FANDOM


    • So he wouldn't do anymore evil. Tarrlok sacrificed his life to save the bending populace.

        Loading editor
    • It was a self contained book so they had to wrap up the villains' story.

        Loading editor
    • It was because he no longer wanted Yakone's legacy to live on and he felt that what he and Noatak had done could no longer be reversed, so he felt that he had no other option but to kill them both :/

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Steph yeah? I think Tarrlok's motive was purely altruistic: he did it to save the benders and keep bending alive. All throughout LoK he implies that he would do anything to be Republic City's savior. In the end, he was and with that simple act he ceased to be one of the story's villains and became one of its greatest heroes.

        Loading editor
    • Naressa wrote:
      I agree with Steph yeah? I think Tarrlok's motive was purely altruistic: he did it to save the benders and keep bending alive. All throughout LoK he implies that he would do anything to be Republic City's savior. In the end, he was and with that simple act he ceased to be one of the story's villains and became one of its greatest heroes.

      Yes, I agree with that. He may have been a slimy politician, but he still loved his Republic. He died redeeming his sins.

        Loading editor
    • Naressa wrote: with that simple act he ceased to be one of the story's villains and became one of its greatest heroes.

      But who knows of his sacrifice? No one. Even if they found the boat's wreckage, I doubt anyone would piece together what caused the explosion, much less that it was Tarrlok who did it and why.

      So he did not "became one of its greatest heroes".

      No one knows. Except for us the audience.

        Loading editor
    • I think it had more to do with euthanizing Noatak.

        Loading editor
    • Love Robin wrote:

      Naressa wrote: with that simple act he ceased to be one of the story's villains and became one of its greatest heroes.

      But who knows of his sacrifice? No one. Even if they found the boat's wreckage, I doubt anyone would piece together what caused the explosion, much less that it was Tarrlok who did it and why.

      So he did not "became one of its greatest heroes".

      No one knows. Except for us the audience.

      So? A hero doesn't need to be recognized as such to be one.

      A hero is someone that in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, displays courage or self-sacriice for the greater good. According to Wikipedia, it says nothing on recognition.

      Now, is he a hero? I don't think so, but maybe an antihero?

        Loading editor
    • Tarrlok and Noatak did have a rough childhood, and it left scars which probably contributed to Noatak becoming Amon and Tarrlok becoming a power hungry politician, nevertheless I agree that Tarrlok probably killed himself either because he thought it was the best for him and his brother or because he thought it was the best for Republic City (or both). However whatever the reason Tarrlok had for killing Noatak I think it seems that he wasn't satisfied with his own life, since I think that if he wanted, he could have killed Noatak without killing himself, because Noatak wasn't suspecting anything.

      An interesting thing with this murder/suicide is that I think that it reveals a bit of Tarrlok's character, I mean didn't Noatak want to start over fresh with his brother? But Tarrlok killed him anyway, because he believed he knew better, which brings up the question, who is Tarrlok to decide between life and death? Especially since some might even consider Noatak and the equalists to be "heroes" because they fight for the "oppressed" non benders. Furthermore, whatever people think about the equalists and their questionable methods for achieving their goals, one have got to remember that they didn't kill anyone if I remember correctly, so they could definitely have been more ruthless than they were. Anyway my point is that it seems like Tarrlok thinks that he has the right to decide between life and death, which might be connected to his hunger for power, which in turn may be connected to his lack of power as a child to resist his father cruel treatment of him and Noatak.      

        Loading editor
    • The fact that the boat was full of stockpiled Equalist gear suggests that, on some level, Noatak wasn't being honest when he said he wanted to start over.

        Loading editor
    • In-universe, because he beleived his brother would only be a threat if left alive

      IRL because there was only supposed to be one season and they needed to wrap up the story

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I go with the idea that the writers had to wrap up their story as the foremost reason to deal with the two. You certainly couldn't have Amon running around the background if there's only one book and its rather tough to imprison a bloodbender with much power.

        Loading editor
    • Tarrlok did it because he knew it would never really stop otherwise. TBH, I can't reall believe Noatak was as good a brother as Tarrlok claimed. I mean, how many years did it take before he genuinely defended Tarrlok from Yakone's abuse? And even then, he could've refused to blood bend Tarrlok at all instead of doing so and then abandon'ing him over slight hesitation.

        Loading editor
    • The Creators said the he did it because tarlok realized the world would be better off without them involved

        Loading editor
    • Avatar Beta wrote: Tarrlok did it because he knew it would never really stop otherwise. TBH, I can't reall believe Noatak was as good a brother as Tarrlok claimed. I mean, how many years did it take before he genuinely defended Tarrlok from Yakone's abuse? And even then, he could've refused to blood bend Tarrlok at all instead of doing so and then abandon'ing him over slight hesitation.

      The way things like that usually work, it's amazing that Noatak stood up to Yakone at all.

        Loading editor
    • Really? Even if he had the power to do that? He was clearly many levels above Yakone the moment he learned bloodbending.

      As for Tarrlok, i think is more than just "i never had power now i wil kill because this gives me the sensation of being god". His family's genes have brought suffering to a lot of people including him and his brother, so he wanted to end it for all killing the remaining members of his family. It really seems like the writers had to finish it in a hurry, but i liked this ending for both of them.

        Loading editor
    • Strength has nothing to do with it, people in abusive relationships tend to just convince themselves that they deserve it. If they have a child who is also being abused, often they won't intervene when the abuse is taking place, but will try to teach the child that they shouldn't make the abuser angry.

      And those are adults, so you can imagine that the effect would be even more pronounced if a child were raised in that environment, & even more than that, actively taught that this was the right way to behave. Sadly, a lot of kids who grow up in abusive homes grow up to be abusive themselves.

      As with many phenomena, the best way to break that cycle is to make people aware of it. People who understand how the cycle of abuse works are much less likely to write off early signs of abuse, & so they aren't as likely to stay involved with an abuser. And therapists generally agree that abusers CAN change with professional help, but the problem is, most simply don't want to.

        Loading editor
    • That also involves writing that type of process in the show and I don't really expect it very often in a show that's more aimed for dhilren to young adults. We did have the potential for a support system in the ATLA comics so I'd imagine that there would be sort of help in LoK too.

        Loading editor
    • No comment on the rather skeevy implications of what Bryke said.

      However, to put the same basic concept in what I hope are somewhat less skeevy terms?  I think part of it was self-loathing on Tarrlok's part.  He was ruined, it was his own fault that he was ruined, he'd broken a personal vow (concerning bloodbending), and he'd gotten depowered to boot (much as I got something of an impression that being a waterbender at all was a mixed blessing for him). 

      Another part of it was that he knew that it was the only way to ensure that Noatak would no longer be a threat.

      (And part of it was that Bryke just wanted them out of the picture for good so that they could start on a new arc with all-new antagonists.)

        Loading editor
    • They didn't really know that there would be a continuation of LoK after the first book so I'm exactly sure of the last point. You'd want the main villains to be defeated by the end though. In most stories at the very least.

        Loading editor
    • Kubernes wrote: They didn't really know that there would be a continuation of LoK after the first book

      Books 2, 3, and 4 were all ordered before B1 even aired. B@ was ordered even before the halfway point.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      The fact that the boat was full of stockpiled Equalist gear suggests that, on some level, Noatak wasn't being honest when he said he wanted to start over.

      Didn't notice that, but it could be a coincidence, since the boat was probably owned by the equalists so it could have been used to transport the equipment for their attack at Republic City.

      Regarding the fact that people who are being abused often become abusers themselves, seem to be true for Noatak and Tarrlok who both became very controlling and abusive, they did however have good intentions, but then again so does many abusers and people in general.

        Loading editor
    • I've heard the coincidence argument, but probably not. Who would just leave a bunch of equipment in a boat? Electrical equipment, to boot.

        Loading editor
    • We are talking about a group, the Equalists, who are essentially in a state of war. Because of the fact that the city is a port, boats seem to be plausible way to transport equipment. Considering the finale battle of book 1's location, it helps add to that case, but there does seem to be an quite a bit of equipment unless the Equalists were simply packing in as much equipment as they can.

        Loading editor
    • I would also like to add that Noatak did probably not think that he would lose the battle for Republic City (because he probably have a very high opinion of himself) and he most definitely didn't count on getting his identity revealed (since it seemed like no one could defeat him). So the boat might very well have been intended to be used in the battle for Republic City or maybe in future attack on another part of the world, but then when Noatak's identity was revealed he used it to escape instead.

        Loading editor
    • You don't tend to use a motor boat as storage, you tend to either store the weapons or use them, & the only time they'd be on a shelf in a boat is when going from Points A to B.

      I suppose it's possible that all of the Equalist boats had stuff in them in expectation for an upcoming battle.

        Loading editor
    • Did the Equalists really have anything like larger ships in book 1? I'd imagine that they would use the roads to transport most of the equipment or airships for the rest. Other than that I suppose you'd use what's commonly available?

        Loading editor
    • I suppose that they could get hold of some sort of cargo ship, since they were allied with Hiroshi Sato, who as the owner of a large company should have access to such ships, because it would probably be quite important for the company to transport its products by boats, because some boats have an enormous carrying capacity.

        Loading editor
    • To put an end to the sad history of his family. There was no redemption so long as they were both alive.

        Loading editor
    • Why do you think that there wasn't any redemption as long as both were alive? I mean sure Tarrlok was a corrupt politician and Amon could be considered a terrorist leader which struck fear in the inhabitants of Republic City and he also took away the bending from multiple people, but I don't think that their crimes is really that bad. Have they even killed someone? So with a whole life ahead of them, I certainly think that they would be able to get redemption for their crimes.

        Loading editor
    • Because both were corrupted by their father's desires for revenge against the Avatar, one way or another.

      Tarrlok wanted to control the United Republic through political means. But his methods were no different from his father's methods, only he didn't use his Bloodbending until he had to face Korra.

      Noatok/Amon wanted to possess the power to take bending away from the world after accepting that a power like that was more powerful than Bloodbending. He wanted to create equality by doing this, but wouldn't stop with the people that abused their bending; he would eventually go after anyone with bending, even innocent people.

        Loading editor
    • It was simple. Tarlok was tired. Weary to his soul. It *all* needed to end. And in thinking *he* needed peace, he felt his brother needed it too.

      Actions and reasoning like this do not need to make sense *to us*. They only need to make sense to the person/character.

        Loading editor
    • But Tarrlok also knew that it was the only way to end the sad history of Yakone. Sometimes, there's redemption in death. Also, he must've suspected that as long as his brother still possessed the power of Bloodbending, he was unlikely to escape its hold over him.

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote:
      Because both were corrupted by their father's desires for revenge against the Avatar, one way or another.

      Tarrlok wanted to control the United Republic through political means. But his methods were no different from his father's methods, only he didn't use his Bloodbending until he had to face Korra.

      Noatok/Amon wanted to possess the power to take bending away from the world after accepting that a power like that was more powerful than Bloodbending. He wanted to create equality by doing this, but wouldn't stop with the people that abused their bending; he would eventually go after anyone with bending, even innocent people.

      I agree with you on what crimes Tarrlok and Amon have comitted, however I don't think they are that bad and as you say yourself they were corrupted by their father which makes it even more understandable why they have pursued a criminal life. Furthermore, I would like to point out that no one has actually tried to help them with their mental problems, because no one knew that they were Yakone's sons, so we don't know if they their problems could have been solved, but I think that they could have redeemed their lives if they would have gotten the right help.

      "It was simple. Tarlok was tired. Weary to his soul. It *all* needed to end. And in thinking *he* needed peace, he felt his brother needed it too.

      Actions and reasoning like this do not need to make sense *to us*. They only need to make sense to the person/character."

      Yes I also think that what you mentioned is what went through Tarrlok's mind before he killed them both and I really like your second sentence, since I think it is true and because it goes on to proclaim that Tarrlok's mental health wasn't at its peak when he decided to kill himself and Amon.

      "But Tarrlok also knew that it was the only way to end the sad history of Yakone. Sometimes, there's redemption in death. Also, he must've suspected that as long as his brother still possessed the power of Bloodbending, he was unlikely to escape its hold over him."

      I would say that Tarrlok thought that it was the only way to end the sad story of the Yakone family, because he could impossibly know for sure that there wasn't another way to end the history of Yakone and his sons and because of this uncertainty I think it is wrong of Tarrlok to deny his brother a second chance at living a better life.

        Loading editor
    • Did they really need someone to know about their past to help them? I could see a new family life potentially allowing them to put their energy rather than subconsciously trying to take power. This could have worked in a longer series but having the villains just get away usually is a negative thing in a show geared towards younger audiances.

      I'd also include the observation about Tarrlok not being in top shape physically and possibly mentally too. Perhaps he just couldn't see a situation where the two could live a normal life or trying to take power again. 

        Loading editor
    • Don't forget that Bloodbending leaves its users open and vulnerable to negative tendencies, such as madness if used often. Plus, these two, along with their father, used it for years, so they could've been unable to escape the madness.

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote:
      Don't forget that Bloodbending leaves its users open and vulnerable to negative tendencies, such as madness if used often. Plus, these two, along with their father, used it for years, so they could've been unable to escape the madness.

      No where is it stated that bloodbending has any kind of detrimental mental effects on the user. No where.

        Loading editor
    • Other than how it affected Katara, and that it was outlawed as the most heinous of bending? Sure, I guess the bending itself is not detrimental, but all users of it have had to make decisions which crossed moral event horizons. Katara herself, although pushed to it to save her friends, had to do it despite considering it vile and not wanting to ever use it.

      Which sounds a lot like what is said about killing. Once done, it affects and changes you, and it becomes easier to do it again.

      I suppose in that regard, it is also similar to how using the Force in and with anger pushes one into the Darkside. Apparently each incident, each time, each step makes it easier and easier to do and think that way again.

      Of course, with only 4 characters known to have bloodbent, the data pool is rather shallow, but consider how 3 of those 4 acted.

      Personally, I'd love to see a future setting from the LoK "20s" where bloodbending is just starting to be recognized for medical potentials. Perhaps a story following a young BBer who is frightened of their "gift" due to the stigma associated with it. Friend of an Avatar or not, could be an Avatar-less story set in their world. The journey of their story would end with their acceptance of it and carving a better-understood niche where BBers supplement the healing arts. Sure it is the most easily abused bending, but that is more akin to how a machinegun is more easily abused than a hunting carbine. The fault lays more with the user than the art itself.

        Loading editor
    • That wouldn't make any sense at all. Bloodbending is an advanced ability requiring lots of training, even the Yakone family didn't just "happen" to have it.

      That's assuming that it even HAS "medical uses," & isn't simply the opposite of Healing.

        Loading editor
    • A blade can be used to cut off a limb or it can be used to perform precision incisions. Even the former can *still* be medically useful if the limb is septic or necrotic. Such as gangrenous. Or a Zombie bite.

      It is not the tool which determines its medical use, it is by who and how it is wielded. Careful incisions are vital during operations more so than approaching the "healing" with a meat cleaving mentality. But there was a time when that *was* the extent of approaching medical procedures. For a while "operations" such as digging out a ball-slug were just as damaging to the patient as getting shot.

      Then came along the practice of using poisons to counteract illnesses.

      Slicing open a throat can kill or save lives. The later is known as tracheostomies (yes, also requires a tube or other method to leave the hole open for the procedure, but I trust you get the point).

      It is not the tool, it is the user wielding it and the application to how it is used.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut
      Neo Bahamut removed this reply because:
      I'll just be asked to expound upon it anyway, so I might as well make a better comment.
      00:41, June 17, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • That has such little relevance to what I said that I initially just made a nasty comment about it, but since I'd be expected to elaborate anyway, here we are:

      The "tool" is waterbending, bloodbending & Healing are both applications OF waterbending. There is absolutely no evidence that bloodbending itself has healing properties, particularly any beyond what Healing can do. As any healing properties it may hypothetically possess would be redundant, that's a rather lousy reason to learn the ability.

      This is also presumably why nobody ever inquires about "the killing potential of Healing," it doesn't make any damn sense, if you use it to kill people, by definition it is not Healing.

      Think about how little sense it would make for someone to try to counter the statement that "the electric chair can't heal" with "electricity has medical uses, it doesn't only kill people."

      No shit "electricity" has multiple uses, but "the electric chair" ISN'T electricity, it's a device that induces death by electric shock. Defibrillation is not a function of the electric chair, & so it is irrelevant.

        Loading editor
    • In the Bloodbending page, it's said that those that Bloodbending leaves people vulnerable to madness.

        Loading editor
    • Healing with waterbending appears to be external applications. The healer takes some special water (pure? Mineral? Imbued with spiritual energy?) and passes along the outside of the patient. What exactly is going on is not hinted at. Could there be an exchange of fluids? The Special water exchanged for tainted water from the patient? Personally, I doubt that as the water is seen a couple times as returned to its container. If it were tainted, there would *at least* be a show of excising the contaminants from it first, same as Katara separated water from soup.

      However, bloodbending is internal. The bender has to sense the blood/fluid flow inside the target. Then they move it to their will. Usually twisting to inflict pain. Even levitating the target.

      Which, BTW, is virtually the same thing the Swampy Water Tribe benders were doing by bending water inside plants and vines to make their "monster" move and seem alive. So bloodbending is just a specialized application of an otherwise known process. Plants, at least non-spirit plants, do not feel (or communicate their) pain.

      But back to BBing. So take a BBer who instead of simply twisting and inflicting pain on a patient, use it to get a better sense of a body's internal organs. A water/fluid version of the Beifong seismic "sounding". So a BBer could "see" similar to an ultrasound. Sense internal bleeding and damage to organs. And if BBing can levitate an entire body, if it can twist limbs, there is every reason to expect a careful use of the art could push or pull organs back into place, to clamp off internally bleeding sources, to help a heart start and regain sinus rhythm, etc. All without needing to open the body the way our modern medicos do.

      Which is aligned with traditional Asian medical philosophies.

      Now, obviously this is an extrapolation of what we see, and there would have to be refinements of the art to become this extrapolation. But scalpels were not always the short fine blades they are today; they used to be larger, wider, and heavier, and used more to hack off a limb than rebuild internal injuries.

      A BBer in AtLA or LoK is unlikely to use their art in this fashion. 3 of the 4 known BBers used it as a tool of terror and revenge, and the 4th was scared by that potential as she was taught by an old woman who used to for those dark purposes, even having to force Katara to use it to save friends. That affected her so much that 80 some years later she did not (as far as we know) try using it to help Korra. And apparently no one in Korra's time knew she even knew how.

      But place this bending style in a gentle soul so appalled and fearful of his "dark gift" he hides it and shies away from using it *or* normal waterbending. Then give him a journey to discover that there might be useful applications for it in growing knowledge base of healing. If I were not already invested in my own fics, I'd be tempted to try my hand at that story.

        Loading editor
    • But place this bending style in a gentle soul so appalled and fearful of his "dark gift" he hides it and shies away from using it *or* normal waterbending.

      My initial post was 2 lines long, & this was the 1st, there's no way you could have not seen it:

      That wouldn't make any sense at all. Bloodbending is an advanced ability requiring lots of training, even the Yakone family didn't just "happen" to have it.

      Bloodbending is not a "gift," it's a skill that requires a lot of training. You don't accidentally a bloodbender, & so the whole premise falls apart.

      Now, I'll grant you, my statement that bloodbending can't heal was inaccurate, however the following points remain:

      1. None of the extrapolated healing properties indicate that there's any affliction that can be healed by Bloodbending but not Healing.

      2. That bloodbending doesn't require outside water is as trivial as the odds of needing to heal someone during the full moon but not having access to even the paltry amount of water that Healing requires (assuming you even still need outside water once the full moon is in play). And no, you cannot "learn to do it at any time," the show makes it VERY clear that this was an inherited trait of Yakone's.

      Thus, arguments for the medical necessity of bloodbending would fall short.

      But ironically, any Healer who DOES find themselves in that long shot odds position of actually requiring bloodbending would not have a problem. Anyone sufficiently advanced that theycan be trusted with those operations would already know enough to be capable of Bloodbending even if they lack formal training in the skill (see Katara).

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote:
      In the Bloodbending page, it's said that those that Bloodbending leaves people vulnerable to madness.

      Only in the trivia section, and only sourced to an Avatar Extras blurb not written by Bryke. It's of dubious canonicity, and even if considered canon, it's pretty much retconned by LoK showing a family of bloodbenders who all remained sane well into adulthood.  

      I'd also mention the page includes a whole lot of unsourced speculation, including about whether or not bloodbending has medical uses. It's a problem. Either sources need to be provided, or it should be deleted. 

        Loading editor
    • I would actually argue that it was never meant to be taken that literally to begin with, but prior experience trying to explain things like metaphor & nuance to Aggression has been...not great.

      At this point, I'm not even surprised to find that a page on this Wiki is filled with unsourced-but-popular speculation.

        Loading editor
    • Neo, my main issue with you is that in your post dissections you wish to focus mainly on word choices and pick them apart instead of working with the spirit of the word choices.

      You elected to pick at the term "gift" in regards to bloodbending, and because you feel it does not fit, want to say the premise falls apart.

      No. It does not. In this topic, "gift", "art", "style", "skill" are just a few alternative means of saying "Bending" so that a sentence does not suffer repetition. I'm fairly sure you knew that. Even those with gifts in our mundane world, for example, playing piano, does not equate they do not have to practice, or are incapable of improving. In fact it is often said, "they have a gift and with practice can be greater/greatest".

      In addition, "bending" of any sort is a gift. From what we've seen so far in Avatar Canon, no amount of training will enable a non-bender to bend. At best there might be some physiological or psychosomatic blockage preventing a bender from accessing their gifts. And of course, the very "cosmic balance" shifting can "gift" a non-bender with the gift of bending (which may be some other form of blockage removal no one knows to look for or correct) as evidenced by post-Convergence.

      And of course, Lionturtles are able to gift the varied gifts. So "Gift" is indeed a very solid term for bending.

      Now, just because a Goal can be accomplished in one way, in one fashion, by a certain procedure does not PROHIBIT the use of any other way, fashion, or procedure to accomplish the same thing. A Precordial Thump can resuscitate a patient in V-fib. But so can CPR, (usually in conjunction with) a defibrillator, or a shot of Epi, or other drugs and long-shot but proscribed protocols. Sometimes multiple methods have to be attempted if the first ones fail.

      Just because a doctor has a preferred methodology of restoring cardiac sinus rhythm does not mean they cannot get the same results from other procedures. Especially if limited access to preferred tools and resources.

      So just because a waterbender can use their gifts to heal, does not mean a bloodbender using their gifts to heal is not an alternative.

      Now, presuming that there are a tribe of "bloodbending healers" on one side of a mountain, lake, or other time-lengthy divide from a tribe of waterbending healers, would you risk your life or that of your friends and loved ones by insisting on going to the WBs instead of the BBs?

      Finally, just because "waterbenders can heal" does not invalidate a story about a bloodbender finding a legitimately helpful application for healing.

      And I'm sure you're not being bigoted or racist against the concept of an art/style/skill/gift just for being that art/style/skill/gift.

        Loading editor
    • In this topic, "gift", "art", "style", "skill" are just a few alternative means of saying "Bending" so that a sentence does not suffer repetition. I'm fairly sure you knew that.

      So are you claiming that everyone has this magic ability to somehow "know" what people supposedly "really mean" even if they don't say it, or just me?

      Now, presuming that there are a tribe of "bloodbending healers" on one side of a mountain, lake, or other time-lengthy divide from a tribe of waterbending healers, would you risk your life or that of your friends and loved ones by insisting on going to the WBs instead of the BBs?

      What if bloodbending had a 1000% greater chance of complications than waterbending healing? See, anyone can just say "what if" & then introduce new facts that would "prove" them right.

      Finally, just because "waterbenders can heal" does not invalidate a story about a bloodbender finding a legitimately helpful application for healing.

      I'm still waiting for you to validate it to begin with. How do the rare cases in which bloodbending might arguably be necessary outweigh the costs of making it more widespread? If this is so apparently necessary, then why would anyone even have a problem with the protagonist proposing it?

      You're not answering these questions. Nobody who has ever proposed "bloodbending healing" to me has ever answered these questions. ARE there legitimate answers to these questions? Because as far as I can tell, the sum total of these pitches is simply having an angsty, mistunderstood protagonist who's special because they're the only bloodbending healer.

      And I'm sure you're not being bigoted or racist against the concept of an art/style/skill/gift just for being that art/style/skill/gift.
      1. KataraIsLiterallyHitler.
        Loading editor
    • Bloodbending is only cruel on account that it allows the bender to control people against their will. Even if it could be used to help people, you still leave yourself vulnerable to the seductive influence it has.

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote: Bloodbending is only cruel on account that it allows the bender to control people against their will. Even if it could be used to help people, you still leave yourself vulnerable to the seductive influence it has.

      First, we don't *know* that bloodbending itself has any sort of seductive influence.

      1. Katara apparently was not seduced by it. In fact, although forced to use the skill, she did so to save the lives of her friends.
      2. Everyone we know who was a bloodbender had revenge issues. 1 even had his bending removed and he still had revenge in his heart, which he taught his children.
      3. As a boy Tarrlok also was forced to learn BB, which he hated doing and actively avoided using it until Korra pressed him to the point he felt his life in danger.

      If every person you meet who has a gun and tries to shoot you, is the gun seducing them? Or are they just nervous or fearful or on edge, or even crazy? Can you blame the gun for their state of mind?

      No. Sorry, nothing supports the thought of BB as being a seductive influence.

      Neo Bahamut wrote:

      In this topic, "gift", "art", "style", "skill" are just a few alternative means of saying "Bending" so that a sentence does not suffer repetition. I'm fairly sure you knew that.

      So are you claiming that everyone has this magic ability to somehow "know" what people supposedly "really mean" even if they don't say it, or just me?

      Well, most people are able to understand the spirit of conversations. Most 3rd graders I've known, both myself at that age and my kids and their friends, have a pretty decent grasp of it too. Especially those with high marks in school for Works and plays well with others (or however your schools have termed it).

      We usually call it "common sense".

      Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Now, presuming that there are a tribe of "bloodbending healers" on one side of a mountain, lake, or other time-lengthy divide from a tribe of waterbending healers, would you risk your life or that of your friends and loved ones by insisting on going to the WBs instead of the BBs?

      What if bloodbending had a 1000% greater chance of complications than waterbending healing? See, anyone can just say "what if" & then introduce new facts that would "prove" them right.

      Yup. Anyone can say "what if". The entire premise of using BB for healing is a "what if".

      A "What if" and a "I'd like to see" coupled with a willingness to explore a potential story concept rather than simply shoot it down out of hand.

      Where would we be if when Bryke had said "what if the next avatar is a girl" and the execs shot them down out of hand? Putting "What ifs" out there is how stories and shows come about. All the ones told how stupid their ideas are at every turn are the ones we never see.

      Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Finally, just because "waterbenders can heal" does not invalidate a story about a bloodbender finding a legitimately helpful application for healing.

      I'm still waiting for you to validate it to begin with. How do the rare cases in which bloodbending might arguably be necessary outweigh the costs of making it more widespread? If this is so apparently necessary, then why would anyone even have a problem with the protagonist proposing it?

      You're not answering these questions. Nobody who has ever proposed "bloodbending healing" to me has ever answered these questions. ARE there legitimate answers to these questions? Because as far as I can tell, the sum total of these pitches is simply having an angsty, mistunderstood protagonist who's special because they're the only bloodbending healer.

      I don't need to "validate" a "what if" or a "I'd like to see". But I actually did validate it with all of my rebuttal about how BB could be used for healing with analogies to how different medical procedures have evolved… "eat mold? are you crazy?" …"wait, you propose to inject poison to cure him?" …"you're telling me you want to give me the disease to keep me from getting it?".

      Furthermore, even if such a story had the BBer fail in his goals and ideals to legitimize bloodbending… it could still be a story worth investigating. As Mythbusters have said, "Failure is an option". After all, it is the journey of the story which is important more so than whether or not the characters reach a successful conclusion.

      "Somebody said that it couldn't be done, [...] So with a trace of a grin, he buckled right in, by golly he went right to it. [...]
      But we tackled that job they said couldn´t be done, And we couldn´t flipping do it!
      — Twist/joke (IIRC, by Benny Hill) ending to Edgar Albert Guest's poem

      Neo Bahamut wrote:

      And I'm sure you're not being bigoted or racist against the concept of an art/style/skill/gift just for being that art/style/skill/gift.
      1. KataraIsLiterallyHitler.

      In summation: you don't like the story idea? You think it is dumb/stupid/preposterous/etc?

      That is your right.
      You are not a decision maker for Avatar story concepts and proposals.
      So I don't need to validate or convince you of anything.
        Loading editor
    • Bloodbending is seductive! Only Katara is exempt from it because she hates forcing her will upon others! Hama, while full of revenge, took it out on people that weren't technically responsible for her misfortune. Yakone, even after losing his bending, was still under the influence because of the power it gave him that Aang took away. Tarrlok, despite having his bending severed, wasn't as under the influence as his brother and father were, but knew that he and Amon were still dangerous and had to be stopped.

        Loading editor
    • Yup. Anyone can say "what if".

      What if my response to your arguments about bloodbending healing wasn't to admit that I got something wrong, but instead to cry about why would you argue against something I said in public, it's so unfair & I don't have to prove anything to you.

      Well, then I'd be you, now wouldn't I?

      No. Sorry, nothing supports the thought of BB as being a seductive influence.

      Hey now, that's his opinion, & you're not the arbitrator of whether or not his opinion is right. He doesn't have to prove anything to you. By trying to prove him wrong, you're just grandstanding, & it's really uncivil.

      We usually call it "common sense".

      I call it back pedaling. You didn't say or even imply training anywhere, but hiding behind the nebulous notion of "common sense" means you never have to admit you were wrong about something. Redefining what you "meant" on the go so you're always "right" is the oldest trick in the book.

      Never mind that if your psychology degree was real, you'd know that "common sense" is a bogus concept, because people consistently overestimate how universal their own thoughts are.

      But I actually did validate it with all of my rebuttal about how BB could be used for healing with analogies to how different medical procedures have evolved

      No, you didn't validate crap. A placebo has "some" medical benefit, but that doesn't mean it's (A) significant or (B) ethical. I've been saying this the whole time, but you just keep reducing to the straw man argument that whether or not there's "some" medical benefit is all that matters.

      Even IF you didn't go around claiming it's literally your job to understand & apply these principles, it still makes absolutely no sense that your idea of "common sense" apparently does not includes addressing what I actually say.

      After all, it is the journey of the story which is important more so than whether or not the characters reach a successful conclusion.

      This is just a deepity. The "journey" still has to have some substance & internal logic. If you can't address the plot holes that would arise, I don't care if it's fashionable to coddle people's opinions, it is a reasonable, non-arbitrary conclusion that the "idea" is, at the VERY LEAST, not developed enough.

      So I don't need to validate or convince you of anything.

      Even if nobody sees it, a story full of plot holes is still full of plot holes. Its invalidity exists independent of the observer.

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote: Bloodbending is seductive! Only Katara is exempt from it because she hates forcing her will upon others! Hama, while full of revenge, took it out on people that weren't technically responsible for her misfortune. Yakone, even after losing his bending, was still under the influence because of the power it gave him that Aang took away. Tarrlok, despite having his bending severed, wasn't as under the influence as his brother and father were, but knew that he and Amon were still dangerous and had to be stopped.

      Well, your interpretations are of course, your interpretations. But you are reading into canon events things which were no said. You are providing your reasoning, what Wikipedia calls "Original Research" all from your insistent viewpoint that the bending itself is "seductive" and "corruptive".

      Granted, most of it *does* appear to fit what is seen, but again, Katara did not fall under its influence even after knowing it for 80some years. And that needs more than "because she hates forcing her will upon others". See, either the bending IS seductive and corruptive, or it is not. And if it is not, then *anyone* can avoid being like the other BBers we've seen just so long as they don't want to *force* themselves on others.

      Hama wanted revenge on a people, not individual persons. She wanted to make the Fire Nation citizens pay.

      The others likewise had varied reasons to use BB in anger and revenge, although Tarlock tried to live his life without using it, when pushed into a corner he used it instinctively.


      @Neo Bahamut wrote:

      Look, I'm not "backpedaling" or any other form of "revisionism" you may want to try and spin against me.

      • In a discussion—this *is* a discussion, not a debate—I stated a story concept *I'd* like to see explored.
      • You hopped on that with "it's stupid" or some other paraphrasing to that effect.
      • I tried to expand on the story as I see it partially.
      • You want to knock *those* ideas down with the viewpoint that BBing is not a useful or smart "healing art" and that there are better ways, in particular the WBers.
      • I tried to provide examples of how modern medicine as we know it is
        1. not always the "sophisticated" procedures as we know then today, most evolved and are refined from older crude and dangerous methods.
        2. multiple and alternative procedures are acceptable, meaning no ONE methodology is cast in stone. So just because WBers are healers, does not mean BBers cannot have legitimate healing applications as well.
      • You insist I've not validated my points.
      • I state that not only have I validated my points, but in fact, because this is a story concept, I don't need to validate them to you Or get your approval.

      In addition, I accept that my "what if" story concept proposal may have some plot holes in it. But that's because I'm not (yet) sitting down to actually write it. And nearly every initial and early concept to a story is riddled with holes and weaknesses which need addressing and shoring up.

      Once again, you approach every thread and post as if a debate seemingly with the aim "to win". You pick apart every word with the intention of proving others wrong, idiots, or whatever. My mistake is trying to have a discussion with you when you clearly don't wish to discuss. You wish to dissect, debate, and win.

      You insist on bringing [something] to a [lesser something] fight.

      And no matter what you say about the "BB healing" story concept or me, I'm not going to continue this sub-topic with you further.

        Loading editor
    • You don't "discuss" with me, you say words in my direction that do not address what I say. Then you'll accuse me of dishonesty &, when I don't sit there & take it, cry how unfair it is that I'd say the same of you. I don't know why you do it. I don't ask you to, because I know what I'll get. I don't even like you, if I've not made that PAINFULLY obvious.

      And you know what, while I imitated you as a joke, I'm gonna stand by that. Not that Aggression is right, but if you hate being debunked so much & think it's such a horrible thing for me to do to you, don't do it to him.

        Loading editor
    • If Bloodbending is not considered an influential art that it corrupting, why else was it deemed an illegal art?

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote:
      If Bloodbending is not considered an influential art that it corrupting, why else was it deemed an illegal art?


      Because it's too powerful. It's like if there was a way for anyone to gain as much power as the Avatar State, it would be illegal because you don't want to take chances with that kind of power. And to be honest, Korra could stop a lot of villains by using bloodbending, so not using it is kind of stupid.

      And look at the people you are trying to use to prove your point. A war prisoner who is mentally unstable due to being kept in a cage surrounded by fire and probably suffered many other horrors in the hands of the FN soldiers, a mafia boss, and two kids who were raised by an abusive father. The only one you can say was "seduced" is Yakone. And the other bloodbender is Katara, who wasn't "seduced". I can't believe i'm writing this but, like Robin said, it is either seductive or it isn't. Even Katara used it out of anger against the current commander of the Southern Raiders. Bloodbending is as corrupted as any other bending. You could say firebending corrupts based on Sozin and Ozai, while ignoring Iroh saying he just doesn't like forcing his will on others. Or you can say the same for airbending based on Zaheer, while countering the thousands of peace loving air nomads by saying the reason they meditated and tried so hard to supress their human nature was because they had to counter airbending's corruptive power. You're taking people with extreme circunstances and making them as the rule, while ignoring the only normal person there[Katara] and saying she is an exception.

        Loading editor
    • Aggression25 wrote:
      If Bloodbending is not considered an influential art that it corrupting, why else was it deemed an illegal art?

      Hmmm, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the whole point of bloodbending is taking control of another person's body and forcing them to do things against their will. It's not like most societies see violations of personal automony as a serious moral wrong or anything like that, so why else could it...

      ...Oh wait. That's exactly why. Try thinking before you post kid. 99% of the questions you ask here have ridiculously obvious answers. 

        Loading editor
    • ...What did this thread even turn into?

        Loading editor
    • Marc Zaddy wrote: ...What did this thread even turn into?

      It just turned into an expanded reason to why Tarrlok committed a murder-suicide.

      And we disagree on why.

        Loading editor
    • "History often repeats." He tried to prevent it by sacrificing himself and his brother, delaying a similar event.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message