The Nature of Evil

[SA]

Inspired by DeeLâ,¬,,¢s review of the Fiendish Codex II, I got to thinking about the various incarnations of Evil as portrayed in fantasy.  First and foremost was D&Dâ,¬,,¢s portrayal (relevant to the threadâ,¬,,¢s subject), so here is my extrapolated and exaggerated interpretation of Wizardsâ,¬,,¢ considerably tamer incarnation.

The Nature of Evil

The chaotic/lawful dichotomy of evil represents (respectively) instinctual versus calculated dedication to suffering.  Sins by omission or apathy, while arguably an evil, do not qualify as the conscious, motivated, destructive malignance characterised by devil-kind or the unbridled, entropic, primordial sadism of demon-kind.  Fiends exist on an entirely different level of physical, spiritual and psychological depravity.

These two manifestations of evil (chaotic and lawful), though contrasted, are but halves of a whole: in demons there is the evil that does not conspire, but rends and reaves the fabrics of morality without thought or calculation, for these beings are, on every level of their existence, the primal suffering and horror of pure Sin; in devils there is an ideological evil, as pure and inestimable as that of their chaotic kin but calculated in a fashion that consumes their minds entire.  A devil would fear a demon, for its lust for suffering is a thing that knows no reason or restraint.  A demon would not fear a devil, not because it is without cause to fear, but because it is without faculty.  Had it the sense, it would fear the ingenuity with which a devil might conspire to its fall, but it has none.

By their nature, demons are possessed of a hundred million ways to be cruel, and they can perform these without a thought.  A devil has no such innate prowess: what they have is the inclination and the intellect to potentially take sadism to levels even demons cannot muster.  They cogitate and calculate, learning the ways of mortal minds and hearts.  They study for centuries the politics and passions of worldly empires and with gruesome ingenuity concoct unfathomable means through which to drive a fetid dagger deep into the human soul.

And then there are the Yugoloths.

If devils commit travesties in the pursuit of the highest evil of all, and demons do it for the evil of the act itself, then yugoloths (daemons) do it for reasons divorced from the sin of the action.  They instigate cataclysmic wars for petty amusement and derive genuine euphoria from the squeals of a dying child as it struggles to stay the flow of its own shredded innards.  A devil might aspire to power as readily as a yugoloth, but where the former anticipates all the ways in which that power will cause suffering unto others, the latter sees the power as the end in itself.  When a devil brings a damned soul down into torment, it is that wretchâ,¬,,¢s suffering alone that justifies the act of torture, but for a daemon, it is every other thing that the act inspires that justifies it.

To put it another way: tanarâ,¬,,¢ri are fuelled by evil and commit it instinctively because it is the realisation of all that they are; baatezu aspire to the highest evil (infinite suffering to all things) and commit it to better understand (and approach) that ideal; yugoloths use evil acts as a means to an end (and those ends are often truly horrid), but do not count the evil as the end itself.

By this reasoning, if a monolithic entity conspired to crush all the multiverse and commit all things to eternal suffering, and succeeded, his philosophy would be that of a devil (or demon) if at the end even he was consumed by this agony.  Conversely, were he free of such torment, and drew pleasure from his solitary status above all creatures as the one unburdened being in the cosmos, he would be daemonic.  Of course, the distinction is a vague one.  What of the beast who, after this triumph, fears that the suffering spread uniform across all realities will inevitably find him also?  In the agony of that paranoia, would he ironically cease to be daemonic and become diabolical?

(Also, I am aware that according to accepted definition, it is Neutral Evil that espouses evil for evilâ,¬,,¢s own sake.  I do not dispute that.  I assert only that, in my interpretation, yugoloths choose such a philosophy because they do whatever the hell they want, whereas baatezu do it because that ideal suffuses their souls.  Ã¢,¬Å"Lawful Evilâ,¬Â for a human means a tendency to abuse the law for oneâ,¬,,¢s own gain, whereas for a devil it means a metaphysical constraint that compels them towards self-justified acts of depravity.  An LE human, therefore, might better serve a daemon than a devil; he shares the daemonâ,¬,,¢s hedonistic goals, goals a devil cannot afford.)

Anyhoo, thatâ,¬,,¢s the first part.  Just my interpretation of D&D Evil.  Next Iâ,¬,,¢ll explore evil in my own setting, and weâ,¬,,¢ll find out why â,¬Å"subjectiveâ,¬Â doesnâ,¬,,¢t mean â,¬Å"trivialâ,¬Â.

And feel free to contribute with descriptions of evil as it exists in your own setting.  This is a forum, after all.

[Hibou]

I like the points you've brought up here and agree with just about everything you've said, but for me what is here only makes me angrier about the D&D interpretations of evil and it helps to back up my changes to evil outsiders in my campaign settings. I've grown more and more fed-up with the supposed divide between demons, devils, and yugoloths and their approaches to the same thing, and thus in my settings demons, devils, and yugoloths are all one 'race' called Demons, and are always Neutral Evil. I think that the neutral evil path is the most appropriate manifestation for them. I've always seen how the demonic (and I'm using this word in a more generic, real-world way) beings act as more or less very similar to what you've said above about the alignment. When I used to DM a lot of heavily-planar campaigns, making a notable difference between devils and demons was more tiresome than anything else.

So in my settings, Vilydunn, Aath, Nayrialor, Nahrul, Allarhaven, and every other little setting I've ever had or will have, almost all evil outsiders are brought together in one type, lose the names such as yugoloth, tanar'ri, or baatezu, and become demons with the neutral evil alignment. In settings such as Vilydunn, I've tried to make the beings that represent CE's and LE's epitomes more apparent particularily the CE ones (The Damned).

[Matt Larkin (author)]

While I generally don't use alignment (I guess sometimes when playing D&D I do, but I don't play D&D so much these days), in Kishar I also don't really draw a distinction between demons and devils.

[Raelifin]

In my eyes WotC has never been good at doing "evil." By making 90% of evil outsiders, the epitome of evil, work towards no other end that the abstract concept of "evil" they lack realistic motivation, and thus the de-humanitize the villains.

Of course, this does have a kind of place in fiction (roleplaying), as we can find many instances where the villains were never meant to be human (my setting, Phaedoras, is one example). But in these instances, the protagonists don't fight "evil," they fight "danger." It's the threat that these characters pose that becomes the focus, and so they become like beasts.

In a setting where evil is truly explored, you need to have an exploration of ethics and motivation, something that just isn't present in Greyhawk (core).

P.S. Dystopia has always been one of my favorite settings because it does such a good job of throwing in morality as a major topic. Villains in dystopia seem to have a much more "evil" bend than those of core.

[Numinous]

In Hubris (my setting), there are two major types of evil present, both a bit cliche.

The first evil is the corruption which has infected the world, creating a tortuously slow descent into nothing.  The force is an unstoppable fact of naturem, and it is "evil" in the D&D sense seeing as it destroys life, and the "good" people will strive to stop, or at least slow, it's effects.

The second and vastly more dangerous kind of evil is that which lurks in the hearts of men.  Betrayal, greed, deceit, all manners of evil can be perpetrated by thoise we see everyday.  It is this evil the setting was made for, a world in which I might examine the full depths of the darkness which lies in men's hearts.

[Epic Meepo]

I've always had a slightly different take on evil outsiders, and though I've never seen any WotC product state it outright, I see it reflected everywhere in the WotC descriptions of devils, demons, and the race currently referred to as yugoloths:

Devils are evil but don't know it;
they are willing to kick puppies if it furthers their "well-meaning" agenda.

Demons are evil but don't care;
they are willing to kick puppies to excite or amuse themselves.

Yugoloths are evil by default, they know it, and they care;
they are willing kick puppies because there are puppies to be kicked.

In this case "evil but not knowing" means that devils think they know the best way to run the cosmos. If they have to imprison and torture every other sentient creature to satisfy their thirst for power, so be it, because only through realizing the power that they instinctly crave can they implement the changes necessary to create their version of paradise. And in their mind, this tyrannical paradise is better than any utopian ideal the celestials have ever put forth. Thus, they wouldn't call themselves evil at all, except to embrace a curse word that mortals throw their way in order to demonstate that so-called evil isn't really so bad.

"Evil but not caring" is just a step away from hedonism. Demons follow their instincts and act on their base desires, showing minimal concern for the consequences to anyone other than themselves. In their mind, concepts suchs a Good and Evil are irrelevant in the face of their own pursuit of happiness, so they find concerns of morality pointless and silly. Ordinarily, this would be purely chaotic behavior. But, by coincidence or by design, demons are born with desires that inevitably lead to abhorent and destructive acts that go far beyond other races' concepts of self-indulgence. And demons don't realize their psychopathic tendencies because they never stop to reflect on the nature of their whims.

On the other hand, yugoloths are evil, they know they are evil, and they fully understand the depths of their depravity. They make no pretenses about being benevolent; they know their approach to the world is to seek personal gain at the expense of others. They are also introspective in ways that demons are not; they understand that their base desires are bent in a decidedly immoral direction, but they embrace this defiance of all that is right and good.

And yugoloths don't just act to amuse themselves at the expense of others. Instead, they manipulate situations to actively enable the evil of others. They know that devils are evil, despite the devil's claims to the contrary, so they create sitautions where devils can perpetrate evil acts in the name of bettering the cosmos. They also care that demons are evil, despite the demon's indifference to such things, and constantly contrive to inspire grander desires for evil in the demons who would otherwise squander their attention on petty concerns.

Yugoloths want to make sure that everyone else joins in the wickedness, and not just to advance their own power. They find benevolence distasteful in the same way other creatures are disgusted by needless atrocities. Even demons and devils are disgusted by needless atrocities. Evil deeds that don't serve to further a quest for power or serve to fulfill one's sickest desires are wasted actions to devils and demons. A yugoloth, on the other hand, is the sort of being that will perpetrate an evil act simply because it can, without regard to its personal agenda and the amount of enjoyment that it gets from the act.

[Raelifin]

See, under that the Devils are misguided and the Demons are bestial, it is only the Yugoloth that is truly alien in moral outlook. However, I'm going to agree with SA on how the d20 creatures are portrayed, though your take might present a more interesting cosmos.

[DeeL]

@Epic Meepo, that is beautiful. Ever since the Planescape Blood War accessory, there has been the implication that the Baernoloths created the yugoloths, who in turn in a sense provoked the development of larvae on other planes into Baatazu and Tanar'ri.  By the same token, many writers for D&D have gone with the conceit that fiends are engaged in the disinterested pursuit of Evil (in this case, the capital is essential.)

The authors of FC1 got away from that in a believable way.  The authors of FC2 did not.

You, on the other hand, have thrown new light on the entire panoply of fiendishness.  Kudos, and thanks.

@Witchhunt, your interpretation is not incompatible with Meepos.  In fact, it might be simplest of all to say that like mortals, fiends have alignments that are somewhat determined by their place of origin, and further by their own choices.  So a fiend originating in the Abyss, thus being a tanar'ri, is going to be evil but is only probably going to be chaotic.  The Abyss is literally a world of hurt - many worlds in fact - that revolts at and punishes acts of compassion or charity, and rewards and invigorates cruelty.  Any being arising from such an environment would almost necessarily be evil, but it's chaotic nature might not be so easily set.

Likewise, Hell might be ruled by the paradisal vision of Asmodeus but as long as a devil within that system fulfilled a purpose, his personal alignment might veer easily to chaos.  (The barbed devils come irresistibly to mind.)

And the Yugoloths, not arising from mortal larvae and being engendered between the thunder and heat of Gehenna and the hungry gloom of the Grey Waste, might have the most alien esthetic of all.  As improbable as a good-aligned baatezu or tanar'ri might be, a yugoloth might truly have no choice in that matter - whereas their bent to law or chaos might be all over the map.

Anywho, I officially love this thread.  Keep up the dark reflections, fellow Cebegians.