Toilet thoughts: Pure evil

[BenJepheneT]

all im saying is that the villains we see as of late are psuedo deep anti-heroes with needlessly complex backstories and morality that's been plaguing modern stories. this isn't to the detriment of them not being written well either, it's just that they've been written BETTER in other stories with better dynamics and under more suitable themes.

what I mean is that everyone's too focused on making the new Two-Face and not focusing on the magic of the Joker. I'm not saying the joker isn't complex, but what I'm saying is that he doesn't need to be. he is an interesting opposition and the complete contrast of batman, the protagonist that brings the reader through his adventures. people have tried to make deep villains so much that they forgot what it means to be the villain in the first place. they are the foil to the hero, and vice versa.

soup and the broth; trees and the forest; you've heard them a hundred times already. I'm not telling you to simplify villains; I'm telling you to make them concise and watertight. concentrate their antics into one primary goal and only add details that spice up the flavour, and not just extra golden flakes of forgettable presentation.

 

[joeblow12]

When everyone is evil according to the established moral of the story, there is no 'pure' evil. We have a false division made by an author's bias. Just because good guys are bad ones does make a villain better. Because we don't know who is good and what is good, we only have villains. I stated before that because of the author's bias, this isn't as apparent. We literally look at two villains fight each other. One of them is a caricature, while the other is two-faced. Doesn't change the fact that both are evil, and the whole moral gets broken because of this. You might argue that one villain is worse than the other. But as you stated, you can't judge it. There are no standards for evil. Thus a pure villain either doesn't exist, or it's lazy writing.


It's irrelevant to the topic.



And why should I tell you anything? It was YOU who stated there are standards of evil. I haven't said a word about any standards.

Correct, you didn't say anything yet about standards. I was making a preemptive argument, against a expected counter argument, by pointing out that the typical nitpicks against Objective morality, have analogs about any abstract statement. Now usually, outside the debate room the same subjectivest's do think and believe in abstract ideas.

 

[SailusGebel]

Correct, you didn't say anything yet about standards. I was making a preemptive argument, against a expected counter argument, by pointing out that the typical nitpicks against Objective morality, have analogs about any abstract statement. Now usually, outside the debate room the same subjectivest's do think and believe in abstract ideas.

Look, I will try to reiterate what I meant in the beginning. If you don't describe why your villain is 'pure' evil, it's lazy writing. If you try and explain why your villain is 'pure' evil, there will be people who think your villain not only isn't 'pure' evil but isn't evil at all. It's as simple as that. That's why I'm saying this all this time. A pure villain either doesn't exist, or it's lazy writing. Pure evil might exist for some people, while for others it doesn't, and if we can't agree on this, how can we say it's objectively 'pure' evil? Subjectively, you can name it as pure evil or pure good, or whatever you want. But you can't make a 'pure' evil character, explain why he is 'pure' evil, and make him objectively 'pure' evil.

As for your example with mountains. Yes, we don't have standards. That's why if you go to "mountain A", you might as well call it "hill A" when you see it. Even though it's called "mountain A" on all maps. Same with villains. You say "villain A" is 'pure' evil, while I say "villain A" isn't evil at all. A matter of perspective.

 

[KiraMinoru]

Authors when talking about evil: Philosophical crap.

Readers when talking about evil: I don’t give a shit about your philosophy, I just want more chapters.

 

[greyblob]

evil and pure evil are two totally different species, you know ?

because, evil is still a human, that have a moral compass, but even so doing evil, maybe for a cause, a revenge, or a desire, right ?

but what about pure evil ? and while at it, their is also the absolute good, right ?

well. these type of absolute evil or good, in my opinion, are not human, because they don't have a moral compass at all. in their opinion, there is only what I will do, and what I will not do. so they don't judge evil or good as we do. instead, they judge only what they want, how they want, and when they want. and so, somtimes, an absolute good charachter may kill even babies, if the guy is obssesed with law, or in case he is obssesed with personal justice, he may even turn his blade toward a king, right ? when looking at this, it seem a little crazy, but logical, neverthless, right ? well, the same can be said for other types of crazy characters that follow only their desire.

a monster that only eat human, would naturly eat human. a manica that enjoy killing human, and does not have a conscious would also naturaly lill human. it's as simple as that. they are not normal, and so they can stay pure to their goal, and desire, not to a certain allignement.

after all, if a demon king were to rebel against an evil god, it still won't make him a good guy. and so is for the hero, if he were to rebel against the human king, it won't make him a bad guy, it will only make him a good criminal, nothing more nothing less.

so don't try to use reason on absolute character, that have lost their humanity ages ago, cause that will only end in failure.

evil and good are subjective to the person's view, yeah. but absolute good, and pure evil, are always crazy no matter the person's view.

I'd like to add to this.

Absolute evil and absolute good do not exist.

An example of absolute evil would be torturing children for the sole purpose of doing evil.

An example of doing good would be helping a stranger, and again, it is done for the sole purpose of doing good, not for religious or selfish/selfless purposes.

 

[Western42]

My opinion on the matter is that you can't make a pure evil character. I mean, you can. Just make them do horrible things with no good reason or they do it just because they want power. That, though, seen in kid movies/books and even a lot of manga and anime, is lazy writing. If you want to do an overpowered protagonist kind of thing then sure, make a villain like that who can be easily killed with no remorse. If you want to make a good villain, give them a good reason for what they do and make them have character and have flaws.

Flaws in a villain is suppose to be their own shortcomings in their plan that is caused by their own past. If you want your protagonist to be a evil character, don't use the stupid reason of "I'll do whatever I want" cause, it's stupid. Make them have a plan and good reason for what they are doing and make them have a mental struggle, a conflict of morals, in the beginning, but they have to push through. Make them never get over their conflict about morals but, as the story goes on, make them more willing to do worse and worse things. Make them afraid of losing and, even if they know what they are doing is wrong, make them show it with their actions. Make them have flaws that ties in with their past. That makes them a realistic character. That is my advice.

 

[longer]

After consuming more and more media, I honestly think that a villain doesn't necessarily need to have a complex motivation. I don't need a fucking psychological analysis about why some person's shitty life experience turned them evil and how it's relatable.

For instance, Johan from Monster is an excellent villain imo. Despite being deranged, inhuman, and unrelatable to anyone that doesn't belong in a psych ward, Johan's evil is incredibly unnerving and interesting to watch. More importantly, if you've interacted with real people there's a fair chance you'll meet horrible people that ruin the lives of others for stupidest reasons possible.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

The worst evil is a villian who is convinced he is doing the world good.

That's 98% of villains the author mat not mean it but a lot of villains come off as doing the world a service wether it's true or not, look at DrDoom, magneto, Darkseid, Madara, Nana, The night raid, Luke or Rei these are all essentially villains some paint themselves as heroes by the authors but if you look at them subjectively they are seen as psychopathic delusional idealists who think that they are doing the world a service.

 

[Mephi]

It's not a matter of "pure evil" or not. It's a question of character depth, background, and style. Even the most depraved psychopath has drives, reasons and motivations.

Interesting and creative are the important bits, and not just some faceless Dark Lord on their Dark Throne (in Mordor where the shadows lie) that you never see.

 

[K5Rakitan]

I'm worried about whether my brain has recovered enough from childbirth to go back to work. Those are my toilet thoughts.