I've talked about religious and political systems a bit. I'm going to toot my own horn a little bit and talk about what I consider the ideal moral system for supervillains. Without further ado, here's Mr. Big's Code of Villain.
The supervillain's first duty is to know how to fight. All other rights or privileges may be removed by force, and can ultimately be defended by force. Know when not to fight, but be prepared to fight anyway. Knowing the proper use of your powers is part of effective fighting.
The supervillain's second duty is to his good name. Your reputation will compel respect or mockery, love or fear. Honor your word whenever you've given it. Never give your word unless it's the only price that will buy you what you want.
Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Don't draw all the water from the well. Sooner or later, you will need the civilian population, the local economy, your friends, your enemies. Give, when you can afford to be generous. Take, but do not exhaust. Commit crimes, but not atrocities.
Be respectful of the powerful. Be understanding of the weak. You have a place in the world's hierarchy. Move up it whenever you can, but don't force yourself or you'll regret it.
Aside from these things, there's the two-word advice I give to any aspiring supervillain, or anyone else for that matter:
Be practical. If something isn't working, stop doing it! If what you're doing now isn't working very well, try something new!
Showing posts with label villain morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label villain morality. Show all posts
Monday, August 4, 2014
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Villain Morality: Objectivism
Villains who read "Atlas Shrugged" might identify with the protagonist characters: powerful, smart, sexy, and separated from the masses. The dedicated reader might move on to learn more about Objectivism, the philosophy developed by the author.
Objectivism's core tenet is that knowledge and values are objective (hence the name). What most people think of, though, is Objectivism's views on altruism (uniformly negative) and the free market (uniformly positive). Ayn Rand was born and educated in Russia, but moved to the United States in her youth. Apparently she fell in love with capitalism on the way, and her experiences growing up soured her on any sort of collectivism or communism.
"My philosophy is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his own absolute," she writes. Most supervillains could get on board with the first half, and are still with you depending on how you define "productive". Many budding Objectivists would not be fine to hear that Rand sharply criticized "hedonists" and "whim-worshipers", which describes a lot of villains I could name. Plus, Objectivism regards the initiation of force as immoral, which, y'know, is what we do all day.
I don't think it's correct to classify Rand's philosophy as prizing "selfishness" the way most people think of it today. Rand promoted people doing useful things - but they were simply expected to also get paid for it. Her heroes are titans of industry, builders, manufacturers, and so on. They contributed to the greater good of society, but Rand was very insistent that all such contributions be justly rewarded by the free market. Because of this, Objectivism is actually much more of a superhero thing.
Rand's feelings on the free market are a little more accessible for villains, since a black market, backed up enough powerful crime kingpins to keep everything fair (except for them) is as close to a "free" market as you can probably hope to get. Government regulation, international trade, and so on put a very big thumb on the scale when it comes to legal markets.
All told, the more cynical of us regard Objectivism, and Rand's works promoting its ideals, as a sort of capitalism fan fiction. The philosophy encodes many of Rand's particular quirks (Murray Rothbard relates a story in "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" that one of her followers considered smoking to be a moral obligation of the system) and she was very clearly the person at the center of the system, rather than one promoter of many. It's ironic that her worst experiences in Russia would later be mirrored in the Objectivist community, such as periodic "purges" (though presumably non-fatal ones).
Rand's efforts to promote Objectivism were ultimately successful enough to get the attention of people like the chairman of the Federal reserve, and prominent senators and VP candidates. If appealing to the interests of such people is part of your program as a villain, you should give some thought to learning more about Objectivism. But since the Fed chief testified that he'd badly misjudged what business greed would do to the American economy, I'd advice giving Rand's advice on capitalism a pass.
Objectivism continues today under new management, and has changed direction a few times since Rand's death. Like a buffet, the aspiring supervillain may not like everything that's on the menu, but may find enough to fill a plate.
Objectivism's core tenet is that knowledge and values are objective (hence the name). What most people think of, though, is Objectivism's views on altruism (uniformly negative) and the free market (uniformly positive). Ayn Rand was born and educated in Russia, but moved to the United States in her youth. Apparently she fell in love with capitalism on the way, and her experiences growing up soured her on any sort of collectivism or communism.
"My philosophy is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his own absolute," she writes. Most supervillains could get on board with the first half, and are still with you depending on how you define "productive". Many budding Objectivists would not be fine to hear that Rand sharply criticized "hedonists" and "whim-worshipers", which describes a lot of villains I could name. Plus, Objectivism regards the initiation of force as immoral, which, y'know, is what we do all day.
I don't think it's correct to classify Rand's philosophy as prizing "selfishness" the way most people think of it today. Rand promoted people doing useful things - but they were simply expected to also get paid for it. Her heroes are titans of industry, builders, manufacturers, and so on. They contributed to the greater good of society, but Rand was very insistent that all such contributions be justly rewarded by the free market. Because of this, Objectivism is actually much more of a superhero thing.
Rand's feelings on the free market are a little more accessible for villains, since a black market, backed up enough powerful crime kingpins to keep everything fair (except for them) is as close to a "free" market as you can probably hope to get. Government regulation, international trade, and so on put a very big thumb on the scale when it comes to legal markets.
All told, the more cynical of us regard Objectivism, and Rand's works promoting its ideals, as a sort of capitalism fan fiction. The philosophy encodes many of Rand's particular quirks (Murray Rothbard relates a story in "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" that one of her followers considered smoking to be a moral obligation of the system) and she was very clearly the person at the center of the system, rather than one promoter of many. It's ironic that her worst experiences in Russia would later be mirrored in the Objectivist community, such as periodic "purges" (though presumably non-fatal ones).
Rand's efforts to promote Objectivism were ultimately successful enough to get the attention of people like the chairman of the Federal reserve, and prominent senators and VP candidates. If appealing to the interests of such people is part of your program as a villain, you should give some thought to learning more about Objectivism. But since the Fed chief testified that he'd badly misjudged what business greed would do to the American economy, I'd advice giving Rand's advice on capitalism a pass.
Objectivism continues today under new management, and has changed direction a few times since Rand's death. Like a buffet, the aspiring supervillain may not like everything that's on the menu, but may find enough to fill a plate.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Villain Morality: Anarchism
I want to talk about anarchism, because it seems to be the default philosophy many power supervillains think is right for them. Most of what I want to say here will be what anarchism is not. But let's start with what it is.
Anarchy calls for the removal of the state as a source of governance. What is "the state" here? It's any community organized under a given government. The United States is a state in this sense, because of the Federal government. Individual American states could also be "states". Beyond that, there's as many modes of anarchy as there are Christian denominations, which figures - when you're not down with central authority, you're going to fragment.
Anarchy is not "do as you please". That's called "chaos". Anarchy is grassroots governance, not no governance. If you want an easy primer on the difference, go read "V For Vendetta" - not the movie, the original graphic novel. On top of that, V is a great supervillain template.
The Anarchic Avenue, an online blog, postulates that "true" anarchy is only possible in a post-scarcity society, and suggests that only Stage 3 superhumans can really participate in a meaningful anarchy. Whether that's true or not, there aren't enough Stage 3 and up people who have really tried, so we don't know. It would be an interesting experiment, though.
Anarchists, who reject the state by definition, have historically been clubbed worse than baby seals by any nearby cop, judge, or politician whose attention they draw. The case I first think of along these lines is the Haymarket Affair, back in 1886. The defendants - none of whom were particularly guilty of the crime in question - were variously described as "bloody brutes", "red ruffians", "dynamarchists", "bloody monsters", "cowards", "cutthroats", "thieves", "assassins", and "fiends". My kind of people. This trend has continued to the present day, when many supervillains will be labeled as "anarchists" regardless of their actual politics.
Should you be an anarchist? If you like long discussions that go nowhere but are highly educational, "pure" anarchism is your thing. If you enjoy the idea of social disruption, check out anarcho-syndicalism. Many villains are drawn to anarcho-capitalism because they think it means "a free market in which to buy and sell my shit legally".
Above all, if you think anarchism might be for you, educate yourself. That's really the first step in both understanding and practicing anarchy. One friend of mine says that if everyone understood anarchism well enough, everyone would feel like practicing it, and then it would spontaneously come into being as the default system of governance. In the spirit of her words, I encourage you to go out and read more for yourselves.
Anarchy calls for the removal of the state as a source of governance. What is "the state" here? It's any community organized under a given government. The United States is a state in this sense, because of the Federal government. Individual American states could also be "states". Beyond that, there's as many modes of anarchy as there are Christian denominations, which figures - when you're not down with central authority, you're going to fragment.
Anarchy is not "do as you please". That's called "chaos". Anarchy is grassroots governance, not no governance. If you want an easy primer on the difference, go read "V For Vendetta" - not the movie, the original graphic novel. On top of that, V is a great supervillain template.
The Anarchic Avenue, an online blog, postulates that "true" anarchy is only possible in a post-scarcity society, and suggests that only Stage 3 superhumans can really participate in a meaningful anarchy. Whether that's true or not, there aren't enough Stage 3 and up people who have really tried, so we don't know. It would be an interesting experiment, though.
Anarchists, who reject the state by definition, have historically been clubbed worse than baby seals by any nearby cop, judge, or politician whose attention they draw. The case I first think of along these lines is the Haymarket Affair, back in 1886. The defendants - none of whom were particularly guilty of the crime in question - were variously described as "bloody brutes", "red ruffians", "dynamarchists", "bloody monsters", "cowards", "cutthroats", "thieves", "assassins", and "fiends". My kind of people. This trend has continued to the present day, when many supervillains will be labeled as "anarchists" regardless of their actual politics.
Should you be an anarchist? If you like long discussions that go nowhere but are highly educational, "pure" anarchism is your thing. If you enjoy the idea of social disruption, check out anarcho-syndicalism. Many villains are drawn to anarcho-capitalism because they think it means "a free market in which to buy and sell my shit legally".
Above all, if you think anarchism might be for you, educate yourself. That's really the first step in both understanding and practicing anarchy. One friend of mine says that if everyone understood anarchism well enough, everyone would feel like practicing it, and then it would spontaneously come into being as the default system of governance. In the spirit of her words, I encourage you to go out and read more for yourselves.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Villain Morality: Religion (part 3/3)
We talked about what villains should (or should not) believe, and how and why villains might consider starting a religion of their own. Today I'm going to talk about the other side - the effects of superpowers on existing religion. Disappointingly, not much outwardly has changed.
Sir James George Frazer published the first edition of "The Golden Bough" in 1890. His idea was that several ancient religions (and some still going today) had this "sacrificial king", who would periodically be worshiped and then killed. He claimed this was ancient humanity's mythic retelling of the seasonal harvest cycle, acted as the basis of many old fertility cults, and was a central element in most religions. Recent writers took a look at superhuman biology - where the Hashmal process energizes supers at death's door and brings them back with more power - and thought, "y'know, maybe early man was worshiping supers".
It's not like the major modern religions are immune to this sort of re-analysis. Let's take the Gospels as a totally random example. You have a guy who was ritually drowned by a fellow preacher, went to a desert to starve himself for six weeks, nailed to a tree for three days when the local fuzz took a dislike to the smack he was talking, and finally sealed in a cave for the weekend. If he was superhuman, what the hell do you think that would have done to him? While the major Christian churches haven't said anything that might get their followers thinking this, a lot of people came to this conclusion independently.
Noted atheist Bill Maher describes the Church as "selling an invisible product". I guess the existence of real powers, like those described in the stories that make up most religions, represents a sort of competing business. This is probably why so few major churches have taken any official stance on superpowers - any new position threatens their stability. Even Martin Luther - who made a clear case against the abuses of the medieval Church - needed the political power of the German princes of the time to get the Church to shift position.
Speaking of the Catholic church, I feel bad for them. They can't look at every young villain who uses physics-breaking superpowers to rob a liquor store and say, "that's a miracle". So far, no supers have been canonized, though there's been calls for a few of them. Mostly in Europe and South America, which figures. That said, a little bird tells me that the Church has been working for years to assemble a super-team of its own, and plan to unveil it when the time is right.
A lot of Westerners, especially since 9/11, have the mistaken idea that "fatwa" means "Islamic death sentence". It's not - it's just the name for an opinion issued by somebody with stature and authority within Islam. Several leading Muslims have issued fatwas regarding superheroes and supervillains and powers in general. Not all of them agree with each other, which is to be expected. So the next time someone tells you "Islam issued a fatwa against all supers", go find out what they're actually talking about instead of just blindly assuming Muslims are anti-super.
I like what one Buddhist acquaintance told me when I asked about this. There's no central authority, as usual, but this seemed wise. "The gods feel suffering, the gods have intent, the gods can practice righteousness. They are already welcome among us."
With that, I'll call the religion section of my morality series wrapped up! Thanks for reading.
Sir James George Frazer published the first edition of "The Golden Bough" in 1890. His idea was that several ancient religions (and some still going today) had this "sacrificial king", who would periodically be worshiped and then killed. He claimed this was ancient humanity's mythic retelling of the seasonal harvest cycle, acted as the basis of many old fertility cults, and was a central element in most religions. Recent writers took a look at superhuman biology - where the Hashmal process energizes supers at death's door and brings them back with more power - and thought, "y'know, maybe early man was worshiping supers".
It's not like the major modern religions are immune to this sort of re-analysis. Let's take the Gospels as a totally random example. You have a guy who was ritually drowned by a fellow preacher, went to a desert to starve himself for six weeks, nailed to a tree for three days when the local fuzz took a dislike to the smack he was talking, and finally sealed in a cave for the weekend. If he was superhuman, what the hell do you think that would have done to him? While the major Christian churches haven't said anything that might get their followers thinking this, a lot of people came to this conclusion independently.
Noted atheist Bill Maher describes the Church as "selling an invisible product". I guess the existence of real powers, like those described in the stories that make up most religions, represents a sort of competing business. This is probably why so few major churches have taken any official stance on superpowers - any new position threatens their stability. Even Martin Luther - who made a clear case against the abuses of the medieval Church - needed the political power of the German princes of the time to get the Church to shift position.
Speaking of the Catholic church, I feel bad for them. They can't look at every young villain who uses physics-breaking superpowers to rob a liquor store and say, "that's a miracle". So far, no supers have been canonized, though there's been calls for a few of them. Mostly in Europe and South America, which figures. That said, a little bird tells me that the Church has been working for years to assemble a super-team of its own, and plan to unveil it when the time is right.
A lot of Westerners, especially since 9/11, have the mistaken idea that "fatwa" means "Islamic death sentence". It's not - it's just the name for an opinion issued by somebody with stature and authority within Islam. Several leading Muslims have issued fatwas regarding superheroes and supervillains and powers in general. Not all of them agree with each other, which is to be expected. So the next time someone tells you "Islam issued a fatwa against all supers", go find out what they're actually talking about instead of just blindly assuming Muslims are anti-super.
I like what one Buddhist acquaintance told me when I asked about this. There's no central authority, as usual, but this seemed wise. "The gods feel suffering, the gods have intent, the gods can practice righteousness. They are already welcome among us."
With that, I'll call the religion section of my morality series wrapped up! Thanks for reading.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Villain Morality: Religion (part 2/3)
In "the Prince", Machiavelli writes of two Popes - Alexander and Julius - who "showed how a pope with both money and arms was able to prevail". He refers to the Vatican and similar states as "ecclesiastical principalities", which are sustained through the continued religious impulse of their citizens and neighbors. The idea that even the Pope was a creature of politics shouldn't have been shocking to Machiavelli's contemporaries, since the Western Schism (1378-1418) left Europe with multiple Popes.
Religion has always walked together with power, in one form or another. In the 1970s, "Operation Snow White" was carried out to purge the government's files of a religion that was founded by a science fiction writer. About 5000 covert agents were sufficiently convinced of the authenticity of this religion that they were fine with risking the wrath of the law. In 1977, elements of the Korean intelligence apparatus used a religious movement to gain political influence in the United States, by having Church members volunteer in Congressional offices as staffers. In 1984, followers of an Indian guru organized the largest mundane bioterrorism attack in United States history, by trying to poison the voting population of the city they lived in so that their man could get voted into office. A year later, the investigation into that case uncovered a plot by the same people to assassinate a US attorney.
A few supervillains have spotted the advantages that starting a cult - I'm sorry, a New Religious Movement (NRM) - can bring. While I'm not really on board with doing this, I feel it's my duty as a veteran villain to inform people of what's involved.
Tax exempt status
My friend Dr. Tornadeau says, "the First Amendment has unintentionally created circumstances where the most powerful organization in America is a cult." He's looking at the examples above, as well as more recent NRMs that have been formed and are still thriving today.
A small but well-organized church can move millions of dollars, legally and tax-free. It's been estimated that the Catholic Church - a minority in the US - still moves upwards of 170 billion a year. "But Mr. Big," you ask, "what do you mean estimated? Don't we know?" So now you know one reason supervillains like the idea of starting new religions. Churches can ignore any number of regulatory and disclosure requirements in the United States, and are tax-free for the most part.
Protection from criticism
Churches are notoriously hard to criticize in today's culture. That doesn't stop them from saying any damn thing they want, about any damn person they please, of course.
Big names like Amazon and Google have been pressured to pull materials critical of churches, even when those churches are by any objective measure a fringe presence in the American religious scene. More directly, critics of such churches have found themselves harassed either by church members or members of law enforcement by proxy.
Supers and cults
The superheroine Diver, though she doesn't talk much, is known by a few of us to be a runaway from one cult in the Pacific Northwest, or maybe further north - Canada or Alaska. She was being used as a figurehead of divinity to inspire cult followers. She doesn't claim any supernatural powers or divine blessing, just good old fashioned superpowers.
Singularity had a pretty good apocalyptic cult running before her disappearance. These were the same sorts of people who got into Jim Jones or Heavens Gate - "the aliens are coming, let's all be good people and/or kill ourselves". In such cases, "cult" is still the right term despite "aliens" taking the place of "god". This is nothing new - many, many conspiracy theories have no problem throwing space aliens and Satan into the mixer and hitting "blend".
In general, supers make very convincing cult leaders, and are very difficult to dislodge. The reason is obvious: their claims to extraordinary ability really are true, and most of their claims about origin either can't be disproven, or sound credible enough (in the face of the reality of superpowers) that otherwise-sensible people will buy into them. The strongest threat that such a cult faces is the defeat of its leader by a law-abiding superhero. This is usually enough to break the cult up sufficiently to begin mopping up the lieutenants, but sometimes another super can swoop in and take over the fragments, and build a new flock.
Religion has always walked together with power, in one form or another. In the 1970s, "Operation Snow White" was carried out to purge the government's files of a religion that was founded by a science fiction writer. About 5000 covert agents were sufficiently convinced of the authenticity of this religion that they were fine with risking the wrath of the law. In 1977, elements of the Korean intelligence apparatus used a religious movement to gain political influence in the United States, by having Church members volunteer in Congressional offices as staffers. In 1984, followers of an Indian guru organized the largest mundane bioterrorism attack in United States history, by trying to poison the voting population of the city they lived in so that their man could get voted into office. A year later, the investigation into that case uncovered a plot by the same people to assassinate a US attorney.
A few supervillains have spotted the advantages that starting a cult - I'm sorry, a New Religious Movement (NRM) - can bring. While I'm not really on board with doing this, I feel it's my duty as a veteran villain to inform people of what's involved.
Tax exempt status
My friend Dr. Tornadeau says, "the First Amendment has unintentionally created circumstances where the most powerful organization in America is a cult." He's looking at the examples above, as well as more recent NRMs that have been formed and are still thriving today.
A small but well-organized church can move millions of dollars, legally and tax-free. It's been estimated that the Catholic Church - a minority in the US - still moves upwards of 170 billion a year. "But Mr. Big," you ask, "what do you mean estimated? Don't we know?" So now you know one reason supervillains like the idea of starting new religions. Churches can ignore any number of regulatory and disclosure requirements in the United States, and are tax-free for the most part.
Protection from criticism
Churches are notoriously hard to criticize in today's culture. That doesn't stop them from saying any damn thing they want, about any damn person they please, of course.
Big names like Amazon and Google have been pressured to pull materials critical of churches, even when those churches are by any objective measure a fringe presence in the American religious scene. More directly, critics of such churches have found themselves harassed either by church members or members of law enforcement by proxy.
Supers and cults
The superheroine Diver, though she doesn't talk much, is known by a few of us to be a runaway from one cult in the Pacific Northwest, or maybe further north - Canada or Alaska. She was being used as a figurehead of divinity to inspire cult followers. She doesn't claim any supernatural powers or divine blessing, just good old fashioned superpowers.
Singularity had a pretty good apocalyptic cult running before her disappearance. These were the same sorts of people who got into Jim Jones or Heavens Gate - "the aliens are coming, let's all be good people and/or kill ourselves". In such cases, "cult" is still the right term despite "aliens" taking the place of "god". This is nothing new - many, many conspiracy theories have no problem throwing space aliens and Satan into the mixer and hitting "blend".
In general, supers make very convincing cult leaders, and are very difficult to dislodge. The reason is obvious: their claims to extraordinary ability really are true, and most of their claims about origin either can't be disproven, or sound credible enough (in the face of the reality of superpowers) that otherwise-sensible people will buy into them. The strongest threat that such a cult faces is the defeat of its leader by a law-abiding superhero. This is usually enough to break the cult up sufficiently to begin mopping up the lieutenants, but sometimes another super can swoop in and take over the fragments, and build a new flock.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Villain Morality: Religion (part 1/3)
Today I want to talk about religion and supervillainy.
I'm not going to offend anyone's religious beliefs here. Well, I am, but it's not deliberate. But since this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, let me put my cards on the table. I'm a casually committed Asatruar, which you can find on Wikipedia under "Germanic neopaganism". I like drinking, I like partying, I like doing my job, and when I give my word, I take that shit very seriously. There's a bunch of people under the larger "Asatru" or "Odinist" umbrella who use these beliefs as an excuse for racism. I'm not down with that shit, so don't get in my face with accusations.
The Big Four religions today are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. Aside from Buddhism, each of them has a billion adherents or more, and Buddhism has almost half a billion. That's not bad. Of course, people being what they are, there's a huge amount of disagreement and sectarian conflict, even armed violence, within each one. The Shia and Sunni, the Protestant and Catholic, and so on. I hear Christians talk about "revealed truth", but I guess not enough got revealed to make everyone agree with each other. So I think I have room to talk here, since my truth isn't any less valid than anyone else's.
Rather than break down the pros and cons of any given religion - especially since I'm not a real believer in any of them - I want to talk about religion in general.
As a villain, should I be religious?
A 2012 Gallup poll in the United States ranked "atheist" as the least electable group - beneath women (traditionally under-represented in government), Hispanics ("illegals crossing our borders!"), gays or lesbians ("the homosexual agenda!"), or even Muslims ("9/11!"). Apparently if you want to roll in the USA, you need to get yourself a god.
Even if you aren't being elected to high office, villains benefit from having a recognizable code of behavior. It confers a certain level of trust from heroes, the public, and so on. You don't really have to stick with it, just show it some amount of respect.
If you're worried about public reactions if you break that code, I want you to look at the decades-old child abuse scandal from the Catholic church, the long line of con men televangelists and gay pastors, and "family values" politicians on both sides of the aisle. Notice that the guys who say "Jesus forgave me!" get re-elected, while the guy sending dick pics who isn't a holy roller gets strung up. Like I said in the introduction, villainy is in the condemnation, not the crime.
As a superhuman, should I be religious?
This is a pretty good question. A lot of people feel that super-powers are divinely granted. Names I've mentioned in the past, like Asiri and Illumina, explicitly claim religious origins for their abilities.
I think if God or Allah or some other divine being is giving out superpowers, it's not going to the "worthy". Precious few people who actually receive powers are living up to anything like what's taught in the holy books of their respective religions. Plus, if powers are divinely granted, they're really being granted to the mothers of these super-kids, because every kid of every Eve-active mother has super potential.
Barbara Fall, of the "quantum visitors" school, wrote an article about this, although she's talking about some sort of extradimensional reptoid observers instead of "traditional" gods. She says that the distribution of powers are an ethical test for the species as a whole, and that we as a collection of societies are being evaluated for our response to such powers. So the people with the powers are meaningless in the larger scheme of thing, but the people passing the laws and forming public opinion are under scrutiny. Take that as you will.
Could it be that the gods give out powers to some deserving people, and the rest are just being born lucky? Sure. On the hero side, supers like Illumina and the Good Shepherd certainly walk the walk. If you told me you had proof Illumina really was an angel, I'd believe you. Even non-heroes like Doctor Cross, who works at a religious hospital, has been known to patch up villains and their henchmen when they needed it. But if you believe this, you'd need to buy into the idea that the gods created this lottery for physics-breaking superpowers and then only hand them out at random to a few nice people, instead of flooding the world with Stage 4 missionaries and bringing about Utopia.
This concludes Part 1. I'll be back with Part 2 soon!
I'm not going to offend anyone's religious beliefs here. Well, I am, but it's not deliberate. But since this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, let me put my cards on the table. I'm a casually committed Asatruar, which you can find on Wikipedia under "Germanic neopaganism". I like drinking, I like partying, I like doing my job, and when I give my word, I take that shit very seriously. There's a bunch of people under the larger "Asatru" or "Odinist" umbrella who use these beliefs as an excuse for racism. I'm not down with that shit, so don't get in my face with accusations.
The Big Four religions today are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. Aside from Buddhism, each of them has a billion adherents or more, and Buddhism has almost half a billion. That's not bad. Of course, people being what they are, there's a huge amount of disagreement and sectarian conflict, even armed violence, within each one. The Shia and Sunni, the Protestant and Catholic, and so on. I hear Christians talk about "revealed truth", but I guess not enough got revealed to make everyone agree with each other. So I think I have room to talk here, since my truth isn't any less valid than anyone else's.
Rather than break down the pros and cons of any given religion - especially since I'm not a real believer in any of them - I want to talk about religion in general.
As a villain, should I be religious?
A 2012 Gallup poll in the United States ranked "atheist" as the least electable group - beneath women (traditionally under-represented in government), Hispanics ("illegals crossing our borders!"), gays or lesbians ("the homosexual agenda!"), or even Muslims ("9/11!"). Apparently if you want to roll in the USA, you need to get yourself a god.
Even if you aren't being elected to high office, villains benefit from having a recognizable code of behavior. It confers a certain level of trust from heroes, the public, and so on. You don't really have to stick with it, just show it some amount of respect.
If you're worried about public reactions if you break that code, I want you to look at the decades-old child abuse scandal from the Catholic church, the long line of con men televangelists and gay pastors, and "family values" politicians on both sides of the aisle. Notice that the guys who say "Jesus forgave me!" get re-elected, while the guy sending dick pics who isn't a holy roller gets strung up. Like I said in the introduction, villainy is in the condemnation, not the crime.
As a superhuman, should I be religious?
This is a pretty good question. A lot of people feel that super-powers are divinely granted. Names I've mentioned in the past, like Asiri and Illumina, explicitly claim religious origins for their abilities.
I think if God or Allah or some other divine being is giving out superpowers, it's not going to the "worthy". Precious few people who actually receive powers are living up to anything like what's taught in the holy books of their respective religions. Plus, if powers are divinely granted, they're really being granted to the mothers of these super-kids, because every kid of every Eve-active mother has super potential.
Barbara Fall, of the "quantum visitors" school, wrote an article about this, although she's talking about some sort of extradimensional reptoid observers instead of "traditional" gods. She says that the distribution of powers are an ethical test for the species as a whole, and that we as a collection of societies are being evaluated for our response to such powers. So the people with the powers are meaningless in the larger scheme of thing, but the people passing the laws and forming public opinion are under scrutiny. Take that as you will.
Could it be that the gods give out powers to some deserving people, and the rest are just being born lucky? Sure. On the hero side, supers like Illumina and the Good Shepherd certainly walk the walk. If you told me you had proof Illumina really was an angel, I'd believe you. Even non-heroes like Doctor Cross, who works at a religious hospital, has been known to patch up villains and their henchmen when they needed it. But if you believe this, you'd need to buy into the idea that the gods created this lottery for physics-breaking superpowers and then only hand them out at random to a few nice people, instead of flooding the world with Stage 4 missionaries and bringing about Utopia.
This concludes Part 1. I'll be back with Part 2 soon!
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Villain Morality: what is villainy?
"Angel's Dance", starring Jim Belushi and Sheryl Lee, is otherwise forgettable. But Belushi does a great job portraying a casual, detached assassin. When asked about the morality of killing by his trainee, he casually responds, "I believe in reincarnation". He's built his morality around his job.
Some villains have high-minded goals, at least when they start the life. Some are in it for money, power, sex, love, adoration, or any number of other ambitions. Some of us feel that it's our personal calling, that we should do the thing we're good at and have fun with it. Sooner or later, though, some villains stop and wonder, "is what I am doing what I should really be doing?"
To help you answer that sort of question ahead of time, I'm writing a series on villain morality - moral, philosophical, and religious systems, the ethics of super-powered crime (and crimefighting), and more.
To kick it off, I want to answer the basic question that defines us, the one we rarely really think about: "what is villainy?"
Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives us these definitions for "villain":
Some villains have high-minded goals, at least when they start the life. Some are in it for money, power, sex, love, adoration, or any number of other ambitions. Some of us feel that it's our personal calling, that we should do the thing we're good at and have fun with it. Sooner or later, though, some villains stop and wonder, "is what I am doing what I should really be doing?"
To help you answer that sort of question ahead of time, I'm writing a series on villain morality - moral, philosophical, and religious systems, the ethics of super-powered crime (and crimefighting), and more.
To kick it off, I want to answer the basic question that defines us, the one we rarely really think about: "what is villainy?"
Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives us these definitions for "villain":
- A "villein". This basically means a peasant from the Dark Ages - someone who was subservient to a Feudal lord.
- An uncouth person, or boor.
- A deliberate scoundrel or criminal.
- A character in a story or play who opposes the hero.
- One blamed for a particular evil or difficulty.
If we read Shakespeare, we see "villain" used in a mixture of these senses - an insult by comparison to a common, low-born person. In Titus Andronicus, when Aaron says "villain, I have done thy mother", Shakespeare was doing more than inventing the first yo-mama joke. He was giving an example of the first truth of villainy: the villain is someone looked down upon by civilized society.
Richard O'Connor paraphrases the French novelist Honoré de Balzac by saying: "Balzac maintained that behind every great fortune there is a great crime." The original quote is a little more forgiving, and translates to "The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done." John Steinbeck wrote, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." We idolize wealth and power, even when they originated in criminal activities, or facilitate them.
In 1934, Major General Smedley Butler testified in front of the McCormack-Dickstein committee that a group of wealthy businessmen were conspiring to overthrow FDR and institute Fascism in America. The committee found the allegations credible - yet no one was persecuted. Prescott Bush, who had done quite well for himself, was connected to these allegations. His son - former director of the CIA - became President of the country. His grandson - who kept breaking the companies he was given, and who kept being given new ones to break - was also elected President. Under his administration, the United States employed methods of interrogation which had gotten people prosecuted for war crimes during World War 2. I want to say this again, just so it's very clear. The son and grandson of a guy strongly suspected of collaborating with the Nazis and overthrowing the United States government both got put in charge of that government.
This is hardly the only time that money, influence, and power have elevated someone to high station. It won't be the last. Why? Because people love winners, especially when they can bask in their reflected glory. This is second truth of villainy: villainy is about condemnation, not criminality.
Piracy was rife in the Age of Sail. Ships carrying the wealth of the New World - whose exploited, smallpox-ridden natives weren't using it anyway, right? - would get attacked at sea by cutthroat buccaneers, arr. You'd find a ship, attack it and force it to surrender, then take its stuff. This was obviously a criminal enterprise, except during the frequent outbreaks of war. Letters of marque, issued by the warring states, authorized those very same pirates to attack the very same ships they'd been attacking, only now it was legal, and called "privateering".
Sir Francis Drake - that's right, he was knighted - was a hero to the English but a pirate to the Spaniards. Henry Morgan, from whom the "Captain Morgan" brand of rum draws its name, was a famous pirate and privateer. These guys were the rock stars and culture heroes of their day, to the extent that they're remembered even today in America. Did they commit crimes, even by the standards of their home culture? Yes! Absolutely. Did they commit acts that would be criminal today? Oh, absolutely yes. But they weren't always villains. Lots of people loved them. Lots of people hated them. It all came down to what they could get away with.
Supervillains are the pirates of the modern day and age. Are we looked down upon by civilized society? Naturally. Are we criminals? Yes - but many powerful criminals hold high office and enjoy widespread admiration from the "common man". We are the outsiders who go our own way. We are the iconoclasts who reject the establishment and build our own. We are the new generation, who have no need of society's protection and need not fear society's disapproval. In short, supervillains are the sovereigns of a new order. We may feel fondness, admiration, or amusement for the old order, but we do not respect it, because it does not respect us.
In future installments we'll talk about specific topics. As usual, write in with questions, comments, and other observations!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)