I've got a weird question. Which element seems more evil: Black fire, or black electricity?
Black fire. Visually it lingers more, sways, and dances. When it consumes it lasts longer, causing more pain. Black lightning shocks and then is gone.
I've got a weird question. Which element seems more evil: Black fire, or black electricity?
Why does "Black" = "Evil"?
Since both Electicty and Fire can be used to destroy, how is one more "evil" then the other? But, since both can be used to create, how is one less evil then the other?
The only reason "Fire" is considered "Evil" in our culture has to to with the Bible. But beyond that, it is hard to say?
|
I'm not really with the black = evil thing either.
However, having the mournful, screaming faces of the damned flickering in and out of whatever element you're using, whatever the color, can really drive it home.
Black fire is black fire, and could easily be suitable for non-evil shadowy types.
Fire containing the eternally tormented souls of the damned, who are in as much excrutiating pain as whoever they're targetting, and sharing that pain with all they touch? Now that is hellfire.
Well, I've always viewed crackling black energy (i.e., electricity) as being the best representation of negative energy damage. (At least, that's how I've described it a lot. I'm not sure where I got that from, as I've been using it for years.)
Basically, I'm writing a story, and part of it involves a BBEG using negative energy. I originally pictured it as the crackling black electricity I mentioned before, but I think for thematic purposes black fire might actually be better.
I guess the tl;dr version is: If you read about or saw a movie where a bad guy uses some sort of energy attack that screams "evil", what would it be and why? And if you had to limit that to either electricity or fire, which would you pick?
I think we're talking about thematics and psychology, not actual logic. My personal opinion is that electricity is worse, because being electrocuted is a lot worse than being burned (again, my personal opinion).
Have a villain whose power is the unrelenting light of the sun! The radiant, undying fire of eternity! The flesh peels and blisters under its baleful gaze!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The fire vs. lightning thing I feel is more a chaos vs. law argument.
Fire is chaotic. It spreads to whatever it can, whenever it can. It is carried by the wind, which is fickle and unpredictable.
Lightning, on the other hand, always moves from negative to positive, along easily predictable paths.
When a lightning storm rolls in, you know that you can avoid it by simply staying low to the ground until it passes. When a wildfire rolls in, you run the f!*~ away!
So are you looking for Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil? :)
Evil element? Sickly green fire. Dark purple (nearing black) lightning. Intense cold light that washes away color out of everything leaving grayish-green tinge.
|
I've got a weird question. Which element seems more evil: Black fire, or black electricity?Why does "Black" = "Evil"?
Since both Electicty and Fire can be used to destroy, how is one more "evil" then the other? But, since both can be used to create, how is one less evil then the other?
The only reason "Fire" is considered "Evil" in our culture has to to with the Bible. But beyond that, it is hard to say?
In the hebrew language they have a fear of Asmodeus (seen as a demon lord) which in protoindoeuropean (the first language spoken by all peoples before they scattered from the middle of Eurasia means 'to burn - to gather - to burn (an emotional state)' which is the earliest use of fire as a weapon by angry mobs against others (as opposed to it being a tool).
On the other hand the indigenous peoples of Australia consider fire a tool and a weapon - and their mythology includes a conflict with 'ape-men' called the Doolargul which translates to its protoindoeuropean origin as 'destroy with fire - eyes that shine (silver) - color red (a color word used exclusively in describing the color of animals and trees).
I'd say fire is only feared by those on the receiving end so you probably should think about the history of your setting. You should consider the source of ancient fear in the cultures in the setting (whether that be the black flame or black electricity).
As for the Word Black - Nebh is protoindoeuropean for mist/dark cloud.
Its earliest forms appear in niger (Nigerians) because niger is ne(bh)-ger meaning 'dark cloud - to crow' So fear of Black is fear of chaos and turmoil associated with dark clouds and crows which really are about large scale environmental chaos like storms, volcanic eruptions, swarms of crows blotting out the Sun - scary stuff like that.
I'd go with fire because it has a life and behavior of its own. This behavior is destructive in nature. If fire hits somethign it'll probably keep burning. If lightining hits it it'll only continue to do damage if it catches on fire.
Well, I've always viewed crackling black energy (i.e., electricity) as being the best representation of negative energy damage. (At least, that's how I've described it a lot. I'm not sure where I got that from, as I've been using it for years.)
Basically, I'm writing a story, and part of it involves a BBEG using negative energy. I originally pictured it as the crackling black electricity I mentioned before, but I think for thematic purposes black fire might actually be better.
I guess the tl;dr version is: If you read about or saw a movie where a bad guy uses some sort of energy attack that screams "evil", what would it be and why? And if you had to limit that to either electricity or fire, which would you pick?
Whatever works better for the narrative; whichever looks best in your mind's eye when you read the words on the page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to say "electricity" because that's what the Emperor used in Return of the Jedi.
(I do think that the arguments for evil fire are better, though.)
Also, as The Convenant Man said, what's most important is: go with your vision and with what fits the narrative best.
TANGENT TIME:
yellowdingo, you, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. And I keep forgetting to email you, so I suck. Building on what you said, however...
The only reason "Fire" is considered "Evil" in our culture has to to with the Bible. But beyond that, it is hard to say?
... whaaaaaaaaaaaa?
I don't think fire equals evil is very Biblical...
The hand of the Lord is as a man of fire
Ezekiel's holy vision of the creatures and wheels within wheels (Cheribum) - that one's cut short, but that's just because it's long and weird.
Isaiah's vision of the throne of heaven - complete with burning alters and coals!
EDIT: just to clarify, this is nowhere near an exhaustive list of "good fire", I'm just not interested in doing so... this is just a "first come to mind" list.
I mean, here's a description of what interpreted as Jesus in the last link:
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't consider or paint fire as "evil".
THAT SAID, the vision of "hellfire", as far as I know, comes from two places: one the burning garbage dump outside of the cities (a pretty awful place, but useful when you need to get rid of stuff - this vision is generally used for what it's like in Sheol, later equated with "Hades" and "Hell" or the land of the dead, and affirmed by various prophets as, yes, really being that awful*), and the Lake of Fire, into which Hell itself will eventually be dumped.
Fire, in and of itself, however, isn't really seen as evil. Heck, the sacred sacrifices in the Temple, to God, as mandated by God involved burning the sacrifices.
* This is sort-of kind-of, but-not-really the same thing as paradise, or "Abraham's Bosom". It's the place where the faithful dead prior to Christ went, and was apparently within shouting-distance (but not reach) of hell, and over-looked it. It is believed that Jesus, after his death, went here gathered all the souls that were there to himself, and left, after which point, "hell enlarged itself" (possibly meaning that it consumed the once-paradise, or possibly meaning something else altogether... it's unclear). Anyway, all that's off topic.
The idea of black/evil could also stem from an ancient, primal fear of the dark. Humans do not have very efficient eyesight, so night/dark is not a good time to be out and about. Predators move at night. Religion picked up on that. But to the fire equating to evil, I don't buy it. Look at the burning bush. Holy flame. Fire is more associated with passion than good/evil in my book.
But to the question at hand, I can't decide. Both have logical reasons to be eviler than the other in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use three varieties of 'evil fire'.
Hellfire is black with bloody red scarlet streaks, and diabolic in origin, It doesn't just burn flesh, it burns souls, and is horrifically painful. It feasts on the evil in the souls of others, and burns best on those fat with sin.
Doomfire is black, with grasping grey and purple. It consumes that which it touches into dust, and devours life energy. Daemonic in origin, with ties to fate/time/death of all things.
Balefire is black, with grasping yellow-green that seems to have flickers of maddened souls within. It can burn on anything that lives or once lived, and leaves only black vapor and dusty black ash behind. Demonic in origin, of course, a tool of pure destruction.
The main way you can tell fiends apart in my world is their eyes reflect the flames burning within them.
==Aelryinth
I use three varieties of 'evil fire'.
Hellfire is black with bloody red scarlet streaks, and diabolic in origin, It doesn't just burn flesh, it burns souls, and is horrifically painful. It feasts on the evil in the souls of others, and burns best on those fat with sin.
Doomfire is black, with grasping grey and purple. It consumes that which it touches into dust, and devours life energy. Daemonic in origin, with ties to fate/time/death of all things.
Balefire is black, with grasping yellow-green that seems to have flickers of maddened souls within. It can burn on anything that lives or once lived, and leaves only black vapor and dusty black ash behind. Demonic in origin, of course, a tool of pure destruction.
The main way you can tell fiends apart in my world is their eyes reflect the flames burning within them.
==Aelryinth
I like that.
I use three varieties of 'evil fire'.
Hellfire is black with bloody red scarlet streaks, and diabolic in origin, It doesn't just burn flesh, it burns souls, and is horrifically painful. It feasts on the evil in the souls of others, and burns best on those fat with sin.
Doomfire is black, with grasping grey and purple. It consumes that which it touches into dust, and devours life energy. Daemonic in origin, with ties to fate/time/death of all things.
Balefire is black, with grasping yellow-green that seems to have flickers of maddened souls within. It can burn on anything that lives or once lived, and leaves only black vapor and dusty black ash behind. Demonic in origin, of course, a tool of pure destruction.
The main way you can tell fiends apart in my world is their eyes reflect the flames burning within them.
==Aelryinth
This is good. You want to convey evil, it's gotta seem wrong. Vile. Rotten. Unnatural. Like even if it didn't burn you just touching it would make you feel soiled. It should make you squirm just hearing about it.
Well, Black Fire has a more "Mystically Evil" feel, while Black Electricity is pretty much "Emperor-class Evil", which is more stylish.
I'd go for Black Lightning. Aelryinth's ideas are awesome, though.
I think we're talking about thematics and psychology, not actual logic. My personal opinion is that electricity is worse, because being electrocuted is a lot worse than being burned (again, my personal opinion).
After having rescued and/or collected people/corpses affected by both (I'm a volunteer firefighter), I have come to the conclussion dying from fire is worse. Most of those who die from electrocution do so from heart failure, as the current screws up the muscles in there. Strong and lasting enough electrocution can leads to burning from the extreme heat, though.
But being burned alive, specially from low temperature fires (high temperatures usually throw the person into unconsiousness pretty quick, so they don't notice most of the ordeal)... now that is one terrible way to die.
Most people in fires die from suffocation before being burned, though.
Well, Black Fire has a more "Mystically Evil" feel, while Black Electricity is pretty much "Emperor-class Evil", which is more stylish.
I'd go for Black Lightning. Aelryinth's ideas are awesome, though.
I think we're talking about thematics and psychology, not actual logic. My personal opinion is that electricity is worse, because being electrocuted is a lot worse than being burned (again, my personal opinion).After having rescued and/or collected people/corpses affected by both (I'm a volunteer firefighter), I have come to the conclussion dying from fire is worse. Most of those who die from electrocution do so from heart failure, as the current screws up the muscles in there. Strong and lasting enough electrocution can leads to burning from the extreme heat, though.
But being burned alive, specially from low temperature fires (high temperatures usually throw the person into unconsiousness pretty quick, so they don't notice most of the ordeal)... now that is one terrible way to die.
Most people in fires die from suffocation before being burned, though.
I was an EMT for years. Dying from fire seems far worse. It takes longer and is extremely painful. Lightning at least kills you fast by making your heart stop. Fire can be a slow agonizing death.
Then again, it takes far less electricity to kill you than fire. You can cause someones heart to beat eratically by holding the button down on a tazer and that'll mimic a heart attack in short order.
Just saying.
As for 'evil lightning', there's two varieties again.
'Hate lightning' (play on 'heat lightning') occurs naturally in the presence of powerful evil, where Nature rebels against what is happening on a moral basis. Evil druids and clerics with similar domains call down Hate Lightning. Game effect is none, but the very presence of it is a sign of evil underneath. If you see a wall of black clouds, and violent red lightning is seething within and over them, something bad is on the way.
'Black Lightning' is actually 'anti-lightning'. It consumes the electricity in that it touches. It looks more fluid, consuming light in purple black, tendril-like lashes, eroding solid structures as it tears electrons free, neutralizing electrical activity in the living and killing them by horrible paralysis as their skin and flesh fly apart. Black lightning is largely used by aberrations from Outside Creation, and its use is a sure sign of dealings with the Outer Dark or Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.
Any spellcaster using spells can adopt a signature hue to his favorite spells that is as identifiable as a thumb print (as long as illusion and transmutation aren't both barred schools). These are readily identifiable as normal spells with 'magic paint' with just one Rank of Spellcraft, but if a mage wants purple-black lightning and yellow-green-black fireballs and might get mistaken by a rube as a Cultist of the Old Ones or servant of Demons, he can certainly do so. He might even want it that way! If he wants his lightning bolt to look like a thundering swarm of crackling blue-wasps washing over his enemies, that's fine, too.
==Aelryinth
stuff about Proto-Indo-European
Just to clarify, Proto-Indo-European is the root and hypothetical language from which the European language families and the Indian Language Families descended. As such it is one of the best attested (if not the best attested) reconstructed languages. There are non-PIE descended languages in India and Europe, a good example is Basque, but the vast majority of them come from this single language spoken some unknown time ago, at least 5 thousand years, possibly much longer.
Thats a lot of languages but its not all of them. The semitic languages for example, spoken in the middle east aren't PIE descended. And what relationship if any PIE had with their ancestor language (Proto-Semitic) is unclear.
|
|
stuff about Proto-Indo-EuropeanJust to clarify, Proto-Indo-European is the root and hypothetical language from which the European language families and the Indian Language Families descended. As such it is one of the best attested (if not the best attested) reconstructed languages. There are non-PIE descended languages in India and Europe, a good example is Basque, but the vast majority of them come from this single language spoken some unknown time ago, at least 5 thousand years, possibly much longer.
Thats a lot of languages but its not all of them. The semitic languages for example, spoken in the middle east aren't PIE descended. And what relationship if any PIE had with their ancestor language (Proto-Semitic) is unclear.
No they are all branches of Protoindoeuropean. Even Basque has fragments of it. This language has root words in languages of American Indians and Aboriginal Australians putting it back fifty thousand years.
At some point there was a language which everyone spoke - and for now I prefer to call it protoindoeuropean rather than Neanderthal purely based on the region the language emerged from.
unless your civilization evolved underground from telepathic mushrooms you speak a subdialect of protoindoeuropean.