Talk:Babylon (Lucifer)

Compassion

Is there some reason that this needs to be a separate article from Compassion? Does the audio give a clear indication that this is a distinct incarnation of the character, or that Babylon is not actually intended to be Compassion? BBV was fully licensed to use Miles's characters as far as I can tell, so I don't see why the wiki should be evasive about it. Gowlbag ☎ 03:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I added a merge template.

Epsilon📯 📂

08:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the one line referring to Compassion was a clear enough indication that the characters were one and the same. Can two characters not have the same name? Compassion was the mother of all 103 timeships, could one of her children not have been named after her? BBV, as you say, had the rights to Compassion so had the potential to make any connection explicit... but they didn't. DrWHOCorrieFan ☎ 08:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is, actually, a clear indication that they're different characters: the script is fairly explicit that Babylon was a born timeship, who only became a rebel due to Lucifer's influence.

LUCIFER: Are you really going to interrupt me as I’m recording?
BABYLON: Probably. You have fostered a sense of free will within me, so why shouldn’t I?Lucifer

Whereas "our" Compassion, of course, has always had a will of her own. So it seems that the evidence points to a 103-form timeship, likely named after the original Compassion, (who then discarded that birth name for "Babylon" when she acquired free will), rather than a rather problematic previously-unknown era in the life of the original Compassion.

Faction Paradox is no stranger to multiple characters with ambiguous connections who share the same name (e.g. Sabbath and Sabbath, Justine and Justine). It seems much more likely that Babylon!Compassion is meant to slot into that tradition, than that the script would contradict such an essential part of the original Compassion's character concept (that she used to be a human, and is most definitely not under the Great Houses' control, nor any pilot's). Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a really fanciful interpretation of that line, based entirely on an idea of canonical consistency rather than authorial intent. Babylon having been named Compassion is dramatic and meaningful if she is Compassion, a non sequitur if she isn't; you could just as easily say that the Lolita in Head of State might theoretically be the identically named daughter of the one from Toy Story and split off Lola Dennison. Perhaps we should ask Trevor Spencer to clarify? Gowlbag ☎ 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not the Wiki's custom to base merges on armchair speculation about authorial intent that are at odds with the clues in the script. But to answer your argument at the object-level — as I see it, it does in fact make thematic sense to mention that she'd, purportedly, have been named after her mother (rather than having an identity of her own), and that this would be the name she rejected to become Babylon. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with DrWHOCorrieFan and Scrooge here: it's ambiguous enough that this page should be kept separate from Compassion. But since we can't exclude the possibility that she's (somehow, in defiance of all logic) the Compassion, we should include comments on each page that there might be a connection. I see that a comment of the sort is already present on Compassion, and I've added one (neutrally; with care taken not to violate T:BOUND) on this page as well.

(I don't remember, but was she actually called a 103-form in the script? If so, that would be pretty conclusive, since Compassion was a 102-form.) – n8 (☎) 13:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(No, I don't believe she is. She's just described as a timeship.) Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)