Ever Think The Villain Is Right?

[Wyndon]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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.

Not trying to turn this into a Joker debate, but isn't that his appeal? He's not trying to accomplish anything. That's what's so brilliant.

He is the embodiment of anarchy. And anarchy is (pardon the pun) batshit crazy.

[Kim]

The Major, from Hellsing, is a good evil for evil sake villain. He wants never ending war and destruction. I think what really makes him a good villain is that he's the opposite of what you normally expect a villain to look like. Short and fat. But he's brilliant and gives wonderful speeches.

"My friends, it has been said that I like war. Gentlemen, I like war. Gentlemen, I LOVE war!"

or

"They're smiling as they die. But of course. It's why they came here."

"If they wanted to die that much...! If they wanted to die that badly!! They should have hung themselves!! Fifty bloody years ago!!"

"Ve could never do that, frauleins. Just dying? No thank you vhatsoever. That's how incorrigible ve are. No vone in the vorld has any use for us. Everyvone in the vorld ist trying to forget us. Even so, ve need ourselves for our own sakes. Ve don't vant to just die. Anything but that!"

There's more, but I think you get the idea.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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

Define "for the hell of it". As in they're evil because the writer's poor at coming up with any kind of motivation, or because they have fairly simplistic goals in mind (I want to become rich, I want to have power over people and rule the world).

I mean, villains being boring mostly has a writer quality attached to it. Villains in the old, good Disney movies were every so often "I just want to have power" types, but I wouldn't classify them as bland (examples being Scar and Jaffar, or however you spell it).

That said, it's very arguable that the goal is to have the villain have the potential to be right. A story's central focus is conflict, and the villain is (stereotypically, or thematically, for lack of a better word) the embodiment of that conflict. It's not much of a conflict if the villain's reason for action is not compelling, understood, or justifiable.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by Wyndon

Not trying to turn this into a Joker debate, but isn't that his appeal? He's not trying to accomplish anything. That's what's so brilliant.

No, it's what's so terrible about all the crap Joker stories The Dark Knight made you forget. It's banal and obvious and you can't just say so and rest on it, it's where you start and it allows you to go to interesting places, but isn't itself all that special. It also forces you (or it would if you gave a damn about good stories) to tell a very limited number of stories with the Joker so as to fend off the "why don't they just shoot him?" effect.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by 01d55

No, it's what's so terrible about all the crap Joker stories The Dark Knight made you forget. It's banal and obvious and you can't just say so and rest on it, it's where you start and it allows you to go to interesting places, but isn't itself all that special. It also forces you (or it would if you gave a damn about good stories) to tell a very limited number of stories with the Joker so as to fend off the "why don't they just shoot him?" effect.

Cuz Batman's a whiny bitch.

Actually, I prefer the evil cuz he's evil villain as of late. Couldn't write one, but the noble villain has become so cliched I want to punch the next villain who's just trying to do the right thing in the head. You can write a evil cuz he's evil villain well and make him unique, and because of how much aversion there is to the idea, you have to do get people to care. It's much easier to tack on a sad story to the villain's past or make him spout broken philosophy to make the audience like him.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Stuff

I direct you to the anarchy thread in discussion.


Also the ur-example: Satan in Paradise Lost. If you haven't read it I highly recommend it. He's totally evil but also understandable and more and more reasonable as the poem progresses.

The Empire from Star Wars. Why? Well the Rebels never seemed to have any actual policies except just generic rebellion. The Empire at least promoted stability and harmony across the universe.
As far as I can tell the rebels planned to put in place some kind of crazy monachry with Princess Leia at thier head and continue to be referred to as Princess when her planet has been exploded.

[Krylo]

Really? 'cause I'm pretty sure even in the original trilogy the rebels comment on the old republic.

There's also the rampant racism, the slavery, the genocide, and the religious oppression. Which the rebels were all very much against, so one has a pretty good look at their policies--or at least the ones that conflicted with the empire.

And, again, touching on all the mass murder and whatnot--how can you call a government that kills and/or enslaves it's own people harmonious?

Seriously, the Empire may have been stable, but they made the nazi party look like flowers, rainbows, and sunshine. With glitter.

Originally Posted by noncon

It's much easier to tack on a sad story to the villain's past or make him spout broken philosophy to make the audience like him.

Broken philosophy and/or tacked on sad story? Sounds to me like you don't hate justifiable villains so much as poorly written villains.

If said philosophy is broken or they're just emo, then they're just plain poorly written and it wouldn't have mattered if the writers had gone for the evil just because route. Well, except that the evil just because route would have been even lamer with said writing skills.

P.S. Even Kefka isn't evil just to be evil. He's described quite clearly as having been driven insane by complications with the first magitech infusions. Probably from a combination of pain and magical pollution in his mind at a very young age.

In other words--he has a tacked on sad story, but I don't think anyone here is really gonna tell me he's a poor villain?

The Joker, as well, has a variety of 'sad stories' attached to his background. Driven insane by being dropped in acid bath. Dead wife and child, followed by dropping himself in an acid bath. Wife kidnapped and killed to force him into committing a crime. Etc. etc.

Basically, any villain one would ever see as 'well written' either HAS a sob story tacked onto their origin, or is justifiable. Or both.

Just because a lot of justifiable villains are shittily written is no excuse to go after the whole group.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

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.

You could disobey or walk away from the group. There's lots of forms of anarchies and some do have it as do whatever you want.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

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

*Cough*Angelus*cough*.

Actually the Buffyverse villains are pretty good. On the one hand you've got guys like Angelus and the Master, who are evil for evils sake or because they want to destroy the world, but are really good to watch and then you've got people like Jasmine, who (at least momentarily) brought about world peace, albeit at the cost of several thousand lives and the elimination of free will. Kind of an anti-hero there then. Although it is interesting to note that the second peoples free will returned riots erupted worldwide. She may not have been right, but you could at least see where she was coming from.

And of course then we have Willow, who went on a murderous rampage seeking vengeance against another murderer. Of course, then she went over the top and tried to destroy the world, but she started out fairly reasonably.

Really it just all comes down to the writing. Even villains who're evil for evils sake can be interesting so long as they're written properly and villains with the right backstory or grey area-esque master plan can be equally well done.

[bluestarultor]

I suppose I should redefine my words.

What I meant was that a guy who's made from crystallized evil and goes and does evil because he's evil and that's what he's supposed to do because he's evil and evil, evil, evil, and, oh, yeah, evil, shows a glaring lack of forethought into the character and generally results in a villain who's severely underdeveloped and uninteresting. That's something that greatly divides Western from Asian culture in terms of storytelling. Take Chrono Trigger for example. You spend the bulk of the game chasing after Magus because he's the bad guy and that's what heroes do, for no really good reason other than that your party is greatly misinformed as to what he's trying to accomplish and history shows that it happened. Then you find out that as much of a jerk as he is, he was trying to SAVE the world right when you meddled, and he eventually joins your party.

Contrast this with, say, Lands of Lore 1, where Scotia simply wants to wipe out the alliance of the ascendant races for no other reason than somewhere in later backstory additions, King Richard pissed her off in some vague debacle where he fired her or something. In LoL1, this is never even touched upon. She just plain commanded a chunk of the Dark Army and was trying to destroy society.

Who's the more interesting baddie? Magus, of course. He has more work put in. He turns out to have a clearly defined goal and is much less of a figurehead with no real development.




A good way to define what makes a good villain is derived directly from what makes any good character:

1. Motivation. "Because he's evil" doesn't cut it in most cases. A villain is better served by some need to accomplish a defined goal. As such, he might have a personal vendetta, be incredibly idealistic, or any number of things that he can justify to himself or consider to be good or right. He could be driven by hate, love, fear, and/or depression, depending on what he's fighting for and why. After the goal is met, he will be able to revel in his accomplishment, even if it doesn't mean he just goes home and lives a normal life.
2. Goal. "To be evil" also rarely suffices. Again, maybe revenge is a goal, or trying to better the world somehow, or maybe he really just does want power for its own sake. If all he wants to do is be evil, there are a ton of fairly mundane ways to do it, like serial killing, poisoning candy at the store, or other things less involving and difficult than world domination and that in turn don't require a team of extraordinary people to curb or prevent. Even the desire for world destruction can be justified if you're a good enough writer. Maybe he wants to eradicate humanity because of all the damage and wrong they do.
3. Characterization. "He is evil" is not a personality. It does not cut it. Especially because there are so many TYPES of evil. Is he moral, believing he's right? Immoral, knowing he's wrong but unable to control himself? Amoral, performing acts because he somehow fails to grasp their gravity to others? Is he insane? Deluded? A puppet? Is he an Al Capone: perpetrator of horrible things, but really nice guy to be around? A Hitler: evildoer who seeks to renew a pile of ash country and create great and progressive reform for the overall good with his charisma? A Hernan Cortez: absorbed in his own wealth and power with disregard to others because he feels superior? A villain needs a personality like anyone else.

The main issue I have with altogether too many bad guys is that they're just plain evil with nothing else attached. Evil for evil's sake without any reasoning behind it. If you had to put up with a hero for an entire story who's good for the sake of goodness, because he's good and that's what he does because he's good and good, good, good, and good, you'd get sick of him pretty damn quick. He'd be as boring as a cardboard sandwich with a side of sawdust and water. NOBODY would stick around for that! (I lie, because I know SOMEONE would, but one can easily argue that they're either masochistic or have no taste.) So why should the villain be so boring? If you have a good baddie, people will have a greater attachment to your story, because it will be fully populated with characters believable as people.



Also, Noncon. Having a villain who thinks they're right is far from being cliche. I'd call it good writing, because it shows that the writer is treating their cast like actual human beings, which makes for a better cast, rather than a bunch of unsympathetic cardboard cutouts acting out an uninspired story in a world completely devoid of any real life. If you can think of any way to get a reader to sympathize with a character who's a complete monster with no redeeming features or reason for their actions, I'd love to hear it. Because so far as I'm aware, having something that horrible completely escapes the normal human condition and the things in our world that display it generally are destroyed as quickly as humanly possible. Combined with a lack or absence of any of the three parameters I listed, you generally end up with something resembling the proverbial horror movie monster that you don't actually see until the end of the movie and then find to be pathetically lame when the writers can't avoid showing it to you for any longer. If a villain is going to have any screen time at all, they're going to need to be treated like a real character, and are going to have to be at least as decent (or decent-appearing) a person as it would take to gather their power base. A total monster is NOT going to get a volcano fortress and expendable guards just by being born horrible. As they say, the devil is a gentleman.