Queshire said:
Although i agree that the general good versus evil debates may be too broad a topic. I think these more specific character questions on the topic are interesting & potentially productive.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Evil: Sauron or Cersei?
- Thread starter ProfessorBrainfever
- Start date
Although i agree that the general good versus evil debates may be too broad a topic. I think these more specific character questions on the topic are interesting & potentially productive.
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
It's actually been its own thread several times.
In a nutshell, evil is relative, because good and evil have to be judged relative to a moral code of some kind. The laws of physics do not care about good or evil, so it's meaningless to say that something is inherently good or inherently evil. (Unless you're one of the several billion people who believe that there are morals inherent to the fabric of the universe, as dictated by a certain deity or other... the problem there is that there are multiple competing sets of morals in play. Religion A claims moral set A, and religion B claims moral set B, which may overlap but are not identical...)
Certain things are "universally" considered evil, but just because everyone agrees on something doesn't make it inherently true. Societies that don't consider murder to be evil also don't tend to survive very long, because their people all murder each other all the time. But this doesn't mean murder is inherently evil; it just means it's not practical to allow it, if you want your society to survive.
It's simpler to just say "murder is evil," but what this really means is "murder is evil according to my moral code." Someone else could have a moral code that says that murder is a-ok, and they're not wrong, they're just really likely to get preemptively (or post-facto) killed by societies that don't like murderers.
Ohh not again.
Xenodeus Blade
Sage
Not to be a cynical jerk, but the philosophical question of the nature of good and evil is a question that has existed for thousands of years are you will see over and over again.
Graylorne
Archmage
Removed for irrelevance.
Last edited:
Robert Donnell
Minstrel
No I don't think this is a question on Good vs Evil but a question of Vanilla Evil vs Chocolate Chip Evil. As a Writer I like Cersei as she is much more three dimensional.
Anders Ämting
Auror
I actually like a mix of the two - Saurcei.
I like my villains powerful, evil and larger than life, but with sensible goals and personalities that go beyond: "Dark Evil Darkness!"
Garren Jacobsen
Auror
Wouldn't the kind of villain really depend on the kind of story you are writing. Say for example in your story it is a struggle of people. Certainly if the person your hero was going against was human then a more grey villain is needed. But say your hero is going against a god or semi-deity that has been at war with God. With God in this case wanting his creations to live and the opposite deity wanting only destruction of their kind. What would be the point of giving an extra dimension to something that craves destruction.
In short one villain is not better than another, both serve a purpose.
In short one villain is not better than another, both serve a purpose.
Admittedly, in LOTR we never actually get to meet Sauron and hear what he has to say. So in that sense I think it's a bad comparison. Maybe Voldemort would be a better example? Cersei or Voldemort?
Anders Ämting
Auror
That's sort of the point, though - we don't need him to be walking around and making speaches because he's not so much a character as he is the personification of evil as a concept. He's always treated more as a force than a person.
Eh, Voldemort was never quite "evil incarnate." He did have clear motivations beyond just being evil and aside from the horcrux immortality plot he was basically just a rather glorified faschist psychopath.
Actually, the one thing I never liked about Voldemort was that he doesn't really feel like a main villain - he was more like an evil liutenant or elite henchman type of guy, except there was nobody worse for him to serve.
Last edited:
Androxine Vortex
Archmage
even though the "sauron" evil is more cliche and especially so in fantasy novels I still believe that as long as the book itself is good then it wouldn't matter. sometimes I prefer the "sauron" evil just because it adds a greater need for the protagonist to succeed
The Dark One
Auror
If you think it's pointless then you haven't quite put your finger on it yet...
Ahhh, just realised that this is a well trodden path here, and that lots of fingers have been all over it. Fair enough. (I'm still fairly new.)
That won't stop me adding my tuppence...
We like exploring these characters and the nature of evil because such characters when well drawn can have profound impact on story and plot. Evil kicks more plot than good.
A possibly useful definition (no, definition is wrong...insight perhaps) is that a truly evil person must be from the same moral narrative as the protagonist but deliberately chooses to go against that narrative for whatever purpose. A person or entity from a different moral narrative is not so much evil as simply dangerous.
On topic, I've always loved and hated the fact that Sauron is not really a character in LOTR. There are few more powerful images than his brooding thought manifesting as a storm over the Emyn Muil.
Ahhh, just realised that this is a well trodden path here, and that lots of fingers have been all over it. Fair enough. (I'm still fairly new.)
That won't stop me adding my tuppence...
We like exploring these characters and the nature of evil because such characters when well drawn can have profound impact on story and plot. Evil kicks more plot than good.
A possibly useful definition (no, definition is wrong...insight perhaps) is that a truly evil person must be from the same moral narrative as the protagonist but deliberately chooses to go against that narrative for whatever purpose. A person or entity from a different moral narrative is not so much evil as simply dangerous.
On topic, I've always loved and hated the fact that Sauron is not really a character in LOTR. There are few more powerful images than his brooding thought manifesting as a storm over the Emyn Muil.
Last edited:
Not to mention that any debate on this site can be avoided by not clicking the relevant thread, or by scrolling past the unwanted posts.
That's one viewpoint, but not the only one (or necessarily the right one). In other words, it isn't imperative that this viewpoint reflects the true state of things. The reason this question has been debated for thousands of years is that none of the various "sides" can demonstrate unequivocally that they are correct.
For purposes of fiction writing, I suggest adopting a view of good versus evil that fits with the story, and then just run with it.
SlimShady
Troubadour
To be honest I prefer Cersei over Sauron. Villains like Cersei just seem so much easier to hate. I mean it's a realistic character that does terrible things. The most terrifying aspect of villains like Cersei is the fact that they are humans and are only showing things that humans are capable of.
Sauron just seems flat. I mean he sounds like a badass and all, but I can't find myself hating him or fearing him. Sauron is more of a force than a character and I find it hard to dislike forces. Although, villains like Sauron can be done differently and it's all down to taste.
Generally I just base it on how memorable the character is and how evil they were. In my opinion Cersei beats Sauron. But, only because we never got too see Sauron as a character.
Sauron just seems flat. I mean he sounds like a badass and all, but I can't find myself hating him or fearing him. Sauron is more of a force than a character and I find it hard to dislike forces. Although, villains like Sauron can be done differently and it's all down to taste.
Generally I just base it on how memorable the character is and how evil they were. In my opinion Cersei beats Sauron. But, only because we never got too see Sauron as a character.
Alex97
Troubadour
I look both personally if they are used right.
Of course both Sauron and Melkor don't start off evil but when they become evil they become "fully evil." Same with the devil in Christian mythology in the fall of lucifer (read paradise lost if your interested in that). Anyway I think both types of antagonists work well depending on the story they're in although it is much easier for a super evil character to become laughable.
As mentioned before, Sauron works because he's a force not a person even if he wasn't always the way he was.
Of course both Sauron and Melkor don't start off evil but when they become evil they become "fully evil." Same with the devil in Christian mythology in the fall of lucifer (read paradise lost if your interested in that). Anyway I think both types of antagonists work well depending on the story they're in although it is much easier for a super evil character to become laughable.
As mentioned before, Sauron works because he's a force not a person even if he wasn't always the way he was.
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
It's not a viewpoint about what specific things constitute good or evil; it's an explanation of the fact that the words "good" and "evil" only have meaning relative to something. If that statement isn't true, then something can be inherently good, which forces one to ask, why? Why is something inherently good? The only two responses to that are either "it just is" (which is easily demolished: if something can be declared good without explanation, than anything can be so declared, demonstrating that good and evil are arbitrary); or "because of some other moral principle." And then you get to ask, Why is that moral principle one we should accept as true? And eventually it comes down to an axiom somewhere: You axiomatically assume that X is good (or evil), which leads to everything else.
I'm not making any statements about which specific actions constitute good or evil; merely that it's semantically meaningless to talk about good or evil without a referent. (Sometimes that referent is commonly assumed by all involved and doesn't need to be mentioned, but it still exists.)
RedMorningSky
Dreamer
I think that there is a place for both types of evil, but I prefer when evil is done from some sort of motivation which is explained, so even if you disagree with the choices the character is making you can still try to understand them. This makes them characters as opposed to just caricatures. Even if a person is completely evil, I like when I can see where they are coming from as opposed to just believing that their only motivation is to make other people suffer.
Saigonnus
Auror
I asked my wife that very thing; curious as to what her response would be and she feels of the two, Cersei is probably the more "evil" considering as far as anyone knows, Sauron hasn't killed children (or attempted) just to hide his goings-on; his is more of a simple obsession with power. She also feels sauron isn't really a good comparison for Cersei Lannister and instead pitted her against Lord Voldemort (Tom Riddle) in subsequent discussions since they are both "modern" characters and both have their elements of humanity. In that discussion Tom Riddle was more evil because of the sheer lengths he would go to accomplish something he felt was worthy... he tried to kill a baby for pity's sake.
As someone stated earlier, Sauron isn't really a character in LOTR. You never actually get a bond with him/it. Sauron is what we call the definition of evil, according to our morality. Long story short, I like his concept/force more than I would love his character. The Dark One(Wheel of Time), while similar, is far more interesting.
Personally, I like Cersei. Purely based on the feeling I get when reading/telling her name. She believes that she does is the right thing, she loves her children, and yes, she makes mistakes. Which makes her human. Heck, you could even say that Stannis is evil. Same could be said for Jaime ('the things I do for love...').
For me is Sauron like... meh, just another guy that wants to rule us all.
Personally, I like Cersei. Purely based on the feeling I get when reading/telling her name. She believes that she does is the right thing, she loves her children, and yes, she makes mistakes. Which makes her human. Heck, you could even say that Stannis is evil. Same could be said for Jaime ('the things I do for love...').
For me is Sauron like... meh, just another guy that wants to rule us all.
