Toilet thoughts: Pure evil

[ConcubusBunny]

What? You think just cause I'm a greatest force of evil I won't save you? That hurts my feelings if something happens to you I'll have less toys to play so no this doesn't mean I'll turn over a new leaf or do more "good" it just you aren't dying today-- Joker.

Chaotic enby thinking on the toilet.

Hello, my lovely guys, gals and enby pals your chaotic enby here with more toilet thoughts. Now my latest worrying thoughts was on pure evil characters I began thinking what is a pure evil character how do successfully wrote
that without coming across as too lazy to give the villain a proper reason for their villainous actions?

---

Was the trope created because the writers were too lazy to give them a reason to be evil is making them do occasional good thing for the sake of their loved ones make them seem out of character will caring about anyone seem outta character?

---

Where is too far gone? is there a limit for their villainy is it right to give a sense of things they won't do or sense of just in their twisted world view?

---

These are the thought i had I just wanted to know how much can you add on the pure villain character to the point they aren't pure villains anymore also what would you with your pure villain character was you protagonist?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Yes, 'pure villains' are lazy writing.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Yes, 'pure villains' are lazy writing.

I mean being evil cuz you enjoy the suffering of others Is a pretty good reason.

 

[Zirrboy]

Block text is a privilege of well-structured writing.
Use line breaks I beg of you!

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I mean being evil cuz you enjoy the suffering of others Is a pretty good reason.

Maybe, but being evil for wanting immortality\money is lazy writing.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

Yes, 'pure villains' are lazy writing.

I don't think so if done well and shown that you just enjoy your job as a villain then you can make a great pure villain it's only lazy when you make a sympathetic pure villain character that's more a lure villain that just making a villain without a purpose.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I don't think so if done well and shown that you just enjoy your job as a villain then you can make a great pure villain it's only lazy when you make a sympathetic pure villain character that's more a lure villain that just making a villain without a purpose.

Evil is subjective. Pure evil = evil that is either shown one-sided or a caricature. Both are lazy writing.

 

[ConcubusBunny]

Maybe, but being evil for wanting immortality\money is lazy writing.

Being evil for immortality/money isn't lazy that like 90% of mobs your hero fights for the money cause they have no other option and for the immortality thing make them have a reason for it beyond immortality good, make them have fear, worries concerns desperation for wanting immortality. Make them being evil to immortality make sense to anyone reading it.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

What? You think just cause I'm a greatest force of evil I won't save you? That hurts my feelings if something happens to you I'll have less toys to play so no this doesn't mean I'll turn over a new leaf or do more "good" it just you aren't dying today-- Joker.

Chaotic enby thinking on the toilet.
View attachment 9874
Hello, my lovely guys, gals and enby pals your chaotic enby here with more toilet thoughts. Now my latest worrying thoughts was on pure evil characters I began thinking what is a pure evil character how do successfully wrote
that without coming across as too lazy to give the villain a proper reason for their villainous actions?

---

Was the trope created because the writers were too lazy to give them a reason to be evil is making them do occasional good thing for the sake of their loved ones make them seem out of character will caring about anyone seem outta character?

---

Where is too far gone? is there a limit for their villainy is it right to give a sense of things they won't do or sense of just in their twisted world view?

---

These are the thought i had I just wanted to know how much can you add on the pure villain character to the point they aren't pure villains anymore also what would you with your pure villain character was you protagonist?

A pure villain needs scale. Darkside is a well-known beloved pure villain. The Joker too. My favourite pure evil character is Enoshima Junko. She also happens to be one of my favourite villains PERIOD. Then there was that lich fella from that famous cartoon where there was a bubblegum character (I didn't watch it and don't know the cartoon itself, but I wantched a video about him, and he seemed somewhat popular). Lovecraftian horrors (from a human perspective) are pure villains. They are also loved.
I guess a pure villain has to stand for more than themselves. They have to be MORE than just a single character. They must be grand, unfathomable. That is basically it.
Would death itself suddenly decide that it didn't want to do its job? Would war? If a character that acts as an interface to death and war stooped lower than what they represent, that would be devalue the character in the long run.

Maybe, but being evil for wanting immortality\money is lazy writing.

I dunno. A lot of people would be worse than the worst if it meant not dying, and a lot of people have been worse than the worst for the sake of money. Those are very relatable reasons.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Being evil for immortality/money isn't lazy that like 90% of mobs your hero fights for the money cause they have no other option and for the immortality thing make them have a reason for it beyond immortality good, make them have fear, worries concerns desperation for wanting immortality. Make them being evil to immortality make sense to anyone reading it.

You asked for 'PURE' evil. Everything I'm talking about is about 'PURE' evil. Just because I'm not typing 'PURE' evil all the time doesn't change this fact. Making a villain that is 'PURE' evil because he wants money equals not showing why he wants it. You as well elevate other things above money and make those who confront your evil two-faced. If you show why your villain wants money, then he isn't 'PURE' evil anymore. It's as simple as that. You can argue that he might require money for 'PURE' evil purposes. BUT, it's subjective. An author might try to portray someone as evil, but as soon as a reader with a different moral read the story, it all crumbles down. Either it's lazy writing, or it isn't 'PURE' evil anymore.

 

[CupcakeNinja]

Evil is subjective. Pure evil = evil that is either shown one-sided or a caricature. Both are lazy writing.

The Lich from Adventure time: you have no power here.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

The Lich from Adventure time: you have no power here.

I haven't watched it, so your argument is invalid.

 

[KiraMinoru]

How about a character who takes up the mantle of evil and aims to become a king-like figure among those who walk the path of villainy so he can set the ground rules, the boundaries for how far villainous acts go. Should anyone step on his toes and touch upon his taboos, they get offed. Effectively, it’d be like the strongest gang who keeps other smaller gangs in check by simply existing and controlling the underground world from the side of evil. Since evil will always exist so long as their is good in the world, someone must take up the side of evil, thus one person takes it upon themselves to combat evil by being evil. The belief becomes warped and distorted, corrupted over time until they lose sense of what they originally set out to accomplish.

I’d say that’d be a decent path to becoming pure evil.

 

[joeblow12]

You asked for 'PURE' evil. Everything I'm talking about is about 'PURE' evil. Just because I'm not typing 'PURE' evil all the time doesn't change this fact. Making a villain that is 'PURE' evil because he wants money equals not showing why he wants it. You as well elevate other things above money and make those who confront your evil two-faced. If you show why your villain wants money, then he isn't 'PURE' evil anymore. It's as simple as that. You can argue that he might require money for 'PURE' evil purposes. BUT, it's subjective. An author might try to portray someone as evil, but as soon as a reader with a different moral read the story, it all crumbles down. Either it's lazy writing, or it isn't 'PURE' evil anymore.

No there are objective standards for evil. We may not agree what they are, just as we may not agree how high a rock has to be before we call it a mountain, but we would agree that mountain and not mountain is a useful distinction.

We also have people who rationalize/deny or use other ego defences so as not to feel guilty for there own behavior, but that doesn't mean that deep down they don't know, that their behavior is evil.

As for lazy writing, it's all about vivid descriptions of the character, not describing/demonstrating a main character's inner world in a detailed and vivid way is lazy. Another lazy thing that I see, is making the villain JUST interested in doing evil. This is as opposed to giving him other interest's, which he then integrates into his evildoing. E.g maybe having him like sporting events, and have him kill the losers or fans of the other team. Make him like a genre of music and force everyone to listen to it ect.

 

[Traineye]

Simple. A purely evil person is insane, or at least crazy. You cannot understand them unless you are crazy/insane yourself.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

No there are objective standards for evil. We may not agree what they are, just as we may not agree how high a rock has to be before we call it a mountain, but we would agree that mountain and not mountain is a useful distinction.

Can you perhaps show me the objective standards for evil?

We also have people who rationalize/deny or use other ego defences so as not to feel guilty for there own behavior, but that doesn't mean that deep down they still

?

As for lazy writing, it's all about vivid descriptions of the character, not describing/demonstrating a main character's inner world in a detailed and vivid way is lazy. Another lazy thing that I see, is making the villain JUST interested in doing evil. This is as opposed to giving him other interest's, which he then integrates into his evildoing. E.g maybe having him like sporting events, and have him kill the losers or fans of the other team. Make him like a genre of music and force everyone to listen to it ect.

How to define 'pure' evil. It's to ask a question. Why is the character evil? If it's pure evil, the answer will be because the character is evil. Character is pure evil because the character is evil. If it isn't lazy writing, I don't know what is. The moment you start to explain why the character is evil is the moment moral comes into play. And everyone has a different set of morals. It also allows us to understand the established morals in this particular story. And, it can show us that evil isn't as bad because the good guys are shitty as well. It's just that the good guys are two-faced, according to the pre-established moral and author's bias. So, 'pure' evil is either lazy writing or doesn't exist.

 

[joeblow12]

Can you perhaps show me the objective standards for evil?

Well, can you please tell me EXACTLY how many feet tall a rock needs to be to becomes a mountain, AND justify why not 1 feet taller or shorter? Does it therefore follow that mountains don't exist, since we can't agree on a EXACT definition of mountain? Of course not!

This problem exist when I try to define pretty much any abstract objective standard,( such as mountains which is a category and thus abstract), that someone can nitpick it in a unfair way. So I'll only give you a approximate description of evil since I both can't and don't need to give you an exact definition.

An Evil choice, ,is someone who chooses to ignore what there conscious tells him is wrong, whether he simply gives into temptation, or uses various ego defences to convince himself that there is nothing wrong in his immoral choice.

A pure evil character (since that is the discussion here), is one which has thrown himself off the moral cliff with his choices, one where due to his past choices, his conscience won't influence even slightly his decision's since it's so severely repressed.

We also have people who rationalize/deny or use other ego defences so as not to feel guilty for there own behavior, but that doesn't mean that deep down they still

?
My bad I corrected this to,

"We also have people who rationalize/deny or use other ego defences so as not to feel guilty for there own behavior, but that doesn't mean that deep down they don't know, that their behavior is evil."

And everyone has a different set of morals. It also allows us to understand the established morals in this particular story. And, it can show us that evil isn't as bad because the good guys are shitty as well. It's just that the good guys are two-faced, according to the pre-established moral and author's bias. So, 'pure' evil is either lazy writing or doesn't exist.

Not quite, there is nitpicking on some SPECIFICS (like in the mountain example) but there is more then enough continuity to make a pure villian in a story. Also just because the "Good" characters are sometimes 2faced does not justify evil. To quote my dad, "there's plenty of room in hell."

 

[LesserSarcasm]

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

 

[Mr.Grey-Cat]

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.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Not quite, there is nitpicking on some SPECIFICS (like in the mountain example) but there is more then enough continuity to make a pure villian in a story. Also just because the "Good" characters are sometimes 2faced does not justify evil. To quote my dad, "there's plenty of room in hell."

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.

"We also have people who rationalize/deny or use other ego defences so as not to feel guilty for there own behavior, but that doesn't mean that deep down they don't know, that their behavior is evil."

It's irrelevant to the topic.

Well, can you please tell me EXACTLY how many feet tall a rock needs to be to becomes a mountain, AND justify why not 1 feet taller or shorter? Does it therefore follow that mountains don't exist, since we can't agree on a EXACT definition of mountain? Of course not!

This problem exist when I try to define pretty much any abstract objective standard,( such as mountains which is a category and thus abstract), that someone can nitpick it in a unfair way. So I'll only give you a approximate description of evil since I both can't and don't need to give you an exact definition.

An Evil choice, ,is someone who chooses to ignore what there conscious tells him is wrong, whether he simply gives into temptation, or uses various ego defences to convince himself that there is nothing wrong in his immoral choice.

A pure evil character (since that is the discussion here), is one which has thrown himself off the moral cliff with his choices, one where due to his past choices, his conscience won't influence even slightly his decision's since it's so severely repressed.

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.