Well, if they had evil thoughts and intentions that motivated their actions and yet never successfully did anything evil then there's really a massive disconnect between their beliefs and action that would probably only fit in a surreal comedy. I'm not talking about people who theoretically wonder about doing evil, or who get frustrated and think about doing evil but then calm down, but people who have no moral problem with doing generally immoral things. The villain is the hero of his own story, so he wouldn't call himself evil- rather, his moral judgement is clouded or skewed in such a way that he sees his actions as necessary or justified. P.S. the clothes comment was a call back to your earlier statement re. small acts of "evil"
So you basicly talk about someone who is unquestionable evil. I don't see the point of that statement in regards to my argument (actions define us, not thoughts). And "never successfully did something evil" implies that they tried. There are some villians who know perfectly well that they are evil, and relish in it, just like there are those who are just as you described. I know which statement the cloth comment was an answer to, but not what you wanted to point out. That criticising clothes is not always evil? Pointing out such a thing seems foolish, as it is obvious that I would know that. Your cloth comment just seemed pointless to me. Anyway, I think this thread has derailed somewhat ^^
I don't think actions can be considered separate of the thoughts and reasoning that led to them (unless the acts are truly random)- if thoughts precede actions, and actions define you, then what of the thoughts? Unthinking action is random, but what of thoughts without action- the mind that can contemplate and plan unconscionable evil might not actually carry the act to completion, but surely it suggests at least a familiarity with the idea of doing evil? I agree that evil actions hurt people, but harmful action without evil thought could be the result of a blunder by a well-meaning character, part of a plan for the greater good, or indeed the actions of a moustache twiddling villain who simply wants to hurt people- the actions are made evil by both their evil intent and result. Indeed, it is often a question of degree in what ends justify what means that separate heroes and villains, anti-heroes coming down just fractionally the right side of the line, while their counterparts with flaws that are thematically less appealing are sympathetic but villains nonetheless. The criticism of clothes, which you brought up as an example of petty evil, is an example of judgement of an action alone being too simplistic a view (a good character might be honestly criticising truly awful clothes. He could even be just a bit of a dick but overall a good guy. Conversely, an evil character could either just be a dick on top of it all, or it's part of an elaborate plan). It seems a bit off to not only ignore the question but to treat it as though I'm speaking foolishly. I don't think this is a derail, as specifics aside the question of whence cometh evil and what maketh evil is a valid one for this thread.
Yes, thought before action. But thought alone cannot make one evil. Without action, though is pointless.
You can always communicate thoughts without acting on them- indeed some of my favourite villains have done very little themselves but have nonetheless led others to absolute ruin. Whether and when speech is an action for the purposes of doing evil or not is debatable of course. Apparently speech is free in tabletop RPGs if that helps. Inner thoughts alone can be important in characterisation, too, if you can see inside a character's mind- you can leave it up to the reader how much of the character's inner thought informs their actions.
That's a good point- actual labelling as evil is one of those things where "show, don't tell" applies more literally. If I read something and a character is either initially labelled as evil, gleefully proclaims himself evil, or is introduced in a scene where he goes completely out of his way kill puppies, I'm usually then quite sensitive to signs of SatAM cartoon villainy, cardboard characters and more often than not Mary Sues.
Again it depends on the book I have been fairly blunt with some of my names. Plus Matriach of Evil is too delicious to miss.
It does depend on the book, but that goes without saying. A farce, a sarcastic or a humors book would do well with in your face kind of names.
It is my personal opinion that actions define a person, both in real life and fiction. The thoughts do precede the actions, but it is the actions which decide whether the person was evil all along, or just have a wild mind and no intention of actually being evil. The cloth part of the thread is foolish, and escalated only because of my failure to understand your point. I apologize for any aggressiveness I might have shown. It was not my intention to be offensive.
My books contain humour but is also serious in places and have dark moments, one is very much so. Fact is she is the main antagonist - the people of the world have called the Great Skua the Lord of Evil since it first arrived on the scene. My main character renames her the Matriach of Evil in this book and it suits it because although she may not actually be evil herself she is the cause of it all. Come to the conclusion she is evil because it is the right thing for her to be, she was asked to perform that function when she was created and obeyed the commandment, just like her sister did to fulfill her role. She is infertile because she is required for balance.
. Not sure how much will get revealed about Lucy in this book, other people have been called the 'Lord of Evil' in previous books. Oddly I think all bar one which was a case of mistaken identity have been more evil than the Matriach in their own way.
There can be many Lords of Evil through time, and also different lords competing for being the Big Bad Lord of Evil at the same time
Of course, she has no choice but to be evil. She was created that way (if I get your story right), so how can you blame her? I know a traditional Christian wouldn't agree with me on this, but I think the Christian version of the Devil has the same problem. His sole reason for existing seems to be to provide a counterpart to God - someone who tempts people with sin to turn them away from God. So how can you blame him for fullfulling his role in creation?
I am with you, if you want to spice up and keep from being flat make them extra evil. Some of the Greatest Bad Guys are just evil the Joker, and Kaiser Soze are two of my favorites, and they are evil solely cause thats what they like. I would not say either of them are flat, but very dynamic characters.
I am not taking away her power of choice to say no I am not doing this. I am not traditional Christian in my religious tradition the devil had a choice. Lucy has the same capacity for good and evil as the rest of us, she was asked to maintain the evil and chose to obey the commandment. What was asked of her has destroyed her mentally and I think she maybe going mad NOW and that is where the current problems in my books come from. She recognises this in herself and has been trying to die. She can't.
The Devil is an interesting case. Again the traditional Christian probably wouldn't agree, but I see the Devil as an anthropomorphisation of an abstract quality, so when I say that the Devil is evil I'm not stating an attribute he possesses, I'm saying who he is. (You can probably guess from that how I see God.)
But why is she maintaining evil, if she knows it to be wrong? Is it a case of vested interests, of self-interest, of loyalty to the old cause come hell or high water? I can see how a character being called "the Matriarch of Evil" by another character isn't the same as a character being ex cathedra declared evil, but a believable character needs a believable motivation. That could be as simple as outright madness, but that needs to come from somewhere (maybe a complete failure to understand how the theoretical principles she was taught lead to suffering and misery when implemented?).
I have written the universe as a living breathing organism (the planet its set on is the eternal/internal organs roughly stomach, heart, kidneys etc)- evil is part of what it needs to survive but it has to be kept in balance with good. My MC is the grandson of Lucy's sister, his partner is another of them. Together they were supposed to work to keep evil in balance. When his partner was removed and placed in stasis the balance of the universe was disturbed the bad bacteria started to take over when there was nothing to fight back.Premise of one of my books is because 'the fall' didn't happen the balance was lost and if the universe dies, the universal father dies, and nothing ever existed.
I suppose that then goes into what exactly entails an evil act- if it is necessary to maintain the universe that certain people should do hideous, unforgivable things to each other, just how evil is the character who sacrifices his innate morality to keep the universe together? Knowing that some evil is necessary to the continuation of all existence, how does this affect those who are victimised by the evildoers in the name of balance? There's also the question of "the evil in men's souls", so to speak- people acting in callous self-interest are at best neutral and at worst evil- does the predisposition of all beings in this universe affect the balance materially?
It has levelled the playing field a bit works well I guess. In my current one the good character does something incomprehensible to save the universe, something that made me weep writing it and is one of the most awful crimes, when my main antagonist pulls the gun it would prevent this appalling thing happening but the universe would never have existed. Hmm I am liking my new story strand. I actually have a prayer I wrote written from the point of view of a 'victim' who knows his choice is death or never existing.
Is the idea of balance a consensus reality in-universe, or is it the interpretation of the inhabitants? I would imagine that the requirement to do unimaginably evil things would lead characters to question the cosmology that demands it. What is the antagonist's intention when he attempts to stop the protagonist's crime? Is he intent on the destruction of existence, as would follow from an apparent attempt at unbalancing it all, or is he intent on saving the protagonist's victims? A problem I see with balance-based morality is that it ascribes two simultaneous moral values to each act- the conventional value and how that value then affects the balance of the universe. That makes certain actions unreconcilable with any morality by paradox- the hero is doing a terrible evil thing. But he's doing it to avert the end of the Universe, the unsurpassable evil, which means it's a good thing- so how can he hope to attain balance by doing it? e: The balance could be that of suffering and happiness, now I think about it, if evil is defined as that which causes suffering and good as that which causes happiness?
Ah, this is what I meant by Lucy having no choice. I don't mean she lacks free will, I mean she has no choice but to act evil if she is to fulfil her role in Creation. I hope I'm not ruining your story here, but doesn't that make her a tragic character - the one who has had to make the greatest sacrifice of all for he universe?
It comes from an idea I had as a child it was how I reconciled the idea of one God being everywhere at once, way I saw it then only one way could that be achieved - if we were actually inside him. In my stories the universe is the body of the Universal Father. Cosmology in this world is more anatomy - for example there are energy streams with 'fireflies' that provide all the universes energy, they are cleansed, fed and pumped back out again from this planet. They function almost like blood cells there are white ones that provide 'magic' and 'red' that give life. The God demands this does it to survive, just like we demand food, air, water. To end the universe, she wants to die only way it can happen is to remove everyone from existence. In this case the one doing the 'evil' act has only good intentions, the one doing the 'good' act has only bad ones. If she prevents the atrocities she doesn't save anyone, she ends it for them, they have no chance to move on to the next life. Oddly this is the premise of what started out as a slapstick comedy in November lol
