Facts that inspire your story

[Dalton]

There is good and evil, just nothing is purely good or purely evil.

Here we have a disagreement. Good and evil are not existing things, but terms humans have to define. Everyone defines it for him/herself. Therefore you can't generally state that something is evil. It is evil for YOU.
The examples you used match with my definition of course (as they should with most people), but that doesn't mean that they truly ARE evil or good. Even today there are people that think Hitler did the right thing (and I think they are morons by the way). Those guys have another definition of evil.

With age comes experience (or should come).

It should but it's no guarantee so it would be more accurate to say people can only see the shades of gray with experience instead of age.

In this point I have to agree with you. I guess we have an agreement here

[JQuartz]

Therefore you can't generally state that something is evil. It is evil for YOU.

Hmm...I guess it depends on how you define evil. I define evil as a person or acts that intentionally causes more harm than good overall since this way we'll be able to classify good and evil for everyone not just for oneself. I feel this definition is more useful and more objective since how the person or action had affected you would not change the classification of the person/action. So according to this definition, even if a person who kills regular people(not criminals) you have a grudge against will still have to be classified as evil by you who he helped.

Those guys have another definition of evil.

It not really another definition. It's just a matter of perspective. How do you classify a person who killed thousands of people who you think deserves death and provided you with a good life(if he had won the war)? The person is helping you to achieve your goals so if you use the regular definition of good and evil, so you would classify that person as good. This is one of the reasons I prefer my own definition of good and evil since it's more objective.

[Dalton]

You are right in your way, as I am right in my way...
You just stated that you are using your own definition of good and evil. So you are actually agreeing with me, that people use their own definition of evil.
On the other hand I must agree with you that there are people and things noone in his right mind could not see as evil.

I guess we got off topic here a bit, since this was originally about facts that inspire storys. I therefore suggest we agree, that evil is a matter of definition, but that there are things, that objectively can be classified as evil, since they are going against all morals.
Right?

[JQuartz]

So you are actually agreeing with me, that people use their own definition of evil.

But I think it is the rule rather than the exception, that people use the same definition of evil which is "a person or action that will harm me or the people I care about"(for good it's "a person or action that will help me or the people I care about"). Only a few person I know uses a different definition. So I guess I can't really be considered to be agreeing that people use their own definition of evil.

I guess we got off topic here a bit, since this was originally about facts that inspire storys.

Talks like this do inspire me to write a story. Just inspire, it won't make me complete the story though...

but that there are things, that objectively can be classified as evil, since they are going against all morals.

I don't know...I can't really think of such things. Even a murderer might be considered good by a person who thinks the person murdered deserves to die.

[LVUER]

"Kill one person you are a murderer, kill ten person you are a wanted serial killer, kill one thousand and you are a hero." Yeah, really, this is really OOT. What I want to stress is just that in product for kids (anime/manga/VN/whatever), sometimes pure evil or pure good is necessary. That doesn't mean it also apply to real world, so who cares about good or evil in our "real" world? (at least not me, let those politicians decides who good or evils)

I think I remembered one anime where one character says "there is no "real" good person. Even the most good person is wearing a facade on his face. Although he didn't ask anything in return for his kindness, his kindness is not that pure at all..." (or something like that)... Yeah, that's right. Not only this rule (about pure evil) apply to the bad ones, but also to the good ones...

[Jake]

Therefore you can't generally state that something is evil. It is evil for YOU.

Hmm...I guess it depends on how you define evil. I define evil as a person or acts that intentionally causes more harm than good overall since this way we'll be able to classify good and evil for everyone not just for oneself.

Yes, I suppose if we all shared exactly the same precise definitions of 'harm' and 'good', then we might then all be able to share the same precise definition of 'evil' as well.

Unfortunately this isn't the case, you're still talking about a very subjective, personal definition.

[JQuartz]

I think I remembered one anime where one character says "there is no "real" good person.

This reminds me of something I read in Code:Breakers where the hero was asked the question,

Code: Select all

heroine "Do you kill evil people because you want to become the hero of justice?"
hero "Once you kill, no matter how evil the person you kill is, you can no longer become a hero of justice."

Or something like that.

Unfortunately this isn't the case, you're still talking about a very subjective, personal definition.

Yeah. I guess so. I heard before some people said that it good if all Christians are exterminated which I don't think is good at all. I guess what is good and harmful is still too subjective...

[Dalton]

Getting this back to fictional work:
I have a character in one of my storys who you could consider a bad guy.
His way of thinking is very simple: He believes, that he is good and that there are many evil people in this world. So he decided that if he killed the evil people, there would not be evil anymore.

This is an example of how the definition of good and evil can actually twist a character: If there was a fixed definition he wouldn't fight against the "good guys", since they are good. But he fights them, because he thinks they are evil, becoming a murderer in the process.
What I actually want with this character is to get people thinking about his simple thoughts. At first glance it seems logical, that if there were no evil people we would have no evil in this world.
But than you would have to define where good ends and evil begins. Is someone who is selfish evil? Should we get rid of him?
Is there an end to people you would have to get rid of? Won't you turn into someone evil yourself by killing everyone? Even if it is in the name of goodness?

Good and evil is a very philosophical question...

[JQuartz]

I have a character in one of my storys who you could consider a bad guy.
His way of thinking is very simple: He believes, that he is good and that there are many evil people in this world. So he decided that if he killed the evil people, there would not be evil anymore.

I got a similar story but he's the good guy. He's a vigilante that kills people that would intentionally kill, rape or injure other people. They do not necessarily need to be evil people. He wouldn't kill a person considered evil if that person does not intentionally kill, rape or injure other people much to the horror of the heroine. He kills to protect, not to avenge, which is something the heroine cannot understand since her parents had been killed when she was young and she aims to avenge her parent's death.

Is someone who is selfish evil? Should we get rid of him?

The hero of my story wouldn't kill a selfish person, though there are times he might teach them a lesson(doesn't involve death). So my reply of to your question, in the words of the hero :

Code: Select all

hero "I do not care whether they are evil or not. The only thing that matters is, will they kill another person intentionally."

Is there an end to people you would have to get rid of? Won't you turn into someone evil yourself by killing everyone? Even if it is in the name of goodness?

The hero was also asked these question so I'll just quote his words:

Code: Select all

law_abiding_citizen "Is there an end to people you would have to get rid of?"
hero "No. It is impossible to get rid of all evil men but I only aim to reduce the total amount of suffering inflicted on others."
law_abiding_citizen " Won't you turn into someone evil yourself by killing them? Even if it is in the name of goodness?"
hero "Yes. But I would be more than willing to become Satan himself if I can reduce the suffering experienced by the people in the world."
 

Yup, this is from one of my stories that will never be completed.

[ficedula]

He's a vigilante that kills people that would intentionally kill, rape or injure other people.

Presumably he commits suicide at the end of the story?

[JQuartz]

Presumably he commits suicide at the end of the story?

No, he wouldn't kill another person that kills a person that fits his criteria. So if it was a chain of murders like so:

Code: Select all

A--kills-->B-->C-->D

he would kill only C(he can't kill him though since he's dead) and A (provided none of them killed anyone else). So since he only kills those that kill another person that he would not kill so he would be in B's position and not be killed(by himself).

[ficedula]

Very recursive. So when he sees a person killing someone, before he decides whether to take action he requests a complete police file on the dead guy to see whether or not they deserved DEATH! themselves?

Anyway! Back on something vaguely approximating on-topic (interesting thought: whether something is on-topic or not is a subjective question ... no! bad Fice!)

His way of thinking is very simple: He believes, that he is good and that there are many evil people in this world. So he decided that if he killed the evil people, there would not be evil anymore.

Funnily enough I was watching Gundam 00 the other day (a series I firmly believe has a truly awesome concept and story which was then kneecapped by a production team intent on making Generic Mecha Series #638) and that's pretty much the concept there. Of all the many, many factions that end up having a right old shindig, there's only one you could describe as truly evil, and that's the traditional Insane Nutter Antagonist. The 'evil empire' has many minions who firmly believe uniting everyone into a single nation is in humanities best interests, the protagonists are ostensibly against anyone starting a war regardless of whether it was justified retaliation or not (their preferred method for dealing with armed conflicts is shooting anyone who has a weapon regardless of who they are, which is one reason I prefer them to the normal wishy-washy protagonists we usually get), the third faction who gets involved claim to have the same objectives as the protagonists, except we're better at that than you are, so you need to be stopped, etc, etc.

I really quite enjoyed it, mainly because everybody who got involved was guilty of being horribly biased and imperfect, which seemed sort of realistic to me compared to the normal mecha whitewash.

[JQuartz]

So when he sees a person killing someone, before he decides whether to take action he requests a complete police file on the dead guy to see whether or not they deserved DEATH! themselves?

It's just a story so you can't really apply it in real life. In the story, he got some special ability to see who killed who. It's this ability that allowed him to be a vigilante without worrying he might kill an innocent man.

I really quite enjoyed it, mainly because everybody who got involved was guilty of being horribly biased and imperfect, which seemed sort of realistic to me compared to the normal mecha whitewash.

I always felt gundam isn't about mechas. It more about wars and the motives, etc. I think that if the mechas are replaced with tanks, the story would still be the same.

The 'evil empire' has many minions who firmly believe uniting everyone into a single nation is in humanities best interests,

I often find these 'evil empire' that does what is best for everyone's interest have good intention and motives but the wrong method. If all they wanted was a united nation, wouldn't it be better to send some delegates over and negotiate for it? A lot of countries used to be a group of different countries but since the merge is sensible, all of them agreed. Using war to merge is no different than stealing money to support your parents when you could earn money through hard work as well. The aim is good but the method is wrong. It makes me feel they just don't want to put the effort and work hard/make some sacrifice for their goals.

[Dalton]

I often find these 'evil empire' that does what is best for everyone's interest have good intention and motives but the wrong method. If all they wanted was a united nation, wouldn't it be better to send some delegates over and negotiate for it? A lot of countries used to be a group of different countries but since the merge is sensible, all of them agreed. Using war to merge is no different than stealing money to support your parents when you could earn money through hard work as well. The aim is good but the method is wrong. It makes me feel they just don't want to put the effort and work hard/make some sacrifice for their goals.

Wich leads us to the problem of defining right or wrong... Which are in a way connected to good and evil, as they are purely based on morals as well.
In some societys it is considered right to give a murderer the death penalty. Others think this is horribly wrong.
In a way right and wrong are just weaker forms of good and evil.

[JQuartz]

In a way right and wrong are just weaker forms of good and evil.

Hmm...good point. Maybe I should use 'causes fairly distributed or less suffering method/action' instead of 'wrong method/action'.

This talk about good and evil is practically a gold mine for my story about the vigilante.(though I doubt I'll be able to finish it...)