Deconstructing, subverting, and playing with God is Evil

I'm not sure that I agree that you can't have a good story featuring such a character; offhand, I can see such a character acting as a mysterious guide or mentor, with their full plan not revealed to the other characters or the reader until the very end.

It's probably more difficult than with a non-omniscient/non-omnipotent character, but I do think that it's likely possible.

edited 8th Apr '15 7:19:48 AM by ArsThaumaturgis

My Games & Writing

Apparently you think The Bible is a bad story then. Granted, it can get boring.

What you don't get is that a story does not necessarily have be about winning or losing direct battles. There are many other forms of conflict.

Actually, there are points in the Bible where God does not know things (at the time, let alone in advance) and is not omnipotent - as well as being downright inconsistent, changeable and even repentant for previous thoughtless actions, so it's probably not a good example of "having an omnipotent and/or omniscient character".

Either omniscient or omnipotent, the character's a game-breaker, both is superfluous. Omnipotent, it wouldn't matter if the character wasn't omniscient as being all powerful would trump any lack of knowledge. Omniscient, it wouldn't matter if the character couldn't do everything as it would just choose the courses of action that result in a win.

Not to mention, a character like that could just create Omniscience if he ever felt the need for it.

Not necessarily. As a writer, you can always set things up so that there is no such course of action, or if they exist it's impossible to do it without a certain level of power. Like, if you have to get your hands on an object in a building, but the security system has so many checks and fail-safes that you'll never bypass it no matter how much information you have about it.

If I knew how I know everything I know, I'd only be able to know half as much because my brain would be clogged up with where I know it from

Good point on the second one. Though I was thinking that such an entity would know exactly who's corruptible, what their price is and exactly how to get hold of whatever it is the person wants...

Or what all their fears and leverages are.

It may mean corrupting/coercing more than one person, but you could probably pull it off. Especially if you know that on such-and-such a night, the really straight one is going to be off sick...

But yeah, as the author, you truly are omniscient so far as that universe is concerned and could paint the character into a serious corner - however, you'd better really think of everything lest Fridge Logic bites you on the bum and some reader goes "Errmmmm. Why didn't they just..."

Actually, thinking about it, an omniscient character would be a shit to write because you'd be having to second-guess everything including what the readers might dream up.

I remember reading a novel about a detective that was supposedly a super-genius - not omniscient, but still brighter than everyone else.

However the writer wasn't up to the task and I, the reader, worked out who the villain was long before the "super-genius" detective did.

Now, it may have been an attempt to make the readers feel good about working it out before a super-genius and perhaps feel like a super-genius, or better, themselves, but to me it was just annoying.

I'm fairly bright, yes. "Genius"? Depends on the puzzle I'm set. "Super-genius"? Not in the least.

So if I'm reading about a "super-genius" then they'd better floor me with levels of unparalleled brilliance and leave me amazed that they worked out the killer's identity based on a discarded receipt for smoked kippers - not have me screaming "It's the fucking curator, shit-for-brains!" three chapters before The Reveal.

The bar for "omniscience" would be even higher...

edited 9th Apr '15 12:11:31 AM by Wolf1066

Yes but, like I said, you still need some amount of starting power or resources to corrupt/coerce them to work for you. Of course, you'll know because of your omniscience where and how to get those resources...but then you run into the issue of time as well, when you're writing for a normal human being. Not only does he need to focus on the current objective, sometimes he might also need to lay the groundwork for achieving future objectives (in order to complete it in a timely fashion) while he's working on the current one; all with probably 16 waking hours a day, not including time required for transport, talking, eating, erm...bodily functions etc. Though I have to admit if someone ever manages to pull off a story like this well, it's Holy Shit Quotient towards the end would go through the stratosphere (The closest I've seen is Edge of Tomorrow and that movie was plenty amazing).

Naturally, this becomes a moot point depending on how powerful you make the omniscient character.

Going a little off-topic here:

OH MY GOD, that annoyed me so much when I was watching Ben 10: Alien Force. They kept touting one of their characters as a genius (while actually being maybe a little above average) and then surrounding her with dumb people to justify the claim. But whatever, kids show.

If I knew how I know everything I know, I'd only be able to know half as much because my brain would be clogged up with where I know it from

True. You'd definitely need some level of potency with an omniscient character to make them a complete game-breaker. I'll concede that one.

Omnipotence on the other hand, even without omniscience, just destroys things:

A: "Aha! You didn't know we'd be lying in wait for you!"

[Pfft. A and friends are instantly transported to some location thousands of miles away.]

B: (to empty room) "Who fucking cares?"

A: "Aha! We sneaked into your house while you were away and have your daughter held captive."

{Pfft. Daughter materialises at B's side.]

B: "No you don't."

You couldn't kill the character and anything anyone does could be undone.

A: "We killed your daughter."

[Zap!]

B: "She looks fine to me..."

edited 9th Apr '15 1:46:50 AM by Wolf1066

Oh, definitely. I suppose the only kind of stories you can write for Omnipotent characters are the "I know I can, but should I?" kind of stories, where the character is Lawful Good and there is a conflict of morality. Someone might have mentioned this earlier, I can't recall.

If I knew how I know everything I know, I'd only be able to know half as much because my brain would be clogged up with where I know it from

Just because you can do anything doesn't mean you know the best way to do things.

You try to fix the world but cause all sorts of problems budding off from your solution- turtles all the way down.

It ends up with you having to rule everyone's lives in order to make the world a better place and that's not somewhere anyone wants things to go.

Of course, omnipotence tends to include omniscience. Package deal there.

On the topic of the author as a kind of god for the characters in the story; without conflict, the story is boring; if the story is boring, the writer may abandon it.

Are we evil for creating beings just to torture them for our entertainment? Personally, I prefer it when my good characters are rewarded in some way and the evil ones are punished; though it was me that forced them to be this way...

I've always personally thought that there was some goal that god wanted to achieve which required the universe to exist the way it does. In recent years, I've become convinced that god is trying to create more creatures like he is for some reason, perhaps companionship, or perhaps because meaningful interaction can only occur between beings of similar ability...

When I create characters for a story, they only exist as words on a (in my case, virtual) page. Data stored on a hard drive. I don't actually create a real universe filled with real living beings which I then proceed to fuck up by killing off their loved ones or giving them a tragic backstory.

There's no universe out there populated by characters I've created and subject to laws and constraints I've formulated.

So "the author is god" thing is very figurative, not literal.

It's impossible to be "evil" for "torturing" non-existent people, whether in the interests of plot advancement or for pure shits 'n' giggles.

edited 9th Apr '15 9:55:21 PM by Wolf1066

Unless you think it reveals some sort of hidden character flaw.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

An analogy without any flaws is not an analogy. It did raise the thought to me that god may think the same of us. I've seen this very kind of scenario in science fiction on the subject on what point that an A.I. becomes a person.

But, I feel that I may have made an error in conveying my thoughts in my haste. My personal opinion is that god(small or big G) seeks to create more of what it considers a person, which requires the universe to be the way it is. My apologies.

Ah. I see. In which case, say that as an author I did somehow create a real world in which real living, self-aware, entities existed. To fuck with them purely for the purposes of entertainment (whose? Other equal entities as myself? Myself, if there are no equal entities to me?) would indeed be "evil".

Hmmm, these people I've created aren't entertaining to me, I'll screw up their lives with misery and mayhem just to make them react in interesting (to me) ways.

That's worse than deciding that sleeping kitten looks "too boring" and setting it on fire just to make it more "entertaining" - because the entities in question didn't exist until I decided I wanted to create something to amuse me.

To create something real and intelligent/self-aware and torture it for one's own entertainment would be the sign of a sick mind.

That human misery should be part of some supernatural creature's "master plan" for his own amusement is an abhorrent thought to me.

edited 10th Apr '15 4:38:42 PM by Wolf1066

It is the cause of many crises of faith.

I prefer that creating beings that can feel pain is a required piece of creating ones that can have anything pleasant. I have a story I'm working with right now where the main god is essentially the serpent of the garden of Eden, which defies the most powerful god in giving humans free will (hoping, as I said, to allow humanity to become greater beings themselves.)

When talking about God or gods, it is important to keep scale in mind.

[edit]

I'm reminded of a theme in the original story of the golem, that any entity is unable to create anything equal to it (in some qualities, the golem is obviously stronger that humans). Thus, God can create humanity and humanity can create lower beings than themselves, but god is unable to create anything equal to itself (in certain unidentified qualities).

edited 10th Apr '15 8:54:43 PM by GlassPistol

I'm actually in the middle of writing a story that effectively subverts or deconstructs (or something of that sort) God Is Evil. It turns out the whole Satan Is Good/Dark Is Not Evil shtick is just propaganda by the villains.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

I'm surprised that doesn't happen on occasion as well.

Then again, there usually is propoganda.....by the supposed good guys to make the Satanic figure look bad.

Though I believe Dragon Quest VII played with it by revealing that God was apparently Satan taking his place, and the real god was somewhere else.

One Strip! One Strip!

I suppose the thing is that God Is Evil is itself a subversion of traditional values. By subverting God Is Evil, you're really just double subverting God Is Good.

I'm not sure if my story would be a subversion technically, as the main characters never actually believes it, it's just the justification that the villains use for their actions. The villains are effectively a justification of Good Is Bad And Bad Is Good, their ideology is based on Villianous Virtues and effectively inverts the ethos of the Light Is Good heroes.

My world also tries to justify the actions of it's "Old Testament God" by having them actually be the actions of it's Michael Expy who did what he had to do at the time. And in fact, The Extremist Was Right, and his actions took the world from being a crapsack world to a World Half Full.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

Well sometimes it feels like it's done so much that the subversion has become the norm, but that might just be me being cynical.

One Strip! One Strip!

No, I'd agree, more or less. Tropes tend to work that way. Subversions eventually become the norm, and then the norm becomes the subversion, and the cycle repeats.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

I wouldn't necessarily say that it became the norm, but it did have enough instances to become a legitimate trope. And I think it's unlikely the subversion of God Is Evil will become a new trope with enough instances because, as you pointed out, that would just be under the bracket of Double Subversion.

edited 14th Apr '15 11:36:52 PM by Elfhunter

If I knew how I know everything I know, I'd only be able to know half as much because my brain would be clogged up with where I know it from

Actually, yeah, the big problem with God Is Evil becoming the norm is that Christianity (which is quite big on the God Is Good thing) is fairly big in the west. So, God Is Good is probably going to remain the norm.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

It is becoming the norm in certain genres. It'll probably never be the norm throughout western culture for the aforementioned reasons, but in Urban Fantasy for example, God is always either dead, missing or, as it's most common, an outright asshole or flat-out genocidal warlord.

Partly because, in a curious turn of events, writers for urban fantasy tend to be atheists or agnostics for the most part.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

Rise, deceased thread.

Another idea, dealing with the afterlife:

What if, in a story, Hell wasn't an intentionally bad place-but rather, was exact replica of heaven, sans the guidance of YHWH? People who hate him sufficiently are allowed to go there to get away from him. However, since humans are bastards who need such guidance to lead immortal lives, the people there have slowly but surely turned it into a truly awful place, all of their own free will.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

I've seen that one in some of the more modern "Bible Jesus Answer" books about hell.

Hell is just where God isn't, since God knows you don't want him to be around and is all to kind to oblige even though you don't know him not being there will cause you eternal torment.

Which always struck as being like letting a toddler touch a stove even though they don't know it'll burn, but you do, then acting like it's their fault and not yours.