What villain would you prefer to face?

[Ichneumon]

If at the climax of your story you face the main antagonist, would you rather have him be mad and his actions be guided by utter insanity or would you feel more assured in defeating him when you knew his actions were guided by a strange form of logic and ratio?

[Megatron46]

Mad and insane! I'm crap at logic, trying to figure things out and reading people. If he's bonkers then, if I get defeated then it's not because he's predictable!

My wife however, is excellent at reading people and would probably hammer any cold logic villain!

[Winthur]

Professor Chaos.

[valadil]

If at the climax of your story you face the main antagonist, would you rather have him be mad and his actions be guided by utter insanity or would you feel more assured in defeating him when you knew his actions were guided by a strange form of logic and ratio?

I don't like mad enemies. They're dismissable. I'd rather have an antagonist who you can relate to. Someone who could have been a decent person, but went a little too far.

[Freshmeat]

Logic. Can't reason with someone who's insane and there's always the chance you can talk them down (Fallout-style) or (at the very least) make them doubt their own motives and thus crush their morale.

Plus, if they're actually right in their reasoning, you can always join Team Evil.

[Gullara]

Interesting question, I think I will have to agree with Valadil on this one and say the logical villain

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'd also go with the logical one. No way to beat him in the obligatory witty banter contest if he does nothing but speak in non sequiturs.

[Assassin89]

The one of insanity, because the ones who are logical can be a little too predictable. Also, who wouldn't want someone like Dr. Insano as a nemesis?

[The Rose Dragon]

I wanna have both, so I become Batman and have Two-Face as my enemy.

[paddyfool]

I'm thinking... a logical villain of the greater good variety. Go go clash of ideology! (And it might even end with convincing the villain that he's wrong, a la Serenity, which has a satisfaction all its own).

[Ichneumon]

I'm thinking... a logical villain of the greater good variety. Go go clash of ideology! (And it might even end with convincing the villain that he's wrong, a la Serenity, which has a satisfaction all its own).

You know what would be cool, if the villain also saw us as the true villains.

[Jack Squat]

I'd go with logical. The problem with a crazy one is that he could be monologuing and all of the sudden kill you. At least with the logical one, you know he's going to finish telling you his dastardly plan.

Unless you're planning on killing him straight up, in which case it doesn't really matter.

[J.Gellert]

I hate mad villains. Hate'em. It has ruined many generally-thought-of-as-good films for me, like Saw or Seven or the Twelve Monkeys, and even the Dark Knight (to an extend).

I think the reason is dual; first, while I don't mind unhappy endings, I like my endings to follow those of greek tragedies; karmic ones. Everyone should get what he deserves. What is a madman supposed to receive? The absolutely worst thing that can happen to him is suddenly going sane and realizing what he has done, then having to live with it. Haven't seen that happening in any film.

The second reason is related to the first... only it makes me think I'd be a bad superhero. I want to watch the bad guy suffer. Bad guys who just don't get it, because they are mad? They drive me crazy. No matter what you do to them, you can never be satisfied. The hero has lost his family, the world lies in ruins, and there is one CRAZY son of a b**** to blame for all of that..? You can never be happy in a proper revenge. Never.

*The Dark Knight wasn't so bad because the Joker was awesome, and I didn't care to see him ruined; also, because the film itself seemed to understand my feelings, and played to them. The Joker was laughing as Batman pummeled him, telling him he doesn't care. I just know the kind of frustration that Bruce must have felt at that moment.

[Trog]

The mad one. Most real world villains are those that have risen to power (which is difficult to do if one is incapable of logic) and have lots of resources - such as followers. A truly mad antagonist usually is just a threat all on their own and work alone because their very madness makes them impossible to relate to others. So a mad one would be easier to stand off against because they would be alone. ... If we are talking about real life here.

If we're talking a story or RPG villain (where you risk no actual physical harm) I'd rather have them have a twisted form of logic because it makes them that much more resourceful and therefore harder to overcome and that makes the victory that much the sweeter. Plus it helps the heroes to track him down and figure out his plans before the final confrontation. Also during the final dramatic encounter you are likely to get better banter out of a logical villain than a mad one.

[Cleverdan22]

Someone like Fawful. Just because it would be amazing.

[Miss Nobody]

I'd prefer the sane and logical one, maybe the greater good variety. I've never liked insane villains.

[RabbitHoleLost]

I am the villain.

[Ichneumon]

I am the villain.

Which one? The logical or the insane?

[Cobra_Ikari]

If at the climax of your story you face the main antagonist, would you rather have him be mad and his actions be guided by utter insanity or would you feel more assured in defeating him when you knew his actions were guided by a strange form of logic and ratio?

What about someone who follows an insanity of logic? >.>

[SDF]

I am the villain.

There's always one.

I'm a fan of the thought out logical to a fault. Ozymandias was probably the perfect villain.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Which one? The logical or the insane?
Can't tell you that, can I?
The insane don't think of themselves as insane.

Also, it would be a tip off as to how to defeat me when I finally do establish power.

[Linkavitch]

Logic. Can't reason with someone who's insane and there's always the chance you can talk them down (Fallout-style) or (at the very least) make them doubt their own motives and thus crush their morale.

Plus, if they're actually right in their reasoning, you can always join Team Evil.

Why can't you just go insane and join Team Evil with the mad guy?:smallbiggrin:

[TheBST]

I'd rather face the insane one. Crazy people are easy to outwit and emotionally manipulate.

[thubby]

crazy people are unstable and far too unpredictable.

[GoC]

I'd go with logical. The problem with a crazy one is that he could be monologuing and all of the sudden kill you. At least with the logical one, you know he's going to finish telling you his dastardly plan.

Unless you're planning on killing him straight up, in which case it doesn't really matter.

Why would logical person tell you his plans?:smallconfused:
Or are we talking about the bastardized media version of "logic"?:smallyuk:

[Freshmeat]

Why would logical person tell you his plans?:smallconfused:
Or are we talking about the bastardized media version of "logic"?:smallyuk:

Agreed. Logic does not equal 'predictability' or 'plays by the rules and abides by all clichés'.
I'd say the difference between a logical and an insane villain is that the logical one knows when to be unpredictable and do something that (on the surface) seems 'insane', whereas the unpredictable villain is insane all the time.


Why can't you just go insane and join Team Evil with the mad guy?:smallbiggrin:

This might be a bit of an extreme example, but who in their right mind would want to work for, say, the Joker?

[Mando Knight]

The logical villain who makes you think he's insane.

Why's he doing that? He's leaving himself way open here...
-Just as planned. :smallamused:

[Faulty]

Quite possibly the logical one. I've found that people who define themselves as particularly logical are often out of touch and egotistical, which is a big weakness.

[Jack Squat]

Why would logical person tell you his plans?:smallconfused:
Or are we talking about the bastardized media version of "logic"?:smallyuk:

Yeah, I was going with the latter.

If I were to actually face my arch enemy, it doesn't really matter what type he is, as it'd ideally play out like the last 5 minutes of Shooter :smallwink:

[chiasaur11]

Yeah, I was going with the latter.

If I were to actually face my arch enemy, it doesn't really matter what type he is, as it'd ideally play out like the last 5 minutes of Shooter :smallwink:

My fight with my archnemesis would ideally play out like the fights against Bob the Goldfish in Earthworm Jim.

[Catch]

If at the climax of your story you face the main antagonist, would you rather have him be mad and his actions be guided by utter insanity or would you feel more assured in defeating him when you knew his actions were guided by a strange form of logic and ratio?

Sometimes, you can't tell the difference.

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2974/j8fm.jpg

[Trog]

Can't tell you that, can I?
The insane don't think of themselves as insane.

Also, it would be a tip off as to how to defeat me when I finally do establish power.
A-ha! Based on that response you're the logical kind. :smallwink:

Look! Wabbit twacks! *points at tracks and begins to stealthily track RHL back to her evil Rabbit Hole Lair*

[Kaelaroth]

I am the villain.

Not in my story.

[Darius Midnite]

That which is madness in our eyes is logic in theirs. Ozymandias from Watchmen would be my preferred enemy, as I can sympathize with his ideology.

[BritishBill]

The Shredder. Best turtle killer ever, wait... he never won.... best turtle almost killer ever.

[Reinholdt]

After the Dark Knight, I question if the Joker can be called the insane version of the villain versus the logical one. Everything he did followed a logical, if unpredictable course. He is a genius. A master of psychology, understanding exactly how each and every person would react and he set up his Gotham City playground point by point to play off of that.

So what Darius and Catch just said basically.

I'd prefer to fight the logical ones.
Like Catwoman. I'd like to be dealing with her.
>>
<<

[Darius Midnite]

Like Catwoman. I'd like to be dealing with her.
>>
<<

Or Poison Ivy. Rawr. :smalltongue:

[Vella_Malachite]

Hrm. Well, ideally, in my story, the final showdown may not actually come to a fight, y'see...I'm reasonable hand-to-hand, but as soon as he/she pulls a weapon, I'm screwed.

So my favourite villain is the cold, logical variety, so we can have a massive Thirty Xanatos Pileup (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThirtyXanatosPileup) (yes, that is a link to TV Tropes - just a warning :smalltongue:).

But it may be interesting to try a Xanatos Gambit against an insane villain. It would certainly be an intellectual challenge...

[Blue Ghost]

I don't think it matters if the villain is insane or logical in a Xanatos Gambit, because the definition of a Xanatos Gambit is that you win either way. It's the Batman Gambit that you would need to worry about.

As for me, I would rather face the insane villain. Who knows what kinds of seeds of evil a villain who knows what he's doing might plant inside me.

[Thajocoth]

They're identical.

A villain that has some sort of logic that they follow is following a flawed logic (as being a successful villain isn't actually feasible in the long term.)

An insane villain DOES have a logic, it's just based on things that are wrong. It still makes a lot of sense though if you accept the villain's premises.

They both simply have a logic that they follow that's full of holes.

[thubby]

They're identical.

A villain that has some sort of logic that they follow is following a flawed logic (as being a successful villain isn't actually feasible in the long term.)

An insane villain DOES have a logic, it's just based on things that are wrong. It still makes a lot of sense though if you accept the villain's premises.

They both simply have a logic that they follow that's full of holes.

the mafia does a good job of it.

[Belkarsbadside1]

If i had to choose one, I would choose the raving mad one, he wouldn't be able to think straight and I would have less qualms about hurting him. He would sort of be dehumanized to me and I would be able to do what is necessary to stop him. Also if he's insane, he won't be able to think up complex plans and I will hopefully be able to figure out what hes up too. Also he might not be able to clearly analyze me and discover my weaknesses.

[Thajocoth]

the mafia does a good job of it.

The mafia is not a villain, it's a group. The mob boss could be considered a villain here, but being a mob boss puts a huge price tag on one's head, both for police to bring him in and for someone else to betray him to take over his position.

[TengYt]

Assuming I am a typical fictional hero, I'd go for a logical villain. Why? Logic is generally more consistant than insane. Besides, "logical" villains in fiction have a tendancy to ramble on about their plans for long periods, giving me ample opportunity to take them down.

[Lupy]

I would prefer to fight a logical villain who may even be in the right from another perspective, a la Redcloak.