>We must maintain the Balance Between Good And Evil, and there's currently too much Good, so we must do Evil!
Has this ever been done well, outside of a Wreck-it Ralph scenario where people are aware that their world is fictional and can't exist without someone predestined to be the villain but hate him anyway?
Keep in mind I am specifically referring to Good and Evil in a setting where such things can be measured objectively, not positive and negative energy, not a figurative "too much of a good thing" which becomes evil, not an edgy setting where there is no good side.
>>44010659
No.
>>44010659
No, because the idea of "I'm siding with the elves until the elves start winning then I'm siding with the orcs" is stupid.
>>44010659
It works best with powerful shadowy figures manipulating things behind the scenes, lending aid to one side only for as long as it takes to restore a balance. They may work as coordinators to help unite disparate groups on one side, while sowing division and discord on the other side. Much of their work will be done through assassinations and espionage, with lots of secret agents and double agents. A motivation based on religion or mysticism works best, but you could also do it with calculating self-interested types who don't want either Good or Evil to take over and a threat to them.
Michael Moorcock's books have something similar, though it pits the Gods of Balance as trying to maintain a parity between the Gods of Law and the Gods of Chaos.
You don't go for "balance between good and evil".
You might try to balance light and dark, good and evil, in and yo, the five elements, or whatever.
Balance things properly, and good comes out of it. Lack of balance, and evil is the result.
I mean given the exceptions you've stated, what problem could "not enough evil" cause?
not really everyone wants good. good is stable and safe and reliable good people want good because they believe it to be moral and while evil people might do evil personally almost noone wants widespread evil for its own sake
If there is too much Evil in the world, the mortal plane will merge with Hell and be invaded by genocidal demons. If there is too much Good in the world, the mortal plane will merge with Heaven and be invaded by genocidal angels. Everyone is aware of this fact and so life is an elaborate stage-play of alternating roles. Visit the poorhouse on a good day and get genuine, heartfelt charity; visit it on a bad day and they'll take one of your kidneys as payment.
>>44010659
Ever read villain by necessity? I think it does it well
>>44012006
Stagnation?
>>44012584
Are you implying that ambition and creativity are exclusive to Evil people?
>>44012761
Admittedly, Evil likes to imply that despite it self-evidently being bullshit.
>>44012761
Evil creates problems, problems create Evil.
Without problems there is no ambition to improve things, without problems there will be no creativity, just... well nothing.
>>44012873
Yeah, that's bullshit.
>>44012983
Okay then explain to me exactly what is evil, objectively, and how it is possible to exist evil in a problem-less universe, and how it's possible to exist problems in an evil-less universe.
Come on, do it.
"hurr it's bullshit" ain't gonna cut it.
>>44012873
Problems exist independently of Evil. Evil just uses problems as an excuse to be a dick and then goes around creating Evil Problems.
>>44013010
An Avalanche hitting a village is a problem. But it's not Evil, it's a natural disaster.
>>44012873
How do you define problems?
For example, if there was a comfortable world with no crime or poverty or other cruel realities, but all the TV was in gray, someone would still invent color TV eventually because it's a neat idea that would make a lot of people happy, especially the inventor.
>>44010659
>a setting where good and evil can be measured objectively
>not positive and negative energy
You can only pick one of these. Good and evil are either the same as they are in real life (subjective moral values), or they are just names given to forms of glowing juju that usually coincide with most people's idea of good and evil.
To answer your question, no. It's always been a really stupid person's big idea that they think sounds smart and interesting because they didn't think about it hard enough to realize it doesn't work. It's important to remember that good and evil are just as subjective as bad and good to each individual person. The notion of "balancing" good and evil is loaded with the false conclusion that good and evil can be objectively assessed, as well as the misunderstanding leading a person to think good means something different than "an outcome I think is positive." A person doing "evil" to balance out good and evil is still doing net good in their own eyes, because they value balance as good, which leads to a circle of logic.
>>44010659
>Has this ever been done well
no, because most works that try to sell such stories about 'balance' between good and evil forget that entropy is a thing.
That is, things like law and order and civilization don't just occur spontaneously and then function of their own accord; they need constant effort from people to be built and keep functioning, otherwise the civilization can't be maintained and it collapses into anarchy and lawlessness. Even if you had a setting where 'law' and 'order' can be set into firm, objective constants, if that setting is even remotely like our own, the forces of order are going to have massive amounts of work cut out for them running society even if there's no serious opposition at all.
>>44013100
Natural disasters are evil.
I liked the sequel trilogy top the Obsidian trilogy; the entire evil side was destroyed at the end of the first trilogy, so the bad guy of the second is performing unholy magics to resurrect the evil species for the sake of balance, which his magic is inherently all about.
>>44010659
>asks why Good must be balanced against Evil
>requires a pure, incorruptible objectively measurable Good that's not energy and has no drawbacks for excessive amounts
Why even ask the question, OP? No answer will satisfy you.
>>44013886
Because I could be wrong about my conjecture that such a trope has to go meta in order to be done well.
The requirements are for clarity's sake, to avoid reading 20 answers to a question I didn't ask. I don't care about the Balance Between Magical Healing Energy And Magical Hurting Energy, and if I hadn't specifically excluded that, lots of anons would think it's the same thing.
>>44014106
The 'trope', as you put it, can be done just fine in-universe. You've just point-blank excluded all the rational in-universe reasonings for why it would work. But, just to spite you, here's a stupid mostly irrational answer that satisfies your question. Enjoy.
>The Creator Being of the Universe has decreed that there must be balance between Good and Evil or he will destroy his creation and start anew. No-one knows or understands why he has decreed such, but every time the balance is significantly tilted one way or the other he afflicts every world or plane of existence with natural (and unnatural) disasters. This being is not a meta-representation of the GM, it's literally an omnipotent being with unknowable and unfathomable consciousness.
>>44010659
>We must maintain the Balance Between Good And Evil
Uh, why?
>>44014508
Because Angels are dicks.
I am actually going to try and defend the "balance between good and evil" concept - Although I am aware that the idea of "there mus be as much evil as there is good" is stupid.
Humanity needs "evil" to properly function; By "evil" I mean conflict. Without conflict, humanity ends up degenerating into the world we see today, where the "DON'T LIKE DON'T WATCH/READ/CONSUME MY POORLY MADE PRODUCT" and "SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR OPINION 2 URSELF H8ER" mentalities are prospering. There are literally countries out there where calling someone a nigger gets you jailtime.
Theoretically, there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with a conflict-free world if:
A - It is truly conflict-free. The West as of now is extremely pussified, while people who still face harsh lives are not. Just look at ISIS, China and Eastern Europe + Russia, these are nations full of people who are willing to kill to achieve goals while in The West you get prosecuted for hurting someone's feelings.
B - Conflict would never resurface again. Let's say that the entire world has become a giant hugbox because there is no more conflict. Criticising something or having negative feelings gets you lynched and everyone is living in peace and harmony - suddenly a huge disaster happens and the pussified civilization has no fucking way to get it's act together.
So, yes, this is my interpretation of the "balance" thing - Humanity needs some amounts of conflict to properly function otherwise it naturally degrades into tumblrites.
>>44014759
>A - It is truly conflict-free. The West as of now is extremely pussified, while people who still face harsh lives are not. Just look at ISIS, China and Eastern Europe + Russia, these are nations full of people who are willing to kill to achieve goals while in The West you get prosecuted for hurting someone's feelings.
Shit, didn't finish this.
My point is that a civilization under harsh circumstances can stomp a peaceful civilization simply due to the determination of the former's people.
>>44014495
Another stupid answer, and a more awesome one at that:
>The world is flat, and literally built on top of a celestial set of scales that objectively measures Good and Evil. As one side or the other grows the scales tilt the world, causing horrible (you guessed it) natural disasters. The 'evil' parts of the world also happen to be ones where the tilt benefits their civilization (for example, a desert area that temporarily floods when Evil is at least 2 degrees in their favour. Regardless, more than 10 degrees causes the world to literally slide along the celestial scales, and if left unchecked for too long could result in the entire world falling into an endless abyss, flipping endlessly and tearing it asunder.
>>44013010
The orbit of Mercury not playing ball with Newtonian mechanics was a bit of a problem.
Likewise, explaining how the speed of light could always measuring up to be the same, regardless of the velocity of the observer relative to anything and everythign was quite a problem.
These are hardly evil things, but Einstein still set about solving them.
The ball point pen solved the problem of making a very handy ink pen, but the lack of it was hardly evil. Art might come about as the artist tries to cope with evil, and might be aimed at helping rid the world of it in some way, but that is in no way a necessity. A lot of the greatest art pieces created throughout history have just been commissioned pieces so someone could show off the fact that he could afford that shit.
Evil is a problem,but problems aren't necessarily evil.
And on top of that, creativity doesn't even need an outright problem all the time, inventions can come simply from someone coming up with an even better way of doing things than we currently do, and art in general certainly don't need any form of problem to address.
So the idea that evil is necessary here is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk
>>44010659
Had a campaign where a church heavily believed this. They were essentially more obnoxious mormons who went door to door DEMANDING you join their religion for the good of all. If they knew you were home they'd break in and hand you their version of the bible and wouldn't leave till you've read 10 pages and sworn allegiance to them. turns out those 10 pages and taking the oath had a set of mental manipulation so they can randomly call on you to go break into peoples houses to spread the churches word. After the evil god was destroyed it transformed into an evil group of black robe wearing cultists who break into peoples houses flaying you alive till you pledge your soul to their cause.
>>44010659
Not good and evil, but the best way would be to represent someone in the position of Britain historically relative to the rest of Europe, i.e. always side against anyone who looks like they're going to consolidate too much power because they rely on trade and long-range power projection.
>>44014759
3 mass shootings occurred in the US in the last two days alone.
Go back to /pol/.
>>44015061
>3 mass shootings occurred in the US in the last two days alone.
In each of them only ~30 people died on average.
That's nothing compared to the USA's 350 million.
>>44014759
>By "evil" I mean conflict.
So you completely change the meaning of the central word here. That makes everything that follows completely unrelated to OP's question.
>Without conflict, humanity ends up degenerating into the world we see today, where the "DON'T LIKE DON'T WATCH/READ/CONSUME MY POORLY MADE PRODUCT" and "SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR OPINION 2 URSELF H8ER" mentalities are prospering. There are literally countries out there where calling someone a nigger gets you jailtime.
That's not absence of conflict, that's conflict.
>>44015125
Are you implying thats a crime rather than a warcrime? We're new to this whole Country thing. We gotta play catch up to match up. You ever see how many wars france has taken a part in and their overall kill count?
>>44014849
you see one of the definitions of evil includes harmful acts
life - is - about competition and directly or indirectly causing harm to other beings, (if you think that isn't evil, consider that evil is a subjective view, if you're someone's prey then of course you'll see that act as evil, but if you need to hunt a bison to feed yourself it's just another day)
so unless your entire setting is about complete neutrality or posititivity in all relations, the no.
and onto problems being evil, the only reason anyone sets out to solve anything is because they are driven to improve their own lot, be it their knowledge or wealth or whatever, if you however lack the concept of harm then why would you ever develop the instinct or ambition to improve things?
>>44015296
>you see one of the definitions of evil includes harmful acts
So let's pretend that's all there is to the definition, and then stretch this mother fucker like a condom being put on an ICBM.
>if you however lack the concept of harm then why would you ever develop the instinct or ambition to improve things?
Yeah, not being able to explain why exactly Mercury didn't go around the sun like expected was an outright harmful thing.
No, wait, that's fucking retarded.
>>44014849
I think anon is just confusing "evil" with necessary/neutral struggle/conflict/violence, as opposed to unnecessary/bad struggle/conflict/violence.
>>44015409
Well unless you magically develop a drive to improve in a world where there is nothing ever negative you won't care about mercury's orbit.
And the reason people are driven to acquire knowledge is, fun fact, because ignorance is harmful. Human beings developed curiosity as an evolutionary tool, it's a way of getting ahead when you're a bunch of hairless apes with no claws and who can easily be outrunned or poisoned.
>>44015433
necessary struggle and violence is still evil.
If I kill a man so I won't starve is this somehow not seen as evil by the man I kill?
>>44015457
That depends on if you consider him as a "person" or not, in the context of if he's in your "ingroup", or out of it.
In any case, standards of civilized behaviors don't apply to extreme situations such as those, which is why civilization is a good thing, it keeps us from falling into those situations where we MUST act less than human, unless an individual is so truly virtuous that they would rather starve to death than to kill for food.
>>44015493
>it depends
Exactly, from his view it'll be evil, from yours it won't.
Evil is a way to describe unfavourable or harmful situations to you/your group/your interests, without that concept there is no advancement as you literally have no reason to do anything.
If you can't do poorly, then you don't mind doing poorly. So why would you advance?
This is like saying someone who can't starve or feel hunger would sudenly develop agriculture.
>>44010659
Sort of? People disagreeing over what is right is often done well.
>>44015530
Perhaps, but do keep in mind that harmful actions towards your group (to a degree) may spur them onwards to ever greater heights, and could even be considered a good in that situation (with the necessary foresight or historical perspective)
Those mean fuckers from over the mountains just wiped out 95% of your population? Undeniably evil.
Those mean fuckers from over the mountains just razed a village using a strategy that completely toppled your defenses? You now know a new trick, are able to defend (and attack better), and are on your way to regional domination at the price of a few hundred peasants.
While the second situation is "evil" in the short term (peasants dying is usually bad), it's good in the long term. While in the first situation, the near genocide of your people would likely kill your entirely a few decades down the line, barring some grand revenge scheme or divine intervention.
>>44010659
Not necessarily good vs. evil, but her motivation of "if we allow one side to get too powerful they will eventually become corrupt and fuck things up for everyone and there will be nobody left to stop them" was understandable, considering she was around to see the last empire collapse.
>>44015580
>may spur them onwards to ever greater heights, and could even be considered a good in that situation
While the outcome can lead to good that does not mean the act itself was, even from the long view. Fortuitous perhaps, but not good.
>>44010659
>We must maintain the Balance between Men and Women, and there are currently too many fucking SJW Tumblrinas, so we must fight for men's rights!
>>44010659
You've got a pic of a race of folks who even when faced with an idiot in command of a starship about to ram into their planet, couldn't decide one way or the other on what to do about it. Not the best image quite frankly, but to your question I would say no, that there has to be some inherit balance between has to be kept or even maintained seems silly. It might be more plausible that the effects of Good and Evil in a setting just wax and wane over time based on the actions of the inhabitants or their Gods. You try to maintain a false balance and you'll just get a bunch of idiots going around causing chaos to keep a kind of spiritual check book in balance. Save the orphans of a town? Gotta burn down the town to even it out. Rescue helpless cat in tree? Beat old lady with said cat, that's about right. It just doesn't really work out and anyone who would do that would instantly be labeled a threat to basically anyone and would have to be removed as soon as possible.
>>44015596
I like this viewpoint best when doing neutral: you're not exactly trying to maintain balance between two metaphysical concepts as much as keeping in balance actual, physical entities that associate themselves with certain alignments...
>>44015530
>Evil is a way to describe unfavourable or harmful situations to you/your group/your interests, without that concept there is no advancement as you literally have no reason to do anything.
You could always do stuff for fun. I'm in a PhD program for reasons that don't really have anything do with a "drive to improve" or "advancement;" I just want to know a lot more about evolution and the history of life on Earth.
>>44015443
>Well unless you magically develop a drive to improve in a world where there is nothing ever negative you won't care about mercury's orbit.
>And the reason people are driven to acquire knowledge is, fun fact, because ignorance is harmful. Human beings developed curiosity as an evolutionary tool, it's a way of getting ahead when you're a bunch of hairless apes with no claws and who can easily be outrunned or poisoned.
I'm also getting really tired of unsubstantiated ad hoc adaptive hypotheses concerning human evolution.
The maintain-the-balance-of-good-and-evil thing is stupid because only a few maniacs favor their own conception of evil. In reality, nearly everyone would prefer good to evil, but there is widespread disagreement over precisely what constitutes "good." "Everyone's getting along too well! We gotta stab some babies to balance the scales with Evil!" is a motive that is foreign to human beings.
>>44010659
That sounds like something Harpers would do.
I really hated it when they were doing this.
>>44011332
I mean it makes sense if you are profiteering off of the war or are trying to weaken both sides so your kingdom can sweep in and crush them both. I do that regularly in Victoria 2. Pay war subsidies to whoever is losing in a war and suddenly pull out and declare war on one of the sides who have been weakened by years of war.
>>44010659
>Keep in mind I am specifically referring to Good and Evil in a setting where such things can be measured objectively,
OK. If not enough bad things happen then the Evil energy not vented on the surface builds up to empower The Evil Buried God who will break free and kill everything.
Suppressing all evil acts will lead to this.
>>44011332
That's pretty much Britain's foreign policy until after WW2. Just read France for orcs and Germany for elves.
You can make it ALMOST make sense in a heroic fantasy way (ie it's fucking retarded but can be used as an excuse for a story to happen in that kind of setting anyway) by having the forces of darkness be a profoundly evil source that will only re-manifests itself in another form somewhere else once destroyed. Like what the cult believes in Castlevania Dawn of Sorrow.
It absolutely will happen, and you can't stop it any more than you can stop the wind from moving around to fill low-pressure areas of the world. If that's the case, you might as well try to control it, right? Except even trying to do that makes you yourself the corrupted evil thing, not whatever you're trying to put it into.
Possibly in HFY setting where heaven and hell are both uncaring about humanity as the otherside. As in, both sides treat earth as a battle ground for souls. It's in free humans interest that neither side overwhelms the other.
Settings with two forces messing with neutral humans can be found in the Diablo, Star Wars and Constantine. Even Fallout NV had it with neither the NCR or the Legion being neccesarry good/evil.
Imagine it like this, OP.
When those who are "good" are given too much power and influence, can they always be trusted to do what is right for EVERYONE?
Eventually, someone will oppose their view, and they will do so to a degree that their reaction can only be viewed as "evil".
>>44010659
>Good And Evil
No.
>>44011332
That's actually not a bad idea if done good. Let's suppose dwarves sell their weapons to both sides. Of course they'll want the war to continue.
>>44019453
If their reaction is Evil, then that wouldn't be a problem of too much total objective Good in the world, but of a single group of people having all the power.
