| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 12:19:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Why does he want a system reinstated he never experienced? Why does he hate with an irrational passion a people whom have never done him wrong? And he didn't lose sight of his goal, either. He knows what he wants... but that concept is flawed. If that were true all descendants of former Nazis would be Nazis themselves, and that would include me, and I most difinitely am not.
Uhm, the logical flaw here is quite simple: you aren't Kymil. Kymil's not you. There are people who inherit belief systems from their family. Why is that so difficult to accept?
quote:
Even if he was taught to hate he would still have his own eyes to see and his own brain to think.
Er... do you know how powerful indoctrination can be?
quote:
Maybe you can't imagine what it's be like to live with a past such as we Germans have. There always is the question why this, why that.
Yes, uhm, Kymil's not German... I can see why you might want to draw comparisons, but you should understand that what's true for you, it might not be true for him.
quote:
Yet, here he is, at Amlaruil's court, or at that time Zaor's, and he sees the glory and nobility of the royal house, he sees no wrongs being purposefully done to any gold, moon, green or I-don't-know-what-color elf. Yet he hates them with a passion that does not make sense, in the psychological make-up.
You keep assuming that everyone's psyche is completely rational. It's not. |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 13:52:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
Uhm, the logical flaw here is quite simple: you aren't Kymil. Kymil's not you. There are people who inherit belief systems from their family. Why is that so difficult to accept?
You are right Kymil is not me and vice versa, but I do wonder about the inheriting a belief system thing. True, you are born into a society which, to a degree, forms you, but any society also gives its people also the means to think, unless they are machines.
You mention indoctrination, and I concur, it is a powerful tool. It's been used in the past and still is used in the present. But, and you may call me naive, I do believe that intelligent beings see through the deception, unless they really want to use the system for their own gains or do not care about what happens to them.
I agree with your assessment that not everyone's psyche is rational, but Kymil's psyche is rational enough to plot and scheme and manipulate.
Winterfox, I do appreciate your comments, but one-liners aren't very helpful for a discussion and it would be greatly appreciated if you stopped treating posters here in a condescending manner. Quotes like this one:
quote:
Er... do you know how powerful indoctrination can be?
are not in any way productive, rather the opposite. You either were trying to make a point (and failed to make it because you did not continue with that line of thought) or you were making a smart-arsed comment (and failed to infuriate me).
Please, if you make a statement like that make it a valid one. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 13:59:43
|
OK, here now what I would like to see in a villain. I would like to see him as a human who, in his most private hours, also has his doubts about his course of action. I want to get to know why he does the things he does, the reasons for him disliking this or that. He may even think that the society he lives in (e. g. Thay) is a good one, if not for one thing, the pointless violence among the Zulkhirs (I hope I spelled that right). He needs to have a personal goal to improve (from his POV) the society around him. Even if that goal is driven by hatred for one or another thing. I want to know the reason for this hatred and actually believe it.
If he believes and prays to a dark deity I want to know his reasons for it, and how, if he is married, he can maintain a marriage if he worships a bloodlust-driven deity.
More when I thought of it
...cheers |
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 - 17 Mar 2006 : 14:13:09
|
| Many people throughout history have fought for the instatement or reinstatement of systems they have never experienced first-hand. You just have to be seriously discontent with the system you do live under, and think you have good reason to believe that the alternative system would be better. |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 14:58:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
You are right Kymil is not me and vice versa, but I do wonder about the inheriting a belief system thing. True, you are born into a society which, to a degree, forms you, but any society also gives its people also the means to think, unless they are machines.
But why would they think of concepts well outside of their culture, society, or species? For example, do we think of the poor little piglet's feeling when we slaughter its mommy for pork? No, most people don't -- it's just food, and animals are dumb. In much the same way, it makes sense to Kymil that moon elves should not rule because, to him, they aren't "worthy" enough. Even if Kymil has never experienced the days of Myth Drannor and gold elven council rule, he might have... you know, interacted extensively with family members who have experienced it? Read about it? His very lack of firsthand experience would even serve to explain why he glamourizes it so much. Many people want what they've never had in the hope that it'll be better than what they do have. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.
quote:
You mention indoctrination, and I concur, it is a powerful tool. It's been used in the past and still is used in the present. But, and you may call me naive, I do believe that intelligent beings see through the deception, unless they really want to use the system for their own gains or do not care about what happens to them.
Yes, yes, you've already said that, and no, it's not naive. Just circular and a little baffling. Please, please, please start taking into account different points of view. They exist. And there are many kinds of "intelligence."
quote:
I agree with your assessment that not everyone's psyche is rational, but Kymil's psyche is rational enough to plot and scheme and manipulate.
Oy vey vey. Look, some people can be completely rational in certain situations, but completely lose it when it comes to something that touches a nerve. Then they go ga-ga and do their damnedest to push their view or achieve their aim. Moreover, it's completely possible for one's methods to be rational even if the cause behind them isn't. Consider fanatics and bigots. Their beliefs may be blind, but it won't stop them from conceptualizing perfectly valid plans, especially if they're plans designed to inflict as much damage as possible on those they perceive to be against them.
quote:
Winterfox, I do appreciate your comments, but one-liners aren't very helpful for a discussion and it would be greatly appreciated if you stopped treating posters here in a condescending manner. Quotes like this one:
quote:
Er... do you know how powerful indoctrination can be?
are not in any way productive, rather the opposite. You either were trying to make a point (and failed to make it because you did not continue with that line of thought) or you were making a smart-arsed comment (and failed to infuriate me).
Please, if you make a statement like that make it a valid one.
Welcome to the Internet! ^_^
Condescension? Only if you're looking for it or if your skin is extraordinarily sensitive. I asked that because you appeared unable to believe how ingrained blind faith can be. Moreover, all I see in that particular post was you repeating yourself over and over annnnd over. Sorry, I don't believe in churning out long-winded self-regurgitating swill in return. |
|
|
|
Beezy
Learned Scribe
USA
280 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:05:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
OK, here now what I would like to see in a villain. I would like to see him as a human who, in his most private hours, also has his doubts about his course of action. I want to get to know why he does the things he does, the reasons for him disliking this or that. He may even think that the society he lives in (e. g. Thay) is a good one, if not for one thing, the pointless violence among the Zulkhirs (I hope I spelled that right). He needs to have a personal goal to improve (from his POV) the society around him. Even if that goal is driven by hatred for one or another thing. I want to know the reason for this hatred and actually believe it.
If he believes and prays to a dark deity I want to know his reasons for it, and how, if he is married, he can maintain a marriage if he worships a bloodlust-driven deity.
More when I thought of it
...cheers
Too much introspection could really hurt a novel though. I agree that it is nice to know that the character is not a machine and has thoughts and feelings and doubt. But too much introspection could lead to seeing the villian as a weak, insecure, or something. Also it could become really repetitive like the drizzt journal entries where you read essentially the same thoughts over and over. So I agree it would be nice to get a look at the villian in some new light but I think it could be easily overdone |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:10:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
You mention indoctrination, and I concur, it is a powerful tool. It's been used in the past and still is used in the present. But, and you may call me naive, I do believe that intelligent beings see through the deception, unless they really want to use the system for their own gains or do not care about what happens to them.
I have to back up Winterfox on this one. There are countless examples in the real-world of otherwise rational people who get caught up in beliefs that others regard as patently and obviously mistaken.
Religious extremism is an excellent example. I'm not speaking against any particular religion, but there are many cases, in many religions, of people that are intelligent and educated, and still become fanatical followers of a religious branch that even the mainstream followers of that religion speak against.
This isn't limited to religion. It happens with politics, ethnicities, and even in smaller interpersonal relations, like abusive marriages. Heck, there are even sports fans that become so caught up in supporting their team that they engage in activities they would not otherwise do.
Belief is a powerful tool. If you can get someone to believe in something strongly enough, they will ignore logical arguments against it. |
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!  |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:12:25
|
Point taken, Winterfox.
Yes, I am unable to understand blind faith completely. Maybe that is why I need a valid reason for behavior of that or any other sort.
To me blind faith is a crutch, an excuse if you want, perfectly suited for explaining away all reason if need be. There certainly are different points of view and intellectually I do understand blind faith...to a degree, it stops when this 'faith' is used as excuse for any deed done. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:17:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And just a warning, let's play nice, people. 
Just for the record, and I hope no one felt offended by my last post, THAT was not my intent, I was merely stating my 'problem', because as a writer that is a problem.
|
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:23:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
That doesn't mean they have no utility, or that they don't have any sort of validity. It does mean that they're likely to have their limitations and imperfections, just like our other inventions. We shouldn't be entirely surprised when we apply them logically to a particularly thorny situation and find that they yield what seems to be a crazy or unacceptably harsh judgment.
Agreed that they can and do have validity, but I claim that regarding morality as a convention means that no one moral theory has any more claim to truth than another. They're opinions, preferences, and nothing more. If we regard morality as a mere invention, with no objective truth to ground it, then there is no logical basis upon which to distinguish the "good" as defined in one moral theory from the "good" as defined in another.
Lots of people feel that way. I'm just too much a fan of Plato to be one of them. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 15:44:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
Agreed that they can and do have validity, but I claim that regarding morality as a convention means that no one moral theory has any more claim to truth than another. They're opinions, preferences, and nothing more. If we regard morality as a mere invention, with no objective truth to ground it, then there is no logical basis upon which to distinguish the "good" as defined in one moral theory from the "good" as defined in another.
Lots of people feel that way. I'm just too much a fan of Plato to be one of them.
*needs to read some Plato*
The problem with objective truth is just that what is objective? Who would be the objective instance? Or what?
Truth is a three edged sword... who knows of the third edge and what it is?
Since all of us humans are 'victims' of our own perceptions, how can we know which truth really is objective? |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
Edited by - Mace Hammerhand on 17 Mar 2006 15:45:15 |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 16:04:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The problem with objective truth is just that what is objective? Who would be the objective instance? Or what?
Truth is a three edged sword... who knows of the third edge and what it is?
Since all of us humans are 'victims' of our own perceptions, how can we know which truth really is objective?
Mace,
That is the difficult question and philosophers past and present continue to wrestle with it. I certainly have nothing definitive to offer. I just enjoy the discussion. |
Edited by - PaulSKemp on 17 Mar 2006 16:14:00 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 16:21:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
That is the difficult question and philosophers past and present continue to wrestle with it. I certainly have nothing definitive to offer. I just enjoy the discussion.
Same here, Paul. It is fun.
History is always written by the victor, is it the same with truth? So if there ever was such a thing as an objective truth it has been rewritten time and time again.
Same as the glas half full or half empty, I suppose... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 17:08:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And just a warning, let's play nice, people.
Just for the record, and I hope no one felt offended by my last post, THAT was not my intent, I was merely stating my 'problem', because as a writer that is a problem.
I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular. I just didn't want things to get too heated. |
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 - 17 Mar 2006 : 17:49:02
|
Paul: It seems to me that if a guy asserts that moral principles are something more than human inventions, then it's reasonable to ask him for the evidence that supports his assertion. You got any?
I do thnk that even if systems of morality are just ideas, we may be able to determine a rational basis for finding one superior to another. Philosophies that seem to support life and happiness should be, generally speaking, preferable to those that don't do as good a job of it. (Although I admit, I'm preassuming life and happiness are better than death and misery, and you could argue that this is ultimately an emotional rather than a rational judgment. But you've got to build from some sort of fundamental postulates or it really isn't possible to have a meaningful talk about anything, and this is a postulate I'm comfortable with. It seems intuitively self-evident enough that I think you have to be playfully perverse to take issue with it.) |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 17:56:39
|
Well while your Nazi example is true, Germany went to great lengths to disabuse itself of its Nazi past. Plenty of other examples of society show where people WERE indoctrincated with hatred (the KKK for example) in a pointless persecution of an existing people.
However, to keep it on Kymil.
Kymil's motivations are that once Zaor and company are eliminated, he's going to be King (or President to be more precise). He didn't start out with "kill all Moon Elves" as his goal. In fact his progression is pretty believable. He solely is interested in eliminating the Royal Family, which unfortunately is HUGE. He raises Arilyn Moonblade (a half moon elf) to also eliminate Red Wizards and other enemies of Evermeet while appearing as a moderate. He clearly hates humans too as he works not only against Moon Elves but also Harpers and other groups that aren't elves.
Maybe he becomes more realistic for you when Arilyn exposes him and he becomes essentially viewed as the Benedict Arnold of the elven race where people spit on him as they walk by. He had life imprisonment in solitary confinement ahead of him and Lolth offered him a way out. His choice at that point was "Do I help the Gold Elves out VIOLENTLY or do I stay here to rot"
Re: Artemis
Artemis is a soulless killer with no emotions. I've never actually viewed him as the opposite of Drizzt. He's an excellent foil but he's very distinct. He's finally letting loose his tight emotional control even as frankly he seems to still be a ruthless man.
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
Edited by - Charles Phipps on 17 Mar 2006 17:58:28 |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:19:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Paul: It seems to me that if a guy asserts that moral principles are something more than human inventions, then it's reasonable to ask him for the evidence that supports his assertion. You got any?
Not a bit. That's the problem. Hence my reference to Plato, who struggled mightily with this. Of course, I would point out that I'm not asserting anything, I'm merely pointing out what I believe to be the logical consequences of asserting that morality is entirely convention.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I do thnk that even if systems of morality are just ideas, we may be able to determine a rational basis for finding one superior to another. Philosophies that seem to support life and happiness should be, generally speaking, preferable to those that don't do as good a job of it.
Why is a rational judgment superior to an emotional one? Support whose life and whose happiness? Are all people equal? Why? Even if I accepted that standard (and why would I? Is it better than any other standard?), without reference to something external I could simply argue that my life is supported and made happy by wielding capricious and cruel power over others. If I did, upon what basis could one claim that my view is morally wrong? After all, there is nothing outside of our respective moral preferences to which to appeal. We could have the same argument over favorite colors. I like red; someone else likes green. Convince me that green is better.
|
|
|
|
SheriffJoe
Seeker
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:39:23
|
Green is the color of money, greed, envy and seasickness. Red is just about the blood. Green is the color of more things and is thus better than red. :D
To place that in philosophical terms, societies, by nature, must attend to a moral code in which the majority is appeased. When the majority is NOT appeased, you get uprisings, revolts, violence and an overthrow of whichever regime is in power, be it monarchy, theocracy, republic or whatever might be in power.
Any country claiming to hold democratic standards, but not allowing the majority of its citizens to chose what they want when they want it, is NOT a true democracy, but rather a democratic republic, with an emphasis on republic. As long as you have countries controlled by monarchies or other NON-ELECTED leaders, there will ALWAYS be the predisposition to overthrow the leader unless that leader is willing to immediately adapt to the changes and needs of his or her society.
Of course, just adapting is no guarantee that the power-monger will retain their position. Society might just get tired of the same person telling them what to do!
:) |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:43:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
Why is a rational judgment superior to an emotional one? Support whose life and whose happiness? Are all people equal? Why? Even if I accepted that standard (and why would I? Is it better than any other standard?), without reference to something external I could simply argue that my life is supported and made happy by wielding capricious and cruel power over others. If I did, upon what basis could one claim that my view is morally wrong? After all, there is nothing outside of our respective moral preferences to which to appeal. We could have the same argument over favorite colors. I like red; someone else likes green. Convince me that green is better.
I like black...no wait...that's not a color
If you follow this train of thought through the end morality is a human invention... 
Need to do more thinking |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Winterfox
Senior Scribe
895 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:44:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by SheriffJoe
Green is the color of money, greed, envy and seasickness. Red is just about the blood. Green is the color of more things and is thus better than red. :D
Purple beats all. Sorry. :P |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 18:47:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by SheriffJoe
Green is the color of money, greed, envy and seasickness. Red is just about the blood. Green is the color of more things and is thus better than red. :D
Again, that is a thing of everyone's perception. To me red is love, and green is kinda like that thing I just recently found in my fridge... it spoke to me "Hail thee, oh lightbringer"... scary stuff |
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 - 17 Mar 2006 : 19:00:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
(Although I admit, I'm preassuming life and happiness are better than death and misery, and you could argue that this is ultimately an emotional rather than a rational judgment. But you've got to build from some sort of fundamental postulates or it really isn't possible to have a meaningful talk about anything, and this is a postulate I'm comfortable with. It seems intuitively self-evident enough that I think you have to be playfully perverse to take issue with it.)
I don't agree with what I'm about to say, but I'll say it:
"Life and happiness" seem to be instinctual drives. Humans are driven toward survival (the basic needs like food, shelter, warmth and drives like procreation/sex, justice, power/dominance, acceptance/respect (*the belief that humans are a social animal)) and, secondary to that, comfort (all those things, except better).
Some people argue that humans are, by nature, cooperative animals, and we can debate that. They do seem to be "social" animals.
Either way, it seems reasonable to assert that the basics of moral/ethical standards should be assuaging needs/drives (i.e. what is moral or "right" is that which promotes one's own needs, be they food, sex, acceptance, respect, cooperation, or "good feeling all around"), whether for the self or others.
With this lens, beliefs like "Don't murder" are more like "Don't murder me" or "Don't murder others who are instrumental in assuaging my needs." In a world where we aren't strictly individuals -- where everyone needs others to survive and be a full, rational, happy-with-my-needs-met human being (which, of course, is controversial -- debate me!) -- it only makes sense to assert that that kind of morality functions.
'Course, with such a system, "villains" aren't strictly immoral -- they're assuaging their own needs, though the needs of others fall by the wayside. It seems the "cooperative" element (needing others) of my observation is the key.
Cheers
P.S. Now, though -- how to disprove that "life" and "happiness" are positives, or "better" than "death" and "destruction"?
Hmm........ "Thanatos," says Sigmund Freud.
Ok, done. Thanks, ol'buddy! |
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" |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 19:15:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
quote:
Originally posted by SheriffJoe
Green is the color of money, greed, envy and seasickness. Red is just about the blood. Green is the color of more things and is thus better than red. :D
Purple beats all. Sorry. :P
On a strictly quality basis, WHITE trumps all colors, being an amalgamation of -- and thus superior to -- all other colors. Not to mention its incredible range of symbolic meaning. Q.E.D.
Its counterpart, BLACK, would take a solid second place (because of its incredible range) but is disqualified because it's not a color at all, but rather the absence of all color.
But myself, I'm a big SILVER fan. I also like metallic BLUE.
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 17 Mar 2006 19:16:22 |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 19:19:27
|
quote:
[i]P.S. Now, though -- how to disprove that "life" and "happiness" are positives, or "better" than "death" and "destruction"?
It seems to be that humans, for the most part, see reality through their own internal lens. Because the majority of humans seem to be wired to desire happiness (or perhaps just affirmation), we tend to think about happiness and continued life as positive qualities for all. A fundamental problem with this worldview is the idea that what is right for an individual has any correlation to what works for others. Some people, because of aberrant psychology, unusual tastes, or abusive pasts, seek happiness in things that many of us find repulsive. They assume that if something makes them happy, it must be right for everyone else, even if those people do not yet know it.
In my mind, what often makes someone a villain is an assumption that everyone else must conform to what works for that individual. Thus, if that individual derives hope from a specific religion, it must be good for all. If that individual finds something repulsive, it IS repulsive. In this way, villainy is simply the act of removing everyone else's free will and opposing your own desires upon them, no matter how noble. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 20:31:37
|
On a related note, lets talk about the King of the Orcs from the latest Salvatore trilogy.
The character is the villain but he's a perfect presentation of doing what is "right" for his people. He doesn't want the orcs to live in hovels, holes in the ground, and do nothing but scavenge for their livelihood. He's even willing to open up trade with the rest of the nations around him. In other words, he's no different than any other human conqueror.
Does this make him better or worse than a orc whom is portrayed as pretty much atavistic rage and want incarnate?
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 20:47:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
In my mind, what often makes someone a villain is an assumption that everyone else must conform to what works for that individual.
Doesn't that include small children? |
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 - 17 Mar 2006 : 20:56:16
|
| Paul, I think that in effect, you're just saying something that I was trying to say myself: If one chooses not to grant the validity of any first definitions and postulates whatsover, then there is no framework in which logic can operate and no way in which anything can be even conditionally demonstrated. That's sort of the Great Existential Mystery/Void we all contemplate at one point or another. And pretty much the only ways to cope with it are either to decline to operate at that level because it feels intuitively useless and wrong or embrace the argument from authority: I know my basic principles are true because God revealed them, and, well, He's God, isn't He? He would know the real deal. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 21:32:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
If one chooses not to grant the validity of any first definitions and postulates whatsover, then there is no framework in which logic can operate and no way in which anything can be even conditionally demonstrated. That's sort of the Great Existential Mystery/Void we all contemplate at one point or another. And pretty much the only ways to cope with it are either to decline to operate at that level because it feels intuitively useless and wrong or embrace the argument from authority: I know my basic principles are true because God revealed them, and, well, He's God, isn't He? He would know the real deal.
Ah, existential despair: the Sickness unto Death. The lack of certainty, the curse of choice, and the understanding of finitude.
And suddenly good and evil cross into Kierkegaard land.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
In my mind, what often makes someone a villain is an assumption that everyone else must conform to what works for that individual.
Doesn't that include small children?
That's disturbing, my dear hamster -- Are our parents villains because they teach us their worldview? Our school teachers? Not saying that they force theirs upon us (or, well, they do, but the degree of success varies), but they do go very far in shaping ours.
I don't think that's as far as Eytan was going, though. He's talking about villains as going against freedom of choice. But doesn't that presuppose "choice" as a kind of universal "good"?
(Again -- sounds existential, though existentialism's take on "goods" is different and exploring the philosophy is outside the scope of this thread.)
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
On a related note, lets talk about the King of the Orcs from the latest Salvatore trilogy.
Obould's a great example.
quote:
The character is the villain but he's a perfect presentation of doing what is "right" for his people. He doesn't want the orcs to live in hovels, holes in the ground, and do nothing but scavenge for their livelihood. He's even willing to open up trade with the rest of the nations around him. In other words, he's no different than any other human conqueror.
Does this make him better or worse than a orc whom is portrayed as pretty much atavistic rage and want incarnate?
He really is no different from any human conqueror. I think the only reasons we call him a villain are 1) ruthless, brutal methods (again, not that different from a human conqueror), 2) he's the antagonist (and thus villain by default), and 3) because our fantasy world (the Realms) labels him as "inherently evil" (which is, of course, a controversial subject -- see Drizzt).
None of those three are particularly telling suppositions. The second we know has no real bearing (you can write a great novel where the villains are the protagonists and the heroes are the antagonists), and the third fails because we see that the concept is largely a fallacy (or, at least, CAN be a fallacy). So we're left with the first one: "ruthless, brutal methods."
In the context in which we're operating (the Realms), a "heroic" conqueror would not resort to "ruthless, brutal methods." Doing so would jeapordize the definition of the character as a "hero" and turn him/her into an "anti-hero" or, at worst, a villain.
So what does that make Obould? Hero, anti-hero, or villain?
Or even anti-villain?
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" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 17 Mar 2006 21:33:57 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Villains in Novels
