Arisia: The Appeal of Evil
Note: I missed the Hermione Granger panel at 11 because I missed my bus. Sorry!
My interest in this panel, just to note, is largely out of the observation that City of Villains, despite being a newer and more robust game than City of Heroes, always seems very empty compared to CoH. Part of this may be stiffer system requirements, but it still seems like people like being heroes more than they like being villains. On the other hand, everyone wants to do Faith.
Of course, as my friend Jenn and I used to say, "Do Nancy, don't BE her." (Nancy as in the Fairuza Balk character in The Craft.)
First panelist argues that evil is interesting because it's necessary to make a hero, and to make a story. Big evil = big hero, big story.
Second panelist argues that evil is just more interesting than good, period. Transgression is interesting, and evil also requires charisma, in most stories. Plus it's just sexy. (See: Faith--although of course Faith is ultimately redeemed, and is always portrayed as a conflicted character, so part of this issue has to be DEGREES of evil, or at least complexity. Of course, totally flat characters are boring no matter what their alignment.)
Third panelist says evil is more fun to write about because there's more possibility in evil characters. I don't think I agree here that "good" characters are so terribly, terribly constrained in their actions. Someone else is saying that the hero can't have a dark side or he's an antihero. I think we're getting a little too literal here. I repeat: flat characters are boring no matter what, and a hero who has NO "shadow" is pretty unbelievable as a person.
Fourth panelist is making this point--good guys SHOULD be capable of evil, or how the hell are we supposed to believe that anyone is capable of overcoming evil within themselves? And of course, part of being "good" is resisting the "evil" impulses that everyone has.
I wonder if they're going to discuss the popularity of "antiheroes." They are popular, and I think it's largely because people don't like goody-two-shoes.
Panelist #2 remarks that stories are more interesting when heroes fail sometimes, give into temptation, etc.
Moderator is giving Anita Blake as an example of interesting hero-fighting-darkness-within. I think we all know how I feel about Anita Blake and her constant goddamn whining.
Question: What about villains who think they're good? Magneto, etc. And who even flip back and forth in the narrative--Magneto again. Panelists compare Batman and Superman as exemplary antihero vs. hero. An audience member brings up Cyclops and Wolverine; I don't think they're quite as strong an example, but I can still see it.
Now there's argument about whether or not "pure heroes" are boring and predictable. Audience member argues that you need "a little bit of evil" to make you unpredictable. I really think we should have started this panel by defining terms. "Evil" is way too vague.
Talk about how we become monsters when we destroy monsters. Daleks telling Doctor Who that if he destroys them, he is like them. And that creepy ET-gone-bad woman who was wearing the local MP as a suit, remember that? I watched that with aardvark_gumbo just recently.
Audience member brings up "banality of evil"--that in Real Life, many people who do evil things are just boring. Panelist arguing that these people are actually just "amoral." God, do we need our terms defined.
Moderator asks: at what point do you stop being a person who's done a few bad things, and become someone who's "just out-and-out evil." Yes, good question. DEFINE TERMS. kestrell argues that it's when you stop feeling repentance, but I've had way too much of people who say they're sorry when really they're just sorry that THEY feel bad. I think repentance is a slippery thing.
Audience member argues that it's really only the villains with at least some POSSIBILITY of redemption whom we like.
I brought up Serenity as a good example of how we really want to have a face to put on evil even when it's really much more diffuse--a whole government of people, all working together to do something really terrible.
Now a panelist is arguing that doing whatever you want, being totally evil and thus true to yourself, is "an act of heroism." This is totally cracked out, yo. AND IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NO ONE DEFINES THEIR TERMS.
Panelists now discussing how people like seeing totally unrepentant villains get theirs. This is probably true. On the other hand, another panelist is mentioning the difference between villains and antagonists, which would be more meaningful if someone had defined the term "evil" but it is obviously too late now.
One of my favorite villains is Mystique, who I would not characterize as "evil." Maybe I should just call her an antagonist.
Audience member suggesting selfishness = evil, selflessness = good, but that people do selfless acts for selfish returns. Panelist arguing that self-sacrifice has no reward, but I don't agree with that. The anticipation of being thought well of could be a powerful reward.
I think I'm going to offer Granny Weatherwax's definition of sin as a stand-in: when you treat people as things. It can twist and inflate and take on all kinds of semeings, but it "starts as thinking about people like things." (Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)
Overall: some interesting discussion, but someone needed to say what the hell evil is, or at least try, and that probably would have helped narrow in the discussion, too.
My interest in this panel, just to note, is largely out of the observation that City of Villains, despite being a newer and more robust game than City of Heroes, always seems very empty compared to CoH. Part of this may be stiffer system requirements, but it still seems like people like being heroes more than they like being villains. On the other hand, everyone wants to do Faith.
Of course, as my friend Jenn and I used to say, "Do Nancy, don't BE her." (Nancy as in the Fairuza Balk character in The Craft.)
First panelist argues that evil is interesting because it's necessary to make a hero, and to make a story. Big evil = big hero, big story.
Second panelist argues that evil is just more interesting than good, period. Transgression is interesting, and evil also requires charisma, in most stories. Plus it's just sexy. (See: Faith--although of course Faith is ultimately redeemed, and is always portrayed as a conflicted character, so part of this issue has to be DEGREES of evil, or at least complexity. Of course, totally flat characters are boring no matter what their alignment.)
Third panelist says evil is more fun to write about because there's more possibility in evil characters. I don't think I agree here that "good" characters are so terribly, terribly constrained in their actions. Someone else is saying that the hero can't have a dark side or he's an antihero. I think we're getting a little too literal here. I repeat: flat characters are boring no matter what, and a hero who has NO "shadow" is pretty unbelievable as a person.
Fourth panelist is making this point--good guys SHOULD be capable of evil, or how the hell are we supposed to believe that anyone is capable of overcoming evil within themselves? And of course, part of being "good" is resisting the "evil" impulses that everyone has.
I wonder if they're going to discuss the popularity of "antiheroes." They are popular, and I think it's largely because people don't like goody-two-shoes.
Panelist #2 remarks that stories are more interesting when heroes fail sometimes, give into temptation, etc.
Moderator is giving Anita Blake as an example of interesting hero-fighting-darkness-within. I think we all know how I feel about Anita Blake and her constant goddamn whining.
Question: What about villains who think they're good? Magneto, etc. And who even flip back and forth in the narrative--Magneto again. Panelists compare Batman and Superman as exemplary antihero vs. hero. An audience member brings up Cyclops and Wolverine; I don't think they're quite as strong an example, but I can still see it.
Now there's argument about whether or not "pure heroes" are boring and predictable. Audience member argues that you need "a little bit of evil" to make you unpredictable. I really think we should have started this panel by defining terms. "Evil" is way too vague.
Talk about how we become monsters when we destroy monsters. Daleks telling Doctor Who that if he destroys them, he is like them. And that creepy ET-gone-bad woman who was wearing the local MP as a suit, remember that? I watched that with aardvark_gumbo just recently.
Audience member brings up "banality of evil"--that in Real Life, many people who do evil things are just boring. Panelist arguing that these people are actually just "amoral." God, do we need our terms defined.
Moderator asks: at what point do you stop being a person who's done a few bad things, and become someone who's "just out-and-out evil." Yes, good question. DEFINE TERMS. kestrell argues that it's when you stop feeling repentance, but I've had way too much of people who say they're sorry when really they're just sorry that THEY feel bad. I think repentance is a slippery thing.
Audience member argues that it's really only the villains with at least some POSSIBILITY of redemption whom we like.
I brought up Serenity as a good example of how we really want to have a face to put on evil even when it's really much more diffuse--a whole government of people, all working together to do something really terrible.
Now a panelist is arguing that doing whatever you want, being totally evil and thus true to yourself, is "an act of heroism." This is totally cracked out, yo. AND IT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NO ONE DEFINES THEIR TERMS.
Panelists now discussing how people like seeing totally unrepentant villains get theirs. This is probably true. On the other hand, another panelist is mentioning the difference between villains and antagonists, which would be more meaningful if someone had defined the term "evil" but it is obviously too late now.
One of my favorite villains is Mystique, who I would not characterize as "evil." Maybe I should just call her an antagonist.
Audience member suggesting selfishness = evil, selflessness = good, but that people do selfless acts for selfish returns. Panelist arguing that self-sacrifice has no reward, but I don't agree with that. The anticipation of being thought well of could be a powerful reward.
I think I'm going to offer Granny Weatherwax's definition of sin as a stand-in: when you treat people as things. It can twist and inflate and take on all kinds of semeings, but it "starts as thinking about people like things." (Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum)
Overall: some interesting discussion, but someone needed to say what the hell evil is, or at least try, and that probably would have helped narrow in the discussion, too.