ejoslin wrote...
Hmmmm, rape is a tricky one, and one that there have been huge flame wars about here because the line of consent can be a bit fuzzy when it's your assassin that you're having sex with (I hope I am NOT starting this up again -- my views are that Zevran is not a rapist, but there was a huge flamefest about it not that long ago). DG says he is not, and ultimately, I go by what his creator says.
I must have missed that, and I didn't realise there was a can of worms there. I chose rape just because it's so
obviously wrong to most people , even more so than killing. It didn't occur to me that he might be a rapist, and I think the way he talks about sex discounts that idea. Horrible thought. I meant more in the general sense of would he think it was OK, or would he feel that it was wrong. My instinct tells me that he'd feel it was wrong.
I do want to say that I never said, nor meant to imply, that someone who is compassionate is amoral.
I think again, that we are arguing semantics. Here is my feeling of the difference between compassion and morality. I don't think Zevran was against the elves being sold because he had some sense that slavery was wrong. He at other points shows he has no real problem with slavery, though he certainly hated BEING a slave. I think he felt compassion for their helplessness and identified with them as an elven slave.
Thank you for the explanation. It's my fault for following the argument in a roundabout way. And what I meant to say really, was that you wouldn't normally think that compassion discounted morality - that you tend to assume people are moral, rather than amoral. But with Zevran it seems that he tends to be assumed to be amoral and any seemingly moral impulses are explained away as compassion.
I don't think he has to subscribe to all slavery being wrong to be moral, but if any sort of slavery feels wrong, then he has a moral sense. He's not amoral. In fact, if anything feels wrong to him, he's not amoral really.
With the slaves, I don't feel he's saying 'Let's by nice to these poor people' - he says something about looking in their eyes, and it seems to be addresed to the wardens sense of morality - can the warden really do that without feeling guilt? It's difficut because I think the compassion and morality often go together - I think he feels both.
Why feel any more compassion for a bystander than a mark - why spare one and not the other? I think because he does believe it's wrong to kill indiscriminately. He has a reason to kill the mark, but doesn't need to kill the bystander, so he tries to avoid it.