionally people with gold body parts are bond villains not Bond girls. 

sad Jill Masterson noises

[Zeddypanda]

There's a man on high
with the Devil in his eye,
and a golden hand, I'm told.
It can hurt you, it can hold you,
he can kick you or console you,
when we're all sleeping in the cold below.

[Librus_107]

He's a complicated character, which is quite delightful to see. Always found the writing and characters of Warframe well-made.

Parvos is, at his core, Corpus as ever. It's clear he'll take whatever stance with anyone is most beneficial to his needs: a true economist, making clever bargains and pacts that usually wind up with him getting the better deal. He seems to loathe what the Corpus has become in his absence, but it's clear his own philosophy as the new "King Corpus" isn't all glimmering like his Crowns in the slightest. 

Still, I can empathize with who he was. He was one of the millions with a whip on their back under the cruel Orokin rule, and found strength and resolve from the power of greed and desire. He coveted the gold and gemstones of the Orokin, and with that greed, he found the strength and resolve to build the power that now is the Corpus as a whole. But it's clear he's sort of become twisted under the nuance of that philosophy - now thinking that always wanting is ideal, to amass more and more and more wealth, to want, never be satisfied with what you have. And he seems to sort of admire our own resolve for what we want - but it's clear he still views us as a threat. He either plans to turn us to his side with promises of glittering goodness, or just cleave us out of the picture outright. Whatever fits the man's plans for the System as a whole. 

It's much like the Grineer. They're genocidal maniacs, mad with devotion for their kin - but it's sad knowing the plight this devotion arose from. You can understand why they are so cruel. Slaves at the bottom of the Orokin empire, treated like subhuman creatures and left to simply melt into gory pools by their own faulty cloning processes. They saw their chance for agency and strength during the Old War, and took it with a fevered grasp. Like the Corpus, their origins were honest, but in their drive for what they wanted, their philosophy became tainted and cruel - no better than the gilded masters that once tormented them so. A well-made villain is one you could perhaps have befriended in another time and place.

It's clear we're supposed to view Parvos with nuance and wariness. He's an enemy, and far more crafty than the corrupt Board of Directors we've fought leading Corpus operations before. He's just as motivated by greed, but unlike the others, his greed is backed by cleverness. It's up to us to see what we'll do if he offers any gifts from that gilded hand of his. Perhaps it's genuine, perhaps it's a lure - perhaps it's something we can snatch for ourselves. "The best way to figure out what a trap does, is to set it off." 

And hey - we have blown up a lot of his expensive-looking, brand-new ships. 

[Loza03]

He's supposed to be the epitome of true neutral. I'm honestly more worried that Sisters of Parvos will make him too much of a villain.

 

As far as I can tell he has more or less dropped any pretense of morality or sentimentality, at least as far as humanly possible. You could put a gun to his head, he could put a gun to yours, and he'd not give a damn when next you met. It's all business.

In that sense he's enlightened.

[RazerXPrime]

30 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

He's supposed to be the epitome of true neutral. I'm honestly more worried that Sisters of Parvos will make him too much of a villain.

 

As far as I can tell he has more or less dropped any pretense of morality or sentimentality, at least as far as humanly possible. You could put a gun to his head, he could put a gun to yours, and he'd not give a damn when next you met. It's all business.

In that sense he's enlightened.

Eh? True Neutral? Have you read his biography? He taught people that greed and extortion was good and created slaves of money. He eventually turns into the thing he was trying to oppose. Extorting the weak in the name of greed and desire. I would place him in Lawful or Neutral Evil. But nowhere above that.

Enlightened? No. Fanatical.

Fortuna and the indentured servants that have to sell their body parts to get by are his legacy. In this part ALL of the Corpus need to be destroyed. All of them. Not for the people, but for the ideals that they represent. And they are purely evil if you have to categorize them.

[Loza03]

1 minute ago, RazerXPrime said:

Eh? True Neutral? Have you read his biography? He taught people that greed and extortion was good and created slaves of money. He eventually turns into the thing he was trying to oppose. Extorting the weak in the name of greed and desire. I would place him in Lawful or Neutral Evil. But nowhere above that.

Enlightened? No. Fanatical.

Fortuna and the indentured servants that have to sell their body parts to get by are his legacy. In this part ALL of the Corpus need to be destroyed. All of them. Not for the people, but for the ideals that they represent. And they are purely evil if you have to categorize them.

I'm not so sure. I mean, his effects and the results of what he has done is undoubtedly evil. That cannot be denied, but the after-effects of a life can't be included in their moral personality. A good person could help somebody out, unawares that that person will become the next dark lord, but that doesn't make the good person evil. We need to separate the modern Corpus from Granum.

In terms of his personality and his own beliefs, I wouldn't argue that he's evil. Bear in mind that all the time he was extorting people for his own gain, he was encouraging everyone else to as well, including to himself. As far as he is concerned, he doesn't care if he, individually, has the most power or wealth, or really care for anything else. Either positive or negatively - he isn't willing to go out of his way to help others, but likewise, he won't go out of his way to hurt either. Likewise, his goals are neither predicated on everyone benefitting, or costing everyone. The other Corpus did grow rich, at least as far as we can tell, after all. Rather, his goals are to give everyone the same opportunities for constant development. Bear in mind that he considers back-breaking labor without personal progress or upward mobility to be 'idle', so any society he creates that isn't idle would based entirely around social mobility. This is as opposed to the modern Corpus, where upwards social mobility is intentionally withheld at all cost.

The modern Corpus are, ultimately, a corruption of his ideals, as he himself has stated. His ideal society is cutthroat, but also one where anybody can prosper. Several basic human rights were almost certainly at best conditional so it'd be a major stretch to call it good, but I wouldn't call something like that evil like the modern Corpus or the Grineer, even if it is distasteful.

I would agree that he's lawful though, that's my mistake. Hardcore personal code, one so strong that he literally wound up building a society on it? That's absolutely lawful.

 

As for enlightened vs fanatical - what's the difference, really?

[RazerXPrime]

5 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

I'm not so sure. I mean, his effects and the results of what he has done is undoubtedly evil. That cannot be denied, but the after-effects of a life can't be included in their moral personality. A good person could help somebody out, unawares that that person will become the next dark lord, but that doesn't make the good person evil. We need to separate the modern Corpus from Granum.

In terms of his personality and his own beliefs, I wouldn't argue that he's evil. Bear in mind that all the time he was extorting people for his own gain, he was encouraging everyone else to as well, including to himself. As far as he is concerned, he doesn't care if he, individually, has the most power or wealth, or really care for anything else. Either positive or negatively - he isn't willing to go out of his way to help others, but likewise, he won't go out of his way to hurt either. Likewise, his goals are neither predicated on everyone benefitting, or costing everyone. The other Corpus did grow rich, at least as far as we can tell, after all. Rather, his goals are to give everyone the same opportunities for constant development. Bear in mind that he considers back-breaking labor without personal progress or upward mobility to be 'idle', so any society he creates that isn't idle would based entirely around social mobility. This is as opposed to the modern Corpus, where upwards social mobility is intentionally withheld at all cost.

The modern Corpus are, ultimately, a corruption of his ideals, as he himself has stated. His ideal society is cutthroat, but also one where anybody can prosper. Several basic human rights were almost certainly at best conditional so it'd be a major stretch to call it good, but I wouldn't call something like that evil like the modern Corpus or the Grineer, even if it is distasteful.

I would agree that he's lawful though, that's my mistake. Hardcore personal code, one so strong that he literally wound up building a society on it? That's absolutely lawful.

 

As for enlightened vs fanatical - what's the difference, really?

Except that his ideals hurt others on principle. This in essence makes him evil. His methods and the thing he stands for are exploitation to any degree for self betterment. In terms of D&D this is ever only assigned to evil characters. In the real world, evil does not exist obviously, but you'd still be a horrible person subjectively.

His sobstory background on his own misfortunate family has no point in the relevancy of whether he is good, neutral or evil. His actions and ideals alone make him evil. This is of course an exaggeration of USA capitalism, which in all honesty I would also considder evil. Just like the a$$hat here on the forums selling Ignis Wraith blueprints for 50 plat to newbies that don't know any better and state "I can do whatever I want as long as people are willing to pay". In terms of morality I would not consider that to be a good person. Any form of abuse of others is "evil". It doesn't matter if everyone can do it.

We can agree to disagree. But when you personally find yourself at the mercy of loansharks you'll see things differently. And in terms of enlightenment. I hope you will find that one day on this topic. Then you will also understand the massive difference between fanatical and enlightenment. Those two words are not comparable.

[AlendasNaro]

Friend of mine just provided me this kind of description of him: He is much more difficult to ascertain what comes on profile. For now I would consider him a roll of a dice. He isn't truly a friend but he is neither pure opposite or opposition to us. More surveillance and monitoring of him is required. Current Agenda?: I can only speculate but strongest guess I have is taking back leadership of the Corpus whether good or bad for us hangs on the interpretation of his words. Current goal: is easy to see Returning to 'reality'.

FOR NOW: It might be better to keep him in arms length (Keep him within the Granum Void) and continue monitoring and surveillance of what he is doing.

[Loza03]

2 minutes ago, RazerXPrime said:

Except that his ideals hurt others on principle. This in essence makes him evil. His methods and the thing he stands for are exploitation to any degree for self betterment. In terms of D&D this is ever only assigned to evil characters. In the real world, evil does not exist obviously, but you'd still be a horrible person subjectively.

His sobstory background on his own misfortunate family has no point in the relevancy of whether he is good, neutral or evil. His actions and ideals alone make him evil. This is of course an exaggeration of USA capitalism, which in all honesty I would also considder evil. Just like the a$$hat here on the forums selling Ignis Wraith blueprints for 50 plat to newbies that don't know any better and state "I can do whatever I want as long as people are willing to pay". In terms of morality I would not consider that to be a good person. Any form of abuse of others is "evil". It doesn't matter if everyone can do it.

We can agree to disagree. But when you personally find yourself at the mercy of loansharks you'll see things differently.

In fairness, we've never actually seen what Granum-era Corpus were actually like, so in terms of results, you're probably right.  But in terms of personality, I would still ascribe him as neutral because his ideals aren't reliant on the suffering of others, or the benefit of others. They cause both by extension, (the former most likely greatly exceeding the latter), but as a person, Granum doesn't care about good or evil, only money.

5 minutes ago, RazerXPrime said:

And in terms of enlightenment. I hope you will find that one day on this topic. Then you will also understand the massive difference between fanatical and enlightenment. Those two words are not comparable.

I've studied history long enough to have an idea of how many people who have died to those one culture or another would consider 'enlightened'.

[RazerXPrime]

1 minute ago, Loza03 said:

In fairness, we've never actually seen what Granum-era Corpus were actually like, so in terms of results, you're probably right.  But in terms of personality, I would still ascribe him as neutral because his ideals aren't reliant on the suffering of others, or the benefit of others. They cause both by extension, (the former most likely greatly exceeding the latter), but as a person, Granum doesn't care about good or evil, only money.

Oh but that's being naieve though. The fact that he doesn't care doesn't define what he is. He understands the repurcussions and went ahead anyway. He wasn't making a mistake. He set the stage for the largest exploitation of people in this universe on a massive scale and he cheered it on.

1 minute ago, Loza03 said:

I've studied history long enough to have an idea of how many people who have died to those one culture or another would consider 'enlightened'.

But that would be a misinterpretation of the word enlightened. A crazy person calling himself enlightened isn't a definition of the word.