In the last episode, Perdition, we have two people trying to get Team Richard to take their side. The Prelate is willing to just let Richard die so he can't complete his quest and help the Keeper, plus she tries to keep Kahlan hostage so she can't save him. Nicci wants Richard to live so he will complete his quest, but will aid the Keeper in doing so. (According to the prophecy) So, who is more EVIL???? (MEVIL) The Prelate or Sister Nicci??? You must choose.
Last edited by Kaelyn"Amnell"1; 14-02-2010 at 08:51 PM.
Anyone on the side of the Keeper has to take the bow, but the Prelate--doing evil in the name of good--should get runner up. LOL
actually richard must give the stone of tears to the keeper in order to seal the underworld, when the veil is torn the stone of tears will appear in the world of the living so the prelate and sister of dark who interpret the prohercy misunderstood the true meaning that by giving the stone to the keeper they are actually letting him win
If you had to kill one person to save the world, would you do it? Does that make you evil?
I agree it would have to be Nicci, its a classical argument though. Is it necessarily evil to do what is necessary for the greater good and the will of the creator?
Its a Cara-centric world
Evil is measured by intent. So Nicci, easily. How much harm has Richard done with good intentions? Does that make him evil?
second wzard's rule!Originally Posted by Sharra
so,Nicci!
The first question depends on whether someone believes in absoluteness. And the answer to the 2nd one is neither because good/evil is just a social consensus and therefore can only be answered within the scope of the used benchmark. It's that way with all hypothetical dilemmas.
If I take LotS as a benchmark then Nicci is evil and the prelate is misguided and she should consult a wizard about the 2nd rule.
While she is not evil in a manner of speaking she is still dangerous and I really hate that character.
Zedd
Last edited by Zedd; 05-02-2010 at 06:22 PM.
Zedd has it right; good and evil are subjective and are not absolute. A good example are the villains in the SoT books. They and those on their side believe that they are good and "Team Richard" are evil.
Good is a point of view.
Tagla Vasternich
I know what you say is what they will teach you in every philosophy class but I can only half agree. It is true that we will typically call people who oppose us or want to do us harm "evil", so that depends 100% on ones point of view, but there are also universal quantifiers (hardwired into our brains). That is why good guys in whatever story are almost always noble, willing to help others and even sacrifice themselves for others, while bad guys will often kill/torment innocent people, do malicious acts (kick the dog) for no reason, be untrustworthy, prone to betrayal, selfish, etc. So to apply this to Annalina and Nicci, the prelate is "evil" only for opposing the main characters while Nicci has been typecast with many of the properties I listed for a "bad person" so I think the answer to the question of who is more evil of these two (as portrayed by the show) is pretty straightforwardThe first question depends on whether someone believes in absoluteness. And the answer to the 2nd one is neither because good/evil is just a social consensus and therefore can only be answered within the scope of the used benchmark. It's that way with all hypothetical dilemmas.
If I take LotS as a benchmark then Nicci is evil and the prelate is misguided and she should consult a wizard about the 2nd rule.
While she is not evil in a manner of speaking she is still dangerous and I really hate that character.
Zedd
This is actually an interesting thing about Nicci.
TG in the books went to great pains to show that Nicci believed herself evil and therefore acted on the evil side, but that many of the things she did were actually good. In other words, she served the Keeper and did his bidding, because she thought she was a worthless, hopeless, sinning wretch who was beyond saving or playing on the good team, so she played on the bad... but she didn't do it for her own purposes or enrichment, she didn't even enjoy doing it, and she certainly wouldn't do malicious acts like the proverbial kicking the dog for no reason. That was her inigma, because she was a very caring and good person.
Eventually she realized that she was really good and wanted to be, so she turned away from serving the bad. With Nicci's character, TG was tryiing to show that if you have no self esteem, even if you are prone to do good things, you will end up doing bad things, as a result of your low self esteem and poor life philosophy. Changing the self esteem and life philosophy helped Nicci to become what she truelly wanted to be, but believed herself incapable of.
That is all book stuff, but, I don't really think we have seen anything in the tv show Nicci's portrayal that negates that angle on her character. She killed a couple of people to advance the Keepers side. But she didn't torture any dogs or little babies or anything that I saw. I didn't see anything that could be considered cruelty towards anyone. No way is she a lost cause.
What I like about this show is that the characters are not simply good or evil. In Season 1, there was the Confessor who confessed the entire village. That could be considered an abuse of power. Then, there was the Mother Confessor (not Kahlan) who confessed Zedd in her goal of killing the male Confessor baby. In “Deception,” there was the D’haran soldier who wasn’t so bad with his family and all. The Resistance, on the other hand, were about ready to kill the families of the D’haran soldiers. Richard, for all his noble moments, has shown moments of evil. In “Bloodline” in Season 1, Zedd can say all he wants that it wasn’t Richard who do those horrible things when he put the Boxes of Orden together, but I believe that what happened was a result of an evil part inside Richard. Everyone, after all, has evil inside them. No one is only good. And let’s not forget the whole incident in “Fury” in Season 2. And Zedd has shown not so good moments. In Episode 9 of Season 1, he will willing to sacrifice Martha (the cook) in order to get the third box away from Rahl. Thank goodness Rachel was there to save Martha. In Episode 16 of Season 2, Zedd was willing to sacrifice his own daughter. It might be for the greater good, but your own daughter? Kahlan and Cara aren’t perfect either by any means either. Until Richard got Kahlan to his side, she was just as ready as the other confessors to kill the male Confessor baby. And an argument can be made that the Keeper is not evil because what’s so evil about death, everyone dies; death is natural. Can something that is natural really be evil? I’m not saying that the Keeper isn’t evil, but he and his agents could easily make the argument that expanding the world of the dead isn’t really a bad thing. Everyone must die eventually, so what’s so evil about speeding up the progress (the Keeper’s and his agents’ point of view)?
Are there? Maybe on a hypothetical plane. There is theoretical philosophy and applied philosophy. In theoretical philosophy you can discuss questions like you have posted earlier on a meta level but applied philosophy doesn't use such ideas because they can't be transformed to a real life situation.
In real life people develop procedures and moral views based upon what is most suitable for their current situation. Maybe it is a good idea to imagine a tribal society. In times of peace killing a member of another tribe is considered a bad idea because it could start a war and you can't trade with him/them anymore. In times of war it's considered to be good to kill people of the other tribe instead. Or even more extreme: as long as there is enough to eat and everyone is happy it is considered a good idea to be more or less nice to your comrades but if there isn't then the perspective changes and even the worst deeds suddenly become normal. Imagine the cases in which people started cannibalism or kill for a loaf of bread. There is nothing hardwired. It's all subject to the current situation.
Or take slavery for an example. In societies that condoned slavery most moral views didn't apply to the slaves. It's all just a question of the society you live in.
I don't think that's true. First of all the whole definition of such things like beeing noble and sacrifices change from culture to culture and time to time. Compare chinese heroes to western heroes for example. Or compare heroes from 80 years ago to modern heroes.
A lot of todays stories in books or movies don't utilize classic brave and shiny heroes anymore rather than antiheroes.
Or think about subcultures like the whole ghetto gangsta stuff or extremists that consider someone a hero because he blows himself up in a crowd or children that torture animals for fun or as a test of courage.
The only thing hardwired is the ability to shift views as necessary for the own good or the good of the current society.
Another important thing to acknowledge is that what is considered good/evil often changes with the outcome. A bad deed with good intentions that leads to something good is usually considered as such in hindsight opposed to bad deeds with good intentions that result in nothing or worse.
Furthermore there is the question whether people like stories about classical heroes because they like to see their own standards and morals in effect or because it is an escape to a world where good and evil are easily identified. The hero wouldn't really be a hero after all - no matter his intentions - if the villian wouldn't be evil but something in between.
That's true.ISo to apply this to Annalina and Nicci, the prelate is "evil" only for opposing the main characters while Nicci has been typecast with many of the properties I listed for a "bad person" so I think the answer to the question of who is more evil of these two (as portrayed by the show) is pretty straightforward
Zedd
Last edited by Zedd; 07-02-2010 at 10:45 AM. Reason: spell
A solid post wintertgt, expressed eloquently.I know what you say is what they will teach you in every philosophy class but I can only half agree. It is true that we will typically call people who oppose us or want to do us harm "evil", so that depends 100% on ones point of view, but there are also universal quantifiers (hardwired into our brains). That is why good guys in whatever story are almost always noble, willing to help others and even sacrifice themselves for others, while bad guys will often kill/torment innocent people, do malicious acts (kick the dog) for no reason, be untrustworthy, prone to betrayal, selfish, etc. So to apply this to Annalina and Nicci, the prelate is "evil" only for opposing the main characters while Nicci has been typecast with many of the properties I listed for a "bad person" so I think the answer to the question of who is more evil of these two (as portrayed by the show) is pretty straightforward
I am gonna snip most of your post Zedd, but I did read all of it.(great read too)
Interesting you mention this (and all the examples) because I also wanted to do a similar thing in my original post, to refer to tribal societies and societies throughout history. So I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, all your examples are of the instance that I already said I agreed with it in my original post, that our "good/bad" distinction will be largely self-serving, and imposed by the mores of the society we live in. There are however certain baselines (otherwise societies couldn't even form) much like our core emotions are hardwired and universal among all people.
An example would be, as psychological studies have shown, that all else being equal, we regard someone who is taller to be smarter and more succesfull than someone who is shorter, you could say we think (instinctively) they are a better person.
And here you yourself give a another great example. Looks are indeed another universal qualifier. To go beyond the physical, people skills is another one. The more likeable we find someone, the more "good" we will attribute them to be. To go one step further, betrayal within a peer group is always "evil". I mean, no matter what society you live in, if someone betrays you then you will never go thinking more highly of them. In certain societies or social groups it may be desirable to be a ruthless person and step on other people, but you won't feel like that if it swings your way because that is hardwired into your emotional responses.That's true.
Anyway it seems we have strayed far from the innocent initual post, but I hope I made it more clear what I meant
Thank you. To be honest I wasn't sure to try an answer at first. It's kind of hard to discuss something like this in a foreign language.
Basically I agree with everything but all these examples are subject to change and differ from age to age, situation to situation, culture to culture or even individual to individual. The archetypes we have in our heads vary and if a situation changes then so do our conceptions of the world and what we believe in; even the baselines that form or destroy societies.
The ability to define these parameters, rules or views of the world is hardwired because it helps us to survive but not the parameters itself.
And these changing and varying parameters are the reason why there is no absolute answer to the hypothetical question whether something is good or evil. It can only be answered personally or within definded rules and parameters.
Exactly but these are all defined parameters. If you define them then you can of course answer questions like "is it evil".
Even the fact that most likely all individuals think that something is evil if it turns against them is just a common trait. It doens't apply to society as a whole because the interest of the individual differs from society while forming it at the same time.
I guess we aren't that much apart. And either way it was a very interesting to read. Thank you for that.Anyway it seems we have strayed far from the innocent initual post, but I hope I made it more clear what I meant
Thanks again for the good read
Zedd
Last edited by Zedd; 07-02-2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason: spell
I totally get what you guys are saying. It's all about point of view and how people percieve good and bad. Yes, the Prelate was going to let Richard die and didn't want him to complete his quest, but that's what she herself considered to be for the good. Where Kahlan on the other hand would not agree. And yes Nicci wants to save Richard, but she also tries to kill Kahlan, which we don't want. So this makes her kind of evil, but this is what she believes to be good. So really there is no evil, it's peoples beliefs that give something the label of bad or good.
In the case of the show we generally see a character as evil if they are against the main characters, because they are the ones we are favoring. So when the Prelate wanted to let Richard die, you thought, she is a horrible person. But in the end she sees the error of her ways and helps them, so now Nicci is the one to consider "evil" because she stole Richards powers and tried to kill them, but with her good intensions in mind.
If this is making any sense, great.
I don't think sister Nicci's intentions were ever "good" or that she believed them to be. She is serving the Keeper of the no undies world who wants to destroy all life and serving her own desire for power. She believed that in allowing Richard to succeed in his quest, she was serving the Keeper not doing good for humanity. Doing what’s good for evil (the Keeper--though like a cockroach, he has his purpose, too.) is evil. She really doesn't care at all about Richard--she only wanted his power and to do the Keeper's bidding.
Ok, that makes sense. But she's serving the Keeper because that's what she believes in right? And also she wants power. With that in mind, it makes me think that Nicci is definatley more evil. I didn't mean to say that her intentions were good, just that she believed them right.
I don't mean to be sticky, but I don't believe Nicci believes she's doing what's right. I think she believes she's doing what's right for her--what will promote her own ends--a need for power and a desired place at the Keeper's side when she goes to the no undies world. We both agree, however, that we believe Nicci evil--at least more so than the Prelate, anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
