AlignedForFur

AlignedForFur

@AlignedForFur

Shares often, original content less

  • He and him

White Finnish

log in
AlignedForFur
@AlignedForFur
ceryl
@ceryl
amaranth-witch
@amaranth-witch

Have you reckoned with your own capacity for evil, first?

Crossposting this from Twitter for a format that isn't quite as hostile to lengthy thoughts. It's legitimately a bit rambling, because it's late and I'm tired and I'm hurting, but there's a lot of thoughts.

So, here's my followup to this question:

When you put forward situations like this, what do you think it communicates about your own perspective on "evil"? How do we feel about the aesthetics of evil being divorced from the consequences and motivations of evil?

Why are some forms of "evil" so simply solved, and others not? Have you reckoned with your own capacity for evil?

Why are you attracted to "evil" such as to need to ask this question and seek answers?

This is not a new question, nor is it a dunk on OP, for the record.

There's an ongoing hypothesis that people (readers, authors, viewers, RPG players) are attracted to "comfy" evil, the misunderstood necromancer ("but wait, I was just trying to memorialize your grandma!") and the friendless edgelord because of freedom, not evil.

In most of these narratives, we quickly find out that one way or another, "they weren't so evil after all, were they". They are quick to redeem because the only thing "wrong" "with them", the only thing "making them evil" was just lacking a friend, and now they're fine!

That's part of why there's so much prevalence on "redemption as a MOMENT", or even as a ceremony of some sort: the evil character did the thing, said the words, they are good now!

This exists in opposition to redemption as a PROCESS, which is uncomfortable to many.

The reason a redemptive PROCESS is uncomfortable is that it communicates that evil is not as easily shed as saying I'm sorry and donating $10K to an orphanage, that it's a part of the person, actions and motivations with consequences, and some things that cannot be undone.

Acknowledging that also brings up the possibility of - wait, if evil is not so easily disposed of, and if it doesn't care about intent, does that mean that perhaps I'm evil? And that is an uncomfortable question, so uncomfortable that entire industries of projection exist!

Anyhow, looping back around. The distinction between "the misunderstood" and "those who lack empathy/do not care" is also telling, that's part of what the hypothesis brings up: the attraction is to the freedom to do whatever you want, not to "evil".

There's also the unwillingness to look into "those who simply do not care" given things like... well, it takes about 5 minutes to see what the discourse surrounding "I don't want to wear respiratory protective gear, you can't make me, I don't care" is like. Is that not evil?

So this is a really pat question but there's a lot contained within it and I just constantly find it fascinating that these questions always focus on "intent and aesthetics" and not... responsibility and outcome and the weight we must carry.

Because if I'm being honest, the vast majority of "good" adventuring characters in Traditional Fantasy Adventure MEDIA, not just games, would be considered quite evil, if they weren't saving the world, and it's not even a "dark take" stretch for that.

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @amaranth-witch's post:

Scampir
@Scampir

Tagging on an observation from your argument but not your conclusion, when I see the persecuted necromancer (evil as taboo breaker) in terms of “redemption” I want to know if it’s actually redemption (the necromancer changes to address their errors) or vindication (necromancy was justified all along and the paradigm around them shifts)

login to reply
amaranth-witch
@amaranth-witch

Historically, the general (anecdotal) outcome, unless you’re playing with a very rare type of group, is the that the “misunderstood necromancer” category of character was Right All Along once you get to know them and not just the version that society wants you to know, while the “lonely edgelord” category of character was Never Actually Evil, Just Acting Out and/or Didn’t Know Any Better and thus doesn’t really require redemption so much as “lower your badness level this instant so we don’t get kicked out of the Cracker Barrel, young man!”

login to reply
amaranth-witch
@amaranth-witch

That's honestly one of the reasons I felt compelled to say something about it, yeah.

There's a joke which periodically makes the rounds that goes something like this: "The United States will invade your country, ruin your communities, kill thousands, wreck your water supply, and overthrow your government, but it's okay because 20 years later they'll make award-winning movies about how sad it made their soldiers and how much damage it did to the brave soldiers' lives, now don't you feel worthwhile" and that's often refuted with the Carmichael quote of "in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience; the United States has none" and those are both relevant here, for different reasons and don't actually refute each other, because the individual soldiers' psychological damage is both very real AND used by the callous state for propaganda, and also doesn't excuse anything at all.

People like an easy answer. This has always been true, and I think will always be true, and it's hard for me to fault them for wanting an explanation that they can grasp thoroughly without frustration. It's something that I want. But it's really easy to place the simple answer with something that's appealing to them, which is where the emphasis on "feelings" comes in. There's further levels involved; "boys will be boys" and "oh, but they didn't MEAN it" and so on and so forth, and just... you don't have to MEAN it to ruin lives. If someone gets assaulted because of a joke you made on the internet, do you get to skate because haha, you didn't mean it, it's just a joke, bro?

I'm rambling a lot, forgive me! A lot comes down to the question of "what do you consider Evil". Moral relativism is one thing; by their very nature, "morals" are values drawn from the different cultures and subcultures one belongs to, the word comes from the same root as mores, as in Social Mores, as in "the practices that are accepted by society as Normal and Expected" and so you can't get past the fact that morals ARE relative to who you are, where and how you live and with whom, and so "evil" and "villainous" and etc can be very different things to very different people - there's a joke about the Evil Overlord sealed away for 2000 years coming back and threatening the world with the worst things they can think of, and everyone just flocking to their side because all of that sounds pretty rad, actually.

And so that's why I turn to ethics, which is also potentially relative, because it's the applied study of morals, values and more - but it also highly concerns itself with things like "even if this behavior is normalized, is it right? Is it justified? Is the outcome..."

What is evil? Why is evil? Who is evil? Is it a switch you can turn on and turn off, or is it the sum of your actions and consequences and motivations and more? Is the convenient line of "it's only EVIL-evil if you just don't CARE about it" an actual line in your worldview, or is it there so that 20 years later, you can make a memoir about how sad your actions made you feel and look how traumatized you are, and you weren't such a bad guy all along? Or is it there so you can draw a line between "evil" people you can befriend and "evil" people you can "safely" Other and make acceptable targets?

It's a complicated subject.

login to reply
kobold-catgirl
@kobold-catgirl

I really love this post and want to engage with it properly, but first, can I just say what a relief it is that my main TTRPG, PF2, has basically dropped the alignment thing? I am so glad I don't have to determine whether my miserable guilt-ridden but still extremely flawed war criminal catgirl is technically, cosmically Chaotic Evil or more Chaotic Neutral or whatever. Like, the alignment debates truly made these discussions so much dumber and so much less compelling.

More on-topic, I don't honestly think "evil" exists! At least, I think the word is kind of useless for a lot of these conversations. Every bad quality, every "sin", is also a good quality in some ways. Pride is also dignity and a desire to be a good person. A bad temper is also a determination to stand up for oneself and/or what's right. Being controlling can also be express as being protective. Apathy is a shade of humility, a "why should I assume I know best how to fix this?" attitude.

There aren't really "evil" traits, and a lot of what we consider "evil" is better described, like I think you said, as a sort of unthinkingness, an ease with which we avoid contemplating the harm we inflict on others. Evil isn't so much a personality type as it is a pattern of bad or lazy choices we fall into. Once that pattern exists, every human being generally feels naturally compelled to justify their previous actions to themselves, so whatever our original personality was kind of maps to try to defend it in its own way.

So, like, wrt playing "evil" characters, at the risk of sounding pretentious/self-absorbed (oh my god that ship has *sailed), I personally think I get a lot of value out of PCs who are built to help me unpack something in myself. Usually they're going down or returning from toxic patterns I'm afraid of. I get so little out of "evil PCs" who are simply meant to stay nice and static and evil the whole way through.

I dunno, does that engage with the question? I may have brought too much of my own stuff into it here. XD

login to reply
kobold-catgirl
@kobold-catgirl

Some addendums that are hopefully more on-task:

I think a really fun character arc can be "person who used to have classic antipaladin Evil/Apathetic intent and redeemed themselves from that, but is now confronted with the world's complex moral reality". Like, it's great that you aren't dedicated to the banner of Asmodeus anymore, but those righteous crusaders you just signed on with are maybe not politically the best horse to bet on either.

Because if I'm being honest, the vast majority of "good" adventuring characters in Traditional Fantasy Adventure MEDIA, not just games, would be considered quite evil, if they weren't saving the world, and it's not even a "dark take" stretch for that.

oh my gosh YES. Like, it's part of why I really prefer to play PCs whose whole arc is about self-betterment. A character who stays static in their little gimmicky personality bubble is probably not a very good person! like idk how to tell you that your smartass-with-a-heart-of-gold swashbuckler who never takes anything seriously right up until the end probably voted for Ron Paul in the real world

login to reply
amaranth-witch
@amaranth-witch

does that engage with the question

I'm going to say, since I didn't set out a strict syllabus of topics to cover, that as long as you're approaching in good faith and you can see the question from wherever you end up, then if "the question" provoked even some small amount of examination and sharing, yeah, you're absolutely engaging with the question. Slideways association is still association!

And of course, the question of "does 'evil' even exist, that's one of the classics. Loads and loads of discussion on that in any given ethics class, and it often feels impossible to pin down an answer. I know what mine is, but is that the same as some universal truth, etc.

It's difficult to talk around because the whole question about evil is simple to comprehend on an experience level (until it isn't) but so big to encompass (until it isn't) and full of so many situational exceptions (until it isn't...) and trying to describe it, well. This is part of where people get the idea of some Ultimate Evil, whether it's a personification or a universal principle, some platonic repository of Evil or some quantifiable breakdown of "how much evil is contained within..." and there just isn't a way to do that, not really, but it's so tempting to do so. And then that in itself can lead to evil and here we go again!

login to reply
kobold-catgirl
@kobold-catgirl

I remember when people would bring up "a battle between good vs. evil" as a positive theme a story or work could have, and it's like. I genuinely think the idea of "good vs evil", outside of a purely internal struggle like in It's a Wonderful Life, is one of the most harmful themes we've ever taught our kids. It's such a toxic way to think about people.

login to reply
amaranth-witch
@amaranth-witch

See even that gets complicated, because it is until it isn't, and then it isn't until it is, and then it is until it isn't again, and then...

More usefully, though, I agree with you in principle/on thrust, but then take a swerve. I think the place where it curdles isn't the theme of "good vs evil", but the fact that the childish themes stop there and for so many people, are never further explored. It remains "the brave forces of good" vs "the vile perpetrators of evil" forever, with only narratively acceptable deviance; the traitor hero who may have been Secretly Evil, may have been Swayed And Corrupted, or may have been Duped And Fooled, the misguided noble villain who may have been Foolishly Trying To Do Good From Within... classic narrative tropes are permitted, but the good and evil monolith is there.

I think that "recognize and resist injustice", "show courage but also show empathy and understanding", "it will often be necessary to fight against oppression" and more of the lessons gestured at under the "good vs evil" theme are vital to learn and understand, I think they are compelling stories on top of that, and I mostly think that the biggest toxicity source comes from the stagnation and axiomatic presentation; that not only is it Jedi vs Sith, it's always Jedi vs Sith, and the Jedi are Good and the Sith are Bad, and even the Empire is Bad because the Sith are In Charge, and no matter what the Jedi do as long as it's against the Sith, it's okay because they're Good, and it will always be that way forever... it's not "good vs evil" that twists my gut, it's that.

login to reply
kobold-catgirl
@kobold-catgirl

Mm-hm! I think that's very well-put. The reason I see "good vs evil" as a kind of harmful theme is that oppressors are just as comfortable taking strength from it as their victims. The lesson of A Battle of Good vs Evil isn't necessarily "we must take action to help others", it's "Evil is something you resist by exerting the mightiest possible violence upon it."

Doing the right thing sometimes means resorting to violence, but in the real world, that's not really about Good vs. Evil to me. When you fight against colonizers, you aren't challenging the King of Belgium to trial by combat, you're fighting some random soldiers who may not even know what they're doing there. They're complicit by their ignorance and their choice to follow these orders, but they aren't the kind of evil that Good vs Evil stories teach you to fight. And lots of them may have grown up with Good vs Evil stories to reassure them that any violence they inflict on you is surely justified.

And to be clear, I don't, like, feel that strongly about the trope being "inherently bad". It's got its uses, it's sort of all about how it's deployed, we're obviously pretty far in the weeds right now. But being honest, when I say it's one of the most harmful themes in the world, I'm mostly gesturing very indirectly at its impact on Christianity.

login to reply