Valygar
velehal
Member Posts: 299
Does anybody think that Valygar has wrong alignment? I don´t think that he is good at all. True Neutral would probably suit him better. He is definitely more neutral than good, possibly with inclination to evil. It is the same case like Jaheira, who is neutral because of the requirement of her class, even when she behaves much more like good than neutral. There are mods that change her alignement to good, but I don´t know of any that changes Valygar´s alignment to neutral.
0
Comments
If Keldorn puts his wife to death, it's the lawful aspect taking precedence. If he spares his wife in mercy, it can be argued that the good aspect is taking precedence. Either course of action is not contrary to his alignment because of the rationale given in the story, so it's okay.
For Korgan, we need to look at slavery as social practice that binds a group of people into servitude. This arrangement will restrict the freedom of expression/behavior of the enslaved. Korgan, if he is Chaotic, may look at such repression with distaste. Or if you want to look at it differently, it's his chaotic aspect taking precedence over his evil aspect (I don't care if you're good or evil but I demand you allow everyone to do as he pleases!)
For Valygar, he is Neutral Good.
He hates the evil of undeath (killed his parents after his wizard mum turned insane and raised his father from the dead), the rangers consider him one of their own (you get attacked by the ranger outside his Umar HIlls cabin if you give the wrong response), and he is willing to deny himself the pleasures of sex and the joys of family, and then die to end what he perceives as the evil taint of Lavok in his bloodline. On these counts, he is definitely good. If you read the other banters with other NPCs (e.g. Keldorn asking Valygar to follow a god and abandon his atheist ways), he is reflected as good.
He might have killed some Cowled Wizards, but we also know that they accosted him (Tolgerias wanted him dead or alive. Valygar also knew he was wanted because of the Planar Sphere and didn't wish to help the Cowled Wizards for fear of unleashing the greater evil that is Lavok). Not that the Cowled Wizards have a good reputation either.
Anyway, it should also be noted that Jaheira is not good! She is true neutral and her comments and actions reflect this. I'll step out on a limb here and say if she's viewed as neutral good, it's due to a flawed understanding of the DnD alignment system. But that's for another thread ^_^
Harpers are an active good-aligned group. Their involvement in the iron shortage appears to be benevolent. #harpsohard I'd say that jaheira's actions and words represent the values of a neutral good character
1. Harpers are Good/Neutral aligned, not good-aligned. Neutral characters can find a home with the Harpers. Even one of the two leaders of the official Harper branch is a Lawful Neutral B26
2. Jaheira refused to raise Khalid despite PC observing that it could be attempted, because Jaheira insisted it is not natural to interrupt the cycle of life and death. This is True Neutral druidic philosophy.
3. In one of the dialogues between Jaheira and Valygar, Valygar observes that druidic big-picture, nature-comes-first views can spawn intimate hardships because responsible use is not given as an option. Jaheira disagrees.
4. She is a believer of Silvanus, god of druids. Silvanus is strictly True Neutral, and Jaheira thinks and acts accordingly. Chauntea, a Neutral Good goddess, is also served by druids, so druids serving her are probably more likely to demonstrate NG tendencies.
This is not to say that she is not acting with good tendencies, but that despite some of her heroic actions, there is insufficient evidence to show that she should be reclassified as a good character.
Excerpts from Player's Handbook:
True Neutral: ...True Neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces...
Neutral Good: These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it...
Based on the descriptions, Jaheira is more True Neutral than Neutral Good, with her repeated emphasis on balance (in her selection speech, in her interactions with fellow harpers, with her druidic faith and philosophy). But of course, since Jaheira is fairly popular, it's perfectly fine for players to RP her as NG instead of N. This is more a discussion that based on how she is presented in-game, she is not out-of-character as someone of N alignment
For instance, she is incenced at the slavery in the copper cornet - but that can be argued to be a "balancing" factor of high civilization, since the slaves are a way to limit the overall growth of man and balance out forces of order and justice. She is also interested in helping the Umar Hills, even though problems in civilizations close to nature can be a way to inhibit, or rather moderate, the enroachment of civilization on nature.
I've started to change Jaheira's alignment to neutral good because she wants charname to act as an active force for good (and I hate how she is angered by charname after a reputation rise when doing what she wants, she wants us to give money to enslaved children, but dislikes the reputation rise? I dont think she wants us to kill commoners or steal or kill Drizzt to "balance" things out). I love Jahiera as a character in every way, her banters are often wise, and she is not naive - her romance is also very well made, her TN-alignement is my problem with her. I guess in effect I also strongly disagree (or fail to understand) the merits of an ideology of balance. Why not try to make the world marginally better? There will always be catastrophes which will pull good deeds down again anyway - but why should you be a cataclyst for that?
Though none could often accuse the bedraggled twig-catcher of resembling the Amnian nobleman he truly was, he shared enough of his city's distrust of the magically inclined. Little surprise he would find his greatest allies among those similarly inclined to trust in their own skill and steel; holy inquisitors, halfling knights... even the coarse hargluk expressed admiration for his unassuming competence and deft displays of controlled swordsmanship. I believe Valygar took solace in the simple and necessary rituals of the road, the preparation of tack and shelter, and perhaps in some of the more esoteric traditions of service and duty. I would grow weary of the one-sided prattle between Corthala and the Fentan woman, yet he indulged her in her demands - perhaps only to spare the footstool knight's feelings. I could not often stand such sickening displays of naive loyalty; yet when I pointed out that such an arrangement as they eventually came to was reminiscent of my own people's custom of male servitude, the pair seemed strangely untroubled by the prospect. Perhaps they kept such reaction hidden only to spite me; I would not put it past Valygar to take mute satisfaction in that.
Perhaps the only thing that could deeply trouble the steady ranger was magic. I once asked him if his pursuit of such dark, eldritch foes as lurked in the shadowy recesses of his distant bloodline had brought happiness. When he muttered a faltering denial, it became apparent he grappled with the questions of morality such judgement necessitated. This was perhaps Valygar's greatest limit; his inability to place faith in powers beyond his control. I had entertained thoughts of persuading the faithless man to Shar's service before I realised the depths of this self-reliant streak. Valygar sought independence from all that controlled his life - curses, duties, noble station, the doctrines of the gods themselves - trusting himself alone to make judgement as to which of them was necessary and important to pursue, and to what lengths. He had unwavering faith only in his own discipline, his own capacity to determine right from wrong and steadfastly pursue what he thought right. Though I often derided his lack of ambition or desire, none could deny that his skill was a useful asset and his attitude perhaps natural for a man who, no matter where he stood, believed himself to be walking in a wilderness.
1. From the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition: "The Harpers are a semi-secret organization dedicated to promoting good, preserving history (including art and music of old) and maintaining a balance between civilization and nature by keeping kingdoms small and the destruction of plant life to a minimum."
Clearly Jaheira is more concerned with the latter goals, but she is still part of an organization who's first listed goal on the sourcebook is to promote good. Most of the seven heads are good
Also, from their code:
Harpers work against villainy and wickedness wherever they find it, but they work ever mindful of the consequences of what they do.
2. This is without a doubt untrue, since she has an entire spell called Harper's Call that is unique to her and to no other druids. If she really had qualms about resurrection, how could this possibly be true? I and many others seem to think that Khalid's body was simply too defiled for a proper resurrection.
4. Silvanus is a TN deity, but Helm is LN and his paladins are all LG.
Generally, first follow the DM, then the sourcebook. If you, as DM, wish to suspend the rules, that's your prerogative
1. For starters, this is 2nd Ed, not 3rd Ed. Wrong sourcebook :P
Secondly, if you base the description off the BG manual, it states "They are primarily a group that is allied with a number of good churches, and are receiving support from powerful neutral parties, including druidic circles..." Harpers in 2nd Ed are mainly good/neutral, not just good.
Thirdly, there are two branches of Harpers, Western and Eastern. Western Harpers are the formal structure, governed by Dragonbreast and her husband IIRC. Elminster and co are also Harpers, but they are of the Eastern Branch, also known as the Master Harpers, who are not of the official structure. Jaheira is most likely a rank and file Harper who belongs to the Western Branch, not the Eastern branch where Elminster and the other Mystra's chosen (the very famous good Harpers) belong to.
Note that one of the codes of the Harpers is "No extreme is good. For freedom to flourish, all must be in balance: the powers of the realms, the reaches of the cities...". A determined pursuit of good (NG) is not exactly the flavor of Harpers. Their first and most important belief is that "All beings should walk free of fear, with the right to live their lives as they wish", which is promoting freedom and individualism. That they are enemies of evil groups (who most likely want to rule over others and therefore curtail other peoples' freedom) is more a consequence of a pursuit of freedom and balance rather than good.
2. Please read the dialogue tree in dialog.tlk. Observe the hesitation, the emphasis on the "natural cycle of birth and death", on "unnatural", with special note of the punctuation marks. This is her druidic beliefs showing themselves - not exactly out of character for a N druid.
3. Valygar already said druidic big picture views can spawn hardships because responsible use is not an option. Note that Jaheira tries to rationalize it, then brushes it off! Ergo, she prioritizes druidic big picture views, and even if the result of druidic actions is hardship, responsible use is not an option and it's "too bad for those affected".
This is actually the clearest indicator that Jaheira, in prioritizing nature over civilization, would rather let people suffer. I doubt you would call "let even those who seek responsible use suffer" good.
4. I grant you that, though this does not invalidate the observation that druids are neutral in alignment and outlook.
Taking all of the above together, the conclusion is that there is no reason to think she is not N (note double negative) - she tends towards NG, but the N side also appears sufficiently too. To be fair, she could be turning into NG (and incur penalties for alignment change in PnP :P), but as of what we can see, the NG part is not so consistent that she should be properly reclassified as NG instead of N.
In summary:
NG - pursues good!
N(G) - pursues balance, but tending towards good (I'd place Jaheira here unless evidence shows that she will ditch balance to pursue good)
But as I said, every player is like a DM, the player has the final call, though at least under 2E rules, you cannot be NG and a druid, unless you want to use 3E rules
Jaheira: I find it surprising we have so little to say to one another, Valygar.
Valygar: I have little to say to anyone, usually, and that is by my design.
Jaheira: I understand. Still, we share much as druid and ranger.
Valygar: Yes, we share misconceptions and stereotypes. You know as well as I that our outlooks differ fundamentally.
Jaheira: Perhaps. As a druid, any encroachment of civilization on the wild places is a loss to be mourned.
Valygar: I have seen communities destroyed because they did not fit the 'balance' of a marsh or woodland.
Jaheira: Destroyed?
Valygar: 'Encouraged' to relocate, but these are just different words for the same thing.
Jaheira: I'm sure it was a dire circumstance.
Valygar: Someone thought it was. Responsible use was apparently not an option. I bear you no ill-will, Jaheira, but druidic 'big-picture balance' can spawn very intimate hardships.
Jaheira: Well, we shall have to agree to disagree.
Valygar: As you see fit.
Note that Jaheira tries to justify it, then push comes to shove when Valygar presses his point, she immediately flips back to N and drops the NG. For me, this doesn't mean she will never be NG, but for now, she is still N, because when it comes to the crunch, N is more important than being NG.
lot of stuff here!
Again, looking at sourcebooks as cut and dried representatives of the game world is often useless. If we pretend that the game follows only second edition and does not borrow heavily from third, then what will we say when we look at:
Sorcerers?
Monks?
Barbarians?
Half the abilities in the game?
She did not seem very committed there though. All she really says is that she supports limiting civilizations encroachment on capital-N Nature. She did not go into methods by which she is willing to ensure this, or to the extent to which this goal trumps others.
The more accurate representation of her alignment would be her discussions with Faldorn. It is quite clear who the developers are trying to portray as the good one and the evil one. This simply cannot be correct, since she was close with Gorion, who knew both Elminster and Khelban Blackstaff. She is definitely in the Eastern branch, if any, though I doubt the developers put much thought into it. Regardless, there is absolutely no indication that she was in the Eastern branch.
Then how would explain Harper's Call? Why would she have a spell completely unique to her if she is philosophically opposed to its use?
I'd say she is really Neutral Good. The game lists her as TN because she is a druid, and the game is confused as to whether or not it is second edition or third edition.
But then again, there is the eternal rule:
"The laws of Dungeons and Dragons Edition X and Edition Y are overridden by the law that Stories Must be Good."!
2. I mentioned that Eastern (Master) Harpers is where Elminster is. And just because Gorion knows the big shots doesn't mean he's from the Master Harpers. I know Elminster too :P
3. Did you read the dialogue?
4. I think we can find something to agree on. She IS moving towards good. This is something that is pretty clear. It's just that some players, like you, consider her to have "crossed the alignment border of no return from N to NG". But other players, like myself, consider her as "not having fully broken ties to N to cross the alignment border of no return to NG". Basically, you think she's arrived at NG. I think she's on her way, but hasn't arrived yet.
I have actually read about people with strong tendencies despite their official alignment (Robyn Kendrick is N with NG tendencies, Khelben Blackstaff is LN with LG tendencies), so I'm less willing to consider her to have "crossed the boundary". But you can also say it's because I'm a very conservative player who hates bending the rules unless I have to, and even if other rules are bent, I won't bend the remaining rules as much as possible. That much is true of me.
And yes, as always, if you are the DM, you call the shots. Other players can argue to the death.
But I'm not a Harper! I identify more with the vremyonni actually, or even liches/demiliches. Just focus on research and development.
As far as shadow Druids go, I think that being so eager to use violence to achieve your goals is a sign of evil, despite what a character sheet might say.
Unrelated:
Tbh I am very much like @Aristillius in that I really think the entire idea of "balance" as an end is just stupid.
As for Shadow Druids, I can't really consider them evil. Yes, they are the eco-terrorists of Forgotten Realms, but they resort to violence because they are convinced that there is already a serious imbalance and hence drastic action is required, as opposed to mainstream druids who contend that the world is still basically balanced and they just need to monitor and take action as and when necessary.
It's the druids that are mostly those seekers of balance. And they do that probably because balance is in the interest of nature, and they believe *that* to be their first concern.
With regard to keeping evil in check, I am somehow reminded of the Star Trek TNG episode 'Peak Performance'. In it, Data (an android, so genius intellect and amazing reflexes) challenges a Zakdorn (a race with a deserved reputation as master strategists) to a game of Stratagema, where strategy and reflexes are key. To everyones surprise, Data loses his first game, because he had his mind set on winning. In the rematch, all he does is try to keep the Zakdorn from winning, and the Zakdorn eventually gives up in frustration after a record game.
Translated to D&D this might mean that "seeking balance" is a way of saying that you've accepted the fact that there will always be those that try to exploit and hurt others (evil) but that you are commited to minimize that evil as much as possible.
It would be really awesome if everyone was 'good', but if that's not possible, everyone being 'neutral' (or at least not evil) would be the next bext thing.