Evil Join Forces With Evil. Is That Even Possible?

[Willie the Duck]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then it might not be the best thing to do to make such broad proclamatory statements.

That's never stopped him before.

[mindstalk]

What's not so plausible, though I think you do find it in fiction, is Evil teaming up simply because they're Evil.

[KillianHawkeye]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"

[Jay R]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I don't understand why you're doubling the "intending" here.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes.

Villain Team Up.

Some of them are more successful than others.

[Reathin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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