yep that is exactly what she is a tragic character, the one who gave up everything in this life and her chance at eternal life for the Universal Father and all the rest of his creations. It doesn't ruin anything I think it is rapidly becoming the main idea that both the universe's ultimate protagonist and antagonist are the most tragic the Universal Father ever created ultimately the greatest evil happens to them.- She does have the choice to say no though and not do it, another would be found. That is what happened with another two characters who were supposed to be the Swan and Peacock (the goodies - the first Swan was Lucy's sister she was the first to give up her immortality) before Socrates and Nate, one through evil and the other through weakness didn't fulfill the purpose of their creation (they were roughly my Cain and Abel due to the evil of one, the other was prevented from progressing). Also one of the characters before couldn't do everything he was supposed to because of his behaviour. (Their father, his son before he became evil fulfilled part of his role)
Well, then she's not evil without reason, right? I would say she's not evil at all at first. When she decides to forego her role and let the universe be destroyed she could be seen as evil, but for that you have given her very good reason.
She only got her reason about a page back on the thread so yesterday I started writing the story of Izanami and Lucinda and it kind of made sense when they achieved their bird forms one was given the Swan (good, duty to reproduce etc) the other The Great Skua (evil), together they provide balance. The junior partner would be the Peacock he was required without him the 'fall' couldn't have happened and Izanami would never have given up her mortality. Although in order for complete balance they also need the Elemental Abbots/Abbesses, and Monarchs with their bird forms. LOL At present my backstory is longer than my novels.
Still not sure if I should be keeping the slapstick humour in my latest book or keep it more serious.
Maybe an evil character is just rational/objective in their world view, realizing we all act selfishly just that we also must get along somehow. If a person like this were to ever become too detached from the rest of society and no longer feel subjected or benefit from the golden rule(reciprocity), then they would probably become "evil".
Yeah...basically there are two types of "evil". One type is the people who are amoral, who have a completely rational worldview and just look after their self-interest (they tend to believe good and evil don't exist; as Voldemort says, they believe there is only power and those too weak to seek it). I think this is the sort of person the OP was referring to, not an underdeveloped plot device who does "evil" for the sake of it. Of course, there are also those who are doing "evil" but think they are doing good; misguided, if you will. They tend to make for the most interesting villains, in my opinion, but only if their motive and psychology behind it is treated in depth. In "real life", of course, most people are a blend of both; they know what they are doing is wrong and are motivated selfishly, but feel guilty about it and attempt to rationalize it. But villains (especially the sorts of people you call "evil") are usually dealing with very intense stuff, so while you do see this type of antagonist, if you are looking at a story with genuinely "evil" acts they are more likely to be misguided, amoral, or suffering from some sort of mental disorder. Obviously no one who is evil thinks of themselves as being "evil".
The only time I would think evil doesn't need a reason is if you see evil as a primordial thing. The embodiment of chaos. It promotes chaos just for the sake of creating randomness. Of course, along this same argument, evil could do something good, but not for any specific reason. It's chaos, which is basically just randomness.
Well, I agree/disagree with the others, I actually believe evil doesn't exist, nothing is completely evil, the forces of good may actually seem like the evil ones, if you were to look at the story from a different perspective. And to answer your question NO, evil needs no purpose, I find evil just for the hell of it quite entertaining, sadistic villains are the best villains. If someone has to do something "evil", for the purpose of good does that make them evil? Think About That...
"Think About That..." is such a hilarious way of ending a pseudo-philosophical post that I think I'll adopt it. All acts have some kind of reasoning behind them and it is this reasoning that defines characters. Without reason or purpose, how would your character know whether to go outside and stab somebody or stay inside and mess up his company's accounts sheet? Why on earth would he do either, considering the likely repercussions? Think Abou... nah, too soon.
Indeed I beleive that everything needs a reason in a story, just as it does in reality. Let's look at the bigest real world evil so that we may get a little better understanding: Reason for Nazi Germany's rise: Economic down turn, loss of a world war, international supression I'm sure that there are more on a smaller level, but in reality, every personality trait is aquired as a result of that persons experiance, and groups of people under the same conditions tend to be similar in personality. An evil character in my opinion needs to be self justified in order to overcome natural human inhibitions. Evil is just a categorization of people's actions and is relative to the person who is judging.
Not every character is human though and not every planet earth. I now have my reasons sorted but still not convinced they are entirely necessary - evil can be just a force and evil it its only reason for being. The antagonist up from my Matriach of Evil/Great Skua is the De'il Sea or devil sea, it has no reason for requiring sacrifice other than it was created to do so.
The point in having a reason is so that readers can have a connection with the character. No connection. No care. No care. No love for the story as much as they would if they cared about what was going on with the villain. Or "villain". Magneto is a villain in X-Men comic books. He's done some terrible things. He also has a reason behind his thinking that readers agreed with. So when he turned good people accepted it because it made sense. Then when he flipped back they'd get it because they understood his reasoning. I think you'll have trouble selling a story via care and for money if the evil doesn't have a reason. Random evil acts don't exist. Making it really difficult to get what's going on. However, if you mean that there is a force that you will characterize into a non-living type character causing problems....I sort of get that, but it also doesn't make for much care. People play video games and if there's no rhyme or reason as to where the game is going, it doesn't matter how much fun it is...they'll stop playing. There has to be a destination. You give people all this information in your story and they find it out was for naught, they will hate your story.
Do they need to care about the villain though ? Is being scared of the villain not enough >? In my story the De'il Sea won - it was the one satisfied at the end it accepted its sacrifice and went back to its place of balancing the universe rather than unbalancing it. The universe was the ultimate winner in my story. The Universal Father and the major force of evil succeeded. My protagonist and antagonist both lost, neither completly destroyed but neither getting what they wanted. Both driven insane by the outcome.
They don't need to LOVE the villain. They need to care about what they feel is justification for their actions. It's like spending time describing your MC flipping switches on a board to get something to work. Then the machine starts working. Come to find out the machine worked when it wanted to without the flipping or the not flipping of any switch. Meaning that entire description was unnecessary and will annoy the reader (unless it's a comedy and then it'll be funny). If your story focuses on sacrifices made to this evil and they don't matter and they do as they want no matter....it'll be annoying. What would be the point in telling me about the sacrifices at all. If they don't matter...why should I care to read about it? I'm well aware I could be so on the wrong page with this. I hope I'm understanding you more then misunderstanding, but I've never read a book or a story that lacked understanding of what the "bad" guy was doing.
The sacrifices matter because the great evil has the power to destroy everything without them - its a bit like stomach acid if it isn't balanced the universe gets heartburn and everything becomes crazy. The sacrifice is a bit like a massive antacid tablet. I suppose really the great evil is nature, the De'il Sea is the source of the energy that causes everything to work I have many levels of 'bad' guy in my stories, but the ultimate evil power comes from universal forces - the ultimate good power is the same. I have similar levels of 'good' guy. The ultimate powers and the need to balance always wins, the fact that the good and bad guy in my stories end up at the same position everytime shows balance has been obtained. This actually means taking a sentence out of my middle book - although it has a mostly happy ending as does the first one. The third needs an epilogue to give my protagonist the possibility that his life may improve.
First of all, let me just say this: I do believe in objective morality. I reject moral relativism. I reject the concept of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." That being said, I do believe that most people believe they're good. I believe that Usama Bin Laden sees himself as good, and rightous, and he believes that Allah, the God of the universe, supports him. People do not see themselves as villains, even if they are. What's fascinating is that everybody on the planet have their own perspective, and even in a conflict with two or more sides, everyone will give you arguments that explain why they're right, be it a moral question, or a scientific one. One of the things I'm trying to do, in a project I'm writing, is to confuse MYSELF on who the villain is. See, I know the perspective of people who think that my own positions are evil, and so I'm writing a novel that is sort of a test for myself, with characters that do stuff I support, but are seen as evil by other characters. Or characters who do, at the same time, some things that may seem evil, and other things that may seem good. For example, a politician who relentlesly tries to twist and change the structure of the United States, but does so in order to pass laws that I would support and many of you would support. And I write about him through the perspectives of different characters. One guy, hears about this politician in the radio, and is angered by that tyrannical scum. A young girl who knows that politician in person, knows him as the nicest, most amazing guy ever. A true gentleman in a world filled with terrible men who mistreat women. And so, we don't really know what to think about him, and I don't even know if he's a villain. He's a smiley face villain, at most. Basically, I'm getting away from the "sunday morning cartoon" villain.
But the reader might care about the effect that the evil is having. I've just finished re-reading Michael Moorcock's Knight of Swords, in which the title character is pretty much pure evil for the sake of it, but it's not his story, it's Prince Corum's and we do care about that.
But they matter to those who make the sacrifices, and the story is (usually) in how they deal with it.
I agree My first person Covesea Island books are about how the MCs deal with the evil and how the consequences affect them. 'Evil' is a minor character providing the conflict and plot. The third person Gus and Iris books are different, and the antagonists are a more integral part of the story.
Did have completely new unrelated thought wondering if actually my character doesn't become the Matriach of Evil until after she tries to stop the sacrifice that is the point at which she cannot return hmm.
Reasons always make evils into evils and reasons too make good people into good people. There is always a reason. It is all about what the antagonist/protagonist faced in the past.
Evil character always have a motivation for what they want to do or done but your reader may only know is motivation at the end and that is what I do like this I feel its more interesting and you also have more time to think of a good motivation because you know better your antagonist.
I have to agree completely with you and here's why. It makes for the best psychotic character you can get. It gives them an unpredictability that a methodically evil person would lack. A person who likes to kill will kill, and find places to do it. Soldiers, gladiators etc. who like the battle do what they do because they like it, not necessarily because they believe in something. The killer/evil person who is being evil just because it's more fun to be evil needs no justification. Something made them that way sure, but that is how they are, there needs to be nothing else. No real motivation. The character may end up being flat and predictable in their unpredictability and evilness because they are just evil and that get's boring eventually. But that all depends on how you want to develop them. If you want them to change from evil for fun to, good because it feels nice when you're nice, that's your prerogative. It also depends I think greatly on what you need in you're writing. If you need someone that is crazy and evil with no motive, he does things without any rhyme or reason then that's what you need. If you need a more methodical and developed character to be your antagonist, then that's what you have to write. But I don't think it needs any particular motive to be evil. Look at the Joker. He started without much motive and developed into lusting after the game with Batman.
