Jump to content


The Knight Rogue, chapter 3


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 08 November 2002 - 11:34 PM

Thanks to everyone for your commentary on the last chapter, which did put my nervousness to rest (for now :-)). Anyway, here's the second-last chapter of Vivi's introduction.

 

Vivienne slipped into the library, silently closing the door behind her. The philosophy classes had been reaching a fever pitch lately, especially with the upcoming tests. That meant that the library was generally crowded at all convenient times of the day. Vivienne had found a good solution, however; already accustomed to odd hours of the day, she simply decided that she'd go to the library and study early in the morning, when few of the squires were up.

In actuality, she found the classes rather boring but the material quite interesting. Leaving off the rather pompous approach of the instructors (not really their fault, she figured) - she found herself agreeing with a lot of what they taught, which was a good sign. For all of their pomposity, the instructors didn't expect instant agreement, just understanding of why it was that knights believed certain things and the logical underpinnings for those beliefs. Even people who disagreed violently were accepted, although it was implicit that severe disagreement meant that knighthood was probably not for them.

There wasn't anything particularly prejudicial or unfair about that judgement, either. If you didn't believe in justice, well, you simply had no business being a knight. Everyone understood that. Well, everyone except Boggy, but he was another matter entirely.

"An early student! That's always a good sign!" someone said from the librarian's desk as Vivienne turned the corner. She didn't recognize the man on duty, but he was probably one of the senior knights, as he wore the dusky-purple armour of high rank.

The man waved her forward. "Old Gerard's sick today, so I'm taking his place for the time being. Being a librarian's not too bad, I think. And an old knight like me appreciates a spot of serenity every now and then. So, what can I do for you?"

"I'm looking for a work of Castellian. A Critical Examination of Knightly Ethics, I think it was called."

"Ah! Castellian! Yes, I read some of it when I was young. Quite an old piece, though. Now, let me see...." He leafed through a catalogue for a few seconds. "Here it is. I'll fetch it for you."

"Oh, you don't have to," Vivi began, but he waved her off.

"Nonsense! I'll grow all stiff I sit here all day doing nothing. Ah, here it is." He picked the book off the shelf and handed it over. "Will you be reading it here?"

"Yes, I'll probably find a corner somewhere."

"Good! I can't say 'enjoy yourself' with a work like Castellian's, but do try to stay awake!" He smiled, and Vivi smiled back, then headed off to find her corner.

A small, well-lit reading desk was quickly located, and Vivienne sat down and opened the book. She didn't expect it to be a particularly fun experience, and it most definitely wasn't. Not only was it written in an ancient form of Common, but, for a "critical examination" it certainly espoused some very traditional values of knighthood.

Obviously, Vivi supported a number of things it said - knighthood hadn't changed that much. Respect for individuals, the protection of the oppressed and downtrodden, the establishment of a solid yet merciful system to deal with the natural disorder of society - fairly standard, actually. It furthermore went into some detail on justice, the practice of and the theoretical goals of, and Vivi didn't find a particular problem with any of that, either.

Outside of that, Castellian then continued to explain some things which he felt were anathema to knighthood. Again, most of the items on the list were fairly simple, with fairly simple explanations - for example, there were some easily defined evils which were to be avoided by any knight. The problem Vivi had with the book began when it got into what it acknowledged was a gray area regarding good and evil. On this the book's word was absolute - nothing with even a hint of taint should be tolerated, and went into long and involved explanation why this should be so. Vivienne was not happy with this, disagreeing greatly with what Castellian said. It bothered her for another reason, though.

However much she had tried to ignore it, the division between what she was and what she was becoming was becoming much sharper in her life and in her mind. She still enjoyed getting out and about Tantras with the Grayclaws. It was fun, among other things, and she did feel good about a number of things she did in their company, such as teaching Lord Patrice Vaubon about better ways to use his money. But she was also increasingly more interested in the idea of being a knight, which did happen to conflict with her life with the Grayclaws. The fact was, she did believe in justice, and she did believe in a number of core knightly values - Arlo hadn't been wrong when he said that he saw the makings of a knight in her. She truly had the potential.

Which is what made her situation so difficult. She was also one of the most talented people in the Grayclaws (even if she wasn't officially a Grayclaw). Often she'd pick locks other people couldn't, or filch things from experienced thieves' pockets so expertly that they swore up and down she'd never touched them. And she had an uncanny ability to remain unheard that most veteran rogues were hard pressed to duplicate. So it was not inaccurate to say that she had potential there, as well.

As it was, there were two competing influences almost tearing her apart. Part of her did want to become a knight, to do the right things the way a knight could. And yet part of her didn't want to let go of what she had been, and how she had done the right things in a different way, as well. She disagreed with Castellian - but did that mean that she was right, or that Castellian was and that she shouldn't be a knight? That second thought pained her, in a somewhat indescribable manner.

She turned her attention back to the book, hoping it would get her mind off that melancholy path, but it did the furthest thing from. Castellian was still in the middle of his tirade against what he perceived as immorality, and launched into the written equivalent of a screaming invective. Vivi's expression grew more and more tense as she read through Castellian's vigorous condemnation of various activities such as hiding in the shadows, and finally, unable to stand it, she picked up the book and hurled it against the wall.

"Is everything all right?" the replacement librarian said, heading into the corner. Then he spotted the book lying on the floor, and walked quickly over to it. "You know, I've heard before that Castellian inspires some serious disagreement, though this, I admit, is new to me." His kindly tone took the potential sting out of his words.

He knelt and checked over the book quickly, and satisfied that it was not damaged, he turned back to Vivi. "So...that looks like the face of someone who's very unsure of herself. What's on your mind?"

"Nothing," she said. Then she sighed. "Just...well, it's hard to understand."

He shrugged and pulled up another chair. "That's all right. There's plenty of time if you'd like to explain."

And she did. After having bottled up all that pressure inside herself for so long, it was a relief to let someone know. The fact that she didn't really know him made it easier, in a way, as she wasn't sure how anyone else she knew would have reacted to the news. She told him everything about what she'd done in the past, what she was doing now, and how there were two forces that were ripping her in half.

When she was done, the senior knight leaned back in his chair and said, "Well...I don't think there's quite as much of a problem as you think there is."

"How can it be less of a problem?" Vivienne asked bitterly. "It's like opposite ends of a spectrum!"

"Not quite. I think you're exaggerating it."

"If anything, I think I'd be understating it," Vivi said. "Castellian, after all, seems to treat all kinds of rogues as soulsucking spawn of the Gray Waste."

The knight chuckled. "True, but remember, Castellian's book is old. Very old, in fact, and it's placed on the syllabus nowadays mostly to spur discussion about how things have changed."

"So why do you think it's so much less of a problem?" Vivi challenged.

"Well, let's say that the idealism has faded somewhat over the years. Castellian wrote back when things still weren't very clear, and there was still a certain degree of idealism over what could be accomplished. Paladins and knightly orders were expected to do much of what they are expected to now, but there were also poetic visions of a true paradise of ultimate justice." The knight paused, pondering his next words. "So knights of the time were quite single-minded in their quests, their objective being to eliminate all evil and all disorder, as opposed to making things better. Unfortunately, these quests were...unsuccessful. Though they tried very hard."

"Because you can't eliminate evil and disorder," Vivi said.

The knight nodded. "Essentially...yes. We don't look for the destruction of evil, exactly, as much as the promotion of good, which can be quite a different matter entirely. Especially since eventually, some situations may force us to descend to the level of evil to eliminate evil, which is simply pointless. Now, as I was saying, the goals of the paladins of ages past were fixed entirely on this artistic creation of perfect good. That was their objective and nothing else would suffice. And they wrote that way, as you can see."

Vivi nodded. "I can see that...but what's changed?"

"People have, for the most part, discarded these dangerous illusions of perfection, especially since when striving for perfection and only perfection there is the chance that you sacrifice too much along the way. When your eyes are fixed on the stars, you lose sight of the road ahead. So the focus has changed from Castellian's ideal of total 'justice in all minutiae' to a more pragmatic approach of aiming for whatever the best possible just society happens to be."

Vivi nodded again, and the knight continued. "And we all know that the Grayclaws certainly aren't bad at all when it comes to thieves' guilds. I'm sure any city in Amn, or Baldur's Gate or Westgate or Suzail or any other major city would love to have a thieves' guild like the Grayclaws, who generally leave the people alone and who try not to be a nuisance in daily life. And it's not as if they're particularly unjust, either. After all, I'd be the first to say that they do make sure some nobles get their due - like Lord Vaubon."

Vivi started slightly at the mention of Lord Vaubon, but it looked as if he was just throwing out an example, not that he was accusing her.

"So it's probably a safe assumption," the knight concluded, "That Castellian's theory really doesn't apply to current conditions. Experience since the time he wrote it has borne out the fact that seeking to destroy evil only, and zealously hunting anything that even has a hint of evil, is really the wrong way to go. Instead, fairness, order, and freedom for everyone - that's what the modern knight works for. The Grayclaws even do a bit of that, too - so we can hardly say that it'll be held against you."

Vivienne sighed. "Sure. I guess I do feel a bit better now that I know that the knight path won't be completely doomed. Still doesn't really help me as to where I should go, which I should choose."

"Well...why do you need to choose? One of the things the Order of the Golden Lion stresses is the tenet of loyalty. Loyalty to family, to friends, to the people to whom you have a duty. But above all, there is loyalty to yourself. You are both things, Vivienne Delacroix, both the knight and the rogue. To choose either would be to betray part of yourself. So choose both."

"Hah! You make it sound so easy," Vivienne said. "But it's hardly an easy thing to do."

"Nothing worth it is ever easy," the knight said. "But you'll find it is far less difficult than you believe. Don't change a thing. Finish your time here at the Order, keep visiting your Grayclaw friends. I don't think anyone would object to that. After all, even the stodgiest of the knights here would admit there are rogues who are great heroes. I'd imagine that many of them have shared an adventure or two with them, as well!"

"I...I suppose. I have to admit, I am feeling better about this whole mess," she said with a small smile.

The knight beamed. "Good! Because I'd hate to see any young, promising squire be distracted by something so small."

"Thank you. Thanks a lot. It...it does seem a lot clearer now." She sighed. "Although sometimes, I wish that Torm himself might come down from the Mount and let me know things are going well, just so I wouldn't have to suffer through so much anxiety."

"My child," the knight said, raising his gauntlets so that Vivienne could see the words written all over them, the words 'loyalty' and 'duty' in thousands of languages, "what do you think I've just done?"

Then he smiled, and vanished.


#2 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 12:20 AM

> Vivienne slipped into the library, silently closing the door behind her.

> The philosophy classes had been reaching a fever pitch lately, especially

> with the upcoming tests.

Knights study philosophy? Good for them!

> There wasn't anything particularly prejudicial or unfair about that

> judgement, either. If you didn't believe in justice, well, you simply had

> no business being a knight.

I am really interested in this philosophy instruction. I hope we will see more of that (and the ethics of being a knight in general) in future.

Would people in this society openly say that 'they don't believe in justice'? I think in RL most people think they do. They just disagree vastly about just what it is.

> As it was, there were two competing influences almost tearing her apart.

> Part of her did want to become a knight, to do the right things the way a

> knight could. And yet part of her didn't want to let go of what she had

> been, and how she had done the right things in a different way, as well.

> She disagreed with Castellian - but did that mean that she was right, or

> that Castellian was and that she shouldn't be a knight? That second

> thought pained her, in a somewhat indescribable manner.

Ouch! I sense a calling on the way!

ยด

> And she did. After having bottled up all that pressure inside herself for

> so long, it was a relief to let someone know. The fact that she didn't

> really know him made it easier, in a way, as she wasn't sure how anyone

> else she knew would have reacted to the news. She told him everything

> about what she'd done in the past, what she was doing now, and how there

> were two forces that were ripping her in half.

Realistic reaction.

> "So knights of the time were quite single-minded in their quests,

> their objective being to eliminate all evil and all disorder, as opposed

> to making things better. Unfortunately, these quests were...unsuccessful.

> Though they tried very hard."

The very idea scares me to the core.

> "Because you can't eliminate evil and disorder," Vivi said.

Aye.

> The knight nodded. "Essentially...yes. We don't look for the

> destruction of evil, exactly, as much as the promotion of good, which can

> be quite a different matter entirely.

That I can wholeheartedly accept. I have always felt repulsed about 'good' 'paladins' to whom being good means killing everyone who is evil.

> "Well...why do you need to choose? One of the things the Order of the

> Golden Lion stresses is the tenet of loyalty. Loyalty to family, to

> friends, to the people to whom you have a duty. But above all, there is

> loyalty to yourself. You are both things, Vivienne Delacroix, both the

> knight and the rogue. To choose either would be to betray part of

> yourself. So choose both."

I LIKE this guy!

> "My child," the knight said, raising his gauntlets so that

> Vivienne could see the words written all over them, the words 'loyalty'

> and 'duty' in thousands of languages, "what do you think I've just

> done?"

> Then he smiled, and vanished.

Woah! Now that I didn't see coming! Loved the ending, very touching!

... and you just made me say that I like Torm, the god of paladins and obedience. I will have my revenge one day.


Road of redemption

#3 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 02:16 AM

> Knights study philosophy? Good for them!

They had better. Knights aren't just a strong arm for the church. They represent the church, for good or for ill, and so they should know inside and out the philosophical bases for their church's stance - and should be able to question and confront them to make sure they really believe them.

That's why I am rather unsettled at the depictions of "paladunces". Simply put, if they were really that arrogant, stupid, or whatever, they wouldn't have been made knights - or paladins in the first place, for that matter. Which is why I always portray the arrogant stuck-ups as squires...because they'd never make it past that stage.

> I am really interested in this philosophy instruction. I hope we will see

> more of that (and the ethics of being a knight in general) in future.

More when Vivi hits the prime time in my NWN story, believe you me :-D Actually, Kal takes the subject up with Anomen in AtG, as well.

> Would people in this society openly say that 'they don't believe in

> justice'? I think in RL most people think they do. They just disagree

> vastly about just what it is.

True, but when I use the word "justice" I apply it to the sense the reader will be familiar with. For example, Cyric's faithful see justice as whoever is stronger getting whatever they can take, but no one here would associate that concept with justice.

> That I can wholeheartedly accept. I have always felt repulsed about 'good'

> 'paladins' to whom being good means killing everyone who is evil.

Exactly. Killing someone evil doesn't necessarily promote good.

> ... and you just made me say that I like Torm, the god of paladins and

> obedience. I will have my revenge one day.

*pumps fist in the air* VICTORY! :-)

Anyway, I like Torm. As for his portfolio - he represents the good side of obedience and loyalty. The bad side is illustrated perfectly on Acheron, and that's not Torm's kind of place.

And as for your revenge - bring it on :D


#4 Guest_Anonymous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 02:37 AM

> Thanks to everyone for your commentary on the last chapter, which did put

> my nervousness to rest (for now :P). Anyway, here's the second-last

> chapter of Vivi's introduction.

Oh, I loved this chapter :-)

> In actuality, she found the classes rather boring but the material quite

> interesting. Leaving off the rather pompous approach of the instructors

> (not really their fault, she figured) - she found herself agreeing with a

> lot of what they taught, which was a good sign. For all of their

> pomposity, the instructors didn't expect instant agreement, just

> understanding of why it was that knights believed certain things and the

> logical underpinnings for those beliefs. Even people who disagreed

> violently were accepted, although it was implicit that severe disagreement

> meant that knighthood was probably not for them.

*grins* It's really good that knights take philosophy! It was my favorite subject, although, something tells me that they dont discuss Plato or Aristotle. :-D

> There wasn't anything particularly prejudicial or unfair about that

> judgement, either. If you didn't believe in justice, well, you simply had

> no business being a knight. Everyone understood that. Well, everyone

> except Boggy, but he was another matter entirely.

*groans* I can image. *sigh*

> "Ah! Castellian! Yes, I read some of it when I was young. Quite an

> old piece, though. Now, let me see...." He leafed through a catalogue

> for a few seconds. "Here it is. I'll fetch it for you."

> "Nonsense! I'll grow all stiff I sit here all day doing nothing. Ah,

> here it is." He picked the book off the shelf and handed it over.

> "Will you be reading it here?"

He is really, really nice. I like him :D

> "Yes, I'll probably find a corner somewhere."

> "Good! I can't say 'enjoy yourself' with a work like Castellian's,

> but do try to stay awake!" He smiled, and Vivi smiled back, then

> headed off to find her corner.

*grins* This was just too great, when we find out who it is.

> However much she had tried to ignore it, the division between what she was

> and what she was becoming was becoming much sharper in her life and in her

> mind.

I can imagine. On the surface, they seem like to opposing forces.

> She turned her attention back to the book, hoping it would get her mind

> off that melancholy path, but it did the furthest thing from. Castellian

> was still in the middle of his tirade against what he perceived as

> immorality, and launched into the written equivalent of a screaming

> invective. Vivi's expression grew more and more tense as she read through

> Castellian's vigorous condemnation of various activities such as hiding in

> the shadows, and finally, unable to stand it, she picked up the book and

> hurled it against the wall.

I don't blame her.

> "Well, let's say that the idealism has faded somewhat over the years.

> Castellian wrote back when things still weren't very clear, and there was

> still a certain degree of idealism over what could be accomplished.

> Paladins and knightly orders were expected to do much of what they are

> expected to now, but there were also poetic visions of a true paradise of

> ultimate justice." The knight paused, pondering his next words.

> "So knights of the time were quite single-minded in their quests,

> their objective being to eliminate all evil and all disorder, as opposed

> to making things better. Unfortunately, these quests were...unsuccessful.

> Though they tried very hard."

I agree with Lord E here. Without you having going into detail, that was a very scary image.

> Vivi started slightly at the mention of Lord Vaubon, but it looked as if

> he was just throwing out an example, not that he was accusing her.

*grins*

> "Well...why do you need to choose? One of the things the Order of the

> Golden Lion stresses is the tenet of loyalty. Loyalty to family, to

> friends, to the people to whom you have a duty. But above all, there is

> loyalty to yourself. You are both things, Vivienne Delacroix, both the

> knight and the rogue. To choose either would be to betray part of

> yourself. So choose both."

Oh, I really, really like him. What a great.. um... god :D

> "My child," the knight said, raising his gauntlets so that

> Vivienne could see the words written all over them, the words 'loyalty'

> and 'duty' in thousands of languages, "what do you think I've just

> done?"

That was a terrific ending! I loved it :) Completly took me by surprise.

Oh, I was wondering, if you wouldn't mind me emailing you soon to get some information?



#5 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 02:45 AM

> That's why I am rather unsettled at the depictions of

> "paladunces". Simply put, if they were really that arrogant,

> stupid, or whatever, they wouldn't have been made knights - or paladins in

> the first place, for that matter.

The way I see paladins (a hard concept to fathom), it would really be much harder to be one than to have about any other occupation or calling. That's why it feels so... off that they often speak so stupidly and are portrayed as naive, overpious or impractical. If anything, I'd think they would battle being cynical and have a constant internal battle about where to draw the line between holding to their ideals and making compromises to get things done. That is something I tried to portray in Keldorn when he was a part of Peri's party in Road of Redemption.

But one thing I have a problem with is that the god supposedly strips the paladin of his powers, if he transgresses. Just how severe must the transgression be, because if this is an absolute it practically means that the paladin can do no wrong?

> Which is why I always portray the

> arrogant stuck-ups as squires...because they'd never make it past that

> stage.

I'd love to write an interesting paladin, but I fear that the lawful part of their beliefs is too alien to me. The character would turn out as a typical individualist hero just calling herself a paladin, most probably.

> More when Vivi hits the prime time in my NWN story, believe you me :-D

> Actually, Kal takes the subject up with Anomen in AtG, as well.

*grin* Poor Ano...

> True, but when I use the word "justice" I apply it to the sense

> the reader will be familiar with. For example, Cyric's faithful see

> justice as whoever is stronger getting whatever they can take, but no one

> here would associate that concept with justice.

I didn't mean anything that extreme. Even quite benevolent people who live and work together can disagree. Typical examples: taxation and welfare as means to ensure justice, or means to strip people of their hard-earned cash. Or when are people responsible of their crimes, which is a just punishment, the balance between the freedom of individuals and the means of effective law enforcement...

> Exactly. Killing someone evil doesn't necessarily promote good.

I think it should generally be the last resort, not the quest itself.

> *pumps fist in the air* VICTORY! :-)

> Anyway, I like Torm. As for his portfolio - he represents the good side of

> obedience and loyalty. The bad side is illustrated perfectly on Acheron,

> and that's not Torm's kind of place.

Loyalty certainly is something I value highly myself. Hmmm, loyalty, freedom, honesty, courage, straight-forwardness... many of my important values sound alarmingly paladihish!

> And as for your revenge - bring it on :D

Hmmm... I will make you enjoy something reeeeaaaally chaotic and irresponsible and unsystematic. And then I will say NYAH.

...just give me 1000 years and a pointy hat...


Road of redemption

#6 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 02:47 AM

> *grins* It's really good that knights take philosophy! It was my favorite

> subject, although, something tells me that they dont discuss Plato or

> Aristotle. :-)

Well, actually, they do, though not by the same names. (It saves me from making up entirely new philosophical texts, you see.)

> I agree with Lord E here. Without you having going into detail, that was a

> very scary image.

Well...yes. Grim faced killers, no matter what cause they serve, aren't exactly calming. Which is why modern Orders refuse to have anything like that in their ranks.

> Oh, I really, really like him. What a great.. um... god :-D

He's a former mortal, which makes his manner much closer, warmer, and more approachable, I think. But yes, I like him too, which is why I presented him like this.

> Oh, I was wondering, if you wouldn't mind me emailing you soon to get some

> information?

I wouldn't mind at all. I'm eager to help.


#7 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 03:07 AM

> The way I see paladins (a hard concept to fathom), it would really be much

> harder to be one than to have about any other occupation or calling.

> That's why it feels so... off that they often speak so stupidly and are

> portrayed as naive, overpious or impractical. If anything, I'd think they

> would battle being cynical and have a constant internal battle about where

> to draw the line between holding to their ideals and making compromises to

> get things done. That is something I tried to portray in Keldorn when he

> was a part of Peri's party in Road of Redemption.

I think you hit quite close to the mark. Given the complexity of ethics, I'd almost have to say that being a paladin should have to have an INT requirement.

> But one thing I have a problem with is that the god supposedly strips the

> paladin of his powers, if he transgresses. Just how severe must the

> transgression be, because if this is an absolute it practically means that

> the paladin can do no wrong?

Severity is up to the DM, of course. In the end, he or she defines how severe any act is in his or her world. I don't think of it as much of a line in the sand, though, and I don't think that it's a matter of stripping powers on a whim. The way I see it, (and, as a matter of fact, why Viconia's still a cleric in AtG) is that a power isn't watching all of his or her followers at all times (not that they can't do it...but why would they want to?). However, certain deeds attract a power's attention - and something that is evil certainly would. Overall, I'm more of the thinking that only outright evil would be punished by a power-removal. Borderline things probably wouldn't, but if a paladin skated along the borderline too long, when the power's attention eventually came to the paladin, he or she just might find that the power is displeased.

> I didn't mean anything that extreme. Even quite benevolent people who live

> and work together can disagree. Typical examples: taxation and welfare as

> means to ensure justice, or means to strip people of their hard-earned

> cash. Or when are people responsible of their crimes, which is a just

> punishment, the balance between the freedom of individuals and the means

> of effective law enforcement...

Well, as for that...it's all encompassed in what I was talking about. Not that there's a clear solution - knightly orders don't claim to have the solution to all the world's ethical dilemmas, nor should they. But instead, the concept that a just solution can be arrived at, that people have certain rights, that people's opinions deserve to be listened to, that compromise and consensus result in acceptable, just solutions for all - that is the justice that knights believe in.

> Loyalty certainly is something I value highly myself. Hmmm, loyalty,

> freedom, honesty, courage, straight-forwardness... many of my important

> values sound alarmingly paladihish!

Yes, don't they? :-) Part of what I'm doing with my stories is bringing the paladin down out of its literary ivory tower. We really all do have a little bit of lawful good at heart, and I'm trying to demonstrate it - that lawful good isn't a parody, that lawful good characters aren't caricatures, and generally, that lawful viewpoints aren't necessarily the rigid, restrictive, anal uselessness that they're often ridiculed as.

> ...just give me 1000 years and a pointy hat...

Mentioning pointy hats, I don't really mind Elminster, and he's CG. Generally, I think the Seven Sisters are pretty neat, and they're all chaotic something (although Alustriel shouldn't be, she's so LG she could be a paladin).


#8 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 03:34 AM

> I think you hit quite close to the mark. Given the complexity of ethics,

> I'd almost have to say that being a paladin should have to have an INT

> requirement.

At least a one worth reading about.

> Overall, I'm more of the

> thinking that only outright evil would be punished by a power-removal.

> Borderline things probably wouldn't, but if a paladin skated along the

> borderline too long, when the power's attention eventually came to the

> paladin, he or she just might find that the power is displeased.

That would make sense, I think. Then the paladin would be allowed to make errors in judgement and commit minor evils, and of course have serious personality flaws which are not evil as such.

I have decided that you are my paladin informant. So how do LGs in general and paladins in particular feel about mercy? I have often been disgusted when I have visited CRPG boards, where the self-proclaimed 'good' people rant. Also, I found the 3E description of paladin off-putting, as it said that she 'slays evil without mercy' or somesuch.

I think mercy is good. I think mercy is important. I don't think it means letting bad guys off the hook - it means punishing them in a way that contains a possibility of redeeming and doing better in future. Of course mercy isn't an absolute value - it can be overrided by something else, but it should be generally strived for, I think.

> But

> instead, the concept that a just solution can be arrived at, that people

> have certain rights, that people's opinions deserve to be listened to,

> that compromise and consensus result in acceptable, just solutions for all

> - that is the justice that knights believe in.

Sounds like the basis of modern (Western) legislature.

> Yes, don't they? :-) Part of what I'm doing with my stories is bringing the

> paladin down out of its literary ivory tower. We really all do have a

> little bit of lawful good at heart, and I'm trying to demonstrate it -

> that lawful good isn't a parody, that lawful good characters aren't

> caricatures, and generally, that lawful viewpoints aren't necessarily the

> rigid, restrictive, anal uselessness that they're often ridiculed as.

Well, you are doing fine, I say. I really enjoy both your paladin stories.

> Mentioning pointy hats, I don't really mind Elminster, and he's CG.

> Generally, I think the Seven Sisters are pretty neat, and they're all

> chaotic something (although Alustriel shouldn't be, she's so LG she could

> be a paladin).

I don't mind any-aligned characters as such. I identify most strongly with CN, but I don't think that LG characters are wrong. It is just that I am different.


Road of redemption

#9 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 04:20 AM

> I have decided that you are my paladin informant. So how do LGs in general

> and paladins in particular feel about mercy? I have often been disgusted

> when I have visited CRPG boards, where the self-proclaimed 'good' people

> rant. Also, I found the 3E description of paladin off-putting, as it said

> that she 'slays evil without mercy' or somesuch.

I hate the paladin descriptions in both books. 2E is not much better, especially since it claims that the paladin won't work with rogues (because they're not LG, and rogues can't be LG). And the person who wrote the Complete Paladin's Handbook should be shot and fed to the chimeras.

Mercy, in short, to an LG character or paladin, is a central if not the central principle. Law MUST be tempered with mercy to have any meaning at all. Law without mercy is just cold, unfeeling order, which does not have any inherent value. Law is only properly invested in creating a free and just society where everyone feels safe and happy to live.

Slaying evil without mercy is a mark of neutral good characters, who see nothing beyond good, and, in some misguided cases, nothing beyond the obliteration of evil.

> I think mercy is good. I think mercy is important. I don't think it means

> letting bad guys off the hook - it means punishing them in a way that

> contains a possibility of redeeming and doing better in future. Of course

> mercy isn't an absolute value - it can be overrided by something else, but

> it should be generally strived for, I think.

And that's exactly what I think. Lawful good people are the least eager about death sentences, because mercy matters. (As a contrast, LN and NG characters might both be rather enthusiastic about death sentences, proving that LG isn't just a fusion of LN and NG.) Not that we should always show restraint - for example, Irenicus in SoA is beyond redemption, really, and given his power, one couldn't show him mercy without seriously endangering the lives of whoever's set to guard him.

To the question, "Why do we put offenders in jail?" various alignments would tend to respond as follows:

LG: To punish them, but also to rehabilitate them and try to return them to society.

LN: To keep lawbreakers off the streets.

N: So they can't hurt me and people I care about. (And people in general, but that's not as important).

NG: To make sure the evil people get what's coming to them.

CG: Jail time? Waste of time! Let me in there with my axe!

(And I'm not mocking the CG point of view, here. Given modern statistics on reoffence rate, CG does have a very good point.)

Of course, I say, "tend" to respond because everyone has a little bit of everything inside them. The LN character might lean LG on this point, or the NG character might slant towards the N point of view.

> Sounds like the basis of modern (Western) legislature.

More or less. That's what I said to Oryx in response to his chapter 10 of Harper 007; our ideal legislators are LG (though many fall short).


#10 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 04:44 AM

> Slaying evil without mercy is a mark of neutral good characters, who see

> nothing beyond good, and, in some misguided cases, nothing beyond the

> obliteration of evil.

...provided there is a clear idea of what good is and certainty who the evil ones are, which I believe is bound to go wrong at some point (both history and present in RL are rather abundant with examples).

> Not that we should

> always show restraint - for example, Irenicus in SoA is beyond redemption,

> really, and given his power, one couldn't show him mercy without seriously

> endangering the lives of whoever's set to guard him.

I liked Dorotea's solution, though. But I agree, as he is he is beyond redemption.

> To the question, "Why do we put offenders in jail?" various

> alignments would tend to respond as follows:

> NG: To make sure the evil people get what's coming to them.

> CG: Jail time? Waste of time! Let me in there with my axe!

Makes it sound like the non-lawful goods are actually more bloodthirsty and smug than LG.

My opinion (assuming that the offence in question is serious enough to warrant death sentence): "Because I believe any human system, including judicial one, is always too flawed to make such a final and serious decision as to sentence someone to death. Personally I also believe that only people have not a right to deem someone unworthy of life, but I realize that I can't impose my religious beliefs on others."

> More or less. That's what I said to Oryx in response to his chapter 10 of

> Harper 007; our ideal legislators are LG (though many fall short).

That makes a perfect sense.


Road of redemption

#11 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 05:00 AM

> ...provided there is a clear idea of what good is and certainty who the

> evil ones are, which I believe is bound to go wrong at some point (both

> history and present in RL are rather abundant with examples).

Correct. But NG characters are more likely than LG characters to define evil and go on a crusade to destroy it, as they only see good and evil (and don't see law and chaos as even relevant).

> Makes it sound like the non-lawful goods are actually more bloodthirsty

> and smug than LG.

There can be smug LGs, and calm CGs, of course. But I was trying to do a pretty quick summary in one line, which is bound to introduce inaccuracies. But CGs in general aren't bloodthirsty as much as that they don't trust the judicial system - that it lets people off too lightly, that it doesn't punish enough, that jails are too comfortable, that jails are too austere - basically, they won't have any faith that the system works. And again, given the evidence, they may have a point. "Hard" CGs would get their axes; "soft" CGs might advocate a more merciful way of dealing with them, like support groups or community service ("hard" CGs are the ones more likely to become adventurers). Either way they won't trust the judicial system.

The point of division is where lawfuls say "but we can make a system that DOES work" and chaotics say "systems can NEVER work". Naturally, lawfuls don't understand what chaotics would do to replace the system, and chaotics don't see why a system's needed in the first place.

I tend to take anarchist theory (Godwin, Proudhon, etc.) to define CGs' (and CNs, in part) point of view; that humans, given the lack of constraints, will naturally form a harmonious society, and systems are just constraints against that. Whether that's right or wrong is a point to be debated.


#12 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 05:20 AM

> The point of division is where lawfuls say "but we can make a system

> that DOES work" and chaotics say "systems can NEVER work".

> Naturally, lawfuls don't understand what chaotics would do to replace the

> system, and chaotics don't see why a system's needed in the first place.

I guess I believe system can work to a point - not perfectly, but enough to keep it in place. But something as serious as death penalty would be off-limits because of the inherent problems created by human imperfection.

As for why not take an axe and go make things right - I could not be that sure that I am right, and in ambiguous cases I would feel that I have to respect others' right to disagree.

If I took an axe and went on murderous rampage, it would be personal, vengeance and nothing to do with doing general good. (I could see that happening, given my temperament).

> I tend to take anarchist theory (Godwin, Proudhon, etc.) to define CGs'

> (and CNs, in part) point of view; that humans, given the lack of

> constraints, will naturally form a harmonious society, and systems are

> just constraints against that. Whether that's right or wrong is a point to

> be debated.

Well, I figured as much, but that makes me think that almost no-one would be chaotic - only a handful truly can have such a rosy picture of humans. I have no hard data on this, but it is my belief that one would have truly hard time believing that, and very few people do.


Road of redemption

#13 Laufey

Posted 09 November 2002 - 08:57 AM

> Thanks to everyone for your commentary on the last chapter, which did put

> my nervousness to rest (for now :)). Anyway, here's the second-last

> chapter of Vivi's introduction.

Ah, this was *very* nice, and I liked it a lot!

> "Well, let's say that the idealism has faded somewhat over the years.

> Castellian wrote back when things still weren't very clear, and there was

> still a certain degree of idealism over what could be accomplished.

> Paladins and knightly orders were expected to do much of what they are

> expected to now, but there were also poetic visions of a true paradise of

> ultimate justice." The knight paused, pondering his next words.

> "So knights of the time were quite single-minded in their quests,

> their objective being to eliminate all evil and all disorder, as opposed

> to making things better. Unfortunately, these quests were...unsuccessful.

> Though they tried very hard."

As Lord E said, that is a *very* scary vision.

> "Because you can't eliminate evil and disorder," Vivi said.

> The knight nodded. "Essentially...yes. We don't look for the

> destruction of evil, exactly, as much as the promotion of good, which can

> be quite a different matter entirely. Especially since eventually, some

> situations may force us to descend to the level of evil to eliminate evil,

> which is simply pointless. Now, as I was saying, the goals of the paladins

> of ages past were fixed entirely on this artistic creation of perfect

> good. That was their objective and nothing else would suffice. And they

> wrote that way, as you can see."

Nicely put. I quite agree, a supposedly good person cannot excuse doing acts that they or their god themselves define as evil with 'but I did it to an evil person, so that's all right'. That's a very dangerous way of thinking IMHO, and it tends to cause plenty of suffering.

I should perhaps also mention that though I enjoy poking fun at paladins (they do make for amusing targets) I don't dislike them all. There are notable exceptions, like Keldorn, Kal or Sarah's Liam for example. It's the 'I am good and I will smite you to pieces if you jaywalk' type that I can't stand. In much of the source material and games they are presented as fanatical and rigid idiots, more or less. Phandalyn of BG1 springs to mind, he is such an extreme example that I decided he was simply a delusional madman *thinking* he was a paladin, since no paladin god would tolerate a paladin killing random people in the street simply because they pinged that 'evil detector'. (Which I also consider oversimplified and rather silly.) It is therefore very enjoyable to see your take on this.

>> "Thank you. Thanks a lot. It...it does seem a lot clearer now."

> She sighed. "Although sometimes, I wish that Torm himself might come

> down from the Mount and let me know things are going well, just so I

> wouldn't have to suffer through so much anxiety."

> "My child," the knight said, raising his gauntlets so that

> Vivienne could see the words written all over them, the words 'loyalty'

> and 'duty' in thousands of languages, "what do you think I've just

> done?"

> Then he smiled, and vanished.

Whoa! Nice twist! :)


In The Cards
Rogues do it from behind.

#14 Guest_Anonymous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 10:55 AM

I really like it - as does Arianna :)

Very good insight on knighthood, indeed - and Torm was just as I see him, too.

I like the point that paladinhood is not about blindly stomping out evil but bringing good into the world.

Arietta


Arietta's page

#15 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 07:30 PM

> Ah, this was *very* nice, and I liked it a lot!

Thank you! I aim to please.

> Nicely put. I quite agree, a supposedly good person cannot excuse doing

> acts that they or their god themselves define as evil with 'but I did it

> to an evil person, so that's all right'. That's a very dangerous way of

> thinking IMHO, and it tends to cause plenty of suffering.

It does cause plenty of suffering. Meeting evil with evil is evil, not good...two wrongs never make a right.

> It's

> the 'I am good and I will smite you to pieces if you jaywalk' type that I

> can't stand. In much of the source material and games they are presented

> as fanatical and rigid idiots, more or less.

I know. This is why I have a personal catapult to remove offending material from my eyes. The Complete Paladin's Handbook is the biggest offender. And have I mentioned how much I hate the word "smite"? (Incidentally, why I don't like the 3E paladin "smite evil" ability). 2E has a smite ability, but it's limited to priests, who are exactly the people who should get it.

> Phandalyn of BG1 springs to

> mind, he is such an extreme example that I decided he was simply a

> delusional madman *thinking* he was a paladin, since no paladin god would

> tolerate a paladin killing random people in the street simply because they

> pinged that 'evil detector'. (Which I also consider oversimplified and

> rather silly.) It is therefore very enjoyable to see your take on this.

Yes, I liked your Phandalyn very much. His implementation in the game was...poor. No god would make such a fanatic a paladin.

As for the evil detector, it makes sense as Detect Evil Intent as opposed to Detect Evil Alignment. Even the Handbook recognizes this. All the "evil detector" can do is detect direct intention to harm someone for no reason or for personal gain - in other words, its use is almost strictly limited to detecting what's around the next corner, or if the man pushing his way through the crowd is an assassin or not. And characters of any alignment can have evil intent. Angry men starting a fistfight will ping evil intent, though they both may not be evil. Which is why the smart paladin realizes that the ability isn't very useful as a way of cutting the world in two halves, and therefore uses it very sparingly.

> Whoa! Nice twist! :)

:)


#16 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 07:39 PM

> I really like it - as does Arianna :(

> Very good insight on knighthood, indeed - and Torm was just as I see him,

> too.

I do my best :)

> I like the point that paladinhood is not about blindly stomping out evil

> but bringing good into the world.

I think it's a point that bears repeating, and often. Thanks for reading!


#17 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 07:44 PM

> I guess I believe system can work to a point - not perfectly, but enough

> to keep it in place. But something as serious as death penalty would be

> off-limits because of the inherent problems created by human imperfection.

Well, obviously even anarchists realize that some systems work - I refer to Proudhon's anarcho-syndicalism. It's a system, but a very bare-bones, low-level system.

> Well, I figured as much, but that makes me think that almost no-one would

> be chaotic - only a handful truly can have such a rosy picture of humans.

> I have no hard data on this, but it is my belief that one would have truly

> hard time believing that, and very few people do.

Well, where I live it's quite common, actually, so I may be a little shaped by my experiences in that sense. But I would say that believing in that general vein - again, no specifics - that systems are better off decentralized and very simple, is a mark of a chaotic alignment. Just like justice, it's not about a solution, as much as the belief that people talking together can come up with something, but different in that chaotic people believe that the legislature, bicameral houses, laws, etc. aren't necessary.


#18 Laufey

Posted 09 November 2002 - 07:46 PM

>> It does cause plenty of suffering. Meeting evil with evil is evil, not

> good...two wrongs never make a right.

Exactly how I see it as well. To be sure, a paladin is only human, and can make mistakes, but if he does it shouldn't be shrugged off.

> I know. This is why I have a personal catapult to remove offending

> material from my eyes. The Complete Paladin's Handbook is the biggest

> offender. And have I mentioned how much I hate the word "smite"?

> (Incidentally, why I don't like the 3E paladin "smite evil"

> ability). 2E has a smite ability, but it's limited to priests, who are

> exactly the people who should get it.

*applauds* I hate the word 'smite' myself, as I'm sure you have noticed already. :( I am very happy you share this opinion.

> Yes, I liked your Phandalyn very much. His implementation in the game

> was...poor. No god would make such a fanatic a paladin.

Thanks! Yes, I can imagine a fanatical paladin, up to a point, but not a raving psychotic madman, which is what he was.

> As for the evil detector, it makes sense as Detect Evil Intent as opposed

> to Detect Evil Alignment. Even the Handbook recognizes this. All the

> "evil detector" can do is detect direct intention to harm

> someone for no reason or for personal gain - in other words, its use is

> almost strictly limited to detecting what's around the next corner, or if

> the man pushing his way through the crowd is an assassin or not. And

> characters of any alignment can have evil intent. Angry men starting a

> fistfight will ping evil intent, though they both may not be evil. Which

> is why the smart paladin realizes that the ability isn't very useful as a

> way of cutting the world in two halves, and therefore uses it very

> sparingly.

That's more or less how I see it as well. Just as you say, any character can have evil intent, and it makes sense that a paladin could pick up on that. And there's no easy, foolproof way of saying who is 'good' and who is 'evil'. Also, it doesn't make for very interesting writing if a simple spell can tell you who the bad guy is, and you don't even have to make an effort. It's much the same way as I see the 'Raise Dead' spell, if it's too easy it takes away the drama.


In The Cards
Rogues do it from behind.

#19 Guest_Lord E_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 07:59 PM

> Well, obviously even anarchists realize that some systems work - I refer

> to Proudhon's anarcho-syndicalism. It's a system, but a very bare-bones,

> low-level system.

Hmmm, minimaze the System?

> Well, where I live it's quite common, actually, so I may be a little

> shaped by my experiences in that sense.

Ah yes. You are an American, aren't you. Here in Scandinavia anarchistic beliefs are rare. A cultural difference even when there is so much in common between us.

> But I would say that believing in

> that general vein - again, no specifics - that systems are better off

> decentralized and very simple, is a mark of a chaotic alignment. Just like

> justice, it's not about a solution, as much as the belief that people

> talking together can come up with something, but different in that chaotic

> people believe that the legislature, bicameral houses, laws, etc. aren't

> necessary.

I certainly believe that they are necessary, because I don't believe that people are noble and wise and benevolent as a rule. They are needed to protect the weak. But still the descriptions of the chaotic alignment fit much better with my instinctual mindset. Also my lifestyle is very chaotic.


Road of redemption

#20 Guest_Tenebrous_*

Posted 09 November 2002 - 08:14 PM

> Ah yes. You are an American, aren't you. Here in Scandinavia anarchistic

> beliefs are rare. A cultural difference even when there is so much in

> common between us.

Canadian. You'll notice I use real English, extraneous vowels and all :(

And because I'm Canadian, as you might imagine, the number of people with faith in humanity's essential harmoniousness around here is quite high.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Skin Designed By Evanescence at IBSkin.com