quote:

---

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice, as with the paladin who attempts to live up to her ideals or the evil cleric who causes pain and terror to emulate his god. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose.
Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

So, once again, I don't think Artemis is neutral since he wouldn't sacrifice himself for anyone else, if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart

So, once again, I don't think Artemis is neutral since he wouldn't sacrifice himself for anyone else, if nothing else.

---

Do you mean Jarlaxle?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ranger_of_the_unicorn_run

I would say that there is a question about his alignment if you consider the discussion in this thread. I know that he is listed as evil in the books, but there are some subtleties that can't really be communicated by assigning an alignment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mouse

Jarlaxle's one of those characters who makes the Alingment system look a little silly just by being around. He's evidently self-serving, to the point of being evil, seems to not feel really sorry for anything he ever does or anyone else for that matter (maybe a hint of remorse, but never any regrets)...He saves people, but only if they're useful...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Sage

quote:

---

Originally posted by draco

i hope im not dredging up old posts apologies if so

ive noticed alot of quoting from "official" sources and the thing with anything official its still just one or two people and just because its official doesnt mean its correct

---

If it's information that they've worked into canon, then it's correct and official in terms of the setting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

In the last few books, I've seen what looks like a definite trend toward CN. He helped Artemis, and in the last book (The Ghost King) he was definitely showing compassion in the situation with Cattie-Brie. Even though he knew Drizzt would not trust him, he still offered to help, when there was no real profit other than his own survival. He could have accomplished the same thing (i.e.- surviving) without going to the trouble of helping them, simply by heading for the most distant hills he could find. While he's not especially good by any means, one could argue that while he does occasionally commit "evil" acts, he does not do so needlessly, or without considering the consequences. He put his own life on the line to aid a former enemy, and although his motives were partly selfish, he was also going from a nostalgic sense of his past friendship with Zaknafein. He certainly felt a bit of guilt in that book, which says he may not be as evil as the source-books made him out to be. They are, after all, one person's interpretation of the character. Not to mention the Villain's Lorebook is nearly twenty years old! If they re-wrote it today, with the canon from the Sellswords and Transitions books, he might be down as CN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

Wooly, as to the idea of evil people still being able to feel friendship and so forth, I do agree that that is true, however, there is one aspect we may be overlooking in that. This belief assumes a lostly LAWFUL outlook, as that is the one evil alignment most likely to have a sense of honor or a code of morals and ethics, however warped those minght be. This is where I think the D&D alignment system tends to fail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

Wooly, as to the idea of evil people still being able to feel friendship and so forth, I do agree that that is true, however, there is one aspect we may be overlooking in that. This belief assumes a lostly LAWFUL outlook, as that is the one evil alignment most likely to have a sense of honor or a code of morals and ethics, however warped those minght be. This is where I think the D&D alignment system tends to fail.

---

I can't agree that being lawful or chaotic has any bearing whatsoever on it. All that chaotic means, in D&D terms, is that the person favors individual rights over the rights of the group. And lawful means that they favor the group over the individual. So it doesn't matter which side you favor -- you can care for someone else quite strongly, regardless of how you regard others. I don't have to think the group is most important to love my wife, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Being evil does not preclude doing good. Evil folks can still care for others, show kindness, risk their lives for loved ones, pet kittens, and buy Girl Scout cookies*, all without the local branch of the Evil Union coming down on them. What matters is what a person does overall -- especially towards those to whom he feels no bonds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jorkens

He was neutral evil in the 2ed. and I see no reason to change this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

Beast, you make some great points, and in fact, I'll give you props for actually showing just how much Jar has changed. One you forgot though, was his aid to Cadderly and Danica's children, via Bregan D'aerthe, when they and the other survivors were fleeing the city through the Underdark after it was overrun by undead. There was no reason for him to do this, and none of the other characters, including the survivors themselves, knew that he and his band had anything to do with their escape. He did it purely from a sense of good will, without any profit to be gained, even over the protests of Kimmuriel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
(snipped)
Lawful adheres to basic accepted standards and generally won't do certain things,(like torture people or harming innocents unnecessarily, whether good or evil) and chaotic does whatever it feels like or can get away with. It's when you throw in the good/evil axis that things tend to get confused. Where does one draw a line to say something is evil? does society make that judgement, or is it up to the individual to decide what is morally right or wrong? So one could say that the only difference between the lawful and the chaotic is what the society's rules are on right and wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bladeinAmn

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
(snipped)
Lawful adheres to basic accepted standards and generally won't do certain things,(like torture people or harming innocents unnecessarily, whether good or evil) and chaotic does whatever it feels like or can get away with. It's when you throw in the good/evil axis that things tend to get confused. Where does one draw a line to say something is evil? does society make that judgement, or is it up to the individual to decide what is morally right or wrong? So one could say that the only difference between the lawful and the chaotic is what the society's rules are on right and wrong.

---

Kinda cool you posted this in a thread dedicated to the drow Jarlaxle. I juss wanted to point out that, as you said, while lawful folk in most human/demihuman societies in the Realms wouldn't tolerate torture or unneccessary harm to innocent people, those actions WOULD INDEED be tolerated in a typical drow society, where Lloth dictates the law and order of the day. It'd also be accepted in an extra-planar society like that of cities in Baator, where many of the ruling demons are of a 'lawful evil' alignment.

I just wanted to point out that I think the alignment system in AD&D is just fine, provided its taken in the proper context. If they overdid the explanations and examples, it could be considered too constricting, and thus leaving less room for proper roleplay, as every being has a different personality from the other.

Getting back to the original question, I think when we first learned of Jarlaxle, he could've been considered of a 'neutral evil' alignment, but after reading Promise of the Witch-King, I think he's 'neutral', w/the attitude that he'll do good for who he feels deserves it. I also feel he's way too smart and wise to be considered 'chaotic neutral'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BEAST
[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jorkens

He was neutral evil in the 2ed. and I see no reason to change this.

---

But I don't recall Jarlaxle ever wishing to make people suffer for sport or out of a sense of duty to some dark lord/mistress. So I don't see how the powers-that-be figured him to be Evil.

He was a mercenary, which is just a soldier-for-hire. Individual acts of killing are not necessarily always marks of an Evil character, just as individual acts of helping others out aren't necessarily always the marks of someone Good.

Perhaps his willing service to Evil matron mothers effectively rendered him Evil by extension? But he always seemed to be in it for profit, rather than for sadism or piety. And profit would dictate that he kill off some, but not all, of the parties concerned, in order to draw out his means of income for as long as possible. (Witness the decade-long Do'Urden/Hun'ett house war.)

I don't recall him ever wishing to hurt people, so much as to help himself.

And lately, he seems to be willfully helping others, without any clear indication of it helping him. Apparently, he does it just because it makes him feel good to make others feel good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jorkens

He is a mercenary willing to work for anybody and do anything that he is paid for. As long as it doesn't threaten his own position of power in Mezzoberansan (wrong spelling I know, but I don't have a book handy at the moment)he will partake in massacres of other drow, raiding of other races and whatever else comes up. To me that sounds Neutral evil, an amoral mercenary looking out for him self whilst making a buck. Sadism or pious duty would have made him more of a chaotic or lawful character, here there is no greater loyalty.

---

quote:

---

Again, I have no idea what has been done to the character for the last ten-fifteen years, so this might t have changed, but that was the situation when the stats were made.

---