| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Berkthgar
Learned Scribe
USA
163 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 01:10:18
|
Does anyone know what Dahlia's alignment is?
I think Effron had the same alignment throughout, he was just in a bad group of people |
“Change is not always growth, but growth is often rooted in change.
Drizzt Do'Urden” |
 |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 05:05:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
Also that's what she said and the first rule of spys is: Don't trust the women.... in otherwords it is also quite possible that she lied and attempting to look honorable when she is not as you said [...]
No, that's not what she said. That's what the third-person omniscient narrator said:
quote:
Among the Thayans, Dahlia had been given many nicknames, most alluding to a certain species of spider known for mating then eating the males, though not all of those diamonds on Dahlia’s left ear represented males.
Dahlia didn’t murder her lovers, however. No, she challenged them to a fair fight then utterly destroyed them. When Dor’crae had entered his tryst with the elf, he’d known that, and was confident in his power to defeat her, should it come to that. In fact, he’d entertained the notion of not only defeating her, but had fantasized about converting her into a servile vampire.
But he had come to know better. Dor’crae had mentally played a fight with Dahlia in his mind a thousand times. He had seen her training with Kozah’s Needle, and had witnessed two of the fights with her former lovers. (Gaunt., P1:C5)
The text simply says that she gave her lovers a fair fight. It doesn't mention anything about Dahlia claiming honor or fairness.
However, the specific context of that passage does indicate that the narrator is talking about Dahlia's perception or reputation in the minds of fellow Thayans. Thayans deemed her a black widow; they characterized her as giving her lovers a fair fight; Dor'crae used to think that he could beat her; But he had since changed his mind about her; etc. As such, it is subject to possible misinterpretation, or just plain being outright incorrect.
There is also this:
quote:
Dahlia proudly wore nine diamond studs in her left ear, one for every lover she had defeated in mortal combat. She always counted her kills as nine.
But what of the baby?
Why didn’t she wear ten studs in her left ear?
Because she was not proud of that kill. Because, among everything that she had done in her flawed life, that moment struck Dahlia as the most wrong, the most wicked. (Gaunt., P1:C8)
Again, we're told that she killed her lovers in mortal combat. There is no mention whatsoever of secret assassinations.
quote:
[...] and I remember very well that she challenged him and Drizzt refused.
Right, but this is still supporting evidence of her reputation as giving lovers a fair fight with the staff, rather than supporting evidence of her using a dagger in bed. That she did not have a willing participant in this case doesn't change that fact.
quote:
and that staff/flail/walkingstick if it was her only weapon at her disposal, they she would be a fool not to carry a back up weapon.
Agreed. I would think that some sort of knife would be a standard part of everyone's traveling gear in the Realms. You'd need something to cut meat, fruit, bandages, etc., out on the road.
Can you imagine Drizzt slicing an apple with Icingdeath? Or Bruenor, with his royal great axe? Visions of Wulfgar slamming Aegis-fang down, <Gallagher Sledge-o-matic> style!   |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 09 Dec 2013 05:39:46 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 06:38:43
|
| that is not proof of her killing them in a duel either you know. |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 07:35:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
[...] I'll ask my question here, how many ear rings did she have in her ears?
She began with nine in Gauntlgrym (P1:C1), then moved up to ten with Borlann the Crow (Gaunt., P1:C4-C5), and added an eleventh (for Drizzt) in Neverwinter (P1:C9).
The number and distribution of her earrings follow:
* 7Left+2Right=9Total (Gaunt., P1:C1);
* 8L+2R=10T (Gaunt., P1:C4);
* 9L+1R=10T (Gaunt., P1:C5, P1:C7, P1:C8, P2:C11, P2:C19, P2:C22);
* 10L+0R=10T (Gaunt., Epi.); 0R (NW, Pro.), 10L (NW, P1:C6);
* 10L+1R=11T (NW, (P1:C9).
quote:
the left one was for the lovers she killed right?
Well, initially, that was the idea, yeah (Gaunt., P1:C1). Dor'crae remained perpetually nervous about her moving her ninth earring, which represented him, from her right to her left ear, because of what that would mean for him. She moved her tenth earring over, for Borlann, but Dor'crae still worried.
But at some point, crazy Dahlia seems to have started getting mixed up in her mind about that.
At the end of Gaunt., Dahlia injures the vampire with a wooden spike ring pressed into his heart. He transforms into a giant bat and flies away, only to be deluged by the restored waterfall full of water elementals inside Gauntlgrym. The bat resists the downfall briefly, but soon he reverts to human form, and then vaporizes and disappears (Gaunt., P2:C24). Soon thereafter, Dahlia moves her last earring over to her left ear (Gaunt., Epi.).
Presumably, Dor'crae expired from fatigue or exhaustion brought about by fighting to fly against the waterfall. Dahlia's wound to him did not kill him, outright.
Nevertheless, she takes credit for killing him, and moves his earring (the tenth) over, just the same.
(I do note that she didn't kill Dor'crae with either a staff or a dagger, here. I leave it up to you to determine whether the weapon was a wooden spike ring, or a waterfall. Hints of the old game Clue creep in: "Dahlia did it, in the primordial pit, with a wooden spike ring."  )
But it seems to me that Bruenor is the one who should get the credit, since he was largely responsible for trapping the water elementals, and certainly for flipping the lever which re-engaged the fire primordial's trap. He is the one who unleashed the waterfall which killed Dor'crae--not Dahlia.
Things get even weirder in the next book: Neverwinter. It has a scene in which Dahlia dreams about nine figures dancing around her, taunting her. These are clearly said to be the nine lovers that she had killed, ending with Dor'crae (NW, P1:C8).
What?! Gaunt. said that she had ten earrings, for ten lovers, and that she had moved that tenth one over upon the death of Dor'crae. So why would NW only claim nine lovers? It doesn't add up.
It gets weirder, still. Although Gaunt., P1:C8, said that she did not wear an earring representing the killing of her baby, but only wore earrings for her lovers; nevertheless, in NW, Dahlia dreams of a tenth figure taunting her, in the form of her baby (NW, P1:C8).
Clearly, Dahlia is haunted by all of these souls whom she has killed, regardless of whether they were her lovers or her baby. She just can't keep the number of them straight, in her head.
I asked Bob about this, and whether he had goofed and made a mistake about the number of earrings and/or lovers. He didn't answer me straight up, but said that the real focus is not the quantity of her bedfellows, but rather the quality of her feelings. The important thing is that she is lumping all of these people together, and can no longer keep them apart in her mind. Bob said that she's a crazy, psycho witch.
Dahlia was feeling terrible, because even though she had previously differentiated between guilt for killing the baby versus rationalizing having killed her lovers (Gaunt., P1:C8); the truth is, she should not have killed any of these people. Herzgo Alegni was the proper object of her hatred, and all of these others had merely been unwitting, unjustified victims of her misplaced rage (well, except for Dor'crae; but he doesn't count, because she didn't really kill him--Bruenor did!).
And so, upon thumbing through The Last Threshold, I found this:
quote:
Of course, none of the diamonds represented the beast Alegni, but it was also true that all of them represented Herzgo Alegni. Those diamonds, this whole game, had been put in place because of him, after all. Taking her lovers was because of him, murdering her lovers was because of him, and because those lovers were not strong enough to win the necessary fight and end her own pain.
And thus all of them served to satiate the woman, all of those lovers, one by one, getting Alegni’s just reward … (TLT, P2:C11)
So, in short, the left ones were for the lovers she killed, the lover she wrongly took credit for killing, perhaps the baby she killed, and also for the rapist she killed. They represented all of the above.
quote:
So if there is more than just those two, than you see it could be possible she has a dagger.....
As I already agreed, it makes perfect sense that she could (and should) have a dagger.
But you went beyond that and initially said that she actually did have one and used it to kill her lovers. That contention is not directly or indirectly supported by the text. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 09 Dec 2013 08:33:25 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 08:00:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
it's still possible she killed them in their sleep/////
Which ones? She certainly didn't kill Themerelis or Dor'crae in their sleep. It doesn't sound like she killed Borlann in his, either. And that's not how she almost killed Drizzt. That's at least four out of eleven that were clearly not killed in their sleep.
Then, in addition to that, we are told at least twice that she killed her lovers in either a fair fight or mortal combat.
So we simply don't have any evidence that she killed any of them in their sleep.
You're just interpolating that into the story.
Now, of course, that's your right. But you should admit that that is what you're doing. You're assuming, based on reading between the lines, and not based on what any of the lines actually say.
It's the difference between <eisegesis> (reading subjectively into the text) and <exegesis> (reading directly out of the text).
quote:
Sin'felle.... doesn't even sound like an elf name...
Most likely, because it isn't. It's a play on words for "sinful". She delights in her roles both as seducer, and slayer.
Remember:
quote:
"Except that’s not her name, Sin'felle," said Effron, and even Barrabus's interest was piqued by the confidence in the warlock's tone. "Sin’felle is the name she gave herself, a mockery, a joke, a title of shame." (NW, P2:C14)
It's probably only a quasi- or pseudo-Elvish name, fabricated by a combination of a pun and the addition of a comma. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 08:19:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by charger_ss24
However, the back of the books says she "murdered" her lovers. Yet, I know she battles to the death with those two, which isn't exactly murdering them. Would you consider this an editing oversight?
Oh, no, that's not an oversight, at all. Let's be clear, here: Dahlia batters, impales, and electrocutes her lovers whenever they don't interest her anymore. Poor Themerelis the barbarian apparently wasn't guilty of anything more than being stupid and polyamorous (the latter of which was apparently perfectly accepted practice in the Thayan court, at the time). She may try to rationalize to herself her killing of these lovers by the fact that when she challenges them, she gives them a fighting chance. And she's certainly had a traumatic past. But she's still killing these lovers without being provoked by any imminent risk to her life. So she's committing intentional, unjustifiable homicide. That is murder.
Even the text, itself, comes right out and says on multiple occasions that she murders her lovers.
The passage denying that she murdered her lovers was one which talked about how she was perceived by other Thayans. She was perceived as not murdering her lovers, because she gave them a fair chance at fighting back and saving themselves.
But regardless of whether one shows some fairness in a fight, if one picks that fight in the first place, and ends up taking the other person's life in the process, then one is guilty of unjustifiable homicide. Maybe a good defense attorney could plead that down to mere manslaughter, instead of murder. But if one started that fight with the express intention of taking a life, then it's pretty cut-and-dried murder. Either way, no es bueno. 
At this point, it must be said: I'm not a real lawyer--I only play one, on the internets. Methinks Paul Kemp would be the ideal person to weigh in here, on this sort of thing! 
At the end of the day, though, regardless of that one little word "murder", the text repeatedly tells us that Dahlia strikes her lovers with her magical staff. It never tells us that she stabs them with a dagger--not even once.
quote:
BTW, wasn't Dor'crea a brief lover as well? I don't remember exactly, but I thought when he died in the battle of Gauntlgrym, I vaguely remember her moving a stud from her right ear, to her left, leaving one in her right, which is Drizzt?
Yeah, Dor'crae was her ninth lover. He did, indeed, die in that battle, but she's not the one who really killed him, best I can tell.
(Well, as a vampire, he was undead when he got fracked in that battle. Subsequent stories make it clear that what happened is that his undead spirit became separated from his undead body at that point, but his ghost remained active in the Neverwinter region.)
See above for my explanation of her earring distribution.
Drizzt was represented by her eleventh earring. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 08:21:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
that is not proof of her killing them in a duel either you know.
No, but it is repeated, strong, textual evidence of such.
And that's much more than what you have been able to provide. Cheers! |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 17:50:01
|
I've always thought of Dahlia as someone barely holding on to sanity, the structure of having the twisted and sick earrings "game" hold her together while she works toward her goal of eventually killing Herzgo. Up to now, I don't think she's taken a lover who was "good" (in alignment) except for Drizzt. (Or has she? I can't recall atm). And before the Sundering stuff came along, I thought Salvatore was going to have Drizzt be the one who unraveled her sanity by causing her to start questioning herself and her methods.
That may still happen, of course. But I suspect she will allow her madness to take over and lose her chance of killing Herzgo when she gets another chance to kill Drizzt again. She will probably die insane and unfulfilled when it comes to her "quest" - especially now that she's been reunited with her son (who may turn traitor on her, depending on circumstances).
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 09 Dec 2013 17:50:54 |
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1150 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 14:09:54
|
I agree with Therise. Dahlia was way too affected by her trauma to ever be fully functional socially. Considering that for most of the quadrilogy her only life goal apart from Murdering Herzgo Alegni was finding a lover who could kill her in a fight - that's a sign of a seriously damaged individual.
I mean, I've dated some crazy women in the past who've turned out to be socially inept nightmares but I wouldn't touch Dahlia (knowing what I know) with a regulation 10 ft. wooden 'adventuring' pole. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 18:33:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Jarlaxle's alignment is not chaotic good. His last, officially given alignment was simply "Evil"(4e system merged Lawful and Neutral evil into just evil), and I'm of the opinion that neutral evil suits him just fine.
But he doesn't seem to want to make anyone suffer, or to be indifferent to suffering caused by his actions, anymore. He seems to care about other people's feelings. That sounds good to me. Chaotic good fits him in the novels.
quote:
And Enteri isn't chaotic anything. At best, he's a darker shade of lawful neutral, but I'm more inclined to label him a lighter shade of lawful evil.
Entreri doesn't seem to me to want to cause suffering, either. And I hardly consider him lawful. He doesn't fit in well with human, drow, or Drizztian social structures. Entreri just wants to be free to call his own shots. Chaotic neutral?
Jarlaxle doesn't go out of his way to cause suffering, but he has a callous disregard to the suffering he does cause.
And "lawful" doesn't necessarily apply to social structure, just structure in general. Entreri is a man of extreme personal discipline, and that's where his lawful nature comes from.(As a point, having a level in the assassin class, which Artemis does, requires one to be lawful evil). |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe
489 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2013 : 00:04:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
Jarlaxle's alignment is not chaotic good. His last, officially given alignment was simply "Evil"(4e system merged Lawful and Neutral evil into just evil), and I'm of the opinion that neutral evil suits him just fine.
But he doesn't seem to want to make anyone suffer, or to be indifferent to suffering caused by his actions, anymore. He seems to care about other people's feelings. That sounds good to me. Chaotic good fits him in the novels.
I must strongly disagree. Jarlaxle cares about the well being of a few close friends (Drizzt, Artemis, Athrogate, maybe Kimmuriel). That is not the same as caring about people in general. Jarlaxle still loves creating chaos to profit from. He never showed the slightest moral compunction about bleeding Luskan dry.
After Neverwinter blew up, Gromph read him perfectly. Jarlaxle was seething about being tricked by Sylora. The fact that thousands were killed didn't especially bother him. Also, recall when he saved Drizzt and Co. from Draygo Quick's dungeon. He shrugs when he gets to Afafrenfere and admits to himself that he doesn't care if the monks lives or dies. Drizzt is good. Jarlaxle is selfish and manipulative, but has a few friends whom he cares for dearly.
quote:
And Enteri isn't chaotic anything. At best, he's a darker shade of lawful neutral, but I'm more inclined to label him a lighter shade of lawful evil.
Entreri doesn't seem to me to want to cause suffering, either. And I hardly consider him lawful. He doesn't fit in well with human, drow, or Drizztian social structures. Entreri just wants to be free to call his own shots. Chaotic neutral?
You're right about Entreri being chaotic. He cares little for societal norms or the opinions of others. His meeting with King Gareth in "Road of the Patriarch" displayed his extreme cynicism better than any other dialogue. I wouldn't call him neutral though. He still kills without any sense of remorse, and he's still willing to discard anyone who's not useful to him.
Consider Vhostym the Sojourner from the Erevis Cale trilogy. He was willing to allow an entire region to be wiped out, killing tens of thousands, just so he could walk in the sunlight one last time. Being evil isn't just about actively trying to cause suffering. That's sadism, which is one type of evil. But callousness is another sort of evil. There are people who don't go out of their way to harm others, but they don't care when others are harmed as a result of their actions.
|
|
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2013 : 20:10:08
|
I'm going to say it again; "lawful" doesn't necessarily apply to societal norms. The concept of law within the context of the D&D cosmos predates society. A person who conforms to social norms will more than likely be lawful, but a lawful person need not conform to those norms.
Entreri's lawful nature comes from his extreme self discipline, personal organization, and personal moral code- however twisted it may be. He reject's society's code of conduct, but he has one for himself.
In this way he further mirrors Drizzt; nothing about Drizzt's actions are chaotic; virtually every great adventure and action he's undertaken has been for the benefit and advancement of society and structure. He has a profound sense of justice, of right and wrong, and will submit to the social norms of a place, even when he doesn't agree with them- providing he's only passing through- so as not to rock the boat. But it's his wanderlust, his allergy to routine, and his tendency to act on a whim, rather than with a set plan,that marks him as chaotic, despite everything else. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
SPOILERS! The Last Threshold Questions
