Ever Think The Villain Is Right?

[Seil]

Think of nearly every villain who wants to take over the world. Now think of everything that would be spared if there was no war over religion or anything like that.

There's definately some pros, and obviously a lot of cons.

[bluestarultor]

Villains who are evil for the hell of it are incredibly boring. One who actually has a reasonable goal is able to become a sympathetic character because they actually make sense. Maybe their means are lousy, but you have a harder time hating a guy who wants to overthrow the government in an attempt to end world hunger or something.

[Dular]

Well, I think all those supervillians have the same point of view.

Accurate description of problem(or knowing the REAL problem), insane method of solving problem.

[Lumenskir]

Aren't all villainous megaplots basically just excessive cases of selfishness perpetrated on a massive scale? I mean, you either have the plain crazies who want to wreak as much pointless destruction as possible for their own enjoyment, or the guys who don't like the way the world works and seek to erase any choice that they don't agree with.

I mean, I can sometimes understand why a villain does what he does, but I've never agreed with a plan that promises to eradicate something bad by eliminating another person's free will.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Lumenskir

I mean, I can sometimes understand why a villain does what he does, but I've never agreed with a plan that promises to eradicate something bad by eliminating another person's free will.

As came up in the anarchy discussion every system of government we have, except anarchy, is predicated on removing people's free will.
You are clearly willing to accept some loss of free will to live in your current system as it provides you with security, health, infrastructure, basically everything.

So really it's just a matter of bargaining, how much free will are you willing to lose for whatever perks you get.

Like what if the villain is going to end all wars and hunger, end global warming and usher in a new golden age but in exchange noone can utter the word "Petunias" because the villain has a rabid hatred of them, as symbols of his arch-enemy "Flower man".

[Lumenskir]

So really it's just a matter of bargaining, how much free will are you willing to lose for whatever perks you get.

Well yeah, I'm perfectly fine with that, because it implies that I'm choosing to sacrifice something in return for something else. It's still a recognizable choice, and still free will.

Most villain plans, that I've read, tend to center on "Shit, the world sucks...but it wouldn't suck so bad if everyone was forced to accept my vision of utopia." And then the freeze rays come out.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Seil

Think of nearly every villain who wants to take over the world. Now think of everything that would be spared if there was no war over religion or anything like that.

There's definately some pros, and obviously a lot of cons.

Dunno about specifically take-over-the-world villains, but a lot of times I end up pretty sympathetic to the villain's goals. Especially in movies which is largely a result of the conservatism of producers; there's just a lot of lines you can't ever hope to get away with putting in a hero's mouth so instead they give 'em to the villain. Die Hard 4's a great example of this; that guy totally had a point about national security. He just wanted to prove it by blowing up half the country to rob the other half.

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Like what if the villain is going to end all wars and hunger, end global warming and usher in a new golden age but in exchange noone can utter the word "Petunias" because the villain has a rabid hatred of them, as symbols of his arch-enemy "Flower man".

"The Dead Rabbits is outlawed"?

[BitVyper]

every system of government we have, except anarchy, is predicated on removing people's free will.

I was unaware that anarchy would have everyone become hermits. If you intend to operate in a group of any size at all, you will sooner or later be forced to make some compromises, which leads to groupthink. I suppose purely from a philosophical point of view, you could say that dissenters can just leave the group, but that's trying to make people choose individuality over security every time, and that just doesn't happen. Imagine if every time someone disagreed with their manager, they quit their job. It is technically an option, but whether they think their managers are stupid or not, as long as the paycheques are signed and things stay in a tolerable range, they'll keep the job.

Any kind of system of government at all is going to operate by removing some liberty in favour of stability and security. That's pretty much what government IS. In a way, this also adds freedom, as I can say, become say a doctor since I'm not busy making food and clothes and shelter, because some other guys in the society did that stuff already.

If anarchy doesn't manage people to at least some extent, it's not a system of government to begin with. It's just anarchy.

[Wyndon]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Villains who are evil for the hell of it are incredibly boring.

...The Joker?

Not saying he's right, but he sure as hell ain't boring.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Wyndon

...The Joker?

Not saying he's right, but he sure as hell ain't boring.

The joker is a special case in that he's batshit crazy and at the same time incredibly creative. While his motivations are boring (because he finds it funny?), his actions make up for it in their creativity and proliferation. In other words, his entertainment value lies elsewhere, because he's not tied to any one particular goal other than entertaining himself. He's not really trying to accomplish anything.