So, if you have a protagonist that is powerful, evil, wants more power - what are some scenarios that would bring him/her to such a point? I'm not asking for plot scenarios but rather emotional.

Everyone has a dark side, so why wouldn't they connect with someone who explores it rather than burying it?

Pam, a few ideas. First, your CEO (Cold and Evil One) might not think he's evil. The CEOs of this world often believe they are the good guys. Hitler thought he had Christ behind him. Bin Laden thinks he has Allah behind him. So he may be a good guy in his eyes, and evil only in other people's eyes.

Fear is always a good one. Being very powerful, I imagine it would be easy to be paranoid, thinking everyone wanted to assasinate you and take your power. So he uses a heavier hand in dealing with naughty bears, so people will fear him enough that they wouldn't think of challenging him.

Anger. Maybe he's suffered deep loss, and he's lashing out at the world that hates him enough to take X away from him. With so much power, he can lash out a tad more than most people, and inflict the most damage.

Addiction. Perhaps he did a bad thing, or he's angry as above (such anger would fade). But the use of such power was such a heady experience that he has to do it again. Or, he fears that people would want to unseat him after using such power (which leads into fear).

I'm just throwing out whatever comes into my head. Hope its helped in creating your CEO.

JK

There may, however, be some need to go into how the villian gets away with being evil. For instance, Hitler (by the way, not a big fan of Christ or Christians, Hitler was heavily into paganism and planned to eradicate Christianity, albeit more slowly than he intended to exterminate Judaism) was a psychopathic monster, but he couldn't have held power in Germany if it hadn't been for the monsterously unfair peace settlement of WWI (Fairsye my eye!--that's a pun on Versailles ). If you just are portraying a psychotic monster being in power, then your audience might demand (and rightly so) to know why he is allowed to remain in power. Hitler gave voice to the sense of injury and insult of the entire German nation at the unfair (and it was unfair) treaties they had signed to end the first world war. And in return they made him Fuehrer.

Or Bin Laudin (et all) or Arafat, who equally feed their followers on a diet of hate and imagined slights and wrongs (well, largely imagined). These are good models for villians. In Arafat you can see how it isn't a matter of misplaced idealism or paranoia (though the truth is that if he ever loses control, he's in for it). With him everything is about staying in power the way he knows how, no matter what the cost in innocent blood. So he uses propaganda so blatent that even his most ignorant followers know that he lies through his teeth, backed by terrorism so brutal that even his friends know that he'll have them killed the moment they cross him.

My long winded point is that those kind of angst driven villains are exceptional-- unfortunately, a lot of writers fail to give their villians that kind of depth. BUT you can humanize your villain without taking away the evil.

Hope that helps!

Alot can be learned from this.

No one is evil just to be evil---I mean, no one precieves themselves as a bad person and does this things because they like it so much. Think Mum-Ra in Thundercats. This was a childern's cartoon on the 80's so it wasn't exactly educational, but the guy had no motivation. I don't know if the words ever came out of his mouth, but I could see him saying shit like "It feels so good to be so bad." I really don't think anyone thinks this way. Everyone thinks they're doing the right thing or they've been forced to do the wrong thing.

That's my advice---

In between, I had those who were simply insane and did evil for no reason at all, those who didn't believe there was really such a thing as good and did evil to get even or to distract themselves from their own pain, those who actually got some kind of buzz/thrill/high out of exercising power over or causing pain in others, and those who were able to rationalize that their goals justified any means.

_______________
Uselss to most people beyond this point
_______________

I suppose it's all what you believe. Many people here tend to say we are a product of our environment. I think that's true, but only to a point. Take abuse victims. Even this area, where those abused have an unusually high percentage of becoming abusers (in relation to other 'victim' type crimes) the rate is only 7-26% (depending on which study you choose to believe). With these diminishing 'returns' of molesters, we'd have run out of pedophiles several generations ago!
Start out with 100 pedophiles, the next generation would breed only 15 (average between 7 and 26), followed by 2.25, then .3375 (3/10th of a pedophile, go figure ) and so on. Further, a study found that most adult sex offenders claimed to never have been abused as children...go figure?

quote:

---

[CEOs] who were working to achieve goals as worthy as those of the protagonist, but who came into conflict with the protagonist anyway

---

Many of us have experiences coming into conflict with individuals that act from the best of motives, but the fact of the matter is that 90% of all human conflict is because someone is not acting from good (or even comprehensible) motives. Most of us act from bad (or at least not good) motives some of the time (according to Christian theology, only Christ never acted from bad motives).

quote:

---

There is no motive that is wholly bad. To our CEO, murdering this guy is perfectly justifiable. It's an exception, due to exceptionable circumstances. You call it rationalisation because you are not the CEO. You do not have his perspective.

---

Perhaps you should add to the first sentence "in the eyes of the CEO." Just because the murder is justifiable in his eyes, doesn't make it not wholly bad. It is still bad. Ted Bundy, the 911 suicide bombers, et al, had perspectives they thought justified what they did.

Absolutely not - using such figures would demonstrate the author does not understand the subject matter they are trying to convey.

But you can't be afraid of having bad or unjustifiable motives for your characters, otherwise your fiction will be patently unrealistic

Characters with unjustifiable motives are called "melodramatic" characters. They are usually stereotypes and flat. Serious writing should avoid them.

90% of all human conflict is because someone is not acting from good (or even comprehensible) motives

Everyone acts in a way comprehensible to themselves. To plot a character the writer does not understand the motives to, would demonstrate poor character construction - possibly due to a poor understanding of the human experience. In other words, lack of empathy.

Now unless you are writing a God against the Devil (whatever God and whatever Devil) then you can not have pure evil and pure good--hey now wait a minute even the Devil has a reason for his influence. He did not agree with God’s choice in how to make us behave, so he is out to do us good by his influence, then we will be made to behave in a certain way. And is even God wholly good? Can’t tings like plagues of locust, great floods, and pillars of salt be considered evil? But I am sure a god would say, “But they did not follow the rules, they made me mad!” Ah, but the child/wife beater also says, “They did not follow my rules and made me mad!”

So good and evil are mixed, with no evil there can be no good, and without good there can be no evil. So no person or character can be inherently one or the other.

Ultimately, a humanistic stance accepts that morality is a relative issue. A more religious view may insist on scriptures providing an "Objective Moral Standard". But even then, there are many different scriptures, and many relgious beliefs - even within the same faith. Thus morality becomes reduced again to relativism . For a really good antagonist, that needs to be understood.

Every system has its own framework, and I failed to make my point clear. But oh well.

I think I was trying to say that no matter what, each person has a reason based in their belief frame for what they do. Good or Bad.

quote:

---

they do not do evil for the sake of evil.

---

Still, it is evil that is being done, as your comment acknowledges. It seems there are three questions:

Is anything inherently evil?
Can evil be done to bring about good?
Is there an across-the-board truth?

quote:

---

Ultimately, a humanistic stance accepts that morality is a relative issue.

---

That's a dangerous view. Murder itself becomes relative and consequently non-evil. Anything goes. Kind of like how the American Psychiatric Association's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" deals with pedophiles; as long as they experience no "clinically significant distress or impairment" about it, they have no disorder. It doesn't matter how the kids feel about it.

Murder is either inherently evil, or it is relative to one's perspective. The 911 bombers saw murder as a respectable act that would be rewarded. The laws of the US believe murder is evil, reasonably setting aside war and self-defense, and attach punishment to it. Those who commit murder despite the law, risk penalties, no matter how justified they believe themselves to be, no matter how they believe they manipulated the means for the sake of the ends. CEOs can't just off people for the sake of the company.

quote:

---

the Devil....did not agree with God’s choice in how to make us behave, so he is out to do us good

---

God does not make us behave. We are not instinct-driven, but have free will. The devil was not concerned about any line we had to toe; he was interested in his own agrandizement.

quote:

---

And is even God wholly good?

---

If not, we're in deep doo-doo.

quote:

---

But I am sure a god would say, “But they did not follow the rules, they made me mad!”

---

If you believe God is, then it follows that he wrote the playbook.

quote:

---

Ah, but the child/wife beater also says, “They did not follow my rules and made me mad!”

---

Oh, my. Comparing God to a child/wife beater? The beater is already in the sad position of violating the playbook.

quote:

---

So good and evil are mixed, with no evil there can be no good, and without good there can be no evil. So no person or character can be inherently one or the other.

---

Regarding men, it is true that "There is so much good in the worst of us,/And so much bad in the best of us,/That it ill behooves any of us/To find fault with the rest of us." (Unknown). However, I see no logical progression or reason to assume the same as regards God. God existed before time, before evil, before one of his created angels introduced evil. If you want gods who acted more like men in their dichotomy of good and evil, go back to ancient Rome and Greece. But then you're at the mercy of capricious, fickle gods instead of the guy with the playbook.

I was an atheist for two weeks, and they were the most miserable two weeks of my life. I don't envy the atheist who denies the goodness of God or the relativistic humanist who refuses to acknowledge the ugliness of evil.

quote:

---

those concepts of good and evil are particular to mainstream Christianity. Judaism regards the issue very differently.

---

Seems like those two share the same view on the matter, hence the term Judeo-Christian.

And, again,

quote:

---

Ultimately, a humanistic stance accepts that morality is a relative issue.

---

Relativism is as dangerous as true democracy (which is why the U.S. forefathers gave us a republic). The majority could rule that murder or rape are fine and since it's all relative anyway.... No, give me a set of laws set on some coherent base that acknowledges a bedrock truth, that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."

(Quietly stepping down from soapbox.)

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited August 01, 2002).]

I sort of figured there would be a danger of offending yourself, so I wasn't trying to declare an objective rule of morality based on relativism.

I won't attempt to make argument against specific points you raise, both because I don't see this as the correct place for hardcore debate [I run a couple of debate communities elsewhere ] - but secondly, because I would be in danger of offending someone who has helped and encouraged myself tremendously.

My point about moral relativism was strictly intended to be applied to authorship. At least the relativistic positions of antagonist and protagonist need to be ajudged fairly by the author for "serious" writing. A mindless antagonist achieves little but vaudevillian melodrama. "Bwa-ha-ha!" etc. But an antogonist with deep personal motivations can create great sympathy, even if those motivations are likely to be perceived as "wrong".

Even when an author applies an "Objective Moral Standard" to their writing, this doesn't mean to say that antagonist need to exist without reason, purpose, nor without comprehensible motive.

Perhaps a poor example would be the development of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars films, which is utlimately about his redemption. Even in the old series it is explicitly stated that the person behind Darth Vader used to be a great person, turned to "the dark side" by events only later related in the newer films. He is given personal motivation, reasons for for his being, and ultimately creates a figure whose sacrifical death brings immense sympathy to this otherwise incredibly powerful personification of death itself.

If we want to talk about belief or what I have been taught here goes.

When God presented the plan of salvation the devil wanted there to be no free agency that way we would all achieve the same level of salvation. (this is what I meant by the devil did not agree with....God’s choice in how to make us behave, so he is out to do us good.) In his mind that would have been for our own good--no free agency. So he was cast out and now seeks to turn us away from God as his way of getting back at God.

When written out it sounds just like the way men act--you didn't do what I say so I am going to get back at you.

As to comparing God to a wife beater, that was not the point either. It was only to point out that people, and deity it seems, have motivations and reasons for what they do, and we little humans and fellow humans, sometimes have no idea or understanding of that reason---but in the head of the person doing the act (which may be perceived as evil)(and the acts of God can be and are often perceived as evil by those that have a different belief system)they are doing right for the good of what they believe.

Hope this made more sense or comes across a bit clearer. I will get off my soapbox now as I do agree with Brian that this is not the place for theological debate.

If I offended I beg pardon for my offence. I had not intended it to be taken literally this is what I believe it was merely an example of how anything can be thought of as evil if we do not understand the motivations, so when doing a character we must put layer upon layer to give them more depth than a character who is pure evil.

I understand entertaining ideas for the sake of writing fiction, but sometimes--especially on these more casually written posts--I have a problem determining when that is being done as opposed to someone throwing out an idea with an implied "of course we all know this is true" behind it. Not responding to the latter sort of comment would seem to imply my consent with it.

I suppose the nit-picker in me expects to see qualifying words like "some might say," "some might ask," or "it is said" when the writer doesn't himself necessarily believe what he is writing. Without them, or with words like "I am sure," I take it that the author is putting forth his own views. And, of course, he is entitled to them, but when the "of course we all know this to be true" seems present, I feel, as I said, as though letting them stand without comment implies my agreement.

The more important the subject, the less I am inclined to allow that implication.

I am not offended/upset/fill-in-the-blank-yourself. We're . You two just happened to be pitching when I was at bat trying to figure out which pitches were good and which were not worth swinging at.

I certainly apologize for any offense I may have given.

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited August 02, 2002).]

However, I do not believe everything is relative. I do believe there are immutable truths, and murder being wrong is one of them. Running with "murder is not inherently evil" gives you a mafioso-style society in one of its manifestations--hardly a pleasant thought.

If we wholly accept the concept that murder is relative, then cannibals, human sacrifice adherents and their ilk could set up shop in the U.S. and we would have no right to stop them from practicing their relative views. Are you suggesting we say to the CEO with his personal view of murder, "As a people we are against murder, but since it is okay in your eyes, you're free to carry on."?

Fortunately, we have laws against that sort of thing (at least for the time being). Anyone who partakes in murder and certain other practices gets punished. It doesn't matter what the CEO or whoever thinks. A broken law garners punishment.

Exceptions to a rule do not rule out the rule. (Ah, wise words from my sub-conscious. ) Self-defense seems a no-brainer, and war is a fact of life on planet Earth. Fact is, there can never be peace between people who believe murder is evil and those who believe it is good, or at least relative. The one can never trust the other. No trust = no peace, which can easily escalate into war which, like self-defense, is sometimes unavoidable.

The agent known as God can and does say the murderer is being evil, but then we're not supposed to argue faith here. However, with this sort of subject, there is no other recourse. Sorry. (And now I'm probably in trouble again, so I'll end here.)

I would point out that many people consider this definition unsatisfying, and define murder as the taking of innocent life, whether or not legally permitted. By this definition, killing a person that is sufficiently guilty to deserve death, even when clearly illegal, is not "murder".

But "murder" cannot be used as if it were simply synonymous with "kill", unless it is explicitly stated that this is the case. Therefore any argument that depends on the equivalence of "murder" and "kill" must state that this is a premise, because this premise itself is questionable, in that many people will disagree with it if it is stated openly.

Actually, to get back on thread -

Why don't you try and find motivations for your antagonist in the first place? What makes that person the way they are? If you can answer that, then it's doubtful that you'll distract from the focus of the story - in fact, you'll probably strengthen it.

Here's a little info for you that may or may not be of help.

Personality profile: CEO

Charismatic, but manipulative. Good at managing others. Direct and goal driven. Lives to achieve.

Emotional profile: excess greed/lust

Serious personal insecurities. Material drives used to compensate for lack of emotional development. Fears loss of status. Peer pressure is a consideration in all decision making. Highly competitive. Probably little emotional nurturing from parents, who may also have been frequently absent.

Childhood scenarios:

Possible parental absence due to executive careers. Untreated post-natal depression in mother after birth leads to poor bonding. Emotional detachment later enforced by additional conditions, ie,: continual absence of parents; neglect of primary caregiver due to alcohol/drug abuse; loveless marriage with frequent emotional shifts through infidelities leads to insecure familial foundations; experience of poverty in early childhood of CEO leads to extreme desire to succeed; one or more parents experience poverty in early childhood, thus instil a desire to succeed in child.

Possible background for CEO:

Parents ran small store in local area which was badly hit by the depression of the 1920's. Parents become bankrupt. Recovering economy in the 1930's leads to father achieving small role in manufacturing base. CEO born late 1930's, early 1940's. Mother suffers post natal depression and is prescribed sedatives [check possible types of medication - ie, how change if anti-depressants?]. Expansion of US manufacturing in the 1940's leads to father gaining management positions.

Possibility of father joining up for WWII [check joining requirements] - involved in the liberation of Dachau [check possible camp options US soldiers actually involved with]. Father returns emotionally destroyed and becomes an alcoholic.

CEO is now 5/6 years old, in the care of a mother still on heavy medication, and a father who provides no emotional stimulus. Potential violence in the home, directed at mother. Child witnesses and is also threatened. Father spends time in bars picking up women, before choking to death on own vomit in the street. Mother's medication continues through different prescribed medicines, and blames child as a scapegoat for father's behaviour and death.

Child get's manufacturing position in the late fifties - possible nepotism from colleagues/friends of father. His desire to escape home makes him enthusiastic, and he rises quickly in a small expanding company.

1960's - Manufacturing company CEO involved with in a managerial position undergoes an aggressive corporate take-over. He is retained on the payroll and expands responsibilities. CEO now has possibility of studying for professional qualifications, either in spare time, or through work - suggestion area: corporate law.

1970's: CEO is headhunted by a foreign company looking to establish a commercial base in the US. CEO accepts with important non-executive position. Probably already married and divorced by this time. Treat women as a status symbol, and never able to relate to emotionally. Frequents prostitutes.

Etc etc

Hope that helps,

Brian

Oh, dear!

While reading your post, Pam, I thought of Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books. At the beginning, we, as the reader, are not sure WHY he is evil, but we know that he is the antagonist. As the stories progress, we get little clues and tidbits about Voldemort's past. And though we still know he's the bad guy, we begin to see his story unfold, and even start to empathize with him. We may not agree with the choices he made, as we may have chosen another path, but we become more familiar with his "crossroads" of decision. We can see how he became the person he chose to be.

Sometimes, the journey the antagonist has taken is one of the most fascinating, as Rowling shows in her books. Tom Riddle's path to becoming Voldemort parallels Harry's path, but Harry chooses differently. But because of the similarities, we see the real story or tragedy. Harry COULD become a Voldemort-type wizard (just as Luke COULD have become a Vader-type person) but he chooses NOT to be.

So I guess what I'm saying, is that it is one's CHOICES that makes one evil or good. Two different people can be given the same test of character, and have two very different stories based on what they DID. Many people grow up in poverty, but the poverty itself does not create evil. What a person DOES with the poverty they find themselves in, is where their path will lead them.

I have a short story I wrote where the main character is supposed to be evil, uncaring, and ruthless. First draft I got uncaring, but I experimented with giving him a reason for the way he was. The result was pity, and sympathy. I didn't want either of those, so the reason had to go.