Clearly Defined Good and Evil?

Another side of this is that we don't get to sympathise with every character equally. In a dramatic story, some characters come to the fore in conflict, and the author deliberately makes a choice of viewpoint according to how the author desires the sympathy to go. In many stories a simple switch of viewpoint could easily change how we perceive the morality of some characters.

As a single example, we don't learn of Sauron's motives directly in Lord of the Rings, except through the eyes of his enemies. We don't know how he came by those motives except in the legends of those who want to see him destroyed. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's secretly a hero, but it might be possible to make an antihero of him, just by adding information the reader didn't already know.

defcon6000 said:

And if that was the reason he was dubbed evil, than Americans are no better for gaining independence from England.

Click to expand...

Who said 'Merkins aren't evil? We've got our eye on ya, and we're almost ready to reinvade....




Then you'll have to spell right.

IdiotsRUs said:

Who said 'Merkins aren't evil? We've got our eye on ya, and we're almost ready to reinvade....




Then you'll have to spell right.

Click to expand...

NE-VAR! You guys use too many consonants/vowels; we Yanks keep it simple.
'Doughnut' verse 'donut' anyone?

Yeah and we know why you keep it simple


I'm pretty easy on the whole Good / Evil. My first book starts with a clearly defined Bad Dude ( who's a smokescreen for the real bad guy in the series)- but the more I write the more I've decided it wasn't what I wanted to write.

More: there is none so good is without all flaw, and none so wretched he lacks all virtue

That's not to say I don't have good guys and bad guys but....

I definitely agree religious views are a factor. For me as an atheist, I can't stand wholly good or wholly evil characters because I don't see the world that way.

IdiotsRUs said:

Who said 'Merkins aren't evil? We've got our eye on ya, and we're almost ready to reinvade....

Click to expand...

<offtopic>
Go ahead. We could use a bit of regime change; it might teach my "fellow Americans" not to do it to other countries.
</offtopic>

Dawnstorm said:

That's a great quote by Stover, VileZero. Where's it from?

Click to expand...

I found it HERE

MGraybosch said:

I'm sick of fantasy heroes who save the world because it's "the right thing to do" or because a prophecy named them as the chosen savior. When the Big Bad asks the hero, "Why do you oppose me", I don't want the hero to declaim about high-minded ideals or prophecy. I want him to draw his sword (or his nuclear bazooka) and say, "Did you think I would let you destroy me and everything I value? Fuck you!"

Click to expand...

You need to read more swords 'n' sorcery then!

MattW said:

Fantasy is generally about status quo - gotta get the rightful heir back in his place, regardless of how effective current leaders are. Gotta keep the king on his throne, because the evil rebels have too many ideas about freedom and/or equal distribution of wealth.

Click to expand...

You need read more swords 'n' sorcery, too! Conan is usually trying to kill the king and take over, not restore him to his throne.

Generally, I prefer more shades of grey in my morality, but I don't mind stark good and evil contrasts if it's done well (like in The Lord of the Rings).

Giovanni_Spada said:

You need read more swords 'n' sorcery, too! Conan is usually trying to kill the king and take over, not restore him to his throne.

Click to expand...

I've read the Conan stories. They were OK, but I prefer Fritz Leiber's tales of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.

My emphasis:

defcon6000 said:

Agreed.

Why do you think that is? I'm guessing it was because Tolkien was a Christian and Christians see the world as "Good verse Evil." I'm going to deviate here, but I never understood how Lucifer was determined "evil." So he rebelled against God? Granted, starting a war wasn't exactly "good" but he was just fighting for what he believed in, which isn't a wrong, at least compared to other reasons why war starts. And if that was the reason he was dubbed evil, than Americans are no better for gaining independence from England.

Click to expand...

Well, just approaching Lucifer as a character in a story (so not to introduce an actual theological debate here) ... aren't you removing Lucifer from the defined context there?

If God is the creator of the universe (again, in the context of the story you're borrowing lucifer / satan from, the Judeo-Christian story) then rebellion against God would be an upsetting of the proposed natural order (and Divine order) of the Universe.

In some scientific writing about the origins of the Universe, we hear talk about how precise the physics and Laws of Nature are attuned: if gravity (one of many examples is gravity) were a fraction weaker or stronger, stars could not form, life could not arise, and the Universe would be ... a chaos, a never-was, a hell of hot or cold.

In the lucifer/satan story, it's GOD who creates and sustains EVERYTHING; rebellion against God's "divine order" wrecks Creation itself (as Man's Fall and Sin supposedly perverts and pollutes all nature)

In that story, lucifer/satan's motive is Ego and powerlust ...

We might as well say that a Hitler (not the Hitler, since we shan't bring up hitler or nazis here) is no villain because he is merely following his "beliefs" in some noble cause (to free the Aryan world from the influences of this or that "evil" race or culture, in his madness and bigotry)

We might as well say that a sociopath's rebellion from society's "rules" is noble and good: for isn't he heroically fighting for his own freedom and self-expression?

My point is (or my suggestion is): if we take lucifer/satan in the context of the Judeo-Christian story ... we must take him as Evil.

It is well and good to create one's OWN characters, in one's OWN story or theology (we're discussing it all here) but lucifer/satan is already written, and he is written as Evil.

Satan's "belief" or "individuality" or "freedom" are seen as being destructive and perverting to the Perfection of God and God's Creation, and OUR place in it.

No doubt the Bubonic Plague germs adore the plague rat and their own invasion and disease-infestation of human beings; perhaps Plague is not morally "Evil" in itself.

But do we (as humans) "understand" that Plague is a "bad" thing? it may have some unintended "positive" consequences (easing overpopulation and the rise of the value of the Individual in European serfdom, to be ironic) but ... it destroys.

lucifer/satan too destroys. We can of course IMAGINE and ADD TO the Judeo-Christian story, to give Evil some dark nobility ... but we have then made a new fiction up.

small axe said:

Well, just approaching Lucifer as a character in a story (so not to introduce an actual theological debate here) ... aren't you removing Lucifer from the defined context there?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was treating Lucifer as a character, much like Sauron in LOTR. But I wasn't removing him, I was just questioning the text and putting it into my perspective.

If God is the creator of the universe (again, in the context of the story you're borrowing lucifer / satan from, the Judeo-Christian story) then rebellion against God would be an upsetting of the proposed natural order (and Divine order) of the Universe.

Click to expand...

But is God and the universe one in the same? If God creates and oversees the universe, then a little rebelling wouldn't effect the universe, unless it distracts him from his task and the universe collapses as a result. But if God is the universe, then that's a direct attack on the sustainability of existence. I don't believe the Bible is clear about this point.

In that story, lucifer/satan's motive is Ego and powerlust ...

Click to expand...

But what aspires him to think that he could do a better job than God? Yes, I understand this is how the Bible paints him, but isn't here more to the story? No one is just born power hungry...unless God intentionally created Lucifer to be that way.

We might as well say that a sociopath's rebellion from society's "rules" is noble and good: for isn't he heroically fighting for his own freedom and self-expression?

Click to expand...

Society has not always been right and even then, what one society says is right isn't what other societies say is right. For example: In a collectivist culture such as China or Japan, an individual working towards his/her own personal goals would be viewed as a villain, whereas in Western cultures that very same individual would be regarded as having an average mentality.

My point is (or my suggestion is): if we take lucifer/satan in the context of the Judeo-Christian story ... we must take him as Evil.

It is well and good to create one's OWN characters, in one's OWN story or theology (we're discussing it all here) but lucifer/satan is already written, and he is written as Evil.

Click to expand...

The problem is a lot of Western fantasy is based of this Judeo-Christian interpretation of God's and Satan's relationship (a.k.a good verse evil). Tolkien being a clear example. However, we're never given a chance to understand why. Sure, these stories tell us that so-and-so good because... and anyone not on so-and-so's side is evil, but that doesn't entail comprehension. I can tell you the sky is blue, but does that mean you understand why the sky is blue?

We have discussed that motivation is key in understanding what makes a villain a villain and a hero a hero. But even then, the lines are blurry. There really is no purely good hero or purely evil villain, according to our social interactions with fellow humans. This is why we would question someone if they referred to another as "oh, well he's evil."

small axe said:

Well, just approaching Lucifer as a character in a story (so not to introduce an actual theological debate here) ... aren't you removing Lucifer from the defined context there?

Click to expand...

Not really. The whole fall of Lucifer deal wasn't in the Bible itself. In the Old Testament, Satan isn't portrayed as God's enemy, but as his hatchet-man -- especially in the Book of Job.

The image of Satan as a rebel is more John Milton's invention.

Personally, I like them both. THere is absolutely nothing wrong with a story where the bad guy is just plain bad and the good guy is the perfect hero. There is also something intriging about stories where the bad guy isn't evil, just misinformed.

MGraybosch said:

Not really. The whole fall of Lucifer deal wasn't in the Bible itself. In the Old Testament, Satan isn't portrayed as God's enemy, but as his hatchet-man -- especially in the Book of Job.

The image of Satan as a rebel is more John Milton's invention.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see you guys' point(s) more or less ... how lucifer/satan isn't explored or explained much, I admit, it's a given that he's evil in the context of the story.

And the part about satan being allowed to test Job may not reduce satan's evilness, it's just that (it's suggested) satan's lust to destroy can be used as a tool towards some greater good.

Comet hits the earth, all the dinosaurs despair; comet hits the earth, all the mammals say "hallalujah we're saved, the world is ours!"

Dinosaurs wake up in Heaven and say "Wow, that was an unexpected trip, worked off a lot of bad karma with the comet hit, Lord! Thanks! What's our next lesson?"

By the time Jesus is driving out demons, though, no one's really seeing demons as "Oh, you're a noble fallen angel, we like the whole dark hero vibe!" they're more like: "You're a very unclean spirit and you make Gramma's head spin around and around! Begone!"

But ... okay ... just thinking about who gets to tell the story of satan, I guess. Who gets to write the character and its motives.

The first criteria may be: The guys who think of satan as REAL, probably have a right to it, more than the guys who are just spinning off a fictional tale?

Because anyone has a right to create their own story's Sauron. Go crazy widdit!

It's mildly tacky (some might suggest) to needlessly screw around with traditions that go back 3000 years and actually mean a lot to a lot of folks.

(I say that realizing that much of Judeo-Christian legend does exactly that, using other tribes' pagan gods to become our demons, etc. I'd simply offer that even if we do that, it was done by folks who devoutly believe that those pagan gods WERE IN FACT real, and were demonic beings, giving them that much respect at least)

Anyway, just thinking out loud, worth two cents.

small axe said:

It's mildly tacky (some might suggest) to needlessly screw around with traditions that go back 3000 years and actually mean a lot to a lot of folks.

Click to expand...

If they don't like that my villain manipulated Moses, Jesus of Nazareth, and Mohammed, then they don't have to read it. I'm not interested in tiptoeing around other people's overly tender sensibilities.

If people want to use religion as an excuse to start wars and deny individuals their rights, then I see no reason not to mock religion. Besides, sacred cows are good eatin'.

small axe said:

And the part about satan being allowed to test Job may not reduce satan's evilness, it's just that (it's suggested) satan's lust to destroy can be used as a tool towards some greater good.

Click to expand...

If G-d is willing to use Satan, then I say that that reflects poorly on G-d.

If they don't like that my villain manipulated Moses, Jesus of Nazareth, and Mohammed, then they don't have to read it. I'm not interested in tiptoeing around other people's overly tender sensibilities.

If people want to use religion as an excuse to start wars and deny individuals their rights, then I see no reason not to mock religion. Besides, sacred cows are good eatin'.

Click to expand...

Well, since I said above that I'm keeping actual real theology out of this, and only discussing it on the level of Story and Character ...

I wouldn't argue religion, but I'd still wonder why someone cannot be original enough to create their OWN Story and Character from whole cloth, or even weave it from nothing yourself ... rather than need to piggyback on someone else's Story and Characters?

You're not interested in 'tip-toeing around other people's overly tender sensitivities' ... and that's your right (Though tolerance of other beliefs and free expression is usually seen as being a good thing)

You'd just be demonstrating that you don't have the creativity to come up with your OWN thing ... rather than mess around with theirs.

Some might see 'mocking' religion to be of value, in and of itself ... But that value is certainly diminished by the need to use religion's symbolism to make your point.

It's almost always better to build a more valuable, positive substitute to a thing ... rather than to simply 'mock' another thing.

Some say "Create something better, those who have something better to offer."

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" as the saying goes.

Those who can do nothing but mock, run the risk of simply being walked around and left in the dust of those who have somewhere better to go, or something better to build.

But we all have our own story to tell, and God bless us everyone! My two cents would begin "Better to tell my own story rather than be content to mock someone else's"

If we disagree on that, then it only shows it takes many different colours to make a rainbow.

MGraybosch said:

If G-d is willing to use Satan, then I say that that reflects poorly on G-d.

Click to expand...

It's not like the Old Testament God needs help looking bad, honestly.

Salis said:

It's not like the Old Testament God needs help looking bad, honestly.

Click to expand...

What ... You mean in some sort of "if you guys didn't have to cuddle up with each other so close, I wouldn't need to firebomb your cities" kindah way?

I'm tellin' ya, the comet hits, the dinosaurs wake up in Heaven, and Black Mother Kali kisses their feverish brows and whispers "It's awright, You've just had a bad dream. Let me explain how all the troubling stuff was Holy."

small axe said:

What ... You mean in some sort of "if you guys didn't have to cuddle up with each other so close, I wouldn't need to firebomb your cities" kindah way?

I'm tellin' ya, the comet hits, the dinosaurs wake up in Heaven, and Black Mother Kali kisses their feverish brows and whispers "It's awright, You've just had a bad dream. Let me explain how all the troubling stuff was Holy."

Click to expand...

Apart from the reference to Sodom I have no friggin idea what you just said.

We are in a forum discussing sci fi and fantasy writing. These are ideal genres to explore the "what if" scenarios such as "what if hitler won the war", "what if satan was just misunderstood", etc. etc.

Exploring alternatives to existing beliefs is far from tacky, and is not by default an attempt at mockery

small axe said:

I wouldn't argue religion, but I'd still wonder why someone cannot be original enough to create their OWN Story and Character from whole cloth, or even weave it from nothing yourself ... rather than need to piggyback on someone else's Story and Characters?

Click to expand...

Because they're lazy, uncreative hacks?

It's almost always better to build a more valuable, positive substitute to a thing ... rather than to simply 'mock' another thing.

Click to expand...

I dunno, South Park makes a pretty decent living mocking religion, people, media, ideas... basically everything. And they've been airing since 1997. That has to say something.

Salis said:

It's not like the Old Testament God needs help looking bad, honestly.

Click to expand...

The radicals help too.

small axe said:

I wouldn't argue religion, but I'd still wonder why someone cannot be original enough to create their OWN Story and Character from whole cloth, or even weave it from nothing yourself ... rather than need to piggyback on someone else's Story and Characters?

Click to expand...

In my trade (computer programming) that's called Reinventing the Wheel. It's considered a bad thing because it takes longer, costs more money, and risks introducing more bugs into the code than reusing somebody else's pre-tested known-good code whenever practical.

Everybody reuses when they write, even if they only use basic plot structures and character archetypes.

Besides, a fundamental premise of my story is that most of humanity's mythology is based on a misunderstood kernel of truth. The pagan gods were real, but aliens with superior technology. And the God of Abraham? He's real as well -- and a genocidal asshole who's bound beneath the Antarctic ice cap, and needs to be put to the sword for the sake of all life on earth.

And if you're such a stickler for originality, then I suggest you go through your own work with a fine-tooth comb and make sure your characters don't match pre-existing archetypes, and that your basic plot structure hasn't already been used before.

Salis said:

It's not like the Old Testament God needs help looking bad, honestly.

Click to expand...

I'm not too impressed with the New Testament God either. This is a guy who rapes a woman, knocks her up, and then lets his bastard son die on a Roman cross like a common criminal.

small axe said:

If we disagree on that, then it only shows it takes many different colours to make a rainbow.

Click to expand...

I do disagree. Here's the deal: I think the human race would be better off if we all outgrew religion. I think that too close an adherence to religious beliefs and religious morality is inimical to liberty, science, progress, and general human happiness. So, what should I do? Throw Christians to the lions? Or would it be more constructive to look for defects in religious logic and make fun of it?

Your choice: parody, or the lions. And don't forget to think of the lions; they have feelings too.