Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Ryu »

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:
Ryu wrote:He needs to prove his statement correct or concede, I do not need to prove it wrong or accept it.
Since you made a counter claim in far more certain terms than his original claim, I'd say the burden of evidence lies just as equally in your hands, dipshit.

In fact, you made the original statement that all rulers are default evil overlords, and then followed it up by saying you think most people are evil by nature. Prove these claims or concede. Of course, first you'd need to define what "evil" is. By the look of things it qualifies as anything you personally dislike, since your use of the word evil certainly doesn't match up with the dictionary definition, which defines evil as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked".

Since what is considered "moral" varies from person to person, and there is no universe moral code, this definition doesn't help your claim. So frankly, I would like to challenge your claim right now. "Evil" is a subjective term, carrying no absolute and definite meaning unless there is an absolute moral authority. Prove the existence of this absolute moral authority or concede.

Benevolence, on the other hand, can easily be described as the presence of altruism. The origin of the word is benefaction, which means to give aid or gifts. It is a simplistic manner to go through history books or even news papers and find acts of benevolence and altruism - kindness - being carried out by politicians and world leaders. All of these words have absolute meanings that do not require an absolute moral authority. Benevolence is altruism, altruism is a selfless concern for the welfare of others, kindness is doing things to make others happy.

Gee, we're all so evil, coming up with concepts like benevolence and altruism and kindness. Clearly all rulers are evil though, because... you say so! By virtue of... you say so!
They don't need to be, but this doesn't mean they aren't. They are still humans, and therefore self-serving in their every endeavor. Selfishness is the root of evil. Do the math.
Selfishness2 = Evil? Got some more in-depth calculations there that we can study, or do you just like making unsupportable blanket statements? :lol:
The main concern of humanity is carrying on their genes.
That is an inbuilt, instinctual desire, yes. Many people chose to ignore it.
The only things humans are willing to fight for are their ability to reproduce, their lives, and ultimately any offspring they might have.
And their country, and freedom of expression, and freedom in general... honestly, do you get off on making statements that are patently false and not providing evidence?
They might fight to protect those they deem as important to these other things, but this a development of their primary concerns.
More baseless claims without any supporting evidence! You basically just claimed that there's no such thing as selflessness, that everyone does everything purely and entirely for selfish reasons, and that kindness is something that doesn't exist. Prove these claims or concede now.
However, neither you nor I have presented any evidence, and we can sit here and bicker until somebody shoves us into the SLAM forum or the colliueseum, and we still won't have gotten anywhere. I suggest we end this discussion now, either by agreeing to disagree or my both conceding our points.
"Since I have no way of proving my assertion, since I make an unprovable argument, I shall suggest we both end the argument here before someone can point out how flawed my stupid arguments are!"

Too late.
Put that in a memo entitled: shit, we already know.

My arguements are stupid, his are stupid, the entire thing is stupid. We are talking about morality here, an undefined set of rules and principles that hold no water. It is overtly subjective bullshit to begin with, and as such it is impossible to have an objective debate about it, and a non-objective debate is fundamentally stupid.

As such, the very idea of having such a debate was stupid. We knew this, but we did it anyway. Now asshole, if you don't mind, we need to end this discussion.

EDIT: as a side note:
Selfishness2 = Evil?
Cute line.

As for you, Samuel, we need to just end this now. It is entirely a moot point and the arguement is unwinnable for the both of us. Let's just leave it at that.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"
User avatar
SilverWingedSeraph
Jedi Knight
Posts: 965
Joined: 2007-02-15 11:56am
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by SilverWingedSeraph »

My arguements are stupid, his are stupid, the entire thing is stupid.
Actualy, his argument is entirely rational. Benevolence is a trait we commonly see in hereditary and elected officials, in most stable counties, because benevolence makes other people happy, which makes them less likely to tear you down, which promotes stability, which makes everyone happy and more likely to do what you say, which then makes you happy. Altruism. It works, this is a fact, there's nothing subjective going on here.

Evil overlords, pretty much by definition, operate outside these guidelines, unless you can think of any definition of evil which includes benevolence. Come to think of it "overlord" doesn't sound especially benevolent either...
We are talking about morality here, an undefined set of rules and principles that hold no water. It is overtly subjective bullshit to begin with, and as such it is impossible to have an objective debate about it, and a non-objective debate is fundamentally stupid.
You're either entirely warping Samuel's argument, or you have a reading comprehension problem.
  /l、
゙(゚、 。 7
 l、゙ ~ヽ
 じしf_, )ノ
User avatar
SilverWingedSeraph
Jedi Knight
Posts: 965
Joined: 2007-02-15 11:56am
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by SilverWingedSeraph »

Damn post-editing time limit!

Anyway, your statement was that humans operate entirely out of selfishness, and you defined selfishness as the root of evil. This statement is easily proved false. If selfishness were all that humans engaged in, human society would be in chaos. For the purpose of this demonstration, I will use the word selfishness to mean take, and selflessness to mean give.

Your argument was that selfishness was the only thing that drives us, but that is clearly not so. If selfishness - taking - was all that there was to us, we would be living in a chaotic, anarchistic society. Pure selfishness, Selfishness2, would be unsustainable for an entire society. There are people whose actions are almost all selfish, and I would agree with you that such people are evil, but these people are a minority, because if they were not, society as we know it would not exist.

Now there's selflessness. Giving. Giving alone gets you nothing, this much is obvious, so if you are entirely selfless, and you give, and give, and never take anything, you will not survive. To give entirely without taking is impossible, for humans have needs, and yes, desires, and for what reason should we resist our desires if they don't cause any harm?

So clearly, the ideal is not pure selflessness, because such a lifestyle would be unsustainable, and obviously humans are not all entirely selfish, because otherwise society would crumble. Most people, everyday, average, ordinary people, work on a combination of both selfishness and selflessness. Give and take. Some may argue that giving merely so you can also receive is a purely selfish act. Those people are dipshits. It's called compromise. By combining fairly equal amounts of giving and receiving, we allow for something at least close to equality.

It is of my opinion that an Evil Overlord is someone whose selfishness outweighs their selflessness, who takes far more than he gives, and who gives little to take a lot. Clearly most governments do not do this, where as dictatorships like North Korea and former Iraq did.

And this whole post is coming off silly and preachy and I'm not sure why I'm making it, but I am! :lol:
  /l、
゙(゚、 。 7
 l、゙ ~ヽ
 じしf_, )ノ
Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Ryu »

SilverWingedSeraph wrote:Damn post-editing time limit!

Anyway, your statement was that humans operate entirely out of selfishness, and you defined selfishness as the root of evil. This statement is easily proved false. If selfishness were all that humans engaged in, human society would be in chaos. For the purpose of this demonstration, I will use the word selfishness to mean take, and selflessness to mean give.

Your argument was that selfishness was the only thing that drives us, but that is clearly not so. If selfishness - taking - was all that there was to us, we would be living in a chaotic, anarchistic society. Pure selfishness, Selfishness2, would be unsustainable for an entire society. There are people whose actions are almost all selfish, and I would agree with you that such people are evil, but these people are a minority, because if they were not, society as we know it would not exist.

Now there's selflessness. Giving. Giving alone gets you nothing, this much is obvious, so if you are entirely selfless, and you give, and give, and never take anything, you will not survive. To give entirely without taking is impossible, for humans have needs, and yes, desires, and for what reason should we resist our desires if they don't cause any harm?

So clearly, the ideal is not pure selflessness, because such a lifestyle would be unsustainable, and obviously humans are not all entirely selfish, because otherwise society would crumble. Most people, everyday, average, ordinary people, work on a combination of both selfishness and selflessness. Give and take. Some may argue that giving merely so you can also receive is a purely selfish act. Those people are dipshits. It's called compromise. By combining fairly equal amounts of giving and receiving, we allow for something at least close to equality.

It is of my opinion that an Evil Overlord is someone whose selfishness outweighs their selflessness, who takes far more than he gives, and who gives little to take a lot. Clearly most governments do not do this, where as dictatorships like North Korea and former Iraq did.

And this whole post is coming off silly and preachy and I'm not sure why I'm making it, but I am! :lol:
That's a bullshit arguement as well, but it doesn't matter. I'll concede my point because I do not wish to argue philosophy with nutters on the internet. (and trust me, everyone on this site, myself included, qualifies as a nutter in my own personal opinion)
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"
User avatar
SilverWingedSeraph
Jedi Knight
Posts: 965
Joined: 2007-02-15 11:56am
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by SilverWingedSeraph »

That's the most backhanded concession I've ever seen. "Your argument is bullshit, but I won't bother to explain how it's bullshit, and I concede so you can't call me to task on my failure to back up my claims. Again."

Well, concession accepted.
  /l、
゙(゚、 。 7
 l、゙ ~ヽ
 じしf_, )ノ
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Zinegata »

Personally, I'd think that an Evil Overlord list would be highly obsolete in the face of a sci-fi war environment.

Modern (and future) wars are very big and costly affairs. A successful evil overlord (or any war leader for that matter) would recognize that victory does not come from any fancy superweapons, or is dependent on any one person. It's about harnessing the resources of your country/kingdom/empire/whatever against that of your enemies in the most efficient and effective manner.

As one very good evil overlord once put it: "Strategy consists of just two elements - overwhelming force, and style. In a pinch, style can slide."

I would thus generally discount the villain from doing anything that targets a hero specifically (even if they lead another nation), and instead focus on putting out more troops, guns, and ships than the other side can. Just to add to their evil credentials, you can have them approve of acts such as child labor, collective punishment, racist propaganda and genocide - all of which can work to some extent to improve war production and/or minimize revolt risk from the overworked and strained populace.

Done correctly, such a villain would be sending out so many gazillions of troops that it's going to be the heroes who will need to come up with some harebrained superweapon to tip the odds - the very sort of super weapons that tend to blow up in a villain's face (and that the Overlord List warns against)
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by PeZook »

Man...how come nobody has used the simplest method of disproving the assertion that all rulers are evil?

Just show one ruler who wasn't, for fuck's sake. Saladin? Cassimir The Great? Augustus? Lincoln? And, uh...any Western leader today? Some may be incompetent and/or stupid, but they're clearly not malicious and evil.

Same goes for "people are evil", when history is full of people who sacrificied themselves for some nebulous greater good that provided no benefit for them or their family. What did Gordon and Sughart gain from getting killed while defending Micheal Durant?
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
Korto
Jedi Master
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2007-12-19 07:31am
Location: Newcastle, Aus

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Korto »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Korto wrote:I've always felt the real problem that would make Evil SuperVillains weaker than heroes was trust. Who do you trust in your underlings? First, are they smart or are they stupid? You can trust the stupid ones, trust them to do something stupid. But with the smart ones, are they good or evil? You can't trust the evil ones, treacherous backstabbing bastards (eg Saruman), but trust the good ones? Smart and good, and knowing about your evil plans? Sounds like they'll come down with an annoying case of ethics, and that's not helpful.
For the stereotyped Evil Supervillain, yes.
<Snip>
And as we're talking about the Evil Overlord list, I don't see the problem with that.

To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Mayabird »

Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
That is a TERRIBLE way of defining morality. For starters, that would make rape moral, as it could be seen as someone attempting to preserve his genes by impregnating as many women as possible. Preventing a rape would be immoral as well.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Vendetta »

Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
Not really.

Morality is utterly agnostic about the survival or otherwise of any individual's genes, it is about the way the individual interacts with a society of other individuals.

Morality serves two purposes, the first is the continuance of the society itself, for instance a society which does not consider murder immoral is likely to tear itself apart quickly. This is the strongest purpose of morality, and is the reason that what is considered to be moral behaviour shifts over time and between societies. What is moral is what is agreed to be moral by the majority of the society in question.

The second purpose is the integration of the individual of the individual into society, by taking actions which are considered morally good by society, the individual shows that he is a "good person" by taking actions considered good by his society, and in doing so he shows other members of the society that he is a reputable partner for social interactions.
Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Ryu »

Zinegata wrote:Personally, I'd think that an Evil Overlord list would be highly obsolete in the face of a sci-fi war environment.

Modern (and future) wars are very big and costly affairs. A successful evil overlord (or any war leader for that matter) would recognize that victory does not come from any fancy superweapons, or is dependent on any one person. It's about harnessing the resources of your country/kingdom/empire/whatever against that of your enemies in the most efficient and effective manner.

As one very good evil overlord once put it: "Strategy consists of just two elements - overwhelming force, and style. In a pinch, style can slide."

I would thus generally discount the villain from doing anything that targets a hero specifically (even if they lead another nation), and instead focus on putting out more troops, guns, and ships than the other side can. Just to add to their evil credentials, you can have them approve of acts such as child labor, collective punishment, racist propaganda and genocide - all of which can work to some extent to improve war production and/or minimize revolt risk from the overworked and strained populace.

Done correctly, such a villain would be sending out so many gazillions of troops that it's going to be the heroes who will need to come up with some harebrained superweapon to tip the odds - the very sort of super weapons that tend to blow up in a villain's face (and that the Overlord List warns against)
...Or tip the odds by assassinating the overlord, as is the case here.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"
Ryu
Youngling
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-07-02 05:46pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Ryu »

Vendetta wrote:
Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
Not really.

Morality is utterly agnostic about the survival or otherwise of any individual's genes, it is about the way the individual interacts with a society of other individuals.

Morality serves two purposes, the first is the continuance of the society itself, for instance a society which does not consider murder immoral is likely to tear itself apart quickly. This is the strongest purpose of morality, and is the reason that what is considered to be moral behaviour shifts over time and between societies. What is moral is what is agreed to be moral by the majority of the society in question.

The second purpose is the integration of the individual of the individual into society, by taking actions which are considered morally good by society, the individual shows that he is a "good person" by taking actions considered good by his society, and in doing so he shows other members of the society that he is a reputable partner for social interactions.
Thanks for the update, Dr. Phil.
My name is Ms. Anthropy. Hajimemashite.

One who believes bigger is better should try giving birth. An infant is the biggest thing that ever passes through there, but is it the most enjoyable experience?

Technological advancement isn't everything. (Yeah, I said it.) In fact, if two items perform exactly the same, one being more advanced is a bad thing. -Jeremy Williams

They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it. I respectfully disagree; I prefer... the weapon you only have to fire once. -Tony Stark, "Iron Man"
Zinegata
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2010-06-21 09:04am

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Zinegata »

Ryu wrote:
Zinegata wrote:Personally, I'd think that an Evil Overlord list would be highly obsolete in the face of a sci-fi war environment.

Modern (and future) wars are very big and costly affairs. A successful evil overlord (or any war leader for that matter) would recognize that victory does not come from any fancy superweapons, or is dependent on any one person. It's about harnessing the resources of your country/kingdom/empire/whatever against that of your enemies in the most efficient and effective manner.

As one very good evil overlord once put it: "Strategy consists of just two elements - overwhelming force, and style. In a pinch, style can slide."

I would thus generally discount the villain from doing anything that targets a hero specifically (even if they lead another nation), and instead focus on putting out more troops, guns, and ships than the other side can. Just to add to their evil credentials, you can have them approve of acts such as child labor, collective punishment, racist propaganda and genocide - all of which can work to some extent to improve war production and/or minimize revolt risk from the overworked and strained populace.

Done correctly, such a villain would be sending out so many gazillions of troops that it's going to be the heroes who will need to come up with some harebrained superweapon to tip the odds - the very sort of super weapons that tend to blow up in a villain's face (and that the Overlord List warns against)
...Or tip the odds by assassinating the overlord, as is the case here.
Assassinations don't really work if you look at history. Highly centralized governments ruled by a despot do tend to fall apart after their death - but the result isn't freedom or democracy. The result is civil war, usually followed by the rise of rival warlord states who are just as despotic as the old guy.

Might be an interesting conclusion if the heroes suceed.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Thanas »

I think we would all do well not to confuse "utterly ruthless" (like Augustus) with "evil" (like Hitler).
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Korto
Jedi Master
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2007-12-19 07:31am
Location: Newcastle, Aus

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Korto »

Mayabird wrote:
Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
That is a TERRIBLE way of defining morality. For starters, that would make rape moral, as it could be seen as someone attempting to preserve his genes by impregnating as many women as possible. Preventing a rape would be immoral as well.
Not really, because rape sows distrust and hatred in your social group, breaking social cohesion and reducing the group's (and therefore your) survivability. Even if it didn't upset the women (which of course it does), it robs other men of a chance to pass on their own genes with certainty. Is that child your wife is having yours? Or that raping bastard's? Women can only have so many children.
We then advanced, expanding our definition of morality to include other tribes, then other races. All in the principle that the way you treat others is the way you can then expect to be treated.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by PeZook »

To add my view on the entire matter of social morality: the larger the society, the more important it becomes to condition people to behave decently towards total strangers, but it also provides more reward to free-riders who can get away with, well, leeching off society.

So...moral systems that promote welfare of societies don't necessarily act in the best interest of the individual, hence prohibitions on rape, murder and theft, and glorification of dying and making sacrifices for one's tribe/city state/country/alliance/species - it promotes survival of the society, meaning everybody except the guy who just got killed fighting the Vikings, which sucks for the dead guy, but is awesome for everybody else.

I've read somewhere that some tribes of native americans had a curious ritual to promote the welfare of society over that of the individual: a tribe's chieftain was expected to periodically give away all of his family's posessions to the needy people in his tribe ; The tribe as a whole then brought him gifts in reciprocation, so that he ended up with roughly what he had before (or, sometimes, even more than what he had before) - all to promote the idea that the tribe matters above all, and those who help the tribe will be helped by it in return.
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Mayabird »

Korto wrote:
Mayabird wrote:
Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
That is a TERRIBLE way of defining morality. For starters, that would make rape moral, as it could be seen as someone attempting to preserve his genes by impregnating as many women as possible. Preventing a rape would be immoral as well.
Not really, because rape sows distrust and hatred in your social group, breaking social cohesion and reducing the group's (and therefore your) survivability. Even if it didn't upset the women (which of course it does), it robs other men of a chance to pass on their own genes with certainty. Is that child your wife is having yours? Or that raping bastard's? Women can only have so many children.
We then advanced, expanding our definition of morality to include other tribes, then other races. All in the principle that the way you treat others is the way you can then expect to be treated.
Like Pezook said, the good of the whole does not necessarily equal the good of the individual. One individual could maximize his genes' spread by raping a lot of women and fuck the society. It is to the society's benefit and that individual's genetic detriment to prevent that from happening. After all, even if the society collapses, if some people survive and they're carrying the asshole's genes, he wins. Especially in poor situations, it's best for genetic survival to have as many offspring as possible so that some of them will at least survive. This could very well take the population over the carrying capacity of their environment and lead to a general collapse, but again, if the few survivors carry the asshole's genes, he wins.

Genetic version of tragedy of the commons. It's in the individual's benefit to grab what they can in the short term even though it fucks over the society over in the long term. The society would want to regulate or control it for the benefit of the people in the society later, but that isn't necessarily to the individual's benefit, because it could keep that one person from spreading his genes at all instead of taking everything because he's the biggest and strongest and then having all the kids.

It's also a game theory thing that the more honest the rest of the group is, the more benefit individuals can get for themselves by cheating/breaking the rules. I could go into this a bit more, but suffice to say, if you're basing morality on the preservation and spread of one's genes, you can't legitimately punish cheaters. They're just doing what they're supposed to, after all.

Thus, still a terrible way of defining morality.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Mayabird »

And dang, forgot to add these points:

Even when the women are upset by rape, in a genetic-survival-above-all morality system, they wouldn't have any recourse because if they get impregnated by a rape, their genes are getting passed on too. It would actually be wrong for them to have an abortion because that would impact their own survival of genes. After all, having kids with rapist genes might mean their kids would be rapists too, and that would spread their genes as well when their kids did it too.

Pedophilia would be the same way. If the person is only attracted to really young people, it would be required to let that person (probably male, less likely female) have all the kids they want, because after all, those kids might get their genes passed on as well.

Goodness sakes, this would even make incest to be a thing of high moral standing. After all, your relatives also carry your genes, so you'd be preserving and passing on more of them instead of just half of your own each time. Sure, the chances of birth defects and genetic problems increase, but that's why you have a lot of kids so even if a few die, there are still others. Cleopatra, after all, was the result of two hundred years of brother-sister and father-daughter incest and she turned out not just perfectly alright but the most coveted woman in the western world.

Again, terrible way of defining morality.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Simon_Jester »

Ignoring the whole Ryu tangent and replying to the people who were kind enough to respond to me directly:
Samuel wrote:Don't forget he let commoners rise up the ranks which was also popular. He also undertook measures to make sure his soldiers were taken care of and supplied- he didn't just earn their loyalty by winning. Although that was a really big motivator.
True, but it doesn't change the issue critically. Ghengis Khan was a ruthless conquering warlord who laid waste to all that stood in his way... and yet he didn't have to deal with endless backstabbery during his lifetime. There's no reason to assume that your story's evil overlord will, either.
Korto wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:
Korto wrote:I've always felt the real problem that would make Evil SuperVillains weaker than heroes was trust. Who do you trust in your underlings? First, are they smart or are they stupid? You can trust the stupid ones, trust them to do something stupid. But with the smart ones, are they good or evil? You can't trust the evil ones, treacherous backstabbing bastards (eg Saruman), but trust the good ones? Smart and good, and knowing about your evil plans? Sounds like they'll come down with an annoying case of ethics, and that's not helpful.
For the stereotyped Evil Supervillain, yes.
<Snip>
And as we're talking about the Evil Overlord list, I don't see the problem with that...
I must respectfully disagree. The difference between a stereotype and an archetype is that a stereotype stops being entertaining after you've seen it a few times. There can be a certain amount of scheming and plotting in a well written Evil Overlord's background, but playing it up as the fundamental weakness of the overlord undermines their claim to be well written in the first place. "We beat you through the power of friendship and teamwork, because your empire of backstabs is no match for our ethical society" is a fairly old and heavily used theme.

I'd honestly prefer to see evil overlords where loyalty is the norm, and disloyal minions are unusual. That more accurately reflects real life- while most societies have people willing to betray them, such societies can't survive unless the great majority of the public is loyal to the leadership most of the time.
Korto wrote:
Mayabird wrote:
Korto wrote:To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it...
That is a TERRIBLE way of defining morality. For starters, that would make rape moral, as it could be seen as someone attempting to preserve his genes by impregnating as many women as possible. Preventing a rape would be immoral as well.
Not really, because rape sows distrust and hatred in your social group, breaking social cohesion and reducing the group's (and therefore your) survivability. Even if it didn't upset the women (which of course it does), it robs other men of a chance to pass on their own genes with certainty. Is that child your wife is having yours? Or that raping bastard's? Women can only have so many children.
We then advanced, expanding our definition of morality to include other tribes, then other races. All in the principle that the way you treat others is the way you can then expect to be treated.
Korto, that's not a good argument. Because you can't expand genetics-based morality past your own blood relations, not on any meaningful level.

It's nice to think that we can take that kind of Darwinism and, with a bit of enlightenment, turn it into a moral code that would be acceptable in a modern context. I don't think we can. Because (for example) your genetics-based argument against rape fails to consider that while the evolutionary benefit goes straight to the rapist, the evolutionary disadvantage is shared by the entire society. So Maya's still right about this one.

To make a decent (and I use the term advisedly) moral system, we need rules that factor in harm to society properly. A system that values people and actions only insofar as they act to spread your genes doesn't qualify. Me, I think the best bet is some form of rule utilitarianism.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Korto
Jedi Master
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2007-12-19 07:31am
Location: Newcastle, Aus

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Korto »

OK, I'm going to concede the argument at this point.
I hope at some point in the future to represent my argument, in the proper forum, but I'm unable to concentrate on it now. Sorry.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
Krisnack
Redshirt
Posts: 35
Joined: 2010-02-19 10:05pm

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Krisnack »

In the book Galactic Partrol there is an incident where the bad guy, Helmuth, has ordered a ship to investigate the planet of Arisia. The captian is willing, is nervous, however the first officer (and the rest of the crew, if my memory serves) threatens to mutiny, claiming that Helmuth can only kill them, but the Arisians can can do a lot more then that. He then goes on the tell Helmuth to go to the nine hells, or Arisia, which is "a thousand times worse!" Helmuth, natural, is furious at first, and is about to order the would be mutineers to report for execution, but he calms down and figures that if these cut-throat-killers could be so frightened of Arisia, then it deserves much more careful investigation. He then orders the crew back to their normal duties.

A stereotypical evil overlord would have executed them and sent another ship, or gone himself.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Formless »

an epistemologically challenged moron wrote:Thanks for the update, Dr. Phil.
I was on hiatus until I read this crap. That's how much it pissed me off. Do you realize how much of a fucktard you look like right now? No, don't answer that. The fact that you have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks should speak for itself even before getting into the specifics claims you made (which I'll get to in a second). This is beyond wrong, this goes right into the territory of "complete jackass".

Which frankly isn't surprising for a self admitted misanthrope.
Ryu wrote:The main concern of humanity is carrying on their genes.
Korto wrote:And as we're talking about the Evil Overlord list, I don't see the problem with that.

To really try and get this thing sent to SLAM, I'll provide my definition for a (species-wide) moral/immoral. Moral is anything that helps your genes survive. Immoral is anything that hinders it. That seems to be the base for all morality to me, even if buried under layers of social advancement. Therefore, different moral codes can be compared by how well they accomplish this aim over an unending period.
Do either of you fucktards know the first thing about psychology? Or science, for that matter? I know evolutionary psychology is in vogue right now, and its made some interesting advances in understanding how human behavior came to be. However, it does NOT supercede our understanding of how people actually behave or what motivates human behavior. You are both claiming that humans (and other organisms) are motivated by the desire to pass on their genes and improve their evolutionary fitness. Bullshit. If so, why do we have the ability to invent contraceptives, and desire to use them? Could it be that in fact we are motivated by what we claim to be motivated by? You know, sex, happiness, avoidance of suffering, relationships, etc.?

Subtle difference, massively different results. And that is even befor distinguishing between "is" and "ought". Simply put, you don't know shit about human psychology.

Nor do you know shit about evolutionary biology. I rue the day that Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" because it creates a mistaken impression among the idiotic lay, and makes them forget why he called his other book "The Blind Watchmaker". Evolution isn't a fucking deity, it cannot design organisms with a conscious design goal in mind let alone hand down or advocate moral rules because it does not have a conscious exerience or mind. Treating organisms as "fitness maximizers" is an abstraction, not a reality. Its like Newtons laws-- useful, but not a complete understanding of psychology in the same way that Newtonian physics breaks down at high speeds and small scales. And when you try to treat it like a model of human psychology, it gets real insulting real fast, with good reason.

Evolution is a long string of coincidental changes to the genome that allowed some organisms to pass on their genes while others didn't. That is what it means to be "fit" in an evolutionary sense. But it cannot invent new traits out of thin air-- that's the job of mutation-- and it can only ever build upon traits that already exist-- "standing on the shoulders of giants" taken to its logical extreme. Its morover important to note that evolution only ever selects against traits, never for them; when there is no selection pressure we get Genetic Drift where the genes get distributed randomly with no rhyme or reason. That's why our eyes are (still) wired backward, our birth canals are almost too small for the size of our heads at birth, why our balls hang from our bodies where people can easily kick them, our digestive tract isn't made for our modern diet, why we still have to deal with down syndrome and other genetic disorders, why we empathise with people who do suffer from such diseases, and why activities that a theoretical "fitness maximizer" would find to be of mere instrumental value (like fucking, making friends, playing games, and altruism) are intrinsically valuable to us. Well, most of us.

One of you is guilty of advocating Social Darwinism, the other Biological Determinism ([Carl Sagan]"...as if there were only one human nature!"[/Carl Sagan]), and neither of you know what the fuck you are talking about with regards to either psychology or biology.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Mayabird »

Dude, Ryu was an avianmosquito sockpuppet and has been banned. Korto conceded the point. No need to get upset over it.
[line 2]
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4144
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by Formless »

Oh. Seems I missed a lot while on hiatus. :)

Back to lurking for me.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
SilverWingedSeraph
Jedi Knight
Posts: 965
Joined: 2007-02-15 11:56am
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Contact:

Re: Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

Post by SilverWingedSeraph »

Mayabird wrote:Dude, Ryu was an avianmosquito sockpuppet and has been banned.
Huh. Ryu was banned? There's nothing about it in the Parting Shots board, and the HoSed thread titled "Will the real avianmosquito please stand up" doesn't mention any ban. I thought he/she just realised the jig was up and fled, but I guess there was a behind-the-scenes ban, or I'm just not looking hard enough.
  /l、
゙(゚、 。 7
 l、゙ ~ヽ
 じしf_, )ノ
Post Reply