Good Villains are Dying Out

Here we go.

I'm only insulting the 'panderers'. We've established that panderers are those who alter their work and creativity to suit their audience. Some folks have different ideas about whether that is good or bad. That's their opinions. I'm entitled to dislike it, and you're entitled to dislike mine. I'm glad you're mad at me, means somebody's willing to be honest and cast aside a little professionalism, come down to my level.

For the situation thing, nobody's presented a situation, but I HAVE said why I think simple villains are better.

Nobody's going to change what they do because of what I say, so really, I'm not very concerned about offending anyone. They're going to write me off as another bonehead, perhaps, but maybe there's one person out there who thinks like me, and feels that there's too much complexity being forced into modern writing, then I can sleep well at night.

Obviously you won't agree with this, since the creator's of this character were "obviously pandering to the audience" when they thought her up, but this article is a perfect example of why I think multi-dimensional villains are good for stories.

Vergere from Star Wars

It is an article about the character Vergere, who, as you will read, was an important part of every major event that happens in the later end of the series. Most readers argue that she was Sith, some argue Jedi, some say she was neither. What makes her character so great is that you can't say for sure. All you know is that she did what she thought was best for the galaxy. Evil is a point of view, and to her, what she did wasn't evil.

@ Aurethius:
That you want people to set aside professionalism so they can 'actually be honest' says one or two things about you.

I think by now we've established that Good Villains are NOT Dying Out. I would say that's what most people had a problem with.

It might be somewhat accurate to say that One-Dimensional Villains are Dying Out, but calling Multi-Dimensional villains Not-Good Villains causes offense, because it just isn't true.

I'll go even further. Doing the opposite of what the audience likes, just because they like it, is still pandering to the audience.

I'll go further still. Pandering to the audience really isn't so bad, if the audience happens to like some awesome stuff.

It depends on the intent of the writer.

So you like one-dimensional villains. That's great! Me too. So you don't like multi-dimensional villains. That's great! I do. We get it already. Stop trying to convince us Good Villains are Dying Out just because you don't like half of them.

My point is: No, they're not. It's just that your favorite type of good villain is becoming less common.

Kalon Ordona II wrote:That you want people to set aside professionalism so they can 'actually be honest' says one or two things about you.

Oh come now, you want me to believe that people haven't been holding back? I've seen how this site works, and I've read works by most of the writers here. I see it.

And shame on you, a member of the site administration telling a poster to stop voicing his opinion. For shame! So what if some people get mad, this is a discussion! Good lord, what is this, a suit and tie dinner? Arguments are good! So what if I insult people? Big whoop, they'll get over it. A few egos coming down a few notches is a good thing! I'm terrible at discussions, heck I'm terrible at getting my own point across, but I'm still going to try.

I don't know, I think this thread is getting heavily derailed, and its partially my fault for responding to direct criticism and questions about my views and opinions. Or isn't that what I'm supposed to do?

I don't know enough about this character Vergere to comment right now. If someone can help me salvage this thread, or let it die, or whatever, it'd be great. Let's stop talking about ME.

First, a brief story! And, if you know me, I am always concise... at least, relatively so.

There was a time when I conceived the idea of a Dungeons and Dragons character that would have the one alignment I had never played: Lawful Evil. (Mind you, I am speaking of the Third Edition alignments).

I ran into a rut almost immediately.

I couldn't make him flat out certifiably insane. He would have no method to his madness, and in D&D, that would make him Chaotic.

I couldn't give him a human motive for his Evil. Every motive I gave him would lean him more to the Neutral Evil side.

Well, I thought, I will just have him make a pack with a devil. That will solve it. See, devils are Lawful Evil in D&D.

But, I found that to be a bit cliche and never really got into the character.

So, the lesson behind that now!

I realized a time later that my definition of evil was bit a scewed from that of fantasy stories or morality tales. My definition of evil was this:

The absence of good.

Evil was not its own entity. Therefore, no character of mine could truly champion it as a Lawful Evil character would.

Well, enough with the story. I don't want to wear anyone out. I could talk semantics and philosophy all day.

Aurethius wrote:

Kalon Ordona II wrote:That you want people to set aside professionalism so they can 'actually be honest' says one or two things about you.

Oh come now, you want me to believe that people haven't been holding back? I've seen how this site works, and I've read works by most of the writers here. I see it.

And shame on you, a member of the site administration telling a poster to stop voicing his opinion. For shame! So what if some people get mad, this is a discussion! Good lord, what is this, a suit and tie dinner? Arguments are good! So what if I insult people? Big whoop, they'll get over it. A few egos coming down a few notches is a good thing! I'm terrible at discussions, heck I'm terrible at getting my own point across, but I'm still going to try.

It is NOT a "discussion" if people are becoming angry with one another. If you have something to say to someone, it must be done in a respectful manner, devoid of insult. You might, for example, have asked what I meant by my comment, instead of making a case for sinking to certain levels.
Allow me to direct you to the site rules.

# Be respectful and civil.
Respect the staff as well as your fellow members. We expect everyone to portray a nonjudgemental outlook on others in regards to their personal beliefs and aspects, including (but not limited to) their race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and sex. Under no circumstances can members threaten other members or the staff, and doing so will result in an immediate ban.

# Don't flame or bash.
Hate posts and personal attacks will not be tolerated on the FOG boards. Treat others on this message board as you would expect them to treat you. Talking trash about another user or posting topics specifically to provoke a negative response from an individual, a group or an entire community is not acceptable on FOG. These posts will be deleted and will result in a warning. Board bashing is also not allowed here. Please respect the various communities on FOG. If another board is not your favorite, there's no need to complain about it. Simply refrain from visiting it. Board bashing posts will be deleted.

There is absolutely no room for insulting one another on this site.
It's not about ego; it's about respecting one another's opinions. What we're trying to get you to see is that the main premise of this topic is about assertions, not discussion, and is therefore in error. We respect your opinion, yet you insist on arguing your case over and over. We don't want to argue a point, we want to discuss a topic.

Of course, provocation is sometimes the only way to get people to speak their mind in the most direct way possible. But is that neccesary in this discussion? I doubt so. So what purpose does it fill? Angering people for the heck of it? That'd classify you as a troll, in which case you're doing an awful job. Go join 4chan. But in all seriousness. As much as I'm against sugarcoating opinions. This is bullshit. Of course some opinions offend people. I know half of mine do. You don't like multi-dimensional villains. Good for you! The opposition won't convince you of their ideas, you've already accepted that. So why can't you accept that they won't be convinced by your ideas? Because you're right and they're wrong? This starts to look like a religion vs. science debate. Never-ending, repetetive and absolutely hopeless.

So how to put it back on the rails? I'd like to ask a question: What exactly is a villain's role in the story in your opinion? Is he/she the thriving force behind the protagonist, the obstacle, or a character in his/her own right?

The villain, in my view, is the same as saying the antagonist. It is that character or element in a story against which the hero, or protagonist, strives to defeat.

Point of view does not necessarily dictate which is the protagonist and which is the antagonist, I would say. I think the evil one is always the antagonist and the good one always the protagonist, regardless of the angle from which the story is being told. It's jsut that in some stories it's hard to tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy. And also, in some stories, the difference might be clear but the reasons might be complex. The Lord of the Rings is an example of the latter. The villains are obviously villains, but are so for complex reasons. Wormtongue, for example, is an obvious yet complex villain.

Similarly, the Eye of Sauron may seem simplistic, and in a way it is, but the origins of Sauron are complex.

To put my opinion to your question, though, Kestrel, I would say that different villains are different things in different stories. A villain may drive a story by upsetting the peace, he may stand in the way of the protagonist's righteous cause, or he may be just another character that turns against our hero. Many stories contain villains who comprise more than one of these attributes. Character/Obstacle, Obstacle/Driving Force, and Character/Driving Force, all inspire unique twists on what a villain is. Character/Obstacle/Driving Force--someone like Saruman in the Lord of the Rings, perhaps--can power a story on many levels.

Using this classification system, I would say....
Galbatorix from Inheritance is a Driving Force villain, since we haven't seen him really as a character yet. He might eventually become a Character/Driving Force.
Compare with the Ra'zac from the same series: Obstacle.

Changing sagas, I'd call Darth Vader a Character/Obstacle/Driving Force, the Emperor a Driving Force, and Lando a Character villain--a complex one.

I suppose this opens the discussion to major and minor villains.
I mentioned before the videogame Mass Effect, and in that game there are two major villains, Saren and the Reapers, though the Reapers are a higher major villain. In the same game there are a host of minor villains, most of them complex.

Thinking about it like that, it seems to me that only the highest major villains can pull of a truly one-dimensional villain, unless we're talking about things like orcs and zombies.

To be fair, I'll answer it also.

Protagonist and antagonist are two characters whose paths/goals clash. The protagonist would be classified as the main character, or lead character so to say.

I don't really give a shit about good or evil because I frankly don't use them. My characters are usually in it for their selves anyway. I'm one of those people who has a near constant-shades-of-grey repetoire. One of my own RP's revolved around removing a curse from a certain character. Mentioned character was a shrewd, somewhat cruel, selfish woman. The players were simply the ones who replied to the 'ad' for being a sell-sword to protect her during her travels.

Definately, they were the protagonists, but most of them weren't heroes in the slightest. There were many, many antagonists, because they travelled. The main one was actually a really simple soul. He didn't really have much of a revealed history other than in the profile section, one-sided perhaps, but it had a certain beauty to it. He was simply a beast that was confused. Frankly he didn't really care who he had to kill, as long as they kept off his territory. Whatever crossed his path when he was hungry, he would eat. Unmistakably he was terrifying, he was dangerous, he was an antagonist, but evil? Do you call a solitary predator evil? Well then the WWF should stop protecting tigers.

In novel-work I usually refrain from having an absolute antagonist in human form. Most of the time it is an obstacle itself moreso than a person. And the protoganist will not be your friendly neighbourhood hero either. But a person who struggles with the world alone itself as it is already. Just like all of us do. Come to think of it, it is pretty simplistic.

I don't use villains because I don't use black and white. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good story, just wouldn't write it myself.

Kaslon, I'll have to disagree there. Minor villains are always almost more one-dimensional than the major bad guy. See topic: average jRPG. Major bad guy is the poor misguided soul, all his henchmen are assholes and sadists who like working for him so they can be evil.

Good point. See? There are stories of every single type out there! xD

Good villains? Dying out? No such thing as a villain who seems to have been born as (pardon my French) one mean-ass motherfucker? Well, I'll just leave these here.


Ommadon from Flight of Dragons.


Trigon of DC comics fame.


Luca Blight, Suikoden II


Giygas, from Earthbound.


Ganondorf, anyone?


Kefka Palazzo, Final Fantasy VI


Does he really need an introduction?

The Joker first appeared in 1940, Ganondorf appeared in The Legend of Zelda in 1986 and Final Fantasy VI was released in 1994. While the latter two may fall into an appropriate time frame to contradict the topic's original point, the former obviously does not. Seventy years is plenty of time for a breed of something to die out, after all. Especially when it isn't self-sustaining to begin with.

More to the point, I believe the original poster meant to address that recent villains aren't to his liking. I doubt that ranged back beyond the past five to ten years.

The Joker first appeared in 1940, Ganondorf appeared in The Legend of Zelda in 1986 and Final Fantasy VI was released in 1994. While the latter two may fall into an appropriate time frame to contradict the topic's original point, the former obviously does not. Seventy years is plenty of time for a breed of something to die out, after all. Especially when it isn't self-sustaining to begin with.

That just made my night and pleased the history fanatic in me.

The Joker however has not been the character we know today until men like Frank Millar and Alan Moore got their hands on him. Up until then Joker had jumped everywhere to a senseless psycho path, to a common criminal who simply has a comedy like theme, and (gasp) even a bumbling criminal.

Personally I think the crop of criminals now is just great. The fact is the evil villain who is evil for no other reason for evilness, has become vastly overused. The originals are, as with all things, the best and those fallowing it simply feel uninteresting, unimaginative, and dare I say it boring. Even the most recent stab at a purely evil entity was best left as a vague boogeyman, Voldemort. Nothing thrilled me more than the first several book when the heroes risked life and limb to keep this almost omni present evil from returning. (A la Lord of the Rings.) But to have him actually return, and have him be a villain who's lone purpose of being evil is because he's pure blood or powerful or whatever lame reason completely turned me off to the last few books. (But I read them anyways because Snape was possibly the best fantasy character of the last 20 years.)

Today's villains are much more complex, and the best are a perfect tapestry of back story, experience, tragedy, reason, logic and of course the dark part of the human soul. A few examples can be found in a simple comic, Batman. Mr. Freeze though starting out as nothing more than a second rate villain with a fetish for the cold, but a cartoon show changed that in a span of 20 minutes. This version became a tragic figure, a man who broke the rules for love and when trying to defend his wife was transformed into the living breathing quote of "Revenge is a dish best served cold." His story is tragic, and his motives relatable. (Few can say that the death of a loved one would not spur a feeling of violent revenge.) You find yourself cheering for him, and the final scene of the episode of him pleading to the figure of his wife in the snow globe for forgiveness for failing her still brings a tear to my eye.

Evil villain for the sake of being evil try to strum on the string that is old as mankind itself. However, with the exceptions of the originals, villains who try this today find the over played string, loose and out of tune. Today's complex villains however, make and attempt to strum several strings at once. When done right, there is no music sweeter.

There was a time when I enjoyed one-dimensional villains. The type you most often see in cartoons and comics. Let's take Him, from the Powerpuff Girls - that guy just gave me the creeps every time I saw him and he haunted my dreams. He was evil, spooky, scary - a typical villain, no? Yes, that was thrilling for me when I was, oh say, 9 years old, a kid. As I grew older such villains became uninteresting to me and, in some cases, laughable.

Nowadays, I prefer villains with motivation, with more character to them, rather than the simple "I'll burn the world just for the lulz!". And when I RP evil characters, that is how I want them to be. Does that make me a "construction worker"? So be it, I'm a blunt guy, if you (nobody in particular, mind) like my character - fine; if not - goodbye. Simple as.

You say that the story doesn't care for the motivation of the villains. I disagree. The *point of view* from which a certain character (be it good or evil) is presented, may not care about their hopes, fears, dreams, etc. When authoring, a person can decide how to colour their characters, in positive, neutral or negative hues. I can say: "Bob is a fat person"; "John is a stout person"; "Will is an obese person"; What emotions does each of the descriptions invoke? So just because the way the story is told doesn't care for the motivations of a certain character, doesn't mean that YOU shouldn't care. The reader's point of view is subjective and unique, I may focus on one thing, another person - on a completely different one. A popular example - "The Hobbit" is told from a hobbit's point of view, while "The Silmarillion" - from an elf's.

And saying that, in the "good ol' times" villains were *real* villains, is just plain...well wrong. There are already a lot of examples given in this thread, but I'll toss in a few more. In Stanislaw Lem's "The Inquest", the antagonist is a robot, a human-like robot. So human like, that it is willing to sacrifice the rest of the crew to save itself. Or perhaps it is just willing to carry out the mission to the end? The brothers Strugatsky - in one of their novels, the "villain" is Lev Abalkin. But, after reading all of it, one is left to wonder, was Lev really the evil one? Or was he a victim of the secret kept from him? And just to ensure that nobody's pulls the "Oh, but that is *eastern* literature" card on me: Ursula Le Guin. In her Earthsea series, the whole concept of villain is quite subjective. Sometimes, it is quite abstract (The Tombs of Atuan), other times it is a man's pride personified (A Wizard of Earthsea) and in one case, it is simply a noble intention gone wrong (The Other Wind).

Anyhow, without creating a wall of text, I'll stop here and sum up my thoughts in one sentence. When the villain stops having a reason, a motivation for doing what they do and instead does it "just because it's"evil", I lose all interest in that character.

PS. I realize that what I've said regarding the books given as an example is quite blunt and rough, but I just wasn't in the mood for deeper analysis.

I am deeply sorry, but I am one of the persons who actually shout "why the HECK is that guy evil?"

Seriously, I am an empathic person, I want to understand what other people feel, and it's just the same with villians. I don't care what drives them, I simply don't want them to be evil FOR THE SAKE of being evil. That is, in my opinion, simply a plot device without further reasoning and therefore BAD WRITING.

On the other hand, it's always hard to create villians with motives. The one I actually quite like is this one, a bit mad, a bit heartless, and very clever:
"Well look at all those people whining. People always need something to whine about. I'm giving them reason enough. Do you know how heroes are made? They are being made by harsh situations. Well look what we have. I created one. If I succeed in simply killing humanity, is it worth existing anyways? Look at it that way: If I succeed, no one cares anymore. If I fail, well, I won't care because I'm dead, then, and everyone else has proven to be worthy of living. It's a Darvin's law. Survival of the fittest, ain't it?"

It's the closest I ever got to a villian being evil for the sake of being evil.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/2/

With that linked, I feel the need to question the purpose of a villain. What is a story without one? The answer, simply put, is boring. Your villain is made simply to be an antithesis to your protagonist, or hero. The villain suit's the hero's needs plot-wise, and great stories can be written with either the "Burn the world for the lulz" or motivated villain. It all depends on the hero, and the hero depends on the story. When writing your villain you have to look at the story as a whole, not just that character, and decide: "Do I need to give him a backstory or is he pure and concentrated evil?" The point I'm trying to make here is that both forms of villainy are acceptable, and fit the stories they're in because of their archetype.

Yes, I would agree.

What is fiction but a collection of lies that communicates truth? It's all one big metaphor for life. There are different forms of evil. There really are people who want to watch the world burn. And there are plenteous motivated villains. As Elric pointed out, it's all depends on the story the author is trying to tell.

I would agree with that as well. It's all in the story and that hidden truth that is reveled piece by piece.

The villain's role depends upon this. The villain cannot be taken out from the story and fully understood.