House of X

[Ramza00]

Spoiler

Show

I'm not entirely sure Apocalypse is the long term villain. On the one hand, yeah, it's Apocalypse, of course he's the villain. On the other hand, the way X-Men #2 ended coupled with the possibility that some of Age of X-Man rubbed off on him leads me to hope that they don't just go down that simplistic path. I think (and hope) that if they portray him as the villain we eventually see that he truly was doing whatever it is he is doing for the betterment of mutantkind and that he is willing to take the hit and be portrayed as the villain if that's what it takes. Alternatively, just show that he's playing the long game. They haven't really addressed what happens if mutants die of old age. Do they get resurrected too? If not, he just has to wait and eventually he will probably rule it all since he's immortal.

In other words, I'm hoping it's him just being amoral and not outright evil. I think I saw someone on reddit put it best. Amoral is him being good. He hasn't kidnapped and brainwashed anyone yet so he's being good.

But that is the thing Tyrant. [Edit: I have not had time to read Rater when I posted this.]

Spoiler

Show

When you can cheat death via The Five plus Xavier and another telepath, what is the definition of morality, what is the difference of "consequences" vs "duty / obligations" when you can resurrect the dead and thus there are no negative consequences for your side? If you can resurrect the dead, does your duties and obligations change to your fellow man, wait adjusting to Krakoan speech, to your fellow mutant?

What are your duties / obligations to non mutants such as much of Otherworld and also the Humans who are on Planet Earth? Your side may not have consequences but mutants can kill these magical monsters, and those humans, isn't this much one sided?

-----

I forsee Apocalypse being a Villian but also trying to be a Neutral Villain and not an Evil Villain. But what is Good vs Evil when you can cheat death? What is neutrality? How can you sell yourself with motivated reasoning that your actions make all kind of sense? By having the super pragmatic ruthless Apocalypse vs the pragmatic Elizabeth be in tension, you are going to get a storytelling beat where you reshifted the moral compass of these two via comparison. I expect to see Captain Britain be more Kantian / Duties / Obligations than the old Elizabeth who was Psylocke. There is going to be lots of internal tension driving the story forward with Excalibur is my guess. The new Elizabeth is going to be different than the old Elizabeth. Likewise the same with Gambit who was always the Mercenary but this episode with Rogue is going to make Gambit take care of the people he cares about much more, not just Rogue but expand his circle of concern.

-----

Sidenote good point at pointing out that Apocalypse is Immortal, for the Life 9 HoXPoX data page in PoX 3 pointed out / confirmed that Apocalypse is part of the immortal External type of mutants. Something that is not clear was still cannon or not due to various retcons and Selene saying Apocalypse is not an External, well Life 9 highly suggests Apocalypse is an External and thus immortal and outside the normal ebb and flow of the universe where death is inevitable. Memento Mori indeed ("remember you MUST die" unless one is Apocalypse.)

Apocalypse being immortal changes the story flow and the stakes for Apocalypse.

Responding to Rater.

Spoiler

Show

Apocalypse wasn't Brainwashed in Age of X-Man: He cut a deal with Nate to keep his memories.

He also broke down crying and admitted that he didn't want to be the monster he was before anymore.

Learning the value of love and compassion was all him.

I don't know how much he's changed, but I think the face turn is legitimate.

I haven't read Age of X-Man, I got bored with that story with the setup before the Age of X-Man launched. The super duper battle of X-Man and his 4 Horseman vs everyone else no matter how many mutants and omegas just left me bored. Is it any good Age of X-Man?