Another advantage to having the great old ones being so alien and unknowable in their morality is that it makes Nyarlathotep stick out as an incredibly fascinating character, In a mythos of beings who we can never understand, Nyarlathotep stands out as such a unambiguously evil and almost "human" creature. It makes him one of the most horrifying entities in the mythos.
So to be fair there's other books where Drizzt reflects on and explores his attitudes about other races, he finds a well spoken and educated goblin who has morals, but is stuck into servitude but gets executed despite Drizzt's best efforts which haunts him as one of his greatest failures as a hero. Plus the whole Many-Arrows plot arc where Drizzt on one hand is motivated to defend his friend's kingdom but also explicitly struggles and comes to understand the Orcs motivations to create a kingdom. Which eventually leads to a peace and compromise.
This is a fair point. The later books do go into detail more on that. But the earlier books in the series don't, and that's fairly off-putting, especially to newer readers of the series. But I will concede that this is a problem Salvatore thankfully improves upon.
@@WannabeCanadianDev it's from a short story called dark mirror, from a compendium called realms of valor, published in 1993 some 5 years after drizzts first published appearance. And to be fair to Salvatore, wolfgar was originally intended to be the main character in the first 3 novels of the legend of drizzt that were published between 1988 and 1990, drizzts was originally intended as an interesting side character who blew up in popularity after the icewind Dale trilogy was published. I really don't think he was thinking about what the cool drow ranger thoughts on nature vs nurture where when writing the books staring the barbarian and his buddies.
Funny story, I was part of a campaign featuring an Illithid. Ours was one third of what would otherwise be an Axis of Evil consisting of him and some succubi, a Lich and his minions, and my character, leader of Skaven with the serial numbers filed off. But it was the most chill, friendly campaign I've ever played. Every dungeon dive was less about loot and killing, and more about making new friends. Gelatinous cubes, a dimension of spider people, even a Cthulhu expy were all allies by end of it. Our foes ended up being Dwarves and Elves that were acting like self-centered assholes. The Dwarves blasted a chunk out of our city to find a landing spot, and the Elves detained the leaders under the guise of negotiations as we approached their lands while fleeing a magical blight. It was a really cool experience, to enter a new place, be attacked by a new foe, and immediately start discussing how we could befriend it. We even led a gelatinous cube back to base by doing the "carrot on a string" routine with a Skaven minion that fucked up his stealth rolls (The minion was fine, I promise).
The Decepticons from Transformers (Technically not an evil race) is kind of an interesting example of how evil races have been adapted in a franchise. The Original Generation One cartoon had The Decepticons as the typical Saturday Morning Cartoon bad guys (Like Skeletor from He-Man or Shredder from the 87 Turtles) where they weren’t portrayed in a positive light or given much development. However, as the franchise chugged on this changed they were given a more sympathetic light. The IDW Comics version had them as freedom fighters who wished to go against the Autobot government before they became no better than them. Hell, some series even gave some Decepticon’s redemption arcs (Starscream, Blackarachnia, the main bad guy Megatron). It’s interesting to see how a franchise that started off as “Good Guys vs Bad Guys.” was able to show that the “Bad Guys.” weren’t all bad.
Seriously, IDW having Megatron as a revolutionary turned terrorist leader after being radicalized by the government trying to silence him via a brutal prison beating is far more compelling. The fact he turned his back on the Decepticon cause and essentially acknowledged the new Autobots were the superior choice for his goals is cool. OPTIMUS was a fan of his original manifesto, to a good extent Megatron was RIGHT.
Fascinating video seeing so many of my favorite fictional races analyzed in their own media and compared to others, has me genuinely in deep thought the Mind Flayer and Flood segments especially, and in "slight" defense of the Goblins in Goblin slayer they are pure evil but they are also a mirror on "that" worlds society and politics they aren't treated as credible threats and their Victims including Goblin Slayer himself have their trauma trivialized or ignored.
Sorry to comment many months after, but the issue with Goblin Slayer's use of goblins is that: If you want to make them seem like the sort of thing that is secretly really harmful but gets ignored by the populace at large, you might want to find a way of presenting that without involving what is considered the most horrific crime a person can commit. Not only does it distract the audience from any broader philosophical point the show is trying to make, it also makes it very difficult to buy within the fiction of the show.
The Thing about Killing to no longer feel pain was Also used in the PS1 classic XenoGears. Where you learn the monsters only feed on humans cause they are always in pain and human blood makes the pain go away.
33:39 Despite seeing both movies, I got way more terrified by the Aliens of Martiann attacks when I was a kid. The idea of just another civilization, just as nuanced of us, coming to try on a crappy way to "establish peace"; to find it's first excuse to shoot and reveal they just came to conquer us while on a burst of laughter, truly terrified me
The Omicron from FFXIV Endwalker felt like a well-executed "evil" race. Also, I really love the handling of Organization XIII members in Kingdom Hearts. The idea that they're not inhuman, but rather that both they and the "heroes" have dehumanized them, while it does fall into the sad misunderstood guy category, is IMO much more fitting thematically in a game about kindness and empathy.
As someone who played Shadow of Colossus recently for the first time and got damn awfully fascinated by it, kinda familiar topic of "Why do I need to kill these giants to save my girlfriend" or whatever.
With an entire chapter about orcs, I feel like the Warhammer incarnation of them is worth bringing up. More the 40k incarnation than the fantasy one (even if I prefer fantasy as a setting). How do you make them stand out in a setting where every faction is its own flavor of awful? Make them the only ones in the entire setting where everyone is genuinely happy. They're a comic relief race of football hooligans who live for fightin' and winnin', and even the latter isn't necessary so long as they die doing the former.
"Things beyond our understanding" description as well as the description of Killer Clowns from Outer Space reminds me of a story called Roadside Picnic, in which aliens visit the Earth, leave before we can notice them and leave their trash behind. This trash is technology entirely beyond our understanding, which can be both incredibly usefull and lethal to humans. The story follows a man searching for these alien artifacts. A stalker.
Personally I feel Demons are rarely used to their proper potential: usually people just turn them as random evil monsters. The Demons in Abrahamic mythos are *fallen angels* . They're former servants of God who rebelled. There's ton of potential to make them compelling characters, villains or not. But more importantly, that indicates that they're technically not an evil race - their race is the same than Angels. They're a faction.
Across many myths, demons are also not really people, in the sense that humans are. More often than not they are the manifestations of concepts, turned flesh
Also Jewish demons are kind of like the fey, in that they’re mischievous, swap babies, and can reward good/wise behavior. Plus a bit of Jewish rite following.
One of the interesting uses of demons is in anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. In Mennock the devil Lestat meets a being who claims to be the Devil but instead of being evil it's more like him and God have methodological differences with how to bring human souls to heaven.
Fully agree with the idea that they're boring - And, honestly, that's my biggest issue with them. Even FF9's Black Mages - An army of magical constructs created to destroy at whoever they were controlling them's command; literal machines of war and a faceless footsoldier to overrun cities and fight against have a village where those who gained sapience despite not being designed for that went to live in peace. Though as someone with players who seem to be whatever the opposite of a murder hobo is - There's exactly one time I got them into a combat without the enemy literally attacking first, and that was because I _accidentally_ hit on one of the character's traumas without realizing it - I'm... Starting to get why some GM's insist they're necessary. I don't think they're _correct_ - If I had a plan for how things are going to go I'd be doing this as a book rather than a game, let alone a game with other people, and apparently my players _really_ like talking down threats - but I'm becoming more sympathetic to that position, particularly those running games that takes more work to prep combat in, and I absolutely - 100% - could get a combat going if I actually need it to happen. Minor correction on Tieflings, IIRC World Builder Bob's video on 4e's marketting - They were elevated to a core playable race in 4th edition, not 5th. This was the focus of a where an 'interview' with a Tiefling and a Gnome talked about having swapped places, the Tiefling going into the PHB and the Gnome just being in the MM. (As the gnome put it - "I'm a monster. Rawr.") (I think until PHB3, which put the Gnome back in as a playable race, I think also reintroducing the Barbarian class considering the line the gnome gave to describe getting put into a later PHB being "I'm a Barbarian. Rawr.")
Well now this is making me think of the Phyrexians from Magic the Gathering again. They seem most similar to the cenobytes to me, with one of the core conflicts being one Phyrexian leader, Urabrask (the red mana one) disagreeing with another Phyrexian leader, Elesh Norn (the white mana one) about whether they should factor consent into "compleating" (converting) other people and turning them into Phyrexians (undead bioengineered cyborgs. A Phyrexian looks like a normal human/insert-other-fantasy-race-here with exposed muscle tissues and metal plates on top, who is constantly being converted through surgery and infection into being more and more made of metal). The white praetor has more power, because she's also got the blue, green, and black mana praetors on her side as well (that being the side of forceful conversion). I feel like the Phyrexians would be more capable of coexisting in the MTG multiverse if they took an attitude where they only converted people who asked for it. Because there are a lot of people who like the idea of Phyrexians in a sort of transhumanist sense, even to the degree of making Phyrexian oc's
This video mentions Pazuzu just enough for me to drop a psa to anyone worried about demonic possession. Old P boy is a very ancient being from Mesopotamian tradition. He will not poses you but evoking him and statues of him where traditionally used to fight demons.
Devil May Cry is an incredibly interesting take on demons in my opinion, and I admit a lot of it is kind of predicated on how I read into minutia that's not explicitly spelled out. I could be wrong with this read, or not, I'm not entirely sure. But I view them along similar lines as DnD's Demons and Devils. The Hell armies, cursed chess pieces, scissor ghouls, lizard guys, basically anything that is a recurring enemy is what I would classify as a demon, mindless killing machines only capable of taking orders and violence. Devils, however, are the ones creating the hordes of demons for their own benefit. Sparda, Mundus, Nevan, Cerberus, Argosax, anything with a unique design and name would be what I consider Devils. And - as is the core conceit of the fiction - Devils in this context are not inherently evil. Sparda was able to comprehend the concept of justice and turned his back on his kind for the sake of others, and that act reverberates not only through the mythos of the games but through Dante and Vergil's characters as well, each one seeing their father's action through the lens of trauma and coming up with polar opposite responses. But where this becomes the most interesting - to me anyway - is in the anime that came out just after 3. In one episode, Dante is hired to kill a specific demon that is seemingly targeting the daughter of a wealthy guy. Rather than simply doing the job as he's told, Dante investigates the situation, uncovers a plot to summon a more powerful demon by the guy who hired him, while finding out his target had a bounty on his head because he had simply fallen in love with the daughter, and the daughter reciprocated. It's then that Dante refuses to kill the "demon" while turning on his employer with the idea that humans can be more demon like than demons and some demons are more human than humans, reinforcing that idea that Devils are not inherently evil, they're just tyrants acting selfishly. I get that in other shows/games this is a fairly mild "twist" but in Devil May Cry it was the moment where I really started paying attention. It clued me in to the idea that there's more going under the hood regarding Dante and Vergil's characters than first appeared. And yeah the evil demons are cannon fodder, they're also not the point of the story, but rather catalysts for character studies and kickass gameplay to intertwine.
Ah this was such a fantastic video ! I loved how you deconstructed the different types of evil, and even helped put words to how I feel about some of them.
Interesting take on the Cenobites. Though I must say, despite watching all 11 Hellraiser films recently (was quite a miserable binge, honestly) and somewhat liking 3 and 4, you are correct about the Cenobites' characterization completely changing. And though later films in the seris I find to be quite terrible (with the exception of the 2022 Hulu reboot which is my favorite of the films), I suppose films 5-7 and 9-10 are more accurate to the portrayal of the Cenobites in the first two films, even if the films themselves aren't great.
I am disappointed that you didn't mention the Gnolls getting absolutely shafted on the nuance mark in BG3, but I get your point was kind of understood by the entire video. Still, a damn shame that the Gnolls showed up strictly as raving murderers. They got all sorts of crap heaped on them to "make up" for Orcs and Tieflings and Drow "being okay now", it seems.
"Why do you want something simple?" I agree with basically everything you said, up until this point. Because I am a strong believer in the fact that simple storytelling does not equal bad storytelling, and complex storytelling does not equal good storytelling. Simple villains may be the better choice, because the emphasis of a chosen narrative may not be on the antagonistic force or their motives. Lord Of The Rings is a good example of this. The orcs exist as an extension of Sauron's will. Sauron himself, while given more complex motives in later works, is never really explained as anything more than a force of evil seeking power for power's sake. He wants to conquer, corrupt, and destroy because... He's evil and this is what evil does. Because the narrative being told is one about people coming together to overcome a common threat. Struggle against overwhelming evil. Mythic clash of heroes and villains. And despite these simple trappings and uncomplicated villains, it is regarded as among the greatest works of literature (and film) ever created. Sometimes, pure evil bad guys that don't have a lot of explanation is a purely practical choice. Lord Of The Rings is a lengthy work. How much longer would it have been had Tolkien decided to explore the moral complexities of orcs and Sauron? Would this have improved the story? Would any of this added context be worth it for the possible blow to the pacing? You talk about the practical reason for mindless evil mooks in video games, but there are practical reasons for storytelling choices in every medium. Sometimes, it's just a matter of resource allocation, and the resource in question is the attention of your readers. Zombies and orcs (in Tolkien's work at least), and similar foes essentially function as Protagonist vs Environment. They are anthropomorphized extensions of a malignant force. Aspects of a dangerous setting, rather than characters themselves. They are hazards, not characters. No more a boring character than a hurricane, a dangerous mountain expedition, or a wild animal is a boring character. But it's a hurricane you can a have a cool sword fight with. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
I have to disagree with what evil and good means. To me, evil is action or intent at other's expense. Good is the opposite, where you are willing to do things for others at your own expense.
Well that's the fun bit of ethics philosophy, there can be many interpretation of what constitutes good and evil. What you're describing is a welfarist theory of good and evil.
Aside from my nitpicks on your misunderstanding of a work, and a generally well spread misunderstanding of a lore aspect in Faerun. (both in a different comment) A good video. Though I have a response to the question you posed at 54:00. "Why would you want something to be simple?" Elementary my dear Watson, humans adore simplicity. In spite of a constant push for complexity by subcultures around the net, humanity prefers simplistic rationalizations for things. Its why the lines "Republicans are racists" and "Democrats are stupid" are popular among those political camps. Neither side WANT the nuance of an oppositions position, they just want to hate them and to ascribe a rationality for hating them regardless of the truth of that rationality. It is cathartic for humans when it comes to social groups and reactions to potential social groups to make our view on them as simplistic as is possible. That's how our media apparatus gaslight people so easily into believing things that aren't true on a near constant basis. The majority of humans don't seek truth or complexity. They seek comfort and assuredness.
As a Dragon Ball fan myself, I thought Cell was an interesting callout, and I saw where you were going with that when you got to The Flood. Like Gravemind, Cell finds his origin in the biological imperative to destroy - Flood survive by subsuming other lifeforms, whereas Cell was literally created for the express purpose of killing Son Goku. He arguably evolves beyond his base programming, yet choses to continue fighting and killing on his own terms. Except, does he? There's a lot of dubious bioessentialism in Dragon Ball, which started as a gag comedy manga and normally wouldn't warrant deep critical analysis. A major component of Cell's genetic blueprint is Saiyan DNA, harvested from multiple unwitting donors. The series tells us and shows us on numerous occasions that the Saiyan Race are very much naturally Always Chaotic Evil: violent, cruel, warmongering, and highly competitive, both internally and externally. Raditz, then Vegeta and Nappa, are thought to be the only other surviving members of their race at this time, and are all thoroughly villainous. The sole exception is Goku, which is speculated in-fiction to be a result of childhood head trauma. In other words, he used to be a wild little hellraiser until falling down a ravine and bashing his cranium on a rock, after which he became a very sweet child (if no less rambunctious). This somewhat makes him equal parts Superman and Drizzt Do'Urden. Now, Vegeta does undergo a long redemption arc over the course of DBZ, the end result being a full and proper heel-face turn. But even Vegeta, who grew up at the apex of Saiyan society as the crown prince, still acknowledges that Saiyans are fundamentally capital-e Evil, save for a few exceptions that prove the rule - such as his own brother Cabba, who was banished for being weak and cowardly. At one time, Goku's father Bardock was shown to be a prime example of his race, ill-tempered and self-interested at best, though later retcons softened his image and gave him a kindhearted wife in Gine (again, noted in-fiction as being unusual for their race). This later development is presented as the reason for Goku's inherent goodness, apart from his innate Saiyan proclivity for combat, bringing us back around to the matter of bioessentialism. Is Goku good because his parents were, if no exactly good, then at least not explicitly evil? Goku and Vegeta's children certainly didn't inherit any Saiyan evilness, which seems to make the case of Nuture over Nature - until you consider Gohan's frequent outbursts of violent rage, most recently cemented by his "Beast" power-up in the DBS: Super Hero film. And the matter of Always Evil Saiyans is further muddied when you consider the Saiyans of Universe 6, a parallel to our familiar Universe 7, where the Saiyans are said to be Always Lawful Good - aside from a few bad apples like Caulifla and Kale, who are minor deliquents at worst and never commit overt acts of villainy on-screen. Finally, back to the matter of Cell, does he ever really chose to do Evil? Or is he just abiding by his genetic programming? Freeza, in contrast, is somebody who does Evil just because he can and he revels in it. He has had multiple opportunities to reform himself, or at least stand down and go mind his own business, but consistently choses to be the worst possible person and lash out in petty hate, even at times when it's not in his own best interest to continue fighting. More than once, Freeza himself suffers for his choices and never changes his ways, because he chooses to be Evil. In fact, series creator Akira Toriyama has stated that Freeza's entire character was inspired by the most evil people he could think of at the time: predatory real estate developers. 😆
Wasn't Goku initially violent because the Saiyans used to program their offspring with the imperative to conquer planets before sending them away, which was erased when Goku hit his head? I think the Saiyans are actually interesting because they have a very biological drive to fight and compete which expressed itself in their violent and conquering ways, but isn't a necessity. It always felt to me like Goku found the outlet for his saiyan nature in martial arts and being a protector of the planet, which means that he can always fight and train without having to harm others, which is something Vegeta seems to follow suit on, him using training and his competition with Goku as an outlet for his Saiyan nature. Trunks and Gotenks are both half-saiyan, but they were also from a very early age both socialized into human society while being trained in martial arts, so that they would have never experienced a conflict between their earthling and saiyan sides because they were never faced with a conflict to begin with. They can practice martial arts and they can engage in sparring with each other or their family for fun, without an intent to harm. Gohan is much more on the human side of things and inheritly gentle, but he still possesses some saiyan instincts like their primal rage, but the conflict and his development is more focussed on how he expresses it. Gohan forcefully supresses these instincts, which lead to him being controlled by them when they reach the boiling point during his fight with Cell. In comparison, Goku reached a similar boiling point where his saiyan rage awakened in his initial Super Saiyan transformation, but he didn't become a slave to it the way Gohan did. In the initial state he is still able to warn Gohan about him struggling for control and at the end of his fight with Frieza, he had enough control that he could make the choice of not persueing further violence and show his enemy mercy and kindness. I think giving fantasy races different instinctual drives isn't inheritly problematic. Humans as well are still possess many inherit instinct, which we learn to express in different ways and I think the way the Saiyans evolve and are depicted over time is actually a fairly interesting way to show it. Similarily with Vegeta, we see that his evil saiyan nature isn't something inherit inside of him with his development, as he becomes a better person and starts to value his family life on earth, his conflict during the Buu saga is more one of his socialization, that he feels like the comfort and happiness he experienced on earth contradicts his identity as a Saiyan, which in the end he is able to overcome and uphold his pride as a saiyan prince while being content with his family life on earth. It is a case of nature and nuture. Saiyans have traits that are inherit in their nature, but the way they express them is determined by nuture. A strong example is Broly in Super, who displays the difference quite well. He has an inheritly kindhearted and peaceful personality, but he still possesses an inherit instinctual rage as part of his nature, something he himself has to learn to control and express differently. In the case of Cell, I would argue that he makes a choice to follow his biological imperative in a cruel and evil way, partially because he lacks the nuture and upbringing that would incentivize him to act differently.
I like, that you brought up DB(Z)+ since it's one of the 1st series, I ever saw as a child, where most of the antagonists become members of the hero's ever-extending chosen family. I dont watch/read a lot of shonen, so I dont know how often this happens in the genre (I only know, it's also a thing in Naruto) but I still think, that this porosity btw antagonists and family members and how so many characters are able to switch btw the 2 is very interesting (and fun) to read! 30y later, Picolo and Vegeta are still my favorite characters!
@37:35 as someone who owns over 6000 points worth of skaven models and has been playing Warhammer Fantasy for ten years, I approve this adoration of these miserable rats
So I was VERY SURPRISED to see Humanoids from the Deep pop up in this, and your confusion is justified- the film was altered in post-production, as the director found the suggestion that the creatures were trying to breed with women was exploitative and several scenes were shot without her after production wrapped to add the element, including the Alien-ripoff birth scene.
Hellraiser and the Cenobites are so damn disturbing to me on every level. Perhaos it's my ADHD and Autism, and my general sensory sensitivity, but even thinking about them on the mlst basic of levels is enough to send me into a panicked desire to lock myself in a sensory deprovation chamber. I had to actively skip it vecauee yoy did such a good job on at encapsulating what makes them so great as villains.
i agree almost completely. however there sometimes is a place for 'why do i destroy things? because they're there!' simple, tho i much more prefer it in a campy variant, of course.
Great video, very good, my only issue is that it's pronounced like "Skay-Venn." Seriously though hits a lot of stuff that I think about when I do writing and barinstorming for my rpg table.
My only issue with this is you've defined evil races as 'choosing' evil, but if they have 'choice' they're inevitably not always evil. Thus "always evil races in fantasy" don't exist and the only real possible takeaway is to not contradict the binary. I also wonder if you'd argue a fantasy race that is all permanently born good, isn't good. I don't think most people would agree, which would contradict the necessity of choice to be evil argument. While I agree complexity is generally better than simplicity, it depends on where you place your narrative focus. Every magic system, side character, or fictional history should only be as deep as it needs to be to serve the purposes of the story. In fact making everything too deep can be distracting from the other parts of the story. There isn't much functional difference between random chose evil enemy soldier vs random born permanently evil enemy soldier if the narrative gives their 'personal' character little to no attention. Mindflayers could still work as Frieren-esque demons and Tolkien's orcs could still work as only able to feel negative emotions (hatred/vengeance) or positive emotions from evil acts (sadistic glee). You're making an argument to trade less variety for more versatility by removing simplicity and replacing it with complexity. Not every fantasy drama needs a complex magic system, not every fantasy adventure needs complex side characters, and not every fantasy romcom needs a complex history. Sometimes simple is better.
Suprised and not surprised that the human pet guy (cybersmith) came to your thread. Thag aside however, its a great video talking about this topic! Love your narration voice.
With Raphael from Baldur's gate, id argue the Absolute is monolithic by design. It's a plague or a hurricane. Raphael is much more of a character you can roleplay with it.
I loved this video! At the same time, I hage to disagree, because there is a type of villainous, evil race I think is worth talking about: Serpent Folk of Conan the Barbarian's Hyborian Age. Under the influence of a vile demon god of serpents, the children of Set, the Serpent People seek to dominate the world of men, and enslave them so that they might once again rule the world! They delight in cruelty and violence, deception and every type of evil imaginable, but are compelling villains all the same because they are also a secret society of cave dwelling lizard men who want to reclaim lost glories. The interesting thing isn't the why, but the how. The why is basic, it's boring, sure, but the how is interesting, the how challenges the heroes, the how presents an interesting angle, and I think that focus on how is a way you can have your evil race without focusing on the why. Still, this was a fascinating watch, and it did shift my perspective on, at the very least, evil races. I still think you can have pure evil races, but only if there is more to their characterization than just evil, which I think was at least implied in the video, but I did watch it in chunks. I look forward to the next video you make! You have some interesting ideas.
Love this video. I really wish you would make a video essay focusing on what makes singular evil characters interesting and not generic. I am actively writing a horror/sci fi book series that has a singular antagonist, and I really want this villian to be complex, yet undoubtedly irredeemable.
@agramuglia excited to see it, but while Michael is certainly compelling, he isn't very complex and has no motivations. Not to say this is a bad thing, but I am talking more about villians that have higher power, see humanity as lesser, and will do anything no matter how horrific in order to achieve a goal. Yet I find those traits sort of cliche at the moment. I feel like there are examples of these villian types with more complex motives that may involve emotion, their place in the world, or what made them into the monster they became; I just don't know enough examples of that archetype of villian nor which were done particularly well
For me, Michael, Freddy, and Jason are like the standards for horror movies to reach. Honestly, comparing their different brands of evil might be interesting
@agramuglia An essay about what makes each of them unique would be very informative. All of them are entertaining and evil in their own ways, but doing a deep dive into how they are different but also so similar would be a very interesting topic to expand on
Yoh, Good video. I still wasnt going to comment. Until you said... "Guess who i romanced in the game." See i knew why i did it. But haven't played BG3 in months. So it wasn't exactly on my mind. I romanced Lae'zel. One i rolled a Drow so it kinda made sense. Outcast races and all that. But more importantly, it was obvious Lae'zel and the Gith are treated as evil conquoring extra dimensional enemies. Amd they are. But talking with Zel makes it clear they're more than that. She especially was doing what was demanded. Even though she eventually tells you thats not what she actually wants. Even early on its clear shes not the evil Gith people see her as. She's in fact really sweet. Of course not as sweet as Karlach. Nobody's as sweet as Karlach though. Anyway, knowing i was a neutral Drow. Was pretty sure there was more to her. Turns out its not just Lae'zel all Githyanki are manipulated to be the conquers they're portrayed as. At least in BG3. As always take care and have a good one🫡
I love that Killer Klowns was referenced. One of my all time favorite movies. I have to push back on the idea wasps & hornets are not pure evil. If thereis God & Devil, the Devil was allowed to create life as well. He created hornets & wasps. ...And cockroaches.
Ill argue one example of an intresting evil race are the Titans of Attack on titan. They come in as big mindless monsters and they are usually at their most interesting as mindless monsters and watching the boys try to deal with what to do when confronted with a purely evil race that doesn't even seem to be acting on something as nuanced as animalistic drive to eat. They just seem to eat because.... that's what they do I guess. They don't even eat animals and seem to follow so many bizarre rules and that made the introduction of say.... a titan with maybe the brainpower to do basic problem solving like saying "Wall in way of food.... what if knock down wall?" really interesting because now you can see them doing some very primative problem solving and that's scary for a creature that's already dangerous when it basically has no brain. The MOMENT they are given even an ounce of humanity let alone made to be real people with characters and nuance with the introduction of an actually very complicated history of still ongoing racial tension and exploited physiological tendencies, all that interesting stuff outside of the shock value of it all flies out the window at light speed. I get the feeling this is why even as the plot is getting more overtly political on a global stage it never pauses to consider did all those past actions feel different with this new insight, because.... I feel like they knew it wasn't an interesting question at all even if begging the question would have been a big shock moment. Anyway just adding to the comments from ya twitter boy.
I’mma be that guy. Pazuzu didn’t kill Merrin, he died of a heart attack. We see him take nitro pills earlier in the film (you see them scattered by his corpse, he was trying to take more before he croaked) and the stress was just too much for his ticker. The book is even more explicit about this, with the demon absolutely furious that Merrin had the temerity to die before they could settle their score.
30:48 You should watch The Sadness (2022), in some ways, its even more terrifying the reason to why they do what they do in relation to Return of The Living Dead (1985).
You know something just occurred to me; the concept of racial alignments isn’t all that far off from the Christian conception of original sin. This belief that human beings are born tainted by the sins of Adam and Eve that there is this inner evil that tempts us into evil. I suffer from intrusive thoughts; and because I was raised Catholic and my parents never completed my testing I was unable to understand the deeply troubling and invasive images and ideas. I only had a religious frame of reference for these thoughts and so misunderstood them as temptations and desires. And you can understand how troubling and horrifying it would be for a child to experience and understand intrusive thoughts in this way. Especially because the more I tried to banish them from my mind the more I vivid they became. I took to biting my tongue or lip whenever I experienced them for fear that I might give into temptation and shout them out. Put another way for most of my life I felt that there was some kind of evil living inside me that was constantly trying to compel me to hurt others and violate taboos. And it really fucked with my sense of self worth even to this very day. There is a certain kind of metaphysical horror inherent to the idea of racial alignments that most stories that include them refuse to grapple with. And I think that’s why Always evil fantasy races are usually boring. Because 9/10 racial alignments are just a way for the characters to turn off their brains and avoid thinking about the morality of killing orcs and dragons and goblins and looting their corpses.
I'm going to disagree with the notion that evil races are boring... because the Skaven, one of the species you show that is evil... is hilariously funny to read about because they're so stupidly evil. It also makes for an interesting time when individuals within that race such as Queek Headtaker actually show qualities such as loyalty and a desire to punish backstabbers for their wrong doings and especially when that person inevitably decides to bring those like them around them to form Clan Morr's. Evil races can be interesting, especially when done in a fashion that make you question whether they are evil just because they're evil, or if something can be done to change things for the better.
I’ve noticed recently that a lot of people have started the conversation of if evil races make sense logically and story telling wise and I wonder why. I feel like creating anything that is evil for the sake of being evil is very hard to pull off and it usually is pulled off by making it simply be the nature of that being instead of a choice they can make.
Point of fact: Tieflings were originally invented kn AD&D as a _player race_ in the _Planescape_ campaign setting. I'm not trying to be pedantic for its own sake... a lot of the bad and bad faith arguments surrounding them as a player race in WotC D&D are based on the idea that they originated as a monster race, and that it was WotC that introduced them to _kids these days_ and all that. No, WotC's only sin when it comes to tieflings is the same as what they've done to everything else-- making them homogeneous and boring.
if you're not thinking about what you're doign in a game then whats the point of the itneractivity? stormtroopers aren't a race, they're a job and their morality depends on who orders them around ,their predecessory, the clone troopers, are still essentially a race but at that point we're still rooting for the future bad guys and seeing them slowly fall into evil cenobites well... its a vague horror franchise but most of them seem to be former greedy humans being punished xenomorphs are just a predatory species followign its life cycle and being so alien that it has really no concept of good or evil or morality or other beings, it just follows its instincts to collect meat, it doesn'T really have the capacity to understand that that meat is alive and the predator is arguably more moral than many of the people in their movies
Like to add to your points The cenobites aren’t entirely torturing bad people. Their original gimmick was anyone who found and solve the box, they will come for you to bring you ultimate pleasure. Just pleasure and pain are the same for them. And they get very piss if you try to escape, or by trying to pin it on someone else. With the Predator it’s ambiguous why they do because they only go after people who in theory can fight back. Is just an alien culture thing, or are hunting trips exactly like IRL deer hunt. It’s just a hobby some partake in.
So if no one has read the lore CDPR made for the Witcher school's background, honestly this is my biggest problem with each school's lore. Every school good or bad is kind of lumped into categories of "they all act like this stereotype". The Bears are all hyper aggressive assholes who attack other witchers over contracts for no reason (and don't fight the way a Witcher is supposed to fight even when the books literally said Witchers don't fight like the way the bears are supposed to and gave a laundry list of good reasons why). The Griffins are all morally perfect lawful good paladins who were so well respected the were advisors to kings! (Remind me again why people hate Witchers when you have THESE goody two shoes running around?) It would have worked so much better if each school's lore focuses on the way the tried to teach their students to act and ways it may have failed or students rebelled against it and not bunched all the students of each school into one broad archetype. (and not made the Bear school an edgy copy of the Wolf school seriously they have the same philosophy the Bears are just mean about it. I don't even get mad about plotholes usually but this is so utterly bad because all the inconsistencies could be handwaved away if the had any redeeming qualities but they don't outside the vague references that they hate authority which is interesting but it's not in their own lore, it's mentioned in the Cat Witcher's lore and hinted at in the lore of the Bear's founding member) Sorry for the rant but this video made it all click together why I hate the lore CDPR made for the Witcher school's. It treats every school as a monolith that all act the exact same and that's not interesting. The Wolf school was interesting because we saw Geralt Lambert and Eskel and how each one was a different Witcher despite the same teachings and experiences and the other schools have none of that. Excellent video, can't wait for more!
Now, I shall do the manufactured outrage. The use of that frontface is stupid and insults me personally. Anyway, this video was about what I expected from what you'd said on twitter. Now, I wasn't familiar with some of the elements you've brought up, like Orcs I could recall only one of those statements/ideas that Tolkien had made once and I recall bringing it up once in a discussion about Zelda's Bobolins and monsters like that. Mostly the discussion involved me saying that given the position within the game, I don't think Nintendo would ever intend to make the morality of the player in regards to them complicated by making them say more like Drizzt's people, where their a evil society from what I get here. And I mentioned it would be more suited to their style as extensions of Ganon/Ganondorf's will. Of course, internet being where nuanced dies meant that it shifted to me thinking it was better overall than more suited. Though in Breaht of the Wild their Rez by the Bloodmoon makes the morality of killing them odd even if they weren't just extension of the bad guy. Because there's little function difference then between killing them and knocking them out outside of the length of time they'd be out of commission. Outside of a cheatcode for Dark Alliance, I'm super familiar with the Drizzt and his backstory, so I might have got what you meant wrong here. So I'll probably check that out when I have the time.
I like the way demons are in Frieren. Though they are still an evolutionary 'evil race' at the end of the day (by way of being predators of mankind) Later arcs have demons grapple with their lack of certain emotions and their curiosity about them. Some even seek coexistence, but the road to get there would simpy take too long and cost too many human lives.
If a creature cannot choose to be good, then it is not truly evil, because it's not even sentient. It's perfectly fine to have creatures that just really love eating people or whatever, but then they aren't sentient, they're monsters. On the other hand if it has a society, and that society instils evil (by our standard) values then the creatures must be able to choose good. That means room for redemption, questions of if the ends justify the means, and a discussion about the exact nature of their evil. It's just that simple, you can't have a society of creatures who are nominally sentient that are always evil. It isn't possible. Tolkien was talking about this decades ago! If your side portrays the other side of thinking beings as inherently evil and deserving of death... I got bad news for you... you're the one in an evil army.
I was about to argue about the Dark Eldar, until I recalled that aeldari are not restricted to where they were born, and that Yvraine was at one time or another, Asuryani (with multiple paths,) Drukhari, Corsaire, and Harlequin. So, being Dark Eldar doesn't make them necessarily evil, but, individual choices in how they choose to avoid Slaanesh, as well as their actions ****ing and performing abominations towards bringing Slaanesh into being certainly warrant side-eyes towards any Drukhari that chooses to remain on that path, rather than relying on Infinity Circuits, Ynnari, or The Laughing God.
Idk... To me, learning about the intentions of an antagonist makes them more like a question than a threat. 90% of the time, I see that they are basically an animal or an idiot and the only danger they pose becomes external because there's nothing more I have to engage with internally as the audience; the mystery is what gives me, not the in-story character, the uncertainty I need for a sense of danger. Then, the good 10% of the time, I get something like the Cenobites who get me intellectually invested, and that means they become more like my philosophy partners than some kind of threat. Especially with everyone and their mother getting some sad backstory and (usually extremely boring) moral dilemmas they pose, I've become much more interested lately in the Lovecraftian incomprehensible "evil" and the "pure" evil, if anything at all is supposed to be the bad guys team at all because that usually means the theme won't be about some misunderstood(TM) emo guy with too much power.
I agree. There’s an endless number of stories that examine Evil character every which way to Sunday but the reality is that Evil itself is actually really samey and boring, just with a slightly different coat of paint, every time and that’s what evil races are supposed to be: they represent the banality of Evil
Choice isn’t relevant in this instance because evil races are not representative of characters, they represent the concept of Evil itself and how dull and repetitive Evil truly is
Nice criticism about the concept but still at the end of the day it is all up to the choice of the creator, if they choose to make them purely evil they will make them purely evil, if they choose to make them misunderstood the will make them misunderstood, if they choose to make them complicated they will make them complicated, and there is nothing boring about that but rather how they choose to handle them in those ways that is what will make their story interesting.
Evil races are evil in a societal sense or evil in the sense that a demon is evil. An enemy can be simply evil and still be interesting due to how the characters interact with them. An evil society like drow's is interesting enough for people to make tons of characters that are based in that society, write a ton of lore because they are inspired by that evil society, and explore what makes a society evil. In the case of drow, it's from the influence of Lolth, they're spider queen goddess demon. If evil races in fantasy are boring to you, I genuinely think you have simply found a trope you don't like. And that's fine, but The content of this video presents your point of view as objective, And you are factually wrong about that considering the wealth of content people make and engage with. Not every evil needs to be complex or layered or "they just had a bad time of it they just need a different environment to grow up in!" This is a failing of your politics I think. But that's beyond the scope of a RUclips comment. I just think this video is ridiculous and you're a ridiculous person.
Agreed. He’s really missing the point of evil races here. They’re not supposed to be interesting as characters because they aren’t characters, they’re a concept. They aren’t meant to be an examination of evil, they illustrate evil for what it is: Boring and Repetitive. The point of evil races is to highlight the Good of those who fight it
5:47 well there's the spite and bias there. Don't paint a broad brush because of your bias, what about dr doom? What about magneto? What about genius heroes? What about villains who started good and rightfully wanted to destroy humanity. Also a lot of your arguments at the start are, if you're really stupid to the point you aren't sapient, you can do anything, so the only evil creatures are smart creatures, always to be responsible and judged, never to be free as the rest of the dumb creatures. So is intellect just a curse then? Evil itself?
People keep insisting this, and I keep reminding them, no, citing one of Tolkien's letters is not me saying anything. And besides, that letter was about the Mongols, not Black people.
@@agramugliayou literally didn't cite anything and went straight to black people in your Twitter post. You also don't see cenobites as evil so I Guess you have loads of problems and unintentional racism Is the least of them
Another advantage to having the great old ones being so alien and unknowable in their morality is that it makes Nyarlathotep stick out as an incredibly fascinating character, In a mythos of beings who we can never understand, Nyarlathotep stands out as such a unambiguously evil and almost "human" creature. It makes him one of the most horrifying entities in the mythos.
I almost went into detail about Nyarlathotep, but the video was already becoming so long i decided to save it for the future.
yeah, talking about lovecraft is just a magnet for rabbit holes.
So to be fair there's other books where Drizzt reflects on and explores his attitudes about other races, he finds a well spoken and educated goblin who has morals, but is stuck into servitude but gets executed despite Drizzt's best efforts which haunts him as one of his greatest failures as a hero. Plus the whole Many-Arrows plot arc where Drizzt on one hand is motivated to defend his friend's kingdom but also explicitly struggles and comes to understand the Orcs motivations to create a kingdom. Which eventually leads to a peace and compromise.
This is a fair point. The later books do go into detail more on that. But the earlier books in the series don't, and that's fairly off-putting, especially to newer readers of the series. But I will concede that this is a problem Salvatore thankfully improves upon.
What book is this?
@@AlexisTheDragon The book where Drizzt finds a well spoken Goblin? I think it was one of the compendium books where it's multiple short stories.
@@WannabeCanadianDev it's from a short story called dark mirror, from a compendium called realms of valor, published in 1993 some 5 years after drizzts first published appearance.
And to be fair to Salvatore, wolfgar was originally intended to be the main character in the first 3 novels of the legend of drizzt that were published between 1988 and 1990, drizzts was originally intended as an interesting side character who blew up in popularity after the icewind Dale trilogy was published. I really don't think he was thinking about what the cool drow ranger thoughts on nature vs nurture where when writing the books staring the barbarian and his buddies.
Dracula himself was evil before becoming a vampire. He CHOSE to become a vampire by performing a dark magic ritual.
Funny story, I was part of a campaign featuring an Illithid. Ours was one third of what would otherwise be an Axis of Evil consisting of him and some succubi, a Lich and his minions, and my character, leader of Skaven with the serial numbers filed off.
But it was the most chill, friendly campaign I've ever played. Every dungeon dive was less about loot and killing, and more about making new friends. Gelatinous cubes, a dimension of spider people, even a Cthulhu expy were all allies by end of it.
Our foes ended up being Dwarves and Elves that were acting like self-centered assholes. The Dwarves blasted a chunk out of our city to find a landing spot, and the Elves detained the leaders under the guise of negotiations as we approached their lands while fleeing a magical blight.
It was a really cool experience, to enter a new place, be attacked by a new foe, and immediately start discussing how we could befriend it. We even led a gelatinous cube back to base by doing the "carrot on a string" routine with a Skaven minion that fucked up his stealth rolls (The minion was fine, I promise).
The Decepticons from Transformers (Technically not an evil race) is kind of an interesting example of how evil races have been adapted in a franchise.
The Original Generation One cartoon had The Decepticons as the typical Saturday Morning Cartoon bad guys (Like Skeletor from He-Man or Shredder from the 87 Turtles) where they weren’t portrayed in a positive light or given much development.
However, as the franchise chugged on this changed they were given a more sympathetic light. The IDW Comics version had them as freedom fighters who wished to go against the Autobot government before they became no better than them. Hell, some series even gave some Decepticon’s redemption arcs (Starscream, Blackarachnia, the main bad guy Megatron).
It’s interesting to see how a franchise that started off as “Good Guys vs Bad Guys.” was able to show that the “Bad Guys.” weren’t all bad.
Seriously, IDW having Megatron as a revolutionary turned terrorist leader after being radicalized by the government trying to silence him via a brutal prison beating is far more compelling. The fact he turned his back on the Decepticon cause and essentially acknowledged the new Autobots were the superior choice for his goals is cool. OPTIMUS was a fan of his original manifesto, to a good extent Megatron was RIGHT.
Fascinating video seeing so many of my favorite fictional races analyzed in their own media and compared to others, has me genuinely in deep thought the Mind Flayer and Flood segments especially, and in "slight" defense of the Goblins in Goblin slayer they are pure evil but they are also a mirror on "that" worlds society and politics they aren't treated as credible threats and their Victims including Goblin Slayer himself have their trauma trivialized or ignored.
Sorry to comment many months after, but the issue with Goblin Slayer's use of goblins is that: If you want to make them seem like the sort of thing that is secretly really harmful but gets ignored by the populace at large, you might want to find a way of presenting that without involving what is considered the most horrific crime a person can commit. Not only does it distract the audience from any broader philosophical point the show is trying to make, it also makes it very difficult to buy within the fiction of the show.
The Thing about Killing to no longer feel pain was Also used in the PS1 classic XenoGears. Where you learn the monsters only feed on humans cause they are always in pain and human blood makes the pain go away.
33:39 Despite seeing both movies, I got way more terrified by the Aliens of Martiann attacks when I was a kid.
The idea of just another civilization, just as nuanced of us, coming to try on a crappy way to "establish peace"; to find it's first excuse to shoot and reveal they just came to conquer us while on a burst of laughter, truly terrified me
The Omicron from FFXIV Endwalker felt like a well-executed "evil" race. Also, I really love the handling of Organization XIII members in Kingdom Hearts. The idea that they're not inhuman, but rather that both they and the "heroes" have dehumanized them, while it does fall into the sad misunderstood guy category, is IMO much more fitting thematically in a game about kindness and empathy.
As someone who played Shadow of Colossus recently for the first time and got damn awfully fascinated by it, kinda familiar topic of "Why do I need to kill these giants to save my girlfriend" or whatever.
With an entire chapter about orcs, I feel like the Warhammer incarnation of them is worth bringing up. More the 40k incarnation than the fantasy one (even if I prefer fantasy as a setting).
How do you make them stand out in a setting where every faction is its own flavor of awful? Make them the only ones in the entire setting where everyone is genuinely happy. They're a comic relief race of football hooligans who live for fightin' and winnin', and even the latter isn't necessary so long as they die doing the former.
"Things beyond our understanding" description as well as the description of Killer Clowns from Outer Space reminds me of a story called Roadside Picnic, in which aliens visit the Earth, leave before we can notice them and leave their trash behind. This trash is technology entirely beyond our understanding, which can be both incredibly usefull and lethal to humans. The story follows a man searching for these alien artifacts. A stalker.
Personally I feel Demons are rarely used to their proper potential: usually people just turn them as random evil monsters. The Demons in Abrahamic mythos are *fallen angels* . They're former servants of God who rebelled. There's ton of potential to make them compelling characters, villains or not. But more importantly, that indicates that they're technically not an evil race - their race is the same than Angels. They're a faction.
Across many myths, demons are also not really people, in the sense that humans are. More often than not they are the manifestations of concepts, turned flesh
@@shizachan8421 True^^ hence why I specified Abrahamic demons here.
Also Jewish demons are kind of like the fey, in that they’re mischievous, swap babies, and can reward good/wise behavior. Plus a bit of Jewish rite following.
One of the interesting uses of demons is in anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. In Mennock the devil Lestat meets a being who claims to be the Devil but instead of being evil it's more like him and God have methodological differences with how to bring human souls to heaven.
Fallen angels are not demons. They are just fallen angels. The demons are something else. At least according to Christian mythology.
Fully agree with the idea that they're boring - And, honestly, that's my biggest issue with them. Even FF9's Black Mages - An army of magical constructs created to destroy at whoever they were controlling them's command; literal machines of war and a faceless footsoldier to overrun cities and fight against have a village where those who gained sapience despite not being designed for that went to live in peace.
Though as someone with players who seem to be whatever the opposite of a murder hobo is - There's exactly one time I got them into a combat without the enemy literally attacking first, and that was because I _accidentally_ hit on one of the character's traumas without realizing it - I'm... Starting to get why some GM's insist they're necessary. I don't think they're _correct_ - If I had a plan for how things are going to go I'd be doing this as a book rather than a game, let alone a game with other people, and apparently my players _really_ like talking down threats - but I'm becoming more sympathetic to that position, particularly those running games that takes more work to prep combat in, and I absolutely - 100% - could get a combat going if I actually need it to happen.
Minor correction on Tieflings, IIRC World Builder Bob's video on 4e's marketting - They were elevated to a core playable race in 4th edition, not 5th. This was the focus of a where an 'interview' with a Tiefling and a Gnome talked about having swapped places, the Tiefling going into the PHB and the Gnome just being in the MM. (As the gnome put it - "I'm a monster. Rawr.") (I think until PHB3, which put the Gnome back in as a playable race, I think also reintroducing the Barbarian class considering the line the gnome gave to describe getting put into a later PHB being "I'm a Barbarian. Rawr.")
Well now this is making me think of the Phyrexians from Magic the Gathering again. They seem most similar to the cenobytes to me, with one of the core conflicts being one Phyrexian leader, Urabrask (the red mana one) disagreeing with another Phyrexian leader, Elesh Norn (the white mana one) about whether they should factor consent into "compleating" (converting) other people and turning them into Phyrexians (undead bioengineered cyborgs. A Phyrexian looks like a normal human/insert-other-fantasy-race-here with exposed muscle tissues and metal plates on top, who is constantly being converted through surgery and infection into being more and more made of metal). The white praetor has more power, because she's also got the blue, green, and black mana praetors on her side as well (that being the side of forceful conversion).
I feel like the Phyrexians would be more capable of coexisting in the MTG multiverse if they took an attitude where they only converted people who asked for it. Because there are a lot of people who like the idea of Phyrexians in a sort of transhumanist sense, even to the degree of making Phyrexian oc's
You should definitely see Disney Channel's Zombie series and Descendants series because they are also part of what you're talking about.
This video mentions Pazuzu just enough for me to drop a psa to anyone worried about demonic possession. Old P boy is a very ancient being from Mesopotamian tradition. He will not poses you but evoking him and statues of him where traditionally used to fight demons.
Sounds like something a demon would say
Devil May Cry is an incredibly interesting take on demons in my opinion, and I admit a lot of it is kind of predicated on how I read into minutia that's not explicitly spelled out. I could be wrong with this read, or not, I'm not entirely sure. But I view them along similar lines as DnD's Demons and Devils. The Hell armies, cursed chess pieces, scissor ghouls, lizard guys, basically anything that is a recurring enemy is what I would classify as a demon, mindless killing machines only capable of taking orders and violence. Devils, however, are the ones creating the hordes of demons for their own benefit. Sparda, Mundus, Nevan, Cerberus, Argosax, anything with a unique design and name would be what I consider Devils. And - as is the core conceit of the fiction - Devils in this context are not inherently evil. Sparda was able to comprehend the concept of justice and turned his back on his kind for the sake of others, and that act reverberates not only through the mythos of the games but through Dante and Vergil's characters as well, each one seeing their father's action through the lens of trauma and coming up with polar opposite responses.
But where this becomes the most interesting - to me anyway - is in the anime that came out just after 3. In one episode, Dante is hired to kill a specific demon that is seemingly targeting the daughter of a wealthy guy. Rather than simply doing the job as he's told, Dante investigates the situation, uncovers a plot to summon a more powerful demon by the guy who hired him, while finding out his target had a bounty on his head because he had simply fallen in love with the daughter, and the daughter reciprocated. It's then that Dante refuses to kill the "demon" while turning on his employer with the idea that humans can be more demon like than demons and some demons are more human than humans, reinforcing that idea that Devils are not inherently evil, they're just tyrants acting selfishly.
I get that in other shows/games this is a fairly mild "twist" but in Devil May Cry it was the moment where I really started paying attention. It clued me in to the idea that there's more going under the hood regarding Dante and Vergil's characters than first appeared. And yeah the evil demons are cannon fodder, they're also not the point of the story, but rather catalysts for character studies and kickass gameplay to intertwine.
Tieflings were actually added to the core rulebook in 4e.
Ah this was such a fantastic video ! I loved how you deconstructed the different types of evil, and even helped put words to how I feel about some of them.
17:30 Wasn't expecting my Tav to make an appearance! Loved this video. Great analysis!
Interesting take on the Cenobites. Though I must say, despite watching all 11 Hellraiser films recently (was quite a miserable binge, honestly) and somewhat liking 3 and 4, you are correct about the Cenobites' characterization completely changing. And though later films in the seris I find to be quite terrible (with the exception of the 2022 Hulu reboot which is my favorite of the films), I suppose films 5-7 and 9-10 are more accurate to the portrayal of the Cenobites in the first two films, even if the films themselves aren't great.
I am disappointed that you didn't mention the Gnolls getting absolutely shafted on the nuance mark in BG3, but I get your point was kind of understood by the entire video.
Still, a damn shame that the Gnolls showed up strictly as raving murderers. They got all sorts of crap heaped on them to "make up" for Orcs and Tieflings and Drow "being okay now", it seems.
At least there were those gnolls you could save from the cultists.
Return of the Living Dead is one of my favourite horror movies for a reason, and that scene sums up why
Also yes, Skaven are fascinating! Probably the worst room mates, but....
tieflings were actually a core race in the 4th edition rulebook as well
"Why do you want something simple?"
I agree with basically everything you said, up until this point. Because I am a strong believer in the fact that simple storytelling does not equal bad storytelling, and complex storytelling does not equal good storytelling.
Simple villains may be the better choice, because the emphasis of a chosen narrative may not be on the antagonistic force or their motives. Lord Of The Rings is a good example of this. The orcs exist as an extension of Sauron's will. Sauron himself, while given more complex motives in later works, is never really explained as anything more than a force of evil seeking power for power's sake. He wants to conquer, corrupt, and destroy because... He's evil and this is what evil does. Because the narrative being told is one about people coming together to overcome a common threat. Struggle against overwhelming evil. Mythic clash of heroes and villains. And despite these simple trappings and uncomplicated villains, it is regarded as among the greatest works of literature (and film) ever created.
Sometimes, pure evil bad guys that don't have a lot of explanation is a purely practical choice. Lord Of The Rings is a lengthy work. How much longer would it have been had Tolkien decided to explore the moral complexities of orcs and Sauron? Would this have improved the story? Would any of this added context be worth it for the possible blow to the pacing? You talk about the practical reason for mindless evil mooks in video games, but there are practical reasons for storytelling choices in every medium. Sometimes, it's just a matter of resource allocation, and the resource in question is the attention of your readers.
Zombies and orcs (in Tolkien's work at least), and similar foes essentially function as Protagonist vs Environment. They are anthropomorphized extensions of a malignant force. Aspects of a dangerous setting, rather than characters themselves. They are hazards, not characters. No more a boring character than a hurricane, a dangerous mountain expedition, or a wild animal is a boring character. But it's a hurricane you can a have a cool sword fight with. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
I have to disagree with what evil and good means. To me, evil is action or intent at other's expense. Good is the opposite, where you are willing to do things for others at your own expense.
Well that's the fun bit of ethics philosophy, there can be many interpretation of what constitutes good and evil. What you're describing is a welfarist theory of good and evil.
Aside from my nitpicks on your misunderstanding of a work, and a generally well spread misunderstanding of a lore aspect in Faerun. (both in a different comment) A good video.
Though I have a response to the question you posed at 54:00. "Why would you want something to be simple?" Elementary my dear Watson, humans adore simplicity. In spite of a constant push for complexity by subcultures around the net, humanity prefers simplistic rationalizations for things. Its why the lines "Republicans are racists" and "Democrats are stupid" are popular among those political camps. Neither side WANT the nuance of an oppositions position, they just want to hate them and to ascribe a rationality for hating them regardless of the truth of that rationality. It is cathartic for humans when it comes to social groups and reactions to potential social groups to make our view on them as simplistic as is possible.
That's how our media apparatus gaslight people so easily into believing things that aren't true on a near constant basis. The majority of humans don't seek truth or complexity. They seek comfort and assuredness.
As a Dragon Ball fan myself, I thought Cell was an interesting callout, and I saw where you were going with that when you got to The Flood. Like Gravemind, Cell finds his origin in the biological imperative to destroy - Flood survive by subsuming other lifeforms, whereas Cell was literally created for the express purpose of killing Son Goku. He arguably evolves beyond his base programming, yet choses to continue fighting and killing on his own terms. Except, does he? There's a lot of dubious bioessentialism in Dragon Ball, which started as a gag comedy manga and normally wouldn't warrant deep critical analysis. A major component of Cell's genetic blueprint is Saiyan DNA, harvested from multiple unwitting donors. The series tells us and shows us on numerous occasions that the Saiyan Race are very much naturally Always Chaotic Evil: violent, cruel, warmongering, and highly competitive, both internally and externally. Raditz, then Vegeta and Nappa, are thought to be the only other surviving members of their race at this time, and are all thoroughly villainous. The sole exception is Goku, which is speculated in-fiction to be a result of childhood head trauma. In other words, he used to be a wild little hellraiser until falling down a ravine and bashing his cranium on a rock, after which he became a very sweet child (if no less rambunctious). This somewhat makes him equal parts Superman and Drizzt Do'Urden. Now, Vegeta does undergo a long redemption arc over the course of DBZ, the end result being a full and proper heel-face turn. But even Vegeta, who grew up at the apex of Saiyan society as the crown prince, still acknowledges that Saiyans are fundamentally capital-e Evil, save for a few exceptions that prove the rule - such as his own brother Cabba, who was banished for being weak and cowardly. At one time, Goku's father Bardock was shown to be a prime example of his race, ill-tempered and self-interested at best, though later retcons softened his image and gave him a kindhearted wife in Gine (again, noted in-fiction as being unusual for their race). This later development is presented as the reason for Goku's inherent goodness, apart from his innate Saiyan proclivity for combat, bringing us back around to the matter of bioessentialism. Is Goku good because his parents were, if no exactly good, then at least not explicitly evil? Goku and Vegeta's children certainly didn't inherit any Saiyan evilness, which seems to make the case of Nuture over Nature - until you consider Gohan's frequent outbursts of violent rage, most recently cemented by his "Beast" power-up in the DBS: Super Hero film. And the matter of Always Evil Saiyans is further muddied when you consider the Saiyans of Universe 6, a parallel to our familiar Universe 7, where the Saiyans are said to be Always Lawful Good - aside from a few bad apples like Caulifla and Kale, who are minor deliquents at worst and never commit overt acts of villainy on-screen. Finally, back to the matter of Cell, does he ever really chose to do Evil? Or is he just abiding by his genetic programming? Freeza, in contrast, is somebody who does Evil just because he can and he revels in it. He has had multiple opportunities to reform himself, or at least stand down and go mind his own business, but consistently choses to be the worst possible person and lash out in petty hate, even at times when it's not in his own best interest to continue fighting. More than once, Freeza himself suffers for his choices and never changes his ways, because he chooses to be Evil. In fact, series creator Akira Toriyama has stated that Freeza's entire character was inspired by the most evil people he could think of at the time: predatory real estate developers. 😆
Wasn't Goku initially violent because the Saiyans used to program their offspring with the imperative to conquer planets before sending them away, which was erased when Goku hit his head? I think the Saiyans are actually interesting because they have a very biological drive to fight and compete which expressed itself in their violent and conquering ways, but isn't a necessity. It always felt to me like Goku found the outlet for his saiyan nature in martial arts and being a protector of the planet, which means that he can always fight and train without having to harm others, which is something Vegeta seems to follow suit on, him using training and his competition with Goku as an outlet for his Saiyan nature. Trunks and Gotenks are both half-saiyan, but they were also from a very early age both socialized into human society while being trained in martial arts, so that they would have never experienced a conflict between their earthling and saiyan sides because they were never faced with a conflict to begin with. They can practice martial arts and they can engage in sparring with each other or their family for fun, without an intent to harm. Gohan is much more on the human side of things and inheritly gentle, but he still possesses some saiyan instincts like their primal rage, but the conflict and his development is more focussed on how he expresses it. Gohan forcefully supresses these instincts, which lead to him being controlled by them when they reach the boiling point during his fight with Cell. In comparison, Goku reached a similar boiling point where his saiyan rage awakened in his initial Super Saiyan transformation, but he didn't become a slave to it the way Gohan did. In the initial state he is still able to warn Gohan about him struggling for control and at the end of his fight with Frieza, he had enough control that he could make the choice of not persueing further violence and show his enemy mercy and kindness.
I think giving fantasy races different instinctual drives isn't inheritly problematic. Humans as well are still possess many inherit instinct, which we learn to express in different ways and I think the way the Saiyans evolve and are depicted over time is actually a fairly interesting way to show it. Similarily with Vegeta, we see that his evil saiyan nature isn't something inherit inside of him with his development, as he becomes a better person and starts to value his family life on earth, his conflict during the Buu saga is more one of his socialization, that he feels like the comfort and happiness he experienced on earth contradicts his identity as a Saiyan, which in the end he is able to overcome and uphold his pride as a saiyan prince while being content with his family life on earth. It is a case of nature and nuture. Saiyans have traits that are inherit in their nature, but the way they express them is determined by nuture. A strong example is Broly in Super, who displays the difference quite well. He has an inheritly kindhearted and peaceful personality, but he still possesses an inherit instinctual rage as part of his nature, something he himself has to learn to control and express differently.
In the case of Cell, I would argue that he makes a choice to follow his biological imperative in a cruel and evil way, partially because he lacks the nuture and upbringing that would incentivize him to act differently.
I like, that you brought up DB(Z)+ since it's one of the 1st series, I ever saw as a child, where most of the antagonists become members of the hero's ever-extending chosen family. I dont watch/read a lot of shonen, so I dont know how often this happens in the genre (I only know, it's also a thing in Naruto) but I still think, that this porosity btw antagonists and family members and how so many characters are able to switch btw the 2 is very interesting (and fun) to read! 30y later, Picolo and Vegeta are still my favorite characters!
@37:35 as someone who owns over 6000 points worth of skaven models and has been playing Warhammer Fantasy for ten years, I approve this adoration of these miserable rats
So I was VERY SURPRISED to see Humanoids from the Deep pop up in this, and your confusion is justified- the film was altered in post-production, as the director found the suggestion that the creatures were trying to breed with women was exploitative and several scenes were shot without her after production wrapped to add the element, including the Alien-ripoff birth scene.
Hellraiser and the Cenobites are so damn disturbing to me on every level. Perhaos it's my ADHD and Autism, and my general sensory sensitivity, but even thinking about them on the mlst basic of levels is enough to send me into a panicked desire to lock myself in a sensory deprovation chamber. I had to actively skip it vecauee yoy did such a good job on at encapsulating what makes them so great as villains.
i agree almost completely.
however there sometimes is a place for 'why do i destroy things? because they're there!' simple, tho i much more prefer it in a campy variant, of course.
Great video, very good, my only issue is that it's pronounced like "Skay-Venn." Seriously though hits a lot of stuff that I think about when I do writing and barinstorming for my rpg table.
My only issue with this is you've defined evil races as 'choosing' evil, but if they have 'choice' they're inevitably not always evil. Thus "always evil races in fantasy" don't exist and the only real possible takeaway is to not contradict the binary. I also wonder if you'd argue a fantasy race that is all permanently born good, isn't good. I don't think most people would agree, which would contradict the necessity of choice to be evil argument.
While I agree complexity is generally better than simplicity, it depends on where you place your narrative focus. Every magic system, side character, or fictional history should only be as deep as it needs to be to serve the purposes of the story. In fact making everything too deep can be distracting from the other parts of the story. There isn't much functional difference between random chose evil enemy soldier vs random born permanently evil enemy soldier if the narrative gives their 'personal' character little to no attention.
Mindflayers could still work as Frieren-esque demons and Tolkien's orcs could still work as only able to feel negative emotions (hatred/vengeance) or positive emotions from evil acts (sadistic glee). You're making an argument to trade less variety for more versatility by removing simplicity and replacing it with complexity. Not every fantasy drama needs a complex magic system, not every fantasy adventure needs complex side characters, and not every fantasy romcom needs a complex history. Sometimes simple is better.
Suprised and not surprised that the human pet guy (cybersmith) came to your thread.
Thag aside however, its a great video talking about this topic! Love your narration voice.
With Raphael from Baldur's gate, id argue the Absolute is monolithic by design. It's a plague or a hurricane. Raphael is much more of a character you can roleplay with it.
I loved this video! At the same time, I hage to disagree, because there is a type of villainous, evil race I think is worth talking about: Serpent Folk of Conan the Barbarian's Hyborian Age. Under the influence of a vile demon god of serpents, the children of Set, the Serpent People seek to dominate the world of men, and enslave them so that they might once again rule the world! They delight in cruelty and violence, deception and every type of evil imaginable, but are compelling villains all the same because they are also a secret society of cave dwelling lizard men who want to reclaim lost glories. The interesting thing isn't the why, but the how. The why is basic, it's boring, sure, but the how is interesting, the how challenges the heroes, the how presents an interesting angle, and I think that focus on how is a way you can have your evil race without focusing on the why.
Still, this was a fascinating watch, and it did shift my perspective on, at the very least, evil races. I still think you can have pure evil races, but only if there is more to their characterization than just evil, which I think was at least implied in the video, but I did watch it in chunks.
I look forward to the next video you make! You have some interesting ideas.
What about the Gremlins? Pure evil, pure fun
Love this video. I really wish you would make a video essay focusing on what makes singular evil characters interesting and not generic. I am actively writing a horror/sci fi book series that has a singular antagonist, and I really want this villian to be complex, yet undoubtedly irredeemable.
I will probably do one on Michael Myers closer to Halloween
@agramuglia excited to see it, but while Michael is certainly compelling, he isn't very complex and has no motivations. Not to say this is a bad thing, but I am talking more about villians that have higher power, see humanity as lesser, and will do anything no matter how horrific in order to achieve a goal. Yet I find those traits sort of cliche at the moment. I feel like there are examples of these villian types with more complex motives that may involve emotion, their place in the world, or what made them into the monster they became; I just don't know enough examples of that archetype of villian nor which were done particularly well
For me, Michael, Freddy, and Jason are like the standards for horror movies to reach. Honestly, comparing their different brands of evil might be interesting
@agramuglia An essay about what makes each of them unique would be very informative. All of them are entertaining and evil in their own ways, but doing a deep dive into how they are different but also so similar would be a very interesting topic to expand on
Yoh,
Good video. I still wasnt going to comment. Until you said...
"Guess who i romanced in the game."
See i knew why i did it. But haven't played BG3 in months. So it wasn't exactly on my mind.
I romanced Lae'zel. One i rolled a Drow so it kinda made sense. Outcast races and all that. But more importantly, it was obvious Lae'zel and the Gith are treated as evil conquoring extra dimensional enemies. Amd they are. But talking with Zel makes it clear they're more than that.
She especially was doing what was demanded. Even though she eventually tells you thats not what she actually wants. Even early on its clear shes not the evil Gith people see her as. She's in fact really sweet. Of course not as sweet as Karlach. Nobody's as sweet as Karlach though. Anyway, knowing i was a neutral Drow. Was pretty sure there was more to her. Turns out its not just Lae'zel all Githyanki are manipulated to be the conquers they're portrayed as. At least in BG3.
As always take care and have a good one🫡
I love that Killer Klowns was referenced. One of my all time favorite movies.
I have to push back on the idea wasps & hornets are not pure evil. If thereis God & Devil, the Devil was allowed to create life as well. He created hornets & wasps.
...And cockroaches.
Ill argue one example of an intresting evil race are the Titans of Attack on titan.
They come in as big mindless monsters and they are usually at their most interesting as mindless monsters and watching the boys try to deal with what to do when confronted with a purely evil race that doesn't even seem to be acting on something as nuanced as animalistic drive to eat. They just seem to eat because.... that's what they do I guess. They don't even eat animals and seem to follow so many bizarre rules and that made the introduction of say.... a titan with maybe the brainpower to do basic problem solving like saying "Wall in way of food.... what if knock down wall?" really interesting because now you can see them doing some very primative problem solving and that's scary for a creature that's already dangerous when it basically has no brain.
The MOMENT they are given even an ounce of humanity let alone made to be real people with characters and nuance with the introduction of an actually very complicated history of still ongoing racial tension and exploited physiological tendencies, all that interesting stuff outside of the shock value of it all flies out the window at light speed.
I get the feeling this is why even as the plot is getting more overtly political on a global stage it never pauses to consider did all those past actions feel different with this new insight, because.... I feel like they knew it wasn't an interesting question at all even if begging the question would have been a big shock moment.
Anyway just adding to the comments from ya twitter boy.
I’mma be that guy. Pazuzu didn’t kill Merrin, he died of a heart attack. We see him take nitro pills earlier in the film (you see them scattered by his corpse, he was trying to take more before he croaked) and the stress was just too much for his ticker. The book is even more explicit about this, with the demon absolutely furious that Merrin had the temerity to die before they could settle their score.
30:48 You should watch The Sadness (2022), in some ways, its even more terrifying the reason to why they do what they do in relation to Return of The Living Dead (1985).
So I guess it’s the mindlessly evil army that you find boring, as opposed to the evil races themselves.
You know something just occurred to me; the concept of racial alignments isn’t all that far off from the Christian conception of original sin. This belief that human beings are born tainted by the sins of Adam and Eve that there is this inner evil that tempts us into evil.
I suffer from intrusive thoughts; and because I was raised Catholic and my parents never completed my testing I was unable to understand the deeply troubling and invasive images and ideas.
I only had a religious frame of reference for these thoughts and so misunderstood them as temptations and desires. And you can understand how troubling and horrifying it would be for a child to experience and understand intrusive thoughts in this way. Especially because the more I tried to banish them from my mind the more I vivid they became. I took to biting my tongue or lip whenever I experienced them for fear that I might give into temptation and shout them out.
Put another way for most of my life I felt that there was some kind of evil living inside me that was constantly trying to compel me to hurt others and violate taboos. And it really fucked with my sense of self worth even to this very day.
There is a certain kind of metaphysical horror inherent to the idea of racial alignments that most stories that include them refuse to grapple with. And I think that’s why Always evil fantasy races are usually boring. Because 9/10 racial alignments are just a way for the characters to turn off their brains and avoid thinking about the morality of killing orcs and dragons and goblins and looting their corpses.
Tolkien's orcs are in part inspired by the idea of the original sin, if I remember correctly.
I am an ARDENT Drow defender, and they deserve better than just being "the evil culture".
I've never been a fan of the "All X are Y" species. Forced behavioural patterns are a lazy trope that needs to die.
I'm going to disagree with the notion that evil races are boring... because the Skaven, one of the species you show that is evil... is hilariously funny to read about because they're so stupidly evil. It also makes for an interesting time when individuals within that race such as Queek Headtaker actually show qualities such as loyalty and a desire to punish backstabbers for their wrong doings and especially when that person inevitably decides to bring those like them around them to form Clan Morr's. Evil races can be interesting, especially when done in a fashion that make you question whether they are evil just because they're evil, or if something can be done to change things for the better.
I’ve noticed recently that a lot of people have started the conversation of if evil races make sense logically and story telling wise and I wonder why.
I feel like creating anything that is evil for the sake of being evil is very hard to pull off and it usually is pulled off by making it simply be the nature of that being instead of a choice they can make.
Point of fact: Tieflings were originally invented kn AD&D as a _player race_ in the _Planescape_ campaign setting. I'm not trying to be pedantic for its own sake... a lot of the bad and bad faith arguments surrounding them as a player race in WotC D&D are based on the idea that they originated as a monster race, and that it was WotC that introduced them to _kids these days_ and all that.
No, WotC's only sin when it comes to tieflings is the same as what they've done to everything else-- making them homogeneous and boring.
Why are there so many dislikes? The video is pretty good and challenges writers to explore outside of the generic and tropey.
Because he's dumb
Wait, you can see the dislikes?
if you're not thinking about what you're doign in a game then whats the point of the itneractivity?
stormtroopers aren't a race, they're a job and their morality depends on who orders them around ,their predecessory, the clone troopers, are still essentially a race but at that point we're still rooting for the future bad guys and seeing them slowly fall into evil
cenobites well... its a vague horror franchise but most of them seem to be former greedy humans being punished
xenomorphs are just a predatory species followign its life cycle and being so alien that it has really no concept of good or evil or morality or other beings, it just follows its instincts to collect meat, it doesn'T really have the capacity to understand that that meat is alive
and the predator is arguably more moral than many of the people in their movies
Like to add to your points
The cenobites aren’t entirely torturing bad people. Their original gimmick was anyone who found and solve the box, they will come for you to bring you ultimate pleasure. Just pleasure and pain are the same for them. And they get very piss if you try to escape, or by trying to pin it on someone else.
With the Predator it’s ambiguous why they do because they only go after people who in theory can fight back. Is just an alien culture thing, or are hunting trips exactly like IRL deer hunt. It’s just a hobby some partake in.
44:45
Side Note, Phaartunax is voiced By Super Mario (Charles Martinet).
So if no one has read the lore CDPR made for the Witcher school's background, honestly this is my biggest problem with each school's lore. Every school good or bad is kind of lumped into categories of "they all act like this stereotype".
The Bears are all hyper aggressive assholes who attack other witchers over contracts for no reason (and don't fight the way a Witcher is supposed to fight even when the books literally said Witchers don't fight like the way the bears are supposed to and gave a laundry list of good reasons why).
The Griffins are all morally perfect lawful good paladins who were so well respected the were advisors to kings! (Remind me again why people hate Witchers when you have THESE goody two shoes running around?)
It would have worked so much better if each school's lore focuses on the way the tried to teach their students to act and ways it may have failed or students rebelled against it and not bunched all the students of each school into one broad archetype. (and not made the Bear school an edgy copy of the Wolf school seriously they have the same philosophy the Bears are just mean about it. I don't even get mad about plotholes usually but this is so utterly bad because all the inconsistencies could be handwaved away if the had any redeeming qualities but they don't outside the vague references that they hate authority which is interesting but it's not in their own lore, it's mentioned in the Cat Witcher's lore and hinted at in the lore of the Bear's founding member)
Sorry for the rant but this video made it all click together why I hate the lore CDPR made for the Witcher school's. It treats every school as a monolith that all act the exact same and that's not interesting. The Wolf school was interesting because we saw Geralt Lambert and Eskel and how each one was a different Witcher despite the same teachings and experiences and the other schools have none of that. Excellent video, can't wait for more!
Now, I shall do the manufactured outrage.
The use of that frontface is stupid and insults me personally.
Anyway, this video was about what I expected from what you'd said on twitter. Now, I wasn't familiar with some of the elements you've brought up, like Orcs I could recall only one of those statements/ideas that Tolkien had made once and I recall bringing it up once in a discussion about Zelda's Bobolins and monsters like that.
Mostly the discussion involved me saying that given the position within the game, I don't think Nintendo would ever intend to make the morality of the player in regards to them complicated by making them say more like Drizzt's people, where their a evil society from what I get here. And I mentioned it would be more suited to their style as extensions of Ganon/Ganondorf's will.
Of course, internet being where nuanced dies meant that it shifted to me thinking it was better overall than more suited. Though in Breaht of the Wild their Rez by the Bloodmoon makes the morality of killing them odd even if they weren't just extension of the bad guy. Because there's little function difference then between killing them and knocking them out outside of the length of time they'd be out of commission.
Outside of a cheatcode for Dark Alliance, I'm super familiar with the Drizzt and his backstory, so I might have got what you meant wrong here. So I'll probably check that out when I have the time.
3:15 does anyone know the name of the violin track playing in the background?
Ah i remember this topic on twitter should be fun.
Great essay, and you nailed one of my biggest problems with Drizzt and why I couldn't get into when I was younger.
Trolls are the opposite of ents (sentient trees)?
I like the way demons are in Frieren. Though they are still an evolutionary 'evil race' at the end of the day (by way of being predators of mankind)
Later arcs have demons grapple with their lack of certain emotions and their curiosity about them. Some even seek coexistence, but the road to get there would simpy take too long and cost too many human lives.
Was that cybersmith in the replies?? XD This is great writing, I totally agree with you
If a creature cannot choose to be good, then it is not truly evil, because it's not even sentient. It's perfectly fine to have creatures that just really love eating people or whatever, but then they aren't sentient, they're monsters. On the other hand if it has a society, and that society instils evil (by our standard) values then the creatures must be able to choose good. That means room for redemption, questions of if the ends justify the means, and a discussion about the exact nature of their evil. It's just that simple, you can't have a society of creatures who are nominally sentient that are always evil. It isn't possible. Tolkien was talking about this decades ago!
If your side portrays the other side of thinking beings as inherently evil and deserving of death... I got bad news for you... you're the one in an evil army.
I was about to argue about the Dark Eldar, until I recalled that aeldari are not restricted to where they were born, and that Yvraine was at one time or another, Asuryani (with multiple paths,) Drukhari, Corsaire, and Harlequin.
So, being Dark Eldar doesn't make them necessarily evil, but, individual choices in how they choose to avoid Slaanesh, as well as their actions ****ing and performing abominations towards bringing Slaanesh into being certainly warrant side-eyes towards any Drukhari that chooses to remain on that path, rather than relying on Infinity Circuits, Ynnari, or The Laughing God.
Great video! I was surprised to see how few subscribers and views you have, you definitely deserve way more!
I'm still waiting for you to say Hellboy 😂
I had to cut a few bits out of this video for next week's video. Hellboy is one of them.
Yeah bro true.
Idk... To me, learning about the intentions of an antagonist makes them more like a question than a threat. 90% of the time, I see that they are basically an animal or an idiot and the only danger they pose becomes external because there's nothing more I have to engage with internally as the audience; the mystery is what gives me, not the in-story character, the uncertainty I need for a sense of danger. Then, the good 10% of the time, I get something like the Cenobites who get me intellectually invested, and that means they become more like my philosophy partners than some kind of threat.
Especially with everyone and their mother getting some sad backstory and (usually extremely boring) moral dilemmas they pose, I've become much more interested lately in the Lovecraftian incomprehensible "evil" and the "pure" evil, if anything at all is supposed to be the bad guys team at all because that usually means the theme won't be about some misunderstood(TM) emo guy with too much power.
I agree. There’s an endless number of stories that examine Evil character every which way to Sunday but the reality is that Evil itself is actually really samey and boring, just with a slightly different coat of paint, every time and that’s what evil races are supposed to be: they represent the banality of Evil
Frieren and Goblin Slayer render this video defunct.
Frieren is literally discussed in this video.
Hells yeah, lets go Soldier 🔥
Why aren't you at a thousand subscribers yet? GET THIS MAN TO A THOUSAND SUBS!
Because butthurt anime fans mass-disliked his first video thus keeping his channel obscure
@@parsleyisthicc You mean Channer-scum dipshits.
Great video! Can't to see your next one!
Evil has to be a choice to create a difference in morality to compare to our protagonists. An evil race lacking that choice leads them to be boring
Choice isn’t relevant in this instance because evil races are not representative of characters, they represent the concept of Evil itself and how dull and repetitive Evil truly is
Lol the pronunciation of Menzoberanzan. :D
I'm from New Jersey. What can ya do?
Nice criticism about the concept but still at the end of the day it is all up to the choice of the creator, if they choose to make them purely evil they will make them purely evil, if they choose to make them misunderstood the will make them misunderstood, if they choose to make them complicated they will make them complicated, and there is nothing boring about that but rather how they choose to handle them in those ways that is what will make their story interesting.
Evil races are evil in a societal sense or evil in the sense that a demon is evil.
An enemy can be simply evil and still be interesting due to how the characters interact with them.
An evil society like drow's is interesting enough for people to make tons of characters that are based in that society, write a ton of lore because they are inspired by that evil society, and explore what makes a society evil.
In the case of drow, it's from the influence of Lolth, they're spider queen goddess demon.
If evil races in fantasy are boring to you, I genuinely think you have simply found a trope you don't like.
And that's fine, but The content of this video presents your point of view as objective, And you are factually wrong about that considering the wealth of content people make and engage with.
Not every evil needs to be complex or layered or "they just had a bad time of it they just need a different environment to grow up in!"
This is a failing of your politics I think. But that's beyond the scope of a RUclips comment.
I just think this video is ridiculous and you're a ridiculous person.
I can't help but feel that you didn't watch the video if that's your conclusion by the end of it.
One dimensional villains is bad writing politics be damn. Shit like this is why I hate shitty anime villains like Kid Buu.
Agreed. He’s really missing the point of evil races here. They’re not supposed to be interesting as characters because they aren’t characters, they’re a concept. They aren’t meant to be an examination of evil, they illustrate evil for what it is: Boring and Repetitive. The point of evil races is to highlight the Good of those who fight it
Bro your voice sounds like Star Wars Theory😭
Im very excited for this!
Are you a fan of extreme horror
Should I bring up Galactus? Who has admitted in several comics that he strongly dislike devouring worlds, but has to do it to keep his hunger at bay.
Interesting ❤️❤️❤️❤️
When u finally get it
5:47 well there's the spite and bias there.
Don't paint a broad brush because of your bias, what about dr doom?
What about magneto? What about genius heroes? What about villains who started good and rightfully wanted to destroy humanity.
Also a lot of your arguments at the start are, if you're really stupid to the point you aren't sapient, you can do anything, so the only evil creatures are smart creatures, always to be responsible and judged, never to be free as the rest of the dumb creatures.
So is intellect just a curse then? Evil itself?
It’s boring because there no such thing as a truly evil society in the real world
Is rape evil?
You asking for a “friend”?
he doesn't know@@intellicogroup405
Disliked and blocked ad.
You're still the guy Who saw Tolkien's orcs and saw black people
People keep insisting this, and I keep reminding them, no, citing one of Tolkien's letters is not me saying anything. And besides, that letter was about the Mongols, not Black people.
@@agramugliayou literally didn't cite anything and went straight to black people in your Twitter post.
You also don't see cenobites as evil so I Guess you have loads of problems and unintentional racism Is the least of them
@@boros4925 i don't think that's correct. What post are you talking about?
As for Cenobites, wait 24 hours and you will hear my opinions there
@@agramuglia yeah I already know what are your opinions on that, tehy're similar to "she asked for it"
@@boros4925 Lemme guess
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lefty promised you head if you were going to post comments that were already debunked.
Somebody should have sent this to that hack Tolkien.
?
You clearly did not watch the video at all.
Trolls are the opposite of ents (sentient trees)?