The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers

Who is the most evil character in the Dresdenverse?

<< < (2/37) > >>

Arjan:
The outsiders most obviously because they aim the end of all reality. That means in this list those who help them. Cowl, Maeve,....

RobReece:

--- Quote from: Ananda on November 29, 2017, 03:44:57 PM ---What is 'evil'? How are you defining it? The most destructive to the universe as we know it is the Outsider force, obviously. If we're just going on sheer destructive capabilities, then this is the obvious answer. If you mean something else, then maybe there is another answer.

Also, I think there is a case to be made that Dresden is a dangerous and unstable figure in this universe. So far, he's been a sledgehammer on puppet strings for most of the series. I think that the council is not wrong to fear him and The Merlin may not have been too wrong to want him dead at certain points. It's Dresden's POV series, so we're meant to be most sympathetic towards him and his side of things, but we can also start to see patterns and that other people may not be wrong about him.

Depending on how much Butcher makes of this 'starborn' thingie, Dresden may be the biggest danger to the universe save the outsiders themselves (or itself, depending on if it is a single being).

--- End quote ---

dangerous and destructive doesn't equate to 'evil'

I think that I would define 'evil' as someone or something that puts his own desires above anyones or everyones best interests.
to put that tag on Nic, I think I'd have to know his final motivation and goals.  If he thinks that his is the only way to save the universe from the Outsiders... then I don't know if I would call him 'evil', maybe misguided and ruthless, but I don't know...

Arjan:
Nicodemus was designed to be the evil counterpart of Michael who is he palladin of the story. Nicodemus is evil by design. He is as evil as Michael is good.

the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:

--- Quote from: RobReece on November 29, 2017, 07:04:21 PM ---I think that I would define 'evil' as someone or something that puts his own desires above anyones or everyones best interests.

--- End quote ---

Like, you know, being willing to let the world burn to save his daughter?  (We have WoJ that Harry absolutely meant that at the time.)

Maybe it's a product of growing up in an environment with a very real threat of violence from ideological fanatics, but when I read that sequence, my sympathies were absolutely with the world.  It constantly bemuses me how many readers sympathise with Harry in that scene even when he is clearly saying "I consider you personally and all your loved ones acceptable collateral damage so long as I get what I care about" to everyone else in the world.  The people I have heard that from before have not been ones I could consider good or sympathetic.

Arjan:
That is because protecting those near to you, especially your children, appeals to human nature far more than protecting all those nameless people we have too many of anyway.

Jim plays with our emotions which are driven by our instincts which are shaped by evolution. We maybe do not agree with someone who is prepared to let the world burn for their child, especially if we are going to burn, but a lot of us understand it.

Especially if we had a baby and went a little crazy because of it.

Also some of us probably tend to identify with the narrator while reading.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page