Who is the most evil character in the Dresdenverse?

[Avernite]

:j I said, essentially, the same thing in a different thread a few weeks ago. While a dramatic thing to say, someone who would do something like that is the opposite of what civilisations need.

Of course, there was a whole book about convincing Harry that maybe he was out of line there. Like, WAY out of line.

And I think he learned from it and became a better person.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Of course, there was a whole book about convincing Harry that maybe he was out of line there. Like, WAY out of line.

And I think he learned from it and became a better person.

I'm still waiting to see evidence for that.  Nice solid evidence, like him being put in a similar sort of situation and actually handling it differently and better even if it's not the most emotionally satisfying thing for him in the moment.

[wardenferry419]

With stubborn people, it is always baby steps. And, Harry is as stubborn as they get. I understand stubborn, being one myself, and changes are never readily accepted.

[groinkick]

How about Malvora and Skavis (both entire Houses)? Delighting and feeding on despair and terror is pretty messed up, especially when there are other options—Madrigal changes his tastes, though it's considered really odd to do so.

the problem with these beings is they are bound to demons that feed on these emotions...  I don't know...  I'd say they are almost comparable to a great white shark.  The shark will eat you, not because it's evil, because it's the creatures nature.

[Ananda]

If how I define evil is uncertain to you; then tell how you define the word evil, please.

Thanks and sure.

It is a term that is generally meant to refer to some behaviour considered to be anti-social to the person describing it, but also carries some sort of morality judgment. But, what that is differs from person to person and doesn't even exist outside a person's head. Sort of like beauty; both are just concepts that require a perceiver and subjective discernment. Further, though, "evil" tends to be tied with a belief structure whereas "beauty" doesn't.

Sorry, that was a long answer and maybe not very satisfying, but it's an easy term for people to toss around, but it doesn't hold much meaning in itself.

Anyway, I stick with my answers:
Outsiders are objectively the most destructive.
Genoskwa (or whatever) is the character I think Dresden reacted to the most.

[forumghost]

the problem with these beings is they are bound to demons that feed on these emotions...  I don't know...  I'd say they are almost comparable to a great white shark.  The shark will eat you, not because it's evil, because it's the creatures nature.

Not really. As he says, the White Court is perfectly able to pick and choose what emotions they feed off of- Madrigal, for example, is a member of House Raith that decided to feed on terror because he gets off on it. And Thomas proves that they can... 'diet'? if they so choose.

They aren't really much different from Humans, psychologically speaking (which makes sense, because they were human until they hit mid teen-early adult years).

[Arjan]

Besides if you take free will into account what is then the status of those beings that personify evil? Whose nature is evil? Evil with a capital E does not have free will anymore, it is still evil.

[groinkick]

Not really. As he says, the White Court is perfectly able to pick and choose what emotions they feed off of- Madrigal, for example, is a member of House Raith that decided to feed on terror because he gets off on it. And Thomas proves that they can... 'diet'? if they so choose.

They aren't really much different from Humans, psychologically speaking (which makes sense, because they were human until they hit mid teen-early adult years).

that's up for debate...  Thomas did not choose how he ate.  He didn't choose to kill his first victim when his demon took over.  Raith's daughter didn't have control when her demon was driving her to feed on Harry..  How, and why the families feeding habits changed is up for debate.  You will notice that in the different families they all feed the same way.  It's not like any of Raith's children feed on fear, they all feed on lust, just as in the other families they all feed on a specific emotion.  That's evidence the demon specifically has a feeding preference, and not the mortal person.

Thomas's "diet" is like a constant never ending drug addiction.  So the "evil" they do is still evil but they are being pushed every moment towards it.  Free will is technically there but not much.  They do have to feed no matter what though, or they go insane.  So they cannot stop eating entirely, they will do it to some extent.

Evil?  yes.  More evil than different people in the Dresdenverse who do evil, and have more free will? I don't think so.

[wardenferry419]

Thanks and sure.

It is a term that is generally meant to refer to some behaviour considered to be anti-social to the person describing it, but also carries some sort of morality judgment. But, what that is differs from person to person and doesn't even exist outside a person's head. Sort of like beauty; both are just concepts that require a perceiver and subjective discernment. Further, though, "evil" tends to be tied with a belief structure whereas "beauty" doesn't.

Sorry, that was a long answer and maybe not very satisfying, but it's an easy term for people to toss around, but it doesn't hold much meaning in itself.

Anyway, I stick with my answers:
Outsiders are objectively the most destructive.
Genoskwa (or whatever) is the character I think Dresden reacted to the most.

It seems that you believe "evil" to be a subjective idea that varies from person to person based on perspective. And, while I believe that has elements of being true; I don't believe it to be the whole truth. I feel that "evil" has some objective qualities that are widely accepted as elements of "evil." I would say that it requires a cognitive being that understands these widely-held acts of good (like forgiveness) and evil (like murder); who then chooses for personal reasons to perform acts of the latter over the former could be defined as evil. I can, also, believe that the repetition, frequency, and scale that these universally accepted evil acts occur is indicative of that person's depth of evil. I can, also, believe that the positive or negative intentions of performing the acts are a factor as to whether the person is good or evil. Finally, the last indicator of whether a person is considered good or evil involves the historical and contemporary context of that person's actions, basically, the winners write history.

[exartiem]

I think it is impossible to come to a consensus on the most evil because everyone's feelings on what 'evil' is is different.  For me, one should consider themselves evil.  Most people we think of as evil see themselves as good or justified.  Nicodemus thinks he is saving the world or making it a better place.  Beings like Dracul are just looking out for themselves, which they see as the right thing to do.  The Outsiders even are destroying reality because they think it is the right thing to do.

Shagnasty is the one, I think, that actually takes pleasure from the suffering of others, from acts that it knows are evil.

[wardenferry419]

Yes, everyone's opinions of evil are different; but there are some recurring points of commonality.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Beings like Dracul are just looking out for themselves, which they see as the right thing to do.

Are you coming from WoJ on that I have missed, or am I forgetting some text about Drakul's motivation ?

To my mind evil is about selfishness - about putting what you care about and want ahead of what other people care about and want in destructively competitive ways.  Whether what you care about and want is "me" or "things I enjoy" or "the handful of people most closely related to me" is immaterial.

[groinkick]

Yes, everyone's opinions of evil are different; but there are some recurring points of commonality.

I'd say that the most evil is someone who inflicts pain, and suffering purely for the enjoyment of watching someone else suffer, and has the free will to not do those things.  So Shagnasty is probably the most evil that I can think of in the story (beside Outsiders who appear to have no free will in they are 100% pure evil, and cannot be altered).  Free will is the snag for me.  Can it resist those impulses or is he like a rabid animal that is out of control?

[jonas]

I'd say that the most evil is someone who inflicts pain, and suffering purely for the enjoyment of watching someone else suffer, and has the free will to not do those things.  So Shagnasty is probably the most evil that I can think of in the story (beside Outsiders who appear to have no free will in they are 100% pure evil, and cannot be altered).  Free will is the snag for me.  Can it resist those impulses or is he like a rabid animal that is out of control?

But what if the outsiders ended up 'evil' from their own growth when free will was available? The fallen for instance, are immutable, but they at some point choose to flip the switch that made them what they are.

[Arjan]

Are you coming from WoJ on that I have missed, or am I forgetting some text about Drakul's motivation ?

To my mind evil is about selfishness - about putting what you care about and want ahead of what other people care about and want in destructively competitive ways.  Whether what you care about and want is "me" or "things I enjoy" or "the handful of people most closely related to me" is immaterial.

That is usually true but in fiction there is something called evil that is beyond selfishness. It is the idea of absolute evil, personified evil. Of evil for evils sake. Maybe it is even self sacrificing like serving some evil god or it is just a property like an evil weapon.

In my mind evil is a rather vague label we give to harmfull things that have some guiding personality behind it but which are beyond reasoning with, not because they can not reason but no reasoning will help. With that label we place them outside the group as beings to be feared and to be destroyed if possible. Something like that. I do not think we need a more precise definition because that won’t cover the practical use of the word.

In that sense an evil deed is a deed that can give you that label.

That is also why in the eyes of the knights of the cross the denarian hosts, including Nicodemus, are not truly evil. They are victims of the truly evil Fallen. Michael tried to reason with Nicodemus to bring him back to the fold but he did not try to reason with Anduriel who directed his actions. To call someone evil is to give him up. Mark that free will has no meaning in this context at all but intelligence does.