# Evil for no reason but NOT cliche?



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm reading the Chronicles of Malus Darkblade. It's about a Dark Elf who gets possesed by a daemon and must retrieve 5 items of legend or his soul is lost. Now I know that I have heard a lot of fuss about villains being evil for no reason or being evil for the sake of being evil. I was even surprised that lots of people didn't like the Orcs in LOTR for that reason.

But I think it all depends on how you look at things. In this book, the Dark Elves are some really nasty people. They are extremly violent and literaly worship a God of Murder. It's funny though that when I read the story, the only reason for their violent cuture is by their creed that the strong survive and that they find power through pain. But these guys take it to extreme levels. They go around wearing flayed human skin as clothes, they have torture houses to bring slaves, and there are just so many assasinations tied into their bizarre politics. 

Maybe it's just that I like the authors (yes two authors) that wrote this but for some reason when I read this I don't really question them. It's like, yeah it's very unlikely that a society like this would ever exist (to this degree) but sometimes I think it's best to just go along with it. I think sometimes cliche isn't always a bad thing, you know? I mean a restaurant opens by your house and you find out they sell burgers. Are you going to think it's cliche to sell burgers? No, you're probably going to order one!

I think sometimes authors are afraid that being cliche means being bad at writting. While some of this may be true in the sense of originality, it doesn't mean it will be bad. When I first heard that the Dark Elves in this story were going to be an evil, violent culture, I said, "Oh great, another one." But it was really well written. There were so many politics and customs involved that really brought their culture to life. One thing I really enjoyed was that the protagonist (Malus) wasn't portrayed as a bad-ass. If you look at him, you might think ooh hes really cool! He is, but he doesn't jsut strode around the battlefield killing everything without effort. The book clearly shows that he is a flawed character. He is despised by his entire family to boot!

I'm not sure if I had a "point" in making this thread. Maybe I wanted to hear your thoughts about "clicheness" or maybe I just wanted to go on about a really good book. Who knows? But with that being said, I do highly recomend this book!!


----------



## Amanita (Mar 11, 2012)

Well, I wouldn't really call the set-up your describing "cliche". Usually, the "evil for no reason" people are the antagonists, a protagonist from a culture with moral beliefs different from most human ones is something quite different. If the dark elves were ugly, inhuman beings that could be killed by the heros with no remorse, this would be cliche.
There's one thing I've stumbled over in your description though. Why do they worthship a god of murder? Murder by definition is a term for unlawful killings, if the killings they committ aren't unlawful in their society, why would they call it that?
The second thing that would put me of is the fact that the character is the character's name. Seriously, a bit more creativity couldn't hurt with that one. 

My opinion on cliches in general? I can't think of anything that would make any story where it's used bad. If used in an interesting and creative way, things that have been used plenty of time can be used well again. It gets problematic if too much of it get piled into one story though. Elves can surely be used well, but wise powerful elves having a feud with industrious dwarves that has to be overcome to win against some threat that might destroy the entire world? Not very likely a story I'm going to pick up. Too many of these things and a story feels like plagiarism even if, legally, it is not. 
I absolutely hate the idea that fantasy has to include elves, dwarves, orcs and dragons to be fantasy as well. There's so much to it and people shouldn't limit themselves to this one path because one of the most famous authors used it.


----------



## Kit (Mar 11, 2012)

If they worship a deity of murder, I would call that a reason for being evil. They are following their spiritual paths.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 11, 2012)

Kit said:


> If they worship a deity of murder, I would call that a reason for being evil. They are following their spiritual paths.



I guess so. I mean it's just sometimes when I'm reading it I often think to myself that it doesn't seam probable that they would just casualy comit all these various acts of evil. It's just so rooted into their culture I guess it just throws me off every now and then.

@Amanita
I actually thought the name was neat. In the Warhammer fantasy and 40K novels they tend to always make names resemble or be a spin-off of something else. Darkblade isn't like his literal last name


----------



## Kit (Mar 11, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> I mean it's just sometimes when I'm reading it I often think to myself that it doesn't seam probable that they would just casualy comit all these various acts of evil. It's just so rooted into their culture I guess it just throws me off every now and then.



Well, then you also have to get into the definition of "evil". To divert from the topic of that particular story (since I haven't read it), theoretically if behavior is that deeply rooted in a culture, perhaps that culture doesn't even consider it evil.


----------



## Konstanz (Mar 13, 2012)

I assume you are not familiar with the Warhammer lore about the Dark Elves? Because there IS a reason they are twisted. It is a traditional story about one people turning into two (high elves/dark elves). The dark elves were tempted by Slaanesh (god of pleasure) and they were cast out. War ensued and the dark elves were driven into barren lands were they now live. 

Slaaneshi worship was banned over the years (bad influence) although many still worship the god with orgies and torture. Now the culture of the dark elves is focused on proving their superiority by enslaving other races, torturing them etc. And it all has a very sadist touch. 

So there is some reason for their "evil" ways. And I really loved the first omnibus (going to buy the second). Great books.


----------



## ascanius (Mar 14, 2012)

Although I think I may be in the minority here, and I haven't read the books you mention I do have one thought.  I seen nothing wrong with having evil without reason in a book/story. Think about it, even if we are given a reason why someone does something truly evil, child rape comes to mind, can you actually understand it can you actually forgive the perpetrator?  That is my definition of evil in my books.  I do think that there are evil actions and even though we try to explain them away to lessen their severity those action will always remain truly evil no matter how we try to explain them.  But his is just my thought.


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 14, 2012)

Most of the time evil has a reason, the reason just isn't specified. 
If the author doesn't have a reason, there is a good chance it will seem random and unreal.

It does seem like the reason is the diety. This gives the evil a focus, and different events will be handled differently relating to the diety.  They can be kind in one situation, and then be evil in the name of the god the next. With the victim totally unaware of the reason.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 14, 2012)

There's nothing wrong with having fantasy races that are simply inherently evil, however. Those that have an in-born tendency to it.


----------



## Kit (Mar 15, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> There's nothing wrong with having fantasy races that are simply inherently evil, however. Those that have an in-born tendency to it.



I dunno, I like to feel like there's a rationale of some sort for it, even if it's only "they want what you have" or "this is how their culture taught them to treat outsiders". 

 The whole "They're evil, just because they're trolls and trolls are bad" thing reminds me of very early fairy tales and baby books. It seems too simplistic. 

Maybe I'm going off the deep end of political correctness here, but sometimes I wonder if that whole "They're bad, just because of what they are" thing that was common in stories/books/tv when we were kids is partly to blame for racism, bullying, etc. Kids get a message of "they're bad just because of what they are, and what they look like" so they learn to judge people too quickly based on what they are or what they look like.

I think we *should* look for a reason for their badness, as well as not taking it as a given immediately that they are bad at all.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 15, 2012)

Kit said:


> Maybe I'm going off the deep end of political correctness here, but sometimes I wonder if that whole "They're bad, just because of what they are" thing that was common in stories/books/tv when we were kids is partly to blame for racism, bullying, etc.



Yeah I do think that is a nod to political correctness, as is the underlying idea that you can't have an inherently evil race in a fantasy world. There's no reason such a story, in and of itself, has to be more or less complex than a more politically-correct fantasy story where races can't be inherently evil. It's a world-design choice, and can be done effectively both ways. Because no human 'race' is like that in the real world, I think people some times fear they will be incorrectly viewed as racists or bigots if they employ on in a fantasy world. I think linking the use of such races to real-world racism is a stretch.


----------



## arbiter117 (Mar 15, 2012)

Sometimes evilness just happens. Where did any of the historic dictators get their evilness?

I think one legitimate evil villain who had a crappy life and therefore has a reason to be evil would be Heinz Doofenshmirtz from Phineas and Ferb (wait Disney?!) 

It always seemed to me that the bad guy just somehow ran into power and decided to kill people, but the good guy runs into power and decides to help for no reason at all...

I guess what I'm saying is, if I'm reading a book with "evil for no reason", then I read it...if the book is good.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 21, 2012)

arbiter117 said:


> I guess what I'm saying is, if I'm reading a book with "evil for no reason", then I read it...if the book is good.



Yeah if a book is good then it's not a problem. Do I think it is still sort of lazy and uncreative? A bit.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Mar 21, 2012)

Violence and evil are two very different things. Animals can be violent, but we think of them as being beyond evil; only conscious entities like man who can make a choice to hurt others or not is prone to evil, or at least the idea of it. All societies have a need for violence. Warriors in tribes of the past all had to endure trials and discomfort and pain. It's a very powerful form of masculine virility and growth. We can easily see how a society composed ONLY of such energies could breed an extreme culture like the one you describe, and probably will self-destruct. "Lord of the Flies" portrays exactly that. 

There are no girls in that book. The male-dominant tribes run amok. I would have a hard time believing in a culture so bent on violence, no matter what race or world they live in, unless it was composed only of men, lacking women and children. Every culture requires nurturing female vibes as well: the impulse to care for the young, to treat ailments and cook meals, and the deeper feminine compassion curbs the violence that men often bring into the world. (I know I'm generalizing in a dangerous way with all this) Diversity in a culture is what makes it rich and interesting. Most cultures of the world, before the present ones, believed in many various gods, including murderous, destructive ones. 

To have a society focused on just one aspect of life sounds cultish to me, which is a really interesting starting-point for a story, because we would get to see in detail how such a people had developed; but I wouldn't feel much satisfaction reading that story unless at least the heroes escaped the limited lifestyle of the cult, or it was completely vanquished.


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 21, 2012)

I don't think I've ever read a book where the villain was evil for "no reason". Usually it is one of a few reasons; think of the seven cardinal sins and you won't be far off.

Wrath: A plain and simple motive for a typical fantasy story villain. A villain likes to kill and whether he does the deed himself or uses a surrogate like his henchmen or underling to commit the gruesome acts of murder and often on a large scale. 

Pride: A simple motive, but easily worked into any story. Such pride a villain has in his/her abilities or magical powers that they feel invincible just because no one has been able to match him yet. Usually it is fairly easy to come up with ways to overcome such villains, degrade their sense of self worth. 

Envy: Villains are quiite often guilty of this, and it can come from him/her wanting something that someone else has. Could be an ability that someone has, an item someone else possesses, a person that is owned by someone else (perhaps they have great beauty. Also those villains bent of dominating/subjugating a piece of land fit into this category as they are envious of another's claim on said territory.  

Lust: Not usual for a villain, but possible in any fantasy story. Usually this vice is coupled with others and drives the villain to meaningless sex with subdued farm girls, bar wenches or women captured by his forces. The sex may not even be for pleasure, but more for power over an individual, like sexual predators today. 

Greed: Very common in combination with others and it is a plain and unadultered desire for physical wealth. Gold, silver, gems or magical items are often covered under this category, villains may seize mines or profitable businesses to add to their own holdings.   

Sloth: While not that common in a fantasy setting, you could easily have a villain that is so lazy or sedentary he sends his minions out to do his bidding. Likely they spend so much time getting those things he needs or wants, the trouble they cause may be lessened. 

Gluttony: Perhaps the villain was an orphan growing up and never had enough to eat so part of his lifestyle is to make SURE he never wants for anything again. It could be more than just for food in this context; perhaps they never had any possessions and desire to have enough that he never wants again.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2012)

I read this thread, and there are a lot of good observations and musings happening here, so I wanted to jump in and say some stuff too.  Evil is sort of a strange concept.  My 5 year old son and his friend were dismembering a lizard they found dead in the yard a few months back.... and I was sort of upset that they were doing it at the time, but since the event, I have reflected on the behavior more than once (not that I was disturbed by it).  When I was about the same age, I had a little goldfish net, and I used to trap bees collecting pollen and kill them..... to throw them into spider webs and watch the spiders spin them up to eat.  Well.... these innocent behavior that begin with curiosity mostly go away when we learn more and our mothers tell us not to do them because it's gross..... but what else?  I mean, I remember one time we put tape on my friend's cat's foot to watch him try to shake it off, and we were rolling around laughing.  Well we thought it would be even funnier to stick great gobs of tape on him after that, and it was less funny when the cat was crying and lost some fur..... I think some people feel bad when they realize they have hurt something, and some people don't.  

There are all kinds of things which influence how we feel about our actions.  Whether we are well-rested, whether we are angry or annoyed, and to what degree.... If we are intoxicated, whether we are influenced by a group... I don't think I am a sociopath, because I do feel disgusted when I hear disturbing things (usually about children and animals) but I am well able to admit I am desensitized.  I am probably capable of many heinous things, but I wouldn't call myself evil.  It's easier for normal people to do something when they feel they must, are given orders to, or are intoxicated.  

HOWEVER...

There was recently something on the news near me where a 1 month old baby had been raped and killed by her father who was on heroin at the time..... and as desensitized as I am, I held my own eight week old baby (my fourth) in my arms and cried for that little dead baby.  Now I've never done Heroin, and I don't know that much about its influence over the mind, but in my youth, I was quite fond of being high, and I don't think ANYTHING could ever have made me violate a little baby and kill it.  I'm sorry.... I think that bastard was sick beyond sick, and if the drugs did anything, they lowered his self-control.  

I think that is how people might be able to be called inherently evil.... they are sick, or at least desensitized enough or afraid enough to follow orders or join in a group doing something that is immoral or cruel or whatever, and the more they do it, the easier it gets.  

While I don't believe an entirely evil race would be very realistic, I can see a culture with different morals, laws and punishments appearing evil to an outsider.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 22, 2012)

anihow said:


> While I don't believe an entirely evil race would be very realistic, I can see a culture with different morals, laws and punishments appearing evil to an outsider.



In the context of fantasy, how do you envision an "evil" race being less realistic than a dragon that can fly (despite its anatomy and bulk) and breathe fire, or wizards who can lob balls of lightning around, or kids that can fly around on broomsticks, or spirits that manifest in the physical world, or a single ring with the power of the 'one' in Lord of the Rings, or talking vermin, or humans that can change into beasts in mere moments, and so on. Given everything the genre of fantasy encompasses, why does an evil race trip you up, and why is the evil race somehow a greater blow to the "realism" of the story?


----------



## Saigonnus (Mar 22, 2012)

anihow said:


> While I don't believe an entirely evil race would be very realistic, I can see a culture with different morals, laws and punishments appearing evil to an outsider.



I agree with this statement in part, but who's to say those morals, laws or punishment AREN'T evil even to those living in the society. An example of this in real history, is Germany and the extermination of millions of ethnic minorities. I do agree that most of those who followed the regime were normal soldiers and had nothing to do with the holocaust. Those in power had the idea that the Jews and other minorities were of a "lesser stock" and not up to the standards of "Germans". There are a few alternatives to how they CHOSE to do things that could've changed how they were percieved by the outside world. 

Instead of killing those they didn't like, why not just force them out of territory they control? If they'd have done that instead of the wholesale slaughter of millions, how would we see them? Japanese people at the end of the war likely thought it was the Americans that were evil, since we dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when technically we didn't have to and most of the Japanese people affected by the aftermath were civilians. 

Any race can be evil in the context of how outsiders percieve them, but there are always extenuating circumstances as far as "evil" races in most Fantasy fiction. Dark elves for example are evil because they follow the tenets and teachings of the Evil goddess Lloth, who revel is chaos and murder. Regular humans without religion or whatever are perfectly capable fo the same level of violence and chaos as any others, but that doesn't make humans evil. The Orcs and Uruk'hai in the LOTR series were evil because they were created that way by a twisted dark wizard (Saruman) and his even more twisted master (Sauron). I am sure they though, think what they do is normal and everyone else is just weird.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 22, 2012)

From a philosophical standpoint, the only thing that can be evil (or not evil) is an action, and only relative to a particular moral framework—and the circumstances matter, too. Absent that moral framework, it's impossible to judge an action to be evil or not evil.

Thus I don't even think it makes sense to say that Sauron's orcs are evil—unless that's just shorthand for saying that the orcs typically or frequently do things that are considered evil by some particular moral code (that is, the moral codes of men, elves, or hobbits). The orcs don't think they're evil, and neither does Sauron (I assume).


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2012)

If you look at what we think of as evil.... a race full of murderers, selfish people and pillagers would not be successful.  They could only exist as sorts of parasites off another people who were different.  It's a yin yang sort of thing.... You can't have one sort of people all about destroying if no one is building, or else they all disappear.....


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 22, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> From a philosophical standpoint, the only thing that can be evil (or not evil) is an action, and only relative to a particular moral framework—and the circumstances matter, too. Absent that moral framework, it's impossible to judge an action to be evil or not evil.
> 
> Thus I don't even think it makes sense to say that Sauron's orcs are evil—unless that's just shorthand for saying that the orcs typically or frequently do things that are considered evil by some particular moral code (that is, the moral codes of men, elves, or hobbits). The orcs don't think they're evil, and neither does Sauron (I assume).



I would have to disagree because even the servants of Sauron call him the Dark Lord. Plus I read that they were born of evil itself.

I actually know someone who trully believes that there is no good, there is no evil, there are no morals, there is only perspective and speculation. This ideaology has been a classical example in many fictional works but I think there definetly IS a line between right and wrong. If I go out and kill someone for no reason, that would be evil. If I killed someone because they broke into my house then I acted in self-defense to protect my family and myself. 

@Phin
Ironically a lot of the females in this story are actually assasins and expert killers.

@anihow
That was a very good post!!

Lots of times in fantasy people also use the "born of evil" aspect. I remember in an interview with an author I really like they were asking him about comparing the villain character to the demon character and asked which one was more evil. He said the demon was born of evil and couldn't be good if he tried it.

I'm really short of time so im probably bouncing all over the place here lol


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2012)

To clarify, since I obviously upset you steerpike, I'm not saying it would hurt a story if you had an evil race... I just don't think it would be a terribly successful group of people.  If you have people who are born evil, who nurtures them, evil mothers?  Why?  Why would someone evil, concerned only for themself ever even choose to hold or nurse a baby?  And what about when children are older?  What's to stop any adult walking by from just stabbing that little evil child in the chest and eating their heart for breakfast?  And where did the next generation come from?  Do evil people love or is every one of them a product of rape?  And if that's the case why wouldn't the evil women just go castrate all the evil raping men?  And then the men retaliate and burn all the evil women?   And how do all these evil people eat?  Evil farmers and milkmaids?

Those questions are the reason I can't see an evil society working.  A society, any society, must have hard-working people at the base of it.  Granted, those people might be slaves, and who knows, the race might just be pillagers and invaders, but the fact is, I cannot see such a people being successful from a cultural anthropological standpoint.  

Don't get me wrong, blood flows freely through my streets, and I love a real bastard in my stories as much as the next guy, but to have a whole culture founded on being evil to me just seems unlikely.  The Irish certainly thought the Vikings were evil, and the Aztecs had a bloody and sinister past... but would anyone today call them evil?  I don't think so.  Even regarding the WWII comparison..... Yes, a lot of evil was done by many people in Germany during that war... but many Germans were as horrified as we are now looking back.  I'm proud to say that while one of my ancestors was in that war (for the Germans, he was 17 and fighting in Russia) my great-grandfather was hiding Jews in a building in town..... and so were many others.  Therefore... even during the most horrific atrocities committed in this world... there are people in the "evil" society who are not evil... and it is the vast majority.  

I never said I wouldn't read a book which was written about an evil race, and I wasn't trying to bash anyone's ideas, just saying why I felt it was an unlikely situation.  I think evilness stems from anti-social behavior, and I just imagine what a society of sociopaths would be like.... I think short-lived.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 22, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> I would have to disagree because even the servants of Sauron call him the Dark Lord. Plus I read that they were born of evil itself.



Yeah, but who says "dark" has negative connotations to them? Maybe when they say "Dark Lord" they have the same warm fuzzies that I get when I hear someone say "fluffy bunnies." Maybe they instinctively like dark places (they have highly sensitive eyes, for example, and bright light hurts them), so in a cultural sense "dark" things are considered positive, much in the same way that humans are more peaceful and friendly when in an environment with a lot of plants and trees[SUP]1[/SUP].



> I actually know someone who trully believes that there is no good, there is no evil, there are no morals, there is only perspective and speculation. This ideaology has been a classical example in many fictional works but I think there definetly IS a line between right and wrong. If I go out and kill someone for no reason, that would be evil.



Seems like you know two of us 

What if someone (let's call him Bob) believes that it's perfectly acceptable and in fact even a good thing to go out and kill people for no reason at all? How do you tell who's objectively right? The universe doesn't care. Someone committing a murder "for no reason" does not get suddenly blasted to atoms for his transgression. Nothing in the laws of physics attaches any particular judgment to actions. Only conscious beings can do that, and what makes any given sentient being's beliefs more or less correct as far as the universe is concerned?

Now obviously (I hope it's obvious), *I* don't think it's okay to go out and murder people for no reason (it's already been pointed out that societies that allow this kind of thing don't last very long). So according to _my_ moral framework, if Bob goes out and kills someone for no reason (or for what I consider no reason–maybe Bob enjoys it, and that's reason enough for him), that's an evil act. But murder's really fraught. Let's try something that's less universally abhorred.

How about taxation? Almost everyone (even most libertarians) agrees that we need _some_ taxation: we're not going to have good roads, police, fire departments, or an army without taxes. It's in our collective interest to impose taxes to pay for these things. But most people disagree about exactly what level of taxation is acceptable. Some people say it's morally evil to use tax money for free public health care; some people say it's morally evil _not_ to use tax money for free public health care. It's a complex issue and highly debatable, but fundamentally it's no different than the murder issue: Your approach to public health care (or whether the circumstances of killing someone make it an evil act) is based entirely on your underlying moral framework, and the universe _does not care_ what you believe.[SUP]2[/SUP]

[SUP]1[/SUP]There has been research demonstrating that the crime rate goes down in urban areas after trees are planted there, and other research indicating that people are healthier and happier just by virtue of being around greenery.

[SUP]2[/SUP]The very assertion that the universe does not care is, of course, contested by most major religions, which explicitly claim that the universe is the property of a particular entity who _does_ care and _will_ impose a form of being-blasted-to-atoms if you don't behave according to their rules.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 22, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Yeah, but who says "dark" has negative connotations to them? Maybe when they say "Dark Lord" they have the same warm fuzzies that I get when I hear someone say "fluffy bunnies." Maybe they instinctively like dark places (they have highly sensitive eyes, for example, and bright light hurts them), so in a cultural sense "dark" things are considered positive, much in the same way that humans are more peaceful and friendly when in an environment with a lot of plants and trees[SUP]1[/SUP].
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In reference to the Orcs in LOTR I guess you are saying that we look at them being as evil because of only our perception of evil. 

But that was a very well typed response. It does get difficult when you get into details that are more vague and open to speculation like your taxation example. But even though different people will have different opinions on where the line is drawn, there typically is always a line that is drawn. We all might not agree on where the line is, but we can all agree that there is one there.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 22, 2012)

[email protected] Benjamin.  I love the footnotes.  Hey when you were talking about the "Dark" thing I got to thinking.... what about vampires... see I'm of a firm belief that like people, vampires in literature are probably neutral, with some killing their victims and others merely feeding and leaving their victim alive.  Even things we think of as "evil" can be both bad and good.  I have never written a vampire because in my world I don't have them, but I have loads of werewolves, and while some are mad beasts and inherently evil, others are just like people.... good-ish for the most part.

Thanks for bringing up taxes... that's a way better thing to illustrate this topic rather than murder.  Murder is pretty clear-cut, but there's loads of other immoral acts.  I remember reading about all the laws of the first Plymouth colony, and over half the crimes were directly related to religion, eg. Not attending church, working on Sunday, traveling on Sunday, harboring a Quaker.... incidentally, only 5 crimes were seen as bad enough to be punishable by death, and they were: 


willful murder 
forming a solemn compact with the devil by way of witchcraft 
willful burning of ships or houses 
sodomy, rape, and buggery 
adultery. 

I wonder what the laws would be like if we were living in an "EVIL" society.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Mar 23, 2012)

anihow said:


> I wonder what the laws would be like if we were living in an "EVIL" society.



Thou shalt not enjoy life


----------



## Devor (Mar 23, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Thou shalt not enjoy life



Actually, that's been done.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 23, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> In reference to the Orcs in LOTR I guess you are saying that we look at them being as evil because of only our perception of evil.



Precisely. Sauron didn't think they were evil; Gandalf did. Who's right?



Androxine Vortex said:


> But that was a very well typed response. It does get difficult when you get into details that are more vague and open to speculation like your taxation example. But even though different people will have different opinions on where the line is drawn, there typically is always a line that is drawn. We all might not agree on where the line is, but we can all agree that there is one there.



Not necessarily; someone's moral framework could consist solely of the rule "This is the only rule." In that case, there's no line; all actions are permissible and non-evil to them.


----------



## Kit (Mar 23, 2012)

anihow said:


> Those questions are the reason I can't see an evil society working.  A society, any society, must have hard-working people at the base of it.  Granted, those people might be slaves, and who knows, the race might just be pillagers and invaders, but the fact is, I cannot see such a people being successful from a cultural anthropological standpoint.
> .



They could be quite successful, like any parasite (as you term them in another post)- as long as they do not become so successful that they outgrow the capacity of their host(s) to support them.


----------



## Kit (Mar 23, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Not necessarily; someone's moral framework could consist solely of the rule "This is the only rule." In that case, there's no line; all actions are permissible and non-evil to them.



That's been done too- "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"- Aleister Crowley.


----------



## Kit (Mar 23, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Yeah, but who says "dark" has negative connotations to them? Maybe when they say "Dark Lord" they have the same warm fuzzies that I get when I hear someone say "fluffy bunnies." Maybe they instinctively like dark places (they have highly sensitive eyes, for example, and bright light hurts them), so in a cultural sense "dark" things are considered positive, much in the same way that humans are more peaceful and friendly when in an environment with a lot of plants and trees



See Anne Bishop's Dark Jewels series for an interesting take on "dark" being positive.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 23, 2012)

anihow said:


> To clarify, since I obviously upset you steerpike, I'm not saying it would hurt a story if you had an evil race... I just don't think it would be a terribly successful group of people.  If you have people who are born evil, who nurtures them, evil mothers?  Why?  Why would someone evil, concerned only for themself ever even choose to hold or nurse a baby?  And what about when children are older?  What's to stop any adult walking by from just stabbing that little evil child in the chest and eating their heart for breakfast?  And where did the next generation come from?  Do evil people love or is every one of them a product of rape?  And if that's the case why wouldn't the evil women just go castrate all the evil raping men?  And then the men retaliate and burn all the evil women?   And how do all these evil people eat?  Evil farmers and milkmaids?



I don't think it would be too difficult to come up with answers for each of those questions for your fantasy race. Right off the top of my head, I can think of self-interest, biological imperatives, creation by outside forces, and control by outside forces. I don't see anything here that is necessarily an obstacle to having an evil race. You wouldn't need all of them in any given instance. In a fantasy story, so long as you maintain logical consistency you have free reign to develop the race and answer such questions in any way you choose. I don't see any of these being insurmountable.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Mar 23, 2012)

True that.  But some people choose an _overwhelmingly_ evil race without considering the _reasons_ for it.  I never said it was impossible, and I certainly would encourage anyone who felt up for it to challenge themselves, but it seems like sometimes people just think, "Okay so I wrote about this people and that culture... now I better put in an evil race for balance and plot direction."  and that can come off as a little lazy.  Not everything needs something "evil" driving it, sometimes people just have different motivations.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Mar 25, 2012)

anihow said:


> And how do all these evil people eat?  Evil farmers and milkmaids?



I think that "Evil Milkmaids" is an excellent name for an all-girl punk rock band. 

I agree with most of what anihow has said here. In fact, I suppose with all of it. And the reason why is mainly because it backs up what I was saying earlier about how a truly evil culture is a degenerative and self-destructive culture, like what is portrayed in _Lord of the Flies_ where there are no babies, no milkmaids, no production of any kind. 

If a creature acts out of its own natural impulses then its acts can't be called evil. Is an Orc that hunts and kills any different from a mountain lion that does the same? To be evil, one has to have also the choice to be good. The Orcs, despite having intelligence and language, don't seem to have that choice. They were created as they are, and are controlled by their masters. They are monsters, plain and simple, and so are relegated to a more animal domain. They are more dangerous than animals, but no more evil than a pack of wolves. Is it possible to rehabilitate them? Maybe Merry and Pippin could open up a Center for Orc Recovery somewhere in the Shire. 

Realistically, I think that the only real possibility for an evil race and culture is if the people were heavily influenced by propaganda, indoctrinated both by State and Church, so that they could all believe that whatever atrocities they committed would be justifiable. Which is an interesting place to begin storytelling. There' a lot of potential there. Of course, they wouldn't see their actions as evil, I suppose, much like fanatical religious terrorists. 

Personally, I like to write and read stories that have no evil characters, like _The Telling_ by Ursula LeGuin. There is a lot of what could be called evil acts, such as the destruction of an entire culture, with book-burning and everything - but none of the characters are true villains, even if they have some weaknesses that drive them to do less-than-noble things. I've given this a lot of thought actually and have dispensed with the idea of evil entirely in my writing. I think the conflicts that naturally arise in a person's life through human relationships, broken hearts, thwarted ambitions, health crises, and the need for spiritual fulfillment in those who hunger for the truth are more than enough fodder for truly literary endeavors - in fact, the Fantasy Genre sorely needs more of that, in my opinion!


----------



## SeverinR (Mar 27, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Thou shalt not enjoy life


I don't think evil necessarily means no enjoyment. Just enjoyment outside of societies standards.  Extreme religious people enjoy life, but they put drastic behavioral restrictions on themselves. Reversely, partiers go out nightly, drinking til they pass out, paying for sex, doing drugs, etc, they seem to have enjoyment.  Life would be drastically different to live in an evil society, but I think life without enjoyment would change quickly. Although enjoyment for the lower people might not happen, the highers find enjoyment at the expense of the lower class.



Phin Scardaw said:


> I think that "Evil Milkmaids" is an excellent name for an all-girl punk rock band.


 Definately.

How about lepper Milkmaids? Not a drink I'd look forward too.

I was surprised, there is no band by that name(Evil milkmaids)  There is a band Milkmaids.

I have considered making my orcs, more society oriented, a lower inteligent marauding viking like group of humanoids.  Rather then the typical evil bloodthirsty group most think of.  They will still be enemies to elves.


----------

