mfstraight at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 14:26:41 PST 2005
I'm glad to see some discussion and actual argument about Wizard
Knight, even if it's taken me a while to get to it.
On 10/27/05, Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
> But he was the same knight who, even in middle age after his sojourn in Skai
> (carousing, drinking and fighting; no finer venue for honing knightly ideals
> of chivalry and honor), upbraided the stable hands in Utgard for not taking
> better care of the horses. It takes a lot of damn gall to ride into Utgard
> in the middle of the night on a flying unicorn, roust out the stable hands
> and threaten them with bodily harm for not performing their slave labors to
> his satisfaction. Those stable hands were human men who had been captured,
> enslaved and blinded by the giants. Those ungrateful, lazy bastards. But
> Able put them in their place. He was able to do so because he was bigger and
> stronger and more Able than they. Might makes right.
I disagree. Able's might doesn't make him right or wrong. It gives
him the power to enforce what he thinks is right, but if he's wrong,
then he's wrong no matter how strong he is. And in this case, I think
he is right, at least in his judgment, if not in the severity of his
It's sad that the stable hands are slaves and blind, but does that
mean they are no longer moral agents, no longer capable of being right
or wrong? Were they not wrong to neglect the animals?
Sure, I would probably have behaved as bad or worse in their place and
complained that my behavior should be excused because of all I had
suffered (I do that now, with much less justification than they).
But I would be wrong, and deserve a reprimand at least, if not the
beating Able gave them.
More information about the Urth