PDA

View Full Version : Evil Join Forces With Evil. Is That Even Possible?



Bartmanhomer
2020-07-03, 12:54 PM
Is it possible that an evil character join forces with another evil character? For example, the Cleric of Lolth and Cleric of Erthyuul join forces to work together. :confused:

Chauncymancer
2020-07-03, 01:28 PM
In published materials evil factions frequently team up in the way you're proposing, but it's normally a fragile, unstable relationship that the players can exploit.

hamishspence
2020-07-03, 01:30 PM
Yes.

Villain Team Up (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainTeamUp).

Alcore
2020-07-03, 01:36 PM
Your example is mortal evil teaming up with mortal evil. They might be having a "good" day and, as long as things don't go south, can continue to have them indefinitely. It doesn't even have to be the plot that goes south; domestic troubles/stresses might bleed over into work.

Mr.Sandman
2020-07-03, 01:44 PM
As long as they are not 'slaughter every other living being' evil, sure why not as long as their goals align.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-03, 03:19 PM
Well, the Suicide Squad is one and the only evil team to work together successfully. And that the only one I can think of.

OldTrees1
2020-07-03, 03:46 PM
Yes.

It is trivial to imagine evil working with evil. Or good with evil. Or order with chaos. Or chaos with chaos. Or order with order. Or order with good. Or chaos with evil. Or ... (continues the complete list).

Just remember, people are people. When people have a common objective, even when their end goals differ, those people can join forces to achieve their common objective. People without a common objective, but without conflicting goals, can forge alliances where helping each other in order to be helped in return is the common objective.

In OOTS Elan's father is part of a group of evil individuals that joined forces.

Mastikator
2020-07-03, 03:57 PM
Mafias, violent gangs, tyrannical governments, evil corporations, slave drivers, pirates, etc all rely on evil people teaming up with other evil people to increase their success rate with exploiting *outsiders for their own gain.

*outsider is anyone who's not in the in-group of evil people.

dancrilis
2020-07-03, 05:10 PM
As long as they are not 'slaughter every other living being' evil, sure why not as long as their goals align.

The undead are people too - they can work together with your goal fine.


Yes.

It is trivial to imagine evil working with evil. Or good with evil. Or order with chaos. Or chaos with chaos. Or order with order. Or order with good. Or chaos with evil. Or ... (continues the complete list).

So good working with good is pretty far down the list (it is probably because both groups think they think they are right and that the other group should agree with them).

GrayDeath
2020-07-03, 05:11 PM
You could also ask "Can Nestle and Amazon work together"? ^^

So obviously, yes. Why wouldnt they? They jsut need to find something they both want. Now if they will be working together AFTER they achieved their goals.....well....


Also, please do something about your grammar and Your All Capitalized Questions.
Really, its not as if its that much effort. Or as if you hadnt been told by various people at various times....sigh...

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-03, 05:14 PM
Well, the Suicide Squad is one and the only evil team to work together successfully. And that the only one I can think of.

The Suicide Squad isn't a very good example, since they basically have no choice to work together or be killed.

Still, there are thousands of examples of villains working together. It often happens when there is a hero who is a common foe, such as Bat-Man or Spider-Man or The Flash. It's especially common for a group of villains to form to counter a team up of heroes, like the Justice League versus the Legion of Doom.

An example of a temporary alliance between bad guys are Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch in Avengers: Age of Ultron, who team up with Ultron because they share the goal of destroying Iron Man and the other Avengers. But when the twins discover Ultron is planning to betray them, they fight to stop him and ultimately switch sides and become Avengers themselves, realizing the error of their ways.

Or take the character of Cipher in The Matrix. He's willing to betray Morpheus and the others to Agent Smith because he hates living in the "real world". Their relationship works because they each have something the other wants: Cipher can deliver Morpheus to Smith (which allows him to attack the humans in Zion), and in return Smith can take Cipher back into the Matrix and make him forget his terrible life.

Of course, lots of times villains won't team up because their goals are not the same. When the Daleks and the Cybermen both crossed the void between realities to invade London at the end of the second season of the revived Doctor Who series, the Cybermen suggest an alliance with the Daleks. With their combined technologies, they would be unstoppable. However, the Daleks want to kill EVERYONE who isn't a Dalek, so they refuse the offer (and shoot the messengers).

So it really depends.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-03, 05:55 PM
You could also ask "Can Nestle and Amazon work together"? ^^

So obviously, yes. Why wouldnt they? They jsut need to find something they both want. Now if they will be working together AFTER they achieved their goals.....well....


Also, please do something about your grammar and Your All Capitalized Questions.
Really, its not as if its that much effort. Or as if you hadnt been told by various people at various times....sigh...
Sorry about that. Grammarly is on the fritz again.

mucat
2020-07-03, 07:15 PM
Why would it not be possible? In [big terrible war], didn't [evil genocidal political movement] cooperate with [different evil genocidal political movement]?

I mean, if (gods forfend) they had actually won, they probably would have eventually turned on each other, but for the duration of the war they were a huge combined threat.

King of Nowhere
2020-07-03, 07:51 PM
Well, the Suicide Squad is one and the only evil team to work together successfully. And that the only one I can think of.

that's the clichè of villains backstabbing each other. but this needs not be the case. in fact, this will not be the case if the villains are sane and smart.
see also xykon and redcloak; they have been teaming up for 30 years, despite conflicting goals.

Alcore
2020-07-03, 08:07 PM
Also, please do something about your grammar and Your All Capitalized Questions.
Really, its not as if its that much effort. Or as if you hadnt been told by various people at various times....sigh...
Actually

For a title it needs to be capitalized (I assume that is the problem as there are no other areas with this problem). "With" and "That" are the only ones that don't need it.

Its...
"The Lord of the Rings" not "The lord of the rings"


A title is typically nouned.

Alcore
2020-07-03, 08:11 PM
On that point;

The title is wordy. In fact the title and the first sentence don't both need to exist...

Quertus
2020-07-03, 08:27 PM
Yes. In fact, it's called <insert your least favorite political party here>.

"Evil", throughout history, has rarely been a declaration limited to just one individual; thus, most of humanity that recognize "evil" must inherently agree that of course all those evil beings in that evil entity most certainly are able to work together to be that evil organization.

Just look at Daleks as an evil group.

Cluedrew
2020-07-03, 09:27 PM
I'm going to weight in with yes. For it to be impossible the villains would have to be actively be evil towards everyone else and that is just not sustainable. Even in the most extreme example in this thread, Dr. Who's Daleks, that is an evil group with... I don't know how many members actually. But even though they want to EXTERMINATE everyone outside their group they aren't also trying to exterminate each other at the same time.

Kol Korran
2020-07-04, 12:45 AM
Well, the Suicide Squad is one and the only evil team to work together successfully. And that the only one I can think of.

Ahem...
- Xykon & Red Cloak (& Tsukiko)
- Tarquin's team
- Nale's various groups (Including that with Tarquin)
- Hel & the frost giants' deity (forgot his name)

It is in fact quite common. Many "evil" groups are composed of people who joined forces due to mutual benefit, even if other beliefs/ values/ agendas don't mash well together.

It's part of what makes them so interesting... (See the first duo I mentioned).

OttoVonBigby
2020-07-05, 10:32 AM
One critical weakness of evil is its selfishness, which eventually erodes the ability of multiple evil entities (even those united under a single banner) to cooperate. Tribalistic thinking is readily shifted from one out-group to another, and evil members are even more susceptible to opportunistic shifts in allegiance that their leaders/influencers initiate. Good collaborates much better, in part because of a tradition of honesty but maybe more significantly because of their willingness to be giving, to not prioritize themselves.

Which is why the smartest evil groups will (A) figure out ways to counter their members' inherent treacherousness, e.g. the mafia code of omerta and (B) figure out ways to undermine the unity of their opponent good groups, instilling whatever treachery and internal suspicions they can.

Vahnavoi
2020-07-05, 01:12 PM
There are three different Evil alignments. One of them, Lawful Evil, is specifically concerned with functioning as a group: the Law - Chaos-axis is about groups versus individuals. Lawful Evil maintains that their group deserves to rule over and exploit other, weaker groups, and nothing's more natural than Lawful Evil beings of the same group ganging up on others.

Neutral and Chaotic Evil are a bit different. Neutral Evil is primarily interested in fulfilling its own desire for suffering of others. Where co-operating with others works towards that end, they may join forces for a while. But they won't put up with extremes of either collectivism (Law) or individualism (Chaos) if those get in their way.

Chaotic Evil is straight might-makes-right on the individual level. They don't "join forces" - they use you, like a tool, for their own benefit, and violently resists any attempts by you to do the same to them.

To make this more concrete: there are three orcs, each of different Evil alignment. The Lawful Evil orc sees orcs as superior to humans, and is willing to team up with fellow orcs to raid a human settlement. The Neutral Evil orc has no loyalty towards the LE orc, but they want to see humans die in a fire, so they agree to work with the LE orc. The Chaotic Evil orc is only interested in being the biggest, baddest orc around; if he deems the humans to be a softer target than the other orcs, he may appear to work with the other two orcs, but might as well kill and loot the other two orcs if going after the humans seems like too much trouble.

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-05, 08:58 PM
Ahem...
- Xykon & Red Cloak (& Tsukiko)
- Tarquin's team
- Nale's various groups (Including that with Tarquin)
- Hel & the frost giants' deity (forgot his name)

It is in fact quite common. Many "evil" groups are composed of people who joined forces due to mutual benefit, even if other beliefs/ values/ agendas don't mash well together.

It's part of what makes them so interesting... (See the first duo I mentioned).Well excuse me if I was living under a rock but I never even heard of these characters before. (Well except Hel)

OldTrees1
2020-07-05, 10:58 PM
Well excuse me if I was living under a rock but I never even heard of these characters before. (Well except Hel)

Oh, you are in for a treat. The site that hosts this forum is also home to a wonderful webcomic. You have over 1000 pages of quality reading.

False God
2020-07-05, 11:41 PM
Sure. Bad-guys often has team-ups when their goals align or their enemies are the same.

Willie the Duck
2020-07-06, 08:53 AM
Well excuse me if I was living under a rock but I never even heard of these characters before. (Well except Hel)
Bartmanhomer, you specifically declared that this one thing you were aware of was the only thing the fit a category, not knowing about these other things is specifically a reason to find fault in your declaration.

For reference:

Well, the Suicide Squad is one and the only evil team to work together successfully. And that the only one I can think of.


Actually

For a title it needs to be capitalized (I assume that is the problem as there are no other areas with this problem). "With" and "That" are the only ones that don't need it.

Its...
"The Lord of the Rings" not "The lord of the rings"


A title is typically nouned.

My google fu is failing right now (and my copy of Strunk and White is from the 80s), but I am not finding a writing guide which suggests that forum thread Titles do or do not fall into the category of things to which these rules apply. Do you have a reference on that?

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-06, 09:08 AM
Bartmanhomer, you specifically declared that this one thing you were aware of was the only thing the fit a category, not knowing about these other things is specifically a reason to find fault in your declaration.

For reference:




My google-fu is failing right now (and my copy of Strunk and White is from the 80s), but I am not finding a writing guide which suggests that forum thread Titles do or do not fall into the category of things to which these rules apply. Do you have a reference for that?

Well, I don't know everything about pop culture. There are some characters that I never even heard of. :annoyed:

Starlit Dragon
2020-07-06, 10:43 AM
Assuming this is not a joke, how did you find this forum without finding the webcomic either?

Bartmanhomer
2020-07-06, 10:49 AM
Assuming this is not a joke, how did you find this forum without finding the webcomic either?

Someone at another forum told me about this forum. I've been around since December of 2015.

Alcore
2020-07-06, 11:04 AM
My google fu is failing right now (and my copy of Strunk and White is from the 80s), but I am not finding a writing guide which suggests that forum thread Titles do or do not fall into the category of things to which these rules apply. Do you have a reference on that?

Title; (via google)
Noun 1 = the name of a book, composition, or other artistic work.
(Or as my teacher, long ago, said; of a person place or thing)

Noun 2 = a name that describes someone's position or job.

Granted; they don't quite qualify

Verb 1; give a name to (a book, composition, or other work).

This qualifies in that it implies that "other works" are given names.

-----

A forum thread is a thing. It's name is the title of the tread. I do not know guide you seek but to me it is an elementary thing to know and do. Which is not to say that people who do not are uneducated but that they simply forgot. I know i would struggle now to take a sentence apart like i was taught but i (and likely all of you) was taught to do this.

Much like algebra

Alcore
2020-07-06, 11:12 AM
Assuming this is not a joke, how did you find this forum without finding the webcomic either?

Fun fact;


From my mobile device it is almost impossible to move from the forum to the comic without leaving the site entirely. Without knowing the device in front of him we have no way of knowing what he sees. Granted the easiest way is the... reaction threads... do they have a link in them? I don't remember...

Willie the Duck
2020-07-06, 01:36 PM
Well, I don't know everything about pop culture. There are some characters that I never even heard of. :annoyed:
Then it might not be the best thing to do to make such broad proclamatory statements.


Title; (via google)
Noun 1 = the name of a book, composition, or other artistic work.
(Or as my teacher, long ago, said; of a person place or thing)

Noun 2 = a name that describes someone's position or job.

Granted; they don't quite qualify

Verb 1; give a name to (a book, composition, or other work).

This qualifies in that it implies that "other works" are given names.

-----

A forum thread is a thing. It's name is the title of the tread. I do not know guide you seek but to me it is an elementary thing to know and do. Which is not to say that people who do not are uneducated but that they simply forgot. I know i would struggle now to take a sentence apart like i was taught but i (and likely all of you) was taught to do this.

Much like algebra

Algebra might not be the best analogy, set theory might be more appropriate. I was also taught that the names of books, poems, albums, and other published works were to be capitalized. I am not clear that it is a universalizable concept that qualifies to anything that fits the definition of title. That is a set of which the published works is a subset. That is why I am asking if you know of any guidance which rules one way or the other.

GrayDeath
2020-07-06, 03:34 PM
The Threads Title Reads:

Evil Join Forces With Evil. Is That Even Possible?

Following the regular rules for writing Titles it should Read:

Evil join(ing) Forces with Evil. Is that even possible?

(slight grammar correction). So no, unlike The Lord of the Rings, this is neither nouned as title as a whole (like for example many books are, which this is not^^), nor when it uses verbs or other non nouns, nor does it make it easier to understand (Bartmanhomner, your Grammarly seems "on the fritz" a lot. Let me suggest just not using it and spending more than 2 minutes at making the post? That way you will learn better grammar AND not be reliant on a buggy bit of software. :) it might also help to actually CORRECT the mistakes pointed out by myself and others, as one cannot prevent making the same mistakes again if one does not know which were made. And no, this is not sarcasm, I am trying to help. :) ).


Sorry, but I cant always restrain my grammar Nazi side.

I`ll go and have a dram of Lagavulin 16 now, that usually helps. ^^

tomandtish
2020-07-07, 03:19 AM
Let’s see... evil teaming up with evil

Comics:
Legion of Doom
Sinister Six
Brotherhood of Evil Mutants
Hellfire Club
League of Assassins

Movies:
The Sith (Master and Apprentice)
Zod, Ursa, Non (Superman 2, and their Man of Steel equivalents)
All the villains working with/for Thanos in the MCU

TV:
System Lords from SG-1
Wilson Fisk and other crime lords from Netflix Marvel shows
Baltar and the Cylons from original BSG

Evil is almost always willing to work with other evil. It’s just also more willing to stab its partner in the back once done. And even that isn’t guaranteed. I don’t know where it ended up, but Rich did a nice article about two good friends who were both evil alignment.

Alcore
2020-07-07, 02:16 PM
I don’t know where it ended up, but Rich did a nice article about two good friends who were both evil alignment.

I think it was in a gaming article. (currently diving into the Giant's Quotes thread but no such luck)



to paraphrase;

The Giant once ran a game with two evil guys working together. The PCs could not (or would not) understand that those two were genuine friends and sought to tear them apart with mind games, blackmail and general paranoia (valid usable approaches against a cardboard cutout evil guy). It failed spectacularly. The PCs could not understand that evil was more than evil and (to my understanding) walked into a trap of their own making against two bosses at once.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-07, 03:10 PM
Then it might not be the best thing to do to make such broad proclamatory statements.

That's never stopped him before. :smallamused:

mindstalk
2020-07-07, 08:45 PM
What's not so plausible, though I think you do find it in fiction, is Evil teaming up simply because they're Evil.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-07, 10:11 PM
What's not so plausible, though I think you do find it in fiction, is Evil teaming up simply because they're Evil.

I think this is mainly because Evil as a cause in and of itself is not a realistic idea, and mainly exists in works of fiction like D&D or other fantasy literature in which Good and Evil exist as some sort of monolithic, opposing cosmic forces.

In the real world, people don't identify as "evil for Evil's sake" and then say "hey, I'm Evil, you're Evil, let's be Evil together." But there IS a concept of the common good, even though people disagree on what that is much more often in the real world than in fiction. But if you live in a world where "Evil is as evil does", it actually might make sense for villains to occasionally band together under those terms.

OldTrees1
2020-07-07, 10:30 PM
In the real world, people don't identify as "evil for Evil's sake" and then say "hey, I'm Evil, you're Evil, let's be Evil together." But there IS a concept of the common good, even though people disagree on what that is much more often in the real world than in fiction. But if you live in a world where "Evil is as evil does", it actually might make sense for villains to occasionally band together under those terms.

Evil people might unite over a misguided sense of the common good.

Then again, most that unite over a sense of the common good only do so over a misguided sense of the common good.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-08, 02:13 AM
Evil people might unite over a misguided sense of the common good.

But then, in the real world, what is good and evil is very subjective. Can we really say that anyone is truly evil if they're simply (from our own viewpoint) misguided? IMO, real evil requires malicious intent, not merely an attempt to do good which your or I might disagree with.

OldTrees1
2020-07-08, 07:55 AM
But then, in the real world, what is good and evil is very subjective. Can we really say that anyone is truly evil if they're simply (from our own viewpoint) misguided? IMO, real evil requires malicious intent, not merely an attempt to do good which your or I might disagree with.

I am not sure good and evil is subjective IRL. People's beliefs about morality are subjective, but that is the differences between beliefs and truth. If there is a moral truth, I would expect it to be objective (and unknown) rather than subjective.

Hmm. Once I start talking more in depth about morality I often completely drop judgements of people and only find judgements of events (packages of intentions, actions,&/or consequences).

What do you mean by malicious intent? I assume you don't mean some form of "I want to do X because it is evil". Do you mean their intended outcome is immoral despite their belief it is moral?

Person A believes that <moral action> that they believe is moral will lead to <immoral outcome> that they believe is moral. Actual consequences could be moral or immoral.
Person B believes that <immoral action> that they believe is moral will lead to <moral outcome> that they believe is moral. Actual consequences could be moral or immoral.
Did either A or B have malicious intent?

Willie the Duck
2020-07-08, 08:27 AM
I think this is mainly because Evil as a cause in and of itself is not a realistic idea, and mainly exists in works of fiction like D&D or other fantasy literature in which Good and Evil exist as some sort of monolithic, opposing cosmic forces.

In the real world, people don't identify as "evil for Evil's sake" and then say "hey, I'm Evil, you're Evil, let's be Evil together." But there IS a concept of the common good, even though people disagree on what that is much more often in the real world than in fiction. But if you live in a world where "Evil is as evil does", it actually might make sense for villains to occasionally band together under those terms.

Two "good guys" probably would have a large overlap in what they consider worthwhile endeavors (and thus potential for team ups), while "bad guys" would only team up if their individual motivations randomly happen to overlap (with "defeat this good guy who keeps thwarting my plans" being a nonrandom example of goals they likely have in common).

It is funny (when it doesn't feel like an overused trope) to have mustachio-twirling evil guy summon some Great Elder Evil (assuming they would work together or the like) only to have the GEE either devour them or look at them like "who are you, and why would I be working with you?":smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2020-07-08, 08:29 AM
Folks, this is not a theoretical question. It's a real-world question, so look at the evidence.

Gangs.
Organized crime.
Raiders.
Pirate crews.
Corrupt organizations.
Invading armies.
Tyrannies.

The largest evils in the world are done by large groups of people who have joined forces, just as the greatest good in in the world is done by large groups of people who have joined forces.

LordCdrMilitant
2020-07-08, 09:15 AM
Is it possible that an evil character join forces with another evil character? For example, the Cleric of Lolth and Cleric of Erthyuul join forces to work together. :confused:

Yeah.

Germany, Italy, and Japan teamed up and were stable as an alliance. IRL, "bad guys" team up all the time at about the same rate good guys team up.

kyoryu
2020-07-08, 12:52 PM
People/groups will ally when they have something to gain, and break those alliances when they don't.

Whether they're "evil" or "good" is secondary.

So, figure out the goals of your organizations, and then let them make the alliances that make sense. Alternately, decide who you want to ally and then give them compatible goals.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-08, 04:35 PM
What do you mean by malicious intent? I assume you don't mean some form of "I want to do X because it is evil". Do you mean their intended outcome is immoral despite their belief it is moral?

Malicious intent means exactly what it says. That a person does something with the intent of being mean, hurtful, destructive, et al. That when you hurt another person, it wasn't an accident but a purposeful choice on your part. A few examples:

A soldier who kills because he is in a war is (probably) not being malicious. A murderer who kills someone because he hates them does have malicious intent.

A thief who robs from the rich and gives to the poor is not being malicious. A thief who steals out of desperation in order to survive is also not. But a thief who steals out of greed and knowingly targets those who are vulnerable or cannot afford the loss does have malicious intent.


I suppose people could argue whether or not someone who is apathetic about the consequences of their actions should be considered malicious, but I don't have time to get too deep into the philosophical questions right now.

OldTrees1
2020-07-08, 05:46 PM
Malicious intent means exactly what it says. That a person does something with the intent of being mean, hurtful, destructive, et al. That when you hurt another person, it wasn't an accident but a purposeful choice on your part. A few examples:

A soldier who kills because he is in a war is (probably) not being malicious. A murderer who kills someone because he hates them does have malicious intent.

A thief who robs from the rich and gives to the poor is not being malicious. A thief who steals out of desperation in order to survive is also not. But a thief who steals out of greed and knowingly targets those who are vulnerable or cannot afford the loss does have malicious intent.


I suppose people could argue whether or not someone who is apathetic about the consequences of their actions should be considered malicious, but I don't have time to get too deep into the philosophical questions right now.

So "malicious intent" is "intending to intend to do harm"? That is awfully restrictive.


But then, in the real world, what is good and evil is very subjective. Can we really say that anyone is truly evil if they're simply (from our own viewpoint) misguided? IMO, real evil requires malicious intent, not merely an attempt to do good which your or I might disagree with.

But to bring it back to your initial reply. People that "intend to intend to do harm" in some aspect of life can also unite over a misguided sense of the common good in another aspect of life.

Not to mention "intending to intend to do harm" can be a form of misguided sense of the common good. Especially since I would say either "intending to intend to do harm" is misguided or there are a lot of people that are misguided in their aversion to harm.

KillianHawkeye
2020-07-09, 01:18 AM
I don't understand why you're doubling the "intending" here. :smallconfused:

You can't "intend to intend" something. You either intend it or you don't.




But to bring it back to your initial reply. People that "intend to intend to do harm" in some aspect of life can also unite over a misguided sense of the common good in another aspect of life.


No, my point was that if you believed someone was acting out of a misguided sense of right and wrong, you also don't recognize any malicious intent from them. Maybe you're right about that, maybe you aren't, but if you think someone is acting maliciously then you obviously don't believe they think they're acting for the common good, because the two are mutually exclusive.

At least, that's from my own personal definition of good and evil: good requires to try to do no harm, evil is to intentionally do harm.

Although you're right that bad people can unite over some aspect of common good that's unrelated to the parts of their lives wherein they do bad things. Not sure why you mentioned that, as my original position in this thread was that evil people can work together if their motivations align. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

OldTrees1
2020-07-09, 02:51 AM
Although you're right that bad people can unite over some aspect of common good that's unrelated to the parts of their lives wherein they do bad things. Not sure why you mentioned that, as my original position in this thread was that evil people can work together if their motivations align. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

Someone mentioned good could unite over their beliefs (misguided or not) in the common good.
I agreed and added that evil could do that over misguided beliefs too.
Then you posted a reply seeming to dispute that by taking issue with evil having misguided beliefs.
Now that misunderstanding is cleared up.

PS: Just in case it matters, I never referenced person A judging person B to have a misguided belief. I said something like if person B had a misguided belief. I try to stay in objective space rather than subjective space. If that caused confusion, I am sorry.

Altheus
2020-07-09, 03:11 AM
But then, in the real world, what is good and evil is very subjective. Can we really say that anyone is truly evil if they're simply (from our own viewpoint) misguided? IMO, real evil requires malicious intent, not merely an attempt to do good which your or I might disagree with.

Misguided attempts to do good are worse than evil. Evil knows that it is evil but can probably be sated at some point, someone doing bad things in the name of doing good will keep on doing them with verve and fervor, certain they are doing a good deed.

GrayDeath
2020-07-09, 11:56 AM
How did the proverb go?


Fear the Man who thinks himself absolutely right, for the Greates Evil possible is not commited by a Devil, or a Demon. It is commited by a Saint!.

kyoryu
2020-07-09, 03:44 PM
Misguided attempts to do good are worse than evil. Evil knows that it is evil but can probably be sated at some point, someone doing bad things in the name of doing good will keep on doing them with verve and fervor, certain they are doing a good deed.

Sounds like a rephrase of:


“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

SpyOne
2020-07-12, 07:02 AM
Why would it not be possible? In [big terrible war], didn't [evil genocidal political movement] cooperate with [different evil genocidal political movement]?

I mean, if (gods forfend) they had actually won, they probably would have eventually turned on each other, but for the duration of the war they were a huge combined threat.

This.
Further, they both knew it would end in betrayal, but each expected to grow in power due to the alliance.
Basically each knew that history would show one of them to have been a fool, and each felt that would be the other guy.

Azuresun
2020-07-13, 07:16 AM
Yes.

Villain Team Up (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainTeamUp).

Some of them are more successful than others.

https://i.imgur.com/OKewcAG.jpg

Reathin
2020-07-15, 11:19 AM
Easily! Evil comes in many forms, after all. Even violent, raging monsters sometimes find good reason to team up. But assuming you're using humanoid characters, it's even easier. A cunning mastermind comes up with something that needs help, and understands appealing to the needs and desires of others. If they, like many realistic evil characters, think of themselves as "doing what needs to be done", it's often not all that difficult to convince others to come along. Villains can form friendships too. Few of them are all-evil-all-the-time. The vast majority do normal things as well.

I think part of the reason that it isn't obvious is that RPG Evil is treated as a monolith (or a small group of types). That's not really how it goes for the most part. Some people might unflinchingly commit theft but turn their nose up at assault. That doesn't have to be "I have standards", it could easily be genuine distaste for the act itself. A xenophobe who thinks that the only good Orc is a dead one might be the most generous, kindly soul to everyone else and have no trouble reconciling that. Instead of thinking it like "they are evil, therefore they will do XYZ in this situation", think of it as more "they have moral weakness, and those aren't always broad". Because of that, as long as you don't hit their moral "land minds", you can often get them working together as long as things keep lined up.

kyoryu
2020-07-15, 12:18 PM
I think part of the reason that it isn't obvious is that RPG Evil is treated as a monolith (or a small group of types). That's not really how it goes for the most part. Some people might unflinchingly commit theft but turn their nose up at assault. That doesn't have to be "I have standards", it could easily be genuine distaste for the act itself. A xenophobe who thinks that the only good Orc is a dead one might be the most generous, kindly soul to everyone else and have no trouble reconciling that. Instead of thinking it like "they are evil, therefore they will do XYZ in this situation", think of it as more "they have moral weakness, and those aren't always broad". Because of that, as long as you don't hit their moral "land minds", you can often get them working together as long as things keep lined up.

I think it's best to think of factions. A faction might be "evil", but that's secondary to the goals of the faction.

And even factions are not monolithic, but have individuals with their own goals within the greater organization.

Factions will align with factions if their interests align enough that it is mutually beneficial.

Reathin
2020-07-15, 02:38 PM
I think it's best to think of factions. A faction might be "evil", but that's secondary to the goals of the faction.

And even factions are not monolithic, but have individuals with their own goals within the greater organization.

Factions will align with factions if their interests align enough that it is mutually beneficial.


This is also true, and a level above what I was referring to. Still applicable. I just mean that an individual might be evil if their average solution to issues trends that way (or if they have narrow bands of action that are truly heinous), but that doesn't necessarily (or frequently) mean that all their actions will be impacted by their alignment. It's much easier to have "Keith, the man who justifies murder a bit too easily where thieves are involved" and take him seriously, as opposed to "Grimeye Soulflayer, who enjoys long walks on the beach with shoes made of living baby seals, pens all his letters in the blood of orphans who he personally MADE orphans, and binds the souls of basically everyone he meets into his DOOM FORTRESS in the Negative Energy's Plane's sub-basement, forcing them to sing K-pop at all hours of the Perpetual Night."

And because Keiths are more common than Grimeyes, cooperation between evil forces is hardly unusual.

mindstalk
2020-07-16, 12:11 AM
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;

OTOH a pure robber baron may have no restraint. Get an offer to turn children into pet food? No scruples. The busybody may have some things they won't do, some channels for appeal.

And robber barons are kind of middling evil. How about slave societies? Lots of pretty brutal examples there, including rape and ritual murder.

Lord Raziere
2020-07-16, 12:32 AM
OTOH a pure robber baron may have no restraint. Get an offer to turn children into pet food? No scruples. The busybody may have some things they won't do, some channels for appeal.

And robber barons are kind of middling evil. How about slave societies? Lots of pretty brutal examples there, including rape and ritual murder.

True, but at that point, your just criticizing the quote for not being an essay. when the entire point is that its short and doesn't cover everything.

AdAstra
2020-07-16, 04:05 AM
True, but at that point, your just criticizing the quote for not being an essay. when the entire point is that its short and doesn't cover everything.

I would say that a greater flaw is the idea that the moral busybody will never be satisfied. There are plenty of moral crusaders who basically only care about one thing to the exclusion of all else (which is itself often a problem, but an entirely separate one from what Lewis outlines). Once they get that thing, many will fade into the woodwork, at most continuing to annoy other people. Just as many people will find a new cause to latch onto, a new enemy to fight, but far from everyone. Heck, they might even find a better and less tyrannical cause than the one they initially pushed.

In the case of the theoretical moral tyrant, there are plenty of cases of just or at least competent leaders having that ONE thing that they can’t let go. After all, outside his irrational crusade against Spiderman, J. Jonah Jameson is usually a very well respected businessman, whose paper is a hard-hitting piece that cares about the facts, the good of the people, and journalistic integrity.

GloatingSwine
2020-07-16, 08:46 AM
Is it possible that an evil character join forces with another evil character? For example, the Cleric of Lolth and Cleric of Erthyuul join forces to work together. :confused:

Yes, but they should always be looking to get more out of the partnership than the other.

kyoryu
2020-07-16, 12:51 PM
I would say that a greater flaw is the idea that the moral busybody will never be satisfied. There are plenty of moral crusaders who basically only care about one thing to the exclusion of all else

Practically speaking, they seem to move goalposts more than anything else. Sure, there are some of whatever "moral busybody" group that will say "cool, mission accomplished" and move on.

But in many real world examples, there's plenty of others who seem to need that foe, and so move the goalposts to still have something to fight against.

IOW, for some people, the point of being in such an organization, or of having such a goal is to fix the problem.. And once the problem is fixed, they're done. But for many others, the goal is to have an enemy and prove that they're good by fighting that enemy. The second group can never be satisfied, because fixing the problem isn't their actual goal anyway, and they'll even refute practical tactics that can help solve the Actual Problem if doing so requires treating people that may be in some way responsible for the problem in a way beyond full vilification.

A number of activist organizations have gone down this path, to the point where even their founders have separated from them and effectively renounced them.

And that's not even getting to the number of issues that likely cannot ever be completely fixed, only be reduced in frequency/severity. We will never get rid of crime, for instance, and if that's your issue, then all you can do is impose more and more draconian controls in an attempt to reduce the rates ever more incrementally.

Lord Raziere
2020-07-16, 01:06 PM
Ah but really, that quote is talking the people that look out upon all the world see all the problems with it, and thus see the horribleness of humanity, thinking upon it they compare it to their own hypothetical self and declare that they are smarter, better and wiser, putting themselves on a pedestal. They build that self-pedestal up over time so they isolate their mindset and think themselves more right than all others, and that everyone else simply does not see what they see, that only they are the ones capable of fixing the problem, of knowing what it is and that any who oppose or say differently are enemies, building up a hero narrative in their mind that that the world is the enemy and only they can save it from itself, and thus work constantly to prove they are the better and others lesser, and that all should listen to the better, but suffering in general is not a foe that can be fought and thus they fight an endless battle they cannot win, only causing more suffering in the process. they will be satisfied, because they see too much suffering and desire to be rid of it no matter the cost- but suffering is abstract, and you cannot truly be rid of abstract ideas.

AdAstra
2020-07-16, 05:46 PM
Ah but really, that quote is talking the people that look out upon all the world see all the problems with it, and thus see the horribleness of humanity, thinking upon it they compare it to their own hypothetical self and declare that they are smarter, better and wiser, putting themselves on a pedestal. They build that self-pedestal up over time so they isolate their mindset and think themselves more right than all others, and that everyone else simply does not see what they see, that only they are the ones capable of fixing the problem, of knowing what it is and that any who oppose or say differently are enemies, building up a hero narrative in their mind that that the world is the enemy and only they can save it from itself, and thus work constantly to prove they are the better and others lesser, and that all should listen to the better, but suffering in general is not a foe that can be fought and thus they fight an endless battle they cannot win, only causing more suffering in the process. they will be satisfied, because they see too much suffering and desire to be rid of it no matter the cost- but suffering is abstract, and you cannot truly be rid of abstract ideas.

I get that, but it kinda feels like connecting together two ideas that, while frequently coming in a pair, are not inextricably linked. People with delusions of grandeur who see the world in a "me vs. bad things" way are not necessarily interested in reducing suffering, even from their own perspective, and not all people who fight against suffering are unaware of the impossibility of eliminating it completely. And of course, not every narcissistic jerk with an overinflated sense of self-righteousness becomes an eternal threat. Plenty of them get into a position of power, change a few things, then think "that's it, the world's definitely fixed" and sit back, fully satisfied in their completely meaningless action. If anything, what makes those people mad is people pointing out that what they did didn't magically erase problems, because of course it fixed all the problems and things are totally great now.

Plenty of self-absorbed holier-than-thou people straight up love evil and evil actions, not only taking pride in their wickedness but actively condescending to people to try to do good, on the very basis that it's just not in human nature or some other stupid reason. "Violence is the way of the world, I embrace that and revel in it, and that makes me right and strong". Then there are people who don't necessarily try to be evil, but do think of every do-gooder as a deluded zealot. It's just a different way of being above it all, another type of "enlightened" monster.

At the same time, plenty of people who constantly, genuinely try to do good, fight evil, whatever, are well aware that it's not a fight you can win forever, just one where you can eke out some victories in the moment. And plenty of such people do real good, prevent real suffering. The nihilist hero is a real thing, and failing to eliminate suffering in the abstract doesn't prevent eliminating a specific source of suffering.