Evil for no reason but NOT cliche?

[Androxine Vortex]

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]

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]

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]

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].



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.

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]

HAHA@ 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]

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

Thou shalt not enjoy life

 

[Devor]

Thou shalt not enjoy life

Actually, that's been done.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.