Writing What's the difference between being bad, and being evil, and where do you draw the line?

[Southdog]

I recently got back into writing, and I've elected to publish an ongoing story called Mage of Red Clay. It's about a- well, a Redneck Magician from the state of Georgia. The story is mostly going to be centered on his employment-patronage by his draconic boss, his complicated relationship with his elven ex, and his problems with his dangerous line of work. I'm gunning for the protagonist to be a certain brand of

To be blunt, Bobby, the protagonist, is not a nice person. He's been jaded by his life in the magical world, and at this point in time can only really go along with what he's doing in life- dangerous, high risk work for a shadowy employer- until he either can't do it anymore, or it kills him. He has a very dim and narrow view of magicians and magical creatures, with a special hatred towards non-physical entities, like ghosts, fairies and demons. He usually terminates them with extreme prejudice if they don't comply.

And they usually don't, since even in the magical world, social strata exists, and pact-making humans like him are generally not given even a half bit of respect by anyone outside their patrons.

Bobby is a powerful character in the sense that when presented with certain problems (in the prologue, his encounter with the entity in the graveyard is resolved with a one word invocation, albeit at the cost of injuring his hand with purifying fire), he can utterly steamroll them. In the sense that if there were to be a fight, he'd come out on top, and if there were to be a duel of magicians, usually, he'd be on top. However, I'm not trying to make him overpowered, he has issues he needs to work through. And his preferred method of steamrolling whatever is in front of him is biting him in his ass.

Bobby is also not necessarily evil, but absolutely not a good person. This is what I'm wanting to convey in writing, with how Bobby has very few qualms with using unsavory methods and oftentimes petty motivation. In the prologue, for instance, he uses light magic to eradicate the unknown entity, and he's a frequent drinker. He has a lot of vices he indulges in, and underneath his morose exterior he's an angry, bitter person. He treats the demons he summons extremely poorly, and has little regard for mundane life- that is, our normal Earth- or for anything nonphysical in nature (like fairies, ghosts, and demons).

So, at what point does one draw the line between evil, and just being a petty asshole with issues? Does Bobby sound like a well-rounded character with room to grow? In what ways do readers find interesting nasty, scummy protagonists like this? I do eventually plan on contrasting him with another non-romantic lead important to the story, but that's in the notes for future chapters, and I'm interested in what Scribblehub thinks and if there's any advice to present.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

I recently got back into writing, and I've elected to publish an ongoing story called Mage of Red Clay. It's about a- well, a Redneck Magician from the state of Georgia. The story is mostly going to be centered on his employment-patronage by his draconic boss, his complicated relationship with his elven ex, and his problems with his dangerous line of work. I'm gunning for the protagonist to be a certain brand of

To be blunt, Bobby, the protagonist, is not a nice person. He's been jaded by his life in the magical world, and at this point in time can only really go along with what he's doing in life- dangerous, high risk work for a shadowy employer- until he either can't do it anymore, or it kills him. He has a very dim and narrow view of magicians and magical creatures, with a special hatred towards non-physical entities, like ghosts, fairies and demons. He usually terminates them with extreme prejudice if they don't comply.

And they usually don't, since even in the magical world, social strata exists, and pact-making humans like him are generally not given even a half bit of respect by anyone outside their patrons.

Bobby is a powerful character in the sense that when presented with certain problems (in the prologue, his encounter with the entity in the graveyard is resolved with a one word invocation, albeit at the cost of injuring his hand with purifying fire), he can utterly steamroll them. In the sense that if there were to be a fight, he'd come out on top, and if there were to be a duel of magicians, usually, he'd be on top. However, I'm not trying to make him overpowered, he has issues he needs to work through. And his preferred method of steamrolling whatever is in front of him is biting him in his ass.

Bobby is also not necessarily evil, but absolutely not a good person. This is what I'm wanting to convey in writing, with how Bobby has very few qualms with using unsavory methods and oftentimes petty motivation. In the prologue, for instance, he uses light magic to eradicate the unknown entity, and he's a frequent drinker. He has a lot of vices he indulges in, and underneath his morose exterior he's an angry, bitter person. He treats the demons he summons extremely poorly, and has little regard for mundane life- that is, our normal Earth- or for anything nonphysical in nature (like fairies, ghosts, and demons).

So, at what point does one draw the line between evil, and just being a petty asshole with issues? Does Bobby sound like a well-rounded character with room to grow? In what ways do readers find interesting nasty, scummy protagonists like this? I do eventually plan on contrasting him with another non-romantic lead important to the story, but that's in the notes for future chapters, and I'm interested in what Scribblehub thinks and if there's any advice to present.

If you beat your wife, you're bad.
If I catch you in the living room eating her face, you're evil.

 

[Aaqil]

"Stares at words, thinks words have points, wonders why *Bobby* , see's Bobby's angry at stuff he finds different, asks why, wonders if he was harmed by them, wonders if he's sucidal, thinks that he has extreme prejudice, wonders, says that he is Evil if his actions cause harm and he knows its Evil, Bad if he has no idea what he is doing is wrong"

 

[Snusmumriken]

I would probably say first it is the level of intent: i.e. how many of his bad acts are based on a calculated decision vs hot emotion.

The second is acknowledgement - whether he does not realise what he is doing is evil (or has some misguided morals) or maybe he sees something as a higher priority by necessity (e.g. saving his hide by blasting an attacker)

On the other hand, if he fully realises that what he is doing is deliberately evil/selfish/will harm others or deliberately refuses to acknowledge his misguided ways then that would lean towards evil

 

[ArcadiaBlade]

If you want a proper example, it would be trying to balance the tsun and dere in a tsundere. What I mean is their gap moe that makes it worth trying to see if she's likable or not.

Japan heavily utilize this as its the main core of their fondness of tsundere as your character is also the same as how readers will view your character.

The tsun is how evil your character acts and the dere is how likable he is. If you put too much tsun in your character, usually most people will find it a bit repulsive to hate him enough but if you adjust the dere in him(say, something that make his situation relatable or how he handles the situation), even if he acts evil enough, if the dere balances the tsun, he is worth making him good.

My example would be how he handles slavery. If he just use them as tools when they are innocent, no matter how you make him likable, it won't balance out his likeability. If he kills them after knowing their situation and giving them peace from their suffering, there's no evil but make him too different if you don't balance out his character to be evil enough for his relatability. The best example in this situation is making him still sees them as slaves however treat them better than what they use to be as it balance out the evil and likable person.

Now this example might have some contradictions but how to handle your character's morality depends on how you make his change being from good to evil or vice versa.

If you want to unlock more advice, please pay an additional $69.69 and you'll recieve a discount of 5% off to help in writing a good protagonist.

 

[Mechaphobic]

Most people will have a moral code, it usually means they are more chaotic in nature. I tend to look at it in D&D terms, and decide if they are lawful or chaotic in nature. Then you break it down and define it, make it clear where the lines are and why. This also makes it clearer for the readers when a character is struggling over where to step at that line. I think it is best when you have characters having to step out of their normal comfort zones and when you know why.

I think a big part of development is growth and how characters change over time. I look at it from the perspective of where are they in life and where are they going. What moments were really important and steered them one way or another. Sometimes small events can have a big impact on someone. Why not have him get into a fight with an evil character, like a scum-off, then as a result he ends up saving some people and that effects him internally.

 

[NotaNuffian]

That depends on if he is actively hunting down innocent bystanders or is he just that of a human shit who does not care about the collaterals.

The former is evil because he is being proactive while the latter is being bad/ antihero because he cares not of the consequences.

Bobby is still a menice/ fucking asshole by the way, judging by how you describe the world he is in.

 

[K5Rakitan]

If you beat your wife, you're bad.
If I catch you in the living room eating her face, you're evil.

Don't forget emotional abuse!
I would say my ex-boyfriend (2009-2014) is bad, but not evil. He was controlled by an evil force at times, but there was still always part of him holding back and wanting to be good. A bad person can become evil if the evil part consumes them entirely, but if there is still SOME good in them, they are just bad.

 

[Vaxel00]

Morality is measured on the eye of the beholder.

For example, for a collectivist, and individualist is evil since the individualist does not care about the greater good but more about personal gain. The other way around is the same since for the individualist, the collectivist doesn't regard other people's freedom of choice as something to consider when making decisions for the group.

What constitutes a "bad" person depends on the degree of sociopathic behavior he exhibits. The moral judgment of others is what makes him "bad" not the person himself. If this behavior is maladaptive then is a character flaw, think something like an alcoholic.

 

[Southdog]

I think a big part of development is growth and how characters change over time

For what its worth I don't see his current status in the story, that of being a deeply, darkly affected and oftentimes short tempered ass as being something that will last long. I see our Protagonist, Bobby, as someone so entrenched in his routine of being miserable that any break from that would probably set off a reaction in him. He's a toxic individual but he wasn't always like that, and he knows that. But also, there's the fact thar he's learned a great many bad habits and picked up a ton of vices too. He's a deeply jealous person controlled, a lot of the time, by the fact he can't let things go when he really should. He's petty and ill-tempered when he isn't deathly tired, and Alys, his elven ex, isn't helping. The reason they were together but split up is something I'll explore, and it's got to do with the differing social mores of elves and humans and.... Severe lifespan incongruities, let's put it that way.

That depends on if he is actively hunting down innocent bystanders or is he just that of a human shit who does not care about the collaterals.

The former is evil because he is being proactive while the latter is being bad/ antihero because he cares not of the consequences.

Bobby is still a menice/ fucking asshole by the way, judging by how you describe the world he is in.

That latter description of caring very little for consequences and it ending up harming him is what I'm aiming for. In a way I'm trying to write him as a heavyweight, since he is a mercenary and ultimately a gun for hire. Heavyweight in the sense that, from the perspective of a heroic individual, Bobby would be the Vader to his employer's Palpatine. He causes a lot of damage, udually on a mission, and he's got the backing of a powerful patron, but from the opposing force perspective, he's kind of a juggernaut. A lot of work done by Red Clay (his business) is attributed to him, and the magical world has vastly different (some backwards, some progressive) morals that I'd like to explore later on, when I can.

It's late where I'm at while I'm posting this, so I'll leave that be and go to bed.

 

[2021]

bad= stealing someone's pizza

evil = ruining that pizza so no one can eat it

 

[NotaNuffian]

I forgot that google is my bff

What is difference between 'bad' and 'evil'?

Meet, interact, and learn with native speakers and language learners from all over the world on italki!

www.italki.com

 

[Sylverius]

It depends on the will, purpose and context. Okay, let's say he treats his summons poorly, does he kill them? If yes, is it brutal or quick? If brutal, then he is evil in a sense. If quick, then he is bad.

Spoiler: Warning, this has spoiler

Let's go for Lelouch of Code: GeASS. He wanted to reform the world of its corruption, but how does he do it? He needs to kill. In the end, he did change the world, but at the cost of several lives. You can say that he is bad and evil, but he isn't "bad" nor "evil", get what I'm saying?

 

[AliceShiki]

So, at what point does one draw the line between evil, and just being a petty asshole with issues?

Well, I don't have an answer, but I can try giving some food for thought... Like...

Is a psychopath evil? Or is it just a person with mental issues?
Is a ruthless tyrant that drastically decreased crime rate and poverty, but also merciless kills anyone that goes against them and that gives no freedom to anyone evil?
Is a megalomaniac that wishes to dominate the world for the sake of dominating the world and will stop at nothing evil?
Is a racist villain that wants to kill all that don't match their race evil?

If you try answering those questions, I think you can try finding sort of your own answer... To me the answer is that, for as long as a character has somewhat understandable reasons behind their actions, they're not evil.

Like, Voldemort is evil because he is a racist character that wants to kill people because he is racist... Yeah, that's kinda bad.
Cell isn't evil, he is just a psychopath, he just happens to enjoy seeing people suffering. Having mental issues doesn't make you evil.
Frieza is evil, he just wants universe domination... And is also racist towards saiyans as a bonus.
Galbatorix isn't evil, he may be a tyrant, but his goal is to regulate the usage of magic, which is actually necessary in Eragon's setting.
Kid Buu isn't evil. Kid Buu is a force of nature that exists to destroy things, good and evil make no sense to it... And yes, I'm aware the series says that Buu is a being made of pure evil, I don't care, the character behaves like a force of nature, so he should be treated as such.

Super Buu is an interesting case. He can be considered evil, but he also may not... On one hand, he is extremely whimsical and kills people whenever he feels like for seemingly no reason. That can be seen as evil alright.
On the other hand, that can be seen as Super Buu also being a psychopath like Cell, which would put him on the Mental Disorder Category.
But uhn... Well, Super Buu has the problem of being a villain with 0 background and 0 development. You simply don't know anything about Super Buu whatsoever. You just know that he needs to be defeated because he'll destroy the planet otherwise... So it's hard to analyze the character because you have almost nothing to analyze him by.

Which kinda leads to my last point that is... The more developed a character is, the higher the chances of it being non-evil (worth note, that adding a backstory is not developing the character. That's just adding context.). A well-developed character will probably have reasons behind their actions and you'll be able to see their growth over time. Actions with actual reasons behind them can hardly be called evil, they may be morally wrong, but not really evil.

Basically, if you properly develop a villain, like Galbatorix, you'll probably be unable to call him evil because his actions, while morally twisted, make sense... OTOH, if you make a shallow one-dimensional villain like Voldemort, you'll totally call him evil because he has nothing but racism powering his actions, which is just kinda stupid.

The same applies to the protagonist. Make him have reasons that make sense behind his actions and he won't be evil, he will just be morally wrong~

 

[ElliePorter]

Bad is when you think of siding with a corrupt mayor in the town because he taxes adventurer's earning in ridiculous amounts

Evil is when you become the mayor's bodyguard and enforcer then you partake in extorting the local townspeople for money and resources

Drawing the line is when you not only think about siding with the mayor but you also plan on becoming more corrupt than the previous one.