Hey, you.
Yes, I'm talking to you, the one reading this right now.
I have a question, and I want you to be honest with yourself.
What exactly makes someone qualify as evil?
You might think that it is a foolish question. "Of course, someone is evil if they do something that causes significant harm." Perhaps that's your answer.
But do you really believe that?
If a mother, unable to afford a basic meal, steals from a store in a desperate attempt to feed her children, her action still causes harm.
Tell me, do you think she is evil?
If you're doubting yourself, then I suppose the answer to my question should be changed: "Evil is a lack of morality."
But then, what about people who were never given the chance to learn morality at all? Those who grew up during a war lived their entire lives watching others kill just to survive. It is only natural for them to develop a warped sense of morality.
Do you think it's right to condemn someone as "evil" because of that?
In the end, those whose basic needs are unmet are more likely to cause harm than those who live peaceful lives. Do you think it's fair to call those people "evil" because of what their circumstances shaped them to be? As such, is it fair to call the happy and privileged "good" simply because they have no reason to do harm?
If you think, "Yes. Your past should not excuse your actions," then I'll say that you are correct.
Circumstances should not matter. If someone commits a terrible act, if they lack morality, then they are evil.
But if that is the case, then all of my earlier questions become pointless, don't they?
So why am I asking you this? What does it have to do with anything?
Well, let me tell you a story.
Two years ago, on November 23, a brutal massacre took place at a small orphanage in Nagano, Japan, known as the Apple Garden Orphanage. Many children and adults alike were killed during the incident.
When police arrived, they found weapons such as guns and knives scattered throughout the crime scene. The victims' fingerprints were on these weapons, leading to a theory that horrified the public: the children in the orphanage had used these weapons to kill each other.
Why, though, is a question that has not been answered.
However, there is one thing that particularly stands out about the case:
A single red rose was found resting between the bodies.
Police reports stated that no blood splatter was found on the rose. This meant that someone had placed it there long after the massacre was already over.
"Why was it placed there?" you may ask. The police wondered the same thing. But no matter how much they dug, they were unable to find the answer.
As the investigation slowly reached a dead end, something far worse occurred.
Murder cases began appearing one after another all across the country.
The victims were always different in each case, the methods of murder varied, and their motives and circumstances shared nothing in common. Yet one thing always tied these murders together:
A red rose was always found at the scene.
Sometimes it rested gently beside the body. Other times it was placed somewhere near, on a table, the floor, within a vase, and so on. One thing, however, was always the same: the roses were placed in a way that made them impossible to ignore, almost as if they were announcing their presence.
This caused people to begin speculating. "Could the murders be connected?" "Is someone controlling the events from the shadows?" But most people dismissed the idea. Each case was too different from the others. To them, it was easier to conclude that these were merely coincidences than to believe that a mysterious third party was somehow responsible.
However, there was one individual who differed from the rest. More than a year after the chain of murders involving roses began, a detective managed to prove those doubts wrong.
That detective was Koizumi Akira. He successfully demonstrated with undeniable proof that these murders were connected, that a third party truly existed.
With their existence confirmed, the police began making a move to look for their identity. The public soon gave this unknown person a name:
"Red Rose," a name taken from the act of placing red roses at every crime scene.
"Who exactly is Red Rose?" is a question no one has been able to answer.
That name became infamous in the world of crime. Investigators and detectives are still searching for clues that could lead to the discovery of their identity.
But that was a year ago.
Even now, they are still searching for me. The number of cases continues to rise. They say, "Justice will definitely find its way eventually."
Yet here I am, still free. No one has even come close to finding me.
So, what do you think of my story?
Tell me, after everything I've told you, what would you call someone like that?
Do you think Red Rose is evil?
The answer is simple: Yes.
That being said, whether that label is fair does not interest me. What society condemns me as means nothing to me.
All I want to know is: when you call someone evil, when you call me evil, are you doing so because you've genuinely thought it through? Or because it's easier to come to that conclusion than to question your own morality?
If you find yourself hesitating, then allow me to help you find the answer.
As the villain of this story, I shall hand you an invitation.
The real story begins now.
I am Red Rose, and I want you to come find me.
So then, shall we play?