Are the Baudelaire parents just as murderous as Olaf?

[Foxy]

I don't think they would kill people for their own agenda - it would only be on assignment for V.F.D. or for self-defense. I mean, V.F.D. is kind of like the police, or the FBI maybe? V.F.D. is like law enforcement, kind of, I think. Maybe Bertrand and Beatrice were told what to do by their superiors.

[Amber Rivers]

Sept 5, 2019 15:22:24 GMT -5 @lsandthebooks said:

Does anyone know if it was ever hinted anywhere that the Baudelaire parents committed more murders, besides killing Olaf's parents? If you're willing to kill someone right in the middle of an opera that's filled with dozens of witnesses, then you must have done it before. It's just so cold blooded.

Probably not murderous but a rather questionable moral code. I do believe they - especially Beatrice - acted on what they thought was the right thing and maybe did not calculate the consequences of the actions they are about to take.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

Mar 13, 2021 9:00:35 GMT -5 Amber Rivers said:

Sept 5, 2019 15:22:24 GMT -5 @lsandthebooks said:

Does anyone know if it was ever hinted anywhere that the Baudelaire parents committed more murders, besides killing Olaf's parents? If you're willing to kill someone right in the middle of an opera that's filled with dozens of witnesses, then you must have done it before. It's just so cold blooded.

Probably not murderous but a rather questionable moral code. I do believe they - especially Beatrice - acted on what they thought was the right thing and maybe did not calculate the consequences of the actions they are about to take.

Theoretically, the VFD schism started with the question: "how to make the world be quiet?". Some advocated justified violence that can be translated as "fire fights with fire". You can say that governments that bomb enemy bases follow this philosophy, and that does not make them villains from the point of view of the governed, but it does make them villains from the point of view of the people affected by the bombings, especially those who lose parts of their bodies or need take care of mutilated relatives or bury their bodies.

On the other hand, what we would now call the "fire-extinguishing side" would be those who adopted the ideas of total pacifism. Although there are people who want to kill other people out of greed or desire for power, those who are total pacifists defend the idea that bringing intellectual knowledge to these violent people will help them to become peaceful, and that one should never resort to violence. This is seen by the attitude of the Librarians at the end of? 4, in which a child was able to threaten 3 adult men (and indirectly everyone who was on a train) using only a club. S. Theodora was brought up in total pacifism and so she refrained from hitting Lemony, even though she thought he deserved to be beaten.

Total pacifism was also behind Dewey's plan at Hotel D. In addition, total pacifism was behind allowing volunteers to give their enemies an easy way to destroy their bases (which was discussed at the meeting of the committee of construction).

Lemony's attitude and words in? 4 show that he no longer agreed with total pacifism. He went on to defend relative pacifism. In other words, he considers the nobleman's obligation to eliminate people who threaten the lives of a considerable number of other people. But he considers the surgical attack to be important, that is, killing only the people he deems worthy of the death penalty because of the destructive potential of these people. The way in which the murder of Count Olaf's parents apparently took place indicates that a similar philosophy came to be adopted by Lemony's followers. I remember that it is indicated in ATWQ that Lemony made a problematic speech during his theoretical training days. This must have caused some to follow the ideas he raised, including Beatrice. So, Beatrice didn't necessarily kill more people, just that she was willing to do that if it was necessary and she would use the training she had to be able to do that.

[Dante]

There is insufficient evidence to make any assertion which is not fanfiction. To answer the question more succinctly: "No."

[Amber Rivers]

Mar 13, 2021 11:07:05 GMT -5 Optimism is my Phil-osophy said:

Mar 13, 2021 9:00:35 GMT -5 Amber Rivers said:

Probably not murderous but a rather questionable moral code. I do believe they - especially Beatrice - acted on what they thought was the right thing and maybe did not calculate the consequences of the actions they are about to take.

Theoretically, the VFD schism started with the question: "how to make the world be quiet?". Some advocated justified violence that can be translated as "fire fights with fire". You can say that governments that bomb enemy bases follow this philosophy, and that does not make them villains from the point of view of the governed, but it does make them villains from the point of view of the people affected by the bombings, especially those who lose parts of their bodies or need take care of mutilated relatives or bury their bodies.

On the other hand, what we would now call the "fire-extinguishing side" would be those who adopted the ideas of total pacifism. Although there are people who want to kill other people out of greed or desire for power, those who are total pacifists defend the idea that bringing intellectual knowledge to these violent people will help them to become peaceful, and that one should never resort to violence. This is seen by the attitude of the Librarians at the end of? 4, in which a child was able to threaten 3 adult men (and indirectly everyone who was on a train) using only a club. S. Theodora was brought up in total pacifism and so she refrained from hitting Lemony, even though she thought he deserved to be beaten.

Total pacifism was also behind Dewey's plan at Hotel D. In addition, total pacifism was behind allowing volunteers to give their enemies an easy way to destroy their bases (which was discussed at the meeting of the committee of construction).

Lemony's attitude and words in? 4 show that he no longer agreed with total pacifism. He went on to defend relative pacifism. In other words, he considers the nobleman's obligation to eliminate people who threaten the lives of a considerable number of other people. But he considers the surgical attack to be important, that is, killing only the people he deems worthy of the death penalty because of the destructive potential of these people. The way in which the murder of Count Olaf's parents apparently took place indicates that a similar philosophy came to be adopted by Lemony's followers. I remember that it is indicated in ATWQ that Lemony made a problematic speech during his theoretical training days. This must have caused some to follow the ideas he raised, including Beatrice. So, Beatrice didn't necessarily kill more people, just that she was willing to do that if it was necessary and she would use the training she had to be able to do that.

This is actually a great perspective to look on and I agree. What I particularly love about these series is it works on the gray area. Are the characters bad? Are the characters good? We have seen that they are not both. And, since the Baudelaires are starting to grow up, the black and white veil that they believe from their comfort zones are slowly being erased.