[Rob B]

Through the course of the novel, Caine is moving towards resolving his dual resolution and saving Pallas. Along the way, he also acts as not to incite another war like the Caste riots. In that sense, he is thinking outside of himself, he doesn't want to put the land through another chaotic uprising.

He does what he has to do pretty much all of the book and sometimes good things come of these actions, but actions are all about intentions and Caine's intent is set solely on his own personal goals.

He also realizes his earlier selfishness when considering Toa-Sytell--realinzing that Toa-Sytell is ultimately a not a bad man. That's why he says to Majest that TS would make a good ruler and why he apologizes to TS for hurting him in the past. Here he is acting for the greater good of Ankhanna. Yes his ultimate intentions are to save Pallas but his also has intentions of NOT creating a chaotic situation as a result, or rather as un-chaotic as possible.

As I said, in Heroes Die the argument can be made, Hell, I'm making it and trying to support it , that Caine is growing, as a character, into a Hero, rather than a violent, selfish, persnickitey bastard as Pallas/Shanna considered him before. Saving Pallas, keeping Ankhanna as unchaotic as possible, attempting to remove Kollberg (which most Entertainers would applaud). The motivations are both for Hari/Caine personal goals, but the intention is also for the greater good.

[kater]

Originally posted by FitzFlagg
Yes his ultimate intentions are to save Pallas but his also has intentions of NOT creating a chaotic situation as a result, or rather as un-chaotic as possible.



But given the choice he says he would kill everyone in both worlds before letting Pallas die, as I said his intentions are on his own goals and at any time he will kill anyone or allow any event to occur in order to achieve these goals, he is not a moral person, just like waylander he'd as soon stab you in the back as face you if he has to go through you, no he doesn't kill without thought or reason but then neither does that make him a hero. His evolution as a character is a sharing with one other person but solely because he needs and loves her, selfish desire that has nothing to do with heroism ......

SPOILER
Look at the crowd that he allows to gather in the arena at the end, many die because he has to save Pallas - which leads to complications and rightly some retribution in BOT.
END SPOILER

[Shehzad]

And that retribution is another thing that I liked about Stover: the consequences of his actions are shown. As a comparison, in Magician Pug blows up the arena yet remains a hero.

*SPOILER*
*
*
*
*
What made Caine a hero was his supreme self-sacrifice in the end. He was willing to die to save Pallas Ril, and nearly did.
*
*
*
*
*END SPOILER*

Caine is a hero, if not in the conventional sense then in the Hemingway vein, certainly.

[Rob B]

Originally posted by kater


But given the choice he says he would kill everyone in both worlds before letting Pallas die, as I said his intentions are on his own goals and at any time he will kill anyone or allow any event to occur in order to achieve these goals, he is not a moral person,
But ultimately, he decides against killing Ma'elKoth, and keeping the body count to a minimum. The only one he really wanted to kill was Berne. I guess you could aslo argue that he wanted to kill Lamorak as well.

Is love ultimately a selfish act though? It's not something you can control.

Good comparison to Pug, hell even the scenes in the two arenas are similar. ;)

Not that this discussion isn't great, because it is, I just hope some other join in the fun soon!

[kater]

I'm not convinced he could have killed Ma'elkoth but also does not killing someone define you as a hero, I think not. I agree Love is not something you can control but at the same time, in the stone cold light of day, is being the reason for the deaths of many innocents justifiable? I honestly don't know. The Pug comparison is similar only in setting, most of the people who enter the arena in HD do so for the love of Ma'elkoth not to see people kill each other for their amusement, Pug thought this morally repulsive and heinous - it was a moral not a selfish choice, the difference is a big one imo.

[Shehzad]

However, Pug directly was responsible for genocide, Caine was not. Therein lies the difference. Looking at other fantasy "heroes", sometimes the justification they present for eliminating someone was merely that he wasn't on their side. Case in point: Eddings. Caine never pretended to be on the side of "good", he never tried to do what is "right"-- yet he is a hero nonetheless since he overcame sheer odds to achieve a great victory. THAT is the essence of heroism; moral questions do not enter into the equation.

Classical greek heroes often had equivocal moral compasses, yet they were heroes on the basis of their actions, and how they triumphed over adversity.

[Sammie]

Kater, have you read Feist/Wurts' Empire trilogy? The scene with Pug in the arena is presesnted over, from the stand-point of persons in no way responsible for the acts taking place there. It makes quite a good point - Pug's temper-tantrum hurt them, too. To me, his motivation is far less clear than Caine's, in the 'equivalent' situation.

Also - disagree that Caine is amoral. I would say rather, that his morals are diferent from yours. To him, his primary responsiblity is to him and his. On a fundamental level, it's a far more natural attitude than the one that allows your kin to die in order to save people who aren't anything to do with your society/family/tribe. Caine is maybe more ruled by impulse than modern-day man typically is - but this doesn't make him any better or worse a person than the man who fails to save his wife because "someone else might get hurt", imo.

[Shehzad]

I agree with Sammie: Caine's motivations are diferent, but real. Just because they seem less "noble" to you doesn't make his actions any less heroic.

[kater]

Pug didn't commit genocide, genocide is the destruction of a whole race - this was not the case, yes there were 'commoners' there but the whole point is that they were all there to view grisly murders being perpertrated for their pleasure and amusement, it was an indictment on the society. Caine's action lead to the deaths of the people in the stadium and to say he isn't responsible is like saying it makes a difference whether you stab someone in the back or front. Heroism to me is not achieveing your own selfish objectives at the cost of many other people's lives, the 'great victory' doesn't exist, what did he achieve that was of worth? Moralistic issues are an integral part of heroism, it is intent not outcome that define a heroic act, not how the result of that act turns out.

Originally posted by Sammie


Also - disagree that Caine is amoral. I would say rather, that his morals are diferent from yours. To him, his primary responsiblity is to him and his. On a fundamental level, it's a far more natural attitude than the one that allows your kin to die in order to save people who aren't anything to do with your society/family/tribe. Caine is maybe more ruled by impulse than modern-day man typically is - but this doesn't make him any better or worse a person than the man who fails to save his wife because "someone else might get hurt", imo.


You all seem to have been drawn in by this character, killing someone isn't an amoral act then? Yes within the context of the book killing is an acceptable tool but Caine has to literally force himself to think through other options rather than killing, rather than just using his atavistic urge to charge in and kill everything he has to think more like 'Hari'. I'm not saying that you let a loved one die but at what cost the worth of that life, how many other 'innocents' just like the ones you say Pug killed can be justified before his 'different' morals become anything other than homicidal?

[Rob B]

Caine is also a product of his environment - he grew up in violence, violence is what he knows.