| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Mar 2006 : 23:52:51
|
Oh, I'm sorry. And here I thought I've been holding conversations with sentient brick walls.
Seriously, what sarcasm? In that post in particular, I didn't employ any. |
 |
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2006 : 23:55:09
|
Oh, I don't know...something about the whole "Uh, yeah, and?" And "And here I thought etc etc etc."
Just suggests some medium of sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2006 : 00:04:40
|
| Okay guys, knock it off. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2006 : 21:29:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
Strange you should bring this up; recently, on another board, this very scenario was brought up. Do you torture a kidnapper to get the location of the children he abducted? (Referring to the Jakob von Metzler case in Germany.) I mean, do you go tell the parents the next day, "Sorry, guys, but your five-year-old died of suffocation because we had to respect the kidnapper's rights. Better luck next time"?
I didn't specifically think of that case (in all honesty I had to look it up again since so much happened since then), but the issue is this, at least in my opinion, once you cross that threshold and open the door to evil it isn't so easy to be stopped.
First it would be torture to find kidnappers, which at that time would be seen as end-justifies-means thing. Next torture would be involved when finding other criminals, since the first was allowed why not the second, since those criminals endanger the rest of society. Then you'd have torture of political opponents because they threaten the 'peace' of society. If you continue this we'l end up with Gulags and concentration camps.
Maybe the point is this, as long as you do not walk the razor's edge and stay on the safe side of what is morally correct (and torture is not) you could be counted good. If you crossed over for whatever reason (and that was the only halfway good plot element in "Sith") you turn bad.
Yes, I know this is difficult to wrap one's head around, and I want child abusers and rapists hung by their crown jewels, but turning to the 'methods of the enemy' lowers the threshold for one to become the enemy...
Too philosophical...
I'll have to do more thinking...sometime |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 01:25:53
|
| I don't necessarily disagree with you, Mace, but your thesis leaves open the question of what is, in fact, "morally correct." A pacifist might maintain that to resort to any form of violence is "to cross that threshold and open the door to evil." Which, in terms of fantasy fiction, dumps even Frodo and Aragorn in amongst the black hats. |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 02:36:00
|
| True, but path to the dark side or no, the bad guys should be stopped dead in their tracks |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 07:06:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethriel
True, but path to the dark side or no, the bad guys should be stopped dead in their tracks
I agree, but who defines the "good guys"? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 07:24:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I don't necessarily disagree with you, Mace, but your thesis leaves open the question of what is, in fact, "morally correct." A pacifist might maintain that to resort to any form of violence is "to cross that threshold and open the door to evil." Which, in terms of fantasy fiction, dumps even Frodo and Aragorn in amongst the black hats.
From a pacifist point of view, yes, they might be counted among the black hats, but they were in a 'real' war and were fighting against the threat that would've thrown the world into darkness. And if they had gone 'all the way' and started enjoy murdering and torturing their enemies that would've made them just as bad.
Gods, this discussion is FUN, but not my initial intention for this thread. Thus...
Back to the topic 
I would like to see the bad guys presented in such a fashion that they would actually (in FR literature) have a chance. Maybe something like this:
Two trilogies interwoven, much like the Marvel crossovers. The first trilogy describes the good (or evil) side, while the second deals with the opposition. From their respective points of view. This way you could have a whole bunch of characters with their own 'lives' and storylines being portrayed 'simultaneously' with each working for their respective ends. Or a six book series in which the points of view switch respectively, this way you could make the entire thing pretty unpredictable in terms of who will actually win. Plus if the author or authors would not shy away from wiping out main characters (who might've actually been readers' favorites) the story would have lots of twists and turns as it is.
Maybe something like this already exists (in literature in general) and I do not know about it, but this little idea is something that *I* already enjoy so I might actually spend some time developing it for myself.
Mace (sometimes I frighten even myself with what I come up with when I am half awake) |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Talanfir Swiftfeet
Learned Scribe
Finland
143 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 12:23:42
|
I like protagonists hwo have to constantly keep themselves from slipping to the dark side, because of their race, their past, or a magical accident.
And by race I don't mean Drizzt "I'm good, but everybody hates me because of my race" Do'Urden. By race I mean THIS.
Eludecia is a succubus paladin (how cool is that). She want's to be good but it must be pretty hard because her race is EVIL.
Other examples are (SPOILER WARNING):
The good dragons in trying to keep their sanity in "the year of rogue dragons" (especially I liked how the gold dragon king Lareth is first thinking about helping humanoids and slowly his mind wanders into a eating humanoids).
Arvin fighting the mindseed in "Venom's taste" or Galaeron fighting the shadow magic corruption in "Return of the Archwizards" or Erevis Cale or Jander Sunstar etc.
|
I am Talanfir Swiftfeet. (In)famous across the Swoardcoast as "Tal the Swift", Brandobaris“ seraph of mischief. If ye find yer shoelaces tied together while trying to catch a thief or meet a king who is angry because somebody switched the places of his chamberpot and his crown, ye can usually (try to) find me near.
If I had a halfling mother and a human father, would I be a half-halfling or a threequarterling? |
|
|
|
James P. Davis
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
244 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 12:24:24
|
Interesting topic here...
quote:
From a pacifist point of view, yes, they might be counted among the black hats, but they were in a 'real' war and were fighting against the threat that would've thrown the world into darkness. And if they had gone 'all the way' and started enjoy murdering and torturing their enemies that would've made them just as bad.
Maybe, but I find these 'necessary-evil' types very interesting characters. An 'ends justifies the means' protagonist is quite fun to read about when written carefully (I believe Elric was mentioned somewhere here, oh yeah, good stuff).
And they don't necessarily have to be bad. Maybe they subscribe to the 'needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few' philosophy, which, in an epic-fantasy fighting for the grand and noble save the world cause (possibly in a not-so-grand and less-than-noble manner), is a valid viewpoint. |
"Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red."--Clive Barker
FR: RotD2:"Possessions"
Wizards:Bloodwalk
Citadels: The Shield of Weeping Ghosts
Wilds: The Restless Shore
Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep: Circle of Skulls (May 2010)
Book trailers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-ska7ohVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfvFdQ8bLp0 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 12:53:47
|
An 'end justifies means' protagonist is something that I do enjoy very much. They get the job done.
But how about 'noble' heroes of the other side? In Dragonlance we had the Knights of Thakisis (although they ultimately failed). How about making Fzoul a hero? If I understand the Balance of Faerūn correctly Bane, Talos and that lot have a duty as well as Torm, Lathander and gang. There should be heroes on both sides. And a faithful, not to say fanatic, follower of Bane is probably as awe inspiring as a zealous paladin. Both are 'mad' for their god.
It really would be nice to see a person, say from Thay, firmly believe in the order of things in his country and fight for what he holds dear. In game terms I have been pondering internal and external alignment, wherein a person thinks of himself as lawful good, because after all he is an upstanding citizen of Thay for example, whereas in the 'neutral' overall scheme of things he is actually lawful evil, if not chaotic evil.
I also think that no follower of a deity, no matter what alignment, will think of his god as evil in the 'neutral' sense, it just does not add up. In that same vein, there cannot be unholy water of Talos's church. For the followers of Talos the water IS holy, it cannot be otherwise. Faith is a matter of perspective.
Mace (do not ask me where these thoughts come from... or WHEN they come, I wonder if others get their ideas at the same places...) |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 13:40:44
|
Mace, if you aren't already reading it, I suggest you check out George R. R. Martin's jumbo fantasy epic. I think you might find it delivers the stuff you say you'd like to see in such a story.
When I wrote Dissolution (still on sale in fine bookstores everywhere!), I felt like I needed to come to terms with the idea that a sophisticated, intellectual people had consciously dedicated themselves to evil. Because when you think about it, that's kind of goofy. There's no real-world counterpart to it. Even the Huns and the Nazis didn't think see themselves as evil.
What I came up with was the idea that that evil equates to discontentment with the status quo. It gives rise to ambition, striving, Darwinian competition, and thus, ultimately, an improved world. I believe I have Quenthel musing on this concept at some point. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 15:13:41
|
I'll check out George R R Martin's books asap.
And I already read Dissolution, hehe guess I hafte read it again. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
James P. Davis
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
244 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2006 : 18:58:04
|
quote:
I also think that no follower of a deity, no matter what alignment, will think of his god as evil in the 'neutral' sense, it just does not add up. In that same vein, there cannot be unholy water of Talos's church. For the followers of Talos the water IS holy, it cannot be otherwise. Faith is a matter of perspective.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm reminded of Mina before the big reveal in War of Souls, of course it's only by opposing perspectives (and some well known allies) whereby the sense of something evil is observed.
I think it may be those opposing perspectives that muddy the waters a bit for an evil 'hero' that is aware of them. They may not consider themselves as evil, but they must be aware of their enemy's viewpoint and of how they are perceived in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they reject such notions of good and evil in the 'neutral' sense, perhaps setting themselves in the camp of the righteous. Not good, not bad, just 'right'. |
"Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red."--Clive Barker
FR: RotD2:"Possessions"
Wizards:Bloodwalk
Citadels: The Shield of Weeping Ghosts
Wilds: The Restless Shore
Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep: Circle of Skulls (May 2010)
Book trailers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-ska7ohVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfvFdQ8bLp0 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 00:57:52
|
Exactly my point, James, take our real world for example, on the one side Christian fanatics who claim they are right and on the other side Muslim fanatics who claim the same thing.
If ones belief, I think, is strong enough in whatever principals he believes in then no one can convince this one person of being 'wrong' since he knows he is 'right'.
Richard, I consciously avoided the Nazi example because of where I grew up and still live, a German pointing out that the Nazis didn't view themselves as evil could arouse some suspicion about his political point of view.
Man, I really love this debate... most people I know would be scared away from such a discussion. The topic is just too 'heavy' and 'complex' for them. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
Edited by - Mace Hammerhand on 11 Mar 2006 08:54:34 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 11:17:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
It gives rise to ambition, striving, Darwinian competition, and thus, ultimately, an improved world.
Well, Social Darwinian competition -- not Darwin's own work. |
Edited by - Faraer on 11 Mar 2006 11:17:35 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 11:40:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
It gives rise to ambition, striving, Darwinian competition, and thus, ultimately, an improved world.
Well, Social Darwinian competition -- not Darwin's own work.
I read it like that at any rate  |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 11:46:03
|
| I imagine Richard knows that, too; abuse of Darwin's work by political ideologues is just a sore point for me. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 11:54:54
|
| I agree. Using and abusing any kind of work, be it fictional/religious and scientific, to further one's own ends is a sore point for me as well. Maybe that truly is 'the root of all evil'. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
shuman
Acolyte
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 12:15:44
|
| What I liked about Eric deBie's heros and villains in Ghostwalker, was that neither was plain vanilla. The "heros" werent that good, and you had sympathy for the bad guys, notably Dharan Greyt and Merus. Anybody agree? |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2006 : 02:51:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by shuman
What I liked about Eric deBie's heros and villains in Ghostwalker, was that neither was plain vanilla. The "heros" werent that good, and you had sympathy for the bad guys, notably Dharan Greyt and Merus. Anybody agree?
So many books to read... and so little money to buy 'em with... 
I need to read more. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Ballistic
Acolyte
3 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 03:35:34
|
This is a really great debate.
I personally have always liked villainous characters because they seem to have more character than the heroes. The problem with heroes is that people always try to absolve them of any responsibility in any action that is morally ambiguous. If you ever notice (comic books are notorious for this) most times when a villian is killed (or beleaved to be killed) the hero is never directly responsable for the villains death.
For Example: A hero and a villian are fighting on an old wooden bridge. The hero throws a punch causing the villian to stagger back a step, as he does he steps on a rotten board, falls through the bridge and plumets to his death. Whereas if it were the villain who won, he probably would have thrown the hero over the edge personally. |
A friend will call you in jail.
A good friend will visit you in jail.
A really good friend will sit beside you in jail and say "Dude, that was Awesome!" |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 05:13:58
|
The villain is often the dynamic character. He's the one who wants to change things and whose behavior thus drives the story. The hero is often the defender of the status quo, which means that his nature is more passive. Without a threat to the status quo, he wouldn't do anything, or at least, not anything interesting.
This, I think, is why the villain often seems to have more personality and pizzazz. There's also the fact that the villain is a surrogate for the dark side of our own natures. We can't act on our most antisocial impulses in real life, but we can satisfy them vicariously by watching the bad guy wreak havoc. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 11:47:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ballistic
The problem with heroes is that people always try to absolve them of any responsibility in any action that is morally ambiguous. If you ever notice (comic books are notorious for this) most times when a villian is killed (or beleaved to be killed) the hero is never directly responsable for the villains death.
For Example: A hero and a villian are fighting on an old wooden bridge. The hero throws a punch causing the villian to stagger back a step, as he does he steps on a rotten board, falls through the bridge and plumets to his death. Whereas if it were the villain who won, he probably would have thrown the hero over the edge personally.
That sort of thing makes me seethe. Make the hero take responsibility, damn it. I hate it especially when he stays his hand from the killing blow, then the villain tries one last time to kill him, forcing him to defend himself. Gag me with a cliche and slap the author with a frozen fish for being a milksop who can't bear to see her hero do something that's less than completely virtuous, oh noes.
If he does murder, then so be it, he does murder, and no silly double standard where it's dandy for him to do it but not for the villain. One instance of this that comes to mind is in the Cleric Quintet, where Cadderly turns some enemy priest into a center gravity, pull his comrades toward him, making a nice big pile. Cadderly then torches the whole lot, and when prompted by Danica, says with the kind of self-righteousness you'd expect of a fanatic that those men were evil, so it's perfectly fine. I was tempted to throw the book across the room. Bitch, please, man, you're a bloody hypocrite. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 12:38:20
|
Hehe, hear, hear, Winterfox!
I don't particularly remember that scene, but that is beside the point. Murder is murder, even though Cadderly did a cool thing, nice touch with the center of gravity. Fanatics do react that way, but I don't remember him being one. Maybe it was this strict 'moralistic' thing TSR wanted their authors to do? Demons became Tanar'ri etc. Had he just said "They were in the way and had to be dealt with" no one, aside from the nancy-arsed parents' groups who are as hypocritic (is that a word???) as many others (no sex on TV, but excessive violence if the good guys win is ok), would've cried foul.
One of the reasons I like Frank Miller's "Dark Knight Returns" is that he actually deals with the problem realistically. Sometimes a 'good' has to do something 'bad' to protect a lot of evil. *shrug* It's the way of things, but please, please, please let them admit it to themselves, the delusional bs to justify things is just that, delusional bs.
As long as those 'good' guys know that they are walking the thin line and do not try to cross it, the situation is handled well. If they don't and remain self-righteous, they turn bad quickly.
Let heroes have flaws, I say. Let'em be selfish at times. BUT let'em know that with everything they are doing, with every action that crosses that thin line, they become part of the 'problem'. Achilles, if I remember correctly and it has been decades that I read the Iliad, was a merciless butcher, and his only flaw was his heel so to speak. Archetypical, one dimensional hero. Conan, and I haven't read Howard in a long time either, didn't give a damn. He went through his foes, also. No real moral compass in him either.
It would be nice to see the 'good' guys a little more 'bad', and the 'bad' guys a little more 'good'. Even Hitler liked his dog. It doesn't make him any less a monster, but it makes him more 'human', you still cannot truly understand him, but he is not so one dimensional anymore. A crusader in the dark ages slaughtered heathens and thought it a good deed, basically he could be considered almost the epitome of the LG paladin. LG my arse. If, in game terms, he would've started to question his actions, he, storywise, would have made a much more compelling character, while gamewise he might have lost his status as a paladin, even though him questioning and maybe stopping to think about his actions and maybe stop them would be a 'good' thing.
After all, the road to hell is full with good intentions.
Flawed, in both ways, characters make far better protagonists and antagonists.
Richard, I don't know if those baser instincts that we keep hidden from ourselves and the world is what appeals to us in villains. Personally, I liked Thrawn because he was not such a base villain. He had a job to do, it doesn't matter what kind of job it was, and he did it impressively good. Sure he was the antagonist, but I doubt he did enjoy annihilating some culture or other. If I remember correctly he actually regretted destroying a culture because of what was lost to the galaxy in general with the demise of this one species. Vader and the Emperor couldn't have cared less.
Plus, the rebels didn't really care about the millions of lives they ruined/took away when they blew up the Death Stars. There really wasn't much remorse in them at all. They killed because the enemy was 'evil'. The accountant or technician aboard the Death Stars were just doing their job. If that was an evil action then every person who produces something that could be used in an evil way could be considered evil. "Oh, *you* delivered the screws that were used to build this gun? DIE, FIEND!"
Good guys on most occasions have it waaaay to easy. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 13:41:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Hehe, hear, hear, Winterfox!
I don't particularly remember that scene, but that is beside the point. Murder is murder, even though Cadderly did a cool thing, nice touch with the center of gravity. Fanatics do react that way, but I don't remember him being one.
I disagree. Recall the bit where he brands Rufo with Deneir's symbol? Cadderly is so full of sanctimonious crud it's amazing he hasn't overflowed. "I'm right because my god says so, so STFU, noob!"
quote:
Had he just said "They were in the way and had to be dealt with" no one, aside from the nancy-arsed parents' groups who are as hypocritic (is that a word???) as many others (no sex on TV, but excessive violence if the good guys win is ok), would've cried foul.
Oh, I know. It amuses me so much that I can put in loving details of someone being forced to flay himself strip by strip of skin, alongside someone's brain exploding all over the place, and can keep my story PG-13. But a rather euphemistic description (euphemistic as in no actual mention of the genitals) of oral sex on-page? R it goes, or if the archive is particularly prudish, NC-17. I love hypocritical standards. Explicit torture and gore are, clearly, much preferable to consensual, vanilla sex where nobody so much as bleeds.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
The villain is often the dynamic character. He's the one who wants to change things and whose behavior thus drives the story. The hero is often the defender of the status quo, which means that his nature is more passive. Without a threat to the status quo, he wouldn't do anything, or at least, not anything interesting.
See, that's exactly why I dislike eight fantasy heroes out of ten. They react because something's being done to them or their beloved. Few of them are ambitious (because we all know only evil people are allowed to have dreams of power, wealth and fame); few of them make the first move on the chessboard, to use that tired analogy, and start the story. They're always the victim of some sort in order, I suppose, to be sympathetic. People are prejudiced against them for reasons that are clearly meant to be nonsensical (race and gender, for one -- can we please stop with that tired, tired, tired bore? -- or being a magic-user, or having a hideous scar) or for circumstances beyond their control (my dad hates me and abuses me because mommy dearest died giving birth to me, waaah). Everyone's always grateful for their deeds (apart from the evil people, of course) and is ready to bow down and worship their footprints. They're author's darlings, and I can almost hear the author cheering in the background and nudging me to go "Aww, isn't she cute and great and god's gift to mankind?"
What I prefer to see is for heroes to have done real wrongs, and be hated for legitimate reasons. Let them be selfish; let their actions hurt someone, inadvertently or not (but preferably not). And if they are acting like a donkey's backside, then let people around them react realistically. (I'm looking hard at characters like Catti-brie who, despite being obnoxious brats, get praised as being wise, understanding, and gagmeplz compassionate.)
Author's darlings need to be murdered in their cradles. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 14:17:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
I disagree. Recall the bit where he brands Rufo with Deneir's symbol? Cadderly is so full of sanctimonious crud it's amazing he hasn't overflowed. "I'm right because my god says so, so STFU, noob!"
Hmmm... how can you disagree with me not remembering?  j/k
I'd have to re-read that particular novel/series. But I agree, self-righteous heroes are...well, silly. (It has been 6 years or so since I read that book and I was not overly impressed. Aside from the doodad, THAT part I loved. Thus I remember it.)
quote:
See, that's exactly why I dislike eight fantasy heroes out of ten. They react because something's being done to them or their beloved. Few of them are ambitious (because we all know only evil people are allowed to have dreams of power, wealth and fame); few of them make the first move on the chessboard, to use that tired analogy, and start the story. They're always the victim of some sort in order, I suppose, to be sympathetic. People are prejudiced against them for reasons that are clearly meant to be nonsensical (race and gender, for one -- can we please stop with that tired, tired, tired bore? -- or being a magic-user, or having a hideous scar) or for circumstances beyond their control (my dad hates me and abuses me because mommy dearest died giving birth to me, waaah). Everyone's always grateful for their deeds (apart from the evil people, of course) and is ready to bow down and worship their footprints. They're author's darlings, and I can almost hear the author cheering in the background and nudging me to go "Aww, isn't she cute and great and god's gift to mankind?"
What I prefer to see is for heroes to have done real wrongs, and be hated for legitimate reasons. Let them be selfish; let their actions hurt someone, inadvertently or not (but preferably not). And if they are acting like a donkey's backside, then let people around them react realistically. (I'm looking hard at characters like Catti-brie who, despite being obnoxious brats, get praised as being wise, understanding, and gagmeplz compassionate.)
Author's darlings need to be murdered in their cradles.
Again wholehearted agreement. The problem with RPG-world-characters is that they are based on an RPG-universe, in the FR's case on the 'well-loved' alignment system. Since the alignment system is a crutch for novice-roleplayer (roll-players?) to actually play a character. Since the D&D worlds are basically divided (from the alignment point of view) into good and evil with neutral actually being damn hard to play (if you take the description in the PHB at face value), there are no real gray zones.
Some writers manage to touch upon that topic and believably and realistically so, moreso in recent days than when TSR ran the show. Good guys in the alignment system are pretty one dimensional, if you play by the book. "I torch the crook's crotch until he tells me where the children are hidden," sayeth the paladin's player. "Thou cannot do that because you are lawful good and would never commit an evil deed!" booms the DM. "But, but...I want to Save the innocent children!" "Your alignment states that you will not do that." "But the crusaders torched whole villages..." "This is a game and you gotta play by the rules."
The inherent problem with alignment is that no one really ever bothered to actually review and modify the system.
As I said before, I consider introducing a two tier alignment system in my campaign. Outside or 'neutral' view of the alignment (e.g. evil guys are well evil.) and internal view (a person in an extrally evil society who believes in the system might even view himself as lawful good and thus might not even cause an outrage if he actually torched the groin of a prisoner to get the info.) |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 15:26:29
|
| In my view, the concept of alignment is much more useful for gaming than it is for writing fiction, and I generally deemphasize it when banging out my stuff. I don't assert that it doesn't exist (I never deny the existence of anything that's stipulated in the sourcebooks), but as a rule, my characters don't talk or think about it. In my notion of the FR, alignment is an esoteric theological and metaphysical concept that only highly educated people understand. The shoemaker has no idea that he's Neutral Good, and the orc has no clue that it's Lawful Evil. They don't even realize that sentient creatures can be categorized in this fashion. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 15:57:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
In my notion of the FR, alignment is an esoteric theological and metaphysical concept that only highly educated people understand. The shoemaker has no idea that he's Neutral Good, and the orc has no clue that it's Lawful Evil. They don't even realize that sentient creatures can be categorized in this fashion.
And I don't think they should. Hell, even highly educated people shouldn't, IMO. It'd be a bit... eerie and surreal if they do. Who wakes up each morning and thinks "Hey, I'm LN, so I will act such and such"? |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2006 : 16:25:27
|
Yep, I think that's it. Alignment is a crutch for the player, not something that people 'feel' consciously. And in FR novels it should not even be considered as the author strives (or should strive in some cases) to portray a character as plausible and realistically as possible. The problem with the FR is, that it is a game setting as well, so people are bound to ponder the various alignments of the portrayed characters.
Sad but true. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Villains in Novels
