J: how badly would Galford beat Duke?

A: Not as badly as he would beat The X-Men, but more badly than he would beat Ash from Evil
 Dead.

J: how bad would he beat Miyamoto Musashi?

A: Not as badly as he would beat William Wallace, but more badly than he would beat Qwain Wang 
(sp?).

J: I think it's Kwaiyan Wang but I'm not sure.  Ok, Kwaiyan Wang or the Iron Chef Arena Master
 guy?

A: Iron Chef Guy.

J: lol and where's Bane?

A: Bane is right below Panthro, wherever he is.

J: I can somehow picture Bane killing Panthro.  But I guess not if Panthro was in one of his 
vehicles

A: Panthro shoots lasers out of his nunchuks, dude. No contest.

J: lol still doesn't explain how Galford could beat Kwaiyan Wang

A: Easily. He'd use the justice blade.

J: Thinking of how powerful Benares was, and then remembering that he was Kwaiyan Wang's 
servant, leads me to believe that Galford wouldn't be able to come with 8 miles of Kwaiyan Wang 
without dying

A: I don't think you understand. A pure heart overcomes all evil. That might sound naive and 
foolish, but there are no examples to prove otherwise, seeing as Galford has the only pure heart 
in all of existence.

J: nobody with a pure heart would kill people with a sword

A: Have you ever met somebody with a pure heart? HAVE YOU?

J: No, and so we're talking about ideals here.  And yes, I grant that ideals can work in these 
hypothetical fights, but I don't think Galford corresponds to the ideal of a pure-hearted man


A: Yes, but whose ideal? That's the question. While most people's conception of what is 
"pure-hearted" may not include killing people with a sword, that's not the issue. The only ideal 
that really matters is Galfords, and he follows his ideals of justice in every element of his life.

J: So he's not really Galford at all, but the realization of his own ideal. In the end, we aren't even 
talking about what skills these characters are actually portrayed as having and how those skills 
would determine the outcome of a confrontation, but rather which ideals overcome other ideals, 
and whether this character has an ideal that would overcome the ideal of that one?

A: Not exactly. Kind of, but not exactly. You see, that works for Galford because he is, in fact, 
the realization of his ideals of justice. His pure heart and his conviction grant him his powers, 
thereby making him justice incarnate. For others, however, who don't have a pure heart, they 
cannot become the realization of their ideals because their purity of belief is not as strong as 
his. Plus they are aspiring towards false ideals.

J: what makes one ideal false and another true?

A: I think I mispoke. It's not really that the ideal itself is false, but rather whether or not the 
person that posseses the ideal firmly believes in it. All people have doubts in their ideals at one 
point or another; except Galford.

J: what if his opponent has no doubt due to a lack of ideals altogether?

A: That doesn't work. It'll make you powerful, but not as powerful as a firm belief in justice. It will
 make you react without thought, flow well, etc., but will not empower you to become justice 
incarnate.

J: what if his opponent doesn't deserve justice because he's done no wrong, like Duke?

A: Galford wouldn't fight somebody unless they had done something he thought unjust. Of course,
 if his opponent attacked him unprovoked, he would consider that unjust and destroy them 
mercilessly.

J: but the whole hierarchy is based on a hypothetical fight, which includes fights that normally 
wouldn't happen.  It's based on skill, and has nothing to do with whether they "would" fight or not.
 They are forced to.  So it's based only on skill

A: In any given situation in which Galford would be forced to fight, he would do what he thought 
most just. If somebody attacked him, he would be justified in killing them. If he were placed in an 
arena and told to fight somebody who had done nothing unjust, he would kill those who wanted him 
to fight.

J: So Galford can't really be placed above Duke in the hierarchy. because they would both sit 
there, or Galford would kill the arena masters

A: But were Duke to attack Galford, which, hypothetically could happen somehow, Galford would 
defeat him.

J: but Duke is also pure-hearted

A: Not entirely. He's up there, but I have a feeling that he might have some vestiges of 
non-pure-heartedness.

J: why?

A: Ok, tell me everything we know about Duke's backstory.

J: Ok forget Duke.  He's French and and duke so he's Catholic, believes in original sin, and thus not 
pure-hearted.  So, your hypothesis is that anyone who is put in the arena with Galford is not 
100% pure-hearted (not being Galford) and thus there is a chance, no matter how small, that 
Galford would be attacked, causing Galford to exercise justice and therefore emerge victorious?

A: Essentially. Galford would not fight somebody who had not performed some act of injustice. 
But, since nobody except him is pure good, he could, theoretically, end up having to fight anybody.

J: First, I don't think he's the only one who's pure-hearted.  I would say that Buddha, or anyone 
who has attained his mindset is pure-hearted.  Second, I don't think someone can be justice 
incarnate AND pure good, because justice isn't always good.

A: Good is a relative term. Good has no set definition, it is merely whatever each individual 
considers to be good. Since Galford's persuit of justice is single-minded, in his perception, good 
and justice are one and the same. Therefore, he can be pure good and justice incarnate at once. 
As for Buddha, he cannot be considered pure-hearted in the same sense that Galford is. After all,
 Buddha preaches giving up earthly attachments, but at the same time, Buddha's ideology cannot 
be followed entirely, since giving up ALL earthly attachments would mean not being attached to 
food, etc. Galford's own ideology is one that can be followed to a logical extreme, and therefore 
one that follows it can be called "pure-hearted" if they TRULY believe in it as Galford does.

J: ok I see your point in terms of the character hierarchy and how that works, but I have to 
disagree and say that Buddha's teaching can be carried to a logical extreme and can be done, 
because when he preaches "non-attachment," even to food, it doesn't have anything to do with 
abstinence from anything.  It merely entails the absence of any psychological grasping.  Buddha 
preached the dangers the extremes of self-indulgence, which would include gluttony, and the 
dangers of self-denial and extreme asceticism, would would include fasting.  Fasting speaks of an 
attachment to NOT eating food, which is just another form of attachment.  So in other words, 
just go with the flow.  Eat when hungry, but nothing more than that

A: Ok, point taken. I was looking at any desire for food as attachment, but fasting would be an 
attachment to not having food.

J: yep.  Buddha left his rich family because he saw how indulgent it was, and then attempted to 
become enlightened by fasting and doing yoga 20 hours a day in the Indian ascetic tradition.  It 
then become obvious that something in the middle was better, so he ate moderately and 
meditated some for a few days until he had his enlightenment experience after which he began 
teaching disciples.  So the whole of his teaching stems from that sort of thing.

A: Yeah, true. I knew all that about him, but I didn't really look at it in that perspective as far as 
the example I was trying to make.


Tragically, the conversation was cut short before a true decision could be made. However, this 
illustrates what an important religious and philisophical figure Galford is.