?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Nothing to see here, move along...


Your Score: Sauron


70% Evil, 90% Intelligence, 80% Common Sense




Annatar, The Black Hand, The Ring-maker, The Red Eye -- Sauron went by many names over the generations of his dark and twisted rule. For thousands of years, he terrified the inhabitants of the land. His knowledge was vast, his ability to control was unmatched. Originally the servant of a greater evil, he took command when his master was banished from the world, never to return. He had an intimate knowledge of craftworks and various magics, which he employed to great effect to build one of the greatest, darkest of lairs in a region so twisted and corrupt, life itself simply gave up upon entering. He also went on to create what may possibly be the smallest, simplest of super weapons known, that granted him near complete control over the lands. The one crucial mistake he made, however, was to bind his very existence to that super weapon, and when it was destroyed in the very fires that created it, Sauron found his essence shattered and destroyed.



Sauron is identified as being extremely evil, possessing incredibly high intelligence and great amounts of common sense. For all intents and purposes, Sauron is quite possibly the greatest of Overlords to have ever reigned.



Quote:


Of old there was Sauron the Maia, whom the Sindar in Beleriand named Gorthaur. In the beginning of Arda Melkor seduced him to his allegiance, and he became the greatest and most trusted of the servants of the Enemy, and the most perilous, for he could assume many forms, and for long if he willed he could still appear noble and beautiful, so as to deceive all but the most wary.



Source of Overlord: Lord of the Rings


</div>

Link: The Evil Overlord Test written by veqhturi on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test



The truth, painful as it is to admit, is that I'm far too much of an optimist to make a proper evil overlord. While I can appreciate the value of post-apocalyptic nuclear devastation as much as the next guy, and God knows that I could scarcely do a worse job of ruling the world than those who're doing it right now, I think at the end of the day I'm basically too happy to do it properly.

J.R.R. Tolkein, who invented the avatar of evil which this quiz says is closest to my own personal style, didn't believe in divine punishment for evil after death. He felt, and with some cause, that evil is punished now. All the characters in his books who might reasonably be called "evil," including Sauron himself, were miserable.

There's a connection between unhappiness and evil. It's not positive, happy people with plenty to live for who strap bombs to themselves or fly airplanes into buildings. There's a lesson in there somewhere, which I'm too sleepy to dig out at the moment.


Comments

( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
madamruppy
Jun. 9th, 2007 05:49 pm (UTC)
There's a connection between unhappiness and evil. It's not positive, happy people with plenty to live for who strap bombs to themselves or fly airplanes into buildings. There's a lesson in there somewhere, which I'm too sleepy to dig out at the moment.


I've said that for a long time. I have always felt a bit sorry for the suicide bombers of the world. To my mind they are fundamentally unhappy with their lives to believe that doing that will make things better. Happy people believe that the diety of their choice is loving and wants good things for them - not body counts.
dayo
Jun. 9th, 2007 05:51 pm (UTC)
I would disagree - that is a fundamentally western misconception. Those who really believe that jihad has been declared believe that they are going straight to paradise for their sacrifice. (Not disagreeing that they may be unhappy, just on the second portion).
red_girl_42
Jun. 9th, 2007 05:57 pm (UTC)
Yes, and also, the notion that personal happiness is even important is largely a western value. Lots of cultures don't believe that personal happiness is all that valuable, compared to the good of the family, the community, the nation, or the will of God.
tacit
Jun. 10th, 2007 05:13 am (UTC)
True. And cultures that don't value personal happiness create members who are not happy. It's easier to manipulate unhappy people into blowing themselves up than it is to manipulate happy into doing so.
tacit
Jun. 10th, 2007 05:12 am (UTC)
Those who really believe that jihad has been declared believe that they are going straight to paradise for their sacrifice.

True. They believe that by blowing themselves up, they will become happy.

Nevertheless, they are not happy now. Content, well-adjusted, happy people don't kill themselves and others; not even for future reward. It's no accident that suicide bombers almost invariably come from impoverished backgrounds and feel alienated, bitter, and disillusioned, regardless of the conflict or the venue; in Chechnya, they tend to be "black widows," for example--destitute wives of Chechan fighters killed in conflict.
red_girl_42
Jun. 9th, 2007 05:54 pm (UTC)
He felt, and with some cause, that evil is punished now.

I agree that there's a connection between unhappiness and evil, but I think it goes in the opposite direction from what you (and Tolkein) suggest. No, positive, happy people don't strap bombs to themselves and fly airplanes into buildings. But they didn't become unhappy after they did such things. Most likely the unhappiness was already there, and that made them susceptible to folks who tell them that suicide bombings are a great way to get into heaven, where real happiness awaits.

I have read psychological analyses of kids who were severely abused/neglected in infancy, who grow up without anything resembling a conscience. They are absolutely incapable of empathizing with other people the way the rest of us do. They turn out, quite frankly, evil. This can be prevented if there is at least one caregiver during that critical time--it doesn't matter who, so long as they are around pretty regularly--who responds to the child's needs and nurtures them. If that doesn't happen, however, most of these kids are pretty hopeless. No amount of therapy can help them develop a conscience.

So is evil always a choice? Probably for some, but not necessarily for others. Should we seek to punish evil, then, or merely to keep evil people from harming others? If evil results from unhappiness (rather than the other way around), then should we actually have compassion for evil people instead of hatred? Do we all have that capacity for evil at birth, and are the factors that led us to be one way or another--contrary to what we'd like to believe--at least partially out of our control?

tacit
Jun. 11th, 2007 04:56 pm (UTC)
I agree that there's a connection between unhappiness and evil, but I think it goes in the opposite direction from what you (and Tolkein) suggest. No, positive, happy people don't strap bombs to themselves and fly airplanes into buildings. But they didn't become unhappy after they did such things. Most likely the unhappiness was already there, and that made them susceptible to folks who tell them that suicide bombings are a great way to get into heaven, where real happiness awaits.

Yep, absolutely. People who are unhappy already are primed for manipulation by those who can persuade them that the key to happiness is in blowing themselves up.

I think it works both ways. Unhappy people are more likely than happy people to be willing to do things like blow themselves up; and on the flip side of the same coin, people who dedicate their lives to killing other people tend to become, I suspect, increasingly unhappy.

I have read psychological analyses of kids who were severely abused/neglected in infancy, who grow up without anything resembling a conscience. They are absolutely incapable of empathizing with other people the way the rest of us do. They turn out, quite frankly, evil. This can be prevented if there is at least one caregiver during that critical time--it doesn't matter who, so long as they are around pretty regularly--who responds to the child's needs and nurtures them. If that doesn't happen, however, most of these kids are pretty hopeless. No amount of therapy can help them develop a conscience.

Yep. The classic, straight-ahead sociopath is permanently and irrevocably broken; one can actually chart developmental differences in his brain.

What's interesting, though, is that there appears to be a genetic factor at work as well. For a long time, geneticists and behaviorists have argued about whether nurture or nature creates a sociopath; behaviorists say it must be environmental, because all sociopaths are severely abused in early childhood; geneticists say it must be genetic, because not everyone exposed to that environment turns out to be a sociopath.

The discovery of promoter genes offers an answer. Promoter genes are genes that switch on and off other genes in response to environmental factors. The current working model is that a sociopath is made when environmental factors like extreme abuse very early in childhood trigger the activation of a gene that changes brain development, but that an infant without that particular gene won't become a sociopath even if he is exposed to that kind of abuse.

So is evil always a choice? Probably for some, but not necessarily for others. Should we seek to punish evil, then, or merely to keep evil people from harming others?

That is the sticky wicket, isn't it? We s a society are somewhat schizophrenic about it. Even the most die-hard geneticist doesn't say of a murderer "That person is a broken machine," but rather "that person is evil."
pstscrpt
Jun. 10th, 2007 12:28 am (UTC)
Are you sure Tolkien didn't just believe that evil wasn't *only* punished in the afterlife? He was a pretty devout Catholic, wasn't he?
tacit
Jun. 10th, 2007 05:15 am (UTC)
Nope. :) I don't know that much about him, other than what I've read. What I've read about him says that he was highly devout, but also somewhat unconventional in his beliefs about religion. For example, he is said to have believed that good does not triumph over evil because good is stronger than evil, but rather because good works with itself and evil tends to work against itself. (This idea is seen many times in both the Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings.) If that's true, it represents a break from traditional Western religious thought.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )