Making Villains Similar to the Most Popular Ones

[LightAndMagic]

Depends on the situation. But that's not the topic at hand.

Yes, some people see Hitler differently than the majority of the world, but does that truly change who he is?

Some people may see Hitler as a "Hero." But, I feel that when the majority of the people, who, especially when considering Hitler, have seen "both sides", and still consider him despicable, and his actions morally reprehensible, he doesn't quite cut it as "misguided", and certainly, I would most definately consider him evil. Perhaps it's a difference of opinion, but once again, when the majority of the people, who DO know both sides of the story consider a man to be truly evil, I feel he has earned that status, despite a minor community who may disagree.

 

[lunarea]

Being able to justify an action does not immediately make that action morally right, or even morally acceptable.

Yes, there is a reason for every action. Yes, as individuals, we are able to see the same action from several different perceptions. This helps us understand these actions (to a degree), but it does NOT make us accept it as the right thing to do.

I'll use an extreme example here. Imagine for a moment that the person you cared about the most in the world just got killed by a random guy. The random guy tells you that he did it "because I felt like that person was the devil incarnate, and I did nothing wrong". Are you really going to say "Oh, well there's a reason. His perception was different than mine. Him committing murder is perfectly fine."?

Sociopaths and psychopaths can commit some really heinous and disturbing crimes and they don't think they're doing anything wrong. This isn't because they are insane and think that murder is a good moral choice. It's because they put themselves in a different category than the rest of the society. They honestly believe that they're in a separate place, and special when it comes to laws and morality. They will outright tell you that murder is bad, but they're not bad when they commit it because there are special moral guidelines that apply to only them.

Should we excuse their crimes because they themselves think they aren't doing anything wrong? Even if 99.9999999999999% of the world thinks they are? Is their opinion and skewed perception equal or more important than everyone else's?

 

[KhaoticErase]

@LightAndMagic: So, you're saying that, if everyone else in the world thought someone was evil, then he is officially evil?

But that's what happens with game villains, too. The main villain is seen by all as a villain. This villain wants to rid the world of death by ridding the world of life, so we can all live painlessly as spirits or something. There, now we know his side, but we still think he's a villain. But is he really? Everyone else thinks he's a villain, despite having good intentions. Is that really the right thing to think?

 

[LightAndMagic]

If they (by they, I mean the very large majority of the world, if his evilness is debatable pretty evenly, then it's a whole different case) know his reasons, and people still consider him evil, most definately.

Just because someone may have good intentions does not make it right. Has he told everyone his plan, has he asked everyone "do you want to live painlessly as a spirit forever?" No, probably not, therefore I don't think it's right. It's taking away people's freedom, and it really isn't his right to decide what's best for everyone. Perhaps the majority of the world doesn't want to live as sprits, and if they view him as a villian, and he continues with his plan. I think his villian title should stick.

Lunarea said everything else I wanted to say absolutely perfectly. Please read it.

 

[KhaoticErase]

What are you talking about? I thought Lunarea was agreeing with me. That's why she wasn't quoted in my last post!

And that's just one example. Any act that might be considered evil would work. Try fitting different scenarios together, and see how they turn out.

Ah, but consider these questions for said villain:
1. Is he a villain if the rest of the world says he is? Yes, because that's what they think is true.
2. IS he a villain? No, because he's trying to do what he believes is right.

Basically, whether or not someone is a villain is a matter of opinion. Like Magus from Chrono trigger. At first, he's a maniacal villain who needs to be stopped. But then you find out his real reasons, and he joins you while STILL trying to carry out those same plans with your help.

 

[Volrath]

I did make my opinion. And my opinion is that the movie failed to make the protagonists sympathetic in any way because they were basically going around taking justice into their own hands for no real reason. You're being way overly-defensive of that movie. :P

This may be off-topic, but the problem here is that you're assuming you have to make the protagonists of any movie sympathetic. Writers aren't under any such strict obligation. I have a feeling someone who went through circumstances similar to what the main characters of the movie have experienced could possibly find them sympathetic. Others won't. The end-credit montage of interviews was meant to illustrate that...the fact that people have wide-ranging views on justice. I guarantee you there are plenty of people (in America, at least) who think that police should just be able to blast crooks in the head on sight without all the fair trail stuff. I don't agree with such a vicious form of vigilante justice, but I did still find the characters sympathetic, for whatever reason. Interesting thing, subjectivity...but certainly not a "failure," I don't think. If you don't like the movie in general, I suppose that could be considered a failure, but not straining to make the audience love the heroes isn't a failure by any means...because it's simply not a requirement.

 

[ArtBane]

As usual Volrath put it more elegantly than I would. I don't want to really discuss it here though any further cause it is off topic. This thread already has enough arguing going on as it is.

 

[Reives]

2. IS he a villain? No, because he's trying to do what he believes is right.

Then villains would not exist at all in that aspect, because the only thing people will do is what they think is "right"; which may or may not be the view of the majority. ._. In extreme cases, that justification is the limitation of accountability to oneself without the consent of others. So really, as I recall someone said earlier on this thread, it is somewhat more of a character guide not restricted to villainy.

P.S. Boondocks Saints' protagonists receive a mixed package of sympathy and disagreement, not just disagreement. (Bad word use, excuse me. :|)

 

[KhaoticErase]

Precisely, because a person is only a villain if we see them that way, and everyone is viewed as a villain by someone else, even the kindest people.

the word villain, for us to use, still exists, but in all technicality and literacy, there are no real villains. My Squall quote says it all, that's why it's there.

 

[Reives]

That is why the term villain in general does not refer to that, as it does not exist due to that there will always be at least one source of having a reason for any scenario - their own. This pushes the term into its next definition, those who we see as villains. As someone puts it earlier in this thread, if I remember right, it doesn't matter if they are right to themselves - if they kill your family right now, you will not say "oh hey, they were right for their own reasons so that's all fine and dandy."

Hence stating it as such is rather pointless, in my opinion. Anyhow, semantics play some role in this thread. I'd rather not get involved in it.

Edit: P.S. Oh, by the way I didn't mean that pure evil doesn't exist - but that everyone will do ultimately what they think is "right" for them to do. That "right" may not be justice, in fact it could be evil; but it would have to make sense to them as an individual... Which ultimately does not matter.

 

[LightAndMagic]

You should probably reread Lunarea's post, her opinion is very different from yours.

And seriously, what's your definition of a villian. Like Lunarea more or less said, just because they have a reason, or there is a justificiation for their actions, does not mean that it's acceptable or morally right.

So yes, he is a villian even if he has a reason. Let's say a man wants to kill all females because of Eve being tempted by the snake in the bible. There is a reason, is it morally right? No. Acceptable? Definitely not. So just because he has a reason doesn't suddenly excuse him for his actions.

 

[Reives]

Oh right, I think what I read was from lunarea's post. Agreed with LaM then. Bottom line is, everyone will have a reason for all of their doings, at least to themselves (no one does things that they do not have a [personal] reason for) - but that doesn't mean that the resulting action cannot be evil.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Which brings up whether or not evil even exists. Heck, for all we know, doing what we think is nice may actually be evil. Which is an arguable statement, because for some reason, I get mad when people compliment me.

What's right? The law? Who says?

 

[Reives]

Eh, actually I think it more or less supports that evil exists. Just perhaps not in the way that you had in mind. Again, just because there is a reason doesn't mean that it cannot be evil. And again, a lot of tricky semantics here.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Okay, then. Let's start with you. Tell me your definitions for evil, pure evil, and villain.

 

[Reives]

First of all, I meant and will continue to mean no offense or what so ever, so don't take it as such. :>

Now, see, this is what I think the misunderstanding roots from. You seem to think of evil as the purest and absolute evil, with no further justifications possible. That may or may not be existent, but absolutism does not have to be the case for something to be considered evil.

As I've already stated, when the majority of the population sees an action, e.g. the murdering of your father, wrong - the murderer has committed an evil deed, especially to you. It doesn't matter if they had a reason of their own for their action, because a reason to self will always be existent in order for an action to be executed.

Now what you were stating, was that if there is a reason, things can be justified. But in my opinion, you were repeatedly missing the point that reason and the judgment of evil or not are not closely related.

My definition of evil is an action that, while having a personal reason to its actor, delivers a knowingly offensive outcome to others. Yes, the villain may have a reason of his own, but that doesn't mean that they are not "pure evil". In fact, let's say that a fictional "pure evil" villain does something evil without a clear back-up reason other than fulfilling his evil desires - he still had a reason for it; fulfilling his desires. He cannot help being evil because oh who knows, brain chemical unbalance let's say. He's crying and wanting to stop as he's slaughtering innocent children, yet he cannot because that's how his mind works - but does that make him not evil?

There will never be a case where someone conscious does something without a reason of their own. It may be a "good" reason, it may be an "evil" reason.

But it doesn't matter to the masses.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Tell me something. In your fifth paragraph, the villain of which you speak. Is he SURE that he's doing this to fulfill his desires? Well, what gave him those desires? What drives that need? How did it begin?

Make something up, it's your villain.

 

[LightAndMagic]

He was giving an example, I highly doubt he's created a fully fleshed out villian for the sole sake of arguing with you.

 

[KhaoticErase]

That's why I asked him to make something up. (sigh)

 

[LightAndMagic]

Why? How would him developing a villian have any relevance to the topic at hand? If you're hoping to use this villian that he makes up in let's say, 5 minutes, as a way to re-enforce your beliefs, you should probably keep in mind it was made up in, well, 5 minutes.

And you still haven't defined your definition of a villian. Something which I'm really curious in.