Irredeemable Evil in Fantasy

His last invention was an Evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.

-Igor

--------

Fantasy writers should be especially familiar with the concepts of irredeemable evil.  It provides a way out for a bigger moral dilemma many authors have probably faced: how can I create conflict in a story, have it be morally upright, and yet still have any decent measure of action scenes? I think part of this problem lies in the killing of any being who has a soul, and our view on how pure, evil, or redeemable the soul is.

Those with a Biblical worldview, like myself, believe that the heart of every man is, inherently, 'deceitful, and desperately wicked' (Jeremiah 17:9).  However, due to Christ's work on the Cross, and the open call to repentance provided by the Gospel, we have no right to simply kill the unsaved.  We can never assume a person cannot be saved, no matter how depraved or sickening their sin is.  Paul considered himself the worst of sinners, and yet Christ chose him to be an apostle.  No man is beyond God's reach; his glory cannot be dimmed by our depravity.  God still demands justice for sins, but it is not our place to deal this justice.  Under this view, the killing of any man is inexcusable.  But this is where the concept of irredeemability comes in.

1 John 5:16-17: 16 - If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life -- to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.  There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.  All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

This verse tells us that it is possible for a person to sin in such a way that they become totally, irreparably spiritually dead.  However, as finite human beings, we can make no assumptions about the state of another person's soul.  It is not our place to judge any person based on their deeds, as we know that no sin is too grievous for God to forgive (if you need examples, look at Paul/Saul!).  We must hold all men as redeemable.  This is what lies at the focus of who we directly witness to, and the manner in which we treat others.

Now, in a fantasy or sci-fi world, people expect a lot of action.  That's generally the case with these genres.  But, if you wanted to work within a Biblical (or moral) view, the natural question comes: is it ever right to kill any person, or other fully sentient being (sentient here meaning having a soul)? Even killing someone who is considered evil by most others in the world could not be justified, especially with a vindictive intent in the killer's heart.  Irredeemability makes its point here.  The best equivalencies I can make here are tied to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, so I will demonstrate with that frame of reference in mind.

1. Redeemable Beings - Gollum and humankind
Gollum was an absolutely foul and pitiful creature by the time he appears in Lord of the Rings.  The bitterness and malice of the ring has all but consumed him.  Yet Frodo, when he is attacked by Gollum, chooses not to kill him, as he very well could, given his past deeds.  He instead allowed him to live, earning Gollum's partial loyalty.  Frodo truly believed Gollum could be redeemed, and through his kind treatment, he almost was.  Frodo, also feeling the corruption of the ring, could pity and empathize with Gollum, much as we, too, are lost sinners, and know how fallen we are.

Sam, on the other hand, saw only the faults of Gollum, and believed he should be killed immediately, before he betrayed them to their deaths.  Sam's harsh treatment of Gollum, and the three's eventual capture on the outskirts of Gondor and Mordor, eventually lead to Gollum's hatred and betrayal.  However, everything would likely have ended differently if it were not for Gollum's decisions.  This is an excellent depiction of the state of man, really, and even though Gollum was never redeemed, it is shown that he was able to be, and that is key.  This theme really runs throughout much of Lord of the Rings: Aragorn and his lineage, and Boromir's struggle in trying to use the ring are both excellent examples as well.

2. Irredeemable Beings - Orcs and demons
When you see the orcs, goblins, and other foul beings in Lord of the Rings, you see only monsters filled with malice, hatred, selfishness, covetousness, murder... the list goes on.  And there is never a sign that they would want anything but what they already desire: the death of all other beings, men, elves, and dwarves.  You never see one acting in a remotely kind, generous, or selfless manner.  They are completely and irreparably evil, and their influence on the world corrupts it.

Unlike killing redeemable beings, the destruction of the irredeemable carries with it no consequence, as long as the killer has the correct mindset in doing so.  It would be one thing to defend the people of your homeland; it would be another to kill simply for the sake of killing, to sate ones bloodlust.  While the killing itself would carry no consequence, the heart may corrupt itself in doing so.  This still allows for strong moral problems to be presented and confronted by characters, while still allowing the action scenes to take place.  It allows for a two-fold battle to take place, as well: while a force of irredeemable darkness can simply be dispatched, a redeemable people can not be dealt with so simply, not without violent repercussions to one's soul.

3. Breaking Point Beings - Ringwraiths
While redeemable Beings are always redeemable, as seen with Gollum, Tolkien also brings with him another type, which I've labeled the Breaking Point Being.  Nine men were given rings of power when they were first formed, but as Sauron corrupted them with the One Ring, the mens' hearts grew corrupted, too, until they reached the breaking point, becoming the Ringwraiths.  At this point, they turn from redeemable, to permanently irredeemable.

In Tolkien's world, men are all Breaking Point beings.  Elves, I believe, have more of a resistance to the corruption; I'm not sure how affected they would be.  Dwarves lost their rings, clumsy things.  And Hobbits show a natural resistance to the ring, as well: look at Gollum.  While not much is seen of the mechanism behind the ring's corruption, it can be safely assumed that there are actually no redeemable beings in Lord of the Rings, only Breaking Point beings.  This allows for some interesting possibilities, though it should be noted that once a person has crossed that line, the effects are tangible.  There is no guesswork: you know a wraith has crossed from being redeemable to irredeemable.  And this is what separates a fantasy world from reality.  We do not have the luxury of seeing these effects; we can only assume that any man is still savable.

So, in conclusion, keep an eye for this in fiction.  Be aware of the difference between killing evil in a fantasy world, and dealing justice in the real one.  Also use these ideas to weigh a character's actions in dealing his own judgment on others: is the person redeemable, or not?

Also keep in mind that the God-given judicial system (albeit corrupted by us) allows us to make impartial judgments based on a person's past behavior.  This is, really, a way to give punishment for one's deeds here on Earth.  And, really, it gives the person a chance to repent, even if sentenced to death.  Prisoners have time to consider their decisions, and though they will still suffer the consequences, they can still be redeemed.  And that should always be considered before simply killing someone for the murder of a family.