The conversation at the start of the Venthyr covenant campaign seems to point in a different direction. In the very opening, Renathal goes on a long speech about returning Revendreth to its honorable purpose and all that, to which the Accuser quips that he made the exact same speech years ago, before the drought, and before Denthrius’s intentions were known (The Court of the Harvesters Quest). In other words, he tried to start his rebellion well before Denathrius showed any sign of turning against the Shadowlands. Thus, the initial spark hardly seems to come from desperation.
Case and point, he preaches these values, but he hardly seems to believe them. He would hardly be a more virtuous leader than Dentharius. Their only real difference seems to be who they side with.
It’s literally both. Using the former to try and cause the latter. Basically, it’s the ends justifying the means, supposedly. Doesn’t really matter whether the person inflicting it is happy to inflict it or is indifferent. Torture to the victim is still torture. And yes, I do call it torture, based on the definition, which is
“the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim”
Hardly. Again, it seems more what he preaches, not practices, but instead of really taking any glee, he simply seems to not care.
Except when he SPOILERS-
-tortures Denathrius at the end Castle Nathria, where he openly mocks him by using a phrase that Denathrius used against him (“remember this lesson”). So in other words, he takes his pleasure where he can, and is hardly an impartial judge. And even if he were only impartial to one person, that doesn’t really make him any better from a moral standpoint does it?
So, she tries to get him angry by accusing him of being soft, when he openly claims that he that he is “nothing if not compassionate.” So she’s trying to make him angry by telling him that he is what he claims to be…
Also, for the sake of the player who she is trying to convince in the same scene, she’s proclaiming that she would support a ruler that stuck to the ancient, less merciful ways.
The example I used above was from the Accuser, one of his supporters. She claims his speech of restoring Revendreth and all is a sham, because he made the same speech to spark his initial rebellion, before Denathrius has shown any signs of turning. As such, she, who claims to believe in Revendreth’s purpose, does not seem to follow him out of belief in him, but rather because it is the easiest way to unseat Denathrius.
His cause is taking down Denathrius… so ya. I guess he believes in that. As stated above, he’s not doing it out of altruism or any sense of “Revendreth’s Honorable Purpose.” If he did, he would have started his rebellion much more recently.
Hardly. Denathrius is looking to change the Shadowlands as a whole, which is why he sides with the Jailor, who’s goal is to do just that. Being one of it’s rulers, Denathrius has had to live that purpose for countless years, and now seeks to crush it in order to make something different.
Renathal has shown little to no interest in what goes on beyond Revendreth, aside from the threat of the Jailor. He only contacts the Eternal Ones once he realizes that he can’t beat Sire Denathrius himself, or the Jailor, and thus seeks their aid in order to do both, thus defeating the threats to his own realm.