[ SECRET POST #5953 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5953 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #851.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/BOlVsWd.png

[(Anonymous)]

Well, exactly! I think it makes much more sense to say "This character isn't really good" when a normally selfish character helps the good guys for their own strategic reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

Fans that like evil characters are fine. Fans that like evil characters and then try to make them good, or explain away their evil, or make them sad victims, not fine.

[(Anonymous)]

No, still fine. Annoying to you, certainly. But a perfectly harmless interaction with a work of fiction.

[(Anonymous)]

I can see how this can be annoying, but ultimately I think it's still mostly fine. Like, if someone genuinely believes that rape/murder/torture/genocide can be excused IRL if the circumstances make the perpetrator seem sympathetic enough, then yeah, that's bad. But the majority of people who woobify fictional bad guys don't actually think that way about real life bad people.

[feotakahari]

I would call “helps people when it benefits them, and hurts people when it benefits them” neutral.

(Both Zapp Brannigan and the narrator in a Brandon Sanderson novel have argued this makes neutral people worse than evil people. That’s why I don’t read Sanderson anymore.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, if they're just taking whatever actions will ultimately benefit them in the long run without regard to the consequences, I would call that "self-interested" rather than "evil." It's not that they're purposefully seeking to hurt others, it's that they're looking out for themselves first and foremost and don't care about what happens to anyone else in the process.

I'd argue there's a pretty big difference between that and a person who deliberately takes actions to harm others.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't call it worse than evil, but I would call it a different kind of evil and one that is going to really benefit the actual villains.

[(Anonymous)]

What makes a man turn neutral? Were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[(Anonymous)]

Whenever I think of this character type, I think of Mulder calling Krycek an "invertebrate scum-sucker whose moral dipstick is about two drops short of bone dry," and I get all nostalgic. XD

[meadowphoenix]

Well...evil is a construction. it's constructed by the book (the author), the audience, and the society in which each live. you could describe anti-heros in those exact terms, and generally they are not supposed to be interpreted as evil. you could describe some hero-protaganists in those exact terms too.

I'm assuming what you're saying here is that you firmly believe the media is guiding you toward "these people are evil" and if the people you're talking about are applying this inconsistently, that's one thing. but to some people being an asshole is too common for their concept of evil. which doesn't have to be the same as yours.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, this highlights one of the reasons I kind of dislike the word "evil" in the first place. It's incredibly nebulous and ill-defined, yet as a label it's very black-and-white; you're either evil or you're not.

Personally, while I'm willing to use the word evil as short-hand in conversations about media, I don't actually believe in it IRL. And the more nuanced and sophisticated the storytelling, the more I tend to chafe against the notion of a character being "evil."

If a narrative is actually sophisticated enough to make me think about the nature of evil, then I'm probably already at the point where, for my own purposes, I'd rather define the story's antagonist(s) in other, more nuanced terms.

[(Anonymous)]

I think maybe we use the word "evil" too loosely at times in real life but I am pretty confident that it does exist. Personally.

[(Anonymous)]

I think this is very much an issue of personal perspective. From my perspective, "evil" is not a real thing the same way being a "slut" is not a real thing. I comprehend the basic gist of what someone probably means when they use the word, I just don't perceive it as having any real intrinsic meaning, and I also tend to disagree with a lot of the basic suppositions that are foundational to the word's conception.

Agreeing to disagree works for me, though.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I just don't think there is a word strong enough to describe how bad things like genocide are besides evil. Yes, it gets complicated where the line is, blurry, and it is more fluid and up to opinion in the center. But some things just are evil.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it can depend on context, like a character can be very amoral and self-interested without being evil because their actions aren't horrific and only affect a small number of people, ie: they're not murdering people but they might be stealing and doing other unlawful things to get what they want.

Whether you like the character or not doesn't define their morality, their actions do.

[(Anonymous)]

It's one kind of evil, yes.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. IRL I would call that evil and maybe in some fiction if the worldbuilding flawlessly shows that as being the societal definition of evil. But in most media I tend to think of people as evil only if they hurt others mainly for the pleasure they get from hurting others.

[(Anonymous)]

in most media I tend to think of people as evil only if they hurt others mainly for the pleasure they get from hurting others.

Yeah, that tends to be my in-media definition of evil, too. If a character isn't sadistic, I probably don't see them as "evil." That's not to say their sadism is the only bad thing about them, or even the worst thing really--just that it's the most unambiguously and uncontestably horrible. They aren't operating from a perspective that makes them see their actions as valid or justified or necessary. They inflict suffering because they want to, because they like how it makes them feel.

[(Anonymous)]

They inflict suffering because they want to, because they like how it makes them feel.

Yeah, this is what makes a character "evil" to me. Like, I wouldn't call one of the villains from my canon evil because he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing, even though he's going about it all the wrong way. The other villain is totally 100% evil, though, because he likes to hurt people for the sheer fun of it and enjoys their suffering.

Thank you secret maker!

[(Anonymous)]

Look, if I had to sit through a video of a guy claiming Asmodeus (Gold/Arch Devil of contracts, pride, slavery and tyranny) isn't *really* evil because he doesn't *enjoy* hurting people he just enjoys the *result* of hurting people you have too to.

(<3 <3 <3 at the picture choice ilu! I <3 Amiri.)

[(Anonymous)]

I would see that is evil adjacent, like the people who passively accept Russians in their life right now, but true evil needs an active component. Like actually out to deliberately cause pain.