Raistlin was evil, but in my mind he didn't do anything really cruel. He mostly just wanted to be left alone. True, he did kill that gnome. I'll give you that.
I'm again deciding whether I want to be a male human black robed wizard, male elf white robed wizard, or female human white robed wizard. Other combinations don't interest me all that much at this moment.
Jafar from Aladdin is evil. Scar from The Lion King is evil.
But Raistlin, his biggest downfall seems to be that he wants to be left alone.
But Raistlin, his biggest downfall seems to be that he wants to be left alone.
That, and kill people who get in his way toward godhood.
Cheers,
Cam
Raistlin was evil, but in my mind he didn't do anything really cruel. He mostly just wanted to be left alone. True, he did kill that gnome. I'll give you that.
I dunno if he wanted to be left alone. He had some sort of bizarre experiments in his lab that produce some heinous creatures, and you wonder if it was some kind of living subjects before they became heinous.
That, and kill people who get in his way toward godhood.
Ya, but mostly the people that get in his way can at least defend themselves (Fistandantilus). Save the poor gnome.
I don't consider that on the same level as going out and slaughtering woman and children for the heck of it.
I don't consider that on the same level as going out and slaughtering woman and children for the heck of it.
Not everybody evil does that. Essentially, Raistlin is an evil character because he places himself ahead of others in his ambition for power. His compassion for some characters is an atypical side to his normal behavior. Being nice to Bupu doesn't make Raistlin a nice person.
Cheers,
Cam
That, and kill people who get in his way toward godhood.
Yep. And don't forget about the whole friggin' war he started, just so he could make his way to Zhaman.
Or the way he relentless marched his army ahead of the supply lines killing many of them on the way so that he could get to get to Zhaman sooner.
Or that he sold his brother to Dewar dwarf clans to buy their loyalty.
Or his callous tossing aside of Crysania when she was no longer of used to him (presumably, she was out of spells and daily turning...to put it in D&D terms).
Or the killing of Gnimsh...or Gnosh or whatever that gnome's name was.
Or leaving his friends to die in the Blood Sea.
Yeah, Raistlin may not have started evil, and he may have even been pulled away from his dark path at the end of his life/unlife. But for a while, his selfishness, his blatant disregard for the suffereing he caused to people around him, and his arrogance truly made him an evil man for a portion of his life.
He sacrificed himself in the end though, did his alignment change?
That would depend entirely on whether you think it mattered after that point or not.
This is the kind of debate people have been having about Raistlin for twenty years now, so you can be sure there won't be a definitive answer. We are left to consider the morality of Raistlin's actions as compared to his brother's and those of Crysania, as Legends is very much a tale of consequences.
Cheers,
Cam
The philosophical questions that remains unanswered in Legends are: Can evil redeem itself and if so, what would it take? Can a single act of compassion redeem one's soul, even if it does save the world in Raistlin's case? Could Hitler have become good before his suicide and what would it have taken?
The young Raistlin, who wants to learn magic to help the others is definetly good. But the proud Raistlin starts looking at magic as a tool to gain the repect of others, slowly shifting to a neutral alignment. During his Test, he pacts with Fistandantilus shifting further on towards darkness. After the War of the Lance, Raistlin thinks, that he holds the absolute truth and is ready to do whatever it takes to realize his ambitions (which is my definition of an evil person). Blinded by his dream of building the perfect world, he becames a god and erases each form of life from Krynn. But fate gives Raistlin a second chance, Caramon and Tas travel back in time and explain him the consequences of his acts. Raistlin recognizes his evil conduct and redeemes himself sacrificing his soul for the ethernity in order to prevent the Queen of Darkness entering Krynn (definitely good).
Curiously, when he escapes (or is released) from the Abyss, Raistlin repudes magic forever, fearing if he uses magic again, he will fall into the darkness once more (good "magicholic" alignment)
Note: I do think, that Hitler commited suicide because he failed, in order to avoid the punishment of the Allies.
The philosophical questions that remains unanswered in Legends are: Can evil redeem itself and if so, what would it take? Can a single act of compassion redeem one's soul, even if it does save the world in Raistlin's case? Could Hitler have become good before his suicide and what would it have taken?
Evil cannot redeem itself. Someone who was labeled evil by the deeds he has done can. HOWEVER, one should not expect redemption to erase his past history.
To be fair to Raistlin, the gnome killing was a form of self defense. He came from the future, so knew that a Gnome was destined to interupt his spell by activating a time travel device, which would kill him. So, in this case, it was kill or be killed a little later on.
Umm, or he could have just taken the device from him without killing him, or time travel 5 mins later, or go back in time and stop the gnome from getting the device etc etc
Evil cannot redeem itself.
I'm not sure I agree. To know for sure, I'd need to know what exactly you mean by "cannot redeem itself". Do you mean that an evil person cannot take any action to change his own alignment? If so, I do not agree.
Raistlin himself tend's towards neutrality without Fistandantalus's influence. After all, Passed the Legend of the Twins he mostly does good, not evil.
I don't think you can say, "to be evil, one must do X." It's too simplistic. There are many different forms of evil and if someone is saying "I'm not evil b/c I didn't do X," chances are they are indeed evil and simply looking for loopholes. ;)
Granted, it's a fine line, especially when one is a soldier.
Evil is the absence of good.
That sounds like Neutral to me.
In fact, a good person doesn't have to be doing good deeds every last second of the day, so a Good alignment may fit your definition.
I'm not sure I agree. To know for sure, I'd need to know what exactly you mean by "cannot redeem itself". Do you mean that an evil person cannot take any action to change his own alignment? If so, I do not agree.
He can take any action toward redemption. But the stigma of his past action remains, especially if it involves harming/torturing a person or ending one's life. I believe that evil action itself cannot be erased or redeemed. You can only counter it with good actions.
well if someone is classified as evil what if they are just a lost soul with no one to look to or to love? wouldn't Raistlin be like that?
The "lost soul" explanation, IMNSHO, sounds more like a roundabout excuse for his evil deeds. To some good-aligned deities, anyone who does evil deeds or allow evil deeds to be performed (hence the phrase, "evil wins when good men do nothing") are considered lost souls. And lost souls are easy targets for evil-aligned deities (though they prefer to corrupt the very good ones).
That's the motivating point, the actions justify and explain the motivation. Rasitlin is evil because he's always the first thought on his mind, his ambitions, his desires.....while his brother's first thought is of others, his brother, his friends, that random villager he's never going to meet but who will benifit personally by his actions.
... Evil is not necessarily a bad thing.
I have said it before and I will say it again ...
... Evil is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's typically the definition of a bad thing.
Cheers,
Cam
It's typically the definition of a bad thing.
No. Not really. It depends on your perspective. Is being greedy evil? Well it could be, but then you are saying that stadiums are evil because they charge $5 for a beer. But yet, they are making a profit and keeping the stadium running. So, is that a bad thing? not necessarily. Let's take it to DnD terms. The bartender who throws out bums ... is he evil? it is certainly not a good act. And yet, by throwing out the bums, he is able to attract nicer clientele and thus keep his business running and put food on the table for his family. So, was it a bad thing? Again ... not necessarily.
Good people can do evil acts. Evil people can do good things. If a good person does an evil act, is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so.
hence, why I stick with my original statement. Evil is not necessarily a bad thing.
Good people can do evil acts. Evil people can do good things. If a good person does an evil act, is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so.
I think you're actually confusing questionable or morally difficult actions with evil. We may be required to do questionable or morally difficult things in order to achieve a greater good, but that's not evil. And if you do end up doing something that is clearly malicious, harmful, or injurious to somebody else in order to achieve something good, then it's still a bad thing that you were forced to do it, regardless of the end result.
Cheers,
Cam
I think you're actually confusing questionable or morally difficult actions with evil.
And how in DnD terms and in terms of alignment can you define questionable or morally difficult actions??
And how in DnD terms and in terms of alignment can you define questionable or morally difficult actions??
That's what a player's and DM's judgment is for.
That's what a player's and DM's judgment is for.
Yes, but that is the point. So, when all of these things are taken into consideration ... how do these acts change or make an alignment? If a good person does evil acts, are they good or evil? And if they are evil, then is that a bad thing because of it? I say that they might be evil for those acts, but that it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And how in DnD terms and in terms of alignment can you define questionable or morally difficult actions??
You don't.
You don't.
That is my point ... I was being facetious.
Cheers,
Cam
I suppose what I'm wondering is, why would you claim that evil isn't necessarily a bad thing? Does this come out of trying to justify to yourself why you like villainous characters, or the Dark Side in Star Wars, etc? Does it make it more palatable to think that you're not wrong or bad to play or enjoy evil characters?
Ummm ... no ... funny comparison ... but no.
Try comparing acts in real life... I know that I have lived long enough to compare it. Is the IRS evil? They can certainly be said to be doing bad things because they are taking part of your pay check. They have their reasons and the benefits to society certainly prove that... but couldn't you use the money for some benefit to yourself? Many people think of the IRS as evil .. but are they bad?
The answer is no ... evil is merely a perception of actions that people take. I am certain that the person taking those actions doesn't look at them and go ... I'm evil. They have their reasons for doing it and they may believe that they are the right reasons, but does that make them bad? Not necessarily. I feel like I am starting to sound like a broken record. Is murder in self-defense evil? It is not considered a crime and yet someone is now dead and murder is considered evil. But the person was protecting themselves ... so was it a bad thing? I don't think so.
The point to all of this is that it is relative. If you live in a world of black and white then everything is straight and narrow. I think that the world is much more broad than that and what we see is gray. Ambiguity. Some good. Some bad.
Oh and one more thing ... tell me how to give an alignment to moral ambiguity and you will have your answer.
Morality doesnt really represent Good or Evil.....culture defines morals.
You could have a Lawful Evil Tyrannt that gave to the poor, helped the impovrished, and oppossed crimes against what we consider "against basic human rights". But that only applyed to his race or nation, everyone else was scum.
He may be a very loving husband, a devote follower of his faith and a good Dad, unless your a elf, then your less than a sewer rat.
While thoses on the outside may see him as "evil" his own people man see him as a Hero, and a Merciful leader.
Take Hitler for instance, folks loved him....
Just my thoughts....
And those thoughts are exactly the point that I was trying to make.
I think your original point was "evil is not always a bad thing" which doesn't make a lot of sense. What's your definition of evil? That matters. Is it the selfish desire to put yourself before others regardless of what harm that does to them? Is it the goal of causing others injury or harm as an end in itself? Either of those would work.
An evil person is one who performs morally bad actions. By saying this is not always a bad thing you're essentially trying to propose that intentional acts of harm or injury upon another are not always bad things, because of greater good that may be achieved, because of duty, because of self-defense, etc.
The characters that we know of as villainous or evil in fiction and in history are regarded as such because of their wicked actions. Raistlin counts. Justifying or explaining or apologizing for these actions is the role of the storyteller, in part to demonstrate that there are reasons for why people do these things, such as trauma in their lives, ignorance of what is right and wrong, an amoral stance towards the world, and so forth. But none of this actually removes their evil nature, it just provides the context.
Evil is always a bad thing. It is defined as being morally bad things. Questionable morality, such as the kind carried out by vigilantes or freedom fighters or insurrectionists or terrorists, may be described in gaming terms as a neutral component as regards to good and evil; such a character simply doesn't consider good and evil when carrying out actions, whether through ignorance or belief. And sometimes, the results of evil actions can have consequences that may be defined as good, or an evil person can realize after many evil acts that he is wrong or feels guilt, and attempts to right those wrongs. None of this makes the person good, however, unless their view of the world has altered in such a way as to make them no longer carry out evil actions in future.
In a nutshell, then, I think "evil's not always a bad thing" is simply a way of justifying an admiration for or enjoyment of villainous or evil characters. If that's what you need to do in order to do that, great! It doesn't make them good characters, any more than it makes you an evil person for liking those characters.
Cheers,
Cam
I think your original point was "evil is not always a bad thing" which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Evil is not always a bad thing, it depends on how you look at it, like you have already seemed to state.
We might see terrorist as evil, but what kind of feelings did the British have for American Revolutionarys.....
It is a matter of prespective.
You could technically have two Lawful Good Paladins, each with different deitys and theologies duking it out....The possibility is there, even more so when you consider how real world religions have responded to each other in our past.
The Crusaders may not have felt what they where doing was wrong, even though muslims were their targets, but neither did the muslims feel they where wrong.
You had to religous organizations, both claiming the virtualy same God, and both considering their acts a rightous and "good".
Thats not to say that men did "evil" things to each other on both sides of the fence.
The more I consider things like that, and the fact that you cant really base real world figures into a "Alignment" system, the more i think WotC should drop the whole alignment system.
Ebberon seems to only hold on to alignment only as a way to balance classes, the deities could care less what alignment their worshippers are.....
A DM would better his whole game, to me, by only applying alignment until after the PCs have say reached 5th level, att hat point the DM can discuss with the Player his characters actions, then apply the best alignment for them, then if latter on the Players "slip" from the ethics of that alignment the DM can apply some sort of shifting rule, kinda like the system used in NWN2 (Never Winternights 2).
But like I said this is just my opinion, and the Nature of evil could be discussed untill the Introduction of D&D v.10....:D
In a nutshell, then, I think "evil's not always a bad thing" is simply a way of justifying an admiration for or enjoyment of villainous or evil characters. If that's what you need to do in order to do that, great! It doesn't make them good characters, any more than it makes you an evil person for liking those characters.
You think what you want, but at my age ... I think not. You obviously are not comprehending at all what I am saying. And that within itself is sad... but unfortunate. There isn't much that I can say about that.
You are also stereotyping about something that you know nothing about. What is the real shame is that with screen names, we never truly know who is on the other side. And here you take an icon and some saying and you think that you know a person when in actuality, you don't.
If you want to post about an idea ... go ahead. You want to make a personal attack ... well ... that's just juvenile.
You have got exactly what I have been saying.
Thank you.
If you want to post about an idea ... go ahead. You want to make a personal attack ... well ... that's just juvenile.
It wasn't a personal attack. There are hundreds of people who are drawn to characters of various persuasions, including the bad guys.
It does sound like you'd be better off getting rid of alignment in your own games, at any rate. This thread's mainly been about what evil is, in reference to Dragonlance, and if you're not happy with a fantasy application of morality as it's represented in DL novels and game books, the thread's not going to be of much help to you.
Cheers,
Cam
It wasn't a personal attack. There are hundreds of people who are drawn to characters of various persuasions, including the bad guys.
You say that it wasn't a personal attack and yet you go and make this comparison when you are even ignoring what other people are saying who are saying the same thing that I am saying.
Interesting. Perhaps there is a hidden agenda here .... or a blindness.
Curiously, when he escapes (or is released) from the Abyss, Raistlin repudes magic forever, fearing if he uses magic again, he will fall into the darkness once more (good "magicholic" alignment)
Kind of like Caramon giving up dwarf spirits. He didn't just give that up, he gave up alcohol period.
Most people I term as evil like say Hitler, believed that they were doing good.
No sane person purposly does evil.
It is more of starting with good intentions then getting carried away.
Or a completely different viewpoint from another.
The spanish believed the aztecs were evil because they sacrificed humans the aztecs believed they were doing good because sacrificng humans satisfied the good and prevent the destrucion of the world. Good and evil is depedent upon P.O.F. Point. of. View.
That sounds like Neutral to me.
In fact, a good person doesn't have to be doing good deeds every last second of the day, so a Good alignment may fit your definition.
"The graetest evil is committed when good men do nothing."
You think what you want, but at my age ... I think not. You obviously are not comprehending at all what I am saying. And that within itself is sad... but unfortunate. There isn't much that I can say about that.
You are also stereotyping about something that you know nothing about. What is the real shame is that with screen names, we never truly know who is on the other side. And here you take an icon and some saying and you think that you know a person when in actuality, you don't.
If you want to post about an idea ... go ahead. You want to make a personal attack ... well ... that's just juvenile.
You're obviously old and very wise. Any ways, your rant sounded more like a "personal attack" than anything anyone else has said in this thread (not to get involved...)
But this is not the first thing I will address. The Murder in self defense thing posted by EEHamburg. Murder is never in self-defense, murder is premeditated and an intententionally act to take somebody's life. Self-defense is precisely that, you are defending yourself against someone who is attempting to harm you and if you kill someone in that process then, it would be more like manslaughter but not murder (my opinion).
Now on to that evil is not a always a bad thing. It is evil to take another's life intentionally when there is no threat to your own. The typical historical example that can be best used is that of the assassin, or more precisely the sniper. This is a person who knows that what he is doing is an evil act of murder but sees it as a necesity in order to inhibit the enemy from performing acts against his country or perhaps his fellow soldiers. If a soldier had been able to assassinate hitler during the start of world war II he would have saved millions of people from being massacred, but he would still have committed an evil act of murder intentionally. Now a way that many have tried (or have been portrayed to try) to help settle their own morality in these situations is to offer the target a way to defend themselves, for instance offering a sword or possibly a gun. Now if the person decides to pick up the offered "defense" this might seem more honorable but the assassin (who assumably is a higly trained killer) is still intending to kill said target, the only way this might be less evil (IMHO) is if the target is more skilled with the defensive weapon than the assassin, but if not then even though the target has a weapon it is still unfair.
A good example that I have seen is in the movie Serenity. The agent sent after the girl River knows that he is evil and he embraces it because he believes that he is fighting for a better society and does not even expect to live in that society because he is evil. The minute he realizes that the government he is working for is the not the good and noble one he thought he stops chasing the girl and even lets her go.
The classic example that we have (and one that seems to have brought up unescesary comments from someone I thought was above that, yeah Cam I talking about you, because you made an assumption about someone on the boards when Darth Vader had not even been mentioned, just his Icon had been used) is of course Vader. Yes Vader is evil, but beyond that the emperor is utterly evil. The difference is that Vader was convinced (again as the example above) that it was necesary to do so in order to ensure peace and to prevent more bloodshed whereas the emperor simply wanted power for his own use, not for some higher or better purpose. Yes they are both evil, but one could say that one is necesary and the other is not (one could say that).
Now what do Vader and Raistlin have in common, yes they both sacrificed themselves at the end in order to stop evil. But was this because they were trying to do good, or was it for their own selfish reasons?
The way I see it, Vader did what he did because he wanted to save his son, not the rest of the galaxy. Raistlin did it because he did not want to be a god over nothing, what is the point of power if there is nobody to lord it over? (or so he saw it). So they both did it for selfish reasons.
Now because this is Dragonlance I will go on to the biggest example we have, Tanis. Everyone can agree that Tanis is an upstanding and good fellow, but he murders Ariakas, flat-out. Does'nt even give him a chance to defend himself (gods of krynn please forgive if I am wrong on the details, it has been over a year since I last read the chronicles). This in itself is an evil act, but it causes the dragonarmies to fall in upon themselves and prevents even more bloodshed against innocents. Dragonlance states that evil will feed upon itself, so evil will defeat evil, eventually. This is stating that sometimes evil is not always a bad thing, because evil will stop itself, or make itself more vulnerable to those that work to oppose it. Even Weis and Hickman go along with this (or so I assume) in the writing of the Chaos war. The gods decided that a united front was necesary in order to defeat Chaos and Evil had the best chance of accomplshing said front. So yes, and I am sorry for disagreeing with you Cam, but yes sometimes Evil is not always a bad thing, it is still evil but it is not always bad.
To use a quote from one of my favorites movies.
"Without dark there is no light. Without evil there is no good. If every day is a sunny, then what is a sunny day? So evil, EVIL, must be good. Evil is good. That's right say it together. Evil is good."
For those of you who are cinematicly challenged the quote comes from Eddie Murphy's "A Vampire In Brooklyn." There is a little bit more to the scene but this is a PG-rated board:D :D :D :D :D
In my opinion, Raistlin goes through the three alignments during his life.
The young Raistlin, who wants to learn magic to help the others is definetly good. But the proud Raistlin starts looking at magic as a tool to gain the repect of others, slowly shifting to a neutral alignment. During his Test, he pacts with Fistandantilus shifting further on towards darkness. After the War of the Lance, Raistlin thinks, that he holds the absolute truth and is ready to do whatever it takes to realize his ambitions (which is my definition of an evil person). Blinded by his dream of building the perfect world, he becames a god and erases each form of life from Krynn. But fate gives Raistlin a second chance, Caramon and Tas travel back in time and explain him the consequences of his acts. Raistlin recognizes his evil conduct and redeemes himself sacrificing his soul for the ethernity in order to prevent the Queen of Darkness entering Krynn (definitely good).
Curiously, when he escapes (or is released) from the Abyss, Raistlin repudes magic forever, fearing if he uses magic again, he will fall into the darkness once more (good "magicholic" alignment)
Note: I do think, that Hitler commited suicide because he failed, in order to avoid the punishment of the Allies.
Raistlin = Anakin Skywalker in a way...
I'm assuming that you ment killing in self-defense, which actually is a crime, unless you accidentaly do it, like punching someone and he falls down on a stone. You can hit someone until they're unconscious, but after that you may not do anything more. Using a weapon is a crime, so shooting someone is a crime, even in self-defense.