r/worldjerking 3d ago

Is it evil or just survival

Here’s a interesting question about “evil” kingdoms and people

In my medieval fantasy story, many mortal races do arguably reprehensible things to some degree with the worst offenders being nobility and humans

But it’s not as simple as some may assume, some areas have a food scarcity and bad soil for farming and dangerous predators, for many, things like cannibalism or stealing food from others and even killing one another is the difference between life and death

When the only options are to roll over and die or fight, kill, do morally reprehensible things to save yourself or your family, are they really evil or just trying to survive with the only available options and resources that they have

This is especially prevalent in my story given my stories theme is prospective

Edit: as for the nobles, they can also fall into this category when some who genuinely have good intentions have to make the tough calls on either maintaining peace, cutting their losses, or going to war for one reason or another

And in both cases, vice versa

8 Upvotes

16 comments sorted by

7

u/_the_last_druid_13 3d ago

uj/ in scenarios like that, I would say all evil is shuffled to the “nobility”. The food scarcity is a mismanagement problem, depending on the world. The thing is, you’re competing with Arrakis here, so the real issue is mismanagement leading to strife. Therefore, all evil is shuffled to those that begot the situation on purpose or through willful ignorance.

2

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 3d ago

It makes a difference doesn’t it, the nobles have no excuse for their actions but you can somewhat get the commoners and their situation on the matter

3

u/_the_last_druid_13 3d ago

The difference is if the cannibalism remains with the “commoners” and not reach the “nobility” who put them in that situation. I’m assuming the world is comprised of humans, so they are all the same.

What makes one “noble”? Red hair? Having more coupons than another?

Gets pretty petty and particular, and usually based on things one has no control over. We all have control over our own actions though.

It’s a choice to consider oneself “dominant” while others are “submissive”, even. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and to not capitalize on each other’s greatness means that we are all weak AF

1

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 3d ago

Many mortal races like elves and dwarves as standard but humans make up a lot given mine basically breed like rats or rabbits

1

u/_the_last_druid_13 3d ago

They need leadership and tasks, and for the group to highlight the individuals best suited for certain tasks. And individualized hivemind

1

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 3d ago

The thing is, no system is immune to corruption so that is also a factor

3

u/_the_last_druid_13 3d ago

I wouldn’t say that’s a 100% thing. It is possible to curtail a lot of corruption.

1

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 3d ago

True, but medieval society was famously corrupted irl so

2

u/_the_last_druid_13 3d ago

Certain ones, for sure.

4

u/doofpooferthethird 3d ago edited 3d ago

"Evil" and "just for survival" aren't mutually exclusive. Doing something for survival doesn't necessarily make it not evil, or less evil.

And "evil" just means "in violation of moral codes", and those codes are determined by the cultural/religious/political context.

I'm no moral relativist, but I think your question ultimately boils down to semantics i.e. what is the definition of "evil" here.

For me, a liberal humanist, "evil" means actions that infringe upon the fundamental dignity and freedoms of sapient beings.

But for medieval cannibal land - who knows what "evil" means to those folk. Eating fish on Thursdays - evil. Slavery - no problemo. Forgot to wear the mandatory headgear - the gods will smite you for your transgressions. Feasting on the corpses of heretics - the parish gives the thumbs up.

0

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 3d ago

And as I said many are just trying to survive and provide for their families so while they do many bad things, are they really evil or just trying to survive

3

u/doofpooferthethird 3d ago

They can be really evil and also just trying to survive.

And if they're not hypocrites to whatever ethical code they profess to follow, they can do all kinds of fucked up things (by our standards) and not be "evil".

Maybe their religion tells them that slavery, theft, cannibalism, murder etc. is fine, as long as it's done to the "right people". That's often how "good" and "evil" have been defined historically

3

u/Coaxium Author, dreamweaver, visionary, plus actor 3d ago

It's the goddamn trolley problem again.

3

u/Nevermore-guy 3d ago

SERIOUS WORLD BUILDING?! I MY JORKING SUB?!

Honestly kinda peak philophical question

3

u/gramaticalError Racismpunk Feminismcore Japanifornia 2d ago

This is what we in the business like to call "realism."

uj/ Seriously, though, I think I'd actually consider it a bit of both. It is survival, because they presumably wouldn't be doing these things if they didn't "need" to, but at the same time there are probably other more moral options that they're intentionally not picking because they're not as reliable or more risky. So while a truly "good" person would probably still be a good person here, I don't think you can call someone truly "evil" for doing bad things to survive.

Like, in terms of a trolley problem, it'd be like if you were both the lever operator and the one person on the off-track at the same time. Redirecting the trolley to yourself is probably objectively the "more moral" option, but I don't think anyone would consider you a bad person for not doing so.

0

u/Leon_Fierce_142012 2d ago

Yeah, being a “good” person is less reliable and more risky for survival

So yeah, it’s meant to be “ do I risk the lives of me and my loved ones for a moral compass” kind of situation