So I reread the passages that feature Derek to get a better understanding of him and if I could actually see him as not good. While I think everyone else pretty much agrees that he wasn't good, I've sort of disagreed. I read over the passages that feature him traveling right after they all killed the White Dragon Highlord. While he travels he does nothing that would show him as not being able to be good. Yes he's a little arrogant, but that doesn't make a person not good. He ends up disliking Brightblade, but then I realized.. the guy is a Knight of the Rose and contender for being the leader of the Knights. This guy expects a person who *wants* to be a Knight to follow his orders since he is so high ranking. And to me this totally makes sense. If Derek orders to attack, he would expect a person trying to become a Knight and who is a squire to attack. He's not just some random guy who they found and started ordering around everyone. He singled Sturm out and expected him to follow since according to the Measure, which Sturm professes as following, he is supposed to. Maybe some people don't like the fact.. but its there and totally understandable from derek's point of view. I can see why this would bother him and blossom a dislike for Sturm. But again... nothing evil or "not good" about that. Everyone, even good people, have people they don't like.
Now we come to the part where Sturm and Derek meet up with the other knights and the Council. Derek already has a dislike for Sturm because of the prior incident(s), so he brings up charges so that Sturm will not be able to be in the knighthood. He believes that Sturm does not fit the knighthood and shouldnt be allowed in. Again I have no problem with this because its the right of the individuals in a group or club to decide on who they believe would fit the group and who should belong. No one wants people joining they don't believe belong. Again, I see no evilness in this or him "not being good" because he doesnt want a person he doesnt like in his group. Also remember, the outcome of the trial was never death or anything. Again, it was only so that he wouldn't be able to get in the knighthood.
The next part would be at the High Clerist's Tower. Now this is where you see the big change in Derek. I daresay that hear is where I can see him maybe as considered "not good". It says "his lust for power at away at him and deprived him of his reason". Now this could be where maybe his ambition just pushed the bonds too much. The guy was to the point where he wanted to just show everyone that he could rule and that his way was better.
Now from all this... I can maybe see him as lawful neutral. Actually I know I can see him as lawful neutral. But than again I can also see him as Lawful good also. Yes this man had ambition, in fact I think that combined with his arrogance is why people just falt out dislike the guy. But I still maintain that this alone cannot prevent him from being good. I look at things like this and think.. man alignment is funky. It almost seems as if people expect Good people, especially Lawful Good people, as shining examples of paramount goodness.. and I think this is just plain wrong. Everyone has problems.. I daresay you could even have a prejudiced lawful good person. A man could do good things and try to cause more good in the world.. and just hate kenders.. or dwarves.. or elves. While this may not seem related, I do think it is. A man could still do good in the world and try to do as much as he can all the while trying to put himself at the top and worrying about what exactly is going to happen for him . And this is where I see Derek.
Thats where alignment gets funky. One person sees slavery as evil. Another person sees racism as evil. Another person sees ambition as evil. But nowhere under the Good heading in the PHB or anywhere else does it define exactly what you must do and think to be considered good. Does that mean you must always put other people above your concerns to be Lawful Good? I daresay there wouldn't be any lawful good people left because you would constantly have to try to free all the oppressed people of the world.. and you would die quickly. In my games I have struggled with alignment and have finally taken a more relaxed view of it. As long as I don't see a gross infraction of alignment, I let quirks and things pass. You can be good and try to be the head of the Knighthood and menuever yourself in all ways possible to make it happen, all the while fighting evil and doing good deeds in the world. As long as you arent murdering people, turning a blind eye to people who are in need/helpless, etc.. Now I'm sure many people do not agree with my stance and I'm almost sure my constant naggings on the Derek issue have just annoyed people heh.. I figured I would write a new thread explaining my view.
Comments appreciated
Frankly, i think Derek exemplified Lawful, but didnt do much to sell me on the good or neutral.
Only thing I can think of that would make Derek non good is the bloodlust he was showing for the elves that were following them. He wanted to fight. But also that is described in the measure if someone is threatening you to defend yourself. So overall I agree with you He showed no real inclination to being neutral.
But again, my argument goes even beyond Derek though. I honestly don't remember what happens in Oath and the Measure and funny thing is I forgot to grab it, which is amazing
. I don't think anyone likes Derek. I don't think anyone's heart bleeds for him or thinks hes just an all around great guy. I think my problem comes from people expecting "good" people to be shining examples of goodness who do everything right and only do small things wrong that agonizes them their whole life. I think this is unfair. These people can have personalities that people don't even like.. and can still do "good" and be "good". I especially hate the attitude of the KoS prestige classes being seen as "True Knights". That has hit a spot harder than anything else I think. Those PrC's should be there for anyone who's a knight to use, I believe. It isn't "The True Rightous Good Knight of the Crown". I dunno, it will be interesting if any other "nongood" knights pop up because their personalities don't fit the "pious, good natured, selfless, kind to everyone knight".A man who believes red is good who touches a red button that blows up the world is comparable.
Sturm himself admitted admiration for Derek. At his worst he's not Lawful Neutral I think but half-mad with the coming defeat and destruction of Palanthas.
I think it likely that you will see more knights pop up without levels in the PrC...such as Rennard....You cannot tell me that he fulfills the requirements of the class.....but he was certainly a knight in the organization.
I believe that Rennard at one point was a True KoS. But of course when Morgion got ahold of him, well you know the rest.
hmm basically I hate books that write about a character before another book. Meaning.. the books that describe the companions before the Chronicles, books that describe Derek before the Chronicles, etc. To me, a lot of the stories just don't seem to fit. But again that is pure opinion, others maybe prefer these stories.
If you look over the Chronicles, when he is with Sturm, he doesn't show any kind of "insanity". It didnt seem to begin until the High Clerist's Tower, but other people may think that it started before that.
And again he wasn't keen on just starting a war with the elven nation.. he was in favor of fighting because that is what he prefers. When he is fleeing and trying to bring back the Dragon Orb, I don't see it as an evil or nongood act to want to turn around and fight, hopefully insuring his return by getting rid of his enemies. He saw it as a must that the Dragon Orb get back to the knights and saw the elves as hindering that by shooting arrows at him. I think a lot of people's natural reaction would be to turn and fight. And as to the beheading of Sturm, the guy is a Knight of the Rose and contender for the leadership of the knights who just had a newly made knight refuse a direct order. This is a knighthood who is built upon strict disciple. Discipline is following the direct orders from your superiors. You cannot have every soldier questioning his/her commanders orders in the middle of a military situation. Derek was in the middle of a big military situation that would decide not only the Knights' fates, but possibly the continents. And you don't think the guy would be ****** off when a newly made knight refuses a Knight of the Rose's direct order? The Knights have strict rules for insubordination because they know just how devastating it could be in the wrong situation.
Again, I don't know about the story in Dragons at War. And I do realize it seems like a cop out to say "I dont acknowledge those books". But even if the conversation was the opposite, I still woudnt use those books to reinforce my opinions because I do believe too many of those are loopy. A lot of times they just don't fit, seem hastely done, or just dont seem "researched", for a lack of a better term. I dunno..
Again my whole point for all of this is not that Derek seems like such an ok guy. My point is that I'm wondering just how many more people will be considered "not good" because they do not fit the stereotype of the giving, nice, goodwill, pious, gratuitous, caring, means no harm guy/knight. I do not believe ambition and prejudice automatically gives you a "no good" alignment. Others may disagree, it happens. My other problem is that I realized if there arent all just Lawful Good people on the KoS, than the ones who arent cant even take the prestige classes. And they have turned into "True Knight" prestige classes. I personally believe this a tragedy. But others may feel that this is the way the knighthood should work.
And that sums up Derek. I think Lawful Neutral is the alignment that his behavior reflects. He's not actively engaged in evil when he is introduced into the Chronicles storyline. He is engaged in politicking his main issue with Sturm is that the younger man seems more concerned about fighting Evil than in obeying the hierarchy of the knighthood and following the rules.
Good is an active alignment, not a passive one like Neutrality. You have to actually work at being Good in order to maintaina a Good alignment. After all, even Raistlin did some "good" deeds, but that didn't budge him from his Neutral alignment or prevent his slide into Evil.
So setting aside Derek's later insanity, he really is more caught up in politics and his ambition rather than in honor and doing good. This is not to say that he wants the Dragonarmies to win. But he figures that there will be time to defeat them once he's achieved his own goals. Really a very Lawful Neutral sort of mindset.
Also, its practically obvious that the writer of Derek's stats has looked it over also since it says next to his name "Glory Descending".
Yes, he did.
Cheers,
Cam
This is not to say that he wants the Dragonarmies to win. But he figures that there will be time to defeat them once he's achieved his own goals. Really a very Lawful Neutral sort of mindset.
I highly disagree with this statement here. If Derek wanted to take control of the Knighthood he would not have went to the High Clercist Tower. Yes Derek wanted to rule the Knighthood. He knows that the Dragonarmies is a major threat. He knows that the Dragonarmies are also in the way of him becoming the head of the Knights.
Note that I am not arguing that Derek was coward, nor was I arguing that he was Evil. In practice his immediate goal was keeping Solamnia from being overrun and gaining leadership of the Knighthood. The fate of other lands was not a concern to him.
Derek was meant in the story to epitomize what was wrong with the Knighthood. He suffered from a narrow-mined focus on politics and a disinterest in Good for it's own sake. His actions were driven by the need to advance his own ambitions, not his need to serve a champion of the people. Defending Solamnia and fighting off the Dragonarmies were almost incidental, because obviously he would want to be the leader of a powerful nation and not be threatened an external power.
The morality that I'm describing here isn't automatically an evil one. For example, a Lawful Neutral ruler might prefer his subjects be prosperous and secure because that in turn translates into a stable society that will be content with its rulership. That leader might engage in heroic quests as needed to fend off threats and secure their own position. It's not Evil, it's just not Good either.
Could it be possible that Derek was once good and later "fell from the light" to the side of neutrality due to his ambitions? In game terms Crowngaurd had some levels of KoR, or more likely KoC or KoS, and shifted alignment later on in his career which made him ineligible to gain further levels in a Knight PrC?
Very likely. It's not unusual for people to start out idealistic when they're young and become cynical as they get more involved in politics. Sturm was certainly disappointed by how the upper ranks of the Knights had become so legalistic. But maybe Derek thought he could change the system from within and ended up becoming part of the problem?
These books were were written before the 3.5 or even the Dragonlance Adventures book was out. How do we bring the two or even 3 systems together? We cant always do that, though it would have been nice to see Derek with at least levels in Knight.