PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on evil.



Agrippa
2009-04-05, 09:51 PM
Taken from my thread on evil and ambition.

There are a few responses I'd like to make. One, to me evil in general is anything but cool. It's brutish, thuggish, often times self-righteous and self-pitying and utterly repulsive. I wouldn't like a villain because he or she is evil but in spite of it. My sympathy and respect for a villain is inversely proportional to their level of evil.

To me an understandable motive alone doesn't make some one an anti-villain or even begin to excuse their behavior. For me to sympathize with a villain that villain needs standards against needless and or extreme cruelty and a willingness and desire to be reasonable and show mercy. Also, for really evil villains, the prettier they are the more I hate them. I'm looking at you Sephiboy. Don't make me sic the Doctor, Hellboy and Baron Wulfenbach on your worthless hide. Run pretty boy supersoldier Norman Bates, run.

Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy? Doesn't seduction require some amount of empathy, unless I'm mistaken? The ability to understand how someone else thinks and feels. And shouldn't good sex require mutual pleasure and concern for your partner? If you think about it doesn't the forces of good pretty much corner the market in those aspects. So by that logic, wouldn't the good guys (and girls) be better a seduction than the bad guys/girls? Give me one good reason why I'm mistaken, not some religious, societal or pop culture reason. A real one.

Three, evil is not smarter than good, only more ruthless and much less scrupulous.

If anyone agrees with me or would care to disagree I would be very flattered.

doliest
2009-04-05, 10:17 PM
To list my agreements/arguements in by paragraph;

1.I often find myself more interested in motivation and characterization than what side someone is on in any form of moral debate; I'm more likely to root for the Evil Dictator who believes in stability above morals than the rightous anarchist(V for Vendette offers a good example in that I was in favor of the government as apposed to V)

2. Once again I find myself having a hard time really considering any really strongly motivated character evil, since once you have motivation beyond 'I am teh evil lolz' you show more three dimensional depth, espicially if it's a GOOD motive which shows actual emotional depth. An example of this would be Atvar from Harry Turtledove's World War series, who allows the nucleur destruction of Washington and Berlin in an attempt to pacify earthern resistence in the hopes of conserving the lives of his troops.

3. It's not so much evil is sexy, and more that hot women in leather are sexy. These type of women tend to gravitate towards evil work for some reason.:smallamused:

4.As an idea? I agree. In practice? That's were I may diverge from your opinion.

Dienekes
2009-04-05, 10:20 PM
Well first, interesting post. Here are my responses to show an amoral viewpoint. I am not a moral person, I do not claim to be. So here's my views.

With this in mind my favorite character of any medium ever is the Joker. Because he interests me. He is really the character of pure evil. However, in my experience a villain is deemed cool not how evil they are but how skilled they are at being evil. The idiot thug, even if he is the most evil thing ever, is not cool. The brilliant mastermind is cool. This is regardless of good or evil. See Battlestar Galactica, in my opinion (this says nothing for the masses) the coolest character is Commander Adama, who is one of the really good characters (if this changes in the last 2 seasons don't tell me. I'm working my way through it). There is also the "chills" factor in any intriguing villain. Why do people watch slasher movies? Because some of that sick twisted stuff is generally intriguing. Same goes for a well done villain. If they can make you squirm or have any overwhelming emotions, even one of disgust, a person naturally has an attached emotion to them. This is often called "cool".

To your second point. I have to disagree. Have you ever heard "money is sexy" or the idea of the succubus? People are screwed up. Get used to it. Some find the idea of a fictional seductive villain very interesting and possibly arousing. However! Do not put too much emphasis in this. From what I've seen this is what people say when they're only daydreaming. No one would bed Hitler. Or mostly no one. Also never underestimate the desire to be desired. This may seem like a contradiction but it's not. I was generally surprised when I found out that Draco Malfoy had a large female following. I think the reason behind this is that in theory (and only in theory mind you, this does not fold over into real life) the idea of being wanted, or to be a humanizing factor to a villain=power over them. This goes back to being sexy. Now, I don't think many people think about it in this way, but I have heard it said before that girls want to tame the badboy. This is just going a small step beyond that.
Or even that many well developed villains are not completely detached from humanity and do have empathy. Take one of the best villains I've ever read about, Tywin Lannister. The man was one sick, amoral (and amazingly efficient, guy held a kingdom together for years) man but he deeply loved his wife. While love is almost always a trait on the good side it does not make it exclusive to good people.
Your last point is debatable. Some would argue that having more scruples and not being prepared to do what is necessary is a weakness that is taken by the good people willingly. And anyone who would willingly accept weakness is less intelligent than those who would not accept weakness. I personally do not agree with this opinion. But there is no real way to refute it, good does except limitations on themselves and these limitations do make things harder for them not easier.

Tyrant
2009-04-05, 10:43 PM
One, to me evil in general is anything but cool.
If I find villains cool, it isn't purely because they are evil. It is usually their other characteristics. Some villains are written far better than their heroic counterparts. They are given depth while the heroes are one dimensional. Also, the traditional hero is very predictable. Villains aren't bound by any rules and writers are free to do what they want with them.

It's brutish, thuggish, often times self-righteous
Naturally good could never in a million years posses those qualities. Yeah right. Good can come off so self-righteous (fiction or reality on this one) that it makes me sick. And how is good maintained? Through force more often than not.

To me an understandable motive alone doesn't make some one an anti-villain or even begin to excuse their behavior. For me to sympathize with a villain that villain needs standards against needless and or extreme cruelty and a willingness and desire to be reasonable and show mercy. Also, for really evil villains, the prettier they are the more I hate them. I'm looking at you Sephiboy. Don't make me sic the Doctor, Hellboy and Baron Wulfenbach on your worthless hide. Run pretty boy supersoldier Norman Bates, run.
What do you have against good looking evil characters? There's a moral lesson to be learned from them (probably more than one actually). It ties into your comments about evil being seductive. Sometimes it's meant literally.

Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy? Doesn't seduction require some amount of empathy, unless I'm mistaken? The ability to understand how someone else thinks and feels. And shouldn't good sex require mutual pleasure and concern for your partner? If you think about it doesn't the forces of good pretty much corner the market in those aspects. So by that logic, wouldn't the good guys (and girls) be better a seduction than the bad guys/girls? Give me one good reason why I'm mistaken, not some religious, societal or pop culture reason. A real one.
I will give you a real reason. Evil is seductive because most people can empathise with well written villains. Everyone has dark thoughts and impulses. The villains are people who give into those darker thoughts. A lot of people would like to be able to totally cut loose. A lot of people would take revenge or somehow better themselves if they had the power to do it. Villains can be escapist fantasy. Even more on the seductive front, evil characters are usually powerful. Power is seductive. Evil characters are usually driven and confident in themselves. These are traits people find attractive. On top of that, people willing to fight authority are considered desirable by a number of people. It's part of the reason people considered anti heroes seductive. All in all a number of evil characters have a number of traits people wish they themselves had and they connect those traits with evil.

Three, evil is not smarter than good, only more ruthless and much less scrupulous.
That's dependant entirely on the story. Perhaps not limiting yourself to the bounds of morality is the smarter choice. Sometimes evil things must be done and the people who accept that and do those evil deeds are smarter than those who hide behind empty slogans and take no action.

I think one problem I have with how good and evil are represented is the hypocracy. If a villain does something it's evil, but if the hero does the same thing it's fine. In a fight for instance. If the villain grabs some hidden weapon and kills a good guy with it it's a treacherous act but if the hero does it it's quick thinking (or proper planning if he was hiding it). If a villain brings his goons and attacks a lone hero he is a coward for not fighting him man to man but if a team of heroes fights a lone villain they are overcoming impossible odds or some crap. If a team of villains uses some manuvers like one knocking down the lone hero to set up a finishing move by the villain it's an underhanded manuver but if heroes do it it's good teamwork and applauded.

I suppose another I have is something mentioned in Justice and The Dark Knight (by the Joker actually). Good seems to equal the status quo more often than not. Sometimes the status quo really isn't a good thing. People accept the plan, no matter how horrifying it may be. No matter how right the villain is, most of the time the hero gets a cop out victory (which usually enforces the typical heroic ideal that might makes right so long as it's good) and never has to really address the villain's point. It's one reason I really like Watchmen. The heroes have to decide how they are going to deal with the fact that the villain has already won, not just stop him and ignore his points.

JaxGaret
2009-04-05, 10:51 PM
There are a few responses I'd like to make. One, to me evil in general is anything but cool. It's brutish, thuggish, often times self-righteous and self-pitying and utterly repulsive.

That is one type of Evil. There are other types.


for really evil villains, the prettier they are the more I hate them.

Do you also like pretty Good people less than ugly Good people?


I'm looking at you Sephiboy. Don't make me sic the Doctor, Hellboy and Baron Wulfenbach on your worthless hide. Run pretty boy supersoldier Norman Bates, run.

Are you talking about Sephiroth? Not everyone finds him attractive - that's a personal opinion. Perhaps your problem is that you find yourself attracted to certain Evil characters, and are disturbed by that fact?


Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy?

Some people find Evil seductive or sexy. Others find Good seductive or sexy. Different people are attracted to different things; therefore, some people are attracted to Evil.


Doesn't seduction require some amount of empathy, unless I'm mistaken?

What type of attraction are you talking about? In any case, no, empathy is not required for attraction. Maybe for you it is. Maybe for others it isn't. Please remember that not everyone is like you.


And shouldn't good sex require mutual pleasure and concern for your partner?

Not necessarily.


If you think about it doesn't the forces of good pretty much corner the market in those aspects.

Why should they? Evil people can be just as concerned with mutual pleasure and concern for their partner as Good people.

You may be making the mistake of assuming that Evil people are EVIL 100% OF THE TIME. They're not. They're people just like you and me. They love the people they love just like you and me.


Three, evil is not smarter than good, only more ruthless and much less scrupulous.

Objectively, in our society, Evil is smarter than Good, because Evil people are more successful than Good people. It depends on the society.

Does this mean that every Good person is stupid for not being Evil? No.

Verruckt
2009-04-05, 10:53 PM
Just throwing this out there but have any of you ever considered the distinct possibility that Good/Evil, like Hot/Cold, is really an artificial distinction? What if there is no "Evil", just "Less Good"? What if there is no Good or Evil at all, that all the moral coloring of actions and people is an artificial filter that we impose on our surroundings?

I don't necessarily subscribe to those points of view, but they seem rather pertinent here.

Agrippa
2009-04-05, 10:54 PM
I admit that such things as love aren't limited to good people, merely a good trait. As for my comment evil and seduction, I didn't mean that evil is incapable of seduction or sex. Just that good, in my opinion, would be better at it, that's all. I also think that villains can be cool in spite of their evil. Like the Joker, who's cool mostly because of his audacity and spectacle.

JaxGaret
2009-04-05, 10:55 PM
Just throwing this out there but have any of you ever considered the distinct possibility that Good/Evil, like Hot/Cold, is really an artificial distinction? What if there is no "Evil", just "Less Good"? What if there is no Good or Evil at all, that all the moral coloring of actions and people is an artificial filter that we impose on our surroundings?

I don't necessarily subscribe to those points of view, but they seem rather pertinent here.

This discussion assumes that we're using the D&D morality system, like all alignment discussions on these boards default to unless otherwise specified.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-04-05, 10:56 PM
Most of the people with strong moral values that I've known tended to be repressed, academic types. Take that for what it's worth. :V

Dienekes
2009-04-05, 10:58 PM
I admit that such things as love aren't limited to good people, merely a good trait. As for my comment evil and seduction, I didn't mean that evil is incapable of seduction or sex. Just that good, in my opinion, would be better at it, that's all. I also think that villains can be cool in spite of their evil. Like the Joker, who's cool mostly because of his audacity and spectacle.

Then you answered your own question

JaxGaret
2009-04-05, 11:00 PM
I admit that such things as love aren't limited to good people, merely a good trait.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Love is a Good trait"?


good, in my opinion, would be better at it, that's all.

Again, why would Good necessarily be better at it than Evil?

One thing that Evil persons have in their favor in the sex department is their increased willingness to manipulate other people into having sex with them. This causes them to have more sexual opportunities, and thus more opportunity to practice sexual technique.

Overall, I don't see being either Good or Evil as being more beneficial in the sex department over the other.

Verruckt
2009-04-05, 11:02 PM
This discussion assumes that we're using the D&D morality system, like all alignment discussions on these boards default to unless otherwise specified.

ah, upshuting then :smallsmile:

Agrippa
2009-04-05, 11:07 PM
Tyrant: One reason why I dislike pretty villains for the most part (but not always) is that their good looks actually make them less sympathetic to me and even more easily hated than plain or even ugly villains. If someone was bullied into villainy because of bad looks I might feel somewhat sorry for them. Somewhat sorry, they still shouldn't be commiting those evil acts in the first place. I just find really evil good looking villains much less sympathetic than plain, ugly or less evil villains. I understand the moral lesson they bring (that morality is based on actions and not appearences) but they seem to be the most repulsive of villains. It's just the way I think.

Also I am well aquainted with better written villains.

warty goblin
2009-04-05, 11:09 PM
The truth on this one I think is that people tend to find both extremes appealing (assuming they are reasonably well written). Why?

Simple, both are are extremes, and hence easy to understand. That means when a villian is faced with a dilema, we know that the villian is going to do something evil and nasty and probably involving something serrated. This feels good because it's usually violent and outrageous, which can be both amusing and validating because sure we have unpayed parking tickets, but we didn't do that... Same thing for the hero, more or less- we know they will do the right thing, and we get to feel good because we figured out what the right thing was, and so can tell ourselves we would have done it as well.

Now evil has an additional advantage in terms of audience appeal in most stories as well. Evil characters are usually the dynamic ones, the people who actually motivate the plot. We pay attention to them because they actually advance the plot, and then the hero runs around picking up the pieces.

This one is pretty easy to fix honestly, since all it requires is a hero who actually shows some initiative every now and again, and doesn't just go and keep the villian from destroying the world before retiring to the Quiet Farming Village (at least until the sequel... DUN DUN DUN). Why not have the hero do something like try to reform property law? Or change the social status of some group of people? That way they get to dictate the plot, the villian is simply a reactive force.

Honestly though, the real cure to this whole problem is for authors to just write stories without clear cut heroes or villians, just people in opposition to each other.

Dienekes
2009-04-05, 11:13 PM
I think one problem I have with how good and evil are represented is the hypocracy. If a villain does something it's evil, but if the hero does the same thing it's fine. In a fight for instance. If the villain grabs some hidden weapon and kills a good guy with it it's a treacherous act but if the hero does it it's quick thinking (or proper planning if he was hiding it). If a villain brings his goons and attacks a lone hero he is a coward for not fighting him man to man but if a team of heroes fights a lone villain they are overcoming impossible odds or some crap. If a team of villains uses some manuvers like one knocking down the lone hero to set up a finishing move by the villain it's an underhanded manuver but if heroes do it it's good teamwork and applauded.

This is great. May I steal it?

Tyrant
2009-04-05, 11:14 PM
I admit that such things as love aren't limited to good people, merely a good trait. As for my comment evil and seduction, I didn't mean that evil is incapable of seduction or sex. Just that good, in my opinion, would be better at it, that's all.
But why would good naturally be better at it? As someone else said, evil isn't 100% in all things at all times. More importantly, how many evil things have been done in the name of love (sometimes meaning the love of an ideal)? Anakin fell to the darkside because of what he did to try to save someone he loved and he murdered an entire village of sand people to avenge a lost loved one. Or like in the movie Legend. The Darkness was most likely just giving in to lust, but his downfall was believing Lilly loved him and had accepted his ways. Being trusting and trying to love someone was his undoing after what I assume was a lifetime of evil deeds. I think the wrong message is getting sent in that scene but the point is that even that character felt something like love.

Edit to add:

This is great. May I steal it?
Go for it.

Tyrant: One reason why I dislike pretty villains for the most part (but not always) is that their good looks actually make them less sympathetic to me and even more easily hated than plain or even ugly villains. If someone was bullied into villainy because of bad looks I might feel somewhat sorry for them. Somewhat sorry, they still shouldn't be commiting those evil acts in the first place. I just find really evil good looking villains much less sympathetic than plain, ugly or less evil villains. I understand the moral lesson they bring (that morality is based on actions and not appearences) but they seem to be the most repulsive of villains. It's just the way I think.
Honestly I find some good looking more believable. I see your point about the ugly ones being bullied into it, but consider this. The way society typically treats attractive people is to cater to their whims and praise them. It isn't too far fetched to believe people used to always getting their way aren't going to take no for an answer and do whatever it takes to get their way. It's a shallow motivation, but I find it quite believable. Or they are vain and care about their appearance a great deal. Or they recognize the advantages of being attractive and maintain their appearance. A pretty face can open a lot of doors and villains usually have a lot of doors that need opening in their plans.

WitchSlayer
2009-04-06, 12:51 AM
And that's why Lex Luthor is my favorite villain.

Trizap
2009-04-06, 01:04 AM
its not about how evil they are, its how they do it.

a guy who comes with a pretty cliched scheme while going muahahaa and just doing it for the evilz? hate him.

a villain who makes a clever xanatos gambit, manipulates everyone into doing what he wants while calmly hiding in plain sight, making them all think he is a hero? while all doing it for good reasons? AWESOME.

Trizap
2009-04-06, 01:06 AM
Just throwing this out there but have any of you ever considered the distinct possibility that Good/Evil, like Hot/Cold, is really an artificial distinction? What if there is no "Evil", just "Less Good"? What if there is no Good or Evil at all, that all the moral coloring of actions and people is an artificial filter that we impose on our surroundings?

I don't necessarily subscribe to those points of view, but they seem rather pertinent here.

already way ahead of ya. I see everything in shades of gray.

Trizap
2009-04-06, 01:08 AM
This discussion assumes that we're using the D&D morality system, like all alignment discussions on these boards default to unless otherwise specified.


you are too reliant on it.

Verruckt
2009-04-06, 01:18 AM
The edit button is just a little to the left of the quote button there Trizap.
Just sayin'...

Also hey look at me I'm contributing:

I've always found it interesting that the ones responsible for the greatest evil are almost always the Good Guys. Stalin was Evil, Hitler was Evil, yet it was the allies who firebombed cities and invented nuclear weapons. Manson and McVeigh were despicable, but they've got nothing on Oppenheimer's or Nobel's death toll. The Gatling gun was created by a pacifist for crying out loud. It's not the Children of Darkness that need concern you, but the foolish Children of Light.

Boo
2009-04-06, 01:25 AM
Isn't our sense of villainy entirely based on pop culture? The cliched mustache, the overdone monologues, the railtracks, etc. Why should we villains defend ourselves against those who use pop culture as part of their points, then says that no one else is allowed to? It's hypocritical, and disrespectful. Why, I say that you're the true villain! Not in a cool way, but rather in a way that is uncool. Like some... bad film... with uncool villains!

Now if you don't mind, I have to be off to the Candyland, um, land, then later kidnap your children, leave a note, tie them up loosely to a... rock thing, threaten their lives once you arrive, and then maybe drink some tea from Starbucks. If I have time, I'll fight you, lose, but escape in my secret rocket to fight again another day.

Don Julio Anejo
2009-04-06, 01:33 AM
The difference between fiction and the real world is that the real world isn't black and white.

In the real world an archetypal party of heroes would be considered... Well, what would you think if several people were telling everyone George Bush was really the devil's son, ate newborn babies for breakfast, had plans to turn the planet into hell and kidnapped Chelsea Clinton as sacrifice for the hell-turning ritual?

Okay, doesn't sound plausible - although in fantasy that kind of stuff could potentially happen, it can't in our world. How about this. George Bush hid away a nuke which he intends to detonate in Moscow after his term expires to start World War III and cash in on the world's eventual rebuilding. Nope, doesn't make the party of heroes look any better. For all we know, they went from delusional schizophrenic to paranoid schizophrenic.

This kind of stuff doesn't happen, and for good reason. No one in their right mind would do this, especially since there's easier, safer and more eco-friendly ways to cash in, like establishing a monopoly. And those NOT in their right mind would almost never be in a position to pull off a stunt like that. Hitler and Caligula are notable exceptions.

Fiery Diamond
2009-04-06, 02:32 AM
I like anti-heroes better than either straight-up heroes or straight-up villains most of the time. They tend to be the most practical in terms of accepting weaknesses on the basis of morality- while a villain might eschew the weaknesses and a hero might embrace them, the anti-hero doesn't really do either. Also, they are often better written.

I hate it when anti-heroes are the main antagonists of stories. Often I wish that they would win against the heroes when they are pitted against each other. I love it when anti-heroes are the protagonists.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-06, 06:43 AM
I think there are two reasons why people like evil characters so much:

1. Way too many writers suck at creating protagonists, but are able to make decent bad guys - when the antagonist is the only interesting character in the story, it's obvious that he'll also be the most popular.
2. Evil characters have appeal to both people in their "arrgh, rebel against everything!" stage and those who want to show how cool and edgy they are by being cynical and jaded about everything.

And no, evil is not smarter, nor more powerful, nor cooler - want an example? Take any good character, make him evil, and don't change anything else about him - no "black leather and spikes" makeover, no darkness-based new powers, just the same person only evil. Is he smarter, more powerful or cooler? No? Thought so.



I think one problem I have with how good and evil are represented is the hypocracy. If a villain does something it's evil, but if the hero does the same thing it's fine. In a fight for instance. If the villain grabs some hidden weapon and kills a good guy with it it's a treacherous act but if the hero does it it's quick thinking (or proper planning if he was hiding it). If a villain brings his goons and attacks a lone hero he is a coward for not fighting him man to man but if a team of heroes fights a lone villain they are overcoming impossible odds or some crap. If a team of villains uses some manuvers like one knocking down the lone hero to set up a finishing move by the villain it's an underhanded manuver but if heroes do it it's good teamwork and applauded.


I wasn't aware that the standards of dumb action flicks and Saturday morning cartoons are universal truth.

Avilan the Grey
2009-04-06, 07:02 AM
I don't like the overly evil characters.


Now for your questions:

1. I think Evil characters are often what people remember, and in a positive way, because they are actually often better written, or at least have the better line, better theme music and cooler clothes.
Compare Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.

(This is also the reason for the popularity for the scoundrel, the anti-hero and the dark hero. At least these are heroes that are not downright boring...)

You don't always cheer on the villain (although it has happened at times, which obviously is an Epic FAIL on the part of the author), but you enjoy reading about him or watching him.

2. Evil is Sexy partly simply because the evil part of their personality allows them to disregard the things the hero have to take in account. A female evil "boss" or "overlord" has the clothes she has to emphasize that she is evil (due to the incredible stupid idea, that should have been thrown out a long time ago, that good girls just don't wear that / do that sort of thing). He or she can also pursue the people the good guys can't, like married people, and use seduction techniques not aviable to the good guys.
Evil is also at least projecting a self confidence that is miles stronger than the common good guy.

Now I can respect some Evil characters but I will (almost) never actually root for them to win. And I will always see them as evil. (I have a huge problem with those people that argue that Belkar (or any other obviously evil character, in any medium) is "not evil because...").

I also agree with Tyrant about the double standard.
But that is how it works in reality too.

Tyrant
2009-04-06, 04:13 PM
those who want to show how cool and edgy they are by being cynical and jaded about everything.
Or alternatively showing that they understand that the world isn't black and white and that there really is plenty to be cynical about. Why do people assume that being cynical and jaded is some attempt to be cool and edgy? There is plenty in this world (and most fictional worlds) to drive rational people to that type of behavior and it has nothing to do with trying to look cool.

And no, evil is not smarter, nor more powerful, nor cooler - want an example? Take any good character, make him evil, and don't change anything else about him - no "black leather and spikes" makeover, no darkness-based new powers, just the same person only evil. Is he smarter, more powerful or cooler? No? Thought so.
That depends entirely on the situation and what the good characters goals are. Take Batman for instance. Remove his morals (make him evil) and he will solve Gotham's crime problem very quickly. Or for a better example, use Superman. With no morals (but still wanting to stop crime, since we aren't changing anything else) he would lower the crime rate to next to nothing in no time. Morality can as often as not be a hinderance. Those who ignore it can make hard choices and achieve their goals much easier. Most people consider making things easier to be a smart thing last time I checked.

I wasn't aware that the standards of dumb action flicks and Saturday morning cartoons are universal truth.
I'll take that seriously as soon as I see real counterexamples. I never see heroes berating each other for ganging up on a villain or talking about how it was a good idea for the villain to bring overwhelming backup with him. More importantly, I am talking about reader/viewer reactions as much as anything. Real world example, the idea of the sneak attack. So long as we are the ones using it (we being the West, US specifically) it's tactically brilliant and they probably had it coming. If it's used against us (at Pearl Harbor for instance) it's an underhanded and cowardly move that must be avenged with extreme prejudice. That's the real world, not cartoons and poorly written action flicks. They are catering to their audience.

hamishspence
2009-04-06, 04:22 PM
One of the commoner forms of Evil, depending on your point of view, involves "Greater good of the group" as a justification for anything, no matter how dubious.

Murder the child of a villain in front of him, then threaten the next, to get him to talk. (Or fake it, in the case of Jack Bauer)

Put healthy people into comas without their consent and harvest their organs- for various reasons- has been done a lot in fiction.

You can probably think of others.

Agrippa
2009-04-06, 04:35 PM
I think there are two reasons why people like evil characters so much:

1. Way too many writers suck at creating protagonists, but are able to make decent bad guys - when the antagonist is the only interesting character in the story, it's obvious that he'll also be the most popular.


I don't like the overly evil characters.


Now for your questions:

1. I think Evil characters are often what people remember, and in a positive way, because they are actually often better written, or at least have the better line, better theme music and cooler clothes.
Compare Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.

(This is also the reason for the popularity for the scoundrel, the anti-hero and the dark hero. At least these are heroes that are not downright boring...)

You don't always cheer on the villain (although it has happened at times, which obviously is an Epic FAIL on the part of the author), but you enjoy reading about him or watching him.

Which fortunately never happens with Joss Whedon, Warren Ellis, Neal Gaiman, Alan Moore and Terry Pratchett. A lot of other writers should be forced to read (or in Joss' case watch) their work with the simple instruction "learn from them."


2. Evil characters have appeal to both people in their "arrgh, rebel against everything!" stage and those who want to show how cool and edgy they are by being cynical and jaded about everything.

I rarely see villains as rebellious or bucking authority. Mostly I see them as oppressive and controlling. As for those villains actually are rebellious, let's just say I don't like their sort of rebellion.


And no, evil is not smarter, nor more powerful, nor cooler - want an example? Take any good character, make him evil, and don't change anything else about him - no "black leather and spikes" makeover, no darkness-based new powers, just the same person only evil. Is he smarter, more powerful or cooler? No? Thought so.

Or take any pre-existing good character and make them smarter (if need be), clothe them in black and or leather, maybe spikes and give them darkness-based powers. Just don't change their morality and compare them to any villain out there.


2. Evil is Sexy partly simply because the evil part of their personality allows them to disregard the things the hero have to take in account. A female evil "boss" or "overlord" has the clothes she has to emphasize that she is evil (due to the incredible stupid idea, that should have been thrown out a long time ago, that good girls just don't wear that / do that sort of thing). He or she can also pursue the people the good guys can't, like married people, and use seduction techniques not aviable to the good guys.

I blame the Victorians. To them a truly virtuous woman must wear a corset so tight it cuts off circulation and restricts breathing. And that she must wear woolen clothing from her neck down to her ankles. Also, if it weren't for Queen Vic and her German husband Albert, Jack the Ripper wouldn't have had nearly as much success as he did.

Mewtarthio
2009-04-06, 04:43 PM
First off, protagonists are often just generic heroes. There's the ordinary guy who ends up in extraordinary situations, popular because the audience consists of ordinary guys who like to think they'd succeed in extraordinary situations. There's the secret agent who's totally loyal to his employer, followed by the overt agent (ie soldier) who's totally loyal to his employer. I've just described 90% of all heroes in fiction.

Heroes also are more likely than villains to avoid any particular traits that make them stand out. The reason for this is obvious: Said traits make their heroes abnormal. Nobody minds this for villains, since they're supposed to be "weird," but heroes are generally "normal." Heroes, the theory goes, should make us feel comfortable. If a farmboy on a backwater planet was dressed in black armor with a cape and a loud breathing apparatus, audiences would find that unsettling. If MI6 employed a guy with a thick foreign accent who enjoys stroking his fluffy white cat, audiences would wonder what the British Secret Service was smoking. Villains can afford to be unusual, which makes them stand out more.

Lastly, heroes have all their motivations clearly laid out, robbing them of any sense of mystery. The audience is suppose to understand why heroes do what they do, so that we can more properly cheer for them. Villains, conversely, often keep their true motives hidden, so that they can suprise the heroes and the audience later on. This allows us to speculate and try to figure the characters out for ourselves; if nothing else, this at least keeps our minds focused on the villains.

Dienekes
2009-04-06, 06:18 PM
Which fortunately never happens with Joss Whedon, Warren Ellis, Neal Gaiman, Alan Moore and Terry Pratchett. A lot of other writers should be forced to read (or in Joss' case watch) their work with the simple instruction "learn from them."

I rarely see villains as rebellious or bucking authority. Mostly I see them as oppressive and controlling. As for those villains actually are rebellious, let's just say I don't like their sort of rebellion.

Or take any pre-existing good character and make them smarter (if need be), clothe them in black and or leather, maybe spikes and give them darkness-based powers. Just don't change their morality and compare them to any villain out there.

I blame the Victorians. To them a truly virtuous woman must wear a corset so tight it cuts off circulation and restricts breathing. And that she must wear woolen clothing from her neck down to her ankles. Also, if it weren't for Queen Vic and her German husband Albert, Jack the Ripper wouldn't have had nearly as much success as he did.

Yes, but notice how those are in the major minority. Also, where do we divide learning from and copying them? There is a reason why they are often considered the best. (Though I disagree with never happens, Jubal Early was way more interesting than Simon Tam ever was)

That is an opinion of course. Though I find the evils of a rebellious villain to be fairly outweighed. Yes, there will be deaths because of the villains actions. That's why it's a rebellion. That is what happens in rebellions. The point is to think if the rebellion's goals are worth the cost (one of the reasons why V for Vendetta comic was so great). Though I have a feeling that what Tengu was trying to say was that villains buck moral restrictions which is a very rebellious nature if not actively being a rebel.

Your third point is actually amusing as you admit that you may need to make the hero smarter. But assuming that was merely a slip of the fingers the response is Why do you think Batman is so popular? He is that hero, and he is the most popular one right now. Though I still like villains better than him.

Your last point doesn't make sense to me as Jack killed whores who would have existed with or without your restrictions on clothing. Maybe you were making a joke? Sorry, I don't get it

Tengu_temp
2009-04-06, 07:42 PM
Or alternatively showing that they understand that the world isn't black and white and that there really is plenty to be cynical about. Why do people assume that being cynical and jaded is some attempt to be cool and edgy? There is plenty in this world (and most fictional worlds) to drive rational people to that type of behavior and it has nothing to do with trying to look cool.

For me, being overly cynical is just as bad, if not worse, than being overly idealistic - go too far one side and you become too naive to function in real world, go too far the other side and nothing matters to you - you will never be really happy nor able to accomplish something great in your life. The world isn't completely black and white, there are shades of gray everywhere, yes - but cynical people see only those darker ones.

Cynicism is ez-mode wisdom. Stop being naive without abandoning your dreams and ideals - that's how wisdom is really attained.

Also, I'd like to point out that the majority of people who prefer dark and edgy stories are late teenagers/people in early twenties. Somehow I doubt their cynicism comes from tremendous hardships in their lives.


That depends entirely on the situation and what the good characters goals are. Take Batman for instance. Remove his morals (make him evil) and he will solve Gotham's crime problem very quickly. Or for a better example, use Superman. With no morals (but still wanting to stop crime, since we aren't changing anything else) he would lower the crime rate to next to nothing in no time. Morality can as often as not be a hinderance. Those who ignore it can make hard choices and achieve their goals much easier. Most people consider making things easier to be a smart thing last time I checked.

It's not about efficiency - the evil approach is often the most efficient one, at least for you (because it comes at the price of others' suffering). And no, the bolded part of your response is wrong - Superman who'd still fight crime and save innocents, just willing to kill criminals, is not evil Superman, and I think you knew perfectly what I meant, so don't twist my words.
Similarily, evil Batman wouldn't rid Gotham of crime, because he'd start to perpetuate it himself - he has no morals so nothing stops him from doing so, after all.


I'll take that seriously as soon as I see real counterexamples. I never see heroes berating each other for ganging up on a villain or talking about how it was a good idea for the villain to bring overwhelming backup with him. More importantly, I am talking about reader/viewer reactions as much as anything. Real world example, the idea of the sneak attack. So long as we are the ones using it (we being the West, US specifically) it's tactically brilliant and they probably had it coming. If it's used against us (at Pearl Harbor for instance) it's an underhanded and cowardly move that must be avenged with extreme prejudice. That's the real world, not cartoons and poorly written action flicks. They are catering to their audience.

So it's not a case of "good vs evil", but "us vs them" - most people are so short-sighted that anything they and their allies do is okay, but anything more questionable their opponents/rivals do isn't. It just happens that in most stories, heroes are those "us".
And while stories where heroes chew each other out for using tricks are rare, stories where they use them and don't consider such behaviour from villains to be horrible are much more common. At least among well-written stories.

Mewtarthio
2009-04-06, 07:59 PM
It's not about efficiency - the evil approach is often the most efficient one, at least for you (because it comes at the price of others' suffering). And no, the bolded part of your response is wrong - Superman who'd still fight crime and save innocents, just willing to kill criminals, is not evil Superman, and I think you knew perfectly what I meant, so don't twist my words.

What did you mean, then? "Imagine Superman and Batman, only instead of being remotely similar to those characters, they just have the same powers and eat puppies"? Evil Batman may be evil, but he still has to be recognizably Batman.

When Evil Bruce Wayne was a little kid, he saw his parents gunned down in front of him. Just like normal Bruce Wayne, he would grow up with a hatred of criminals. Unlike Batman, however, Evil Batman has no morality: He would therefore fight crime by becoming a criminal himself. Batman thinks it is important to inspire fear in his enemies; Evil Batman thinks the same thing, only with no morals to restrain him. Evil Batman doesn't stop at theatrics: He kills his victims, often sadistically torturing them, so that the criminal underworld will feel pure terror.

Evil Spiderman is different. Because a criminal that he ignored killed his uncle, Evil Peter Parker now realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. He considers it his solemn duty to purge the world of all evil. Evil Batman may be willing to settle for keeping criminals too scared to perform crimes, but Evil Spiderman takes it further. He knows that, were he to let any criminals live, they could eventually escape and perform more evil. He takes a more direct approach to dealing with criminals: His constant evasions and wisecracks distract and unnerve his opponents so that he can restrain them with his webbing before killing them with a single spider-powered punch.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-06, 08:10 PM
What did you mean, then? "Imagine Superman and Batman, only instead of being remotely similar to those characters, they just have the same powers and eat puppies"? Evil Batman may be evil, but he still has to be recognizably Batman.


I meant same character, same personality, but different morality, or to be more precise the lack thereof - "nothing will make me hesitate in stopping criminals, even if I have to kill them" is still some morality, and the goal is kinda noble in the end - that's morally ambigious, but not completely evil.

thegurullamen
2009-04-06, 08:35 PM
When Evil Bruce Wayne was a little kid, he saw his parents gunned down in front of him. Just like normal Bruce Wayne, he would grow up with a hatred of criminals. Unlike Batman, however, Evil Batman has no morality: He would therefore fight crime by becoming a criminal himself. Batman thinks it is important to inspire fear in his enemies; Evil Batman thinks the same thing, only with no morals to restrain him. Evil Batman doesn't stop at theatrics: He kills his victims, often sadistically torturing them, so that the criminal underworld will feel pure terror.

Evil Spiderman is different. Because a criminal that he ignored killed his uncle, Evil Peter Parker now realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. He considers it his solemn duty to purge the world of all evil. Evil Batman may be willing to settle for keeping criminals too scared to perform crimes, but Evil Spiderman takes it further. He knows that, were he to let any criminals live, they could eventually escape and perform more evil. He takes a more direct approach to dealing with criminals: His constant evasions and wisecracks distract and unnerve his opponents so that he can restrain them with his webbing before killing them with a single spider-powered punch.

Good rundown of the evil alignments. I think you really nailed good examples of Lawful and Neutral Evil with those descriptions. Also, now I want to see the evil versions of those two heroes, sort of like they did with the zombie heroes a while back.

Trizap
2009-04-06, 10:17 PM
First off, protagonists are often just generic heroes. 1 There's the ordinary guy who ends up in extraordinary situations, popular because the audience consists of ordinary guys who like to think they'd succeed in extraordinary situations.2 There's the secret agent who's totally loyal to his employer, followed by 3 the overt agent (ie soldier) who's totally loyal to his employer. I've just described 90% of all heroes in fiction.



1: ok, you are definitely right there.

2: huh?

3: uh.......whuh? I don't know either of these heroes you are talking about, you definitely got the ordinary person in extraordinary situations thing, but the other two sound obscure to me.........don't make sweeping generalizations, show your work.

Calinero
2009-04-06, 11:08 PM
I agree that evil is not necessarily smarter than good. However, those who follow the 'evil' set of moral guidelines have far less constraints to work with than the 'good' guys. They do not have to worry about collateral damage (usually,) or ethical constraints. Also, more often they are the active force, as opposed to the heroes reacting to their crimes. All of the advantages are on their side.

The good guys, on the other hand, have a few handicaps. They cannot blindly aim for their goals without considering the harm they could cause others on their way. They have to try and stop the villains within the constraints of normal, polite society--constraints the villains have already gladly thrown away. While the villains can simply kill, kidnap, or blow up anyone who gets in their way, the good guys generally don't have so simple a choice to make. This is what makes them heroes--they deliberately choose a more difficult path (which some might say is stupid) because of their dedication to their moral beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not is up to you, but the commitment and dedication at least should be respected.

Dervag
2009-04-06, 11:09 PM
Evil Spiderman is different. Because a criminal that he ignored killed his uncle, Evil Peter Parker now realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. He considers it his solemn duty to purge the world of all evil. Evil Batman may be willing to settle for keeping criminals too scared to perform crimes, but Evil Spiderman takes it further. He knows that, were he to let any criminals live, they could eventually escape and perform more evil. He takes a more direct approach to dealing with criminals: His constant evasions and wisecracks distract and unnerve his opponents so that he can restrain them with his webbing before killing them with a single spider-powered punch.So... Evil Spiderman is like the Punisher, only with no guns and a sense of humor?

Yulian
2009-04-07, 08:27 PM
Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy? Doesn't seduction require some amount of empathy, unless I'm mistaken? The ability to understand how someone else thinks and feels. And shouldn't good sex require mutual pleasure and concern for your partner? If you think about it doesn't the forces of good pretty much corner the market in those aspects. So by that logic, wouldn't the good guys (and girls) be better a seduction than the bad guys/girls? Give me one good reason why I'm mistaken, not some religious, societal or pop culture reason. A real one.


Do you live on Earth?

Because if you do, that statement in particular is hopelessly naive.

Good sex requiring concern for your partner? Yes, that's why a high-end escort can command hundreds to thousands of dollars for a few hours, and why strip clubs are constantly raking in money, because human beings are so concerned with "empathy".

Much of what one might call "seduction" can also be a form of blatant manipulation. A lack of ability to feel empathy while an ability to comprehend others' motivations and emotions would (and does) make someone an excellent seducer.

There is a reason the "bad boy/girl" imagine is still seen as so attractive even now. There is a reason women get into relationships with men who are going to treat them like dirt or men end up women who will use and manipulate them.

That sort of thing actually happens all the time. So, truth in fiction, I guess? And don't think this is resentment speaking because well...frankly, I'm more familiar with being on that side of things where relationships were concerned, at least until a few years ago and I matured a bit. Not to get graphic about it or anything, but emotional investment in one's partner is very much not necessary to being able to give them pleasure. See, if you don't, then your "market value" drops. So, to keep getting what you want, you need to give out a little too. That's enlightened self-interest.

Just some thoughts, there.



I've always found it interesting that the ones responsible for the greatest evil are almost always the Good Guys. Stalin was Evil, Hitler was Evil, yet it was the allies who firebombed cities and invented nuclear weapons. Manson and McVeigh were despicable, but they've got nothing on Oppenheimer's or Nobel's death toll. The Gatling gun was created by a pacifist for crying out loud. It's not the Children of Darkness that need concern you, but the foolish Children of Light.

Dude. The Holocaust?! Stalin's pogroms?! Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge??!

You cannot conceivably blame an inventor for the death toll their invention brings. Not in the real world. Oppenheimer's little toy is responsible for fewer deaths than the concentration camps.

You didn't just compare 105,000 deaths inside an aggressor nation to six million innocents systematically and directly killed, did you? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic, but how else to stop a war in 3 days? Every person who died in a concentration camp died because of direct action by a greater number of people (government officials, guards, and so on) than people who were, essentially, the collateral damage of a bombing raid.

There's also a lot of evidence that the Japanese civilian death toll would have been much, much higher had the war dragged on. The Axis powers killed plenty of civilians. The Allies firebombed cities, and the Luftwaffe bombed the crap our of Britain.

Honestly, fighting back is not "evil" but almost any definition.

Do you think the Nazis weren't working on the A-bomb too? Do you think they would have shown the restraint the US did?

Please, bone up on some history before saying things like that.

- Yulian

Don Julio Anejo
2009-04-07, 09:51 PM
Dude. The Holocaust?! Stalin's pogroms?! Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge??!

Just a nitpick - pogroms were late 19th century jew bashings in Russia. A side effect was that many jews emigrated and settled in New York and Chicago.

Stalin was responsible for Golodomor, a systematic, artificial famine in Ukraine that saw 2 to 3 million people starve to death.

warty goblin
2009-04-07, 11:15 PM
Dude. The Holocaust?! Stalin's pogroms?! Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge??!

You cannot conceivably blame an inventor for the death toll their invention brings. Not in the real world. Oppenheimer's little toy is responsible for fewer deaths than the concentration camps.

You didn't just compare 105,000 deaths inside an aggressor nation to six million innocents systematically and directly killed, did you? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic, but how else to stop a war in 3 days? Every person who died in a concentration camp died because of direct action by a greater number of people (government officials, guards, and so on) than people who were, essentially, the collateral damage of a bombing raid.

There's also a lot of evidence that the Japanese civilian death toll would have been much, much higher had the war dragged on. The Axis powers killed plenty of civilians. The Allies firebombed cities, and the Luftwaffe bombed the crap our of Britain.

Honestly, fighting back is not "evil" but almost any definition.

Do you think the Nazis weren't working on the A-bomb too? Do you think they would have shown the restraint the US did?

Please, bone up on some history before saying things like that.

- Yulian

Wait, we showed restraint in our attacks on Japan and Germany in WWII? From all the reading I've done, the only reason we didn't bomb Japanmore was that the logistics were a complete pain in the ass, and I have very little doubt had nuclear weapons been available we would have reduced a good portion of Germany to radioactive grit.

Also the atomic bombings of Japan were completely unneccessary and doing so did not keep us from having to invade. The only reason that we would have had to invade Japan in 1945 was that we were demanding unconditional surrender, but Japan would have capitulated with at most relatively minor guarentees.

In fact one can go further: See page 26 of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm), which states:


Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.


Furthermore, by August 1945, Japan essentially did not have the fuel to run a war any longer- I've read estimates that they had enough fuel to run their army for another week by that point, due to U.S. submarine warfare. There was no need to invade, or do anything by that point but simply sit around in ships a couple miles off shore.

I would also say that the Holocaust and our bombing of Japan are directly comparible in that both were of at best limited long term use to the power that engaged in them and killed a whole hell of a lot of people for basically no reason. Nazi ideology taught that killing all the subhumans would allow them to win. U.S. strategic thought said that bombing countries into ashes would allow them to win. Both were outgrowths of thinking on total war that originated after WWI, and both were highly destructive and morally unjustifiable in my view.

Yulian
2009-04-07, 11:48 PM
Stalin was responsible for Golodomor, a systematic, artificial famine in Ukraine that saw 2 to 3 million people starve to death.

Thank you for the correction. I have learned a thingy.

warty goblin, I think we'll have to disagree on this. But really, it's a question of scale and one more element you are not mentioning.

The systemization, nay, the industrialization of mass-murder in Germany. Bombs, even giant ones, do not come anywhere near the scale, the depths of what, for lack of a better term,. must be called the "evil" of deliberately rounding up, imprisoning, then exterminating captives.

And again, if the Allies wanted to minimize their own casualties and use of resources, that's how war works. One big bomb, numerous smaller ones, same diff. Are you suggesting the Allies risk more of their own troops and resources to force surrender when 2 bombs could do it?

I still think you're really reaching for a comparison where none exists. If the US had then proceeded to round up and start killing Japanese nationals by the millions, then we'd have something.

- Yulian

Dervag
2009-04-08, 12:04 AM
Also the atomic bombings of Japan were completely unneccessary and doing so did not keep us from having to invade. The only reason that we would have had to invade Japan in 1945 was that we were demanding unconditional surrender, but Japan would have capitulated with at most relatively minor guarentees.This was a much less trivial issue than it appeared at the time.

The world already had one experience with a major nation losing a war, signing a peace treaty that reduced its world standing, resenting the peace, deciding that it could have won if it had just done things right, and coming back in an even more dangerous form to pound on everybody: Germany.

Nobody outside Japan wanted to risk that happening in Japan. Given the thinking at the time, the solution was to force Japan to admit total defeat- that they were so hopelessly overmatched that further resistance was useless. Hence "unconditional surrender."

The Japanese might have been happy to deliver a "conditional surrender" earlier on, but they did not make that unambiguously clear to the Allies. Aside from some vague comments along the lines of "we would be willing to stop fighting," there wasn't much to go on. This was because of a major cultural disconnect- the Japanese government was full of militants who weren't willing to say "we surrender," so they used a lot of code words for it.

Had they been speaking to a similar culture, this would have worked. But the US and European powers didn't interpret those words in the same way the Japanese meant them. To the Allies, this sounded like the Japanese saying "Yeah, we'll stop fighting now, but maybe we'll have another go at you in twenty years like the Germans decided to do."

For all I know, that's exactly what the Japanese had in mind when talking about surrender.

From the Allied perspective at the time, tens of millions of people were already dying in a war that started largely because Germany refused to stay surrendered. I can't blame them for refusing to risk laying the groundwork for another such war in the Pacific.
______


In fact one can go further: See page 26 of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm), which states:

Furthermore, by August 1945, Japan essentially did not have the fuel to run a war any longer- I've read estimates that they had enough fuel to run their army for another week by that point, due to U.S. submarine warfare. There was no need to invade, or do anything by that point but simply sit around in ships a couple miles off shore.Ah, the joys of hindsight. The USSBS was done using data that was only available after the war, based on a level of knowledge that decisionmakers did not have in August 1945 and could not obtain until after Japan had already surrendered anyway.

The US could have reasonably guessed that Japan was very short on fuel, but could not know the full scale of the shortages. Moreover, they could not guess how long the Japanese would be willing to continue the fight using whatever minimal resources they had left. They knew that Japanese soldiers were, by European standards, insanely unwilling to surrender, and that is all they knew.

For all the Allies knew, the Japanese would prove willing to do during war what North Korea has since done during peace: subsist on starvation rations and hoard every last ounce of resources to build up a fighting military. If the Japanese were willing to do that, they could have kept fighting on at least a limited level for a long time, even using only the resources of their home islands.

The Japanese had already developed a number of ways of hitting back at Allied forces near their island using suicide attacks, which cost them very little fuel and cost the Allies a lot of men and ships. Keeping a fleet off the coast of Japan for an indefinite time (literally "we don't know how long"; it could have been years for all they knew) was not much of an option.
______


I would also say that the Holocaust and our bombing of Japan are directly comparible in that both were of at best limited long term use to the power that engaged in them and killed a whole hell of a lot of people for basically no reason. Nazi ideology taught that killing all the subhumans would allow them to win. U.S. strategic thought said that bombing countries into ashes would allow them to win. Both were outgrowths of thinking on total war that originated after WWI, and both were highly destructive and morally unjustifiable in my view.The differences are large and important and easy to hide at the (low) level of detail given in this paragraph. I don't really want to get into a detailed analysis of politics, which is banned on this forum. That goes double for Nazi politics, which I am not only forbidden to talk about, but am personally disgusted by.
______

As for US strategic bombing doctrine, there are two easy things that can be said about it without reference to the forbidden and disgusting subject of Nazi politics.

One is that it was not racial. The Anglo-American doctrine of mass bombing of urban centers was applied just as cruelly against the Asiatic people of Japan as against the European people of Germany. This was true even though Americans and British did not regard Germans as racial inferiors.

The doctrine came from the idea that civilians in a nation at war with one's own were acceptable targets, and the belief that an enemy army could not be defeated until the civilian population felt defeated. But both these doctrines applied uniformly to all races of humanity around the world. Most Americans and British air power theorists believed that the doctrine was applicable to their own people; the British had the evidence of what the Germans tried to do to them in 1940.

Thus, this was not a racial doctrine. It was a concept of war alien and repulsive to our own, but it was not rooted in some idea of intrinsic racial superiority, or of struggle between races.
_______

Moreover, the doctrine of mass terror bombing was not aimed at total destruction of entire ethnic groups or cultures. The terror bombers' plan was to inflict "enough" destruction on the enemy's city centers. Once they took "enough" damage, the damage would convince them to surrender and to force their army to stand down. At which point the terror bomber would stop trying to kill them.

This stands in stark contrast to Nazi policies, which continued to kill people after they had already surrendered.
_______

Neither of these points proves that Anglo-American terror bombing against cities was not a loathsome, vicious, evil idea. And neither of them proves that it was not a bad idea, one that was unnecessary and ineffective.

They do, however, prove that it was not identical to Nazi policies. Those policies were both racial and aimed at total destruction of races and cultures. Which Anglo-American terror bombing was not.

Mewtarthio
2009-04-08, 12:19 AM
uh.......whuh? I don't know either of these heroes you are talking about, you definitely got the ordinary person in extraordinary situations thing, but the other two sound obscure to me.........don't make sweeping generalizations, show your work.

You know: James Bond, Captain America, and the like.


So... Evil Spiderman is like the Punisher, only with no guns and a sense of humor?

Depends on who's writing the Punisher. :smallwink:


I meant same character, same personality, but different morality, or to be more precise the lack thereof - "nothing will make me hesitate in stopping criminals, even if I have to kill them" is still some morality, and the goal is kinda noble in the end - that's morally ambigious, but not completely evil.

I'm sorry, but are you honestly arguing that a hatred of criminals is not a part of Batman's personality?

Regardless, the best villains have their own twisted sense of morality. You're trying to argue that evil versions of superheroes would be uninteresting, then defining "evil version of superhero" to be "superhero completely stripped of personality and given generic 'I did it for teh evulz' script."

averagejoe
2009-04-08, 12:42 AM
I agree that evil is not necessarily smarter than good. However, those who follow the 'evil' set of moral guidelines have far less constraints to work with than the 'good' guys. They do not have to worry about collateral damage (usually,) or ethical constraints. Also, more often they are the active force, as opposed to the heroes reacting to their crimes. All of the advantages are on their side.

The good guys, on the other hand, have a few handicaps. They cannot blindly aim for their goals without considering the harm they could cause others on their way. They have to try and stop the villains within the constraints of normal, polite society--constraints the villains have already gladly thrown away. While the villains can simply kill, kidnap, or blow up anyone who gets in their way, the good guys generally don't have so simple a choice to make. This is what makes them heroes--they deliberately choose a more difficult path (which some might say is stupid) because of their dedication to their moral beliefs. Whether you agree with those beliefs or not is up to you, but the commitment and dedication at least should be respected.

Not necessarily true. Scruples restrain your actions, yes, but they also make it much easier to obtain and maintain allies. Both classical and modern narratives are rife with single guys who make all the difference, but in truth having more guys on your side is one of the best advantages one can have.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-08, 05:02 AM
I'm sorry, but are you honestly arguing that a hatred of criminals is not a part of Batman's personality?


No, I am saying that refusing to kill criminals is a part of Batman's modus operandi. He hates them alright, but he doesn't kill them.

warty goblin
2009-04-08, 10:28 AM
Thank you for the correction. I have learned a thingy.

warty goblin, I think we'll have to disagree on this. But really, it's a question of scale and one more element you are not mentioning.

The systemization, nay, the industrialization of mass-murder in Germany. Bombs, even giant ones, do not come anywhere near the scale, the depths of what, for lack of a better term,. must be called the "evil" of deliberately rounding up, imprisoning, then exterminating captives.

I am one of those academic heretics who really does not see anything particularly unique about the Holocaust, except for scale. Sure the killing was (to some degree, an aweful lot of it involved taking people into the woods and shooting them) industrialized, but so what? Germany was an industrial nation, it used industrial means to achieve its goals. One of these goals was the horrific slaughter of entire ethnic groups, so it industrialized the process. There is about as much surprising about that to me as there is the fact that all the major powers in the war used industrial factories to produce their weapons. I'm really not sure why using an industrial, automated system makes what happened any more wrong than if they had simply started hacking people to death with machetes or any other number of horrible, completely pre industrial ways of perpetrating mass death on a population.

And again, if the Allies wanted to minimize their own casualties and use of resources, that's how war works. One big bomb, numerous smaller ones, same diff. Are you suggesting the Allies risk more of their own troops and resources to force surrender when 2 bombs could do it?


I still think you're really reaching for a comparison where none exists. If the US had then proceeded to round up and start killing Japanese nationals by the millions, then we'd have something.
Both the U.S. and Germany knowingly targeted and killed innocent civilians and non-combatants as a means to an end. The only two differences I see are that for Germany, killing certain groups of people was the end, and for the U.S. simply a means to the end of having killed enough of the population and destroyed enough of the country to force surrender, and that Germany killed exponentially more people doing so.

One has to ask however if a person would really feel better knowing that someone in their family was killed by a Nazi because they worshipped the wrong god, or by a U.S. bomb because they happened to be living in the same city as a factory that somebody in Strategic Command thought should cease to exist? I really doubt there's much of a difference.

I'm not saying that the U.S. was as bad as Nazi Germany in the early 1940's, far from it. Scale does matter, as does intent. What I am saying is that drawing the comparison is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because in many (not all by any means) the two countries did the same things during those time periods.

Tyrant
2009-04-08, 12:40 PM
Not necessarily true. Scruples restrain your actions, yes, but they also make it much easier to obtain and maintain allies. Both classical and modern narratives are rife with single guys who make all the difference, but in truth having more guys on your side is one of the best advantages one can have.
In general, I see what you are saying and I somewhat agree with it. However, villains can also have loyal allies who don't just serve out of fear. Look at Palpatine. I am sure the vast majority of the people in the Imperial armed forces weren't serving out of fear. A large number of them truly did believe in his vision of order throughout the galaxy. Some served out of fear, to be sure, but it simply isn't possible for the majority to do so. Especially given how many still fight for that ideal decades after Palpatine's final death. If they just would have dropped the anti human philosophy a lot sooner than they did they probably should have maintained control (plot not withstanding).

Heroes more easily attract allies, but they are just as succeptable to being double crossed. A villain typically attract like minded allies, but if someone double crosses them they try to make an example.

doliest
2009-04-10, 08:09 PM
Evil Spiderman is different. Because a criminal that he ignored killed his uncle, Evil Peter Parker now realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. He considers it his solemn duty to purge the world of all evil. Evil Batman may be willing to settle for keeping criminals too scared to perform crimes, but Evil Spiderman takes it further. He knows that, were he to let any criminals live, they could eventually escape and perform more evil. He takes a more direct approach to dealing with criminals: His constant evasions and wisecracks distract and unnerve his opponents so that he can restrain them with his webbing before killing them with a single spider-powered punch.

You mean like the spiderman from the movies?

GoC
2009-04-10, 09:44 PM
Also, for really evil villains, the prettier they are the more I hate them. I'm looking at you Sephiboy. Don't make me sic the Doctor, Hellboy and Baron Wulfenbach on your worthless hide. Run pretty boy supersoldier Norman Bates, run.
:smallbiggrin:


Two I don't get why evil is seen as all that seductive or sexy?
Basically? People long to be free! Free from the rules of society that imprison them and force them to do this and not do that!
There's also the fact that the media portrays certain things we like as "evil". Money, power, ambition, sex, ect.
We want those things.

Oh yeah, there's also the whole mystery thing. The evil guy is generally the antagonist.


Three, evil is not smarter than good, only more ruthless and much less scrupulous.
Something that generally makes it easier to accomplish it's goals. At least in your average fictional universe.
All the lawful stupid types in the media don't help.

Copied over from the other thread:

Because most religions and philosophies are idiotic. Or Mill's greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Why is this one flawed?
That's more or less my philosophy. The goodness of something is the total happiness that will result from that action (I have to discount anyone not yet born). Killing someone will result in the loss of all that potential happiness.
It might be a bit difficult to use given we can't really know someone's future happiness but that's a problem with any system of ethics. The greater the uncertainty the more you err on the side of caution.

Personally I am completely evil. I care only for myself and about what others can do for me. Unfortunately to get others to do things for you you must be good to them. Friendships are just mutually beneficial contracts. There's also that annoying thing called empathy that makes you be nice to total strangers (we still have empathy because human genes are a bit slow and haven't caught up with the fact I'm unlikely to see that person again).


Similarily, evil Batman wouldn't rid Gotham of crime, because he'd start to perpetuate it himself - he has no morals so nothing stops him from doing so, after all.

Why would he? He already has everything he wants. What else could he desire? Why would he attempt to commit a crime? He knows he's pretty likely to be caught eventually so it's not worth it.

I'll finish this post later.

Agrippa
2009-04-10, 11:37 PM
:smallbiggrin:

Might make for an ineresting fan fic or handful of RPG sessions. One player would be the hunted (Sephiroth), three players would be the hunters (the Tenth Doctor, Hellboy, Baron Wulfenbach) and you'd need a GM. You can add in more players if you want, but you'll need those four at least.


Basically? People long to be free! Free from the rules of society that imprison them and force them to do this and not do that!
There's also the fact that the media portrays certain things we like as "evil". Money, power, ambition, sex, ect.
We want those things.

If you demonize non-evil things, like power, money, ambition and sex you end up glamorizing evil and vilifying good.


Something that generally makes it easier to accomplish it's goals. At least in your average fictional universe.
All the lawful stupid types in the media don't help.

One reason to never have Lawful Stupid main characters. Or at least only let them be Lawful Stupid for a while. There is something call character development.