quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

I never said it was purely for sociopaths, but an "evil" outlook indicates some serious retardation in the moral development ladder. Someone stuck in or between the stages of not knowing the difference between good and bad, or doing whatever they feel they can get away with. I am basing this on the Kohlberg principles of moral development, BTW, which are pretty accurate, and would be as applicable in the Realms as they would in any other world. Morality- at least as we know it- is universal. As for Eliath, he's one who might teeter between evil, and neutral- not because of his love for his daughter, (which is based as much on his own failure with the moonblade and his hope for her as his heir as it is on actual love) but because he does have concern for his fellow elves, to some extent. He is loyal to Evermeet's royal family, and has acted to aid Arilyn and Danilo a few times. This shows that he has at least learned the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" reasoning of stage two (see below for this). If being miserly with compassion was all it took to be evil, than most of the world would be. That's simply not the case. To be truly evil, one would have to be stuck in moral infancy, as described below.

Morally, most evil people seem stuck in the first major stage of moral development, between ages five to ten. Not that they have the intellect of that age, but the moral development of someone of that age. A five-year-old can determine when something is "bad", but will often still do it if they think they will not be punished. They view moral rules as fixed and absolute, handed down by adults or "god". Young children base their moral judgments solely on consequences. They also show no concern for the welfare of others. There is no concern over what is fair or just. (Stealing is bad, even if it's stealing food to feed starving children.) This is the first stage. This stage would cover all of the evil alignments. Most "evil" people, no matter how well-adjusted and intelligent, would fall here, because they see only that rules are there to punish. They break them when and if they think they won't suffer any punishment. They would not care if the theft was for starving kids. Hence, they are evil. NE best fits this moral stage, but the other two evil alignments would as well.

The second stage is seen in older children, (usually at or after age ten) and views morality as subjective- this is when a child understands that what one person thinks is "right", another may see as "wrong". (Such as stealing food to feed a starving family.) They can see the right to pursue individual interests over simple "law". what is right for an individual is what meets his own self-interests. They also see morality as a fair exchange or fair deal. This is where I think Jarlaxle falls. He's beyond mere consequences or laws, or authority, but not yet into the higher stages of moral reasoning that "good" aligned people would fit into. He does what is right for him, though it might not necessarily fall into what society views as right, and he returns favors. A more neutral outlook, to be sure. Possibly still with some "evil" tendencies, but it covers most of the neutral alignments well- CN, especially.

The third stage is all about motivation. As they become teens, children learn that interpersonal feelings such as love, trust, and concern for others play a part in moral judgments. They begin to think that people should live up to the expectations of family and community, and behave in "good" ways. This means having good motives. (The theft of the food was good because the intentions were to save a starving family.) This would still be a neutral alignment stage, but leaning toward good. Might best be termed as LN or possibly CG, however. Incidentally, I think Drizzt might fall here.

Stage four is about maintaining social order. This is where doing "good" to obey laws, and having concern for others outside one's personal sphere of relationships. Most of the good alignments fit here. This is also where respect for authority and doing one's duty comes in. These people understand that the motives in stealing the food are good, but they don't condone the theft, because it breaks society's rules.

And then you have the fifth stage, where people question the morality of society as a whole, and the morality of the law. This is where LG would likely fall. They recognize the need for laws, but they also don't want a totalitarian rule of authority that prevents people from doing what is morally right. It recognizes the rights to freedom, life, and to be protected from unfair laws. They would say that the lives being saved are more important than the property stolen. They would also say that it doesn't matter if it was their family or a stranger, it would still be one's duty to do so. This is definitely the spot for most paladins!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChieftainTwilight

why is it some of you think "cares only about himself" means Neutral, or that "self-serving isn't evil"? SELFISHNESS AND LACK OF COMPASSION ARE EVIL TRAITS!

Neutral is more of a "at least it wasn't me, but I'm not gonna ignore the plight of others" kinda deal, or else such a polarized duality of both extremes "sometimes I'm a Beast and othertimes I'm Saintly" that you can't rightly place them one way or the other.

if you realy don't care about others, you are Evil, regardless of whether you actively go about harming others.

I still say Jarlaxle is CN with strong Evil tendencies.

---

quote:

---

Chaotic NeutralChaotic Neutral is called the "Anarchist" or "Free Spirit" alignment. A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals coincide with their own. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.

---

quote:

---

Neutral EvilNeutral Evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

Examples are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind his superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus

Thing is, most of the good he's done(and admittedly I haven't read Sellswords) has been self serving and hasn't required great personal sacrifice. Whether it is simply to cultivate a good image or to help stop a giant dracolich or primordial from trying to kill him/rampaging around his surface playground, he's had a stake in the outcome. For a real life example, Al Capone ran a soup kitchen. For a comics example, Norman Osborn and The Hood helped save the world from the skrull invasion.

And the war happening in Luskan regardless doesn't matter; beyond the fact that it is extremely doubtful it would have happened as quickly or had caused damage on the scale it did without Jarlaxle's intervention, the fact remains he still set off the powder keg. Something else would have if he hadn't, but he still did it, so he still carries the responsibility.

---

quote:

---

aleksander, firestorm, shut it.

---

quote:

---

you're both wrong

---

quote:

---

according to some DMs, sure it's universal. but in D&D as a whole it isn't.

---

quote:

---

look, Alignment, Morality and Ethics arn't something you can peg on a chart or pidgeonhole people into! it's a fluid, subjective, complex thing!

---

quote:

---

Good and Evil are not Objective Universal Forces

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis

CT- That chart is based on asking moral questions to children. (who are the primary ones used to determine moral development in a person as they grow and become more mature in their reasoning.) The basis for a person's placement in the stages is not based simply on their answer to a moral question, but on their REASONING behind it. A small childe stops (in most cases) at simply "Stealing is bad because you can get punished". An older child would say (to the question of whether it's right or wrong to steal food for a starving person, or to steal dan over-priced drug from the maker to save a loved one from dying) that it is wrong in the eyes of the person being stolen from, but would be the right thing to do for the person DOING the stealing, because the theft is balance by the fact they are saving someone. A 3rd level would recognize the motives behind the theft, and say that it was right, because it was motivated by love, or compassion, etc. And so on. The higher stage one reaches, the more complex and abstract one's reasoning fo rthe answer given. THAT is how it works. It's a measure of how mature and reasoned of a response a person gives for "is stealing food for a starving person bad". Or any other moral question one cares to use. It's subjective because it's the reason behind the answer that is important, not the answer itself. Each person will answer differently, but most people of certain age groups will have similar answers- that was the entire point behind the original study, and it still holds true. The fact that some people answer the same question at a different level of reasoning simply means that their moral outlook is GENERALLY that of the stage that most closely matches their "moral maturity". That doesn't mean they will ALWAYS answer at that level, just that it is their "normal" level of morality. If asked whether it's right to execute a person for killing someone who attacked them, they might give an entirely different answer and a more or less complex reason. The study entailed asking a series of such questions, and finding the most CONSISTENT stage of morality used for each answer. No one ever said psychology was simple. It's a complex subject, but it can be boiled down to its basic elements for categorizing types of behavior.

---

quote:

---

BTW, telling someone they're wrong is generally not a good way to reply to a discussion of this kind. They expressed their opinions, which is perfectly fine, and neither right or wrong. Please refrain from those types of comments.

---

quote:

---

Ah, Chaos Theory- a favorite subject of mine. You are aware that even chaos has patterns, yes? Part of the point of Chaos Theory is to find the underlying patterns or "order" within seemingly random events. The Butterfly Effect is the short-hand, but even it works by the basic laws of nature, which factors in weather patterns (which CAN be mapped and predicted), geographical features, time of year, position of the sun and moon, etc.... There may be many connecting factors, but the system as a whole will still obey the laws within the basic system itself. A comet has an orbit, even if it varies by degrees over time. A volcano that erupts is simply obeying the physical laws of thermodynamics and is merely releasing built-up pressure, which can be measured. They may appear to be chaotic events, but there is an order underneath, if one can but understand it. Human (or any other race) psychology is no different. There are hundreds of factors in how a person acts, but they will still fall into basic behavior patterns over the long run, based on their personal experiences, environment, and so on. It's a complex system, but a system none-the-less.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AleksanderTheGreat

IMO, there is only one scribe that disrupts this discussion, so calming everyone is unnecessary.
I'm also for locking this thread. It was posted SIX YEAS AGO and there's nothing new there could be written on this topic (of course in six years probably new books with Jarlaxle came out so the answer could change).

Answering the question: Jarlaxle is deffinitly leaning more towards "evil" than "good" but (after reading the newest books) his probably neither.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firestorm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus

Thing is, most of the good he's done(and admittedly I haven't read Sellswords) has been self serving and hasn't required great personal sacrifice. Whether it is simply to cultivate a good image or to help stop a giant dracolich or primordial from trying to kill him/rampaging around his surface playground, he's had a stake in the outcome. For a real life example, Al Capone ran a soup kitchen. For a comics example, Norman Osborn and The Hood helped save the world from the skrull invasion.

And the war happening in Luskan regardless doesn't matter; beyond the fact that it is extremely doubtful it would have happened as quickly or had caused damage on the scale it did without Jarlaxle's intervention, the fact remains he still set off the powder keg. Something else would have if he hadn't, but he still did it, so he still carries the responsibility.

---

One could easily argue that if he had not helped organize, deal information to, and position himself in the shadows of the faction, that the war that was coming no matter what would have happened more slowly, dragged on, and even more innocent people would have died while it dragged on and caused damage on a wider scale.

P.S I highly suggest reading the sellswords. Excellent books

---