Test of the Twins
discussion
test of the twins climax: Is Raistlin good or evil?
date
newest »
newest »
evil. the only reason he didnt kill the goddess is 'cuz he learnd from his bro that when he won he would loose every thing eles. and he didnt want to rule a dead world, for ever, and ever, and ever...
Guardian of the Groovy wrote: "spoiler alert:anyone who hasn't read test of the twins should leave until they have.
Well I can't decide between the 2. Yes he killed to reach his ambition, but he still sacrificed himself to Keep Takhisis in the abyss, so I've decided to say that he is still neutral even though his robes are black.
so what do you guys think of Raistlin? is he good or evil? he tried to depose a g..."
I think he's evil for the vast majority of the books he's in. To be evil is to be selfish, and He's selfish and serves his own agenda to ascend to godhood. However, he also shows loyalty to his companions, regret over certain choices, and horrified resignation at the end of the trilogy, as he makes a noble sacrifice.
SPOILER ALERT OF SORTS:
The sacrifice ennobles him even more when you consider that his punishment is pretty much FOREVER.
I agree, partly, but only b/c in all that I've read in the books so far he bounces back and forth. He is loyal, but he's also ambitious. I'll have to continue reading the series to know for sure what my complete opinion is.
He is neutral until proven otherwise.
Audri wrote: "He is neutral until proven otherwise."I think he actually does prove otherwise.
Its true he wears the black robes, but one reason, I think, is that the really strong spells can only be obtained by a black robe, you know?
I completely agree with your point. I like seeing him as neutral throughout the book, and neutral by the resolution. I jut think it's also very arguable that he's evil simply because of his selfish agenda to ascend.
I agree. I don't think he's evil, I think he's just a little misunderstood to be honest.
He's neither. Go read Ayn Rand, that pretty much sums of what Raistlin's all about. He's self interested and acts in his best interest. He isn't trying to hurt anyone, but if that's a side effect - so be it. He isn't trying to make the world kittens and cuddles either, but he wouldn't avoid it if that's the end result.
I still think that's pretty much the definition of evil.
I must agree with moore Justin, but just for the heck of it, I will go and read Ayn Rand. Still thought moore, its hard to really determine if he's good or evil, it depends on the point of view it also depends on the situation Raistlin is put in.
Audri wrote: "I must agree with moore Justin, but just for the heck of it, I will go and read Ayn Rand. Still thought moore, its hard to really determine if he's good or evil, it depends on the point of view it ..."I'd stick with Anthem or We the Living. You can get Rand's entire schtick in 150 pages as opposed to reading Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead at 1000 or 700 pages.
I'm not disagreeing with Moore necessarily. I'm just pointing out that evil is clearly a matter almost entirely of perspective. Everyone is the hero of their own story. If Raistlin does not have a moral code to deliberately violate (an act of evil), is he evil? Or are his acts evil based on societal norms?
I think that's called moral relativism?
I like the previous observations in light of the color of the robes; his robe predominantly is the neutral color. It's interesting that he cannot take his fateful steps towards deification until he dons black robes. In that light, I would say he is evil. In terms of his actions being completely selfish, I still believe his actions to be eventually evil. His neutrality serves him particularly well for the majority of his experience. He seems to be less visible than a white or black robe. I do think when he decides to take the initiative and pursue ascension, damning and leaving many characters in his wake, that is evil.
I like the idea of discussing him in relative terms. Maybe it isn't evilif it isn't evil for him. I believe I'd enjoy that discussion.
I guess where I come out on this is that I believe he is evil, and redeemed. And as such, he arguably connects with more readers than any of the other companions.
Well put, I agree. Yes, all his actions and ambitions make him evil, however, it is easier to relate to him than the other characters making him "good" per se. So it all comes down to perspective and point of view. It would be a great discussion for relative terms.
I'll say that on reread of all the Dragonlance novels as an adult I can barely tolerate the other characters. Many of them are so flat. Raistlin's dimension is compelling and despite his godlike power, he's far more of an everyman than any other character except maybe Tanis.Raistlin suffers from many of the same problems that we do.
I think the moral of the character is that he redeems himself, and only that. I cannot remember (I read these in my teens lol;)) but I get the feeling, that, the end product, was himself and only himself all along. In the short stories about Palin, his nephew, he says "I did not do this for anyone (my words), I do this to discharge my debt, so I can rest in peace."
I've enjoyed the discussion here. For my part I think that I would answer the question of whether Raistlin was good or evil with a resounding ... yes! Raistlin is complex and, as Justin pointed out, the most dimensional of the characters in the series. I understand him ... but I would not want him dating my daughter.
I think Raistlin is just Raistlin he does whatever he want for himself and is not concerned if it does not effect him directly, so therefore he can be both good and evil it depends on what purpose it serves him in that given time. He is one of my favorite characters in this series.
I agree with Elizabeth. Raistlin is out to further his own goals, damn the consequences and he is protecting the weak when it comes within his ability. I think he is truely neutral which is why they orginally gave him the red robes not the black.
I agree Ashley. Raistlin is Neutral through and through, but ambitious, therefore he wears the black robes. He wanted to have more powere and the black robes gave him that.
For what it is worth, I agree that Raistlin is inherently neutral in his outlook aims. However, he took the black robes to fulfill his darker (evil some might say) desires which involved him forsaking his family, friends, mess with time travel (affecting the world, I know he didn't mean for a kender to come and follow him but...) amongst other things (i.e. taking on pretty much anyone including Gods) so this probably makes him evil...
Then yes.. he does make amends and lives trapped forever (or does he?) still waiting to put things right which makes him either good or neutral... probably neutral..
So Neutral, then evil, then neutral = neutral..
Fun reading and debate guys.. for the record I re-read the WHOLE series after 20 years and it still makies me laugh, cry (ish), and I like the character mix and toryline so much I may even read it again
Charlie I am currently doing the same thing! I'm rereading the entire series as mu friend reads if for the first time! The storylines are still just as good as the first time. I agree with you, in his eyes he was making amends by staying trapped forever(...?) to help the Krynn survive the goddesses wrath against magic users. This was the good side of him. I know the black robes were on him much longer than the red, but again, the wizards saw something in him, otherwise they wouldn't have given him the red robes.
I completely agree Ashley. When I get through my other books I'm reading, I plan on getting back to reading Dragons of Summer Flame. What will the story reveal. While writing this, I've decided to read a little of each of the 4 books on my list everyday, so that I can move on in the Dragonlance series.And yes, if the wizards hadn't seen something in Raistlin to begin with, they probably would have never given him the Red robes. What is in store for Raistlin and the whole gang now? I wonder.....
It seems like the Dragonlance world has a very specific definition of good and evil. The ultimate good, as represented by Paladine, is preserving man's liberty. The ultimate evil, then, is coercion. Takhisis and her followers seek power over others to accomplish their own selfish goals. Although Raistlin is convinced his goals are "right", it is his desire to bend the world to his will that makes him evil, at least according to the Dragonlance definition. His is an "ends justifies the means" philosophy, which is perfectly in keeping with the wearing of black robes. But those means (coercion) would lead to a very different end than he intended.
It is the cosmos's great mercy that allows him a glimpse of the end he would create. Just because he shrinks back from that end does not mean he was any less willing to use evil means to reach a better one. That is why, even though I wanted him to be redeemed so desperately, he is still an evil character to the end.
Chaotic neutral. :) Ultimately it's the hubris that gets him, which is not necessarily evil. If anything, he is so damn human because of it.
Justin wrote: "He's neither. Go read Ayn Rand, that pretty much sums of what Raistlin's all about. He's self interested and acts in his best interest. I'm going to disagree with you. Raistlin is one of my favorite fantasy characters because he hides his evil so well. Through all the books beginning with 'Autumn Twilight' we see Rastlin as a sickly, dependent brother who is angry and spiteful. He does help, but only to fulfill his own gains. Self-centeredness is the source of most evil, in fact, I've never read a villain who wasn't self-obsessed. I loved Raistlin despite his fault, but he is evil to the bone.
Audri wrote: "I plan on getting back to reading Dragons of Summer Flame. What will the story reveal."Unfortunately, that they should have ended the series before that point. :(
nuetral by motive, evil by method.
The question I have for all of you is how much of his evil tendencies do you think are because of his semi-possession by Fistandantilus?
I think he has been both at various times and neutral at others. I have always thought Raistlin depicted the nature of humanity. Humans are rarely a constant at one particular set of ethos. How many times in your life have you done something that might be considering "good" by some and "evil" by others? After all good and evil are in truth nothing more than differing points of view.
Don't think he's either good or evil...Just his ambition is everything to him and doesn't let anything get in his way. Fistandantilus did control his actions for awhile, so to say if Ras was evil, in his own mind, defo not..
Raistlin is a character that transcends the utterly stupid Dungeons and Dragons alignment system and Dragonlance's strange white robe, red robe, black robe structure. The author uses the character to make the point that people aren't good, evil or neutral in the way they behave, they are far more interesting than that. In a world constrained by a two dimensional struggle, Weis manages to offer more rounded personalities. Even Fizban is much more interesting than the 'Paladine' image he is given by most of his worshippers and Elistan understanding of who and what he is at the end of his life gives the book so much more depth.
Errr... I can't really see where you disagreed with me...
Ah right I understand you now. No I don't think Raistlin is normal by any stretch. Nor do I think he conforms to D&D alignments. There are plenty of examples of actions that the reader disapproves of, which could be viewed through the frame of D&D, and plenty of other examples where the reader sees a glimmer of mercy or selflessness in him. My point was that this is just a range of behaviour and is more akin to the tragic flawed character idiom explored by many writers. Weis revisits this idea with Dagnarius, allbeit not as successfully.
Well, we'll have to disagree there. I think he's excellently drawn and I don't really see how he's 'overplayed' until after these books. I do feel the Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends trilogies were formulaic in many parts, but the use and shape of some of the characters made the books rise above being formula. Unfortunately, the need then to write vast numbers of sequels and prequels all of varying quality meant many readers turned away. They were also, 'of a time', which I think makes them suffer a little on a modern re-read.
I've played every edition of AD&D and one pre-Dragonlance edition of D&D.
Raistlin in truth is pure neutral. He is only out for himself and whatever he needs to do, be it good or evil to accomplish his goals at whatever time he will do it.
rasilin is neautrul(red robe)
Hanako wrote: "I think he's a psychotic nazi, who is blinded by his magic. To be honest, i think he has the best of intentions, but it's like a Vampire with his Drudge or WORSE with Dalamar, and i'm going on my t..."Raistlin actually came out of his test with the red robes.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
spoiler alert:anyone who hasn't read test of the twins should leave until they have.
so what do you guys think of Raistlin? is he good or evil? he tried to depose a goddess, killing anyone in his way of becoming a god. but he also had a sense of compassion for the sick or weak, and fell in love with crysania. he went on to sacrifice himself to keep the gate to the abyss closed.
my question to you is, is Raistlin Majere good or evil, and why?