Happy March… This year really seems to be chugging along.

Let’s forego the usually verbose introductory message and get right into the topic of the month. So, let’s ask ourselves…

What about Worldbuilding?

Today we’re going to talk about something near and dear to every story, no matter where it starts or where it’s going. We’ll call it the “Idea of Evil.”

No matter what story you approach there needs to be conflict, because conflict drives the plot. Say we had a fellow named ‘Jon’ who purchased and then consumed a banana. Not very exciting, right?

Well, what if I told you that Jon dropped that banana as soon as he stepped out of the store. That poor banana, it never stood a chance in the cruel world. But, here’s the important thing. What caused the death of that banana? What evil was at play that influenced events in such a manner that banana met an untimely end?

Was it Jon? Was he harboring some hatred in his heart for fruit, and felt murder was the only recourse? Is Jon a monster?

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps something greater was at play, some amorphous thing that necessitated the death of our dear banana. Spooky, eh?

Look, this extended effort is all part of a greater point. Evil, a concept, can be applied broadly, but often falls into one of two categories. Internal and External.

The Evil Without

There really is no other place to begin than with the granddaddy evil entity that inspired all those who followed: Morgoth.

I’m kidding, we’re going to look at this from a more approachable perspective… our old friend Sauron. Throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Sauron guides the story without actually being part of it. His existence is never called into question, but his relevance to the greater narrative is largely an impotent one in his current state. He cannot physically interact with the story, and therefore becomes a personification of malevolence which acts through other characters.

He is the avenue through which a lot of the evil flows into Middle-Earth, the source of suffering and conflict during the events of the story.

And yet, he is external.

An external evil is overarching, something that drives the narrative to act in opposition to it. When you choose to include a Dark Lord or Lady, vindictive god, or whatever, they become the focal point of your conflict, even if there are ancillary conflicts taking place throughout the series. Everything the narrative does opposes them in some way, it doesn’t matter if those are small or large acts… they just need to happen.

The trouble with this sort of thing is that it’s kind of played out.

Essentially, when you go down this road it leads to a story structure similar to old video games. I’m sure some of you remember games like the old Super Mario World on SNES, right? Well, here’s what happens when your opposition force is external to the story: You create a set of mini-bosses that lead to the final villain.

Each of these acts as an obstacle to the greater threat, but they’re always impotent when examined against that threat. They either don’t act for themselves or, if they do, it is influenced in some way by that external presence of evil.

If you choose to do this, there needs to be a reason you do it this way. If you’re going to craft a Sauron, Odium, No-God, or something similar, there needs to be a reason they’re the route you choose and serve a narrative purpose other than simply being a reason for all the terrible things happening in the story. If they want to rule the world… you need to have a reason why. If they want to destroy the world… you need to have a reason why. If they want to turn all living creatures into bunnies and rule as king of the bunnies… you have to have a reason why.

Without a reason, an ambiguous evil is just that… ambiguous, uncertain, and unwelcome. Make your monsters multidimensional.

The Evil Within

Personal bias coming wholly into play, this is the form of evil and conflict that I prefer. My personal opinion is this: I love Dark Lords, but conflict carries more weight when it comes from within the story, from players seen on the center stage.

And the best way to accomplish this is to seed the idea of evil within our character’s hearts. Personal motivations and desires leading to perceived acts of evil will have a greater effect on characters and events within your narrative. Furthermore, there is a special presence when the “villain” has been seen on-screen.

Interactions between POV characters can color a reader’s perception of the “villains”, often lending sympathy or nuance to their actions. This extra layer of understanding leads to a more concrete rationale behind their actions.

To illustrate this, let’s look at something relevant to the zeitgeist: ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’. (The trailer for the former was released yesterday, and I am overjoyed to get an ending to this series… even if it’s not the one I wanted. But, anyway, I digress.)

Right now, A Song of Ice and Fire, through Game of Thrones, stands as a defining example of how to employ evil in your narrative without needing an external presence. Greed, lust for power, and personal hatred are just as accessible as some malevolent, distant overlord lurking in the shadows. And, as an added benefit, we get to see the villain fail… we get to see the narrative turn against them and watch them fall.

It’s fun. Far more fun than if they were offscreen and suffering.

The additional benefit of exploring this method is that we open ourselves, and our narrative, up to questions of morality and begin to philosophize on what exactly makes an action evil. Personal gain and personal benefit are synonymous in many ways, but when examined in terms of an action they can open up to new perceptions. Take this example:

A prince kills his brothers so that he may become king.

Is that evil? I don’t know about you, but fratricide is pretty damn evil absent context.

Now what if I told you that same prince only killed his brothers so he wouldn’t be killed.

Is that evil? Well, it’s certainly not a good thing… but you can see why he had to do it. Self-preservation is kind of important, yet he’s still committed an evil action.

You can take this further and keep adding contextual layers until the action becomes so clouded that a black and white determination cannot be made. It is at that point that we forget about the idea of evil and focus on characterization to determine the moral alignment of actions in relation of the whole plot. Conceivably, you could have characters performing evil actions on many different sides in service to the narrative… hell, your protagonists could be doing it.

The trouble you may run into is that there is a strong chance you stumble in your attempts to add nuance. When you’re trying too hard to make things grey, there is a strong possibility that lean too heavily on certain crutches to try and make things seem as if they are contextualized and fall into a repetitive stride. There’s also the fact that you’ve created an expectation from the reader, they don’t want a black and white ending, they want grey. So you’re locked in. Good can’t triumph over Evil, nor can Evil do the same to Good; the ending needs a little of both. You’ve made a choice, and now you need to follow through. Your path is grey, stick to it.

(For a great variant of evil, but clouded, actions, look no further than Sand dan Glokta in the First Law series. Highly recommended)

Tying it all together

I’m not trying to tell you do things one way or another, because I am no expert. I only hope that you examine the way you apply conflict and evil to a narrative and why you’re doing it that way.

FFC Winners! - Courtesy of last month’s judges. Be sure to thank them.

1. /u/Ford9863 - First!
2. /u/breadyly - Second!
3. /u/sky_kid - Third!
4. /u/PhantomOfZePirates - Fourth!

Honorable Mentions:

/u/DannyMethane with “the ol’ flower in the eye trick”

/u/Android_soul for “the flower that stares back”

/u/rudexvirus for “ashes, ashes”

/u/iruleatants for “being heckin cute”