[Furion]

worrywort, on 22 June 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

That doesn't make his act any less evil. In fact, the acts are what are relevant anyway. An evil man can stew in his own juices, thinking evil thoughts till he dies, and none of it particularly matters if he didn't commit any evil acts. On the other hand, most of history's mass murderers had reasons for what they did, and understanding those reasons doesn't absolve them one bit.

Am I the only one on this board who actually likes Kallor?

Sure he's not a hero. And he's probably going to do something horrible to the Malazan world before the end of the series. But at the same time, his PoV sections just feel incredibly human. And he has a heart somewhere in him. I seem to remember him coming close to weeping during his duel with Spinnock. Wish I had my book with me so I could explain better...

His killing of Whiskeyjack was driven by his sincere (maybe misguided, maybe not...) belief that the death of Silverfox was best for humanity's continued existence. As Kallor says to Spinnock, Whiskeyjack put himself in his way.

Kallor can be defined by incredible ambition, and total lack of compassion for those who stand against him. But evil? I'm not sure that word applies here.

[worry]

A total lack of compassion for those who stand against you is evil, by my reckoning. Not that I think Kallor lacks the ability to feel compassion. But if eliminating 12 million people to further your personal ambition isn't evil, then what is? What extremes are you willing to rationalize? Who would you willingly sacrifice to Kallor's plans? Could you explain calmly to their faces why their lives have to end, and why that's excusable, even reasonable, when placed in the context of serving one determined man's ambition?

[HoosierDaddy]

Kallor is a good character. You wouldn't want him dating your sister/daughter/mother, though, would you?

[Dolmen 2.0]

I agree fully with worrywort and H.D., Kallor is a really deep character with a type of badassed internal "strength" most of us wish we had in ourselves. Its the bad man attraction that SE presents to us in an entirely unique way, and thats why we enjoy reading kallor, his point of view is overwhelming. imagine reading the character of hitler, learning about his love for his pet A,B & C and the anguish he felt at being rejected in activities D,E & F. We all could relate to these elements but that doesn't mean we should accept the why he turned people into soap. Sure it made sense to hitler but it was an evil deed irrespective of who did it or how it was done: Evil is an act of raw depravity. trying to rationalize the degree of depravity is missing the point, the act itself is something noone should allow to occur, along that path lies anarchy and perpetual destruction.

About the Pannion: I fully understand the mass of pain and suffering behind the pannion but does that make the pannions acts less evil? the unfortunate reality is fate created a creature like the pannion but he wasn't completely robbed of choice, he could have replaced his sister, suffered in her place (highly unlikely but an option he did not entertain) even though he was basicly groomed for evil the ultimate evil decisions he made were his and as such he should bear the weight of them. recognizing his character as evil is not wrong, but I accept that his case was weighed heavily against him. Given easier choices I have no doubt he would be a much more likeable guy...but then again so would satan.

[The Seguleh 46th]

H.D., on 23 June 2010 - 06:34 AM, said:

Kallor is a good character. You wouldn't want him dating your sister/daughter/mother, though, would you?

Well put!

[foolio]

worrywort, on 23 June 2010 - 06:22 AM, said:

A total lack of compassion for those who stand against you is evil, by my reckoning. Not that I think Kallor lacks the ability to feel compassion. But if eliminating 12 million people to further your personal ambition isn't evil, then what is? What extremes are you willing to rationalize?

and to make it worse he didnt even kill them to further his ambtition, he killed them becasue he is like a spoiled child at the park when things dont go their way they say "I am taking my ball and going home". (cartmen of Wu)



He is like the crazy psycho jilted lover, "well if I cant have her , no one will." He killed all those people because his lordship over them was coming to an end...(I personally think fueling his curse was a side benefit) Jim Jones anyone?

[foolio]

Holy shitballs...two comments
1. I am dumbstruck by all those argueing that there is no such thing as evil...and its all a matter of perspective. To this I say bull fucking shit.

2. and seeing Illy's "get on the rapeship bitch" absolutely made my day.

[Furion]

foolio, on 24 June 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Holy shitballs...two comments
1. I am dumbstruck by all those argueing that there is no such thing as evil...and its all a matter of perspective. To this I say bull fucking shit.

2. and seeing Illy's "get on the rapeship bitch" absolutely made my day.

I just don't like the word "evil". It's vague and overused, and very few people can even agree on a set of morals to avoid evil in the first place.

[foolio]

Furion, on 24 June 2010 - 10:32 PM, said:

foolio, on 24 June 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

Holy shitballs...two comments
1. I am dumbstruck by all those argueing that there is no such thing as evil...and its all a matter of perspective. To this I say bull fucking shit.

2. and seeing Illy's "get on the rapeship bitch" absolutely made my day.

I just don't like the word "evil". It's vague and overused, and very few people can even agree on a set of morals to avoid evil in the first place.

Ok, so you dont like to use the word "evil", what would you call someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who raped and ate people and tortured animals as a child? Misguided? Misunderstood? Silly? Precocious? Pragmatic?

Warren Zevon would have called him "just an excitable boy...."


But you are right, it is hard to get people to agree on a set definition.

[anothevilbadguy]

foolio, on 25 June 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ok, so you dont like to use the word "evil", what would you call someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who raped and ate people and tortured animals as a child?

Insane.

This post has been edited by anothevilbadguy: 29 June 2010 - 11:09 PM

[Furion]

anothevilbadguy, on 29 June 2010 - 11:09 PM, said:

foolio, on 25 June 2010 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ok, so you dont like to use the word "evil", what would you call someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, who raped and ate people and tortured animals as a child?

Insane.

This, pretty much. The guy isn't Satan in the flesh, he's just really messed up in the head.

[HoosierDaddy]

And if he knows that it is purposefully bad and does it anyways? Of course, if someone cannot tell the difference between good and evil, it speaks to being antisocial, not evil.

Kallor feels some remorse for his actions, it's what allows him to be a more fully developed character. And yet, despite that remorse, he would continue to act in the same way. That is not insanity, that is not antisocial behavior. It is behavior of the most selfish kind, whatever the means to reach his end, despite the nature of those means is Kallorian philosophy.

[Furion]

H.D., on 30 June 2010 - 12:01 AM, said:

And if he knows that it is purposefully bad and does it anyways? Of course, if someone cannot tell the difference between good and evil, it speaks to being antisocial, not evil.

Kallor feels some remorse for his actions, it's what allows him to be a more fully developed character. And yet, despite that remorse, he would continue to act in the same way. That is not insanity, that is not antisocial behavior. It is behavior of the most selfish kind, whatever the means to reach his end, despite the nature of those means is Kallorian philosophy.

Look, all I'm asking is, can you brand anyone as being "evil" when there is no universal definition of evil?

Kallor is cruel, malicious, cold and deliberate, ambitious and uncompromising. He is all of these things. Its easy to define him this way, using specific adjectives. Evil? I don't pretend to know what evil is. I don't believe anyone knows. And I don't believe in a God who knows either, since I'm atheist anyway.

Right and wrong actions are easy to differentiate, but anyone who thinks they can differentiate between evil and good people see things a little too simply.

Besides, use of the word "evil" denigrates the person being named such into less than human, in the eyes of those doing the branding. This rhetoric frees the public into committing acts they would not normally inflict onto other thinking beings. Once you divide the world into your own definition of black and white, you yourself risk losing the moral high ground. We've seen this in history time and again (hello nazi Germany! hello rwanda!). Its crucial that no matter how much we revile certain people, that we recognize they are still people. Demonizing people does not solve anything.

This post has been edited by Furion: 30 June 2010 - 12:46 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

So, would you say a person can commit evil acts? You seem to be proposing that evil is non-existent because it cannot be defined. Fair enough. My response is that even if you cannot define evil, it is as an old Supreme Court justice used to say when asked about what was pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."

As for whether I can brand anyone as evil when there is no universal definition. Why, yes. Yes, I can because I don't require others to create my own sense of morality. There are deeds I would state are evil, and if made over and over again, a person is prone to being evil.

Can this be abused? Yes. But, so can everything.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 30 June 2010 - 01:14 AM

[WhiskeyJackDaniels]

H.D., on 30 June 2010 - 12:01 AM, said:

And if he knows that it is purposefully bad and does it anyways? Of course, if someone cannot tell the difference between good and evil, it speaks to being antisocial, not evil.

Kallor feels some remorse for his actions, it's what allows him to be a more fully developed character. And yet, despite that remorse, he would continue to act in the same way. That is not insanity, that is not antisocial behavior. It is behavior of the most selfish kind, whatever the means to reach his end, despite the nature of those means is Kallorian philosophy.

Does he? With the exception of his duel with Spinnock (which I don't think many people would stipulate as a truly evil act, Kallor was trying to go somewhere and Spinnock stood in his way telling him he couldn't and drew his sword) I don't think we've seen him look back on all the atrocities he's committed remorsefully. I think he looks back on them and recognizes and understands exactly what they were. If anything this points to him being the closest thing we've seen to evil, because he has committed acts that we all agree seem evil (genocide, killing his children) and fully understands the implications of those acts (showing he is not insane - other than perhaps a healthy dose of megalomania). Basically, doing bad things on purpose, not for any greater good.


All this being said, I still think Kallor is a great character and eagerly await any and all future appearances he'll be making in the series.

[HoosierDaddy]

I was primarily thinking of Spinnock and Whiskeyjack, yes.

[Furion]

H.D., on 30 June 2010 - 01:10 AM, said:

So, would you say a person can commit evil acts? You seem to be proposing that evil is non-existent because it cannot be defined. Fair enough. My response is that even if you cannot define evil, it is as an old Supreme Court justice used to say when asked about what was pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."

As for whether I can brand anyone as evil when there is no universal definition. Why, yes. Yes, I can because I don't require others to create my own sense of morality. There are deeds I would state are evil, and if made over and over again, a person is prone to being evil.

Can this be abused? Yes. But, so can everything.

Pretty much. If I must state a position, then mine would have to be that right and wrong can usually be defined according to social customs and also the circumstances surrounding the act in question, but that evil itself is simply a fallacy, and also that the use of the word is damaging to everyone involved, for reasons I stated in the post above me. Its fine to judge a person based on actions, as long as we recognize the fallibility of humanity itself, without casting blame on such a vague concept as "evil".

[WhiskeyJackDaniels]

H.D., on 30 June 2010 - 02:44 AM, said:

I was primarily thinking of Spinnock and Whiskeyjack, yes.

I will agree that he felt remorse for those kills. Or at least that he wished he didn't have to do them. But remember that killing Spinnock and Whiskeyjack weren't really evil acts. They were collateral damage. Whiskeyjack was killed because Kallor wanted to kill Silverfox, and Whiskeyjack got in the way. Kallor was trying to claim a throne in the city. Spinnock was killed because Rake wanted to keep unnecessary ascendant-level beings from entering Darujhistan while Dragnipur was available. While we might not agree with killing Silverfox, and not want to see Kallor gain any thrones, I don't think we could call either of those actions evil. So really the worst we can charge Kallor with in those circumstances is having the strength of his convictions.

[HoosierDaddy]

But, he's capable of feeling remorse. I was refuting any effort to deem him as anti-social or without a knowledge of wrong and right. Since he feels remorse, it is safe to say he recognizes differences between right and wrong, and the very notion of collateral damage. If he didn't there wouldn't be collateral damage. Thus, through any means necessary. And, if anyone is evil, it is those capable of atrocities despite knowing they are wrong.

This is that point written large.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 30 June 2010 - 03:41 AM

[WhiskeyJackDaniels]

H.D., on 30 June 2010 - 03:40 AM, said:

But, he's capable of feeling remorse. I was refuting any effort to deem him as anti-social or without a knowledge of wrong and right. Since he feels remorse, it is safe to say he recognizes differences between right and wrong, and the very notion of collateral damage. If he didn't there wouldn't be collateral damage. Thus, through any means necessary. And, if anyone is evil, it is those capable of atrocities despite knowing they are wrong.

This is that point written large.

Ok I think we feel the same way on your larger point. Kallor's awareness and understanding of everything he's done opens the door for him to be labeled (justly) as evil. I think we just disagreed that he felt remorse for the greater wrongs he did like the genocide.