Depicting Evil

[Terra Arkay]

I always have trouble creating an evil character, I haven't even truly created an evil character for my story but I have got thoughts stirring in my head. If you want he/she/it to be a truly diabolical, pure evil character then I have one tip for you: avoid humor.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

I always have trouble creating an evil character, I haven't even truly created an evil character for my story but I have got thoughts stirring in my head. If you want he/she/it to be a truly diabolical, pure evil character then I have one tip for you: avoid humor.

Why? The joker in the newer batman flick did a pretty decent job of being evil, and thought it was quite hilarious. Why can't evil laugh, joke, or even kid around? So thy might be laughing at a village burning, or at the screams of a mother as her child is killed, if the person is evil they can still have all the traits normal people have, but their perspective of it will be vastly skewed. Evil does not have to be dark and gloomy, just lacking in the normal set of morals most of us believe.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

Moral values and even a biological sense of right and wrong aren't things that have to come into play either.
Take this example.
Our villain is killing babies who have birthmarks on their left leg. He has killed hundreds of babies in a single year. Evil?
Plot twist.
Well lets say he was visited by god or angel(in the story he really was), who told him/her that a child with a birthmark on their left leg would bring about the end of our species. The only way to purge the demon was to torture the infant to death.
Our hero is inadvertently acting to bring about the end of human beings, and in the process crosses some major lines. So, who is actually evil. The baby killer trying to stop the end of humanity, or the well intentioned hero fighting to stop him or her.

Evil is relative, and again I say, so much evil is done by people who believe they are doing good. Even the argument of more harm than good defining people and actions as evil is difficult to apply. Morals are relative. Empathy is conditional. Right and wrong are so often a matter of perspective.

Remember there are people in this world who say two men holding hands is evil enough to punished with death. By that standard love and affection are conditionally evil. In the above example torturing babies to death could be construed as good.

Personally I use these standards for most evil.
Selfish.
Uncaring.
Absolute.
Mathematically more harm than good.
Taking pleasure in causing harm or pain.
Has a cascading impact that is harmful for more people than it is helpful to.

There is also the part where for Milena good and evil have been split into things that are inherently wrong in their own right, and things that are wrong because they contradict established but arbitrary laws and values.

 

[writeshiek33]

yes evil is relative it all depends how you approach it for instance one of my ideas has two protagonist who by nature you think are evil but they do what they do to secure the kingdom and solve a problem

 

[Devor]

Voldemort. Pure evil, and while there is a lengthy and believable backstory, it still amounts to he's evil, and it just escalates with each passing event. Yet, without Voldemort - this almost cliche supervillain - we couldn't have Snape. Or the other death eaters who each walk some version of that line of evil and twisted ambiguity that we instinctively look for in our evil characters. Voldemort's seemingly complete lack of humanity is even more telling when you consider Rowling's distinct efforts to give every good guy a flaw - there can be total evil, but not total good? Not in reality, but in a fantastical setting, I think that's a compelling source of conflict on the occasion that it might be done well.

 

[Karoly]

As social creatures, humans naturally think of selflessness as good and selfishness as evil, a detriment to the group. At the most elemental level, evil people only think of themselves.

They think that they are smarter or stronger than everyone else so they should be respected and revered. No matter what their lot is, they always think to themselves "I deserve more".

Their sense of justice is how things relate to them. Have they been wronged by another? Have they suffered indignation at the hands of one beneath them? Has their authority been challenged? etc.

Their friends are those who respect or worship them and feed their ego, or those whom they can exploit. They take rejection and insults very personally, and never tolerate anyone who wounds their pride or looks down on them.

Even their ideals are related to themselves: they want more power, they want more people to recognize their greatness and they hate those who reject them or who aren't like themselves. They cherry-pick whatever ideologies suit their needs and find it offensive when someone challenges their ideals or has ideals that differ from their own. (IE. I worship the Sun-God therefore everyone should worship the Sun-God, kill all the Moon-Priests.... I am the king how dare the lords vote against me, I'll them all for that.... It my right as the conqueror to chastise these serfs for resisting my invasion, I will flay them alive and leave them as an example to others).

Of course, to themselves, they're not selfish hateful people, but are highly motivated and justified in their actions and have the willpower and skills to see their goals, whereas most other people are simply too incompetent to be as [vicious] as them.

However, most people aren't completely evil in real life (except maybe the insane, who have a different perception of the world altogether), and most people have at least some morals they stick to (or claim to stick to) and some redeeming features.

P.S. Other evil qualities usually stem from this. IE sadistic glee comes from an adrenaline rush as the inflictor enjoys the perceived superiority he has over his victim. He may be an outcast and shunned by most of society, but at that moment, he is the one in control.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

They think that they are smarter or stronger than everyone else so they should be respected and revered. No matter what their lot is, they always think to themselves "I deserve more".

This is actually an evolutionary adaptation. Creatures that constantly crave MORE MORE MORE and go try to get it, outcompete those that don't. As a result, we end up with a planet full of lifeforms that are constantly trying to get as many resources as they can.

 

[Liu Xaun]

My major antagonists usually want to further mankind or their own positions, with little care to how civilized the path may be, much like many of our world's historical dictators (Mao, Stalin, etc.). I would by no means call an actual person "evil", but simply disagreeing would make them antagonistic.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

This is actually an evolutionary adaptation. Creatures that constantly crave MORE MORE MORE and go try to get it, outcompete those that don't. As a result, we end up with a planet full of lifeforms that are constantly trying to get as many resources as they can.

That's one take on it. However, single celled organisms evolve into multi celled organisms.
A lone individuals may be stronger than any other individual, but it unlikely to be able to compete with a pack or other co-operative. This is how gangs, armies and societies in general operate. This strength, this unity is how police and other institutions can exert tremendous control over individuals.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Right. Cooperation can be a helpful adaptation, but individuals still tend to display the MORE MORE MORE behavior even in the absence of cooperation. Cooperation, of course, implies tribalism -- you cooperate only with others of your type -- so two individuals might compete with each other just because they're a tiny bit different.

You can look at it not on the level of individuals wanting MORE MORE MORE at the expense of other individuals, but rather of tribes/packs wanting MORE MORE MORE at the expense of other tribes/packs.

 

[mirrorrorrim]

In my opinion, the most enduring villain is that one that makes things personal. In real life, it's easy to hear about the suffering and deaths of people thousands of miles away. It's much harder to have to live through a personal loss of happiness deliberately inflicted by another person. I feel this idea is doubly true for fantasy writing, because the reader doesn't start with the same attachment to the inhabitants of your fictional world that most of us possess toward the human race.

There are so many ways to do this, but I feel the simplest, and often most effective, is to have the villain kill someone the reader cares about.

I think it's important to note here that, while there is usually a large degree of overlap between the people the main character and the reader care about, the two groups are not automatically the same.

For example, most main characters are close to at least one of their parents (or, if the main character is an orphan, to the memory of his or her parent). At the same time, parents seldom have an active role in the hero's quest. It is tempting to have the main villain kill one or both of the hero's parents in order to demonstrate just how diabolically evil your bad guy really is without worrying about how such an event might mess up your narrative progression.

Naturally, of course, the hero is devastated by this. Much more rarely, though, will this affect the reader in the same way. There usually just hasn't been enough time spent with the parents in the story for the reader to grow attached to them, especially if (as is usually the case) this terrible event happens in one of the first few chapters of the book.

I feel, if you're going to have your villain kill someone, it needs to happen after the reader has grown attached to the person being killed. As a result of this, I feel most of the best villains don't reach their full stature of evil until the story is at least midway through. Before then, it's just too hard for them to do something the reader will really care about.

That's just my opinion, though.

Some of the easiest and most recognizable examples of this are in the world of comic books. Most hero's arch villains have, at one time or another, either killed or otherwise permanently impacted a long-running character that had been close to the hero.

*spoilers (well, kind of)* The Green Goblin killed Spider-Man's girlfriend Gwen Stacy. The Joker killed Batman's sidekick Robin, handicapped Batgirl, changed Harvey Dent into Two Face, and, in the film version, killed Bruce Wayne's childhood friend Rachel Dawes. Doomsday killed Superman himself.

You can have the most clever, sadistic or brutal character imagineable, but until they actually do something, the reader just won't see them as a threat.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Merc]

I like to build on imagery, and as a huge Batman fan, the idea of the Joker has usually been my base visualization of evil. A man who has no concern for the damage he causes, the destruction he orchestrates, or the chaos ensued in his name. Not a villain of honor, or purpose, but rather that of disguised intelligence in a way that sickens the reader. And mortify's the characters good side, bad side, the indifferent, and pulls in those who try to avoid the problem further than they could have configured nightmare's of having.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

In my opinion, the most enduring villain is that one that makes things personal. In real life, it's easy to hear about the suffering and deaths of people thousands of miles away. It's much harder to have to live through a personal loss of happiness deliberately inflicted by another person. I feel this idea is doubly true for fantasy writing, because the reader doesn't start with the same attachment to the inhabitants of your fictional world that most of us possess toward the human race.

There are so many ways to do this, but I feel the simplest, and often most effective, is to have the villain kill someone the reader cares about.

I think it's important to note here that, while there is usually a large degree of overlap between the people the main character and the reader care about, the two groups are not automatically the same.

For example, most main characters are close to at least one of their parents (or, if the main character is an orphan, to the memory of his or her parent). At the same time, parents seldom have an active role in the hero's quest. It is tempting to have the main villain kill one or both of the hero's parents in order to demonstrate just how diabolically evil your bad guy really is without worrying about how such an event might mess up your narrative progression.

Naturally, of course, the hero is devastated by this. Much more rarely, though, will this affect the reader in the same way. There usually just hasn't been enough time spent with the parents in the story for the reader to grow attached to them, especially if (as is usually the case) this terrible event happens in one of the first few chapters of the book.

I feel, if you're going to have your villain kill someone, it needs to happen after the reader has grown attached to the person being killed. As a result of this, I feel most of the best villains don't reach their full stature of evil until the story is at least midway through. Before then, it's just too hard for them to do something the reader will really care about.

That's just my opinion, though.

Some of the easiest and most recognizable examples of this are in the world of comic books. Most hero's arch villains have, at one time or another, either killed or otherwise permanently impacted a long-running character that had been close to the hero.

*spoilers (well, kind of)* The Green Goblin killed Spider-Man's girlfriend Gwen Stacy. The Joker killed Batman's sidekick Robin, handicapped Batgirl, changed Harvey Dent into Two Face, and, in the film version, killed Bruce Wayne's childhood friend Rachel Dawes. Doomsday killed Superman himself.

You can have the most clever, sadistic or brutal character imagineable, but until they actually do something, the reader just won't see them as a threat.

At least, that's how I see it.

I agree with damn near every point. Word! I shall do that odd reputation thingy.
I am also going to invite you to write a paper on the LSP about writing villains.

 

[mirrorrorrim]

I agree with damn near every point. Word! I shall do that odd reputation thingy.
I am also going to invite you to write a paper on the LSP about writing villains.

Thank you! I'm not quite sure what LSP is, though...



I googled it and came up with Louisiana State Police.

That can't be it, unless... Are you asking me to write an article on criminal profiling?

I like to build on imagery, and as a huge Batman fan, the idea of the Joker has usually been my base visualization of evil. A man who has no concern for the damage he causes, the destruction he orchestrates, or the chaos ensued in his name. Not a villain of honor, or purpose, but rather that of disguised intelligence in a way that sickens the reader. And mortify's the characters good side, bad side, the indifferent, and pulls in those who try to avoid the problem further than they could have configured nightmare's of having.

I think one of the things that makes the Joker so terrifying is that absence of purpose. I think most people find senseless acts of violence very scary--I know I do. The idea that someone might hurt others for no reason at all makes me feel a lot less safe, because it's not really something I can completely plan for or prevent.

Actually, this whole conversation has me a little worried...

*goes and locks the door*

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

Apparently nothing happened on the first try. It's the laughing seraphim pressworks.
It is still in its infancy, and I don't know how it will fare in the long term. If the Mythic scribes is the conversational side of a coin, LSP is the terse side of the same coin.

And you could I suppose do something on criminal profiling, but if I were to actually ask you to write a paper, I'd ask you to create a well thought out paper like "On the depiction of evil for fiction writers" or such.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

I watched a documentary of Nazi collaborators last night. True inspiration in terms of what Evil looks like. Vidkun Quisling seems to have been at least as evil as hitler himself, just not as forthright in admitting it.

 

[InsanityStrickenWriter]

I like my evil sprinkled with fake kindness and quirky clothing. A quirky name is good too.

 

[Laughing_Seraphim]

You see, this is exactly why I say Voldemort should have had a top hat, especially given his lack of nose.

 

[Reaver]

In my opinion, there are varying degrees of evil. To me it runs the gamut between intentionally harmful to truly diabolical. Then again, like Laughing_Seraphim pointed out, it's all a matter of perspective. To me, a truly evil character knows exactly what he/she/it is doing and to whom, is fully aware of the immediate/long-term outcomes and doesn't care what anyone (or anything) thinks.

 

[Ghost]

The person who questions what he's doing is far more likely to turn out heroic, on the usual construal, than the person who acts in confidence of his rightness.

I think this is important. When I think of someone evil, the first image that comes to mind is someone arrogant. They're righteous, they think they're smarter than everyone else, or they simply don't give a damn about anyone else because no one else matters.

One thing that might help is to know whether this character is motivated by acts or by goals. Serial killers are motivated by the moment. When the opportunity comes up, they kill. The acts they dreamed of doing, while they're at work or having dinner with their families, are suddenly open to them. In the right frame of mind and with the right trigger or preparation, they pounce. Dictators and people who head organizations are usually more calculating. The things they do all lead to the end goal. Maybe they lose track of that and revel in the power they have over other people, but I see them as having a Big Idea about how the world should be.

I think either type likes playing God. Their victims are pawns in the game they control. In their eyes, the victims matter less than the victimizer. They're not as human. (Anybody read/hear about telling a rapist or captor details about your life? Supposedly, making them see you as human makes them uncomfortable with hurting you.) It helps me to know if my evil character has a grand plan or if he enjoys the cruelty. Maybe he has a grand plan and suffering is a fun bonus.

Whatever you do to show how bad your bad guy is, I think it's important to show him getting something out of it. He can't go around raping villagers, beheading monks, and impaling babies just because it sounds evil. Maybe he gets some pleasure out of what he does (sadists), he's taking his personal suffering out on the world (serial killers who were molested or neglected as children), he likes inspiring fear and feeling important, he's just doing his job, or he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't do it (people under a hierarchy or under pressure from a society). Maybe it's a combination of those or none of those. There should be a reason for it or else it's just a caricature of evil. I think it all goes along with character development, which is a big part of taking it away from cliche.