| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 08:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by James P. Davis
quote:
Of course, I admit I'm being silly applying this kind of analytical thinking to Star Wars. Obviously, the charm of the story doesn't derive from or depend on it making logical sense.
I understand completely, my little nitpick/gripe has always been the lightsabers. If you have the technology and science to create a solid, finite beam of light, then its very existence precludes its necessity based on the physics involved and the alternative applications of such a science...but anyway, short rant, all done, sorry, back to villains.  
I'm still chuckling about this rant |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 08:16:13
|
There is something regarding villains that I've been wondering about...
Are morals a matter of perspective and the society that brought them forth?
If that is so and there is in the 'neutral' sense no moral high ground, could a 'villain' not be utterly devoted to his culture and have the moral high ground from his perspective? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
EdGentry
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
175 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 14:00:41
|
quote:
Are morals a matter of perspective and the society that brought them forth?
If that is so and there is in the 'neutral' sense no moral high ground, could a 'villain' not be utterly devoted to his culture and have the moral high ground from his perspective?
Absolutely. I think this goes back to what Peter Archer was saying. Almost no one considers themselves or their actions "evil" or "bad".
Look at a real world example (though I know this is going to set off some alarms for folks, please stick with me and understand that I am, in NO WAY, condoning the actions I describe nor am I attempting to glorify these - to me - deplorable actions): to most of the rest of the world, a Palestinian who straps a bomb to himself and blows up a mall in Israel is "evil" or, at the least, has done a very, very bad thing. Does the bomber think so? No, of course not. From his perspective, he is trying to improve and enrich the future lives of his own people by attempting to rid their lives of the "enemies" that they (not all, obviously) agree threaten their lifestyles.
Is this bomber even a villian? To most of the world: yes. To his family who mourn him but also get respect from their neighbors for his heroic acts in the cleansing process: No.
Good and evil are utterly a question of perspective. That's what make them perhaps the most interesting and engaging topics of humankind. |
http://www.edgentry.com |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 14:22:17
|
Well, SW was just supposed to be black and white...if it's any consolation, we get a lot more notice on how cruel the Empire is in the books...though I would consider destroying Alderaan proof enough they're the big baddies (Tarkin was about as high ranking as you get, and the DS wasn't created to breed love and puppies)
But anyways...there's a firm difference between a villain doing what he thinks is right and someone simply evil and even the first part is just sketchy. Villains rarely see themselves as villains, but a little dose of common morality can expose them as such. You can think yourself a hero, but when you use methods and morals 98 percent of the world doesn't...there's a problem. Luca Blight and Luc from the Suikoden series come to mind |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 14:52:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethriel
Well, SW was just supposed to be black and white...if it's any consolation, we get a lot more notice on how cruel the Empire is in the books...though I would consider destroying Alderaan proof enough they're the big baddies (Tarkin was about as high ranking as you get, and the DS wasn't created to breed love and puppies)
But anyways...there's a firm difference between a villain doing what he thinks is right and someone simply evil and even the first part is just sketchy. Villains rarely see themselves as villains, but a little dose of common morality can expose them as such. You can think yourself a hero, but when you use methods and morals 98 percent of the world doesn't...there's a problem. Luca Blight and Luc from the Suikoden series come to mind
Morality IS a matter of perspective. Throughout the middle ages and long after that antisemitism was 'right', to some demented people it still is right. So it was in most of the western world perceived as a morally right thing to segregate or even kill Jews. As such morals can, and in my opinion must, be judged from the 'historical' context. To a European in the middle and dark ages it was just to kill a muslim as they were perceived as heathens. Back then those 98% you talk about were of the opinion that it was morally correct.
'Neutral' ethics are impossible because those ethics cannot be based on all cultures and philosophies.
We perceive (and in my culturally influenced opinion and set of morals rightly so) cannibalism as 'evil'. To the cannibals who have been living like that for centuries it is just their way of living, sp why would they perceive it as 'evil'?
To add to Ed Gentry's comment, I'd go even a step further. *gets ready for the flame*
To the natives who 'suffered' through the colonization and Christianization of their homes, be they in the Americas or the African continent or any other place where the Church brought the 'Light of God' with sword and flame (convert or die, heathen!) these from the Christian point of view good missionaries were very much evil!
Heck, I consider them evil. For the current political climate I blame mostly the actions of Christianity in the past millenium. And these were the so called good guys. If Christianity (at least in my perception) is what in game terms is called Lawful Good, then people have been playing their paladins utterly wrong.
*flame on* |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:04:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by EdGentry
Good and evil are utterly a question of perspective. That's what make them perhaps the most interesting and engaging topics of humankind.
That may be true when talking about vilains in novels, but not for PC/NPC in a FR D&D campaign, because Good and Evils are clearly defined as "absolute" cosmic forces in the PHB.
Therefore, it's always difficult (and IMHO uninteresting) to transfer characters from novels/people in RL behaviors to D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos definitions. |
|
|
|
EdGentry
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
175 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:14:12
|
quote:
That may be true when talking about vilains in novels, but not for PC/NPC in a FR D&D campaign, because Good and Evils are clearly defined as "absolute" cosmic forces in the PHB.
Therefore, it's always difficult (and IMHO uninteresting) to transfer characters from novels/people in RL behaviors to D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos definitions.
Skeptic, I agree. I think this is why wise folks, like RLB, are quick to make it clear that when writing they try to deemphasize the rules-approach to alignment. I know that when I write, a character doesn't have a strict alignment in my mind - though loose ones as guidelines are useful. He/she simply wants what they want and their personality determines how far they are willing to go to get it.
This is an interesting thing about "evil" and "villians", I think. Maybe those we call evil or villian are simply willing to go further than the rest of us to reach their goals? It's something to think about: Perhaps villiany/evil is simply a question of resolve. Spooky thought, isn't it?
While it can be fun to try and translate one's behavior in real life into game terms, I would say that it's not only difficult but impossible to do so with complete accuracy. Still...it's amuzing :) |
http://www.edgentry.com |
Edited by - EdGentry on 15 Mar 2006 15:15:10 |
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:27:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by EdGentry
I think this is why wise folks, like RLB, are quick to make it clear that when writing they try to deemphasize the rules-approach to alignment. I know that when I write, a character doesn't have a strict alignment in my mind - though loose ones as guidelines are useful. He/she simply wants what they want and their personality determines how far they are willing to go to get it.
One side of the problem is that as DMs we need alignments from characters of novels that are used as NPCs. I'm also pretty sure that sometimes the designer doesn’t even talk with the author when creating them (maybe it's even not the designer's fault).
The other side is that as DMs or players we have a "clear" idea of alignments and when we read about characters in novels, we expect them to behave in line with their alignment (if we know them, in certain case, it's easy, paladins for example).
Back to the topic : The problem is more toward good characters then evil ones, people seems to care less about "bad played according to alignment" villains than heroes… After all, he's evil.
Edit : Mace, I wasn't attacking you, just scribing here instead doing my boring work |
Edited by - Skeptic on 15 Mar 2006 15:32:21 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:28:23
|
| I was merely trying to make a reference point, I do agree with RLB that alignments belong into the game and not into novels. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
PeterArcher
Acolyte
Ukraine
4 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:31:33
|
Harking back to the Star Wars example that Richard brought up, one of the things to my way of thinking that made part III superior to the two that had come before it was precisely that Anakin Skywalker was presented as making a choice that seemed right to him, even though every theater-goer knew that the choice was the wrong one.
For what it's worth, it seems to me that an evil action can generally be defined as one that's entirely self-referential and self-regarding. That's how evil starts--as an action that takes no thought for anyone else.
That said, I think Ed Gentry's right that morality is largely a matter of perspective. |
Peter Archer |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 15:41:38
|
quote:
Are morals a matter of perspective and the society that brought them forth?
If that is so and there is in the 'neutral' sense no moral high ground, could a 'villain' not be utterly devoted to his culture and have the moral high ground from his perspective?
One thing I've sometimes thought about doing is putting a Mulhorandi paladin and "his" slave(s) into a game. This wouldn't be a corrupt sort of paladin, but a proper evil-smiting fight-the-good-fight god-chosen holy warrior. It's simply that he'd regard slave owning as perfectly normal and any idea that owning slaves was wrong as ridiculous. I wonder too how enslaving captured enemies would go down with non-Mulhorandi characters.
quote:
That may be true when talking about vilains in novels, but not for PC/NPC in a FR D&D campaign, because Good and Evils are clearly defined as "absolute" cosmic forces in the PHB.
Therefore, it's always difficult (and IMHO uninteresting) to transfer characters from novels/people in RL behaviors to D&D Good/Evil/Law/Chaos definitions.
I don't think that you can make such conversions. People's behaviour is more complicated and more flexible than a two-word alignment system can be. There's almost always a degree of moral ambiguity - should a paladin kill orc children is a classic - that makes judgement difficult if not impossible. |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 16:03:49
|
quote:
Good and evil are utterly a question of perspective. That's what make them perhaps the most interesting and engaging topics of humankind.
I want to make it clear that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Ed -- I think he's really onto something good -- but I'm offering a complementary question, from a philosophical stance. This is more about the nature of good and evil, rather than about villainous heroes, so as such, treat it as tangential.
Is there something *universally* good or *universally* evil? An act that is, perhaps, always "evil" in every context, one that cannot be justified by logic? And that people who think they are doing the "good" thing are just plain wrong?
This is, of course, a metaphysical question, and entails a certain amount of such discourse, so I apologize for controversial terms.
Like the absolute distruction of a soul (if such a thing exists). The complete and utter end of a sentient being -- no peace, no closure, just oblivion. This doesn't sound so bad, I guess, but what about forcible destruction of a soul -- or even consumption of a soul?
Or, in more real-life terms, the complete ruination of a child's life and being, to satisfy selfish ends, or perhaps for no reason at all?
Once again, just offering questions to spark some thoughts.
Now, to apply this to the topic -- is it possible to have a hero who commits a complete, utter, unconscionable, unjustifiable evil act?
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 16:11:43
|
Just to interject: There is a system of morals that are universal...most everybody knows rape and murder are wrong, for example. There's something like that in psychology, think it's the Universal System of Morals.
To answer your question, Erik, I'd say yes it is...so long as the author makes no bones about how grievous the crime is and he is made to suffer or be punished for it, it can be done and done well...it's doing vicious, hypocritical and evil acts while the author tries to pretend how righteous they are that we have a problem (Sword of Truth anyone?) |
|
|
|
Bluenose
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
134 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 16:42:39
|
quote:
Just to interject: There is a system of morals that are universal...most everybody knows rape and murder are wrong, for example. There's something like that in psychology, think it's the Universal System of Morals.
If you can define murder then I agree most people will say it is wrong. But some of the time it's going to depend on your point of view. Is a Palestinian who blows himself and a bus of Israelis up a murderer? How about an IRA member, or a Tamil Tiger, or members of the Stern Gang, or French Resistance fighters in World War Two? How about a Batman-like vigilante killing people the law can't catch? If someone is too powerful for the law to touch, is it justifiable to execute them without a trial for their crimes?
quote:
Now, to apply this to the topic -- is it possible to have a hero who commits a complete, utter, unconscionable, unjustifiable evil act?
I think so. What would make or break a story like this would be what happens afterwards. If there aren't any consequences - psychological, legal, social, whatever - then it would be absolute nonsense, but the "actions have consequences" idea works. Even a hero who did something in the past and is still working through the consequences might be interesting to read about. |
These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay. |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 17:17:13
|
I have to disagree with you, Ethriel, if you are asserting that every sane person in human history has known that rape and murder are wrong. There is abundant historical evidence that this is not the case. Indeed, there is abundan evidence in the daily news that this is not the case.
With regard to Star Wars, it is indeed to supposed to be about a clash of capital G Good and capital E Evil. That's why it bemuses me that when you really look at the story, there's so little in there to justify the idea that the characters and institutions labeled good or evil really are. We're just supposed to take Lucas's word for it.
I have to admit, I haven't read the novels. But I don't think you should have to read the books to get the sense of the films. |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 17:57:08
|
Throughout history, possibly not. But like I said, there are morals and standards today I think most people can agree on...and while in medieval times, rape was common, I'm pretty sure it was still illegal...and generally punished by castration (Though the feudal system had such divisions, if it was someone poor or on the enemy's side.... On the IRA and terrorist notions, I'm sure the terorrists who flew themselves into the WTC thought themselves heroes, but they shared morals and values that most of the world emphatically does not...I'm relatively certain all of us can agree that killing non combatanants is wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that today's society's managed to improve on the old quite a bit...there're still so many tricky issues it's hard to lump them together under one definition.
But like I said, Rich...I'd consider Tarkin turning a planet and billions of people to atoms just because he could to be an ample demonstration of evil...and this order is accepted totally logically and methodically by his subordinates. Hell, the leader of the Empire is Palpatine and he makes Vader look like a kitten. |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 18:50:39
|
I think it boils down to the fact that it depends on whether or not you actually see there is a universal morality to your universe or not. If you don't see there a universal morality then a Paladin is a person who "believes" in an absolute good and evil and that one should behave like a Crusader or starry eyed Zealot.
It actually had a serious problem for my game because my players were surprised at the portrayal of Paladins because the fundamental heart of a Paladin was that they were NOT zealots. The campaign depiction of them was that a Paladin in order to be chosen by the forces of good was an individual whom had to be caring, understanding, compassionate, and wise. In other words, they were individuals whom were often considered to improperly lacking in the graces of their faith because they held sympathy for their enemies and as often as not tried for redemption as destruction of evil. The sources were monks of wuxia films and the Jedi Knights more than sword swinging crusaders. Also, Arthurian knights of legend than the actual.
A lot of players felt somewhat cheated by the realization that 'Good' in my campaign was built on the principles of moderation. However, the story I wanted to tell was one where the Good guys were clearly in the right rather than the idea that moderation was the province of Neutrality and "Balance" was something that was looked after by all of the alignments being necessary for a functioning society. |
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 19:57:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
A lot of players felt somewhat cheated by the realization that 'Good' in my campaign was built on the principles of moderation. However, the story I wanted to tell was one where the Good guys were clearly in the right rather than the idea that moderation was the province of Neutrality and "Balance" was something that was looked after by all of the alignments being necessary for a functioning society.
This is a very neat way to look at it. Though the phrase I bolded is controversial -- who is to say that "moderation" is "clearly in the right?" (Aside from, who is that, Aristotle?) 
It comes down to what one's morality is built upon -- moderation, happiness (utilitarianism), some sort of universal constant (deontology), justice, religious belief, etc., etc. And because morality can vary so widely in our own world, it gives us acres of space for varying it in our fiction.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 20:39:19
|
| Well, today, I'm pretty sure there are some things the vast majority can embrace...I quote Boondock Saints: "Do not kill, do not rape: These are principles which every man can embrace." |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 20:40:44
|
yeah, well earlier someone mentioned torturing someone to save a bunch of school kids and it occurred to me.
"Yeah well, duh, you did an evil thing to accomplish a good thing."
Part of the whole thing about life is that plenty of people do agree on right and wrong but we also know the majority can be wrong itself. However, it works best for moral dilemas in games I think that the "Dark Side" so to speak is quicker and easier.
Evil Overlord Steve TM has a point when he says that if he just KILLED off all the orcs from the females to the children rather than dealing with their raiding year after year then that's a far more effective solution than the defensive strategy they have. It also lacks justice though and that SHOULD burn a lot of people's posteriors.
It's one of the ways I run my Forgotten Realms that the Zhents and Red Wizards have an idealogical basis for their beliefs and its not necessarily without merit.
"The Lord Bane will give wealth, power, and strength to those whom have the strength to seize it and reward obedience while punishing disobedience. Otherwise, do as you wilt."
It wouldn't attract people if it didn't have something to it.
To use your Boondock Saints example, they also were killers ironically and very few people really objected to their actions because the people they killed were killers. Even if "every man" doesn't agree with principles, they don't have to be shared to make an effective game.
And people's morality will vary from table to table. However, I tend to definitely try and go with "understanding and noble" good rather than "Zealot and intolerent perfectionist" while others feel neutrality surprisingly has the greater morality. Heck, I imagine some people believe D&D evil is morally superior. That doesn't change how one should play ones game.
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
Edited by - Charles Phipps on 15 Mar 2006 20:44:37 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 21:55:39
|
I am no moderator but can we please try to get this back to novels?
Now...for my next post |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 22:12:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethriel
Throughout history, possibly not. But like I said, there are morals and standards today I think most people can agree on...and while in medieval times, rape was common, I'm pretty sure it was still illegal...and generally punished by castration (Though the feudal system had such divisions, if it was someone poor or on the enemy's side....
Prima nocte... how is that about legalized rape? Their was some incident in ancient Rome, can't recall the name right now, in which they actually celebrated rape I think...
Rape in the Third Reich was perfectly legal for a hero coming back from the front. A hero had to find release, after all.
The first two are comparatively ancient, the latter is not. Also, I think Erik brought it up (or was it Ed?), look at TV in the States (where the shows usually originate). Shows like CSI or whatnot do not show the reality of rape. The consequences for the victim if she is alive. It is boiled down to finding the perp. Doesn't this also make rape something a bit closer to being legal? If society instead of feeling with the victim and actually realizing the victim's suffering people say something like "well, she always dressed like a slut, if she hadn't she would not have been raped". How is that for making it legal by putting the blame on the victim?
Before I start saying something about pink colored glasses and start getting really pissed off I continue with the topic.
quote:
On the IRA and terrorist notions, I'm sure the terorrists who flew themselves into the WTC thought themselves heroes, but they shared morals and values that most of the world emphatically does not...I'm relatively certain all of us can agree that killing non combatanants is wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that today's society's managed to improve on the old quite a bit...there're still so many tricky issues it's hard to lump them together under one definition.
If killing non combatants is evil, would that make those who order to shoot also evil? If that is the case then there basically is no difference whatsoever between those who ordered the 9/11 attacks and those who ordered a retaliation on the wrong target.
quote:
But like I said, Rich...I'd consider Tarkin turning a planet and billions of people to atoms just because he could to be an ample demonstration of evil...and this order is accepted totally logically and methodically by his subordinates. Hell, the leader of the Empire is Palpatine and he makes Vader look like a kitten.
Who is more evil? The one who gives the order or the one who actually carries it out? This question was asked during the Nürnberg trials as well. Do you have a definitive answer?
If a company fires several thousands of workers because their stockholders want more cash for their shares, who is responsible for ruining that many lives? Who is the evil one there?  |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 22:25:04
|
Ok -- before we embark on a long discussion of the nature of evil (a whole new forum, I think, would be needed for that one), I think Mace's request to pull this back to topic might be a good one. I acknowledge my role in pushing us off topic, so I'll make an attempt to bring it back to the original: Villains in Novels.
I believe someone mentioned, way back when, Ghostwalker as a novel that really deals with "villains as heroes," and vice versa. I feel I'd be fairly qualified to comment (since I wrote the darn thing). 'Course, I'd be much more interested in what OTHERS have to say about it than myself -- since I already know what I think of it.
A set of books I highly recommend for this topic is the Erevis Cale trilogy, by my brilliant buddy Paul Kemp, in which the protagonists are constantly treading that line we talked about. The War of the Spider Queen, featuring many very, very talented Realmsians (including RLB, who wrote the first one, Dissolution, PSK (Resurrection), and others) is also rather pertinent -- particularly in looking at certain of the characters who, for the sake of avoiding spoilers, I won't identify here.
Now then: Ghostwalker.
The book does indeed deal with some "gray" characters. Most of the heroes, if not all of them, have at least one or two flaws and tend toward ruthlessness when it needs to be done. That isn't villainy (evil), but it isn't valor (good) either. Alignments in that book are tough for ME to assign (though I have a pretty clear sense of some of the characters -- Greyt's NE, for instance, while Bars is LG, etc.). My editor and I have somewhat disagreed about the "alignment" of my protagonist. There are heroes, here, and villains, but never anyone who's ALWAYS a hero, and never anyone who's ALWAYS a villain. Instead, characters simply do things for other reasons, and morality generally doesn't motivate them.
I don't think we should get into the real specifics of that novel here (and invite major spoilers), but suffice to say, it reflects pretty clearly what I view as a good way to handle morality in fiction: characters have multiple motivations, not just the good/evil dichotomy, and these should be handled appropriately.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
PeterArcher
Acolyte
Ukraine
4 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 22:52:33
|
What I look for in novels, movies, and so forth is motivated villains. One of the reasons I really liked the first X-Men movie is that the first ten minutes or so of the movie give you a clear explanation of why Magneto feels the way he does about non-mutants. Is he evil? Absolutely. But he's an effective villain because we understand why he does what he does.
Much the same thing applies to, for example, the fat man in The Maltese Falcon, a fascinating villain whose actions are wholly explainable and reasonable from his point of view--despite the fact that they involve condoning murder and torture, among other things.
If we understand why a character does something, that character can become interesting. If we don't understand a character's motivation, that character ceases to be compelling. |
Peter Archer |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 23:05:51
|
To go back to Forgotten Realms novels...
I think there's a pretty large variety of philosophy in FR.
Cadderly is an example of Good as an Instrument of the Divine. It's rare in fiction of Forgotten Realms because the gods are depicted as extremely falliable individuals. In Cadderly's case, however, his god is depicted as infalliable and the retribution that he delivers on his enemies is done with full and omniscient knowledge of the crimes of the individual's involved. Cadderly himself is falliable as a mortal but as long as he does Deneir's will then he's pretty much unable to do wrong.
This is ironic because Deneir is one of the WEAKEST and most unnecessary members of the pantheon and yet he has some of the most impressive displays of faith and power in FR.
Drizzt Do'urden is an example of Good as an Example of Questioning or Philosophical Good. Drizzt Do'urden's understanding of morality is Aristotilian as he struggles to find a moderate balance of vengeance, forgiveness, compassion, and retribution in his life. He is constantly re-evaluating the various aspects of his life in order to find what he hopes will be a better way of living it.
It's why the same man can vow not to kill Drow but goes on Orc killing hunts.
Danillo Thann is another example of Good as a way of life. Danillo Thann is not particularly introspective but he lives his life in a 'good manner' because he largely tries to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people with special focus to his friends, family, and immediate relations. It's not really an issue for him to be a better human being because he doesn't worry about it and doesn't feel particularly tempted by vile things.
and finally
Elminster who represents what I think is Good as Fate. Elminsters actions are incomprehensible but apparently part of a larger tapestry that is woven around the world that only he really seems to understand. Elminster isn't classifiable as an insturment of the divine because he's as much part of the divine as really one can be expected. We have to accept his actions are for the best on some level because we trust what amounts to a force of nature.
I also think its important to note that evil isn't entirely absent of victories in Forgotten Realms either.
Malik is an example of Evil as Cowardice. Malik is an evil little bully. Fans don't like "The Trial of Cyric the Mad" in many places (despite the fact I think its my favorite of all FR books) because its not exactly a majestic evil character that is the main but the protagionist cuts a devastating swath through the forces of good in his 'bumbling.' Malik himself isn't very dangerous and if left alone is just a arrogant merchant. However, with Cyric's whip behind him he's a man whom ruins countless lives.
Evil most certainly won in that book.
Quenthel Baenre and the entire overdeveloped Drow Sexology are an example of Evil as Culture as there's not really a single redeeming feature in Dark Elven Culture. It's perverted (soulless even in sensuality), murderous, cannibalistic (in the metaphorical sense of feeding on itself), and it crushes the soul of even the noblest individual who tries to live in it with its oppressive individual one-up-manship and lies.
At the end, the only people who benefitted have no morality to themselves whatsoever and even the good perished from the worst flaws of their characters made manifest.
We even have Kinmen Nimsin whom is an example as Evil as Arrogance which is the opposite of Good as Questioning. Kinmen Nimsin is utterly lacking anything resembling the ability to question the point of his actions. Why does he want to restore Gold Elf rule? It comes to the point of ransacking his homeland.
Quite often many villains DO have success in FR. Death of a Dragon and Evermeet plus the Return of the Archwizards had the forces of good 'win' but their accomplishments were at staggering cost. The Shandril Saga ended with the astoundingly inappropriate (sorry Ed, I just feel that way) death of the young woman rather than her triumph.
We also have Evil as Apathy. Jaxarle is a frickin saint compared to his fellow Drow but he's a soulless sociopath while Artemis Enteri is a mass murderer whose learning how to care for others but he's still a Faithless whose only pleasure in life is how good he kills. Similarly, Elaith Craulnobler's problem is he just can't bring himself to give a damn about anyone but a select few.
I think we need more villains with 'depth' but honestly we should start with folk like Fzoul, Manshoon, and the other icons than anyone else.
Why DOES Fzoul want to be Chosen Of Bane of all people?
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
Edited by - Charles Phipps on 15 Mar 2006 23:09:31 |
|
|
|
Ethriel
Learned Scribe
USA
272 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 23:10:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
quote:
Originally posted by Ethriel
Throughout history, possibly not. But like I said, there are morals and standards today I think most people can agree on...and while in medieval times, rape was common, I'm pretty sure it was still illegal...and generally punished by castration (Though the feudal system had such divisions, if it was someone poor or on the enemy's side....
Prima nocte... how is that about legalized rape? Their was some incident in ancient Rome, can't recall the name right now, in which they actually celebrated rape I think...
Rape in the Third Reich was perfectly legal for a hero coming back from the front. A hero had to find release, after all.
The first two are comparatively ancient, the latter is not. Also, I think Erik brought it up (or was it Ed?), look at TV in the States (where the shows usually originate). Shows like CSI or whatnot do not show the reality of rape. The consequences for the victim if she is alive. It is boiled down to finding the perp. Doesn't this also make rape something a bit closer to being legal? If society instead of feeling with the victim and actually realizing the victim's suffering people say something like "well, she always dressed like a slut, if she hadn't she would not have been raped". How is that for making it legal by putting the blame on the victim?
Before I start saying something about pink colored glasses and start getting really pissed off I continue with the topic.
quote:
On the IRA and terrorist notions, I'm sure the terorrists who flew themselves into the WTC thought themselves heroes, but they shared morals and values that most of the world emphatically does not...I'm relatively certain all of us can agree that killing non combatanants is wrong. I'm sure we can all agree that today's society's managed to improve on the old quite a bit...there're still so many tricky issues it's hard to lump them together under one definition.
If killing non combatants is evil, would that make those who order to shoot also evil? If that is the case then there basically is no difference whatsoever between those who ordered the 9/11 attacks and those who ordered a retaliation on the wrong target.
quote:
But like I said, Rich...I'd consider Tarkin turning a planet and billions of people to atoms just because he could to be an ample demonstration of evil...and this order is accepted totally logically and methodically by his subordinates. Hell, the leader of the Empire is Palpatine and he makes Vader look like a kitten.
Who is more evil? The one who gives the order or the one who actually carries it out? This question was asked during the Nürnberg trials as well. Do you have a definitive answer?
If a company fires several thousands of workers because their stockholders want more cash for their shares, who is responsible for ruining that many lives? Who is the evil one there?
Of course Prima Noctus was wrong...I'm not entirely certain where it was ever used though...and Ancient Rome wasn't exactly a breeding place for love and morality....and I'm not sure what you're trying to convey on that rape thing...I think people who blame the victim in those cases are pretty sick, but the perp should be caught and the woman given extreme counseling.
And intent plays a lot of part in something...there's a difference between blowing up a civilian target and making an error. And no, I don't have a definitive answer on who's more evil in that era and it's a subject I'd rather avoid for now. Most people tend to hold leaders more responsible, but I was using an example for a fantasy setting in how we weren't just taking a creator's word for it.
And Erik...I'd say Ghostwalker's a great example of ambiguity, though Greyt and Meris were pretty coldhearted people on most issues. As for Erevis Cale...most of the hero gang are quite good people, except Riven. Erevis is ruthless, but he's heroic...Azriim and his siblings are sadists and Vhostym? Willing to cause thousands of death for something incredibly petty. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 23:12:15
|
I wholeheartedly agree, motivation is the make all or break all for a story. Magneto in X-Men, be that the movie or the comic books of old (I quit reading X-Men before Marvel retrofitted their universe), is a good villain. Well an effective villain. In the X-universe of old there was real racism coming from non-mutants toward their mutated peers, and in the case of Genosha in the comic books you actually did have mutant concentration camps. So is Magneto justified in his way of fighting the war? Hell yes. That's what makes him so powerful to the reader/viewer, because we can understand *why* he does it.
As for the Maltese Falcon, it's been at least two decades since I saw the old Bogart flick and I never got to read Hammett (I think that was the author, or?). So I can hardly draw any similarities from that particular novel/movie.
Another example from comic books and as of late movies would be the Punisher. But he makes you wonder whether he is plain gaga or not.
For those who referred to the Boondock Saints, it is a snapshop, storywise, and although I count that movie as one of my favorites, in terms of exposition and the entire 'heroes as villains' thingy the movie is lacking. Certainly they pull off that vigilante gig fairly well, but shall we really take that god-given order for granted. Had that story been in a book, I, as a reader of selfsame novel, would find it strangely lacking. Maybe it works for a firm believer, but I doubt even that. Sounds pretty Charlie Manson to me. "Why did you kill all those crooks?" "Because god told me so!"
A friend of mine is a psychiatrist (sp?), I'm fairly certain he'd lock away people who proclaimed such nonsense.
The important thing about this is to get the reader to understand they "whys" of the protagonist, be they good or evil.
To bring Star Wars up, yet again, I agree George Lucas expects us the audience to take the evilness of the Empire at face value and the bad Empire destroyed peaceful Alderaan...booohooo... it was the good guys who bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. So much for exposition in Star Wars |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2006 : 23:20:38
|
Ethriel, I apologize for choosing my words so harshly. I was ... well...upset. A good friend of mine got raped and abused, both as child and adult. And guess what, her own mother claims the childhood experiences of her daughter in kindergarten did not happen... just an example. I guess you can understand why I get furious about things like that. And the funny thing is that mother is a devout (devoid?) catholic.
You may attempt to guess whom my friend now thinks is responsible for all that happening to her...she herself...
Back to the topic, please let's keep the Forum clear of this...feel free to PM me, but be guaranteed I will not get into more detail than this, I probably said to much already, but I think it was necessary to explain my harsh reaction |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36877 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2006 : 00:17:14
|
| I'd like to add that we should probably steer clear of certain real-world examples, as well, because such references can lead to debates that are ugly and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2006 : 03:00:15
|
I think that the closest we humans have come to universal morality is to posit that one ought to deal with the members of one's own tribe (defined by blood, religion, political philosophy, or whatever) in a benevolent manner. There are many cultures, past and present, that took the perspective that some or all people outside the tribe are fair game for pretty much any horrible thing you want to do to them.
Peter, in general, I agree with you that you make a villain a far more compelling character when you make his motivation comprehensible and credible. But there are exceptions to every storytelling rule, and occasionally characters are interesting precisely because they are enigmatic. I think Hannibal Lecter is a perfect example of this. In the first two novels in which he appears. he's fascinating partly because, while on some levels we learn a great deal about him, we never really find out why he does the abominable things he does. Then, in the most recent novel, Thomas Harris pretty much tells us, with the result that Lecter becomes far less interesting. Or at least that was what I thought. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Villains in Novels
