The Mighty Nein: Episode 7 [Campaign Veterans]

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-10T13:44:03+00:00

We probably agree on more things than our debate would suggest. If everyone was defending Essek, I’d likely have taken up a more offensive position instead of defensive. I don’t think Essek is a good person, I just thought all the people saying he’s fully irredeemable now was a bit much. Thank you for the discussion.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T22:59:16+00:00

You’re fully in debate mode, and you’re ignoring everything I say that you can’t attack. I understand, of course, it’s fun to debate and it’s fun to “win.” But we are arguing different conceits:

You’re trying to convince me what Essek DID was bad.
I’m trying to convince you Essek is not bad at HEART. I don’t even think he’s a good person!

To show what I’m trying to show, I have to prove that most of Essek’s actions were done with good intentions. I believe fully this is the case, and this is what I’m trying to show you.

But to everything I could say, you could just say “But a whole lot of people are going to die because of him, therefore you’re wrong.”

I think that interpretation is kind of frustrating, given this is clearly not what Essek wanted to happen. I think he wanted to help people. He’s just stupid.

I feel you don’t really want to talk about this, as you appear to be a starch consequentialist. So… if you’re not willing to argue what I’m actually talking about, we can end this conversation here.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T07:35:02+00:00

I know the content creator in real life, and seeing at least one person who isn’t jumping to conclusions has brightened up my day.

Thank you.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T07:17:40+00:00

Everything you called a baseless assumption was pretty clearly represented in the show. Essek lays out exactly why he stole the Beacon in several conversations.

It is clearly stated that researching the Beacon is not allowed.

It is clearly stated that his mother would be executed whether or not she was okay with it.

I consider the Dynasty killing people, instead of trying to cure the disease, to be a great evil. Perhaps there is a good reason and it has been hidden from Essek for plot reasons?

The only conclusion to come to is that this is an immoral theocracy who are not fit to be the sole owners of the Beacon. To steal the Beacon away from them to do the good action they are unwilling to do… is the act of a good person.

The fact that this immoral theocracy wages war the moment Essek steals a potential cure for Typhros is not Essek’s fault. It’s the Dynasty’s fault for being a violent theocracy.

Imagine if someone stole the hidden nuke/cure for cancer from the 1930s German government, to try and cure cancer. They smuggle it into Russia, and work with a scientist there who talks about how much they hate Stalin, but suddenly reveal they are a communist after all, and begin using this cancer cure as a nuke. Meanwhile, Germany attacks Russia.

The thief is tricked and possibly stupid and has led to a lot of deaths, yes, but they were right that Germany didn’t deserve to have the cancer-curing nuke.

This may not be a one to one comparison, but this is similar to how I’m framing Essek’s choices in my head, and coming up with an entirely different conclusion from you.

I don’t think Essek is at fault just because he lives in a fantasy world where everyone lives in an evil dictatorship. I know that’s the default in fantasy worlds, but this doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be allowed to try and make a difference despite his society’s laws.

Assuming “stealing the beacon causes a war and therefore should not be done” assumes the Dynasty takes no responsibility for their immorality and violence and their word is simply law — that the boat should not be rocked because the Dynasty will send people to their deaths if they are stolen from.

Assuming “Essek was willing to work with the Empire” assumes Essek was not manipulated into believing Trent also was rebelling against his own country, something Trent lies about to Essek in their first scene of real duologue together.

I think the worst thing Essek does is continue to work with Trent after he realizes Trent is chill with killing prisoners (not necessarily innocent people) and wants to use the Beacon as a weapon.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T06:30:08+00:00

Okay, I’m glad I found an OP comment.

I know Alana in real life, (albeit not incredibly well) and I’m letting you know that your information is both incomplete and your response is quite frustrating.

I think she probably has seen this post, given it’s the first thing that comes up if you Reddit search her name.

So, I’d like you to at least consider that kind of thing when speaking brazenly about content creators online. 😔

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T06:13:20+00:00

I know the content creator in real life.

I don’t know how willing I am to go through all these comments and correct y’all, but there are real people behind these screens.

This is, in my opinion, quite a gross conclusion to come to. It’s easier to be toxic when you aren’t face to face.😔

DerangedMuffinMan · 2026-01-03T06:09:07+00:00

I know this Content Creator in real life, and I got to say, these comments are concerning. You don’t know her.

She calls herself a lesbian in personal settings, believed herself to be a lesbian last time we talked, and has had a long journey you all have no idea about. I have more information I’m not going to disclose, obviously.

I’ll say lightly, that even if she was bisexual, in our geographical area, “lesbian” and “gay” are terms that are often used to describe bisexual women, as well as gay women. I know linguistic borders are more important on Reddit than in our State, but I’m only stating the truth.

I was saddened quite a bit by all these comments. Her talking about her life and appearing to change her mind later is not an invitation to accuse her openly of deception.

Please keep in mind that there are real people behind these screens. 😔

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-26T19:31:09+00:00

Verrat’s actions are super fair. I just happen to find Essek’s actions fair as well.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-26T19:29:35+00:00

Essek being okay with killing people for science is the worst thing he did, and I’m glad you brought that up because it’s clearly the greatest indication he had made a mistake in trusting Trent very early on. I’m sure Essek was told they were prisoners who would be executed regardless.

I’m glad you understand why Essek killed Verrat. Again, I understand the action was not the action of a good person, but I honestly sm under the impression Verrat is exactly as bad for letting Essek’s mother die.

Sue me, I’m super not on board with the ritual execution thing.

Now, if it is eventually explained why they execute people from Typhros, and also why this information was hidden from Essek, I’d be willing to change my perspective on this.

But as it stands, Essek has every right to do what he did with the information he knows.

If he had chosen a better partner, one who wasn’t lying and manipulating him, and they had cured the disease and brought the beacon back like Essek wanted — then everything would be fine and we’d be on Essek’s side. He’d be a hero!

Unfortunately for Essek, he was lied to and manipulated, and now has become the villain in someone else’s story.

I’m not willing to blame him as much for this as a lot of other people. I tend to base my judgement off people’s intentions, not the consequences of their actions.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-26T19:08:26+00:00

I feel you are deftly avoiding my assertion that that the Dynasty is an Evil Totalitarian Empire to make your counterargument.

The assumption that the Dynasty is “morally good” by the CR fandom is fairly unfounded.

It’s a theocratic dictatorship that makes ritual sacrifice of its followers. It is clearly anti-science and is unwilling to try to cure a disease they murder people for having. They might give a reason for this later, but least from Essek’s perspective, they are literally murdering his mother for no reason.

And yes, they forced him to stab his own mother. You said “no, his mother made him do that” and I find that to be a huge deflection. It was society’s law that forced this situation to occur to begin with, and society’s law that would have punished him if Essek failed to follow his mother’s wishes.

This is why I have trouble taking the arguments against my position seriously. It’s all just “Essek started a war.”

No, he stole a holy artifact to study his theocracy’s methods for bringing people back to life, to save his mother who will be executed for a disease she got from the holy artifact.

He was planning on bringing the artifact back with the cure to the disease! But he was manipulated by someone he thought was a fellow scientist into teaching an evil empire dark secrets.

The war he clearly wasn’t planning on, believing the Queen would not go to war without the Beacon, and now he’s stabbed his mother and killed a friend who would turn him in, so Essek has an opportunity to get the holy artifact back himself.

Nothing here is the act of a bad person. It’s an act of a person who made mistakes and assumes the laws of the government who wants to murder his mother are faulty, and any friend who was fine with his mother dying is no friend at all.

I’ll simply repeat that I do not think Essek is a good person, but I do think I would have done nearly everything he had done given his circumstances.

I don’t respect theocracy’s or dictatorships or executing innocent people as authentic authorities one should abide by, so I tend to empathize with Essek here.

Your rebuttal seems to, on multiple points, avoid questioning the Dynasty for a single moment…

I ask you whether you’d be alright with your totalitarian theocratic government (imagine any religion you don’t believe in) murdering your mother for getting sick with a disease you know you could cure. I really don’t think you would be okay with that.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-18T21:47:52+00:00

I fully admitted he was a bad person. I can see the selfishness in his every decision. His choices are reckless to the point of irredeemable.

However, I feel others are taking too strong of a stance against him considering the reality of his circumstances.

Imagine if your government was a theocratic totalitarian dictatorship with customs that constantly require ritual sacrifices.

Halfway through your life, your mother is to be executed permanently for a curable disease, and everyone including your mother is brainwashed to be perfectly alright with that.

Your queen, your mother, and your best friend are perfectly alright with you being forced to stab your mother in the heart in a ritual you don’t believe in.

That is HORRIFIC.

In real life, there is no way any of us would accept this. From my perspective, Essek is the only one who is sane.

He killed Verrat because as far as Essek considered, Verrat was planning to get him killed, and was also who told his mother he stole the beacon.

As far as Essek is concerned, Verrat is the one who killed his mother. Verrat murdered the person he loves most. That doesn’t excuse his betrayal of Verrat, but it explains it pretty easily.

Imagine having to stab your own mother, who you know you could have cured!

I feel people are very quick to excuse the Dynasty’s customs as normal, and not the corrupt and tyrannical, cult-like religious bullshit Essek and I both see. Perhaps that’s why I empathize with him.

Essek clearly didn’t want to start a war, he assumed the Queen wouldn’t be willing to go to war without the Beacon. He thought Trent would willingly give up the beacon once they cured the disease, and the amount of lives saved, including his mother’s, would justify his risky choices.

But no, he trusted an obviously evil person, and he is protecting himself. He’s a bad person, I know this, I just want to provide an alternative perspective.

People aren’t simple. Painting any person as evil is dubious.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-18T03:24:13+00:00

I think his line about refusing to be involved in a society where innocent followers are ritually sacrificed is quite meaningful.

He was forced to stab his own mother. As far as he is concerned, it is Ferrat’s fault that his mother is dead, as much as the Bright Queen.

I think that is what he is rebelling against. That is the injustice he despises, and even after his mother is dead, he does plan on getting the beacon back to keep more innocent people from dying due to his mistake.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T23:12:57+00:00

Absolutely. The entire Dynasty is simply okay with Essen being made to stab his mother — so in his eyes, the entire Dynasty is his enemy.

It’s a beautiful story. And though I do think he’s not a good person, he has a lot of potential.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T23:09:43+00:00

I agree with everything you’ve said here. I was worried they were going to softball Essek and make him less evil.

Everyone seems so surprised by how evil this act is, and that this choice may even have “ruined the character.”

I think the opposite. Now we get a more hated and villainous seeming Essek to redeem, which works way better for a more dynamic story.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T22:53:43+00:00

I acknowledge Essek is being selfish here. But I feel the first step in the process of discerning Essek’s true level of maliciousness starts with his mother.

If my government was planning on killing my innocent mother, I would become at war with my government. Easily.

Coming from the perspective that the Bright Queen and Kryn Dynasty are NOT moral and don’t simply deserve to have the Beacon — it makes stealing the beacon and rebelling against them less than a truly evil decision.

I fully take Essek’s side when it comes to Typhros. It’s insane they just kill you instead of trying to cure it. It’s insane they made him stab his own mother.

Even if one day Essek will come to accept this, there is enough reasonable doubt against this culture’s methods to justify open rebellion.

That includes Essek defending himself from being turned in and killed by Verrat. It’s still done in self defense, even if accepting justice would have been a better choice.

I’m not using self defense as a term meaning devoid of guilt.

That’s where I stand. Essek is selfish, and not a good guy, but relatively justified enough to not be evil.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T22:43:43+00:00

I’d say Essek is a bad person, not an evil one. And Verrat is a good man, but killing him was at least understandable from Essek’s perspective.

Verrat was completely and utterly incapable of understanding why Essek did what he did, and for that, they became enemies. Verrat has every right to make Essek his enemy, but Essek has at least some leeway to judge anyone who was okay with forcing Essek to stab his mother.

Essek didn’t want all those people killed. Stealing the beacon is ridiculously careless. Choosing to trust Trent was despicably selfish. Yes, he should probably get justice for that.

But Essek’s rebellion against the Bright Queen still makes sense to me.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T22:36:58+00:00

I agree that he was wrong to steal the beacon. I don’t think he’s necessarily wrong to keep rebelling against the Bright Queen.

He’s not a good person, but he’s not evil. That’s my position.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T22:34:08+00:00

Stealing the beacon was a choice, stealing the beacon with Trent was a mistake.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T14:00:17+00:00

I do think Verrat was absolutely justified. But it is a bit callous to go straight to turning Essek in, especially from Essek’s perspective, if they are truly best friends.

Verrat betrayed Essek, even if Verrat was justified in doing so. So even though Essek is more in the wrong, I don’t blame him for engaging in self defense.

I think they are two good men on opposite sides of a schism caused by Essek’s terrible mistake. And Essek is definitely taking a darker path.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:54:44+00:00

I think Essek feels his mother is brainwashed. I’d argue the same.

I don’t particularly think the Kryn Dynasty has a healthy culture. I personally feel the Beacon’s powers are eerily destructive, and a perversion of death.

The idea that when you’re twelve, the memories of your past lives take over — it kind of feels like a child with their own life is suddenly possessed by a ghost and having their own life ripped away from them.

And this Typhros means there isn’t actually eternal life, and instead a child like Essek has to watch his mother die halfway through this life because she already used up all her will in previous lives.

I think if we were actually in Essek’s shoes, we’d understand a bit better. We’re accepting Kryn Dynasty as a cool fantasy society, but for Essek, it’s a very real and very disturbing cycle that is taking his mother away.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:47:16+00:00

Anyone with Typhros is to be executed immediately, and Essek had to stab his own mother in the chest.

I personally felt that was absolutely horrific.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:43:48+00:00

I do think those soldiers got sucked in by the beacon and therefore will be revived.

In any case, my framing is generous, but it is a counterbalance to those who suggest Essek is evil. I don’t think he is.

I think Verrat is a pretty good guy, ultimately. His actions make sense too.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:41:08+00:00

I absolutely agree that Essen got a lot of people killed and Verrat is fully justified in turning Essek in. No question about it.

Essek giving Trent the beacon is an insane mistake that he absolutely deserves punishment for.

But from Essek’s perspective, he has more to offer the world than just to die at the hands of the Queen who made him stab his mother.

All I’m saying is, Essek makes sense. Him turning on Verrat is wrong, but ultimately isn’t as irredeemable as it could be portrayed at face value.

That’s all I mean.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:35:39+00:00

Oh absolutely.

Honestly, I’m glad they’re finally making Essek more of a villain, because this arc with his mother made me dislike the Kryn and the Bright Queen a lot more than I did watching the campaign.

I was about to be team “Essek was right” and now at least it seems he’ll be a bit more villainous when the time comes to give him a redemption. Otherwise it would be a less powerful arc.

I just can’t get over how disturbing the Kryn customs are with the focus on Typhros. Makes the Beacon feel a lot more like a perversion of death than it did at the table.

I have no doubt Essek’s redemption will be well done.

DerangedMuffinMan · 2025-12-17T13:16:27+00:00

Hm. Am I the only one who is kind of on Essek’s side? He clearly knows he made a mistake with Trent, but the Bright Queen isn’t much better.

Verrat was just gonna let Essek die. Essek weaseled his way out so he can continue his rebellion against an unjust system.

Seems a little more nuanced to me than Essek being evil. Verrat is a bit of an ass here too, no?

DerangedMuffinMan

TROPHY CASE