evil gods question

Carbiens · 13-01-2003 3:17pm #1

im thinking of writing a ikkle book soon and the main character an antihero type evil dude, something akin to sauron or melkor from the tolkien universe.

but i want to do a lot of character profiling first, i want to make tis guy real bad, and not just scary, i mean admirably evil in the most darkest sense possible, so what i need is information on evil gods in history, not just satan either im looking for something from any civilisation or diaty, especially norse, greek and japanese, so any links, books or anything else anyone could recommend would be really helpfull.

cheers

Hobart · 13-01-2003 4:46pm

Try this for a start. Maybe of some help.

Hobart.

Ancient Gods of Egypt

Talliesin · 13-01-2003 4:54pm

The concept of evil deities or other evil beings is relatively rare. Arguably the only religions that have this notion are Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism.

There are certainly Gods and Goddesses in many of the world's pantheons that aren't very nice. But that isn't the same as "evil" by a long chalk.

Writers of fiction such as the kind you are discribing often take one mythology from the perspective of another to create the evil characters that people their books. Lovecraft for instance based a lot of his evil beings on old Sumerian deities, but those beings aren't evil.

Some others are more heavily fictionalised but have elements from mythology to give them a certain impact on their readers (most effective on those readers who only half-remember or half-realise the original source) for instance the last Harry Potter book had and evil snake called "Nagini" which is a female naga, a sanskrit word which covers a large number of beings, especially sea-dwelling serpent beings. Nagas aren't evil beings, but the name adds some mystery and originality to the cliché of the big-scary-snake motive in Western horror writing.

I don't think you are going to find much of use if you are going for an "evil" character. As I said evil is a rare concept. Besides complete evil is relatively boring (although characters that appear to be evil at first such as Snape in the Harry Potter books, or who are redeemed, such as Anakin in the Star Wars films, can be interesting).
Also real knowledge of this stuff probably doesn't count for much, Dennis Wheatley was one of the most successful horror writers of his time, but he was a deeply ignorant when it came to a real knowledge of the occult (unfortunately he thought he was an expert, which resulted in some cretinous statements).

Really though, if you want to hear about evil you should ask a Christian or a Muslim.

The closest you'll get elsewhere is various Titanomachia, where one tribe's Gods become the dark Gods of another tribe (exampes being the Firbolg, Set, Baal, Lucifer) or trickster gods such as Loki. Not quite the same as evil though.

Hobart · 13-01-2003 5:19pm

You raise some interesting points in your reply, Talliesin, but I am at a loss to understand the greyness you see between 'not very nice' and Evil?

For example would you describe 'Satan' as not very nice or evil? Would you describe him as boring?

The Ancient God Am-Heh is described as the "Devourer of Millions" (A fairly evil sounding pastime in my book). Similarily Set, or Seth, is described as the Evil One, and was patron of, among other things, winds, storms, chaos, evil, darkness, war and conflict.

Maybe this is off the point but is evil, like beauty, not in the eye of the beholder?

The Corinthian · 16-01-2003 1:22am

Originally posted by Hobart
For example would you describe 'Satan' as not very nice or evil? Would you describe him as boring?

It’s interesting you should mention Set and Satan as the latter is probably derived from the former. Set/Seth was originally an Egyptian god of foreigners and so was in part adopted by the early Israelites. However, following the (rather brutal) conquest of Egypt by the Persians, foreigners (and any god that would have them) were not looked at in as kind a fashion.

The Ancient God Am-Heh is described as the "Devourer of Millions" (A fairly evil sounding pastime in my book). Similarily Set, or Seth, is described as the Evil One, and was patron of, among other things, winds, storms, chaos, evil, darkness, war and conflict.

Just because a god held a destructive role, did not make them evil. The most famous and destructive of all anthropomorphic personifications, Death, has never been described as evil, for example. Even the kind and loving god of Judean-Christian-Islamic tradition has had (and according to some texts will have another helping) his fair share of butchery.

Maybe this is off the point but is evil, like beauty, not in the eye of the beholder?

But I would have thought this ambiguity to have made excellent material for a novel

Hobart · 16-01-2003 1:07pm

It’s interesting you should mention Set and Satan as the latter is probably derived from the former. Set/Seth was originally an Egyptian god of foreigners and so was in part adopted by the early Israelites. However, following the (rather brutal) conquest of Egypt by the Persians, foreigners (and any god that would have them) were not looked at in as kind a fashion.

Don't disagree with you in realtion to the derivation of Set/Satan. However is it not an interesting subject/research matter to not only look at the "evilness" of certain gods but to also see how the same gods were differently percieved then and now? In any case it still does not answer my original question about "not very nice" versus "evil" ?

Just because a god held a destructive role, did not make them evil.

OK. That's your opinion!

Now give me your definition of evil.

and

But I would have thought this ambiguity to have made excellent material for a novel

Is exactly my point!

The Corinthian · 16-01-2003 2:16pm

Originally posted by Hobart
Don't disagree with you in realtion to the derivation of Set/Satan. However is it not an interesting subject/research matter to not only look at the "evilness" of certain gods but to also see how the same gods were differently percieved then and now? In any case it still does not answer my original question about "not very nice" versus "evil" ?

You raise a good point. I think it might have been Terry Pratchet that once wrote that the difference between angels and demons is much the same as that between freedom fighters and terrorists. If we look at the demonization of pagan gods by Islam and Christianity, it’s fairly clear that this process was largely political and a case of “our God versus yours”. Zoroastrism (that invented all this good versus evil stuff) on the other hand had a more dualistic approach, but to be honest I don’t know enough about it to say more than that.

Another approach to the concept of evil might be perceived malevolence. Animals such as crocodiles and sharks are often perceived as evil or cruel, however this is largely as they would harm us only because they would most likely perceive us as a meal. Similarly, as omnivores humans eat meat we would generally not perceive this as an evil act, but (were they sentient) cows and other livestock probably would. As another example, would be inadvertently stepping on an ant - is this evil? In a similar fashion, a supernatural being or deity would be so far removed on an evolutionary scale (for lack of a better description) from us to cause great evil, probably without even realizing it or seeing man as nothing more than another dumb animal. Many of H.P. Lovecraft’s deities, such as the infamous Cuthullu, would have fallen into this category, for reference. And let’s face it; if you were an immortal demi-deity and a human life lasted the equivalent of fifteen minutes of your time, snuffing it out would hardly seem that big a deal.

Of other definitions, briefly two come to mind. Firstly evil as an absence of good as opposed to anything in itself. And secondly, evil being the immoral as opposed to the amoral – the difference? The latter may do evil deeds but not know better (not a sin, or a very big one anyhow, in Christianity) while the former does know better, making them all the more culpable. Note that amorality is not a valid defense in classical morality (Oedipus hardly knew he was getting it on with mum, did he?).

Anyhow, the first two are my favorite definitions, for what it’s worth.

SOL · 30-01-2003 2:24am

In reigione caecorum rex est luscus,
So act smart and people will believe you...

Its a perspective thing,
religion requires something to vilify and in christianity the made a purpose built one, something most other religions havent got aparently, how odd, who would leave that out of a religion??? its kinda important isn't it?

Talliesin · 30-01-2003 1:44pm

who would leave that out of a religion??? its kinda important isn't it?

Why?

One of the most venerated deities in the world is Kali. When you have Kali as both creator and destroyer, defender and attacker - when essentially you have Kali being what the world around us that both nutures and threatens us, why do you need to separate those two parts of her nature and vilify one?

Fire can cause death by burns and smoke inhalation, should we therefore flee at the sight of a hearth?

The example of Set is an interesting one though. Certainly there are people who are happy to be called, and call themselves, both "Settians" and "Satanists", though whether there are other Settians who reject the label "Satanists" I can't say.

The really interesting thing is to compare the view of Set in different periods of history, as The Corinthian did above.

Similarly, the Satan of the Book of Job is not evil, but rather a prosecutor who brought evidence of wrong-doing forward for consideration. It was only later that he became, to paraphrase Crowley, perceived as only a criminal would perceive a prosecutor.

The Corinthian · 30-01-2003 3:39pm

Originally posted by SOL
In reigione caecorum rex est luscus

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Its a perspective thing, religion requires something to vilify and in christianity the made a purpose built one, something most other religions havent got aparently, how odd, who would leave that out of a religion??? its kinda important isn't it?

Only if a religion or faith is salvitic. Any religion that seeks converts will tend towards the creation of a personification of evil (as to my previous freedom fighters versus terrorists argument). Non-salvitic religions, such as Judaism - you’re either born a Jew or you're not, does not attempt to seek converts, as a result - have no need for good/evil.

Talliesin · 30-01-2003 4:11pm

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Only if a religion or faith is salvitic. Any religion that seeks converts will tend towards the creation of a personification of evil (as to my previous freedom fighters versus terrorists argument). Non-salvitic religions, such as Judaism - you’re either born a Jew or you're not, does not attempt to seek converts, as a result - have no need for good/evil.

I'm not completely convinced it's necessary even if the faith is salvitic or proselytises.

Certainly there is no propaganda value in such a position for non-salvitic paths (which would include just about all modern Pagan paths). However such positions aren't needed to gain converts, after all non-salvitic paths generally do allow for conversion, if not actively seeking such, and some are growing at a considerable rate.

So I don't think such a figure for vilification would be a sine qua non of a salvitic religion, useful as it may be.

Carbiens · 31-01-2003 6:48pm

you know what?

**** the links:p

keep this conversation going, with every new guy you mention i go straight to google, and im getting loads of stuff, cheers lads;)

SOL · 01-02-2003 3:14am

Fronti nulla fides, Trahimur omnes studio laudis.

The Corinthian · 01-02-2003 4:40am

Tu quod volunt credunt.

SOL · 02-02-2003 1:22am

quidem

Talliesin · 03-02-2003 7:14pm

Hic puer est stultissimus omnium!

What is this, a Tridentine board!

If we continue to have Latin quotes ad nauseum I shall close this thread.

Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.

SOL · 06-02-2003 11:45pm

I bet we were both using the same source and everything

evil gods question

Comments