Should good always prevail over evil?

[Jabrosky]

I'm not a big fan of grey vs grey (like A Song of Ice and Fire) because it bores me, it can get depressing, and it's too much like real life. The entire point of fantasy is escapism, to go to a world where good and evil are easily identifiable (at least they are to the reader; to the characters perhaps not). I disagree with this whole notion that good vs. evil with good winning necessitates flat characters and a boring storyline. Stories like LOTR and the Narnia books would have faded into obscurity long ago were that the case.

I agree with your whole post, but especially this part.

This may be diverging off topic slightly, but what if you had clearly defined good and evil sides, but the evil side considered themselves justified in their own way and simply had wrong opinions? My current antagonist is definitely the bad guy, but his evil stems largely from his political beliefs. This allows me to kill two birds with one stone by telling a story that's both good-and-bad-guys and realistic.

It's true that the real world has shades of gray, but it's often the case that while one side doesn't consider themselves evil, their beliefs have evil effects. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Jefferson Davis may have all thought they were doing the right thing, but their positions were still evil.

 

[Mindfire]

I agree with your whole post, but especially this part.

This may be diverging off topic slightly, but what if you had clearly defined good and evil sides, but the evil side considered themselves justified in their own way and simply had wrong opinions? My current antagonist is definitely the bad guy, but his evil stems largely from his political beliefs. This allows me to kill two birds with one stone by telling a story that's both good-and-bad-guys and realistic.

It's true that the real world has shades of gray, but it's often the case that while one side doesn't consider themselves evil, their beliefs have evil effects. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Jefferson Davis may have all thought they were doing the right thing, but their positions were still evil.

I agree with your approach. Nobody consciously sets out to do evil. And that's true of well-developed villains as well. There are only two exceptions to that rule that I know of. Dr. Heinz Doofenshimirtz and The Joker. The former is played for laughs and the latter is... The Joker. So yeah. Generally a villain isn't one who sets out to do evil, but rather someone who has fixed themelves on a goal (usually an unjust one) and is determined to accomplish that goal regardless of who gets hurt along the way. A villain doesn't have to declare themselves evil. Just ignoring the standards of right and wrong tends to make one evil by default.

Even notoriously evil characters like the White Witch and Sauron had rationalizations for their actions if you look closely enough.

 

[ThinkerX]

Nothing is forever - not even a triumphant 'evil empire'.

Real world example - the old USSR and Warsaw Pact. Under Stalin, this was a totalitarian nightmare, about as close to a real world 'evil empire' as ever there was. Thirty some years after his death, I watched it all come crashing down live on television. Yes, what replaced it isn't exactly great - but it is like light vs day compared to Stalins regime.

I also read a fair amount of cold war era science fiction and 'thriller' type works. The...call it the 'cultural mentality' behind these works was very different from what we have today: quite a number of them ended with humanity either going extinct or becoming 'trapped' somehow. This mentality actually surfaced a few times in the first series of 'Star Trek' with alien worlds acting as proxies for Cold War situations.

My own worlds are muddier: there are 'good' and 'evil' people. There are evil people with sympathetic characteristics, good people who are in service to not so good people, evil people who've convinced themselves they're actually good (usually for religious reasons, reinforced by a truly devastating war), good people who've had to make some horrible choices, and a whole bunch of people trying to get by.

 

[Graylorne]

In my world, the evil goddess wants to destroy the universe. She really wants that.
But she has a very good reason for it. Both the evil goddess and the good god are part of the same creator: a very powerful race in the multiverse. This person creates universes as home decorations, like an amateur painter or photographer. While working, the male part of his personality gets into a conflict with the female part, because the latter finds a creation from antimatter 'matches her curtains better' (well, not exactly, but something like that). The creator splits up in two separate conciousnesses, one of which tries to sabotage and finally wipe out the material universe and replace it with an antimatter one. Ofc all present life will get killed. None of this is in the books; its just the background to the background. So you have an evil goddess, who doen't see humans as something worthwile; theyre just pixels to her. The priesthood she creates, is really evil. Or rather, mad, because she feeds them too much raw power and antimatter mana they aren't built to handle. That gives totally nihilistic black mages, necromancers etc, who only look after themselves, for only the best have a chance to survive. The rest of the world isn't aware of the real reasons. They only see the black mages and their lust for power and will only slowly realise the true danger.
Perhaps it sound rather complicated like this, but it does give an answer to why the 'dark power' wants to destroy the universe.

And to answer the original question: no it's not always necessary for good to prevail over bad, but I don't think readers will thank me for ending my final book with the end of the universe. With the death of my main character? That could be a nice touch; something to keep in mind (I'm not exactly a plotter, so the end is still extremely fluid). But even if he gives his life for the cause won't mean evil won, ofc. For the hero to die in vain in the finale would be too much of an anticlimax (and, for a fantasy series, very silly).

On the other hand, there's no reason for the hero to 'live happily ever after'. What will happen to them has to remain a matter of conjecture. Or else the way Raymond Feist did it with the deaths of Prince Arutha and Jimmy, dying in their old age, defending their city. That to me was very fitting.

 

[Varamyrr]

Actually, this is a rather good topic for my WiP.
I'm thinking about letting evil win, but with a slightly grey ending, or at least that what I think it is:

Evil conquered the vast majority of the main land. A last bastion of human civilsation still exists. The last battle will be held at this fortified city, which will be lost. However, instead of total annihilation, I letting people leave by boat, to an unknown destination. While the plebs tries to escape, several 'heroes' give up their life so other can hopefully live. If the escapees will survive remains a mystery.
Do you think this could work?

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I actually had a downer ending in my NIP, then I realized that I shouldn't be starting off my first novel with a complex downer ending. So I completely rewrote it to a happier ending, because those are easier. Mastering the basics first... is something I keep forgetting to do.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Here are two memorable dark endings:


(1) I loved the ending to H.G. Wells' The Time Machine. It was dark. The Time Traveller goes back into the future to fix everything--his friends discover a letter saying so--but the MC never returns. But the ending was open-ended enough to imply that the Time Traveller did not fail or die, but he saved the girl and remained in the future as traveling back to 1895 would undo the changes he made in the year 802701*.

*This is something that a 6th-grade student of mine came up with, and I thought it was brilliant and actually faithful to how time-travel would work in H.G. Wells' story.

Anyway, one thing I loved about this ending (as a teacher and as a reader) was that your imagination could play with the story, which is in some ways better than simply telling you "the good guys win (or lose)."



(2) There was an anime movie, Akira, that had a dark ending where everyone died except the antagonists' friends. I hated that ending, and I mean hated it. Akira killed his girlfriend horribly then pretty much ate Japan, and the protagonists were these useless emo dweebs who kicked pebbles around and whined about there being "no more Clowns (a rival gang)." I want those two hours of my life back.

What I hated most was, the more powerful Akira got the more I thought to myself, wow! How do they stop this monster? Oh. They don't. Well no **** they don't. He's a demon and thousands of feet tall!



So there you go. A dark ending can be brilliant and make your reader think, or your reader feels cheated because you kill the only character worth caring about and let the unstoppable evil entity win.

One thing worth noting... in a dark ending, it's probably better to have the MC die but accomplish something than live and prove to be no more than a useless witness to senseless destruction.

 

[Ireth]

My story has a bit of an odd (I think) premise, which ties into the concept of dark endings as well as good triumphing over evil. The whole plot is instigated by the antagonist, including the quest the heroes go on to bring a certain person to a certain place at a certain time for a certain purpose. If the heroes complete their quest, the bad guys win, so they have to figure out a way to get out of it before their time limit runs out. (More info here for those interested: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/4041-reluctant-questors.html)

I'm just not sure how dark I want the ending to be. I'm quite sure at least one person is going to die, or perhaps two; the latter would obviously make for a darker ending. I don't know what to do with the surviving heroes in that instance, though. I love them too much to not want at least a bittersweet ending for them, if I can't give them a happy one.

 

[SeverinR]

I think if we all knew good wins everytime, we would get bored.
But good doesn't have to:
Ride off in the sunset, living happily ever after.
Evil can have some wins, while good wins overall. Evil might win the battle but lose the war.


One ending I hate, is the doom and gloom, no way to win, they will just make the ultimate sacrifice against evil,
and something happens that makes the good win.
It is one thing to have the characters believe it, but there still be a way to win versus there being no chance to win, and somehow the good always lucks out.
It seems that the script helped out reality, rather then the story working itself out.

 

[Saigonnus]

I think many people have a morbid side that secretly wants the bad guy to win. I am more of a realist and know that even in the real world the bad guy sometimes wins. In my WIP I have contemplated a bit of a dark ending, basically where the protagonist "wins", but it doesn't really make the difference he imagined it would. Sure, he'll accomplish his goals... but it won't make any lasting difference in the scheme of things.

 

[ALB2012]

No. In fact, looking through ancient history, mostly evil triumphs over good.

It's simple, really. Evil goes places good can't. With that they can usually gain the advantage. That said, there's no problem with having good win, but in reality evil usually does.

Indeed, history tends to repeat itself- first as tragedy then as farce. Often "good" triumphs to become evil. The Russian revolution where the "evil" tyrant tzar was overthrown by the "people" and became Marxist, then psuedomarxist, then Stalinist. No one can surely think Stalin was better than the old Tzar. Good and evil tend to be relative terms depending on whose side you happen to be on.

In my novel the male MC is not especially nice, he is powerful and he knows how to use it, he does kill and hurt against the "evil" protagonists- most of whom it could be argued are "following orders." The world they inhabit is a dark, nasty world for many so he is at the least blurring the lines, he does however do it for a "good reason." Future books may well lead to a civil war and major upheaval with the potential to replace one tyranny for another. Or freedom for some vs war for all.

I do think however many people like good triumphing in fantasy as it so often is the opposite in life. I have to agree it can be dull, suddenly the evil overlord falls for something silly or happens to have a really unlikely weakness. Killing off the heroes or at least seriously compromising them is fun but it is hard to do.

Evil goes places good can't or in fact won't because evil doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks

I did always wonder WHAT the evil overlord is going to do AFTER he or she has destroyed the world.

 

[Mindfire]

I'm don't agree that evil usually defeats good in our world. If you look at history, evil people come into power pretty easily given the right circumstances, but they tend not to stay in power for very long. Eventually they get murdered, imprisoned, commit suicide, etc. In terms of grand conflicts, evil will eventually lose simply because humans don't like being ruled over by people prone to slaughter them on a whim. Examples of good defeating evil would include the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War 1 and 2, the fall of the Soviet Union, and others. If we include a religious point of view, than the case for good is even stronger.

I largely agree with Tolkien's view of evil. It can't win because of its very nature. Evil is parasitic. It needs something to corrupt and feed on, and for that reason alone it will always meet with resistance. Good on the other hand is self-sufficient, benevolent, and creative. Good is freedom, evil is tyranny. And what sane man would choose tyranny over freedom?

That said, of evil's victories are ultimately due to two things: human selfishness and human stupidity. As long as those two forces exist, so will evil.

 

[Alex97]

I like both books with good vs evil and books with a lot of grey area. I'm not too fussed who wins so long as the story is good and the victory is justified. I like stories in which there is a grey area or alternatively a good protagonist loses a lot in order to prevail. In the novel I'm writing there is a lot of grey area. For example my protagonist wants to do the right thing but he is also driven by revenge and ends up doing some pretty nasty things. The antagonist on the other hand wants to unite the city states into a whole country to make them stronger. In theory it's a good idea but in practice he kills a lot of people and the city states are in danger of losing there identity and freedom.

Couple of spoilers, so if you don't want to know the end of the Children of Hurin or Spartan don't read on:

I liked the Children of Hurin by Tolien because it wasn't just black and white like LOTR (witht he exception of Turin). Even though Turin is fighting Melkor the dark lord, he himself ends up doing a lot of bad things. Despite killing the dragon, Glaurung at the end he and his sister kill themselves so it's not exactly a happy ending despite his victory.

In Spartan, which is not fantasy but historical fiction there is a lot of grey area. There aren't good or bad characters, just differing political views. Basically each person does what they think is right but other people disagree with that. The main characters also die.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm don't agree that evil usually defeats good in our world. If you look at history, evil people come into power pretty easily given the right circumstances, but they tend not to stay in power for very long. Eventually they get murdered, imprisoned, commit suicide, etc. In terms of grand conflicts, evil will eventually lose simply because humans don't like being ruled over by people prone to slaughter them on a whim. Examples of good defeating evil would include the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War 1 and 2, the fall of the Soviet Union, and others. If we include a religious point of view, than the case for good is even stronger.

I largely agree with Tolkien's view of evil. It can't win because of its very nature. Evil is parasitic. It needs something to corrupt and feed on, and for that reason alone it will always meet with resistance. Good on the other hand is self-sufficient, benevolent, and creative. Good is freedom, evil is tyranny. And what sane man would choose tyranny over freedom?

That said, of evil's victories are ultimately due to two things: human selfishness and human stupidity. As long as those two forces exist, so will evil.

With the exception of Hitler during WW2 I'm not sure the other conflicts are a good account of good vs. evil.

Were the British evil? No I hardly think so... Imperialistic yes but evil no.
Was the confederacy evil? I'd agree with the evils of slavery but the abolition of slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. It was states rights vs. federal power,

I will agree that on a large scale evil has a hard time surviving. On a smaller scale evil can not only succeed but thrive. However, that being said, the definition of evil (no I don't want to start that up again) is based largely on one's own point of view.

 

[Mindfire]

With the exception of Hitler during WW2 I'm not sure the other conflicts are a good account of good vs. evil.

Were the British evil? No I hardly think so... Imperialistic yes but evil no.
Was the confederacy evil? I'd agree with the evils of slavery but the abolition of slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. It was states rights vs. federal power,

I will agree that on a large scale evil has a hard time surviving. On a smaller scale evil can not only succeed but thrive. However, that being said, the definition of evil (no I don't want to start that up again) is based largely on one's own point of view.

I'll admit that the bit about the Revolution was reaching. xD And while slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, the fact that the war ended with it being abolished does, I think, count as a victory for good over evil.

 

[JonSnow]

There is something to be said for both good or evil prevailing. I think that in a pure good vs. evil scenario (such as Lord of the Rings), the only fitting ending is for good to prevail at great cost (loss of life, and changes/experiences that will haunt and stay with them for the rest of their lives). Even in that, its not a complete defeat of evil, because some of the darkness lives on within the good characters afterwards. I think the pure "light vs. dark" battle is outdated. There have been some great classic works with that methodology, and it worked for them, obviously. Lord of the Rings is one of my top 5 favorite works of literature. But I don't think it works for modern literature.

If you want a more realistic scenario, evil must prevail sometimes. I am a firm believer that real life (and the majority of human nature) consists of far more evil than good ( I'd say 70/30 if I had to put a number on it). And good people are just better at (or more willing to) conquering and suppressing the evil aspects of themselves. No believable human character is perfectly good or perfectly evil. And no mentally competent human is purely evil, either. Even they show redeeming qualities on occasion.

The struggle between good and bad in their own minds leads to struggles and decisions that are going to affect what they do and how they interact with the world. I would even say that a likeable "good" protagonist must have some flaws, and some weaknesses, that might lead them to do bad things (an example would be an overall good man who has a weakness for brothels, had an affair on his wife, is an angry drunk, or is an unscrupulous gambler). These still allow this person to be an honorable, good person otherwise, but with weaknesses that make him/her human and believable.

In this sense, "good" may not, and should not, always prevail. It makes for boring and predictable literature. Though, the ending must be satisfying if you want to please the reader. I think that is why a lot of authors lean to the "good" side, because they don't want their book to be called a "downer".

 

[Targon]

I had this exact same idea. I created a elf-like race called the Vari, who were created so that man would never be molested by evil. They failed sadly. They are now cursed with having a very grim afterlife. Their souls end up in an abyss essentially and will not end up with their creator,Varian.

 

[Jabrosky]

I don't want to breach our forum's moratorium on politics, but if you actually read the declarations of secession for the Confederate states, they explicitly cite their desire to protect the institution of slavery as their motivation. It is true however that Lincoln really cared more about preserving the Union than abolitionism by itself, so the American Civil War wasn't strictly a Good vs Evil conflict.

That said, unless the story I've viewing is intended to be tragic (e.g. King Kong), I would prefer that the more sympathetic side win in fiction.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

For me I do want good to win. I'm going to be damned well peeved if I get to the end of a book and all my heroes are dead and the universe has gone dark for eternity. That being said the art of the story is in making me believe that evil can win - even though they won't. That's where the suspence comes in.

As for the hero falling at the end, yeah I can live with that. Hell I wrote Dragon with that end (sort of). But if my hero dies I want him to die having achieved something. It'd be a p' off for him to lose and die. There was a book I read a long time ago, Shipwreck by Charles Logan and its stuck with me all these years because of its ending. Basically the hero crashlands on an alien world and then the entire book is devoted to his efforts to survive. But as you get to the end of the book and realise that things are getting worse and worse for him, you (or me) are constantly asking ourselves as we race through those final chapters, how the hell is he going to get out of this mess? Not to shatter your surpise, but the last line of the book is - "And there on that rock, by the edge of the seas, he died."

I cannot express to you how much that peeved me.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't want to breach our forum's moratorium on politics, but if you actually read the declarations of secession for the Confederate states, they explicitly cite their desire to protect the institution of slavery as their motivation. It is true however that Lincoln really cared more about preserving the Union than abolitionism by itself, so the American Civil War wasn't strictly a Good vs Evil conflict.

That said, unless the story I've viewing is intended to be tragic (e.g. King Kong), I would prefer that the more sympathetic side win in fiction.

Only modern politics are banned. Historical politics are still allowed.