Evil For Evil's Sake

[kamilion]

So, I've been a busy bee in another thread (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25166.0.html), and it got me thinking about certain entities in the Dresdenverse being Evil For Evil's Sake. Basically, it seems that there are entities that would do terrible, horrible things that fit neatly into a human/mortal category of evil, for no other reason than because that is what they are.

They are sentient, self-aware, and capable of making decisions, but completely bound by their natures (courtesy of having negative refresh). I can totally see a Nevernever spirit slaughtering innocents, eating kittens, and kicking puppies simply because that is what they do.

So I toss the thought out to the forums; do you think these entities are Kitten-Eaters by nature, restricted in their sentience and awareness by the boundaries of their nature, or is there something more to it? I realize the question isn't very clear, I just thought it'd be an interesting discussion.

[Tedronai]

If you'll allow me to rephrase the question...

'Is a spirit of kitten-eating-evil (as opposed to a spirit of intellect, or a spirit of air, as Bob is alternatingly described), evil by nature  (as Bob would be intelligent by nature)?'

Do I have it more-or-less right?

[toturi]

At negative refresh, do you owe the universe Fate Points or do you start "play" at zero?

[Tedronai]

the latter

[Viatos]

So I toss the thought out to the forums; do you think these entities are Kitten-Eaters by nature, restricted in their sentience and awareness by the boundaries of their nature, or is there something more to it? I realize the question isn't very clear, I just thought it'd be an interesting discussion.

I would imagine spirits are restricted to their purviews. Everything else is hazy. I don't find moral absolutes interesting, so I limit them to things I really don't like. In my personal canon, I might say that Red Court and Black Court Vampires are always evil, and White Court Vampires typically are. Demons and entities manifested by Downbelow join that camp.

Fae and angels are both restricted utterly by their natures, but (again personal canon territory) I would allow them to think outside their natures and to alter themselves through sacrifice. Leaving a Court or the service of Heaven and Hell likely has sufficient price tag for me to accept a Heel Face Turn from these entities.

There are some things that I imagine have transcended morality, such as dragons and sidhe. Outsiders, I see as without good and evil tags in the first place; borrowing the canon of Lovecraft and Derleth, you run the gamut from entities like Shub-Niggurath who are ultimately not malevolent, possibly even co-existable (assuming you don't mind some, y'know, restructuring) to things like Yog-Sothoth that are impossible to judge to Nyarlathotep, who is sadistic spite personified.

[crusher_bob]

Calling the spirit of kitten eating evil for eating kittens sounds a bit like blaming the ocean for drowning the kittens when you throw them in.  You can only be evil (of good) if you have sufficient moral agency/free will to be able to reject evil/choose good.

Of course, we can pragmatically obliterate spirits of kitten eating because we don't like them, but they aren't "evil".

[admiralducksauce]

Of course, we can pragmatically obliterate spirits of kitten eating because we don't like them, but they aren't "evil".

They were just drawn that way.   

I'm not sure I can offer much besides Roger Rabbit references, except to reinforce the point about pragmatic obliteration.  Naturally-occurring evil entities provide a way, if you want, to have morality-free hack & slashery in your Dresden game.  It just shows how wide the setting is.  Jump into the NeverNever and have an old-school D&D adventure once in a while and the vampire politics and corrupt-but-well-meaning cops and grey areas back in the real world will seem enhanced for it.

[crusher_bob]

Heh, you can't escape the bonds of good and evil that easily.  Assuming you are playing a character with moral agency, then it can still be evil to kill spirits of kitten eating (SoKE), even if the SoKE aren't evil themselves.  After all, someone who gets off on torturing SoKE is probably not 'good'.
-------------

An interesting bit in the books, is that one of Harry's weaknesses is that he sees doing evil as something that sends you over to the dark side permanently or something.  That's also why he has trouble understanding the Knights of the Cross act like they do.

[kamilion]

If you'll allow me to rephrase the question...

'Is a spirit of kitten-eating-evil (as opposed to a spirit of intellect, or a spirit of air, as Bob is alternatingly described), evil by nature  (as Bob would be intelligent by nature)?'

Do I have it more-or-less right?

Yes, that basically sums it up. I guess it's really a question of how much free will something has when it is, by it's nature, evil, as viewed by humanity/mortal culture in general. I don't think there is much point to debating absolute evil or good, I'm more interested in a "from the PC" viewpoint.

To go with something less esoteric than a SoKE, how about the Malks? Described by Bob as "to cats what Hannibal Lecter is to people" (assuming more "cruel psychotic killer" than "eater of own kind"), and shown in Heorot to take great joy in terrifying pretty much everything and causing painful death. So I think we can call them evil.

Now, can you have a nice one? A malk sick of the "torture people like cats torture mice" game and out to instead protect little children and stray cats? To set ground rules, I'm not talking about a malk that has been altered by its interaction with a mortal of powerful will (Jim B. has mentioned that Toot-toot is changing due to his service to Harry, so that's an outside agency altering the spirit's nature). I'm talking about a malk who maybe started out to find some nice human children to torture and eat (or just torture), and got sick of the game and started protecting them.

Possible? Why? Why not?

[Richard_Chilton]

I'd say probably not - at least not by choice.  The Fae are bound to their nature.  A shide cannot decide not to bargain - bargaining is what they do.

Could one be changed by outside forces? Perhaps.

In way I see them like Toot-toot in Storm Front and Summer Knight.  He exists.  He is.  He's pretty unchangable.  He's the same Toot-toot whenever Harry meets him.  Toot-toot falls for the same old trap again and again and again because it's in his nature to do so.

Then Toot-toot started hanging around with a wizard and began to change.  To grow.  By Changes he still has his devil may care nature but now Toot-toot has a longer attention span and seems to think about things more.  He has gone from being a mere dew drop fairy to being the leader of the Za Lord's guard.  He has changed.

If a Malk was befriended by a wizard, hit with a curse, or something along that lines it might change, but I can't see one waking up and deciding to change.

Richard

[admiralducksauce]

I agree with Richard.  There aren't perverted, deviant Malks who like children.  They simply don't occur.  A Malk acted on by an outside force could change, but given standard Malk "society" and a standard range of Malk experiences, there are no nice Malks.  They don't have free will, they don't get the special snowflake option.

[devonapple]

...there are no nice Malks.  They don't have free will, they don't get the special snowflake option.

Great. Just great.

::shreds all his notes about a new PC Malk character named Grizzt Go'Malkin::

[Viatos]

I agree with Richard.  There aren't perverted, deviant Malks who like children.  They simply don't occur.  A Malk acted on by an outside force could change, but given standard Malk "society" and a standard range of Malk experiences, there are no nice Malks.  They don't have free will, they don't get the special snowflake option.

It is worth noting, in this example, that children could count as an acting-on outside force. So given a standard range of Malk experiences, which include potential encounters with strong-willed or clever children, who knows?

These threads are really predicated on whether you have black-and-white or greyscale morality at your table. Monsters aren't supposed to vary from their natures according to canon, but according to canon, they do it frequently enough to share a little of Harry's spotlight throughout the series. It really is a personal choice, you can make up arguments every which way.

[Richard_Chilton]

Great. Just great.

::shreds all his notes about a new PC Malk character named Grizzt Go'Malkin::

Or you could add something to his background that changes him.  A curse of summer, something like that, and BAM he's cursed with a conscious and doesn't want to play cat and squeaky toy with children.  Cast out from his pack, he wanders alone to the upper reaches of the tunnels, leaving behind the dark under city and becoming one with nature.

Better yet, he could be a scion...  I could see it now - the Malk was stalking the neighbourhood, never knowing that there was any danger.  Suddenly, a cat who would later be called by the name of Mister was there and proving that he was a Tom Cat.  A bit of fight later and a wounded Mister is found by a wizard while months later the Malk gave birth to a Foo cat....


But back on the topic of "is there Evil and Good" in the Dresdenverse, I think there is.  Dresden doesn't always recognise it when the forces of Good are moving but both absolutes exist in the books.  Then you have creatures like Mab, whose motivations are so obscure that she appears completely amoral.

Richard

[devonapple]

But back on the topic of "is there Evil and Good" in the Dresdenverse, I think there is.  Dresden doesn't always recognise it when the forces of Good are moving but both absolutes exist in the books.  Then you have creatures like Mab, whose motivations are so obscure that she appears completely amoral.

Mab seems the most obviously amoral, but really, all the fey are strictly amoral. It just seems easier to remain on Summer's "sunny side," but people are just as much pawns to them as to Winter. If anything, I wonder if Mab is just a little bit more open with Harry about just how Machiavellian she is, possibly as a part of her continuing efforts to recruit him.