u/PhiphyL

I hadn't watched it since it came out, and only really did it now to cope with the fact that we still don't have a release annoucement for the sequel in the UK. Like, WTF Bandai. Anyway.

There are two things I'd like to discuss, things that I definitely didn't think back then but my opinion easily changed on re-watch.

1 - You don't need to have seen any Gundam to appreciate it

I thought you'd need to watch 0079, ZZ and CCA to appreciate the character of Hathaway and the world he lives in. But in reality, no? The film makes him repeat that he is the son of a war hero, that he has some military experience, and that the last big event was an older terrorist named Char who tried to destroy the Earth some 10 years prior.

The film establishes on its own that the Federation is kind of the good guys as they're Earth's military force and they have nice charismatic people in it (I really like Kenneth), but that the world's government is full of self-absorbed elites (as seen in the first few scenes) who live in luxury and give their friends infinite privileges (the credit card that Hathaway is given).

It then becomes a film about a terrorist infiltrating his enemies' military establishment and gathering intel, and meeting a girl who questions his motivations and his methods while reactivating some old wound from his past (the nature of which doesn't matter, but he feels he has to protect the girl at all costs).

The Davao attack scene is amazing, and the Xi vs Penelope is a cool fight even though it's obviously too dark to be fully enjoyed.

I'm sure there are people here who showed the film to someone who didn't know anything about Gundam (and were maybe briefed on 0079 and CCA before watching). How did that go?

2 - Back in 2021, I did not agree with Mafty's reasons and methods. I do now.

I am a very lawful good type of person. So obviously, someone killing civilians as collateral damage to the assassination of a couple of government officials does not sit well with me. It should not sit well with anyone. And on first watch, I used to think that there is no way that a kind(-ish) soul as Hathaway would resort to murdering innocents to accomplish a political goal.

But now? I get it. What changed is that 2025 showed us that a lawfully elected government can go completely off the rails with the wrong people in charge as long as they have the military and the billionaire elites on their side. That they will never stop trying to profit, no matter how many citizens they have to lie to and inflict violence on, on their way to more riches and more power. I used to think that these people, should they come to power in the Western world, would never have that kind of reach, that some legal counter-power would slow them. That no one would be outrageous enough to release their criminal friends from prison right after accessing power. That billionaires would not have free reign to further progress their surveillance methods, manipulate the economy and circumvent laws to make even more money with the help of that government because its officials stand to make a lot of money in now legal ways.

You know who and what I'm talking about.

How do you stop this? How do you put better people in charge? Well, Hathaway has no opinion on the latter. But he has the means to be a cog in the machine and disrupt the government, and instill fear in their hearts. Maybe it will make them reconsider their actions. Or maybe removing them is the only way. And that's what he's doing.

Every day, the life of millions is made worse for the benefits of dozens. If you have to kill hundreds of innocents on your way to removing these dozens and saving these millions... the numbers are in your favour.

Now that I agree with Mafty's reasoning, does that make me a terrorist? Of course not. I'm too much of a lawful good person. I would never break a window, let alone harm someone. But I now understand why someone would think that violence is a reasonable course of action under the right circumstances. The overwhelming support for a certain alledged CEO killer shows that more and more people think the same.

These really are weird times we live in.

Minor spoilers for the Dragon of Icespire Peak adventure.

In one of the early quests, adventurers arrive at an old temple dedicated to Abbathor, the evil dwarven god of greed. At the end of that temple is a room that players need to spend an entire (in-game) day clearing rubble just to access it.

I will quote what the booklet then says. Bear in mind this is a quest for level 1 characters with maybe 10 HP max.
"An alcove in the south wall holds the rubble of a shattered statue. An alvove to the north holds a statue of a dwarf with horns, which stares greedily at a glowing green gem in its hands. If the gem is taken, it turns to dust and the statue explodes. Any creature within 10 feet of the exploding statue must make a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (4d10) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much on a successful one."

Any player who have watched Indiana Jones or Aladdin will find it fishy and refuse to pry the gemstone off the statue. Maybe they would attempt it with Mage Hand but even then, they can assume that it would curse everyone in the room, not just deal damage to adjacent characters.

My problem is that this is the end of the dungeon, and it takes a significant effort to get there, and they will just arrive, look at the super suspicious statue, and nope out with nothing happening.

But if it's a God of Greed, should that god punish players who get greedy? Surely it would appreciate greed, and punish people who refuse the gemstone.

As a DM, I can do whatever I want, but I would like to check in with the good people to Reddit to see if my understanding of deities is sound. I will change the statue to have the glowing orb in one hand, and the other hand is cusped the same way but empty. Then this happens:

- Players see the gemstone, refuse to fall for the obvious trap, and get out. As they do, they hear a voice in their head saying "Is this how you pay your respects to the god of greed?", and something happens, maybe a fight, maybe a minor curse, I'll think about it later. This is the "God of Greed is insulted" outcome.

- Players see the gemstone and try to take it. Any player who walked to safety (out of fear something would happen) gets a minor curse, while players close to the statue get a temporary boon. This is the "God of Greed favours the greedy" outcome.

- Players see the gemstone, see the empty hand, and fill the empty hand with the small gemstones that they previously got from a different room. They all feel that their pockets got heavier, and each player receives duplicates of these exact gemtones. This is the "God of Greed appreciated the offering" outcome (and it makes use of the gemstones they found earlier which are originally just meant to be sold).

Am I making sense, or am I misinterpreting what a God of Greed would do in one of his temples?