Good and evil

[avevale_intelligencer]

soren_nyrond made a comment to my last post which started me thinking, something he is always good at doing.

He postulated a Doctor Who story in which there are two non-human sides involved (okay, he said “non-humna,” but I don’t see why those humnas should be left out: besides, I think the same question would apply if both sides were human, or indeed humna) and they were “both evil.” WWDWD? So I started thinking about evil, and about the numerous ways fans have tried, sometimes with some success, to justify the ways of Sauron or Voldemort or the Daleks or you name it to men, and also to expose without mercy, if possible, the slightest fraction of a toenail of clay on those who are presented to us as heroes. We don’t, as a subculture, seem to be entirely easy with the concept of absolute evil or absolute good. Evil deeds, yes, but evil people?

Stracynski managed sequential evil with the Centauri and the Narns in B5, showing exactly parallel accounts of an attack by each side on a peaceful outpost of the other, but I don’t think either race was supposed to be “evil” as a race: they each had their own justification for their actions, and I think most people and most races do. The extremists who blow stuff up are not on the whole doing it for the sheer pleasure of killing and maiming innocents: they have a very clear sense of grievance and an end in view which they see as good for their people. (There will doubtless be some individuals who just enjoy the power, or the bloodshed, but we’re talking about “sides” here.) The troops who are currently getting killed in a foreign country may in fact be serving the interests of evil individuals, but they see themselves as fighting to free their own country from the threat of global terrorism: no-one could call them evil, as a whole.

Then there are the virtues such as courage, loyalty, perseverance, honour and so on. If a race displays those characteristics while waging a bloodthirsty war of extermination against an enemy, can we call them evil?

What do people think? Is it possible to imagine a conflict between two sides, both of which we could only call “evil”? Would it make a good story?

Truly, all humna life is here...

Comments

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

I'd say it's possible. I'd also say it'd make a good story if done right.

The first such example I can think of is Alien vs. Predator, though that's not exactly accurate.

The Predators are "evil" because they think of humans as nothing better than animals to be hunted. But to be fair, humans hunt each other, too.

The Aliens aren't so much "evil" as just really vicious animals with really odious natural chemistry, and highly lethal reproduction methods.

The good guys are the victims, and they don't win. The "lesser" of two evils wins. The Predators leave the majority of the human race alive when they depart. Whereas the Aliens would have completely overrun the planet.

The second example I can think of is Freddy vs. Jason.

The evil's more well defined here.

Freddy Krueger was a child molester in life, and through the fear he spread he was able to enter dreams after his death. And he brought true the old adage "if you dream you die, you die in reality too". I'd classify that as more closely evil.

Jason Voorhees was a child who was ignored by horny teenagers making out. He drowned. Something supernatural [and inexplicable, apparently, as they never explained it] brought him back from the dead and made him immortal. As a psycho killer.

I enjoyed both movies.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

That was pretty much the basis of the 1960s Daleks vs. Mechanoids comic strips, written by David Whitaker. And they were good stories - to my 10/11/12 year-old mind, at least. =:o} The Daleks go to do their usual bloodthirsty slash/burn/exterminate thing on a remote planet, and - Zoiks! - there is these nasty Mechanoid things who seem to be just as tough as they are, just as keen to take control of everything they clap their photo-voltaic cells on, just as uncaring about other forms of "life"...

And I fondly remember the "tragic hero" Dalek, named Zeg, who discovered a tougher metal for the Dalek's casings (which of course would enable them to become better conquerors), but in his hubris challenged the "wise old" Emperor. The two had to duel to the death out amid the hostile jungle terrain of Skaro; the Emperor finally outwitted Zeg and sent him to his doom, thus teaching kids the important lesson that it's brains rather than brawn that enable one to become the ultimate galaxy-slaughtering bastard. =:o}

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I remember him too. I wondered about him when I saw the Abomination...

[armb.livejournal.com]

I think you could have a good story set against, say, a Dalek vs. Cyberman war, but the human viewer would be more interested in Doctor Who making sure neither side ended up in a position to go on to attack humanity than who won (or, if the conflict is somewhere more distant "other innocent victims" rather than "humanity").
Or you could have a story where one side might be evil but are at least fighting a greater evil ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" - Churchill).
But both sides evil, and irredeemably so, but no threat to anyone else? I think the Doctor would just leave. Having said that, I don't think he considers even the Daleks irredeemably evil.


> Then there are the virtues such as courage, loyalty, perseverance, honour and so on. If a race displays those characteristics while waging a bloodthirsty war of extermination against an enemy, can we call them evil?

I don't know about a race, but I think it's fair to call those Nazis who knew about the Holocaust and worked towards it evil, even if some of them were brave, loyal, persevering, and, in their own view, honourable.
Otherwise "evil" is meaningless.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Which begs the question: are courage, loyalty and so on actually virtues in their own right, or does their virtuousness depend on other factors? Is there, indeed, such a thing as an absolute virtue, and if not can there be an absolute vice?

The Holocaust was an evil act, perpetrated by people who were probably the usual mix of good and evil in various proportions, some of whom may have genuinely believed they were doing good, at least for the land of their birth. I find it hard to think of them twirling their moustaches and cackling "Generations yet unborn will curse our name for this!" or indulging in the Evil Overlord Cliché of your choice. Pratchett makes a point in Small Gods about the most horrifying tortures of the Omnian Quisition being carried out by men who drank their tea out of mugs with "World's Best Dad" on the side.

I don't think it's as simple as all that...

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I think one of the closest "evil races" I've heard of was the Mongols. They massacred entire towns apparently for the joy of it, they didn't actually take anything useful (except a few of the younger women), and they seemed to delight in spreading exactly the attitude you state, making themselves hated for generations. They didn't even seem to care much for their own, having a "if you can't keep up we'll kill you so you don't slow us down" policy, and behaving much like army ants (if the river is too deep, keep piling more people into it and ride over the top).

And then there's the dehumanisation factor. If people can be convinced that "the enemy" (who might be "everyone not 'us'") are not really human, then killing them is no worse than killing animals or insects (how many people really think twice about swatting a wasp?). In that situation, they people may have been infected with an evil idea ("He isn't really human, he's an animal") but they aren't necessarily evil for acting on that. As in your Alien and Predator examples, they don't recognise humans as anything apart from food and a convenient way to reproduce.

(No, I don't think that there is an absolute virtue or an absolute vice, or at least not one that we will ever be able to say is definitely one. What looks like courage may be a failure to grasp the danger, loyalty may be an imposed guilt, etc., we just can't know without being telepathic. Is a mother cat 'loyal' to her kittens when she defends them? Is she being 'courageous' when she faces down a large dog to defend them? Do those things even have any meaning? I know that a lot of 'heroes' have said that they didn't think of it at the time, they just did what needed to be done, were they 'courageous'? No, I'm not expecting answers, I don't believe that there can be any absolute answers to that, it's the point...)

[armb.livejournal.com]

That's what I meant by 'otherwise "evil" is meaningless'. No-one really twirls their moustaches and cackles "Generations yet unborn will curse our name for this!", even when committing genocide.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

So, did Soren enter the Humna for Blue Peter's "design a monster" competetion?

[cleverthylacine]

I adore the Centauri. This probably doesn't surprise you. Londo is one of my favourite characters ever...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I am very fond of all the main characters, with the possible exception of Talia who got cut up--er, I mean out too soon and Elizabeth who arrived too late. G'kar might have a slight edge over Londo for me because I felt closer to him, which is odd...

[cleverthylacine]

Oh, I was fond of them all as well. I just had a peculiar affection for Londo because he's got some of my own inner conflicts. I could really relate to him and I like to think I wouldn't make some of the same mistakes. But I might if you caught me on the wrong day.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Zander has pretty well got it right, and the rest of you have contributed some valuable insights.
The sort of thing I am thinking of is "Genesis of the Daleks", where Davros is definitely evil (and while he doesn't have mustaches, he's definitely thinking that future generations will Know His Name). And everything about the Kaleds (as they are protrayed here) says National Socialist.
Now, on the other side we have the Thals, who from the early shots we're set up to treat as WW1 trench-fighting heroes. Now, suppose we substitute for them a DW analogue of early Revolutionary Russia (or of Orwellian Socialism), full of comrade commissars, and earnest idealogues preaching the Gospel to the allegedly-Converted, with the UnMutual being Taken Away.
Neither side (unless you're Certain Contemporary SpinDoctors) automatically attracts sympathy, and certainly neither suits the Doctor's brand of Neutral Good laissez-faire. Now throw in a few off-screen atrocities (spun by both sides as "for the greater good") and ask yourself how does a Time Lord react ?
If he helps either side, he promotes their brand of faceless oppression. And if he helps neither, then the innocent few (there will always be some) caught in the middle go down to perdition without even the vaguest surcease.

I'd like to see it -- once. Just like I'd still like to get people behind my scheme for a Tolkien-pastiche where the whole point is that the heroes know, from the start, that they're doomed to final defeat, but (because they're heroes) they resolve to fight on anyway, to prevent Evil getting an easy victory (And in the hope that what can be learned this time can be used next cycle to combat the Darkness).

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, that was pretty much the feeling that I got from LotR, that most of the time the heroes /did/ think that they were doomed but they carried on anyway, and at the end it wasn't actually them who saved the day but Smeagol finally making one last grab for the Ring and overbalancing. Salvation by accident. If Frodo had been left to it, in the end he probably couldn't have done it. OK, so the heros don't actually die, and the world is saved, but they didn't know that was going to happen, they only knew that they had to try to the end. It only needs that slight tweak to the ending...

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Yes, but in LotR the heroes believed that victory was not *impossible* whereas in what I called "Winterdoom", all the Good/Free races know that Evil/the dark is fated to win (the "Angels" made a mistake, but all the mortals still deserved their chances to live their lives out as they might. Which they did, day by century, aware of the eventual doom. until ... [but I never imagined that bit, wanting to leave it for beter writers than myself])

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, one thing a Time Lord (or a Nyrond) might do in that situation is a sort of reverse I Say, James, changing sides several times and sabotaging both régimes. The trick then would be to make sure the sabotage was total on both sides, so that neither had the advantage.

As I said in a comment somewhere else, I don't actually believe in carrying on fighting when faced with certain defeat. At best, there's always another way; at worst, alive offers more options than dead. (Both old Nyrond proverbs.) The thing about learning stuff to use next cycle is that dead people, especially those on the losing side of a battle, are rotten at passing useful knowledge on; or in the words of an alleged old Scots proverb I found in a book yesterday, "A man's little use when his wife's a widow."