Chiaroscuro (The Dynamics of Good and Evil)

Now, yesterday I opened up a small can of worms by briefly touching on the topic of possession. I'm going to get a bit further into that today, and if for some reason my reasoning or ultimate conclusions strike you as somewhat blasphemic, I apologize in advance. Anyways, possessions. What about them? Well, for starters, I think that the very concept of them are complete bull. OH SNAP! Yeah, I said it. I believe in the power of human belief and rationalization, and I also believe that the people so "possessed" are completely and utterly under the belief that they have no control over themselves, making the end result virtually identical to what we as a species believe "possession" to be. So how can I believe in the effects but not the concept? Easy. I simply believe that there is the ability to be given a spark of a feeling or idea, and depending on the sort of person you are, your own psyche does the rest. Like hypnosis, if you will. Certain individuals are highly suggestible, and thereby susceptible to hypnosis. And I bet you dollars to donuts that those same people would be (or depending on the situations, are) also more likely to run the risk of being "possessed" if the situation happens to have that as a risk. So, do I believe in human creativity and the occasional "mad lapse"? Sure. Do I believe in possession? No. Do I believe in the possibility of a supernatural phenomena being able to transfer impressions and feelings into other living beings? Maybe, but I find that alot easier to swallow than possession, so lets run with that. That being said, I propose the next major question that we ask in these cases is:

If established as empathic, where does the entity/phenomenon range between highly empathic (possessive) and neutral (doesn't transmit any feelings outside of those normally associated with inexplicable events)?

Next, let's talk morality. Man, we love to romanticize these stories, don't we? The good guy, the bad guy, the doomed guy, the tragic guy, the lover, the fighter, the coward, the blighter. We have so many archetypes present in the legends and tales, to try and help them conform to our sense of order in some way, to make them make sense in at least some small part. And while that attitude is completely understandable, it's inherently flawed. Seriously though, do we even want to try and pretend we know that a spirit by any definition knows/cares about "right" and "wrong" as we know it? They/it would be on a completely different plane of existence, and we want to try and enforce logic on that? I put it to you that there's no such thing as "good" and "evil" when it comes to the paranormal, only the effects of the presence:

Is the paranormal presence negative, positive, or neutral in aspect (is their overall effect on their surroundings one of darkness and decay, improving, or simply maintaining its surroundings)?

Again, these questions are to try and push past the idea of a ghost as a story and instead look at them as a testable, categorical phenomenon.