Regards,
AryaNightingale
-Jarlaxle is most certainly NE. As was said, he gives off the "aura" that he doesn't really always know what's going on, and that he sometimes calls things as they go, but underneath that, we all know that he is absolutely in control of the situation, and has numerous plans and alternative plans ready.
-That's the thing that says to me that he is Neutral, and not Chaotic: He doesn't create Chaos. He creates Controlled Chaos. He's the man with the plan, no matter what (99.9% of the time). If he was truly chaotic, he would be much more ill prepared. Not "Chaotic Stupid", as many people see Chaotic Evil, but...Less Jarlaxle!
And you do not have to create chaos or follow rules to avoid this alignment.
Jarlaxle very much knows the boundaries. He simply likes to play games of chance to see if it may benefit him or how he it may change his station. He sets up choices for those he deals with and he doesn't give a sh*t who he really progresses--good or evil--depending on who makes what choice.
He is very much chaotic. Very much neutral. And I don't see how anybody reading the last few years of R.A.'s novels can't see that.
I happened to have the Villains Lorebook out for looking something else up. He is Neutral Evil.
Um. No. This is one point in which I will go against all canon and argument.
I would also ask what edition that book is. That may help reflect upon the point.
He is Chaotic Neutral--always has been.
And you do not have to create chaos or follow rules to avoid this alignment.
Jarlaxle very much knows the boundaries. He simply likes to play games of chance to see if it may benefit him or how he it may change his station. He sets up choices for those he deals with and he doesn't give a sh*t who he really progresses--good or evil--depending on who makes what choice.
He is very much chaotic. Very much neutral. And I don't see how anybody reading the last few years of R.A.'s novels can't see that.
Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit"
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Neutral Evil, "Malefactor"
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
I still feel Jarlaxle fits NE better. And using statements such as "I can't understand ..." doesn't offer proof to an argument, but shows a unwillingness to accept any view but your own as correct.
I offer that he's evil because given the choice, he would affect his environment to better his fortunes rather than leave it as is. He is, first and foremost, striving to get as much as he can out of the world, without regard to others. If they do not interfere (or he feels that they are above his ability to overcome), then he will not bother with them. But if they are an obstacle to his plans, he will find a way to take care of them.
In regards to the chaotic nature, he will sow chaos if it helps his plan, but he would just as willing manipulate the system to meet his goals. A perfect example is Luskan. He used the nature of the Luskan's government to set up the chaos that overturned the hold the Arcane Brotherhood had over the captains, but made sure that the captains ultimately remained in power as a front to his interests.
which to means know alignment and what not wouldnt work anyway.
how he is portrayed screams CN, or unaligned in 4e, not CE or E.
Evil does not mean you can't love, or have friends. It makes it harder to, but does not omit the possibility. Many villians in FR have been written with lovers, love interests, consorts and so forth. So using a past relationship as neutral doesn't make it the be all and end all to the argument.
He is selfish yes, but Evil comes in through his actions. Good will not kill unless it has to. Neutral will kill when it has to, and be able to sleep later and justify it, however it is not their first choice. Evil will kill when and how they want. That doesn't mean they revel in death, or kill and maim all about them. But when it boils down to it, Jarlaxle has shown that killing something for what he wants is a often preferred and primary method of gain.
As for Chaotic, that simply isn't true either. He is a highly controlled man, who has a plan for everything. He may not have the focus of Lawful, and recent adventures have shown a looming boredom had set in from repetition, but he has never developed chaotic tendencies. He isn't random. Everything is justified, and furthers some greater goal, interest or amusement.
I think all this is summed up in his relationship with Entreri. He would kill the man without blinking, and move on to better things if push came to shove. However, he has formed a bond akin to friendship with him (if only going one way), as he sees many things in Entreri he wants to adjust, for reasons unknown. Lastly, it has been hinted at, and shown time and again reflected in musings by Kimmuriel and Drizzt, that even though we may not know his plans, or can possibly only guess at them, he ultimately plays his hand close to his chest. This doesn't suggest whim and Chaos, despite the manner he often uses to go about an ideas exicution.
-RW
Why does evil mean he has to loathe good? Evil just means he doesn't necessarily care about the means to his ends, not that he'll go out of his way to harm others unless its to his benefit to do so. That he hasn't done so when shown doesn't mean he won't, just that he hasn't had cause to when shown. Don't mistake being a sympathetic character with not being a complete bastard.
You are right. Evil does not need to be a sociopath or constantly killing people for no reason. Evil can simply be selfish and care not for how their actions affect living beings, short of those they love or care for. Elaith Craulnober is Neutral Evil and the fact that he thought about his daughter temporarily woke up the Moonblade when he was poisoned, healing him and preventing him from death. Otherwise, he is selfish, underhanded, and has a lot of shady connections in Waterdeep, from what I understand.
In addition, he is not someone who is anti-good. He is just simply selfish and has a...tormented soul, you could say. :-) Mind, some of the most good characters I have seen suffer from something similar, but manage it differently.
Jaraxle is unique from other drow in the sense that he prefers to win enemies over to benefit himself than to just kill them. It does not mean he is above killing, but he is one of those who would use nonviolent means to a self-serving end. On the other hand, he is capable of offing people if he feels it necessary for his selfish desires.
People forget that evil can care and can love, and does care and love. Some can see this as a redeemable quality, but in the end, it does not make someone benign to have these feelings. And quite often, wanting to do things for yourself, friends and/or loved ones only is still quite selfish. A blackguard falling in love with an angel would not mean he respected life, but meant he wanted her for some reason or another.
...But then, that blackguard would also be doing things in the name of love to scare that angel off.
Or may.Regards,
AryaNightingale
In the same light why does neutral mean he can't be a selfish and greedy? He is just fine with a con or a kill, a legit business deal that has him coming out on top or a corrupt bribe from an agency anywhere. Sure he may be alittle malign at times but when it comes down to it his neutralness is what keeps him so intresting and, well, chaotic as well.
As for the Chaotic part for me it says it best in the next to last line of the CN defination,
"A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random."
That seems to me the perameters for you NE fans term "Controlled Chaos", and that's within the CN guidelines. It is true deep down Jarlaxe knows what he's doing. Otherwise he'd be dead already. But to people surrounded by Jarlaxe and his plots what is the differnce from Chaos and the semblance of Chaos, to them they just are along for the ride. Half the time I think Jarlaxe is just as much a force of chaos as any movie character out there. He may have a plan but he plans things around the fact that it will shake things up a bit. He himself has no use for repetition, as has been stated, but in his goals finds some way to mix up the more than average life that is his daily routine. Sure a chaotic alignment doesn't shout "goals" or "plan", but in the same token of Evil people can have friends and family, so can chaos have plans and goals, I just see the how they get done changing, not the complete lack of them. That would just be.. stupid :D .
Carry on, I'm really enjoying the banter. I believe the score is as shown:
Neutral Evil|Chaotic Neutral
IIIII| II
Hm.. alittle behind.
You are right. Evil does not need to be a sociopath or constantly killing people for no reason. Evil can simply be selfish and care not for how their actions affect living beings, short of those they love or care for. Elaith Craulnober is Neutral Evil and the fact that he thought about his daughter temporarily woke up the Moonblade when he was poisoned, healing him and preventing him from death. Otherwise, he is selfish, underhanded, and has a lot of shady connections in Waterdeep, from what I understand.
In addition, he is not someone who is anti-good. He is just simply selfish and has a...tormented soul, you could say. :-) Mind, some of the most good characters I have seen suffer from something similar, but manage it differently.
Jaraxle is unique from other drow in the sense that he prefers to win enemies over to benefit himself than to just kill them. It does not mean he is above killing, but he is one of those who would use nonviolent means to a self-serving end. On the other hand, he is capable of offing people if he feels it necessary for his selfish desires.
People forget that evil can care and can love, and does care and love. Some can see this as a redeemable quality, but in the end, it does not make someone benign to have these feelings. And quite often, wanting to do things for yourself, friends and/or loved ones only is still quite selfish. A blackguard falling in love with an angel would not mean he respected life, but meant he wanted her for some reason or another.
...But then, that blackguard would also be doing things in the name of love to scare that angel off.
Regards,
AryaNightingale
Absolutely! QFT - excellent points Arya!
For example: whould you name a friend of yours evil just because he is selfish? On the other hand, if you caucht your child stealing ofcourse it's bad but not evil. Chaotic mabe. Elaith Craulnober does not respect life -like Jaralax does, making him an evil character rather than Jaralax who shows mercy when he can.
P.S: Ofcouse this is my oppinion and it is allighnment is a diff quesion cause it depends on what people thing it is evil and what chaotic.
P.S2: When someone choses to be evil IS evil. When someone has learnd to "walk through corpses" in his childhood but even then avoids killing that makes him not good to me but neutral (with tendences to evil)
He may very well be likeable, even pleasant, but that doesn't mean he's not evil through and through. Redeemable? Certainly, beyond a few cases I don't think many people aren't, but that doesn't mean he's not a rotten bastard.
The neutrality part... I could actually see the chaotic part holding at least a bit true. Though he struck me as the type who'd happily use the rules to screw you over as often as he'd break them to do the same. That he uses Chaos to obfuscate his own actions doesn't mean that he is chaotic himself, just that he appreciates its utility. Overall though, I'd go with LK's take, Neutral Evil with Chaotic tendencies.
which to means know alignment and what not wouldnt work anyway.
how he is portrayed screams CN, or unaligned in 4e, not CE or E.
Ah, yes. And there is the progression.
FOR ALL, we need to remember that Jarlaxe is a 2e-to-3e-to-3.5-to-4e product.
Where he is from, why he did it and what he plans to do all change.
Can someone tell me what alignment his "friend" Zaknafein is? Hmmm....
Everyone has both a good and a bad side of his Character. Alighnment can change, doesn't is. From my point of view when a person is evil, he likes to kill people or he doesn't care (most of the time). That evil moon elf had show once compassion (Wooow). Ok, it was a touching moment but I wouldn't trust him even if I was his son.
For example: whould you name a friend of yours evil just because he is selfish? On the other hand, if you caucht your child stealing ofcourse it's bad but not evil. Chaotic mabe. Elaith Craulnober does not respect life -like Jaralax does, making him an evil character rather than Jaralax who shows mercy when he can.
P.S: Ofcouse this is my oppinion and it is allighnment is a diff quesion cause it depends on what people thing it is evil and what chaotic.
P.S2: When someone choses to be evil IS evil. When someone has learnd to "walk through corpses" in his childhood but even then avoids killing that makes him not good to me but neutral (with tendences to evil)
Jarlaxle lets someone live if it benefits him, otherwise he honestly doesn't care whether they live or die. The benefit could be monetary, or just amusement.
Can someone tell me what alignment his "friend" Zaknafein is? Hmmm....
-His alignment is 'Dead'. Heh.
Well he is stated in the 4e FR Source book so...
Thank you!! I knew he was. Was trying to find it, but gave up on it.
Have a page number?
I know posts have said that evil creatures/people can have friends but truly evil people wouldnt be as attached to them as to let them interfere continually. Jarlaxle may have been evil when he was younger but i think hes changing. To be Honest he's evolving alot more than Drizzt is
WOW. that was a long and highly inteligable cough...
Zaks alignment was subject to debate as well. I think the consensus ended up being "something" neutral. Jarlaxle seems to me be going through some significant changes as far as his views are at least in the recent novels concerning him. For one example: It would seem to me that it would be prudent for him to have whoever intereferes in his schemes killed as it hinders his profits and disrupts his plots. Yet time and again he lets Drizzt and his friends interfere and continue to let them walk away. Even goes out of his way to let Drizzt live or to prevent him from dying.
I know posts have said that evil creatures/people can have friends but truly evil people wouldnt be as attached to them as to let them interfere continually. Jarlaxle may have been evil when he was younger but i think hes changing. To be Honest he's evolving alot more than Drizzt is
Pretty apt.*Cough* Everyone is evolving more than Drizzt is. The man (elf actually) is a broken record of regret and morale connundrums. I still enjoy him emincly as he broke me into FRnovels and eventually these boards. *Cough*
WOW. that was a long and highly inteligable cough...
For a man who looks to intelligence to spell the words "highly inteligable"
...
..
um. no.
As to the evolution of Jarlaxle, couldn't speak to them as I don't bother with RAS novels, could be. Might not though... his reactions to Drizzt could just be the plot armor showing through. :P
Ah, yes... criticism of spelling and grammar. The bastions of those who have no real point. :P
As to the evolution of Jarlaxle, couldn't speak to them as I don't bother with RAS novels, could be. Might not though... his reactions to Drizzt could just be the plot armor showing through. :P
Ok this is prob an answer that everyone knows but what is "plot armor"....oh wait never mind I see what you're saying but I don't think that's the case or RAS would have killed him off to protect his plot as he does with almost every character that threatens the plot.
Another Example
spoiler): He simply let's Entreri walk away from the group without trying to stop. I'm sorry if I was evil(no matter the alignment) Someone with Entreri's knowledge of the inner workings of my evil organization would not be safe to just walk away into retiement or wherever he went to. How could you trust them to be silent. Especially when your enemies might see him as a way to get detailed info and advantages agaisnt you?I know Entreri is a force to be reckoned with but its still possible for him to be used agaisnt Jarlaxle and his band. Plus Jarlaxle would have to expend resources to protect that fromhappening which he wouldn't do. So he is taking faith in that Entreri won't betray him and can look after himself which isn't in evil beings make-up.
Again, with Entreri, I suspect you're seeing the same thing at work. There's more stories to be told, and more importantly sold, so he lives, even when the obvious answer is that he doesn't.
Taken from the NWN Toolset on my part, when you check a box that flags the character as being 'plot', they're literally unkillable, and extending that idea to fiction. Drizzt is too much of a cash cow to kill off inotherwards, even if it would make a lot of sense for someone to off the guy. ;)
Again, with Entreri, I suspect you're seeing the same thing at work. There's more stories to be told, and more importantly sold, so he lives, even when the obvious answer is that he doesn't.
Oh I get your point believe me. I'm just saying that I don't agree with the stat boys who are clasifying Jarlaxle as evil and I'm just putting examples to back my points up.
For whatever the reason RAS is chosing not to kill Jarlaxle(allowing for more stories for a Cash plot he isn't allow to kill etc...) my opinion is that the evil alignment should be removed from Jarlaxle.
I also think that you don't have to kill babies and kick every puppy you find to be evil. The SRD notes that having no compunction for others and killing them when convenient - and it does not discriminate between the alignment of those "others." The whole concept that killing evil creatures is good is imo inherently incorrect - characters of any alignment can be driven to kill an enemy, what differs are their intentions and, possibly, the underlying situation. If you're out for yourself and don't mind selling your own mother into slavery to get ahead (metaphorically speaking here), NE is as good an alignment as any.
From what I've read about him (the Dark Elf trilogy) he didn't strike me as no more moral than most other drow. Slightly less psychopathic and reckless, perhaps, but just as self-interested as the rest. NE fits him fairly well imo. He's charismatic and witty, sure, but charisma is not limited to goodly types.
I also think that you don't have to kill babies and kick every puppy you find to be evil. The SRD notes that having no compunction for others and killing them when convenient - and it does not discriminate between the alignment of those "others." The whole concept that killing evil creatures is good is imo inherently incorrect - characters of any alignment can be driven to kill an enemy, what differs are their intentions and, possibly, the underlying situation. If you're out for yourself and don't mind selling your own mother into slavery to get ahead (metaphorically speaking here), NE is as good an alignment as any.
I'm not saying he's a good guy here. I would just classify him as N and be done with it. But as I'm not in charge
You're right. To each his own. Jarlaxle is/was evil. according to the def of evil. But i still hold to the belief that hes changing.;)
Let's wait until he's updated in fiction to post-spellplague to see if he really changes or just had a momentary lapse of humanism.
That however doesn't mean I think he's evil. I'm still stuck on the CN. I haven't gotten any points because I believe my points earlier are sufficent to define my arguement.
There's more stories to be told, and more importantly sold...
I just want to say I love that turn of phrase.;)
Thank you!! I knew he was. Was trying to find it, but gave up on it.
Have a page number?
-Probably the Menzoberranzan/Underdark section.
When he's stated out in the 4e source book he's given the evil alignment.
That however doesn't mean I think he's evil. I'm still stuck on the CN.
Thats ok. You can even have him Lawfull good if you want but that doesn't change the official Jarlaxle from beeing NE.
I think the reason why Jaraxle has not killed Drizzt can be a several things. For one, if you read into the character, he hates drow even more than the standard drow does. Like the typical drow male, he got shafted under matriarchal drow society at some point, though now he can occasionally be useful to the matrons. He may be Neutral on the Law and Chaos spectrum, but he still acts as a person who creates chaos in drow society; Neutral on the spectrum can mean having a combination of Lawful and Chaotic traits. Jaraxle only uses drow society for his own benefit and nothing more. I forgot which book, but I remember him saying something about how he was growing to hate humans more than drow.
Secondly, I recall in one of the novels, he made a mention that he had respect for Drizzt. Sometimes, evil is apt to spare those they have respect for even if they may dispose of anyone else. It is still the selfish component playing its role.
So, I think it is a mixture of spite for drow society and his respect for Drizzt that leads to him not killing him. People can argue it is because of the money, which I will not argue against, but I would add those for some alternative reasonings as to why he has not killed Drizzt yet.
Another thing to consider, though there is probably not much evidence for it and thus it leaves this idea as nothing more than speculation, is that Jaraxle may feel he owes Zaknafein for being partly responsible for his death. He was friends with Zaknafein and if I remember correctly, he betrayed him. This may be a less likely explanation, and may make Jaraxle seem like he has 'redeemable qualities,' but it is something to ponder. In my book, evil characters who are not on the extreme parts of the spectrum can have a few redeemable qualities, though I would hardly consider these redeemable qualities if a selfish motivation ever goes underneath them.
Regards,
AryaNightingale
I'd be more willing to concede a possible shift to a Neutral alignment with evil tendencies than to a Chaotic Neutral alignment... even from what little of him that I've read, he didn't strike me as even vaguely chaotic, even if his actions often resulted in chaos for others.
I believe the chaotic theme more I think. He always is a element of chaos. He almost always introduces the neccasry* anarchy to get the job done. Sure He has a plane but it doesn't matter that he's planned it out, to everybody else it is effectivly chaos. When you don't know that the chaos is only a shroud to a highly formed plan then what's the differnce*. Chaos Rains. See but calling him chaotic evil would be rediculas*. We all know he isn't that. If I had to I'd say his chaotic planning and shifting ways resembles CN while his ruthlessness, calculating manner, effectivness highlightes his NE qualities. Fair?
*God awefull spelling
Jarlaxle didn't betray Zak. Zak took Drizzt's spot in a sacrifrice for his "crimes" against Loth.
Jarlaxle was supposed to be sacrificed as the third son by Matron Baerne. But Kyorl Olbdoron? put a psionic sheild around him as the sacrificial dagger tried to stab him.
Jarlaxle quoted" perhaps I hate Drow more than humans" in Servant of the Shard.
Okay letting Drizzt go once or twice may be acceptable for an "evil" character but every time? Don't you think that's toeing the line a little to often? And what about Entreri? Too many secrets to let simply walk away or should have been forced into a controlled retirement.
Jarlaxle didn't betray Zak. Zak took Drizzt's spot in a sacrifrice for his "crimes" against Loth.
Jarlaxle was supposed to be sacrificed as the third son by Matron Baerne. But Kyorl Olbdoron? put a psionic sheild around him as the sacrificial dagger tried to stab him.
Jarlaxle quoted" perhaps I hate Drow more than humans" in Servant of the Shard.
Well, he might be letting Drizzt go because he doesn't know how to defeat him (yet) without the loss outweighing the gain.
And as for his quote on hating Drow, I always hear his 'voice' when he says stuff like that where you're just not sure a) what he means or b) why he said it.
Okay letting Drizzt go once or twice may be acceptable for an "evil" character but every time? Don't you think that's toeing the line a little to often? And what about Entreri? Too many secrets to let simply walk away or should have been forced into a controlled retirement.
Jarlaxle didn't betray Zak. Zak took Drizzt's spot in a sacrifrice for his "crimes" against Loth.
Jarlaxle was supposed to be sacrificed as the third son by Matron Baerne. But Kyorl Olbdoron? put a psionic sheild around him as the sacrificial dagger tried to stab him.
Jarlaxle quoted" perhaps I hate Drow more than humans" in Servant of the Shard.
K'yorl Odran saved him?
I didn't know. Where it is from?And he betrayed both her and Zak, who was supposed to be his friend. And he did betray his mother ("Starless Night") helping Drizzt to escape.
All the rest, it's just what I mean. Extremally oportunistic, manipulative NE drow.
K'yorl Odran saved him?
And he betrayed both her and Zak, who was supposed to be his friend. And he did betray his mother ("Starless Night") helping Drizzt to escape.
All the rest, it's just what I mean. Extremally oportunistic, manipulative NE drow.
From one of the last 2 novels with him and Entreri. Road of the Patriarch.
When did he betray Zak?
Just when he didn't help him run away from all the drow world. Zak wanted to do it ("Homeland", "Realms of Underdark") and Jarlaxle knew Zak well (told Drizzt so). Or if he didn't know him well enough, then he lied to Drizzt, and is evil anyway.
I wouldn't call that a betrayal. Zak needed to make his own choices as Drizzt and Jarlaxle did.Drizzt chose to leave Jarlaxle chose to stay. If Jarlaxle said he would help Zak ezcape andd then turned him in to a Matron Mother that would be betrayal. Zak made his choices
I believe the chaotic theme more I think. He always is a element of chaos. He almost always introduces the neccasry* anarchy to get the job done. Sure He has a plane but it doesn't matter that he's planned it out, to everybody else it is effectivly chaos. When you don't know that the chaos is only a shroud to a highly formed plan then what's the differnce*. Chaos Rains. See but calling him chaotic evil would be rediculas*. We all know he isn't that. If I had to I'd say his chaotic planning and shifting ways resembles CN while his ruthlessness, calculating manner, effectivness highlightes his NE qualities. Fair?
*God awefull spelling
The difference is that he's not chaotic if he's holding to an elaborate plan. Our own thoughts and reactions define our alignment, not the thoughts and reactions of others. If everyone thinks someone is lawful good, while they're really engaged in slavery, extortion, bribery, and general corruption, doesn't make them actually lawful good, no matter how much they might believe it.
Inflicting chaos upon one's enemy is something our own militaries strive for when they begin an attack. Modern first-world militaries tend to be fairly effective at succeeding at that goal, but most of those same armies could hardly be characterized as full of chaotic types. Quite the opposite really. Same could probably be said for Jarlaxle in that respect, though I doubt he's even remotely lawful. So, no, not seeing it as highlighting a CN aspect, though other stuff might.
Ah, yes... criticism of spelling and grammar. The bastions of those who have no real point. :P
Well, it is better to have some sort of point, than to be completely pointless, like some (not you Phelf_Der_Zemit--Stiggy). ;)
For whatever the reason RAS is chosing not to kill Jarlaxle(allowing for more stories for a Cash plot he isn't allow to kill etc...) my opinion is that the evil alignment should be removed from Jarlaxle.
Here! Hear!
I also think that you don't have to kill babies and kick every puppy you find to be evil. The SRD notes that having no compunction for others and killing them when convenient - and it does not discriminate between the alignment of those "others." The whole concept that killing evil creatures is good is imo inherently incorrect - characters of any alignment can be driven to kill an enemy, what differs are their intentions and, possibly, the underlying situation. If you're out for yourself and don't mind selling your own mother into slavery to get ahead (metaphorically speaking here), NE is as good an alignment as any.
At this point, we must bring up the reason he gave Artemis the flute.
as far as I remember the last novel he seems CN, it's his adaptation to the environment, if he ever returns to Menzo he would be NE, it's a survival mechanism, mortals change their alignments often
Ding…ding….
When he's stated out in the 4e source book he's given the evil alignment.
Dammit! Why can’t I find this?!!
-Probably the Menzoberranzan/Underdark section.
After a quick glance, not that I see.
I'd be more willing to concede a possible shift to a Neutral alignment with evil tendencies than to a Chaotic Neutral alignment... even from what little of him that I've read, he didn't strike me as even vaguely chaotic, even if his actions often resulted in chaos for others.
For the sake of Bejebuz and his biscuits!
"
As to the evolution of Jarlaxle, couldn't speak to them as I don't bother with RAS novels, could be.
"
Then:
You have no basis to speak!
I believe the chaotic theme more I think. He always is a element of chaos. He almost always introduces the neccasry* anarchy to get the job done. Sure He has a plane but it doesn't matter that he's planned it out, to everybody else it is effectivly chaos. When you don't know that the chaos is only a shroud to a highly formed plan then what's the differnce*. Chaos Rains. See but calling him chaotic evil would be rediculas*. We all know he isn't that. If I had to I'd say his chaotic planning and shifting ways resembles CN while his ruthlessness, calculating manner, effectivness highlightes his NE qualities. Fair?
*God awefull spelling
You had me: :D . then you had me:
.Well, he might be letting Drizzt go because he doesn't know how to defeat him (yet) without the loss outweighing the gain.
Why defeat him? What threat does Drizzt have against him or his interests?
None.
The difference is that he's not chaotic if he's holding to an elaborate plan.
It does if it is upsetting the status quo for personal reasons.
---------------------------------
We’ve got two parts here: The Chaotic/Neutral and the Neutral/Evil (or is that four? ). I see more people leaning toward the Chaotic and the Evil.
I might give some sway to the Evil part, but the Chaotic is solid—he plays by his own rules and nobody else’s. And he doesn’t really care of how it may upset the balance around him.
He looks forward to it in most cases.
I suppose he's evil, reasons stated above. What else? Ah yes, tricking Artemis with the flute (don't forget it led to Calihye's death). Plotting for power in Calimport cost many lives, including that human wizardress (can't remember her name). Driving Rai'guy and his own brother Berg'inyon to death. Not to mention Zak. Betraying his mother in Siege of Darkness.
Do I have to say more?
He is too opportunistic and set in his rule to be Chaotic. And he's too wary and thinking and insightful too.
Ah yes, tricking Artemis with the flute (don't forget it led to Calihye's death).
Yes, he plots and plans, but he also flips coins.
And, in some cases, he risks all—as in your point with Calimport.
So, yes. Say more, if need be. ;)
I don't think he risked all in Calimport. He must have thought it over many times, it's just the Crenshinibon turned out to be too powerful for him.
But he eventually won. Another point: if he were chaotic he wouldn't have given Kimmuriel leadership and not killed him.
Does being Evil contradict being reasonable (Neutral)?
You mix up the Chaotic/Just Neutral/Lawful and the Evil/Neutral/Good thing again. They are two separate things.
I don't think he risked all in Calimport. He must have thought it over many times, it's just the Crenshinibon turned out to be too powerful for him.
Yes and no. Besides, remember that the Crenshinibon brings out a lust for power--it does not change who one is at the core.
But he eventually won.
At a cost that far outweighed what he expected.
Another point: if he were chaotic he wouldn't have given Kimmuriel leadership….
He essentially did, as I recall.
EDIT--read that wrong.
Why not?
An CE person/drow/whatever would attack good organizations as well as evil ones right?
For as long as I've read the books I've really only seen him attack and bring down evil organizations which is something "good" alignments do all the time.
There is one exception: The attack on Mithral Hall. But IMO he went along mainly for the survival of his band. While he can easily defend himself from the wrath of Matron Baerne he knew his band would be disbanded and possibly destroyed.
Not following the plans of your "mother" after shetried to kill you when you were born is sort of a poetic justice if you ask me.
Jarlaxle didnt lead Zak to his death. Zak went willingly to the altar for his sons sake.
Given his life in a drow sort of world, there's probably not many 'good' organizations to attack, even among the other underdark races... ;)
Point.
;). But he and his band have been on the surface for a while and hasAccomplished a great many things that some(like me) would consider him a "hero" if he didn't come from a society so full of evil creatures.
Anyway, even being recognized as a hero (which may or may not be related to what you accomplish) doesn't mean anything for your occupation. An evil character can keep an impressive reputation as a "front" - plus, it's handy when you want to contest the throne and don't have to worry about the mob storming the palace
Vlad Tepes is still considered a hero in his native Wallachia from what I understand...
Are you kidding me? He killed a bunch of homeless, starving people by burning down a building they were in, and I'm sure he had his soldiers shooting in there too. That was his idea of ending their suffering, by killing them horribly. AND HE'S A HERO?! This is a joke, right?
That was his idea of ending their suffering, by killing them horribly. AND HE'S A HERO?! This is a joke, right?
Not for that, but yes, he was considered as a hero of sorts in Wallachia.
Are you kidding me? He killed a bunch of homeless, starving people by burning down a building they were in, and I'm sure he had his soldiers shooting in there too. That was his idea of ending their suffering, by killing them horribly. AND HE'S A HERO?! This is a joke, right?
not really surprising
even Stalin is considered a hero by lots of Russians
Bush, who is related to Vlad
Mao, Tito ...
conquerors, e.g. Napoleon
-Jarlaxle would be considered a "hero" among some Drow, I would think.
I would say "Is." What male besides Gromph holds as much power? Let alone, house unaffiliated (to everyone's knowledge)?
He's like Elvis dude!
I would say "Is." What male besides Gromph holds as much power? Let alone, house unaffiliated (to everyone's knowledge)?
-The entire city of Sshamath?
-The entire city of Sshamath?
I think he meant in Menzoberrazzan. Forgive my spelling.
Though I could be wrong
I think he meant in Menzoberrazzan. Forgive my spelling.
Though I could be wrong
Why, thank you, Drizztmanthing. ;)
-I'm sure he did. He didn't specify though. ;) :P
I've got a bowling ball looking to score a strike on your skull, sword boy.
This looks promising. I'll get the popcorn, you guys make sure you haven't both died before I come back!
Sword boy?
This looks promising. I'll get the popcorn, you guys make sure you haven't both died before I come back!
Eh. LK has been dealing with "Sword Boy" for a while now. He's either beneath, above or indifferent to it.
Still fun to use though. :D
Sword boy? A bit weak there really... not up to par in the slightest. I'm disappointed. No tacos for you JD.
We've already been through this, buttcake.
As stated, watch Army of Darkness and get back to me.
"Sword Boy" is both apt and perfect.
I don't believe the drow in Menzo have "heroes" only people/drow they fear/respect/want to be. Drow society in Menzo relies heavily on pragmagtism and jealousy. While they would "respect/fear" Jarlaxle they would try to find a way to kill him and take his place rather than follow his example and use him for inspiration which is what heroes tend to become. While in my Opinion that he is the most powerful figure in Menzo(including matron mothers) he isn't revered only feared respected and envied the most. Just my
The one question I'd wonder about with your understanding of his 'inner workings' is how much projection you're putting upon him... just because someone is likeable doesn't mean they're a nice person or someone you want to trust from a more objective point of view.
That is what this thread is about right? To debate and offer different views as to what Jarlaxle's alignment should be even though "canon" says he's some sort of an evil one.
From all the novels I have read my belief is that Jarlaxle isn't truely evil.Merely a survivor of. The Circumstances that we're thrust upon him and unless knowledge about what he's done these past 100 yrs comes forth and its shown that he's done remarkably heinous acts against innocents and noble/good organizations/cities/people then in my view he is simply neutral. ( I don't hold his taking down already evil organizations against him as this is something good people/organizations/cities do this all the time.)
Seriously though, how are you viewing evil? What does it take for someone to qualify as evil in your book? That could help quite a bit with getting your point of view I think.
From all the novels I have read my belief is that Jarlaxle isn't truely evil.Merely a survivor of. The Circumstances that we're thrust upon him and unless knowledge about what he's done these past 100 yrs comes forth and its shown that he's done remarkably heinous acts against innocents and noble/good organizations/cities/people then in my view he is simply neutral.
-That's probably where many disagree. I don't think that there is a "balance scale", where doing things that can be considered good "make up" for things that can be considered evil.
-That's probably where many disagree. I don't think that there is a "balance scale", where doing things that can be considered good "make up" for things that can be considered evil.
So you don't believe in redemption?
Hmmm that explains alot;)Are there any noble/good organizations left in the Realms? News to me if there are... :P
Seriously though, how are you viewing evil? What does it take for someone to qualify as evil in your book? That could help quite a bit with getting your point of view I think.
Momma always said "Evil is as evil does"
When comes to the word"evil" I don't see it in degrees just evil as in doing things so aghast and horrific that the world turns its back on you in disgust. Like Jeffery Dahmer type thing. I see Jarlaxle as being "bad" just not evil. If this makes sense to you
So you don't believe in redemption?
-Not in a "If I do enough good things, that offsets what bad things I do" type of way. Anakin Skywalker, for instance? One act is supposed to redeem this guy (assassinating a government official), a guy who killed hundreds personally, and tens of thousands on his command? Nope. not in my book.
As to being evil, I'd say I very much disagree with you on that point. Dahmer, he was pretty sick in the head, but I'm not sure I'd call him evil so much as mentally broken. The really evil ones in my book are the ones who go out of their way to enrich their own lives at the expense of everyone else around them, regardless of the cost or consequences... you know, like the folks who defrauded all those people on loans, people like Mr. Madoff, or people who dump toxic waste illegally. A guy who murders a few people in a horrific way just doesn't compare with the amount of hurt those others inflict on the world. He's just more noticeable.
-Not in a "If I do enough good things, that offsets what bad things I do" type of way. Anakin Skywalker, for instance? One act is supposed to redeem this guy (assassinating a government official), a guy who killed hundreds personally, and tens of thousands on his command? Nope. not in my book.
That part I understand and agree with because it was a "good" guy turning fully embracing evil to the point where he's assassinating children and then going oops the"devil
' made me do it when he was in control the whole time. Such a person can never do enough to redeem himself in my eyes either. This is the perfect example of how i view "evil". Thanks LKI don't see Jarlaxle this way. Here is a guy who truly is the product of his society and yet yet never full embrace the most evil of their views. IMO his frequent trips to the surface(thabks to Entreri) are giving him a different aspect of what life is about. In these novels he's changing from being like he was in Menzo to something more than he is. Again this probably isn't "canon" but strictly MY views.
Been sipping on Dookies whiskey
Jaraxle might sometimes do things that may make him, in his own words, 'have redeemable qualities,' but in his mind and heart, he is still pretty much the same selfish Jaraxle. This is just my view point, though. An evil person can treat a friend, someone they respect, or someone they love like a god, but may be ruthless with everyone else. Thus the nature of evil.
Regards,
AryaNightingale
While they would "respect/fear" Jarlaxle they would try to find a way to kill him and take his place rather than follow his example and use him for inspiration which is what heroes tend to become.
I see the point, but disagree. In this culture, to be houseless is not something of good standing. You stay within your house and attempt to rise in power.
If there is a reason to kill him, then it is because he is in employ of the house you are at war with and it will score points to actually risk your life attempting the feat.
I fell asleep a quarter of the way into Army of Darkness... yawn.
Such intellectual capacity, yet such a lack of imagination.
Seriously though, how are you viewing evil? What does it take for someone to qualify as evil in your book? That could help quite a bit with getting your point of view I think.
Dude—he’s in love with Drizzt! Get a clue and a burrito.
-That's probably where many disagree. I don't think that there is a "balance scale", where doing things that can be considered good "make up" for things that can be considered evil.
Then all people are evil in your opinion.
Or, is your point that there is no good or evil?
-Not in a "If I do enough good things, that offsets what bad things I do" type of way. Anakin Skywalker, for instance? One act is supposed to redeem this guy (assassinating a government official), a guy who killed hundreds personally, and tens of thousands on his command? Nope. not in my book.
One act of “evil” does not one make. To argue such at this point would make you resident of contradiction.
As to being evil, I'd say I very much disagree with you on that point. Dahmer, he was pretty sick in the head, but I'm not sure I'd call him evil so much as mentally broken. The really evil ones in my book are the ones who go out of their way to enrich their own lives at the expense of everyone else around them, regardless of the cost or consequences... you know, like the folks who defrauded all those people on loans, people like Mr. Madoff, or people who dump toxic waste illegally. A guy who murders a few people in a horrific way just doesn't compare with the amount of hurt those others inflict on the world. He's just more noticeable.
That, my man, is the dumbest CENSORED thing I have ever heard from you.
I know many people that are “mentally broken.” They don’t harm others, but instead turn it in upon themselves and become the sacrifice as the result of not using others to “enrich” or leave others at the “expense” of things.
You can be “mentally broken” regardless of good or evil.
You can also be mentally fit and capable of both good paths and evil ones.
Dahmer was a sick, evil CENSORED. He kept body parts in his freezer for his own “enrichment” and at the “expense” of every concerned person that was looking for the bodies that those parts belonged to.
Broken? Maybe.
Evil. Yes.
Beyond that, how many people did he actually hurt? Maybe a few hundred if you include emotional injury from family members at most? Now compare a guy like that with say an African warlord who's knowingly trying to commit ethnocide... or even a guy who affects thousands of people (not to mention the critters and the environment) when he dumps toxic crap somewhere and poisons everything and anything nearby... or someone who engages in large-scale slavery even. Sorry, but Dahmer just doesn't even show up as a blip on the scope comparatively.
I think that people who participate in slavery and environmental damage (as your examples) are also quite evil, but I don't think they are as evil as murderers. Making someone's life miserable is quite different from actually ending it.
JD, I thought I'd never say this, but I agree with you 100%.
We actually agreed quite a bit in the beginning, if you remember.
Beyond that, how many people did he actually hurt? Maybe a few hundred if you include emotional injury from family members at most?
Do you understand what you are actually saying? If you do, then you are as sick as Dahmer and need to suffer his same fate. Do you not care for anyone?
You compare this episode to rodents?
And, as much as I tend to be stupid, this is with complete intellectual dedication and emotional response: CENSORED off!
I think you are talking about varying levels of evil. People who try to commit genocide are extraordinarily evil, but the average serial killer is quite evil as well. You couldn't make an argument that African warlords are evil for killing people if you don't acknowledge that murder, whether it is one person or many, is evil.
I think that people who participate in slavery and environmental damage (as your examples) are also quite evil, but I don't think they are as evil as murderers. Making someone's life miserable is quite different from actually ending it.
Evidently, Stigger doesn’t have the capacity to differentiate.
-------------
Every person on this earth is disturbed in one way or another Stig.
They don't always know it, but it's true.
But your acquittal of such a person not only reflects on your own morality, but on your personal choices as a whole.
Are you the guy leading people into your apartment these days to become freezer treasures?
Or are you the guy I almost think I like and doesn't curb stomp kitties without some guilt?
Disclaimer: I'm me. Ignore the powerful acorn until I get my neuron back.
We actually agreed quite a bit in the beginning, if you remember.
Do you understand what you are actually saying? If you do, then you are as sick as Dahmer and need to suffer his same fate. Do you not care for anyone?
You compare this episode to rodents?
And, as much as I tend to be stupid, this is with complete intellectual dedication and emotional response: CENSORED off!
Evidently, Stigger doesn’t have the capacity to differentiate.
-------------
Every person on this earth is disturbed in one way or another Stig.
They don't always know it, but it's true.
But your acquittal of such a person not only reflects on your own morality, but on your personal choices as a whole.
Are you the guy leading people into your apartment these days to become freezer treasures?
Or are you the guy I almost think I like and doesn't curb stomp kitties without some guilt?
Disclaimer: I'm me. Ignore the powerful acorn until I get my neuron back.
I think that's a little harsh. My understanding of Stigger's post is that he is looking at the evils that harm the most people without looking at the varying levels of evil inherent in the different actions. I understand his point of view even if I don't agree with it.
and Stigger to get his tacoes with. Hot sauce then he mellows to become:hoppingma:. But I do agree with him as far as Jarlaxle's alignment being CN.
Dahmer is just plan evil. (Disturbed yes, but evil nonetheless).
Then all people are evil in your opinion.
Or, is your point that there is no good or evil?
-Your point does not follow. The axis of good and evil is exactly that- an axis. A single action does not cause the pointer to go from well into one side to the other.
One act of “evil” does not one make. To argue such at this point would make you resident of contradiction.
-You are bolstering my point, not attacking it. You are correct, in that one act of evil does not one make. Anakin Skywalker, using the example I used before, committed numerous acts of evil. Now, here is my problem with, specifically, the movies: Using the same logic as above, one act of good does not one make, as the movie espoused.
I think that's a little harsh. My understanding of Stigger's post is that he is looking at the evils that harm the most people without looking at the varying levels of evil inherent in the different actions. I understand his point of view even if I don't agree with it.
You are correct. That came off harsher than I intended. I'll almost apologize to Stig, depending on his reply.
But I still hold to it.
Being a guy that had both his mother and a couple close friends murdered by the same type of people he is trying to justify just CENSORED me off.
Evil is evil. Being "broken"does not excuse it. Being "crazy" is just an extreme of what is actually being thought and felt. And, being a "warlord" disconnected from the actual killing does not equal, nor compare.
The Judge is always harsh until he finds Mrtyl to get his
But I do agree with him as far as Jarlaxle's alignment being CN.
Dahmer is just plan evil. (Disturbed yes, but evil nonetheless).
I'm watching my scales to see if you become more or less cool as time goes on.
-Your point does not follow. The axis of good and evil is exactly that- an axis. A single action does not cause the pointer to go from well into one side to the other.
See below.
-You are bolstering my point, not attacking it. You are correct, in that one act of evil does not one make. Anakin Skywalker, using the example I used before, committed numerous acts of evil. Now, here is my problem with, specifically, the movies: Using the same logic as above, one act of good does not one make, as the movie espoused.
And you are correct. Forgive.
I believe I probably read too many quotes and lost the continuity of your meaning.
And you are correct. Forgive.
I believe I probably read too many quotes and lost the continuity of your meaning.
-Gotcha.
Sorry, but Dahmer doesn't even remotely compare to people like that. Sure he killed a few people in a grotesque way, but the level of suffering and pain he brought to the world as a whole just doesn't match up.
Strange as it may sound, I've lost a few friends to some freaked out wackos myself, and while it always hurt, it still probably never came close to the pain of surviving your entire family being wasted because they were born to the wrong ethnicity.
Nope, still not really seeing the evil in a guy like Dahmer even remotely comparing to some of the wackos in Sudan. He's a little fish, who kills maybe a dozen people if he's lucky before he's caught and hopefully executed. He's comprehendable, and therefore shocking and repelling, but compared to a guy like Pol Pot or Joe Stalin, he's not even showing up on the radar of evil. He kills at a scale we can be horrified by, but when you start killing people on the order of hundreds or thousands, you move from a killing to a statistic, and the banality of evil sets in. What's more disturbing... the idea of an infant being hacked to death by a machete, or 1,000 kids dying last year in some country you've never heard of? What if all of those kids died because of lunatics with machetes? Maybe some freak giving Kalishnikovs to a bunch of 12 year olds and sending them off to kill and be killed over something they don't even understand? Or maybe a guy who dumped a few anonymous barrels somewhere he shouldn't have, and the cancer rates tripled or better over the next few years?
Sorry, but Dahmer doesn't even remotely compare to people like that. Sure he killed a few people in a grotesque way, but the level of suffering and pain he brought to the world as a whole just doesn't match up.
Strange as it may sound, I've lost a few friends to some freaked out wackos myself, and while it always hurt, it still probably never came close to the pain of surviving your entire family being wasted because they were born to the wrong ethnicity.
Understood and agree with but you did ask me to state how I viewed evil and Dahmer was one of the first people I came up with as being evil. I'm sure if I would have thought more i could have come up with examples like yours. This is how I see evil and why I dont see Jarlaxle as evil more CN(@ least thats how Wiki lists him
) Sorry for your friends
While I didn't state it too clearly back there, my point was one of comparison and degree. That was particularly obtuse in the sick comment. The guy is crazy, he's extreme, and he stands out as a big flashing point of psychoness. But his body count and horror level doesn't even come close to the people who organized the ethnic cleansings in Southern Europe, Africa, or Southeast Asia... toss in things like **** camps and enslavement, and it just enters into a level of evil that is very difficult for most folks to consciously understand or accept as 'real' (from a subjective point of view). A lot of the reason I tend to agree that most people are neutral is their inability to 'see' that sort of stuff in anything other than an abstract way.
...since he's not so horrifying that it defies belief...
He was when the case originally broke. We have now become desensitized because of it.
While I didn't state it too clearly back there, my point was one of comparison and degree. That was particularly obtuse in the sick comment. The guy is crazy, he's extreme, and he stands out as a big flashing point of psychoness. But his body count and horror level doesn't even come close to the people who organized the ethnic cleansings in Southern Europe, Africa, or Southeast Asia... toss in things like **** camps and enslavement, and it just enters into a level of evil that is very difficult for most folks to consciously understand or accept as 'real' (from a subjective point of view). A lot of the reason I tend to agree that most people are neutral is their inability to 'see' that sort of stuff in anything other than an abstract way.
And I see your point, but find it skewed. Your view of the evil delivered lies in where the control lies.
Dahmer picked up a machete (whatever) and hacked his victims to death by his own accord.
The warlord you speak of directs others to do such a thing for him. Those that follow his orders are responsible for the act more than he.
Does that mean the warlord is not evil? No. But certainly not to the degree that those who followed his orders are. (Of course, disregarding the fact that the warlord probably rose through the ranks doing the same things he is ordering others to do
)Point is, when you are Dahmer hacking your victims apart, you are evil personified. When you are another directing orders that result in the murder of innocents, you are just evil with a directive--others are left responsible for acting or not acting on your behalf.
---
BTW, I do apologize for my previous post. My "CENSORED off" was more off a disgust thing, than a P.O.ed thing.
Stop thinkin' like a buttcake and it won't happen again.
As to the warlord, I'd say he was worse than those carrying out his orders, since the followers probably wouldn't come up with the idea on their own without him telling them to do it. And its not like they don't do it themselves when the mood strikes. Its not just a matter of conceiving evil and carrying it out, its also the matter of encouraging others to engage in that evil as well... they're a moral and ethical cancer, consuming and infecting everything around them, that definitely needs to be excised from the body politic.
Certainly the warlords followers are hardly innocent dupes, most of them are far from that, but I tend to view them in the light of ethics and morality being an extreme luxury that can't be afforded when one is starving and impoverished. Not an excuse, but their actions are understandable... "if I kill those people over there, I get to eat, yeah okay, I can do that" sort of thing. Now the warlords, they generally tend to not be starving or impoverished, but they are the guys controlling who gets fed and who doesn't... do what I want, or I don't give you what you need to live... sorry, just far worse than the guy motivated by hunger and survival.
Oh please, Dahmer was hardly the first, or the worst. Take a look at people like Ed Gein and a few of his ilk, and Dahmer was just notable for being one of the last high-profile ones in recent times. He's the guy everyone knows about, but I'd blame that as much on the media as on the severity of his crimes.
Freezer treasures. Got it.
As to the warlord, I'd say he was worse than those carrying out his orders, since the followers probably wouldn't come up with the idea on their own without him telling them to do it.
Who's choice is it to cut off the hand of a thief or murder a baby in retaliation for another's "felt" wrong doing--the person ordered to do it or the person whose order it was?
The person who actually does it.
As for your point about the "idea on their own"? Give me a CENSORED break. Have you met anyone from Africa--let alone more than one?
These are extremely aggressive people--much to your stated points. Think not that the position of power they answer to in your speach is something they feel is beyond them or something they wouldn't kill, **** or maim for.
Every evil serves an evil that is just above them until they or someone else can bring that evil beneath them.
... they're a moral and ethical cancer, consuming and infecting everything around them, that definitely needs to be excised from the body politic.
So, yeah, we agree on this a bit, but on what side, I just don't get.
Certainly the warlords followers are hardly innocent dupes, most of them are far from that, but I tend to view them in the light of ethics and morality being an extreme luxury that can't be afforded when one is starving and impoverished.
I don't disagree. But there are those that kill and those that hack the living CENSORED out of their victim's. And this applies to both our points of view.
Now the warlords, they generally tend to not be starving or impoverished, but they are the guys controlling who gets fed and who doesn't... do what I want, or I don't give you what you need to live... sorry, just far worse than the guy motivated by hunger and survival.
As above.
This does not justify your point.
As far as cutting off a hand of a thief, that would rather depend if it were evil or not. Inherently, I don't think it would be, though a bit extreme from my cultural point of view. Murdering babies, all jokes aside, I don't see that as ever being anything but evil.
As to knowing anyone from Africa, I know a lot of people from Africa actually... dozens of them. Mostly Eritrean and Ethiopian, but I know a few from a few other assorted places, Zimbabwe, Niger, a few Somalis. For the most part, they were some of the nicest people I've ever actually met, but there's a reason they've left their homes and emigrated the US. ;)
Ultimately, my point is that there are degrees of evil. There's the lesser evil of the one going out and committing random and not so random acts, and then there's the guys who actively organize and perpetrate this stuff on everyone around them. The (albeit often willing but sometimes not) thugs and punks who serve those warlords would be the lesser, which I'd also include serial killers and psychos with, while the warlord and their henchmen (definite step up from thug or lackey), those are the really evil ones from where I see it.
Kinda like that idea of Weak, Average, Strong, and Overwhelming auras of evil... Manshoon versus Zhent Thug #1138 to bring it back towards D&D and the Realms.
Yes, there are varying degrees of evil, but what constitutes evil to that greater degree is just something we are not going to click on.
So I say we drop it.
Though, I would like to know where the hell you are located. All the African immigrants here are rude, aggressive idiots (minus 2 or 3).
As far as drizzard aligiment, it changes as to what mode he's in. exsample, Drizzard tell the elf 9can't remember her name) that he beomces the hunter. He changes his attude toward things and if he sees you as anemeny, guess what he'll attack you first.
Now with that in mind during the 10,000 orc books Drizard did go into that mode and afterwards the books didn't really say how he felt about going into his killing mode. Drizzard might have be bi polar, thus when he goes into his hunter mode get out of his way. The only instance I remember reading about drizzard memtioning some kind of remorse is the elf he had to kill. The one who he fought in the pirate cave city, the one who trained to kill him. All the others no mention from the books, if he enjoyed killing them or not: in his hunter mode.
This I will agree with is aligment is off, why because he goes into his killing "hunter" mode, and he changes for the worst or best depending on how you look at it. if your his friend and he kills 50 orcs, while you kill only 5: he helped you. Will this hunter mode cause him to kill you, unkown?
Both the two you makes good points, JudgeDookie and Stinger. I would ask both of you to remember to consider what the other says first, then react.
Then agree to disagree then.
Don't you dare come in here with your "Relate to the Drizzard" counseling session and expect us to agree on anything.
CENSORED that guy!! He's not Bejebuz!
And I'd agree its probably best to drop it, though it has been an interesting topic, for me anyway. ;)
As far as the Arfican warlords, they are evil in the ways they swell thier ranks.
Here's how, they use the group mentalty, The war lords use bulling, threats to hurt or kill their family members if the person dosen't jion. Then once their in the group, the group mentallity takes them. They then follow the leader blindly then, and ****, murder, buring down houses, torture dosen,t bother them any more. They changed thier values, and morals for their familys saftie(some of them, others have allready became this way by lifes lessions).
Who is to really balme the war lord, kill him or her and the group hold can be broken.
Yes there are degrees of evil, many depending on what your values, morals, and how your raised. Every socity will see things as evil and others will not. We can only judge the person or group by what are vaules, and morals are.
AS afar as Drizzt I don't really like or dislike the npc, his aligment among many others npcs are wrong. Dizzzt is a tool to be used only if needed.
Judgedookie I never said anything about relating to drizzt, Just a fact that his aligment is wrong in some many ways. TO look at any npc allready wrtten up in the realms, read every thing you can on that npc; every thing to understand how to run them.
How do I know about such Modes of fighting and group mentallity. I'm married to a retired exspecial forces and was in the millitary for 15 years my self. I do have some experance with group mentallity, expecally millitary types of groups. Yes I am a women. The fighting mode has to be controlled.
The drow are militarrestic in a lot of ways.
Yes there are degrees of evil, many depending on what your values, morals, and how your raised. Every socity will see things as evil and others will not. We can only judge the person or group by what are vaules, and morals are.
I agreed with you up until this point. I don't think that the definition of evil changes from society to society, but that there are certain instances in which it is less evil to do one thing as opposed to another. I think that in any society, murder is wrong, but that when survival comes into play, it is slightly more forvigable. It isn't wrong per se to do what you need to to survive, but the things you do can still be morally wrong.
I hope I didn't completely confuse you with that explanation. :D
Basically, in relation to Jarlaxle's alignment, he does what he needs to to survive in Menzoberranzan: he is willing to kill to survive. This is still morally wrong, but if it is done simply for the purpose of survival, it is more understandable and somewhat more forgivable. I don't know if he does what he does solely for survival, though, because there is some aspect of profit worked in there, so I suppose it isn't a really good example.
We can look back at that and say clearly evil, not to mention sexist, but the point is that within the context of society at the time, it was considered a good thing, or at the least a neutral thing, and hardly evil. Same goes with racism really... such as having to pay a fine when a slave was killed by someone other than the owner, since it was a property crime. Of course, having said that, **** was often considered a property crime as well back in the day. Who knows, maybe in a century, those folks will look back at some of the things we consider fairly acceptable today, the death penalty maybe for instance (which I'm in favor of, by the by), and denounce us as barbarians who hadn't quite grasped civilization just yet. Hells, there's a few nations out there that are already saying its a barbaric practice that needs to go away... ;)
Even within a society, there is some dissent about the morality of different actions. There is a huge arguement about the death penalty in the US. Many people say that it is wrong for people to pass judgement over other people, or that killing is wrong regardless of the situation. Other people say that the only right thing to do is to remove people incapable of acting morally from society, and that the best way to do that is to put them to death. It is hard to tell which side is right, but I think that ultimately, one side is right. We may never know which, but, if one side or the other is not right, then we have a situation in which punishment varies widely and unfairly. It defies the concepts that the legal system is based on.
Moral relativism really bothers me, if you haven't figured it out yet.
There are too many people that use it as an excuse for doing whatever they want to do, regardless of how it affects other people.
Crossroads_Wanderer: It was acceptable in his society, but I don't think it is morally acceptable. He is still taking away a girl's childhood, and I think it is wrong. What I'm trying to say is that, if there are two societies that dispute a particular issue, they can't both be right.
In Iran the grils are allowed to marry at 9 years old, that is Islam law. Is it right and moral no, does it take away the girl childhood yes. In Germany teenagers become adults at 15 or 16, a female can move out or bring a older man or young teenager home and the parents have no say. I had german friends while in gremany that did not like haveing their daughter bring home old men and teenage boys. I'm glad that in this country we have perentle rights and don't loose them because our child turns of age.
This is a socital vrs moral issue.
Moral socital issues vrs the state or natoinal laws, exsample; in the eighties a town in the mid west had a bully, who robbed, beat up others, and more.
The town gathered together and killed the man, no one even was charged with killing the man. Was this wrong yes and no, the town broke state and federal laws: but morally the town was right in some ways. Even the local police force was afraid of the man, The police even ahd the man sent to prison and he came back worse.
To me the citzens should of had a trail and they all would have been set free because they feared for their lives, each and every one of them was afraid of the man and what he would do.
I get your point Crossroads -wounder but to me they are grey areas in laws and morals that are indvually has to be decided.
Do I think by Islam law a 9 year old gril should not have to marry a 20, 30 or 40 or 50 year old man, because he had his last wife killed by Islam law; no.
Should the age of adulthood be 15 or 16 no, they need to learn more life experance. the Us law of 18 is good enought and as parents we don't loose our rights because a teenager turns 15 or 16. This is an exsample of socital issue that becomes laws.
Yes I agree that there are universal set of moral rules, the differance is what socity and what does that socity teach you as a young women or man. every socity has some differance that has to learned about to understand, why they differ from us. We might not agree with their views, but we can say we understand why they do this or that, different from us.
Socital rules and morals is why Gary Gygax was wanting to do away with the aligment system. IT would be a moral and social values that determine how your characters acts. What is evil in one socity is not in another, the same for good.
I think that there are a few situations in which there is a moral grey area, in which you need to pick the lesser of two evils. But those grey areas seldom have to do with societal upbringing. I don't think that allowing grown men to marry children is a grey area. The other example you gave is a better example of a grey area. The man and the people both did something wrong, but in this case, one was more right than the other. So this is an example of society condoning something that would normally be considered wrong, but in this instance was a grey area. Normally, if a mob killed a man, the people in the mob would be sent to jail. So our society does not flat out condone murder, it only allows it under the most extreme circumstances. Societies that allow older men to marry children generally allow it freely to any man in society. They condone wrongdoing on a normal basis. Therefore, I think they have a skewed moral perspective.
Therefore, I think they have a skewed moral perspective.
-From your perspective. In that particular culture, if it's a societal norm (and I don't know if it is or not. I was simply citing a single example that happened, was allowed, and was not frowned upon), it's not. There isn't such thing as an objective state of morals that proclaim such and such to be good, ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, such as such to be bad, ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, and so on.
-D&D tends to use the concept that there are such things as objective morals that can be absolutely and universally applied, and that is why so many alignment problems and conundrums have creeped into the game/system. Remember: In D&D, it would be a morally evil act to kill Adolf Hitler by dripping a potent poison into his soup that kills him in his sleep, and a morally good act to fight to the death to protect a group of suicide bombers while they are sleeping, who are fully intending to blow themselves up in a crowded place in the morning, but are wholly innocent at the moment. I think that, to most of us, approaching the above situations with our own personal philosophies, whatever they be, the former would be 'good' instead of 'evil', while the latter would be 'evil' instead of 'good'.
;)But anyway I believe the stat persons @ WOTC need to adjust his alignment fro NE? To CN as he has definately changed(based on the novels which prob are the only "canon" source for him) but that's My opinion.(no peeking :rant
Hey LK , Isn't this where you say"Back on topic please"
-Yeah, that's where I branched into the second paragraph there, linking what was being talked about back to D&D. I don't always have to "yell" to get the ball rolling. :P
Which is one of the reasons I dislike the 4e Realms, since they built religious extremism into the rules with the whole LG/CE = fanatic mindset, and then seemed to have plunked that down in a few places. Prior to 4e, Faerun was a pretty religiously tolerant place for the most part, with a few exceptions, which was one of the most appealing aspects of it to me. Nowadays, not so much it seems... to bring it back around a bit.
Which is one of the reasons I dislike the 4e Realms, since they built religious extremism into the rules with the whole LG/CE = fanatic mindset, and then seemed to have plunked that down in a few places. Prior to 4e, Faerun was a pretty religiously tolerant place for the most part, with a few exceptions, which was one of the most appealing aspects of it to me. Nowadays, not so much it seems... to bring it back around a bit.
-That part, I don't see. The only real evidence of that that I see would be Eltargurd, where the Paladin-Kings are blinded by their own self-righteousness and all of that. Where else is that kind of stuff prevalent?
-D&D tends to use the concept that there are such things as objective morals that can be absolutely and universally applied, and that is why so many alignment problems and conundrums have creeped into the game/system. Remember: In D&D, it would be a morally evil act to kill Adolf Hitler by dripping a potent poison into his soup that kills him in his sleep, and a morally good act to fight to the death to protect a group of suicide bombers while they are sleeping, who are fully intending to blow themselves up in a crowded place in the morning, but are wholly innocent at the moment. I think that, to most of us, approaching the above situations with our own personal philosophies, whatever they be, the former would be 'good' instead of 'evil', while the latter would be 'evil' instead of 'good'.
I think that the examples you gave really do show actions that are 'evil' and 'good' respectively. There are better ways to bring an evil person to justice than to poison them or kill them in their sleep. Those are cowardly and unjust ways of doing it. I understand that the people are themselves cowardly and unjust, but part of being a moral person is to not fall to that level, even when dealing with morally bankrupt people. So I don't think those are good examples of moral relativism.
Beyond that, the point I'm trying to make is that, if we consider moral relativity to be true, it would be impossible to have a functional society. People could say that they didn't do anything wrong when they poisoned their neighbor because, in their mind, it was the right thing to do, and no one could contradict them. It would undermine the legal system and defy the basis of civilization. Civilization doesn't work if you allow murderers to roam free, simply because they believe they are doing nothing wrong.
Furthermore, with your arguement about moral relativity being valid because different societies have different values, you create a paradox if you consider the values in the US. People have wildy varying moral values based on religion, cultural background, upbringing, etc. If you say that, in the US, the death penalty is considered morally ok simply because many states have a death penalty, you are stepping on the toes of people who are absolutely morally opposed to the death penalty. You are saying that they are morally wrong because they don't have the same moral beliefs as the majority.
I think that the examples you gave really do show actions that are 'evil' and 'good' respectively. There are better ways to bring an evil person to justice than to poison them or kill them in their sleep. Those are cowardly and unjust ways of doing it. I understand that the people are themselves cowardly and unjust, but part of being a moral person is to not fall to that level, even when dealing with morally bankrupt people. So I don't think those are good examples of moral relativism.
-To the philosophical ideals I ascribe to, both would be the opposite: Killing Adolph Hitler would be a good thing, regardless of how it's done, because it is being done to prevent the deaths of millions of others. Likewise, defending suicide bombers is an evil thing, because you are a direct accessory to the deaths of scores of other innocents, who fall victim to their bombs the next morning. Thus, my point that, in D&D, objective morality causes problems, and that in real life, it's nonexistent.
Beyond that, the point I'm trying to make is that, if we consider moral relativity to be true, it would be impossible to have a functional society.
-Not particularly, no. Moral relativity comes about from different societies proclaiming something as good, bad, or something in between. American society seems to be working just fine, currently, as in it's quite functional. As with anything else, the majority makes the "decision" and the minority that feels differently is out of luck, for the most part. Thus, people who think it's perfectly acceptable to assault others because of whatever, be it their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, language, whatever, are punished when they do so. They can think they are justified in doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that they get arrested and put on trial after doing so (presuming that everything "works out", in that the person is apprehended, taken into custody, the assaulted person wants to press charges, etc.). Whether or not they actually are justified in doing so is another issue all together, one that differs from person to person because of moral relativity.
People could say that they didn't do anything wrong when they poisoned their neighbor because, in their mind, it was the right thing to do, and no one could contradict them. It would undermine the legal system and defy the basis of civilization. Civilization doesn't work if you allow murderers to roam free, simply because they believe they are doing nothing wrong.
-And individuals are free to think that, that they did the right thing by poisoning their neighbor. John Wilkes Booth was convinced that he was doing the right thing by shooting Abraham Lincoln (even citing that he believed G-d was acting through him, to be the instrument of Lincoln's death), but that didn't change the fact that a reward was put out for his capture, and that had he been captured instead of been executed by the soldiers who found him, he would have been tried, and presumably, put to death legally. A person's personal philosophy is not synonymous with society's wholesale philosophy. Jarlaxle's personal philosophy may be one that deals with the empowerment of male Drow in Lolthite society, and that that is a good thing, but because that is his own personal philosophy doesn't mean that Lolthite society as a whole seems to think that it would be a good thing to empowe male Drow.
Furthermore, with your arguement about moral relativity being valid because different societies have different values, you create a paradox if you consider the values in the US. People have wildy varying moral values based on religion, cultural background, upbringing, etc. If you say that, in the US, the death penalty is considered morally ok simply because many states have a death penalty, you are stepping on the toes of people who are absolutely morally opposed to the death penalty. You are saying that they are morally wrong because they don't have the same moral beliefs as the majority.
-Moral relativity isn't a theory; it's a fact. Aboriginal Australians have a different sense of ethics and morals than contemporary Canadians. Morals do not equate to laws, which you seem to be doing. Laws are based upon the morals and general consensus of the majority, to a degree, but that is all. Something I think most of us would consider immoral, such as a husband cheating on his wife, is not illegal (unless you are an officer in the armed forces. I believe it is still grounds to be marshaled on.). Jarlaxle, let's say. Many people believe him a neutral individual, because of the things he does, and why he does them. Does the same outlook of Jarlaxle still remain when his behavior and activity is gazed through the prism of a devout Buddhist?
Mine?
Good: Any one who avoids the hurt and pain of others at all costs--including self-sacrifice if need be.
Evil: Anyone willing to sacrifice the feelings, physicality or life of another at all costs if it benefits them--as long as it doesn't involve a sacrifice of ones self to any great degree.
-To the philosophical ideals I ascribe to, both would be the opposite: Killing Adolph Hitler would be a good thing, regardless of how it's done, because it is being done to prevent the deaths of millions of others. Likewise, defending suicide bombers is an evil thing, because you are a direct accessory to the deaths of scores of other innocents, who fall victim to their bombs the next morning. Thus, my point that, in D&D, objective morality causes problems, and that in real life, it's nonexistent.
I think on this point we just can't agree. It is a difference of opinion.
-Not particularly, no. Moral relativity comes about from different societies proclaiming something as good, bad, or something in between. American society seems to be working just fine, currently, as in it's quite functional. As with anything else, the majority makes the "decision" and the minority that feels differently is out of luck, for the most part. Thus, people who think it's perfectly acceptable to assault others because of whatever, be it their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, language, whatever, are punished when they do so. They can think they are justified in doing so, but that doesn't change the fact that they get arrested and put on trial after doing so (presuming that everything "works out", in that the person is apprehended, taken into custody, the assaulted person wants to press charges, etc.). Whether or not they actually are justified in doing so is another issue all together, one that differs from person to person because of moral relativity.
-And individuals are free to think that, that they did the right thing by poisoning their neighbor. John Wilkes Booth was convinced that he was doing the right thing by shooting Abraham Lincoln (even citing that he believed G-d was acting through him, to be the instrument of Lincoln's death), but that didn't change the fact that a reward was put out for his capture, and that had he been captured instead of been executed by the soldiers who found him, he would have been tried, and presumably, put to death legally. A person's personal philosophy is not synonymous with society's wholesale philosophy. Jarlaxle's personal philosophy may be one that deals with the empowerment of male Drow in Lolthite society, and that that is a good thing, but because that is his own personal philosophy doesn't mean that Lolthite society as a whole seems to think that it would be a good thing to empowe male Drow.
-Moral relativity isn't a theory; it's a fact. Aboriginal Australians have a different sense of ethics and morals than contemporary Canadians. Morals do not equate to laws, which you seem to be doing. Laws are based upon the morals and general consensus of the majority, to a degree, but that is all. Something I think most of us would consider immoral, such as a husband cheating on his wife, is not illegal (unless you are an officer in the armed forces. I believe it is still grounds to be marshaled on.). Jarlaxle, let's say. Many people believe him a neutral individual, because of the things he does, and why he does them. Does the same outlook of Jarlaxle still remain when his behavior and activity is gazed through the prism of a devout Buddhist?
I think we define moral relativism differently and that we are having a miscommunication. Moral relativism is believing that each person is only obligated to follow their personal moral code, whatever it may be, and that they cannot be judged by the moral code of another. That is the (basic) definition given in ethical philosophy. If society adopted this moral philosophy, it would tear itself apart because criminals would not be able to be charged because they acted morally in following their own moral code.
Different societies do have different moral outlooks, but I don't think that, just because a majority agrees on some point, this means that it is moral. We know that slavery is wrong, yet it was being practiced openly in America 200 years ago because the majority thought it was okay. This does not mean that they were right to own slaves at the time, it means that they were morally misguided.
Different people and societies disagreeing about moral points is not moral relativism, it is simply a difference of opinion. If Jarlaxle's goals include the empowerment of males, but society disagrees with him, morality does not apply differently for the two of them. There is a way to correctly approach the moral situation, even if no one knows for certain who is right. It also does not mean that Jarlaxle is automatically wrong for disagreeing with the majority. He may be on the moral high ground even if the rest of society is not (which isn't hard to imagine in drow society :P).
I'm not trying to say that morals are the same as laws. I'm simply using laws as examples because I believe, for the most part, that those laws in the US that apply to morality, are morally correct. So I used examples in which the legal system upholds morality. I'm not saying, however, that all legal systems, or all laws within a legal system are morally correct. I think that countries that allow slavery, child abuse, murder, etc etc have laws that are morally wrong. And I agree that sometimes a moral point is not dictated in law.
As for Jarlaxle being viewed in the context of Buddhist views, of course his actions would seem totally different because of a difference in opinion. A strict Buddhist would have strict moral rules, whereas other may not be that strict. It does not mean that proper moral behavior differs between the two groups, it means that the two groups differ on what is proper moral behavior.
It seems to me that the main point you are trying to argue is that there are certain circumstances under which actions that are normally considered wrong are right. To a degree, I agree with you. As I said before, I do think that there are moral grey areas in which the only thing to do is to choose the lesser of two evils. In this case, the action chosen is still wrong, but it may be the most right thing that can be done. I never said that people are or have to be completely morally correct all of the time. Sometimes there is just no choice. However, I feel that in the examples you used of Hitler and the suicide bombers, there are other choices, making it unnecessary to resort to an evil at all. I understand if you feel differently, though.
I think that there is ultimately a "best" moral code to follow, but that it isn't necessarily easily or ever knowable. That is why there are moral disagreements. I don't think that these disagreements amount to there being different moral truths for each party; instead it means that one or both party(ies) is/are wrong. It may be impossible to tell which, if any, is right, but that's just the way the world works.
I mean, it's so obvious!
I think that there is ultimately a "best" moral code to follow, but that it isn't necessarily easily or ever knowable. That is why there are moral disagreements. I don't think that these disagreements amount to there being different moral truths for each party; instead it means that one or both party(ies) is/are wrong. It may be impossible to tell which, if any, is right, but that's just the way the world works.
I was sort of seeing, though not really agreeing with, your point up until here. For there to be a "best" moral code, you've got to decide on a core set of values for those criteria to be judged on, and those values are so utterly subjective its painful. It also relies on the premise that there is something out there setting a "best" moral standard, which presupposes the existence of the divine... which isn't a subject that lends itself well to objectivity or definitive answers beyond stuff that starts with "I believe...", which isn't exactly a great empirical standard. ;)
As to moral disagreements, I don't think its a question of being right or wrong, its usually a case of how much emphasis one places upon a certain "value", or if its even seen as a "value" in the first place, and on what punitive measures should be enforced on those who break that "value". Murder... kind of a no-brainer that its bad, I can't think of many societies that think it isn't... but what exactly constitutes murder? Does it imply intent to kill with malice, or can an accidental killing be termed a murder?
When it comes down to it, a sense of morality is mostly an artificial construct that societies use to maintain order and form social cohesion, which I think mostly stems from our nature as social creatures. You had alphas, who set about defining those standards, and if someone wanted to part of their troop, they lived by them, or they got gone and start their own, or died off in the wilderness alone. Eventually, the most sucessful troops formed into individual cultures, because they found a successful recipe for making a functional society, and they've been slowly evolving ever since, until we arrived at today. And those recipes for society are still evolving towards more efficient forms.
And to be honest, there isn't going to be a singular answer to the question of which is the most efficient, since that's largely going to depend on variables that preclude any one answer. What works for a society in one situation isn't going to work for a society in an entirely different one, because the conditions that shape society aren't going to be compatible. What's a good idea in a desert isn't necessarily going to be a good idea in a forest, to put it more bluntly, if grossly simplified.
Which is why I can understand the Drow needing to be very different from their surface cousins, just because of environment, which is a rather large factor on a societal level. They live in conditions of scarcity, where nothing is easy to come by, and so developed a social order that ensured the survival of the species by devaluing the individual, since it was a harmful luxury that couldn't be afforded in the Underdark. Its not that the Drow are actually evil, that's the gold elves afterall, its just that they had to adapt their culture when they were forced out of their homelands due to gold elven greed and jealousy.
See how I brought that back, made the Drow sympathetic, and trashed gold elves in the process? I even impressed myself there... :D
I think on this point we just can't agree. It is a difference of opinion.
-Right, which was what I was going for. There isn't an objective definition of what is a 'good' thing, and what is a 'bad' thing. Every person has their own personal philosophy, or follows a broader, widely adhered philosophy. Not all of them match, and none are inherently 'better', or 'more right' than any others.
I think that there is ultimately a "best" moral code to follow, but that it isn't necessarily easily or ever knowable. That is why there are moral disagreements. I don't think that these disagreements amount to there being different moral truths for each party; instead it means that one or both party(ies) is/are wrong. It may be impossible to tell which, if any, is right, but that's just the way the world works.
-For as much as I like objectivity, objective principles applied to something that is wholly subjective, such as ethics and morals, are impossible. Applied to something absolute, like mathematics, for example, that's fine. Or other esoteric concepts. But ethics/morality do not have actual set definitions, like mathematics, or, say, color. When conditions are devoid of independent thought and all of that, 1+1 will always be 2. Mixing X amount of this pigment, and Y amount of this pigment will give you the color blue. There isn't anything that can define what actually is defined as good, or evil. Before I began studying anthropology, I used to feel the same way, that an objective definition of things like good or evil existed. Looking back, however, I can see how naive I was. Ten groups can consider, say, polygamy, a bad thing. Ten can consider it a good thing. Who's right? Everyone's equally right.
It was a fun debate, but I guess it's time to get back on topic.
Does anyone believe the economy is directly affected by the decision of what "Jarlaxles alignment" is ?
See? On topic
It was on topic, since it was exploring the nature of alignment and how it could be defined. Though you left out the whole Drow being mentioned as qualifying as being on topic there Drizztsboything. :P
Alright, this really is off-topic, but manchild and boything are two very different things. Yeesh.
Maybe we just need to discuss morals and alignment in smaller posts so JD can take them in. :P
It was on topic, since it was exploring the nature of alignment and how it could be defined. Though you left out the whole Drow being mentioned as qualifying as being on topic there Drizztsboything. :P
Hey hey hey, I wasn't the one who had an issue with the debate
No need to belittle me here ;). And are you trying to take over LK's sphere of the "obvious"
;)
Alright, this really is off-topic, but manchild and boything are two very different things. Yeesh.
Thank you!
And yes, it probably would help if the posts were smaller so JD could parse them. He has trouble with paragraphs over two sentences and words that use more than one syllable. But such is his nature as a Dookie-thing. :P
And the first part of that statement wasn't aimed at you, though I see I failed to make that clear. I was taking issue with CW's assessment that the issue wasn't on topic.
Clearly, the surface elves, who are evil incarnate, have gotten to CW to silence the debate, so as not to expose their vile and contemptuous natures. ;)
Stig
I know. ;)
Exsample Thay.
If your in the ruling class you think slavery is not wrong, if your an exslave (that escaped), the system is wrong and you would fight the system.
I have read stories about exthayen slaves attacking Thayen slavers convoys. Why? They hated the ruling class and wanted to do what they could.
So would you say that a character that is an exthayen slave, now an paladin of Helm: that they are wrong in their aligment for seeing an thayen slave carvan and not waiting for the others and just attacking? Their actions don't follow their aligment?
Stigger I agree the elfs did a bad thing in the crown wars, thats why they hide their actions of their past. They don't want the rest of the races to find out that the elfs can be corrupted by power. The gods did have some part of this also, the elfs who accepted the gods ways and power are to blame too.
As to the ex-slave, now paladin... I'd say it was unlikely that a lawful type would attack without at least some sort of plan, so I'd argue it was against the L, rather than the G part of their alignment.
As to them just hating the ruling class, I'd say it was considerably more than that for a goodly type. For a neutral, sure, but not a goodly sort. Really, I could even see an evil sort opposing them, if only to put themselves in a position where they tables were turned and it was the Mulan on their knees.
As to the elves, I think the authors have been giving them a bad rap. Evil elves seem to make a "better story" in the eyes of the authors/designers, so instances of evil elves are far more often portrayed than instances of good elves. My guess is that the authors were looking for something edgier, and wound up running with it so far that they misportray the overall situation.
As to things being simply wrong, I presume that purposefully killing off your Citizenry would qualify for being wrong? How about in a situation where you don't have much choice, since without it, you'll see mass starvation and general scarcity of resources? That was essentially the situation the Aztecs, among others, were facing, so their human-sacrifice practices, while abhorrent from a modern stand-point, do actually make sense within the context of resources and natural environmental population limitations, versus lack of knowledge about family planning and effective contraception. While a lot of people have many moral problems with both of those, they are remarkably effective at improving the quality of life by limiting the strains a society undergoes at it strives to feed itself.
One way or another, a balance is going to be achieved, and in the Aztecs case, it was both a good idea (within its own context), and politically expedient, since it relieved other social pressures at the same time. Now I doubt they thought of it in those terms, though its possible on the part of the priesthood, albeit in a less sophisticated way, and to them it was just an obvious course of action.
So on that, my question would be, is it wrong to kill off your own people if it ensures your long-term survival, or would it be better to let them overpopulate, starve, and face potential extinction?
Certainly, some stuff is there, simply because those ideas are necessary for a society to function efficiently, but I still contend that they serve a function of society, and are not inherently right or wrong. A lot of it is going to come down to what a society values as to whether its right or wrong for them, not some objective scale of Good and Evil, which doesn't really exist. That societies tend to value the same things in order to work, doesn't mean they place the same emphasis, in the same order. That's where the conflict usually comes in... the devil, as it were, is all in the details.
Most societies are going to say that killing another member of your own society is bad... but what it says about members of other societies, and whether or not it even considers them people worthy, is something else entirely different. Sure, our culture tends to, on an abstract anyway, but there's a lot of cultures out there that most certainly do not. Good? Bad? I honestly don't know in an objective sense, but in a personal sense, I'd happily condemn them. Doesn't make me right about that though. ;)
Alright, this really is off-topic, but manchild and boything are two very different things. Yeesh.
Maybe we just need to discuss morals and alignment in smaller posts so JD can take them in. :P
First off, I made it a point earlier to end my debate with Stig, simply so we didn’t fill up the thread with walls of text for the rest of those that might want to read and get involved.
Second, have you ever watched a cable news channel?
You see, they have these scroll bars and such that give “nuggets” of information, so that those that get intrigued can pursue it on their own accord.
Hey hey hey, I wasn't the one who had an issue with the debate
And are you trying to take over LK's sphere of the "obvious"
;)
I just want to point out that I am not going to hold my charismatic influence responsible for Drizztmanthingy’s sudden affinity towards beyotching and ranting.
He’s like a teenage girl mimicking Miley Cyrus. He’s all cool until he discovers his racey antics are on the internet.
And they are, you baboon.
And yes, it probably would help if the posts were smaller so JD could parse them. He has trouble with paragraphs over two sentences and words that use more than one syllable. But such is his nature as a Dookie-thing. :P
It’s a Dookie!! Singular, you CENSORED retard!!
Bejejebuz—what the CENCORED is wrong with these goobers?!
(sigh)
Dookie = 2 syllables.
You = monologue without reason.
I’ve already stated that you need to use paragraphs. Otherwise there is no coherency.
Please Stig, I beg!! Indents when you ramble.
Morals and aligment still boil down to where your riased and what your taught by your socity and family.
That, my dear is a lie.
I won’t say it isn’t a majority in the cause of things, but it all comes down to the individual. Unfortunately, that individual tends to be of sub par intellect most of the time and helps to continue the culture you refer to. That, in turn, lends to the detriment of “society” as a whole.
I agree with the whole thing about the place/culture you were raised in generally has a strong impact on your morals, but what I'm saying is that I think that there are certain things that are simply wrong, whether you were raised to think that it was right or not.
Third post in the same thread where I am likin’ your response. You get a favorable rating. ;)
Much more than Drizztmanthingy at this point. Which I find disappointing.
Damned elven apologists... :P
As to things being simply wrong, I presume that purposefully killing off your Citizenry would qualify for being wrong? How about in a situation where you don't have much choice, since without it, you'll see mass starvation and general scarcity of resources? That was essentially the situation the Aztecs, among others, were facing, so their human-sacrifice practices, while abhorrent from a modern stand-point, do actually make sense within the context of resources and natural environmental population limitations, versus lack of knowledge about family planning and effective contraception. While a lot of people have many moral problems with both of those, they are remarkably effective at improving the quality of life by limiting the strains a society undergoes at it strives to feed itself.
One way or another, a balance is going to be achieved, and in the Aztecs case, it was both a good idea (within its own context), and politically expedient, since it relieved other social pressures at the same time. Now I doubt they thought of it in those terms, though its possible on the part of the priesthood, albeit in a less sophisticated way, and to them it was just an obvious course of action.
So on that, my question would be, is it wrong to kill off your own people if it ensures your long-term survival, or would it be better to let them overpopulate, starve, and face potential extinction?
Yes it is still wrong to kill people even in the face of overpopulation. In that instance, some people will find a way to survive. It would be a sorry thing for so many others to die, but if the population grows out of control, there is no moral way to handle it.
Say the society were to choose people to sacrifice. How is the sacrifice chosen? Do they really have the right to pick a random innocent and say that they don't have the right to live? I could easily see that kind of system leading to corruption, where only people who are favored by the ruler are safe. The purpose of society is to protect people. If society were not a protection, there would be no reason to be part of it. If a society turns against its people, it has failed in its purpose. A society that condones random murder is no more safe or protective than anarchy.
Sometimes you have to
to get you're point across or to defend yourself Didn't know this was a popularity contest;)And while the debate was on topic it just delved to deep and I didn't feel like following. And I stated my opinion on Jarlaxle's alignment earlier before the debate began so
Third post in the same thread where I am likin’ your response. You get a favorable rating. ;)
Why thank you.
Why thank you.
No prob.
Now grab the other side of this rope and once I have it around the manthingy's neck, pull hard.
No prob.
Now grab the other side of this rope and once I have it around the manthingy's neck, pull hard.
Hmmm, well I think I would be obligated to stop arguing morality if I did that. :P
Get out from underneath the chair--AGAIN.
Lol. But seriously it is an interesting debate.
A paladin, 2 fighters, wazird, cleric, ranger.
Ok the group comes across a village there are orc's being directed to work by the humans, short srtory the group finds out the orc's are slaves of the humans. The paladin demans the orc;s be released, the humans villagers say no. "If the orc's are released they will come back and raid the village again, we will not realease them. The beasts have to work off their debt to the village for their crimes." the paladin is told by the elected village mayor.
The paladin seeing the villagers will not release the orcs, attacks the villagers. The rest of the group donsn't help the paladin. The paladin hurts or wounds most of the villagers who fought him, he releases the orc's. The paladin tells the other villagers and the rest of the group that slavery is wrong and he will not tolarate slavey of any race. The orc's run away towards the hills a few days away.
Now was the paladin wrong for freeing the orc's, for following his believes?
Or was the orcs wrong for raiding the village?
Was the human villagers wrong for defending thier village and enslaving the orcs.
who wrong and who's right?
1. Were the villagers evil
2. Was there a trial for the orcs
3. Did the paladin investigate the matter fully?
4. Were the orcs being mistreated or simply serving their punishment
5. Were the Orcs evil
6. Who attacked who first(Orcs and Villagers)
7. When does this take place?(timeframe)
8. Whose god was the paladin
The paladin should have all these answers and more before he did anything. And if he was right in his actions I would think his friends being of like alignment and morals would have helped him.
No, the villagers were ng
2. Was there a trial for the orcs
A village proclamation by the mayor to have the orcs pay the village for their crimes.
3. Did the paladin investigate the matter fully?
no, the paladin didn't believe in slavery of any kind.
4. Were the orcs being mistreated or simply serving their punishment.
punishment for raiding the village
5. Were the Orcs evil
ne
6. Who attacked who first(Orcs and Villagers)
the orc's attacked the village for food , what ever they could use
7. When does this take place?(timeframe)
pre tot in the reams 2e
8. Whose god was the paladin
a lawful good paladin of Torm
The other players played thier charcaters as "what are you doing, find out what is going on first." That's why they did nothing and just watched, then ask the paladin what was wrong with him.
"The village poeple should have trained the orc's in growing gardins, cattle treatment and care, how to make items they needed. How to make houses or repair houses, things that would make them grow and become useful to their race. Who was wrong all three were:
1.the villagers for not teaching the orcs to be more civial and teaching the orcs not have to raid: to do for themselves.
2. the orcs for raiding the village; for being savages and not knowing how do civilized things for them selves. "Maybe the orcs did know how to do such things but raiding was easer for them".
3.the paladin for not finding out what was going on in the first palce.
It depends on how you look at a situation and how you act.
I
Yes it is still wrong to kill people even in the face of overpopulation. In that instance, some people will find a way to survive. It would be a sorry thing for so many others to die, but if the population grows out of control, there is no moral way to handle it.
Say the society were to choose people to sacrifice. How is the sacrifice chosen? Do they really have the right to pick a random innocent and say that they don't have the right to live? I could easily see that kind of system leading to corruption, where only people who are favored by the ruler are safe. The purpose of society is to protect people. If society were not a protection, there would be no reason to be part of it. If a society turns against its people, it has failed in its purpose. A society that condones random murder is no more safe or protective than anarchy.
No, the purpose of society is to perpetuate itself, not to protect its individual people. Protection is a side-effect of its purpose, not its reason for existence. If some of those people have to be sacrificed for the sake of the greater portion, then screw them, they die. Its part of that whole self-preservation instinct thing most creatures, and societies have. Does it suck for those who get dumped? That depends really on how its done. If they're treated really well before hand and told they're being honored and chosen by the gods, they're suprisingly pliant to the whole idea. Who knows, the ones doing the sacrificing might actually start believing it after a while. Maybe it even is true... that whole region certainly went to hell after they stopped.
When it comes down to it, a society is at its core just a collection of beings who band together for mutual benefit. That does not inherently imply protection, just cooperation on some level to the benefit of all, or most parties. Take your mention of anarchy... that's very much a form of society, just not a very effective or productive one. At least in most people's view of the word. It can also imply a "utopic" society where the rules that govern most of our societies are unnecessary, and is in many ways the 'ideal' society.
But really, a lot of societies have condoned random murder, so long as it was the right person killing the right sort of person. Hells, young gentlemen in France used to pretty much be allowed to **** and kill any woman they found on the streets after dark, since they obviously weren't proper sorts of ladies for being out at that time, and so were fair game... what, maybe 3 or 4 centuries ago, tops? African-Americans as recently as 50 years ago were considered fair game in some parts of this country... sure it was technically illegal, but you knew no one was going to look into it, and so it was very much condoned in private. Neither of those examples were particularly anarchistic in most respects, so... ;)
@Drizztboythungperson...
Depends, as to whether its canon or not. If its from a canon source and stays accurate, then yes, you could consider it canon of a sort, but really, the only "official" sources of canon for the Realms are 1) Sourcebooks, 2) Novels, and 3) Ed's Scribblings over at Candlekeep.
Question? Is the info on Forgottenrealms wiki and wikipedia(pertaining to Fr) considered "canon"
-When things are directly cited, you can trust that they're canon. But, like the regular Wikipedia, things aren't always cited. There's plenty of problems and errors in the Forgotten Realms Wikipedia, though. The Forgotten Realms article on Wikipedia is fairly good, if I recall. It won a weekly award for 'Best Article', or something like that, I remember someone celebrating.
No, the purpose of society is to perpetuate itself, not to protect its individual people. Protection is a side-effect of its purpose, not its reason for existence. If some of those people have to be sacrificed for the sake of the greater portion, then screw them, they die. Its part of that whole self-preservation instinct thing most creatures, and societies have. Does it suck for those who get dumped? That depends really on how its done. If they're treated really well before hand and told they're being honored and chosen by the gods, they're suprisingly pliant to the whole idea. Who knows, the ones doing the sacrificing might actually start believing it after a while. Maybe it even is true... that whole region certainly went to hell after they stopped.
I disagree. I think self-perpetuation for the sake of it is the mark of a stagnating society. People come together so that they can protect their own lives. It may mean better food access, better shelter, or protection from hostile people, but society wouldn't have evolved if it didn't increase the odds of survival. People inherently care about their own survival above the survival of a group of stranger, so they wouldn't band together if they were afraid that that group of stangers were going to kill them. Only when people become complacent in society and their instincts start to dull do they cling to society so strongly that they refuse to leave when their survival is threatened.
When it comes down to it, a society is at its core just a collection of beings who band together for mutual benefit. That does not inherently imply protection, just cooperation on some level to the benefit of all, or most parties. Take your mention of anarchy... that's very much a form of society, just not a very effective or productive one. At least in most people's view of the word. It can also imply a "utopic" society where the rules that govern most of our societies are unnecessary, and is in many ways the 'ideal' society.
The highest and most important benefit to an individual is continued survival, so protection must be the number one focus of a society, for there to be benefit.
As to anarchy, I agree that it is possible to have a form of society within anarchy, but we as a species are simply not able at this point to live in large lawless societies. I fully agree with Thoreau that in ideal circumstances "That government is best which governs not at all", but even he recognized that we are not ready for that kind of society yet.
But really, a lot of societies have condoned random murder, so long as it was the right person killing the right sort of person. Hells, young gentlemen in France used to pretty much be allowed to **** and kill any woman they found on the streets after dark, since they obviously weren't proper sorts of ladies for being out at that time, and so were fair game... what, maybe 3 or 4 centuries ago, tops? African-Americans as recently as 50 years ago were considered fair game in some parts of this country... sure it was technically illegal, but you knew no one was going to look into it, and so it was very much condoned in private. Neither of those examples were particularly anarchistic in most respects, so... ;)
This goes back to morality, but sometimes societies condone things that are wrong. It often leads to revolution or societal collapse. In cases where society condones harmful behavior toward some group, it is also often the majority holding down a minority. For most of the history of human civilazation, minorities were simply not tolerated in society. It was a matter of people caring more about those who shared their bloodline and culture. Sometimes there are holdovers of this in modern times. It is also often a matter of a society having a misguided set of morals, and simply being too set in their ways to change. All of these situations eventually lead to revolution or societal collapse, which shows that the society was flawed in the first place.
Only rarely does a society perfectly fulfill its purpose, but those societies that are most successful generally make sure that their people are safe within reason.
Well there are a few more questions and details that need to be provided.
1. Were the villagers evil
2. Was there a trial for the orcs
3. Did the paladin investigate the matter fully?
4. Were the orcs being mistreated or simply serving their punishment
5. Were the Orcs evil
6. Who attacked who first(Orcs and Villagers)
7. When does this take place?(timeframe)
8. Whose god was the paladin
The paladin should have all these answers and more before he did anything. And if he was right in his actions I would think his friends being of like alignment and morals would have helped him.
There are actually more questions than that, but you’re rockin’ and rollin’, so keep it up. ;)
The other players played thier charcaters as "what are you doing, find out what is going on first." That's why they did nothing and just watched, then ask the paladin what was wrong with him.
It seems to me that number 3 was the only right answer(as to being whose at fault) based on the details that were given because by capturing the orcs and forcing them to face their crimes and repenting them is showing that A. The villagers are showing the orcs how to be ci act when it comes to dealing with other races B. Showing the orc's that savagery and brutality has no place in a civilized world.
I
As to my foster child’s point, your paladin didn’t ask the needed questions before surfacing up demands. Which, I see, you know.
I’m just so proud of my Drizztmanthingy!!
Question? Is the info on Forgottenrealms wiki and wikipedia(pertaining to Fr) considered "canon"
No. But consider it a solid basis for things in most cases.
When you ask, "What is?" then it is generally true.
When you ask, "What happened?" then things can get convoluted or misleading.
-When things are directly cited, you can trust that they're canon. But, like the regular Wikipedia, things aren't always cited. There's plenty of problems and errors in the Forgotten Realms Wikipedia, though. The Forgotten Realms article on Wikipedia is fairly good, if I recall. It won a weekly award for 'Best Article', or something like that, I remember someone celebrating.
I only asked because on both of those site's Jarlaxle's alignment is listed as CN.
I only asked because on both of those site's Jarlaxle's alignment is listed as CN.
That's one example, IMO, of how unreliable the FR wikipedia pages tend to be. They very often read like the personal musings of the editor (ie. I mentioned in a different thread about how Wulfgar is assumed to be regarded as the most famous/powerful barbarian within the setting--and of course, there was no citation for that comment).
I only asked because on both of those site's Jarlaxle's alignment is listed as CN.
That's one example, IMO, of how unreliable the FR wikipedia pages tend to be. They very often read like the personal musings of the editor (ie. I mentioned in a different thread about how Wulfgar is assumed to be regarded as the most famous/powerful barbarian within the setting--and of course, there was no citation for that comment).
IMO, it just shows me where the opinion of the masses lie. ;)
Good researching Drizztmanthingy!! :D
I disagree. I think self-perpetuation for the sake of it is the mark of a stagnating society. People come together so that they can protect their own lives. It may mean better food access, better shelter, or protection from hostile people, but society wouldn't have evolved if it didn't increase the odds of survival. People inherently care about their own survival above the survival of a group of stranger, so they wouldn't band together if they were afraid that that group of stangers were going to kill them. Only when people become complacent in society and their instincts start to dull do they cling to society so strongly that they refuse to leave when their survival is threatened.
If self-perpetuation is its only purpose, then yes, the society probably is stagnating. But at its core, that self-perpetuation is the reason societies formed in the first place. And consider the idea that even if the odds of survival are relatively low, they're still probably better in a screwed up society than they are when an individual is on their own... and oftentimes, there isn't a choice even if the person wants to leave anyway.
Just consider how many people try to emigrate to the United States, and who are turned away. When it comes down to it, they're coming for a better way of life, ie a better society, but that doesn't mean they're going to actually be able to get here and accomplish that goal. And lately, we haven't exactly been terribly welcoming of anyone that tries, considering the anti-emigration sentiment running through the country.
The highest and most important benefit to an individual is continued survival, so protection must be the number one focus of a society, for there to be benefit.
As to anarchy, I agree that it is possible to have a form of society within anarchy, but we as a species are simply not able at this point to live in large lawless societies. I fully agree with Thoreau that in ideal circumstances "That government is best which governs not at all", but even he recognized that we are not ready for that kind of society yet.
I'd disagree with your logic there. Much of that is going to depend on the society placing value upon an individual, rather than upon the group, and while we tend to view that as the norm, there are plenty of examples both currently and historically where that value of the individual is something of an abberration. It would be a much better world if everyone did think that way, at least from my point of view, but stepping back from my own views, its a historical rarity that people actually think that way.
This goes back to morality, but sometimes societies condone things that are wrong. It often leads to revolution or societal collapse. In cases where society condones harmful behavior toward some group, it is also often the majority holding down a minority. For most of the history of human civilazation, minorities were simply not tolerated in society. It was a matter of people caring more about those who shared their bloodline and culture. Sometimes there are holdovers of this in modern times. It is also often a matter of a society having a misguided set of morals, and simply being too set in their ways to change. All of these situations eventually lead to revolution or societal collapse, which shows that the society was flawed in the first place.
Only rarely does a society perfectly fulfill its purpose, but those societies that are most successful generally make sure that their people are safe within reason.
I'd generally agree with you there, except I don't really think morality has much to do with it to be honest. I wouldn't see it as a matter of minorities versus majorities, as oftentimes, that majority is outnumbered by those minorities, its just that they're better organized and have effective means of cowing those who serve them. Eventually, that's going to stop working for them though, and they can either adapt and begin integrating those who are oppressed without being overthrown, or they can get ganked, as it were.
That's probably semantics though, since I think we're both saying essentially the same thing, just using different terminologies to express it.
You seem to have this idea that society "should" be elevating its people into a better and better way of life, and while on a personal level, I'd completely agree, I don't think that on an objective level that this is the case. I don't really see it as a case of good or bad, especially in terms of morality, simply efficient and inefficient, at least when I get into debate mode.
I'm almost proud.
If self-perpetuation is its only purpose, then yes, the society probably is stagnating. But at its core, that self-perpetuation is the reason societies formed in the first place. And consider the idea that even if the odds of survival are relatively low, they're still probably better in a screwed up society than they are when an individual is on their own... and oftentimes, there isn't a choice even if the person wants to leave anyway.
I don't see how society could have formed in the first place if there weren't benefit to the individual. Even if there were benefits, it still would have to exceed the costs. If someone came up to you and tried to bully you into joining their gang, saying that you would get whatever material possessions you desire, but you also know that it would be quite risky to your health, would you join them? Is your life worth less than a few material comforts?
Just consider how many people try to emigrate to the United States, and who are turned away. When it comes down to it, they're coming for a better way of life, ie a better society, but that doesn't mean they're going to actually be able to get here and accomplish that goal. And lately, we haven't exactly been terribly welcoming of anyone that tries, considering the anti-emigration sentiment running through the country.
The United States isn't the only refuge from danger, and for that matter, the US is very accepting of refugees from countries that are actively harmful to their inhabitants.
I'd disagree with your logic there. Much of that is going to depend on the society placing value upon an individual, rather than upon the group, and while we tend to view that as the norm, there are plenty of examples both currently and historically where that value of the individual is something of an abberration. It would be a much better world if everyone did think that way, at least from my point of view, but stepping back from my own views, its a historical rarity that people actually think that way.
While I agree that there have been periods of history in which the individual was not considered important, I don't think that early man would have joined in societies in which the leader or the majority threatened their lives. I think the societies that don't allow some individual rights and freedoms are doomed to fail.
I'd generally agree with you there, except I don't really think morality has much to do with it to be honest. I wouldn't see it as a matter of minorities versus majorities, as oftentimes, that majority is outnumbered by those minorities, its just that they're better organized and have effective means of cowing those who serve them. Eventually, that's going to stop working for them though, and they can either adapt and begin integrating those who are oppressed without being overthrown, or they can get ganked, as it were.
That's probably semantics though, since I think we're both saying essentially the same thing, just using different terminologies to express it.
You seem to have this idea that society "should" be elevating its people into a better and better way of life, and while on a personal level, I'd completely agree, I don't think that on an objective level that this is the case. I don't really see it as a case of good or bad, especially in terms of morality, simply efficient and inefficient, at least when I get into debate mode.
I think that, at face value, it would seem that the position of the individual in society is not a moral issue. However, on closer examination, when individuals are not considered important by a society, the society often leaves individuals open for atrocities. Doing anything to harm another is morally wrong, so a society that has no love for individuals, but rather sees its people as "the masses" is more prone to commit moral wrongs.
Sorry it took so long to reply, I've been too busy to write an essay lately. :D
Weenie. :P
I don't see how society could have formed in the first place if there weren't benefit to the individual. Even if there were benefits, it still would have to exceed the costs. If someone came up to you and tried to bully you into joining their gang, saying that you would get whatever material possessions you desire, but you also know that it would be quite risky to your health, would you join them? Is your life worth less than a few material comforts?
Of course there's a level of benefit to the individual, but it was in all likelihood relatively minimal, and more based on better odds together, as opposed to better odds alone. That doesn't mean they're actively protecting you though... more of a pull your weight and I'll pull mine sort of situation.
As to being bullied into a gang, personally, no, but there are a lot of people out there who are more than willing to trade their safety for a few material comforts. Take a look at anyone stupid enough to rob a bank in the US... at least a 10 year sentence, you won't get more than 10k, and you will get caught. So you're tossing away a decade of your life for at most 1k a year... you'd get more working part time at McD's for just a year, and yet people are still stupid enough to do it. ;)
The United States isn't the only refuge from danger, and for that matter, the US is very accepting of refugees from countries that are actively harmful to their inhabitants.
Define actively harmful? Not many governments out there who are actively harming their citizens these days... lots who are doing it indirectly though. Which actually, I have a much bigger problem with when it comes down to it...
While I agree that there have been periods of history in which the individual was not considered important, I don't think that early man would have joined in societies in which the leader or the majority threatened their lives. I think the societies that don't allow some individual rights and freedoms are doomed to fail.
The leader had to be able to threaten their lives on some level, since he was probably the best hunter/fighter around. Dominance and submission, they're very much a part of human nature and behaviour, and not just in a kinky sort of way. ;)
I think that, at face value, it would seem that the position of the individual in society is not a moral issue. However, on closer examination, when individuals are not considered important by a society, the society often leaves individuals open for atrocities. Doing anything to harm another is morally wrong, so a society that has no love for individuals, but rather sees its people as "the masses" is more prone to commit moral wrongs.
Individuals, on a societal level, generally aren't important, even (especially perhaps) in this country. Were they, we would have a very different social and governmental structure than we do. Just think of all the homeless and the unemployed in this country, and the sort of thinking that went into making them that way, and tell me again that the society we live in is anywhere even remotely moral on anything other than an individual level.
Instead we get this garbage about protecting our children and saving them from themselves, and in the process manage to virtually criminalize hitting puberty and stomp on a host of personal freedoms in the process. We make great pronouncements about protecting our citizens from attack, and instead of actually protecting them with valid security measures, we erode civil liberties and take at best questionable actions to promote security, all the while being perfectly well aware of how to actually make things safer, but balking because its incredibly expensive in the short term, though much cheaper than what we're doing now in the long term. And I'm not even going to go into the health care or banking reform thing...
A society doesn't have to be out there with soldiers in the streets shooting its people to hurt them. To be frank, I tend to think of societies that do shoot their people as at least being honest about screwing over their citizenry, instead of the casual disregard for their safety and well being, while wrapping itself in a cloak of caring and nurturing.
Weenie. :P
Oh really mature. :P
Of course there's a level of benefit to the individual, but it was in all likelihood relatively minimal, and more based on better odds together, as opposed to better odds alone. That doesn't mean they're actively protecting you though... more of a pull your weight and I'll pull mine sort of situation.
I wasn't implying that others would actively try to protect an individual, I was saying that being part of a group would provide protection, which we seem to be in agreement about, for the most part.
As to being bullied into a gang, personally, no, but there are a lot of people out there who are more than willing to trade their safety for a few material comforts. Take a look at anyone stupid enough to rob a bank in the US... at least a 10 year sentence, you won't get more than 10k, and you will get caught. So you're tossing away a decade of your life for at most 1k a year... you'd get more working part time at McD's for just a year, and yet people are still stupid enough to do it. ;)
Well, I suppose we have to deal with the lowest common denominator, so you have a point. :rolleye2:
Define actively harmful? Not many governments out there who are actively harming their citizens these days... lots who are doing it indirectly though. Which actually, I have a much bigger problem with when it comes down to it...
Cuba, for example. Cuban citizens are often taken in as refugees. The same goes for many other countries that are ruled by dictators. I think the citizens of several African countries are taken in as refugees as well. The US usually tries to uphold human rights, so is often a haven for people fleeing war-torn countries.
The leader had to be able to threaten their lives on some level, since he was probably the best hunter/fighter around. Dominance and submission, they're very much a part of human nature and behaviour, and not just in a kinky sort of way. ;)
Again, you sort of have a point here, but I think that people have enough survival instincts that, if a strong leader was threatening the lives of all of the people under him, they would band together and remove him. I don't have any anthropological evidence of this, but it seems to me that mob mentality would provide for this kind of situation.
Individuals, on a societal level, generally aren't important, even (especially perhaps) in this country. Were they, we would have a very different social and governmental structure than we do. Just think of all the homeless and the unemployed in this country, and the sort of thinking that went into making them that way, and tell me again that the society we live in is anywhere even remotely moral on anything other than an individual level.
Our country is very focused on the individual because we care about the homeless and unemployed. Lawmakers are always trying to make things easier for people who are unable to work. But I don't think that the government should be giving handouts left and right like some governments do. The flipside to a society having no focus on the individual is that societies that are entirely focused on the individual are just as bad. Those are the societies that are more willing to condone moral relativism and to let people get away with whatever they want because they "want what's best for the people." It's one thing to want what's best for the people, and quite another to allow the people to do whatever they want, but it seems to be a slippery slope in government. It's actually a little ironic because the two polar opposite philosophies end up with the same kind of society: a lawless one in which people in power can easily screw over those without power.
Instead we get this garbage about protecting our children and saving them from themselves, and in the process manage to virtually criminalize hitting puberty and stomp on a host of personal freedoms in the process. We make great pronouncements about protecting our citizens from attack, and instead of actually protecting them with valid security measures, we erode civil liberties and take at best questionable actions to promote security, all the while being perfectly well aware of how to actually make things safer, but balking because its incredibly expensive in the short term, though much cheaper than what we're doing now in the long term. And I'm not even going to go into the health care or banking reform thing...
A society doesn't have to be out there with soldiers in the streets shooting its people to hurt them. To be frank, I tend to think of societies that do shoot their people as at least being honest about screwing over their citizenry, instead of the casual disregard for their safety and well being, while wrapping itself in a cloak of caring and nurturing.
First, I'd like to ask for a clarification about what you mean when you talk about criminalizing puberty.
Second, I didn't say that the US is infallible. ;)
I think that the US government is just as suceptible to corruption by power. My views are probably somewhat extreme on this matter, but I think that every government eventually gets too bloated with power and needs to fall, or at least change. I'm not saying that I'm an anarchist, but when governments get ridiculously powerful, and they keep reaching for more, they are defunct. I'm not going to go into a long discussion of this now, though, but, on a basic level, my viewpoint is similar to that expressed by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience". If you are familiar with it, that's how I feel about government, for the most part.
Oh really mature. :P
Truly. ;)
I wasn't implying that others would actively try to protect an individual, I was saying that being part of a group would provide protection, which we seem to be in agreement about, for the most part.
So it would seem... semantics might be getting in the way there a bit, as is often the case around here in stuff like this. :D
Well, I suppose we have to deal with the lowest common denominator, so you have a point. :rolleye2:
And unfortunately always will...
Cuba, for example. Cuban citizens are often taken in as refugees. The same goes for many other countries that are ruled by dictators. I think the citizens of several African countries are taken in as refugees as well. The US usually tries to uphold human rights, so is often a haven for people fleeing war-torn countries.
I'd question that, but that would be a distinct political debate, the kind of which that really has no place here, as it's distinctly off-topic. For once, I'll concede that point to LK.
Again, you sort of have a point here, but I think that people have enough survival instincts that, if a strong leader was threatening the lives of all of the people under him, they would band together and remove him. I don't have any anthropological evidence of this, but it seems to me that mob mentality would provide for this kind of situation.
Generally, they did get killed by someone in the group, who turned around and started doing the same thing themselves... at least until we developed ideas that maybe that sort of system wasn't really a good thing, which took a shockingly long time unfortunately. That lowest common denominator at work once more...
Our country is very focused on the individual because we care about the homeless and unemployed. Lawmakers are always trying to make things easier for people who are unable to work. But I don't think that the government should be giving handouts left and right like some governments do. The flipside to a society having no focus on the individual is that societies that are entirely focused on the individual are just as bad. Those are the societies that are more willing to condone moral relativism and to let people get away with whatever they want because they "want what's best for the people." It's one thing to want what's best for the people, and quite another to allow the people to do whatever they want, but it seems to be a slippery slope in government. It's actually a little ironic because the two polar opposite philosophies end up with the same kind of society: a lawless one in which people in power can easily screw over those without power.
This is why they gave incentives to move industrial jobs overseas? Or cut silly little things like funding to mental health care and turned prisons into just about the only place someone is likely to receive any sort of federally or state funded mental health care? Or touting the importance of education while cutting funding for it, and then turning around and firing teachers so they can hire more administrators and PR reps (no joke there, they make up an appalling percentage of the educational budget in CA)? Or maybe having only a handful (literally) of full-time FDA employees safeguarding the quality and safety of the food we eat? Perhaps in deregulating the way in which pharmacological wonders are actually tested and approved, with literally only two full-time people overseeing it last I heard, before they reach the public and leaving it to pharmaceutical companies to police themselves, while simulataneously making it more difficult to actually sue them for any wrongdoing they might engage in...
Just not seeing the focus on the individual there myself. I'd definitely agree though that those societies that focus too much on the individual are just as bad, if not worse. It would be nice to actually have a balance between the two, but I'm not aware of any nation that has successfully managed it, though a few come close.
Though I do make a great deal of difference between the leaders of a nation and its people. Personally, I would call most of the leaders of this nation amoral at best, on both sides of the aisle, with a few really good ones, and a few really bad ones. Makes you want to take Shakespeare's advice and just off all the lawyers really.
Most people though, I'd say were somewhere in the middle, though I do see a lot of hypocrisy among them in a lot of respects, but I'm not really in a great mood after visiting the dentists and finding out I got screwed over by a previous doctor, so I may just be feeling cynical there.
First, I'd like to ask for a clarification about what you mean when you talk about criminalizing puberty.
Well, for one, it seems like we want our children to disappear from around the time puberty kicks in, to when they're old enough to leave the nest. There are tons of things for a kid to do, and lots of programs and sponsored activities to engage in, to protect them and to nurture them. Until they hit puberty, then we're doing our best to cut any activities or places they can go or pretty much anything else they might indulge in outside of a church, because they might be up to something bad.
We can't possibly allow them to skateboard, we can't allow them to wear any clothes that express individuality, we can't trust them not to bring guns into their schools, we can't trust them to have metal eating utensils, we can't trust them to get behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, we can't trust them to leave the house at night, we pretty much can't trust them to do anything that adults aren't supervising in some way. We can't even trust them to make choices about the movies or music they might listen to... we apparently can't even trust them to learn about their own bodies, lest they get ideas about what they might do with it.
Personally, I see a lot of it as abdication of parental responsibility in favor of allowing the state to make those decisions for us. There's so much concern that some teenager might do something stupid, and we strive to "protect" them so much, that we in effect count on the state to provide the incentive not to do stupid things, rather than the parent. It ignores the idea that teenagers are supposed to do stupid things, as its how they learn not to do stupid things. It in effect presumes they won't learn from their mistakes, and that parents can't be trusted to provide proper guidance, and that if their children do something stupid, then its the parents fault for allowing them to, rather than acknowledging that kids, teenagers in particular, do stupid things because they don't know any better yet.
Hence, criminalizing puberty.
Second, I didn't say that the US is infallible. ;)
I think that the US government is just as suceptible to corruption by power. My views are probably somewhat extreme on this matter, but I think that every government eventually gets too bloated with power and needs to fall, or at least change. I'm not saying that I'm an anarchist, but when governments get ridiculously powerful, and they keep reaching for more, they are defunct. I'm not going to go into a long discussion of this now, though, but, on a basic level, my viewpoint is similar to that expressed by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience". If you are familiar with it, that's how I feel about government, for the most part.
Well, I believe it was Jefferson who advocated armed rebellion every 50 years or so to make sure the government stayed mostly honest. Can't say I disagree with him. ;)
What about Jarlaxle, eh? Back to topic.
-Like I said, understanding key points about different morality and ethics philosophies, between ourselves and each other is a must for debating Jarlaxle's alignment. All of that needs to be hammered out between each other.
Can we just shut down this thread? As testament to the last post, Jarlaxle's alignment will always be up for debate. It's all defined by the moral character of the person viewing it.
Sweet Bejebuz CENSORED.
Can we just shut down this thread? As testament to the last post, Jarlaxle's alignment will always be up for debate. It's all defined by the moral character of the person viewing it.
Or the official sources.:P
Or the official sources.:P
CENSORED you, lady!
Yes, but those are obviously wrong since they make the fanboys cry when they realize that an evil bastard is just so kewl, so they look for excuses to make him not evil so they don't feel as guilty over glorifying an evil drow bastard. ;)
I've seen inside your head and, I must say, it is a scary place.
But as the old adage goes " History is written by the Weiners" meaning that no matter what is put in the "canon" source(unless RAS himself put it there) it could be wrong.
True, very true, having been in the military and having to study history, the history is written by the views of the weiners. The weiners don't try to ask the who and whys.
Stigger
Well, to be honest, I'm not sure anyone's ever really looked at drow culture beyond it being a collection of conniving spider-worshippers. Or what reasons they might have had for siding with Llolth over the rest of the Seldarine... its a fairly extreme step for an entire society to make, and has to involve much more than 'their leaders said so'.
I my self do try to read about any culture before I use them in my games, and the drow culture is very different: and not all drow cultures are the same.
I do like to read history and find out things for my self, even human history.
As far as Drizzt and Jarlaxle's aligment they have both grown and changed, if they had both stayed in the drow city then they would not be who they are now. I can see a differance between the two (Drizzt and Jarlaxle) and a drow from a drow city, the drow from the drow city still holds their drow views.
If they stay on the surface world for a while they will grow, and rethink their drow views. Some views will change while others might not.
The same thing goes for an American living overseas for awhile, you begain to understand thier views and life styles.
Drizztsmanchild
True, very true, having been in the military and having to study history, the history is written by the views of the weiners. The weiners don't try to ask the who and whys.
If Lady Rolindin actually didn't realise the joke, this is a perfect example of why it's a bad idea to make jokes based on the English language on forums frequented by people who don't have a great command of English spelling. Shame on you Drizztsmanchild! No offense Lady Rolindin.
Sorry, Dookie, but I think Stigger might be on to something...;)
My floor thumping CENSORED he does.
Stig is usually onto something. Unfortunately, it's usually that of his foot on a dead kitty.
Just because he comes from a race pre-dominately evil and he leads an evil organization doesn't make him evil. He's neutral albeit Chaotic Neutral. And as a Drizzt fan I would think Jarlaxle is "kewl" even if I believed he was evil. But as the old adage goes " History is written by the Weiners" meaning that no matter what is put in the "canon" source(unless RAS himself put it there) it could be wrong. Like I said before both Wiki and Forgotten realms Wiki stat him as CN. But to each his own
Right on, as always, but "canon" within FR is really canon as it is created by the designers.
And, while they may disagree, we can always have things retconned to fit the canon the designers feel is more appropriate.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't give us that ability.
If Lady Rolindin actually didn't realise the joke, this is a perfect example of why it's a bad idea to make jokes based on the English language on forums frequented by people who don't have a great command of English spelling. Shame on you Drizztsmanchild! No offense Lady Rolindin.
I'm not actually sure that the said joke was intentional, as simply a play on American English wording, then interpreted to a different message to those "across the pond." Then again, I would have to know a more literal meaning of "weiners" as it applies to there.
Like I said before both Wiki and Forgotten realms Wiki stat him as CN.
Probably with no citation.;)
When god created Krispy Kreams, did he stamp "Created by Bejebuz" on them?
No. Because when perfection is evident, then no citation is needed, lady!
Probably with no citation.;)
-There's a citation that says he's Neutral Evil, but there's no citation for the claim that says, "possibly Chaotic Neutral".
CW, JD was right. There was no joke intended merely word play. IMO when i believe history is wrongly recorded or that facts are skewed then the word "winners" can be interchanged with "weiners". The meaning of the adage remains the same.
I realised that it was a play on words, but LR seemed to take it as the proper spelling of "winners". I was jokingly admonishing you for using a play on words that could be mistaken by people who aren't native English speakers.
-There's a citation that says he's Neutral Evil, but there's no citation for the claim that says, "possibly Chaotic Neutral".
But it's a possibility noticed by some other people too! And I believe the statement comes from his actions in the books.
But it's a possibility noticed by some other people too! And I believe the statement comes from his actions in the books.
It's how my view on his alignment came about.
And since the novels are considered "canon" I guess my views on his alignment can be considered "canon" as well but only to me
Disclaimer: The author of the second sentence of this post fully realizes that it made absolutely no sense but has this as a rejoinder to those who criticize
;)
Disclaimer: The author of the second sentence of this post fully realizes that it made absolutely no sense but has this as a rejoinder to those who criticize
;)
You still need some help.
He's been a whimsical bastard from the start!
But it's a possibility noticed by some other people too! And I believe the statement comes from his actions in the books.
-Hey, when I watch/read Star Wars, the Sith seem like the good guys to me- promising protection, telling the truth, ending strife, and other, similar things. The Jedi, on the other hand, they bring war with them, are constantly lying, think themselves better than "normal people", and plenty of other things. No matter how many people agree with me, that the Sith are really the "good guys", and that the Jedi are the "bad guys", traditional interpretation reigns supreme- the Sith are evil, no ifs, ands, or buts, and the Jedi are good, no ifs, ends, or buts. Jedi, in fact, can't even be evil- if they do, they aren't Jedi anymore, but "Dark Jedi".
There is only passion
Through passion I gain strength
Through strength I gain power
Through power I gain victory
Through victory my chains are broken
The force shall set me free
-There's a citation that says he's Neutral Evil, but there's no citation for the claim that says, "possibly Chaotic Neutral".
Thanks for the clarification.
But it's a possibility noticed by some other people too! And I believe the statement comes from his actions in the books.
...But the personal musings of the editor don't belong on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, especially if said editior won't even bother to cite what he/she writes.
However Wikipedia has him listed as CN still so
;)Where in the "Road of the Patriarch" does it mention that Jarlaxle betrayed Zaknafein?
You're all wrong. Unless you agree with me, then you're only partially correct, since you obviously cannot fully or truly comprehend what I'm actually saying, not being an actual luminous entity such as myself. Unless you're attractive by my standards, in which case I'm married anyway, so :P. There topic done, no need to post any longer. :D
Bah!!
You're such a stinky poopy guy an such.
Ok it seems that Forgotten Realms Wiki is saying that Jarlaxle is NE possibly CN(as LK pointed out) But I swear that when I checked it before I mentioned the first time it said CN.
However Wikipedia has him listed as CN still so
Dude, it's a Wiki. Check back in two weeks and we'll be correct again.
That's the issues.
What about my shining moral example? :P
Being moral has nothing to do with being luminous... true luminosity is beyond the concerns of petty mortal morality. :P
:evillaugh
Oh, as to Wiki... who cares what Wiki says if the actual sourcebooks don't agree with it? If you want to think of him as CN, go ahead, but as far as official stuff goes, you're wrong, so just deal and get over it already. :P
Being moral has nothing to do with being luminous... true luminosity is beyond the concerns of petty mortal morality. :P
:evillaugh
Oh, as to Wiki... who cares what Wiki says if the actual sourcebooks don't agree with it? If you want to think of him as CN, go ahead, but as far as official stuff goes, you're wrong, so just deal and get over it already. :P
Nonono I want him to be CN dagnabbit
;)
Which unfortunately for you, does not mean much other than disappointment for you, in an official sense. Sucks to be you. :evillaugh
:P
;)
I note the word 'want' there...
Which unfortunately for you, does not mean much other than disappointment for you, in an official sense. Sucks to be you. :evillaugh
:P
;)
Yeah, Drizztmanthingy, you definitely dropped the ball on that one.
We'll never be able to use the Wiki as a point of contest again because of your 'tardness!!
My reasoning:
The good-evil axis is a measure of morality. All that stuff that I was arguing earlier in the thread. The law-chaos axis is a measure of an individual's relationship to their society. Whether they follow the laws of society at face value, or follow their own rules. It is easy to confuse moral law (see my argument above) with societal law. Because I think that there is a straight set of moral laws, it would seem that all characters that follow them would be lawful. If you consider that the law-chaos axis is about societal laws, however, then it becomes possible to judge things on the three axes.
Now that the definitions are out of the way:
Jarlaxle is neutral on the law-chaos scale because he does follow some of the societal rules. He follows them more out of fear of repercussions than out of an actual desire to follow the law, but he follows them, to an extent, nonetheless. Futhermore, there is some measure of law set up in Bregan D'aerthe. There is a hierarchy, and Jarlaxle falls within it. He may be at the top of the hierarchy, but it doesn't mean that he acts on random whims. If there weren't that kind of hierarchy, Bregan D'aerthe would disintegrate.
He is evil because he frequently commits acts that are morally reprehensible. Not everything he does is evil, but most of what he does is done for self-serving ends. A neutral alignment on the good-evil axis can also be self-serving, but doesn't generally involve as much lying, trickery, and murder as Jarlaxle usually commits. Jarlaxle rarely does the dirty work, but there are still many evil acts committed on his behalf, giving him equal part in the evil of the act.
Is he on the road to redemption? Could he be drifting toward CN? I think the answer is yes and no. Now that he is without the constraints of drow society, he seems to do more things on a whim. He is less constrained by the hierarchy of Menzoberranzan, and he isn't even actively involved in Bregan D'aerthe, which gives him quite a bit more freedom. This would indicate that he may be drifting toward a chaotic alignment. As far as the neutral component goes, he appears to be "nicer" than he used to be, but I think that it is a temporary state. I think that as soon as he has the opportunity to gain from someone else's loss, he will pounce on it. It is only when he is unmotivated to commit wrongs that he refrains from committing wrongs, so I think he is still firmly evil.
And wiki is still a valid source of info.
And much like Jarlaxle becoming CN in official print, that isn't even remotely likely.
And no, Wiki isn't valid if the information is not accurate. Wishful thinking isn't going to make that otherwise.
Oh, and :P
:evillaugh
@Crossroads (ignore the following JD and Drizztboything :P)
I suspect they're upset since you pretty much chewed up their hopes to convince others of Jarlaxle's redemption, presented a logical argument they couldn't refute (not that it's all that difficult to do with these two, but still), and now they must resort to phrases such as "you suck", since no other reasonable arguments are presenting themselves to offer as a rebuttal. My take on it anyway. ;)
There is no winner/loser here.
only differing viewpoints.:evillaugh
The postings for Jarlaxle being NE are very convincing not to mention that they have "canon" backing but the debate will still go on.
No CW didn't dash my hopes to convince anyone that Jarlaxle with his/hers elequent and very thought out points that he/she posted.
Her and she.
I suppose if you want to read into it differently, then that's up to you; I was posting what I saw as the most logical way of explaining Jarlaxle's alignment.
*files gender note away in the brain for future reference*
Her and she.
I suppose if you want to read into it differently, then that's up to you; I was posting what I saw as the most logical way of explaining Jarlaxle's alignment.
CW, If you believe Jarlaxle is NE very little explantion is needed because as much as I hate to admit(and since RAS hasn't stopped in to offer his view:rolleyes
"technically" Jarlaxle is NE. However based on the novels from my perspective he is CN or very close to being CN. I applaud your patience and thoroughness in stating your explaination which is very precise and filled with logic. I salute your efforts milady but alas my opinion will always be that he's CN. :dancinunless he does some atrocious acts in future novelsStigg
I am a Manthingy and that means half my brain is already gone and if your patient the rest will disappear with age. But I will :fight!: to my last brain cell if you come at me with a spork again:hoppingmad:
:evillaugh
Why?
‘Cause you buy foreign products?
Or maybe…
When I posted under this topic on Candlekeep, I was arguing differently, but now that I've thought about it, I do think that Jarlaxle is NE.
Think again. You are being swayed by the masses.
My reasoning:
The good-evil axis is a measure of morality. All that stuff that I was arguing earlier in the thread. The law-chaos axis is a measure of an individual's relationship to their society.
Well, based on the society Jarlaxle arouse from, his mannerisms would actually border on "good" by this definition.
Now that the definitions are out of the way:
Jarlaxle is neutral on the law-chaos scale because he does follow some of the societal rules. He follows them more out of fear of repercussions than out of an actual desire to follow the law, but he follows them, to an extent, nonetheless.
No. He follows what path is beneficial to him. It is not out of respect, authority or fear of those who are hiring his services. He follows whatever path ends in his gain—whether that be by the rules or by the absolute ignorance of them.
Futhermore, there is some measure of law set up in Bregan D'aerthe. There is a hierarchy, and Jarlaxle falls within it. He may be at the top of the hierarchy, but it doesn't mean that he acts on random whims. If there weren't that kind of hierarchy, Bregan D'aerthe would disintegrate.
It is called “being above the law.”
When you create your own rules, rules that are against the society you speak of, you create chaos.
Structured? Yes.
Lawful? No.
Bregan D'aerthe is a fiefdom of its own in a realm of other laws and powers.
He is evil because he frequently commits acts that are morally reprehensible.
Oh, my!! But in what society is this morally reprehensible”?
Not everything he does is evil, but most of what he does is done for self-serving ends. A neutral alignment on the good-evil axis can also be self-serving, but doesn't generally involve as much lying, trickery, and murder as Jarlaxle usually commits.
Society. Does weird things to you.
Jarlaxle rarely does the dirty work, but there are still many evil acts committed on his behalf, giving him equal part in the evil of the act.
Not saying you are incorrect with this in any manner, but please give some examples.
Is he on the road to redemption? Could he be drifting toward CN? I think the answer is yes and no.
Finally!! An answer!!
Praise Bejebuz!!
Now that he is without the constraints of drow society, he seems to do more things on a whim. He is less constrained by the hierarchy of Menzoberranzan, and he isn't even actively involved in Bregan D'aerthe, which gives him quite a bit more freedom. This would indicate that he may be drifting toward a chaotic alignment. As far as the neutral component goes, he appears to be "nicer" than he used to be, but I think that it is a temporary state. I think that as soon as he has the opportunity to gain from someone else's loss, he will pounce on it. It is only when he is unmotivated to commit wrongs that he refrains from committing wrongs, so I think he is still firmly evil.
Ah, but you think! :D
I mean, if you didn’t, you would be agreeing!
Um…
I mean…
CENSORED!! Did I do that again!
The use of the word want doesn't in any way diminish the points that were made. Claiming Jarlaxle being CN. The want is used to describe the need to have WotC [i] correctly[/i] stat Jarlaxle as CN in their core books
And wiki is still a valid source of info.
Life is perception, my boy. You say “want,” well, it’s just a want to those who read and would disagree.
@Crossroads (ignore the following JD and Drizztboything :P)
I suspect they're upset since you pretty much chewed up their hopes to convince others of Jarlaxle's redemption, presented a logical argument they couldn't refute (not that it's all that difficult to do with these two, but still), and now they must resort to phrases such as "you suck", since no other reasonable arguments are presenting themselves to offer as a rebuttal. My take on it anyway. ;)
And your “take” is usually not something anyone else with a proper sense of logic would accept as a hand out unless they were starving.
CW, “you suck” is a term of endearment with me (or as close as I get). Ignore the kitty curb stomper here.;)
There is no winner/loser here.
And that’s the point of this thread: none.
Hey, I told you to ignore that. Now I'm gonna have to erase your memory via lobotomy... with a rusty spork no less.
:evillaugh
I would say your verbage made that a bit difficult to comprehend.
It can either be taken as you asking us to ignore the following or Crossroads to ignore us.
Yeah. Right. :evillaugh
(and since RAS hasn't stopped in to offer his view:rolleyes
And there is the key point.
Unfortunately, with the entrance of 4e, I don’t think he will be allowed to answer this question.
Think again. You are being swayed by the masses.
Actually, I thought about this in terms of my own moral convictions.
Well, based on the society Jarlaxle arouse from, his mannerisms would actually border on "good" by this definition.
What I have been arguing this entire time is that the society he came from has nothing to do with the way his actions are judged morally. If he came from a society where killing kittens is considered okay, just because society condones it doesn't mean that it is morally right to kill kittens.
No. He follows what path is beneficial to him. It is not out of respect, authority or fear of those who are hiring his services. He follows whatever path ends in his gain—whether that be by the rules or by the absolute ignorance of them.
There are a few instances in which he is restrained in what he can do by society. He isn't allowed to tell all of the priestesses to go to hell because it would get him killed.
It is called “being above the law.”
When you create your own rules, rules that are against the society you speak of, you create chaos.
Structured? Yes.
Lawful? No.
Bregan D'aerthe is a fiefdom of its own in a realm of other laws and powers.
Even if he set up the rules, he can't do anything he wants, because he wouldn't have any loyal followers if he decided to kill members of Bregan D'aerthe at random. There are certain behaviors that are detrimental to a social group under just about any circumstance, so he still needs to avoid those behaviors.
Oh, my!! But in what society is this morally reprehensible”?
Society. Does weird things to you.
Certain actions are morally reprehensible regardless of what societal lense they are viewed under.
Not saying you are incorrect with this in any manner, but please give some examples.
Every time a member of Bregan D'aerthe kills someone, it is partially on Jarlaxle's hands. I can't give any more specific examples at the moment, as I'm currently in my college dorm, separated by a 45 minute drive from most of my books.
Finally!! An answer!!
Praise Bejebuz!!
Sort of. :P I left this part intentionally pretty open to interpretation.
Ah, but you think! :D
I mean, if you didn’t, you would be agreeing!
Um…
I mean…
CENSORED!! Did I do that again!
Yes, this is my opinion. It is based in past evidence, however, so it is a pretty logical point of view.
CW, “you suck” is a term of endearment with me (or as close as I get). Ignore the kitty curb stomper here.;)
In that case, thank you.
And you suck, too. :PIn that case, thank you.
I suck far more than you ever will!!!
Don't get all high and CENSORED mighty on me, missy!
I'll suck rat juice out of a duck's ass! You aren't that special!!!
As for my rebuttal to your post, I personally give two *****. I simply did it to irk Stig.
As I have stated, this post will never end---it is all about opinion.
:P :D JD, as usual you have the secret behind the creation of this thread 
for another secret discovered. Have on me. (Sorry just being
here as always though I should develop the patience and logic to continually contribute to a thread this long and repetitive but alas having half a brain and defending what's left from Hannibel Lector-clones running around here with a spork and lima beans and mad dog 20/20 doesn't leave much room in there for paitence:incogHannibel Lector-clones
No, I think the avatar says it all. Cold and logical, but still oh-so-cold, just like Semmemon. :P
No, I think the avatar says it all. Cold and logical, but still oh-so-cold, just like Semmemon. :P
are you mentioning yourself or Stigg? P.s. That "Hannabil" remark wasn't aimed at you, It was aimed at the "freak" with the rusty spork that likes Braaaaaiiinnss (imagine night of the living dead zombies when reading that):P
That is an amusing image of zombies carrying rusty sporks, though.
As for the ethical component of his alignment, I'd say that's most certainly neutral. He is, like most drow, a consummate schemer, running often several schemes concurrently. In fact, if anything, he's more lawful than most drow, because his schemes rarely suffer interference from his own whims and fancies of the moment. However, there are plenty of times that he seems to act on a whim when it doesn't affect the Big Picture (TM).
So, in my opinion, he's walking a tightrope between true neutral and neutral evil, more on the latter side than the former.
And I don't believe that anyone who believes that Jarlaxle is N now never stated that he was always N only that he is now or very close to it based on the novels he is in;)
At the end of Servant of the Shard, Cadderly (a high-level cleric of Deneir) casts detect evil (or some similar spell) on Jarlaxle and Entreri, and they BOTH register as evil. Whether or not, in R. A. Salvatore's opinion, he has changed alignments since then is undetermined, but at that point, he was clearly evil. I'd say he's walking the line between evil and morally neutral, which means he's either evil with strong neutral tendencies (he does show what can be construed as compassion at several points during the novels), or neutral with strong evil tendencies.
So, in my opinion, he's walking a tightrope between true neutral and neutral evil, more on the latter side than the former.
Ok. I can't remember the scene from Servant of the Shard. But I don't see him as true neutral. Let's keep him NE, in that case.
Silly twits, the brains weren't for my lunch, I'd starve if that were the case, they were for my fish, who couldn't get much worse in the intelligence department as it is. :P
Goldfish food?
Yes, but it can be logically supported opinion, or it can be "flying by the seat of my pants" opinion. Somehow I know which you'd prefer.
Um, no, my dear.
Trust me on the fact that I don't dissect posts, as I did yours, unless I feel the points I am stating are valid.
But, as I suggested far earlier in this thread, this is a never ending post based on one's opinion--not fact.
Eh. Just spank me and call me stupid.
I really shouldn't give in and encourage these posts.
Well put, however when that test by Cadderly was done I believe it was more Entreri than Jarlaxle that made Cadderly's inner alarm based on the magical properties of Jarlaxle's eyepatch(Which if it can fool a high priestess of Lloth then it can surely repel the intrusions of the head priest of a minor god) plus Jarlaxle and Entreri prob both had weapons trinkets magic items etc... which were created/enhanced by evil magic/magician that when a detect evil spell was cast would be like "Here I am".
And I don't believe that anyone who believes that Jarlaxle is N now never stated that he was always N only that he is now or very close to it based on the novels he is in;)
Except that the eyepatch is designed to foil mental intrusions, whereas detect evil and know alignment simply read a person's aura. The eyepatch wouldn't fool them, and even if it did, then he simply wouldn't register at all. The only reason that Jarlaxle would appear evil to a detection spell - that is, if he isn't evil - is if he was wearing or carrying an item which specifically disguised his alignment as evil. And what benefit would it be for him to appear evil? You'd more likely want to appear neutral.
Also, magical items created by evil spellcasters do not necessarily register as evil. They have to actually be sentient and evil to radiate an evil aura, or at the very least contain magic which is itself evil, and even then, the aura would only be around the item itself, not the carrier/wielder. And, seeing as the only sentient evil magical item they had been carrying at the time (Crenshinibon) had been destroyed not an hour earlier, and it had been Entreri, and not Jarlaxle, that had been carrying it, Jarlaxle should have been clean of any interference.
Goldfish food?
Japanese fighting fish actually... I'm trying to mellow them out some. ;)
As to your 'points' JD... you might try going about them less obtusely. You're just confusing poor boychildthingy. :P
Except that the eyepatch is designed to foil mental intrusions, whereas detect evil and know alignment simply read a person's aura. The eyepatch wouldn't fool them, and even if it did, then he simply wouldn't register at all. The only reason that Jarlaxle would appear evil to a detection spell - that is, if he isn't evil - is if he was wearing or carrying an item which specifically disguised his alignment as evil. And what benefit would it be for him to appear evil? You'd more likely want to appear neutral.
It would benefit him in the majority of drow societies. Neutral is like being "soft" in such places.
As to your 'points' JD... you might try going about them less obtusely. You're just confusing poor boychildthingy. :P
(sigh)
Perhaps I am just confusing you, light bulb.
And leave Drizztmanthingy out of this. Just because he is an upstart that can accurately call you out doesn't mean his conscience isn't his own.
Not my fault that my logic is agreed with! And should be!
JD, That post was meant as a compliment
JD, That post was meant as a compliment
Sorry, bud. Get to me offline on this--I don't see what you're talking about.
‘Cause you buy foreign products?
Or maybe…
Think again. You are being swayed by the masses.
Well, based on the society Jarlaxle arouse from, his mannerisms would actually border on "good" by this definition.
No. He follows what path is beneficial to him. It is not out of respect, authority or fear of those who are hiring his services. He follows whatever path ends in his gain—whether that be by the rules or by the absolute ignorance of them.
It is called “being above the law.”
When you create your own rules, rules that are against the society you speak of, you create chaos.
Structured? Yes.
Lawful? No.
Bregan D'aerthe is a fiefdom of its own in a realm of other laws and powers.
Oh, my!! But in what society is this morally reprehensible”?
Society. Does weird things to you.
Not saying you are incorrect with this in any manner, but please give some examples.
Finally!! An answer!!
Praise Bejebuz!!
Ah, but you think! :D
I mean, if you didn’t, you would be agreeing!
Um…
I mean…
CENSORED!! Did I do that again!
Life is perception, my boy. You say “want,” well, it’s just a want to those who read and would disagree.
And your “take” is usually not something anyone else with a proper sense of logic would accept as a hand out unless they were starving.
CW, “you suck” is a term of endearment with me (or as close as I get). Ignore the kitty curb stomper here.;)
[i]And that’s the point of this thread: none.
I would say your verbage made that a bit difficult to comprehend.
It can either be taken as you asking us to ignore the following or Crossroads to ignore us.
Yeah. Right. :evillaugh
And there is the key point.
Unfortunately, with the entrance of 4e, I don’t think he will be allowed to answer this question.
The part that is in bold is what I was complimenting you on JD in the post at the top of thise page.
The part that is in bold is what I was complimenting you on JD in the post at the top of thise page.
Yeah, I got that already.
Are with Mrtyl, you CENSORED bastard!
Um, no, my dear.
Trust me on the fact that I don't dissect posts, as I did yours, unless I feel the points I am stating are valid.
But, as I suggested far earlier in this thread, this is a never ending post based on one's opinion--not fact.
Just to do some more clarifying, I was being playful when I said the "flying by the seat of my pants" thing. I think that you have made some good points, I just felt like injecting some good-natured teasing into the thread. :P
Just to do some more clarifying, I was being playful when I said the "flying by the seat of my pants" thing. I think that you have made some good points, I just felt like injecting some good-natured teasing into the thread. :P
I knew you wanted me!!
Yeah, I got that already.
Are with Mrtyl, you CENSORED bastard!
No.... Why does she have my
chocolate milk(with your whiskey).The heartless wench
I knew you wanted me!!
Ummm...
...Ummm...
:heehee.
Called me out? I missed something somewhere I think, since I have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Almost feels like I should grab a ten-gallon hat and heel some six-shooters next. :P
Granted I'm trying to stop your spork weilding ways from taking what's left of my brains to feed your Japenese fighting minnows that are made in china but as for "calling you out"
I should go to FCC and take Subtleism 101No.... Why does she have my
The heartless wench
Yes. And I was beginning to think you two dopes were in on it together.
Though, after I think about it, chocolate milk and whiskey is a bad CENSORED combo.
Ummm...
Bejebuz doing ballet, you really are a tease!!
Called me out? I missed something somewhere I think, since I have no bloody idea what you're talking about. Almost feels like I should grab a ten-gallon hat and heel some six-shooters next. :P
You have no "bloody idea" what I'm talking about?
There you go. It's simply a cultural misinterpretation! :D
.... as for "calling you out"
Anytime Stig opens his yap and gets disagreed with, I call that being "called out."
I mean, this is Stigger.
Must you be so incredibly confrontational...
Only with you, bootie-butt. ;)
...just because your frequently derailed trains of thought are so easily refuted, there's no need to be so hostile. :P ;)
They were?
Who the CENSORED said that!!
Everyone says it... you just don't often notice it in your inebriated state. ;)
Well, maybe.
But next time I want a CENSORED report!!
This lack of communication is ridiculous!!
He's also evil. He may not be psychotic like his Drow brethren, but he is a selfish opportunist and would think nothing of betraying others if he could benefit from it.
I really preferred it when he was an enigma, it led to speculate that he was more than a mortal, that he was either an agent of Lolth, a worshiper of Vhaeraun or even the masked lord himself.
Of course subsequent information has shown otherwise and Jarlaxle is obviously smarter than Vhaeraun....
My 2 copper pieces, obv.
chaotic evil.
CE, because he enjoys causing chaos amongst the drow establishment
But like i said, it's just my noobish opinion.
May I ask a dumb question (not to thread hijack, of course): since sunlight destroyed Drizzt's equipment when he first came out of the underdark, why didn't the same to Jarlaxle's?
In this noob's humble opinion...
chaotic evil.
CE, because he enjoys causing chaos amongst the drow establishment
But like i said, it's just my noobish opinion.
May I ask a dumb question (not to thread hijack, of course): since sunlight destroyed Drizzt's equipment when he first came out of the underdark, why didn't the same to Jarlaxle's?
It's alright anything dealing with Jarlaxle is acceptable on this thread. And the answer to your question is:
Drizzt's equipment was all drow made while Jarlaxle's is obviously not.
There prob are more "technical" answers if that's what you're seeking that will prob be posted by those who are wiser than I shortly.
If I said Jarlaxe was lawful good what would happen?
The universe would explode. Either that, or you would become a moral relativist. :P
As to Jarly being LG, if you want to look at him that way, fine by me. What you do at home isn't my business... just don't think you're gonna get away justifying that through his canon stuff. :P
Bringing up the moral relativism argument again, are we? Good, hadn't quite offended all of your sensibilities just yet... :evillaugh
As to Jarly being LG, if you want to look at him that way, fine by me. What you do at home isn't my business... just don't think you're gonna get away justifying that through his canon stuff. :P
Trust Me BM do as Stigger advises. Less you end up like me with nightmares of Stigger feeding your brains to his goldfish with a rusty spork while you hear the melody" I want Chiken,I want Liver , Meow Mix won't you please deliver" by out of tune cats.