Those who say Dorn isn't evil: HEH, this was Dorn at age 12. Before he sold his soul to a demon to become blackguard. So, there is no point to argue if he is evil or not, even if i think, normal (non-evil) 12 years old people don't kill other people for a single non-physical offence.
Someone that just pursue his interest, without necessarily trying to be evil, is neutral. Some Neutral characters would have done what the half orc have done just now : kills those people that greatly offended you because you feel like it. Every human are jerks toward him, it's only normal if he pays them back when he has the occasion.
Sorry, but Neutral characters don't murder someone just because they were offended. That's why Dorn is evil.
Mazzy once attacked me because he offended her. Minsc too.
To be fair, Minsc frequently goes on rampages against people that piss him off, and it doesn't make him any less Good.
The difference, here, is that this is a formative moment for Dorn, a turning point; and rather than feel remorse for his first taste of blood, Dorn embraces it and follows it as a personal path to greatness.
@GueulEclator There are many gradients to evilness, just as there are gradients to goodness and neutrality. What you're referring to seems to be absolute poles of extreme good and extreme evil. Dorn hasn't even become a Blackguard yet in this story. He's still a boy by Half-Orc standards. Couldn't it be that he becomes much more evil as time progresses? Just because he's not the archetype of evilness in this story--and at twelve years old--doesn't mean that he isn't generally evil.
I see three basic categories of evil: generally evil, extremely evil, and inhumanly evil. I think it would be difficult for most human beings to correctly role play an inhumanly evil character. Even mass murderers, serial killers, and cruel despots have done benevolent things for others at some point in their lives. Hell, Jeffrey Dahmer used to help his landlady take out her garbage. What you're expecting out of Dorn's story is something that may very well be the case later on, but simply isn't so in this particular moment of his biography.
Do you see my point about there being several degrees of evilness?
I think you're coming at it from a different angle than the rest of us. Evil means "self-interest to the detriment of others", not "detriment of others because it's fun".
Basically no. A neutral character can pursue self-interest to the detriment of other. In fact, it's what they pretty much do all the time. There has always been a misunderstanding about that, because the BG description were incomplete (compared to the one in D&D). And that left people to think that only neutral-evil were pursuing self interest without moral standards. The difference between true neutral and neutral evil is that the neutral evil is evil to the very root : he completely embrace evilness, he enjoys it and most of his actions have an evil purpose.
Those who say Dorn isn't evil: HEH, this was Dorn at age 12. Before he sold his soul to a demon to become blackguard. So, there is no point to argue if he is evil or not, even if i think, normal (non-evil) 12 years old people don't kill other people for a single non-physical offence.
This guy has a good point there. I didn't thought about that.
A neutral person will do things that detriment others or that don't detriment others equally, being more concerned about self-interest and less about the methods involved.
An evil person will usually choose methods that detriment others. But that doesn't mean an evil character will go out of his way to detriment others if there is no benefit to himself or if it does not coincide with his own interests.
A neutral person will do things that detriment others or that don't detriment others equally, being more concerned about self-interest and less about the methods involved.
An evil person will usually choose methods that detriment others. But that doesn't mean an evil character will go out of his way to detriment others if there is no benefit to himself or if it does not coincide with his own interests.
For sure. My point was that we didn't saw him specifically acting evil : it was vague (he could be neutral or evil from this text). But I retracted my previous claims : I didn't noticed that he is only 12 years old, still has to sell his soul to a demon...
I think this is well told. Dorn looks less evil among evil men. Keep in mind dorn might have killed a child if it had the gold he wanted too. He sees life as a kind of Darwin capitalism. The weak are removed to ensure the remaining are the best, moving toward true perfection.
hahaha. no. I'm asking the same thing because you fanboys can't answer a simple question : how is this character evil here? What does he really do that is evil?
An evil character is someone that commit it's whole life to evil : he enjoys evil acts and often do it on purpose : YES neutral evil can do evil deeds for the pleasure too. That's what makes them evil.
Someone that just pursue his interest, without necessarily trying to be evil, is neutral. Some Neutral characters would have done what the half orc have done just now : kills those people that greatly offended you because you feel like it. Every human are jerks toward him, it's only normal if he pays them back when he has the occasion.
Try to come with a rational explanation instead of the : ''OMG you are wrong he just killed these people therefore is evil'' or ''we are tellig you he is evil therefore he is evil'', because all the different answers I got look pretty much like this.
Dude, this guy murdered some people for a perceived slight and then stole their belongings. If you don't think that's evil then you're pretty screwed up. Dorn very clearly enjoyed the murder, otherwise he would have robbed a random guy if he wanted money. He killed that guy because he wanted revenge for making him appear weak. The murder did not advance his goals, and even if it did then killing innocent people to advance your goals is still evil.
I like the voice! I did make the mistake of pre-conceiving what his voice might sound like, but after hearing it i was relieved, as it sounded pretty much as i'd envisoned it. I play paladins 90% of the time so i doubt i'll hire him on my 1st playthrough as we would....conflict lol. But on my 2nd i might, playing a less goody-goody party(but not evil...i can't play evil....i've tried)
I just have 2 small points to make on other things in this thread. The first is that GueulEclator doesn't seem to understand the D&D ruleset that this character's concept was written with/for. He seems to see only 3 alignments(good-neutral-evil) rather than the 9(or more as i'm not familiar with any of the newer rulesets) variations. He's arguing either for the sake of arguing or he needs to read up on D&D.
I've personally always hated my paladin being locked as lawful-good as i play as a paladin but, just not quite the squeaky clean, broom-stick up my arse type, as i have a snarky personality with a wicked sense of humour and would prefer just killing some evils rather than trusting to justice all the time. Not sure what kind of paladin that makes me...more towards lawful-neutral maybe? Others with more knowledge than me could advise me on that.
Second point is as far as Dorn's mastery of english(or common) and his mother's behaviour and attitude, the story specifically said she was a "claimed slave" of his father's and we don't actually know her full story . She badly she may have been treated badly or indifferently(which explains her seeming weakness and meekness) but she obviously treated her son well and i would assume she would have taught him common growing up anyways. I was born only speaking french in Ottawa yet could speak fluent english by the time i was 9 just from hanging out with english speaking friends.
As far as the easter eggs go, i'm too late in joining this thread to bother trying as others have already seemingly found them anyways.
@GueulEclator i don't know from where you are from, but if you're a teenager or a young person in high school or college, i truly hope that weapons dealers refuse to sell you anything, cos the result can be ...neutral? Well a very special kind of neutrality maybe !
i don't know from where you are from, but if you're a teenager or a young person in high school or college, i truly hope that weapons dealers refuse to sell you anything, cos the result can be ...neutral? Well a very special kind of neutrality maybe !
Chaotic Neutral, I think...Emphasis on the Chaotic
I think what Gueul is getting at... or trying to get at... is that the caravan party treats him and his mother in a particularly shitty way. As if the half-breed and his mother are nothing--or worse than nothing. The men Dorn kills are obviously evil. No doubt they have committed much worse transgressions than the scorn with which they treat Dorn and his mother. Gueul seems to feel that these men basically earned their deaths through their evil acts. And arguably by mistreating (and underestimating) the wrong person.
One could make an argument here that a righteous paladin might kill these evil men for treating Dorn and his mother no better than dogs when they were so vulnerable.
So best I can tell, that's what Gueul's on about.
And perhaps he has a point somewheres in there. But I think what drives Dorn is something much darker inside. He's not "righting a wrong." He's getting in touch with, and claiming, that he can kill at will. And needs no justification for it. I think that's the trajectory that event set him on.
It's not the end of the journey that define us, but the travel that shape our bodies and minds.
Dorn kill in cold blood, for revenge of a wound in his pride, he enjoyed what he did and from the start he demonstrate his tribal beliefs of "All for the streght, Death for the weak".
Remember that the boy has 12 years, and still isn't a blackguard. I ask myself if the Dorn's history presented was from a time when he had 3 years if our friend Gueul would complain that:
"He's a children!! How can a children be evil!!!"
Well, for that reason it's a background, not bibliography of Dorn's life.
Lemme anticipate now our friend Gueul answer to me:
And perhaps he has a point somewheres in there. But I think what drives Dorn is something much darker inside. He's not "righting a wrong." He's getting in touch with, and claiming, that he can kill at will. And needs no justification for it. I think that's the trajectory that event set him on.
If that's the case, then it's cool for me. Legit Evil material.
@GueulEclator: copy pasted from the AD&D 2nd ed. player's handbook...
Neutral Evil: Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every- man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes. An unscrupulous mercenary, a common thief, and a double-crossing informer who betrays people to the authorities to protect and advance himself are typical examples of neutral evil characters.
I don't think reality tidily fits into chaotic and lawful, good and evil. Art imitating life caries the same flaw. Which of you stands on an objective pillar judging clearly what is good at what is not? I see Dorn as evil because he lacks love for others. He gives up love and it is official. The more love the less evil. a Druid who leads the orcs to the human settlement to maintain balance has a love of a general sort but not enough to overcome her sense of balance. That is just my definition. As to lawful vs chaotic: the fact that he picked the caravan guards specifically says he's not chaotic. The fact that he had no concern for fairness says he's not lawful. He's neither, and therefore that much scarier.
@GueulEclator i don't know from where you are from, but if you're a teenager or a young person in high school or college, i truly hope that weapons dealers refuse to sell you anything, cos the result can be ...neutral? Well a very special kind of neutrality maybe !
lmao, I dunno why it would matter if he were young but still ... LOL I agree I don't want him to buy a gun and go all "neutral" on the world!!
You can't compare today to the forgotten realm. The notion Evil in the forgotten realm is clearly defined because it is a fiction. The notion of evil today is not clearly defined (for obvious reason).
Comments
So, there is no point to argue if he is evil or not, even if i think, normal (non-evil) 12 years old people don't kill other people for a single non-physical offence.
The difference, here, is that this is a formative moment for Dorn, a turning point; and rather than feel remorse for his first taste of blood, Dorn embraces it and follows it as a personal path to greatness.
I see three basic categories of evil: generally evil, extremely evil, and inhumanly evil. I think it would be difficult for most human beings to correctly role play an inhumanly evil character. Even mass murderers, serial killers, and cruel despots have done benevolent things for others at some point in their lives. Hell, Jeffrey Dahmer used to help his landlady take out her garbage. What you're expecting out of Dorn's story is something that may very well be the case later on, but simply isn't so in this particular moment of his biography.
Do you see my point about there being several degrees of evilness?
However : This guy has a good point there. I didn't thought about that.
An evil person will usually choose methods that detriment others. But that doesn't mean an evil character will go out of his way to detriment others if there is no benefit to himself or if it does not coincide with his own interests.
has to sell his soul to a demon...
I just have 2 small points to make on other things in this thread. The first is that GueulEclator doesn't seem to understand the D&D ruleset that this character's concept was written with/for. He seems to see only 3 alignments(good-neutral-evil) rather than the 9(or more as i'm not familiar with any of the newer rulesets) variations. He's arguing either for the sake of arguing or he needs to read up on D&D.
I've personally always hated my paladin being locked as lawful-good as i play as a paladin but, just not quite the squeaky clean, broom-stick up my arse type, as i have a snarky personality with a wicked sense of humour and would prefer just killing some evils rather than trusting to justice all the time. Not sure what kind of paladin that makes me...more towards lawful-neutral maybe? Others with more knowledge than me could advise me on that.
Second point is as far as Dorn's mastery of english(or common) and his mother's behaviour and attitude, the story specifically said she was a "claimed slave" of his father's and we don't actually know her full story . She badly she may have been treated badly or indifferently(which explains her seeming weakness and meekness) but she obviously treated her son well and i would assume she would have taught him common growing up anyways. I was born only speaking french in Ottawa yet could speak fluent english by the time i was 9 just from hanging out with english speaking friends.
As far as the easter eggs go, i'm too late in joining this thread to bother trying as others have already seemingly found them anyways.
One could make an argument here that a righteous paladin might kill these evil men for treating Dorn and his mother no better than dogs when they were so vulnerable.
So best I can tell, that's what Gueul's on about.
And perhaps he has a point somewheres in there. But I think what drives Dorn is something much darker inside. He's not "righting a wrong." He's getting in touch with, and claiming, that he can kill at will. And needs no justification for it. I think that's the trajectory that event set him on.
Dorn kill in cold blood, for revenge of a wound in his pride, he enjoyed what he did and from the start he demonstrate his tribal beliefs of "All for the streght, Death for the weak".
Remember that the boy has 12 years, and still isn't a blackguard. I ask myself if the Dorn's history presented was from a time when he had 3 years if our friend Gueul would complain that:
"He's a children!! How can a children be evil!!!"
Well, for that reason it's a background, not bibliography of Dorn's life.
Lemme anticipate now our friend Gueul answer to me:
"You didn't explained yet why he's evil!"
Oooooooook!
@GueulEclator: copy pasted from the AD&D 2nd ed. player's handbook... Just sayin'...
I see Dorn as evil because he lacks love for others. He gives up love and it is official. The more love the less evil. a Druid who leads the orcs to the human settlement to maintain balance has a love of a general sort but not enough to overcome her sense of balance. That is just my definition.
As to lawful vs chaotic: the fact that he picked the caravan guards specifically says he's not chaotic. The fact that he had no concern for fairness says he's not lawful. He's neither, and therefore that much scarier.
The notion of evil today is not clearly defined (for obvious reason).
Also, I forgot to make this joke: Dorn Il-KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!