# Ideology as a source of villainy



## Jabrosky (May 30, 2014)

I was just talking with my parents about my current project, specifically the villain's characterization. I told them I wanted my villain's motivation to have its roots in an imperialistic ideology he had instilled into him by his upbringing. He's not necessarily evil by nature, but he does very evil things even to his own family in the name of this ideology.

My parents didn't seem to buy this characterization. Mom said she would prefer a villain with more self-centered motives since she thought it more realistic. Personally I still don't think I agree with her.

I have a special respect for the power of ideology to turn otherwise decent people into monsters. History is chock full of this. You have large numbers of well-meaning people who commit the most heinous crimes because their instilled ideology taught them that these crimes were morally justified. Take Nazism for instance. The Nazis got millions of German people to carry out their ends because these people grew up believing that Jews and non-Europeans were racially inferior. Most people in Western civilization at that date had internalized such views, Americans and British included.

Don't get me wrong, most evil ideologies probably stem from the self-interest of certain individuals (especially those in power), but once sprouted they take on lives of their own. They spread across the masses like infectious diseases, corrupting their minds and becoming motivations in their own right. Nothing erodes human critical thinking and decency like a toxic ideology. 

Worst of all, these people sincerely believe they're in the right.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it's realistic for a villain to have an ideological motivation for his crimes?


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 31, 2014)

I think it goes both ways. People follow an ideology because they believe, but sometimes they really, really want to believe in something that empowers or excuses them. (This is something I think the recent movie of _The Lorax_ actually got right. The Onceler believes in progress, in empowerment of the people through fair trade and fair labor, but the more he personally gains from his corrupt enterprise, the more willing he is to overlook the harm that enterprise is doing.)


----------



## CupofJoe (May 31, 2014)

Very plausible for a Big Bad's motivation to be ideological and I would say that most of them [in the main] start from an ideological point of view and get muddied.
They probably, almost certainly, don't consider themselves to be the Big Bad.
Such ideologies would make them a really big Big Bad... and not just another thug. These people, I would contend, have global ambitions because they think they are right and _everyone_ will follow their opinion eventually even if they disagree at the start - they just need to be convinced... even if that means mass executions and prison camps... the rest will learn that the Big Bad is right... eventually.
They don't think local, they want everything... because they _know_ they are right...
If you want to look at more examples I'd suggest looking at the early life of Mao Zedong for one and Stalin, and I can't really miss out Pol Pot. I don't mean to list just communists [it's just a really strong ideology], the Big Bad can be shared around, Francisco Franco and probably many more.
For a different take, look at the spread of religions. They may not be a Big Bad in the traditional _evil_ sense but they do show how an idea can spread and be accepted by the masses and opposed just as rigorously....


----------



## ThinkerX (May 31, 2014)

I'm working on a tale like this at the moment.  

One of the villain's is facilitating horrible things in part because of religious ideology.  However, his personal gains have not really increased, and it could be said personal gain doesn't interest him.  At the same time, he's extremely intelligent and capable.


----------



## SineNomine (May 31, 2014)

I personally think it can work...to an extent.  But a major consideration is that true believers still need to have either a large self-interest or some strong event or people in their lives that tie them tightly to the cause though I'd think.  It's easy to overstate the whole "decent people doing awful things".  As far as I am aware, the whole "banality of evil" thing, despite being still popular in the public mind, has been mostly debunked.  Being raised in an environment where toxic beliefs are present can make an otherwise decent person share those beliefs, but they usually aren't deeply held.  The common people in such an environment aren't fanatics, they are people who go with the flow and when confronted with direct evidence of the evil of their views they start to suffer from cognitive dissonance that makes it hard to continue without solid reasons to keep going.

The way harm gets perpetrated is when it is institutionalized to the point that people never have to confront the effects of it...and that's a lot harder when you are dealing with the main villain of a story.  An ideology can go far to drive you down the road of evil, but a lot of the most important final steps have to be taken yourself.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 31, 2014)

SineNomine said:


> The way harm gets perpetrated is when it is institutionalized to the point that people never have to confront the effects of it...and that's a lot harder when you are dealing with the main villain of a story.  An ideology can go far to drive you down the road of evil, but a lot of the most important final steps have to be taken yourself.



Does the main villain necessarily need to confront the effects of evil? If you give orders to kill rebels three hundred miles away, your soldiers who march three hundred miles away will need to grapple with it, but you yourself can keep a distance from it.


----------



## Penpilot (May 31, 2014)

I think it can work. Ideologies can unite people, and if they're really committed to an ideology, it can be used as an excuse to be really crappy to others. But I do wonder if an ideology is a reflection of those in the upper echelons of power. There needs to be a voice pushing an ideology in one direction or another, one or many people with the authority to determining what is considered right or wrong according to an ideology.

If you think about it religion is kind of like this. People have used it as an excuse to be really crappy to others, but it has also been used to mobilize people to do some incredibly selfless things.

I think things can go wrong when an ideology becomes inflexible, and there are no checks and balances to make sure an authority figure doesn't abuse their power. There are always exceptions to rules and laws, and when rules and laws aren't tempered with common sense and compassion, it creates a very fertile ground for injustice in the name of justice.

As I've mentioned there can be a voice driving the ideology in one direction or another, but now that I think about it more, I think there's room to create a situation where "The System" is out of control, where nobody is really in command, and everyone just follows the rules to the tee with out question. And those who do question are removed. It can be a situation where nobody is responsible and at the same time every one is.


----------



## psychotick (May 31, 2014)

Hi,

It's tricky. Ideology on its own is not usually enough to make people do terrible things. Take naziism as you've mentioned. No it wasn't just ideology that made millions of Germans do those things. It was belief in a charasmatic leader, coming out of a depression caused by the penalties imposed after world war one, cultural aspects relating to the perceived status of Jewish people in Europe, a resurgence of Nationalism vested in Hitler, and of course coercion from authority figures.

And if we look at current skin heads etc we see many of the same factors as well as a sense of disinfranchisement in their own world as migrants settle in their homes, and unemployment playing major roles in their political ideology.

Only a very few would simply base their political activism / criminality purely on an ideological imperitive.

Even Hitler didn't. If you want to be cynical about him as I am want to do, he was an opportunist. Undoubtedly he dislike Jews, but would he have bothered to launch his pogram if it wasn't politically expediant? I doubt it. Primarily he was ambitious. He loved the lime light. He wanted the adulation that came from rising in political circles. And the Jews were unfortunately an expediant means for him to achieve his goals.

There were a few within the nazi party who did hate Jews to the extent that no other factors mattered, but for most I suspect it was a whole raft of motivations that led them to do what they did.

These things are almost never black and white in my view.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## thecoldembrace (May 31, 2014)

I use Ideology a lot to influence the minor villains in my worlds, and to some extent to influence even my main character. My MC was born as a certain specific user of magic, which through the use of propaganda and false teachings by the major magical community has been deemed an abomination of nature and fit only to be destroyed. 

  The ideology was spun into creation because of the chief source of it's existence stemming from jealousy, which is a major overarching theme in my novels. The hatred for mankind towards those they do not understand, or are unwilling to understand is a deep ingrained problem of ignorance in the world, mine and the one you and I live in. 

   I find your use of it justifiable, and are able to relate to it, to where most people can at least understand why it exists.


-Cold


----------



## Terry Greer (May 31, 2014)

Ideology has always done evil things in the name of a belief.
All you need is a cause and an end justifies the means philosophy.

Some of the greatest crimes have been carried out for the common good by people who thought they were doing the best thing.

True 'believers' of all types are to be feared (and I'm not talking about religion here - but the cap fits there as well) - to be genuinely good you have to have self doubt.

A really good example was in the film Serenity. The main bad guy in that was a true ideologist carrying out evil acts for the good of all. He was a true believer - not doing it for personal gain - but an implacable foe because true believers can't be argued with.


----------



## psychotick (May 31, 2014)

Hi Terry,

And yet he was while an excellently scary character, one of the things I found hardest to accept about Serenity. (Apart from the whole wild west thing of course.)

True fanatics are incredibly unusual. Even suicide bombers would not be completely ideologically driven. They are powered by that, desperation and despair.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## monyo (Jun 1, 2014)

Strongly agree with the OP's views on it, and think just about any ideology could be a plausible motivation for a villain, even seemingly righteous or altruistic ones. It's the part about:



Jabrosky said:


> They spread across the masses [...] becoming motivations in their own right. Nothing erodes human critical thinking and decency like a toxic ideology.



Minus the word "toxic," because at some point I came to the conclusion that all ideologies are toxic, for the reason given in the quote. If you're impartially analyzing the facts without regard to your prejudices and biases (basically impossible, but it's an ideal to strive for) there's no need for an ideology. They basically amount to universal rules that everything must conform to, which even in the best case scenario means you aren't really looking at the facts of each situation on their own merits, but pigeonholing them into some preconceived worldview. I say "best case scenario" because in reality they almost always lead to much worse behavior patterns, like a tribalist sort of us-versus-them mentality, refusing any information sources that don't degree with your ideology as being "propaganda" or "brainwashing", all manner of prejudices and biases (of which the ideology is basically the biggest one), and refusal to consider alternative, possibly superior solutions because they don't fit with the ideology.

To use a particular example of all this, I see a common phenomenon in people who hold political ideologies (any political ideologies), where they start to hate alternative or opposing ideologies because they think the policy proposals of those groups will lead to bad outcomes. After a while though, they hate those groups so much that they begin to hate all policy proposals of those groups simply because they were made by enemy ideologies. It effectively changes from "this ideology is wrong because its imperatives will lead to bad outcomes," to "these imperatives are wrong because they were made by a certain group." This because at some point they've given up on objective analysis and given in to blindly trusting their ideology. As as I said, if you're doing the former all the time (objective, fair, non-prejudicial analysis), you don't need the latter (ideology).

And as far as I know there really aren't any ideas that shouldn't be questioned (at least not by relatively sane, healthy people), though it may be uncomfortable to do so at times. There may be things that almost everyone today would consider so blatantly obvious or correct that to debate them would only be dangerous, but older cultures have taken for granted the complete appropriateness of some things that we probably now wish they would have heavily questioned a long time ago (off the top of my head: slavery, beating your wife, child marriage, frontal lobotomy). I'll plug James Flynn's TED talk on moral progress over the past century here, which isn't really about ideology, but just the way people's view of morality and ethics has changed so much over time. Rigid ideology, no matter how correct it may seem to a large percentage of society at the time, tends to shut down the kind of questioning that leads to this kind of progress.

I could probably go on about this subject for a while, but should stop sooner than later. I'd think just about any ideology, no matter how seemingly benevolent and pure, could be used to create a pretty heinous villain or group of them. There have certainly been enough historical examples of it (consider some of the worse things that have happened in the name of religion). It's that "the path the hell is paved with good intentions" thing. The world just isn't really full of evil Darth Vader's and Sauron's screwing everything up, so much as a lot of problems being emergent from the system as a whole, the various weaknesses and flaws of seemingly decent people. Getting hung up on an ideological way of thinking seems to be a big part of that. Even the idea that "all ideologies are bad" is kind of an ideology, which leads to an interesting kind of paradox about it - how to reject ideologies without having adopted a new one. Would be interesting to have a villain whose destructive ideology was that he'd rejected all ideologies.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 1, 2014)

psychotick said:


> Hi Terry,
> 
> And yet he was while an excellently scary character, one of the things I found hardest to accept about Serenity. (Apart from the whole wild west thing of course.)
> 
> ...



Hi Gregg
I don't think they need to be 'fanatics' (who I agree are rare).
But ideologies are everywhere, and common.
For a current example (admittedly religious) you only have to look at Apostacy beliefs. Even in the UK over 30% of Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply! That's insane and a dangerous ideology. It's also fairly similar to many of the 'honour' killings that have been in the news lately as well.

You could equally look at privatisation vs public ownership, belief in immigration, global warming, or if you get scientific inflationary theory v string theory.
The list is extensive. What all these have in common is a belief that would 'shut down' all dissenting voices if they could. They are everywhere and in every walk of life. People who just 'know' what should be done. They scare the sh*t out of me.
I could pick dozens of these.

So I have to disagree about the bad guy in serenity - he was so believable to me (especially as being an atheist I get it all the time). 

(As for the cowboy thing - I know a lot of people had problems with that - as for me I just looked at it as a way of showing a dialogue structure that was separated in time from the present (to me it automatically distanced the events from now in a way that an invented language would have been hard pressed to do). Though I know that lots of people were tuned off by it. 

BTW - Just as a matter of interest - did you come at Serenity cold - or had you watched the Firefly series first?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 1, 2014)

I dunno about the death penalty or whatnot, but it's been observed that when violent terrorist groups actually win, their members tend to gravitate to unrelated causes. Precisely what they're fighting for doesn't seem to matter as much as the fact of fighting in a common cause. (Max Abrahms has done some interesting research on this.)


----------



## psychotick (Jun 1, 2014)

Hi Terry,

No I have both Firefly and Serenity. A flawed masterpiece in my view.

And yes ideologies abound. But finding people who will actually follow though violently because of an ideology is much harder. There have been a few. The unabomber for example was an anarchist who not only carried out his acts in the name of his ideology he also lived the life of an anarchist recluse.

And you mentioned religion and honour killings - a true evil in my view. But these are far more culturally driven than religiously, while those who carry them out are usually burdened by poverty, poor education and desperation. And they're fueled by a bunch of preachers who have no alternate ideology such as democracy and people having rights, and have a position of power they are desperate to maintain. Hatred is always a powerful tool that can be used to leverage power, as is its corollary - fear. And exploiting social class instability such as males no longer being the head of the house if they allow females to have freedom, is another.

If you've been watching the news lately about this poor woman in Nigeria due to be stoned to death for switching to her husband's faith - Christianity, you'll see the undercurrants behind this. It's not actually about faith or ideology. This is a power grab. The mullahs cannot allow their religion to become "modern" because they would lose members and therefore power. They see Christianity as a direct threat. (Like democracy and human rights.) And their control is slipping. They have a very clear vested interest in maintaining an age old status quo in which they rule. 

This is no different threats to nationalism or aristocratic rule or anything else. When times are easy and no threat to the ruling class is perceived, things are relaxed. Some nobility are happy to be more open with their rule. Country borders are open and immigrants welcomed. But when things suddenly go south, every noble is suddenly a noble, tolerance is forgotten, and migrants are picked on as a minority. It becomes an us and them scenario - probably the best known example being the French revolution.

Consider the scarlett pimpernell etc - busy rescuing French nobility from the mobs. Why? These were his enemies not so long before. But revolution and the common man seizing control - suddenly the aristocracy has to stick together. Or think of the mob. The poor and under-privileged. Every noble had to be killed including the women and children - regardless of whether they'd been good in their roles or harsh. Why? Because they were the enemy. That's not ideology - that's what we would these days call patch protection. If there's a threat, you band together with others you peceive as being of your ilk, and you defend yourselves against the threat, and ideological dreams like democracy and fairness get thrown out the window. 

Witness Syria. No one's going to back down there, because everyone believes that if they do they'll die. Witness WWII. Japanese people arrived and settled in the US thinking it the land of opportunity. Along comes Pearl Harbour and suddenly people don't care about human rights or freedom, or even freedom of the press. Instead there were internment camps and people locked away purely on the basis of the colour of their skin - no trial, no evidence even against those who were locked up. Just fear and prejudice.

It's a complex world, and the world of ideology is no different. Ideologies abound and we all ascribe to many. But when the chips are down we throw most of them away as we revert to the state of us versus them.

This is why I find the OP's character a tricky one to pull off. Ideology is not enough on it's own to fuel him. As it was not with the character from Serenity. Especially when he himself could openly acknowledge that the confederacy made mistakes - sometimes terrible mistakes. If he had been a true ideologue that understanding should have shattered him. Instead his loyalty to an ideal remained staunch.

Thus for the OP's character I don't buy a true idealogue as a villain. I buy someone who holds firmly to an ideology because it matches his personal needs and his life experience. And I would buy others joining him for the same reasons.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Helen (Jun 1, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> Do you think it's realistic for a villain to have an ideological motivation for his crimes?



It's completely realistic. Tons of stories have a villain who is ideologically motivated. Crassus in _Spartacus_ comes to mind. 

If you bring theme vs villain vs antagonist into it, you can argue that it's all about ideological motivation. Because theme is ideology.


----------



## Trick (Jun 2, 2014)

The only problem I see with an antagonist being driven almost purely by a flawed ideology depends upon his/her level of power in your world. I have a hard time believing that a supreme military or political leader would be motivated this way alone. An underling, yes, since they have a physical embodiment of the ideology to look to, their leader. If the leader/main antagonist are the same character they would at least have to have an advisor feeding them this ideology at some point to keep from having their view change significantly when they come into power. Following an ideology implies you did not invent it, that you view it as greater than yourself and that it has been taught to you. Very few numero unos see something as greater than them without still having a reminder. If this ideology is religious I could see it better or if the antagonist is experiencing mental deterioration.

I guess my point is, IMHO, ideologies may get a person into a position of power for the purpose of furthering the cause but things often change once the power is achieved. If the character doesn't change once they're in charge, there needs to be a reason. Blindly following an ideology needs explanation of some kind when there is no one looking over the character's shoulder.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 2, 2014)

I see two potential issues:

1. If the ideology isn't something that is clearly recognized as "evil" by modern readers, you run the real risk of creating a caricature as a tool for lambasting some real-world political group, and readers are savvy enough to see through that sort of thing. It makes the author look unskilled. So, in other words, if the villainous ideology was merely a thinly-veiled Republican or Democrat party line that was being set up as the root of evil in the world, it'll make for a pretty bad book (in my opinion); and

2. It would make sense to do a really good job getting into the villains head and allowing him to justify and rationalize himself, and to do the most thorough and convincing job possible. People caught up in such ideologies don't see themselves as villains. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you can't commit to going into the villains head and really doing your utmost to have him justify himself in his own mind, it again starts to look like a thinly-supported setup of the ideology merely for the purpose of the author knocking it down.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 2, 2014)

I've spent more time brainstorming on how my antagonist ticks. She (it's a girl now) joins this organization which presents itself as persecuted, which attracts her sympathy since she feels alienated herself. However, there's also an element of selfishness for her in that this organization promises a special reward if she brings them to power. Ergo, her motivation is both ideological and self-centered just as some people in this thread suggested.


----------



## Ravana (Jun 2, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it's realistic for a villain to have an ideological motivation for his crimes?



You mean as opposed to simply being psychotic, sociopathic or unexplained, unadulterated randomness? Yeah, kinda.

Yes, that still leaves "self-centered." But self-centered is an oversimplification too often used to avoid depth of characterization. A villain is greedy? Great. Why? What does he want the money for? What does he _use_ the money for? A villain wants power? Again, why? Rarely will either be an end in itself–and if it is, the villain probably falls into the psycho/sociopath category. Anyone who nefariously pursues wealth solely to sit and watch it shine… is nuts. And also boring.

The answer to that "why" can be ideology as readily as anything else. 

What I would do is make sure the ideology is not itself entirely "evil." To me, the most interesting ideological villains are probably the ones who not only don't "see themselves as evil" (which few people do), but who actually see themselves as doing _good_ through their ideology–as opposed to simply using it as a reason to commit their self-centered deeds.

Consider the potential for "evil" in an evangelist. Or an imperialist. Or both. You mention Nazism: stack that up against the "White Man's Burden" and tell me which you think caused more damage. And yet, unlike the Nazi power figures–most of whom were psychopaths or kleptocrats–the average European missionary genuinely believed that he was not only doing good, but doing an absolutely essential good: he was saving souls. As well as bringing civilization, education and material advancement, the Euros being "superior" in these. (Anyone who has watched _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_ has a ready visualization for this. Or _The Mission_… though for present purposes the first is the better example. I highly recommend both movies, even apart from present purposes: both are gorgeous, brilliant films. That both have Aidan Quinn in them is, I assume, largely a coincidence.  )

Early socialists and communists absolutely believed what they were trying to do was "good"–no matter how many people had to die in order to bring that good about. Some, I imagine, still do. "The greater good" is the also motivation behind many dystopias, _Brave New World_ probably being the paradigm example.

What makes ideological motivations more interesting is if, to at least some extent, the ideology _does_ have some laudable aspects, ones that any reader might recognize and sympathize with… even if the reader can't sympathize with the package as a whole. Communism, for example, sought to free the lower classes from their serfdom (real or effective)… and in some cases it did just that, even if in most cases it merely transferred the lower classes to a different form of serfdom. Nevertheless, it often improved the lot of the affected. The French Revolution may have been (okay, was) one continuous bloodbath, but it resulted in significant gains for the masses in the long term. The early centuries of Islam saw an increase in religious freedom most places it reached–as well as an increase in scholarship, education and social mobility, the latter especially notable amongst ethnic minorities. Introduce some ambiguities in the impact of the ideology, and you have yourself some true, believable real-world depth… and a villain that readers aren't sure whether or not they ought to in fact be rooting for, at least some of the time.

Even where the villain isn't an ideologue himself, the ideology may provide the lies he tells himself to justify his actions. Sure, he may be an unrepentant money-grubbing plantation owner who in any honest analysis doesn't care about the welfare of his workers (slaves)… but he still tells himself, and anyone else who raises the question, that his workers are "better off" where they are now than where they would be had they been left to their own devices.

Perhaps as importantly, a character's ideology will likely shape the "why" answer to the other questions, whether or not it's the immediate reason behind the "why." While this isn't the direction being inquired about here, it is worth noting. Quick example: in a society which believes that veneration by a person's living relatives determines the fate of the deceased, a "greedy" villain might be after the money to elevate the status of his ancestors–an entirely laudable goal on the face of it. Plus, of course, he probably wishes to spread enough largesse that his descendants will do the same for him. The "evil" part is that he doesn't give a rat's caudal vertebra about anyone who isn't part of his lineage: they're all just competitors for the resources he needs. Even those who might be connected to his line by marriage but not blood. To hell with their souls… more or less literally. Setting aside the strange post-mortem beliefs, you still have "strong family values" as a motivator–and that's an overt part of many human ideologies.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 2, 2014)

Ravana said:


> What I would do is make sure the ideology is not itself entirely "evil." To me, the most interesting ideological villains are probably the ones who not only don't "see themselves as evil" (which few people do), but who actually see themselves as doing _good_ through their ideology–as opposed to simply using it as a reason to commit their self-centered deeds.
> 
> Consider the potential for "evil" in an evangelist. Or an imperialist. Or both. You mention Nazism: stack that up against the "White Man's Burden" and tell me which you think caused more damage. And yet, unlike the Nazi power figures–most of whom were psychopaths or kleptocrats–the average European missionary genuinely believed that he was not only doing good, but doing an absolutely essential good: he was saving souls. As well as bringing civilization, education and material advancement, the Euros being "superior" in these. (Anyone who has watched _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_ has a ready visualization for this. Or _The Mission_… though for present purposes the first is the better example. I highly recommend both movies, even apart from present purposes: both are gorgeous, brilliant films. That both have Aidan Quinn in them is, I assume, largely a coincidence.  )
> 
> ...


This may be tricky because I _want_ my antagonist's ideology to be unsympathetic. I need something for my audience to root against. I can see it having certain attractive qualities that seduce people of a certain mindset, but it's important to me that it have destructive effects in the end.

Having refined this ideology, I would describe it best as an aggressive brand of monotheism that seeks to supplant the country's polytheistic state religion and then spread across the world, wiping out all other religions. I guess the attractive quality it presents could be the promise of world peace under a single ruling authority.


----------



## Nagash (Jun 2, 2014)

What about making your evil ideology a mutation of an original neutral/appealing ideology, through the operation of fanaticism and brutal extremism ? Take marxism, for instance - an ideology with a fair share of appeal, especially for the lower class worker in 19th/20th century France or Germany. Intellectually, it even had an unquestionable charisma, for it promoted humanist values, such as equity, fraternity and genuine love of humanity. However, revolutionaries systematically adapted the original ideology, either because of strong and bloodthirsty convictions or circumstantial reasons (cf. Russia and the need to behead the aristocratic elite in order to precipitate a transition towards a "socialist republic", resulting in Trotsky ordering the execution of the Tsar, his wife and offspring). No matter the reason really, the humanist ideology mutated in a abomination, which sacrificed millions of lives in the name of better tomorrow. At this point, it didn't make any sense anymore, did it ? 

I strongly support Ravana's point of view regarding this matter - i would therefore suggest that your "original" ideology, would be a relatively laissez-vivre monotheism with its fair share of attractive qualities, from which your "evil" ideology would derive. The same really, only in a harsher, fanaticized version of itself. As for the villain, he would be blinded by faith - ideologues often are... - and thus utterly incapable of seeing the evil nature of his actions. For those who believe, there's no such thing as too big a sacrifice for "the greater good".


----------



## Ravana (Jun 4, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> This may be tricky because I _want_ my antagonist's ideology to be unsympathetic. I need something for my audience to root against. I can see it having certain attractive qualities that seduce people of a certain mindset, but it's important to me that it have destructive effects in the end.
> 
> Having refined this ideology, I would describe it best as an aggressive brand of monotheism that seeks to supplant the country's polytheistic state religion and then spread across the world, wiping out all other religions. I guess the attractive quality it presents could be the promise of world peace under a single ruling authority.



It can be overall unappealing–or outright appalling; neither is especially problematic. What is best avoided, in my opinion, is "pure evil." To be credible, the ideology should at least present reasons why anybody would follow it in the first place. And yes, unification is one good possibility.

This still allows an immense amount of leeway. Some examples:

I said "why _anybody_ would follow it": once you have a few such anybodies, the reasons others might follow it is because those anybodies happen to be in power and/or offer the potential for obtaining it. To some extent, this is what happened in Germany during the '30s: the National Socialists convinced many intermediate power brokers that the party was the pathway to greater power… and, as time went on, it became the only path to power. Beyond that first handful, the majority of those who joined the party weren't attracted to its ideology, but because it was the only game in town. Too, it doesn't always matter what the ideology endorses: those at the top may not believe one word of it, making use of it solely for the sake of convenience. And in most cases, few will practice what they preach in any event, since what they preach is generally crafted to keep the masses loyal but subservient. That's why I characterized the Nazi leadership as "psychopaths or kleptocrats"… there were easily as many of the latter, who were merely in it for what they could get and didn't give a fig about the ideology, as there were of the former. 

You could, potentially, have an entirely laudable ideology which the main villain is using for his own nefarious purposes–as has happened with Christianity (as preached) more times than is worth trying to enumerate. More likely, of course, you'll end up with an ideology leavened with a fair amount of nastiness, which sounds good on paper but whose "followers" play fast and loose with its ideals… especially where it comes to dealing with those who don't follow it. Again, see the history of Christianity. Amongst other religions.

To take an example which carries a marginally lower emotional charge–for some–in the modern day, consider the Reformation, especially in what was then the Holy [sic] Roman [siccer] Empire [totally sic]. Some of the nobles converted because they believed in the philosophies being espoused; far more converted because it was politically expedient at that moment… and converted again when things shifted once more. As for everyone who wasn't a noble: most nominally ended up "converting" based on what the ruler preferred at the moment, whether they believed the new (or restored old) ways or not.

There is always an appeal to following the "old" ways, and to resist change and its attendant uncertainties. Jefferson pointed this out, in his usual eloquent but involved syntax, of which I am clearly a student , in the Declaration: 



> "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."



This is probably why the French ended up returning to monarchies three times following their Revolution–restoring some greater or lesser semblance of a form "to which they were accustomed," rather than retaining the Republic. While it doesn't match what you have in mind here, it would be possible to write a story in which the "heroes" are supporters of society as it is now, and the "villains" being those seeking change… but have the new ideas be overall more appealing than the old ones. Thus even if the heroes "win," it's also a loss of sorts. In fact, there are notable examples of this already: the hero of _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ works against the French Revolution… it's easy enough to root against the Terror, but doing so implicitly suggests supporting the regime. Arguably, _The Three Musketeers_ falls into this category as well, as its heroes are supporters of the monarchy against the Huguenots: they're more clearly "heroes" by anyone's definition, but depending on how you feel about religious freedom, you may not be entirely sympathetic to their actions. Alternately, if you are an admirer of the historical Richelieu (and there are reasons to be, even if there are equally good reasons not to be), the Musketeers may not be quite as appealing.

The situation you describe might find a (limited) analogue in what happened with the Islamic conquest of the Subcontinent: a militant monotheism subjugating a long-established–and itself reasonably militant–polytheism. It only worked to a certain extent… and its ramifications are still being felt daily in India, Pakistan and neighboring areas. Who were the good guys, who the bad ones? From a storytelling standpoint, it will depend on who you are, what you stand to gain or lose… and what those around you stand to gain or lose.

Absolutes are exceedingly rare in human interactions. Which is the main point I'm after, I guess. The more "evil" an ideology is, the greater the concentration of power needed for it to succeed, since it will be that much harder for it to attract followers on its own merits. A sufficiently charismatic leader can pull off things which would be total non-starters for an average one. If his personal magnetism isn't as great, he'll need that much more power, in order to substitute compulsion for inspiration. So that might be a factor that shapes your vision of what your villain needs to be in order to make him work.


----------



## psychotick (Jun 5, 2014)

Hi,

If you want a corrosive ideology to motivate your MC you probably can't go past Nietzsche. This has been done before of course - most noteable in Andromeda - which got it messed up. 

But purely put Freddy espoused the following. First that it was the responsibility of the individual man to take command of his own destiny. And that applied to more than just proactive career searching etc. It espoused making up his own morality. Byong Good and Evil was the title of one of his works. In essence the strong make their own decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. The weak become or are essentially slaves. He hated and espoused the tearing down of organised religions because it encouraged the slave mentality. Christianity was particularly reviled. People in his vision should not spend their lives bowing to others, enduring mediocrity, being modest and basically allowing themseves to be shackled to the needs of others. God is dead as he said, and man killed him. 

He advocated the development of a new man - some call him the superman, a more literal translation is the overman. A person who lives for himself, does what he wants, and considers only his own needs and wants. The overman is of course a monster. There is a reason that this ideology was the one assumed by the nazis and Hitler. If adhered to and believed in it allows them to do anything. In their case the overman was another name for the ayrian race - their ideal - and the Jews were essentially slavers, trying to limit the development of man through their religious doctrines etc.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## monyo (Jun 5, 2014)

psychotick said:


> But purely put Freddy espoused the following. First that it was the responsibility of the individual man to take command of his own destiny. And that applied to more than just proactive career searching etc. It espoused making up his own morality. Byong Good and Evil was the title of one of his works. In essence the strong make their own decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. The weak become or are essentially slaves. He hated and espoused the tearing down of organised religions because it encouraged the slave mentality. Christianity was particularly reviled. People in his vision should not spend their lives bowing to others, enduring mediocrity, being modest and basically allowing themseves to be shackled to the needs of others. God is dead as he said, and man killed him.
> 
> He advocated the development of a new man - some call him the superman, a more literal translation is the overman. A person who lives for himself, does what he wants, and considers only his own needs and wants. The overman is of course a monster. There is a reason that this ideology was the one assumed by the nazis and Hitler. If adhered to and believed in it allows them to do anything. In their case the overman was another name for the ayrian race - their ideal - and the Jews were essentially slavers, trying to limit the development of man through their religious doctrines etc.



No particular offense intended, but this summary seems a lot more of a biased take on the guy than you'd normally get hearing about him in any intro. philosophy course. In particular, Nietzschean philosophy wasn't really "the one assumed by the Nazis and Hitler" so much as they stole some of his ideas and quotes (e.g. the ubermensch and "will to power") to market their own Aryan race thing. Taken from wikipedia (Nietzsche and fascism):



> During the interbellum years, *certain Nazis had employed a highly selective reading of Nietzsche's work to advance their ideology, notably Alfred Baeumler, whose exegesis was admittedly decent excepting his glaring omission of the fact of Nietzsche's anti-socialism and ant-nationalism* (for Nietzsche, both equally contemptible mass herd movements of modernity) in his reading of The Will to Power. The era of Nazi rule (1933—1945) saw Nietzsche's writings widely studied in German (and, after 1938, Austrian) schools and universities. *Despite the fact that Nietzsche expressed his disgust with plebeian-volkist anti-Semitism and supremacist German nationalism in the most forthright terms possible (e.g. he resolved "to have nothing to do with anyone involved in the perfidious race-fraud"), phrases like "the will to power" became common in Nazi circles.* The wide popularity of Nietzsche among Nazis stemmed in part from the endeavors of his sister, Elisabeth FÃ¶rster-Nietzsche, the editor of Nietzsche's work after his 1889 breakdown, and an eventual Nazi sympathizer. Mazzino Montinari, while editing Nietzsche's posthumous works in the 1960s, found that FÃ¶rster-Nietzsche, while editing the posthumous fragments making up The Will to Power, had cut extracts, changed their order, added titles of her own invention, included passages of others authors copied by Nietzsche as if they had been written by Nietzsche himself, etc.[39]



As it says, a selective reading of Nietzschean philosophy could interpret it that way, but ideas like nationalism and the kind of obedience to authority seen in Nazism don't really fit well with the concept of self-directed morality. The same page says Hitler had never even actually read Nietzsche. Another thing is the statement that "In essence the strong make their own decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. The weak become or are essentially slaves." It wasn't that everyone else is meant to be slaves such as he described two different kinds of moralities: slave morality and master morality. The weak and poor have a different morality (according to this theory) than the strong and the powerful, one based on ideas like altruism and equality, and the other tending to reject that as oppressive to themselves, and who can determine their own morality for themselves. See the "slave revolt" in morals. I don't think "master morality" even necessarily has to involve something that hurts other people, so much as not letting it be determined by obligation to the "weak."

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Nietzsche, but this seems a particularly bad description of a philosopher and philosophy that is way more nuanced and complicated, and that is still studied regularly by almost everyone who touches the subject. You can see a lot of the same ideas around in different form today, the master morality stuff in Ayn Rand's philosophy (a lot may hate her but she does have a following), and the ubermensch concept in ideas of personal responsibility and the transhumanist movement. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in his ideas and interpretations have been going around for 150 years, he was certainly anti-Christianity, etc., I just mean to point out that even cursory research will show the subject is a lot more grey and less simplistic than that. Hating his stuff is one thing, but this seems to misrepresent his ideas. It's hardly something that's been universally supported by only Bad People since its inception.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Jun 5, 2014)

A lot of very bad things are done by people with screwed up versions of their religion. I think you should run with it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 6, 2014)

The Blue Lotus said:


> A lot of very bad things are done by people with screwed up versions of their religion. I think you should run with it.



That's actually something I've been thinking about lately--not with religion in particular, but with rule-based morality in general. My experiences of living people who did bad things have mostly been with folks who were following rule-based morality, such that not hurting people would mean breaking their personal rules. I occasionally see folks like that as villains in stories, but it's much more common to have villains who either hurt people because they find it fun, or hurt people for ends-based morality. (As the latter tend to put it: "What is one man's life in comparison to [whatever noble cause the villain is killing people for this time]?") As someone whose morality is ends-based, and who doesn't go around killing people, I'd love to see more villains who're less Ted Kaczynski and more Osama bin Laden. I think there's a lot of potential there that's gone untapped.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 6, 2014)

I agree with monyo re:Nietzsche. A lot of what came after, such as from the NAZI party, really twisted what he was saying. Nietzsche was not a fan of anti-Semitism or German nationalism, and the ubermann idea, in current popular understanding, bears little relationship to how Nietzsche was using it as a foil to what he thought were destructive conventional Christian moralities.


----------



## psychotick (Jun 7, 2014)

Hi Monyo,

With respect it is a cursary overview of Freddie, but it is actually fair. People tend to try and forgive him a lot of what he wrote, but it is actually vile in places - especially his rants against Christianity. And yes his overman does make up his own mind about what is moral and what isn't. That as you say does not inherently oppose him to altruism etc. But to all practical intents it actually does. If the overman's only purpose is self than what is the purpose of such things as altruism, charity, kindness? None whatsoever. Essentially the overman is a sociopath, and while not all sociopaths become psycho killers as the media would have you believe (in fact almost none of them) nearly all have problems fitting into society. One of the most common examples of sociopathy is bullying - everything from school yard to workplace - the point being that the activity is gratifying to the bully for whatever reason, and he doesn't care about the victim.

However, what we see in those who support Freddie is that they see only one part of the message (which is why this can work for the OP). Most who support him see his work as espousing the self development of the man as he attempts to become what he is. And that can be seen as a positive. After all we all want to improve ourselves - and that is no bad thing.

But even Freddie realised that this was a goal only a few could obtain (from memory he claimed that only three people had ever attained the status of overmen in all of human history in his view) and that achieving this goal would create problems. For example he himself said at one point that morality (by which he meant slave morality) should not be discarded. It had its purposes in controlling the masses. This despite arguing that this sort of morality arose from a the slave mentality where the slaves wanted to essentially feel better about their lot in life by pretending that their lives were rosy, while at the same time tearing down all those values he deemed truly worthy - the achievement of strength, power, success etc.

Now while it may be considered unfair to play the nazi card, (and I am always mindful of Godwins law), my point was not that Nietzsche was essentially of that mind set, but purely to show that people of that mind set and others, will find his writings fit their own personal ethos. In essence for them it becomes their rationale for what they do. Their justification and excuse for their lack of guilt too often. (after all guilt is slave morality which for Freddie is a crime.) For Freddie however I believe his view of the overman was something more in line with the ancient Greek / Roman ideals. He saw Hercules and the Olympian gods, not sociopaths.

As you point out Rand essentially uses his understanding of sefishness as the basis for her naked capitalism / monetarist beliefs. In fact she referred to the virtue of selfishness - which is fairly much pure Nietzsche. And hers is an ideology that resonates with anarcho capitalists - even I suspect in the corridors of power. It is the basis of neo-liberalism.

Anyway, getting off topic here. My point is that Freddie's world view is one of pure self interest, and that while that can be good for the individual it's a disaster for society. Greed is not actually good.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## monyo (Jun 7, 2014)

Hi Gregg,

A lot of this though is simply a matter of opinion. It's fine to have personal disagreements with his philosophy, but I'd point out that it's still a subject of rather healthy debate. For example, plenty of people question the ideas of altruism, charity and kindness as being inherently good - the entire philosophical branch of egoism pretty much rejects that. Plus there are so many other philosophies that go in similar directions, if someone is going to consider Nietzsche immediately wrong for embracing ideas like strength, power, nobility, etc. over ideas like selflessness, humility, sacrifice, etc. then they're basically shutting down entire branches of ethical debate. Egoism itself gets discussed in a lot of other tangentially related ideologies, too, e.g. certain forms of anarchism and libertarianism, even economics and game theory. It's hard to just say "egoism is bad, end of story" when there are so many different ideological forms of it being argued for in different contexts. Any given person might hate the ideas, but there is serious academic debate as to the merits, implications, consistency, etc. of all those philosophies. There are certainly enough people out there who have read and found some value in Nietzsche (wikipedia again lists a bunch of them), or any other egoist philosophy, who aren't complete sociopaths hurting others for their own benefit.

In the grand scheme of things his ideas aren't even that unique or extreme - see the Church of Satan people who have a similar philosophy of being pro-hedonism and pro-self, but also don't actually condone violence, hurting other people, or actually believe in Satan as a real thing. Iirc they actively work with the FBI to report the occasional violent crazies who start sending them fan mail and asking to join. Or see the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Even if you disagree with both of them (as I expect most do), they're still at least valuable for calling into question basic assumptions about our worldview (e.g. is altruism beneficial? is human extinction bad? why?). Some people would say that communism/socialism/capitalism/globalization/environmentalism are hugely destructive forces that have claimed millions of lives, or that some particular religion (or lack of religion) is the worst thing in the world, and as mentioned Ayn Rand is pretty polarizing on both sides. Take any of those examples and you can find cases of people who have done really horrible things in their name, or millions of people who have died as a result of movements based around them. It seems hard to pick Nietzsche's stuff out as being a particularly destructive ideology when there are so many other equally controversial issues that people feel strongly about. Nietzsche was doing mostly the same thing, finding perceived flaws in moralities associated with the big monotheistic religions and condemning them as being destructive to the world. It was just his own opinion about what philosophies have undesirable consequences.

I don't know if we want to keep going back and forth about it until reaching some consensus, so I'll clarify my reasons for commenting:
1) The guy's writings are nuanced and the short summaries often give the wrong impression (e.g. slave morality = slavery, overman = master race), confusing one person's extrapolation of why they don't like his ideas with the stuff he actually wrote and thought himself. For anyone unfamiliar with him, I'd recommend wikipedia or a philosophy book over this conversation.
2) Disagreeing with him or not is mostly a matter of opinion. You could just as easily side with him and decide that any other given philosophy that disagrees with his is bad. There's no objective conclusion to be found there - it'll just be another opinionated debate, and I think religious debates are frowned upon on this forum.


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 7, 2014)

Agree (and disagree) with a lot here. For me the greatest evils throughout history have been perpetrated in the name of ideology. Because what is ideology in a politically meaningful sense? It is a blueprint for political power within a system PLUS a justification for who gets a share of finite resources (an in what measure). 

The other critical part of the evil equation is the individual types - there are basically two: type A (ambitious) and type B (just want a quiet life). It is always the type A individuals who come to dominate any ideology (for obvious reasons) and they will always eventually corrupt the ideology with political actions and rule-making which support their own power bases and entitlements (especially in times of resource or environmental pressure).

In other words, it doesn't matter how purely altruistic any ideology starts out, it will always evolve into a platform for evil due to the inevitable rise of the type As. I could probably come up with an equation that says E(evil) occurs when the proportion of type A's in the top half of a hierarchy reaches N, divided by A and X (where A is the objective altruistic index and X is a resources/environment variable).


----------



## Nagash (Jun 7, 2014)

The general over line here being that no matter how good is an ideology, it often breaks down into a rampaging doctrine when it is reduced to being a mere tool for power by a handful of men eaten away by greed or what have you...

Seriously; humans ruin everything...


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 7, 2014)

Nagash said:


> The general over line here being that no matter how good is an ideology, it often breaks down into a rampaging doctrine when it is reduced to being a mere tool for power by a handful of men eaten away by greed or what have you...
> 
> Seriously; humans ruin everything...


I was just having a conversation about this earlier. My correspondent said that distorted philosophies made for better villains than the original principles they're descended from anyway.


----------



## psychotick (Jun 8, 2014)

Hi Monyo,

Since we're heading into an offshoot here about Freddie, I will add only this - read the Antichrist.

However, my point as said about him previously is not that it's wrong to go for self improvement and selfishness. I have not argued that there is no merit in these things. Nor have I said that ideas like strength, power and nobility have no place. These things are often qualities to be admired, as they were long before Freddie lived. He did after all not invent them. The problem comes when you laud these values above all others, and then indeed decry all others as he did.

Apologists for Freddy often come out with calling him nuanced and passionate. He was neither of those things and these words do him discredit. He was vitriolic in his extolling of these "virtues" as he regarded them, and scathing in his repudiation of all the Christian values like piety, altruism, modesty etc. For Freddie these virtues were actually evils that had to be wiped out. There is no compromise of any sort in his position.

This is why it can work for the OP. If the villain is follower of these values, and has an inherent belief that all other values are essentially evil, that they destroy the human spirit etc, then he can do terrible things in the name of his ideology and see it as the right and noble thing to do.

Cheers, Greg.


----------

