How evil do you like your villains?

[Kalmageddon]

So I recently started catching up with the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_%28TV_series%29) tv series, watched the first few episodes and I am starting to feel annoyed by how incredibly over-the-top stereotypically evil the Militia is.

I find villains that have shades of grey in their morality much more interesting, because I don't feel manipulated into hating them. On the other hand, 100% evil villains are still very common in all kinds of media and this got me wondering if there is actually anyone that genuinely enjoys that kind of villany over the more morally ambiguous one.
I personally find it cheap and I think it's so common just because it's easier to write that kind of villains, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe some people like it when it's easy to tell who's right and who's wrong in a story.

I'd like to read your opinion on the matter.

[Avilan the Grey]

So I recently started catching up with the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_%28TV_series%29) tv series, watched the first few episodes and I am starting to feel annoyed by how incredibly over-the-top stereotypically evil the Militia is.

I find villains that have shades of grey in their morality much more interesting, because I don't feel manipulated into hating them. On the other hand, 100% evil villains are still very common in all kinds of media and this got me wondering if there is actually anyone that genuinely enjoys that kind of villany over the more morally ambiguous one.
I personally find it cheap and I think it's so common just because it's easier to write that kind of villains, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe some people like it when it's easy to tell who's right and who's wrong in a story.

I'd like to read your opinion on the matter.

It has more to do with the quality of writing.
I am more sensitive about the heroes. Too many times the heroes do despicable things and are yet treated as absolutely in the right by the writers (in many media across the bord, not Revolution specifically).

Anyway, again, it is about writing and tone. A cartoonish villain fit in the right world. An over the top monster can fit in almost any story if written well, etc.

[Traab]

There are a lot of villain types I like. My personal favorite being the Hans Gruber/Xanatos types. I like them refined, gentlemanly, and with a plan so intricate and in depth there is almost no way that things wont end up in their favor somehow. I save the brutal violent thuggish behavior for. . . well, the thugs. I also like the somewhat creepy boss bad guys like the mayor from BtVS. The "man" was like half Mister Rogers, half Damien. He seemed to honestly care about everyone. Even buffy he wanted to make sure she got a proper education at school, even as he sets into motion plots to kill her. He offers milk and cookies to his minions and seems to care how they are doing even as he sends them to their deaths without ever losing that cheery smile. I like that unsettling behavior because it leaves tension and makes you wonder when it will crack and what will happen when something finally wipes that smile away.

[BWR]

It depends on the story, really.
I can enjoy a one dimensional baddie who is out to destroy the world for no apparant reason, I can enjoy the rationale of dominating everything because they want power, I can understand the jerk who does it out of some misguided morality (converting everybody to their god, bringing peace and propserity to everyone even if they don't want or appreciate it), or necessary evil.

As long as the story is crafted well and the bad guys' motivations make some sort of sense in context.

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I find morally grey villains - especially those who are a blatent attempt to play for sympathy - to be frequently dull and at worst, outright offensive.

If you're going to go out and do things you know damn well are wrong, then at least have the freaking decency not to try and rationalise it to everyone, including yourself about it. (This is also why I have absolutely zero tolerance for criminals.)

I find the villains who are self-aware enough not be deluded about the morality and lack thereof of their actions to be vastly more interesting.

Xykon and Tarkin (or Loki from the Marvel Cinematic U) are excellent examples. Or, as it's in my head at the moment, the Daleks or the Master, or largely, the Galactic Empire (especially as seen through the lens of TIE Fighter).

These sorts of villains are generally far more fun to observe, since they are more likely to at least be enjoying what they're doing.



Pain/Nagato from Naruto is a particularly vile example of the hypocrasy and a play for sympathy - we are apparently supposed to feel a bit sorry for him because he's been hard-done to (to the point of them actually having his puppy killed, as if his families' murder was not tragic enough), despite his plan being to repeatedly cause near-genocides forever.



There are excpetions of course... B5's Lando Mollari being probably the best. Mind you, again, at no point did Lando lie to himself about what he was doing, which is probably largely why I have so much more time for him. He knew he was doing terrible things and yet did them anyway because he thought he had to. But you have to be REALLY good at writing to pull that off well, and most grey villains are not in spitting distance of that, I find personally.

[Toastkart]

Quality of writing does tend to matter more than style of evil, but I generally prefer my villains complex to one dimensional.

Baal, from Stargate SG-1, is an over the top, cliche villain. But he played it so well and, given the chance, was willing to compromise, make deals, and play along even while making sly moves of his own.

Hans Gruber is, as mentioned, another great example. He was gentlemanly and focused, but also cold-blooded and ruthless.

[Kalmageddon]

As long as the story is crafted well and the bad guys' motivations make some sort of sense in context.

Well, the motivation might make sense, but the way the bad guy goes after it might not. In Revolution for exemple, wanting to build a powerful Republic makes sense. Being a **** to everyone doesn't. Being evil doesn't benefit the militia at all, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Or, let's take (almost) any supervillain ever: they have extraordinary powers and/or technology and yet instead of using them to lawfully become rich they use it for evil, just because.

I can understand it when evil is easier or more rewarding, but it often isn't, instead it's just a trick to make us hate the bad guy or to make the hero look good by comparison.

[TheThan]

Depends on the mood I’m in.
Sometimes I love the moustache twirling, puppy kicking, “the badguys get to have all the fun” , snidely whiplash evil.

Sometimes I’m in the mood for a more sympathetic villain, the sort of guy who after he explains his side, you can really start to see his point of view and maybe even agree with it to some extent, like magneto from the X-men.

Sometimes I want someone you just love to hate. Regardless of his motives, there’s just something about his personality that grates on you. Think Bester from Babylon 5, sure he helps the station out on several occasions. Heck they’ve even helped him out from time to time. But nobody (and I mean nobody) likes that guy. He’s got his own agenda and motives we only really see bits and pieces of and clearly is generally up to no good. And we love it all.

[AgentofHellfire]

So I recently started catching up with the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_%28TV_series%29) tv series, watched the first few episodes and I am starting to feel annoyed by how incredibly over-the-top stereotypically evil the Militia is.

...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that in the first few episodes the sum total of what the militia does is:

--Try to take in one man who might just be vital to saving their world.
--Open fire on someone pointing a gun at them, accidentally kill some others in the process of that.
--Take in the guy who pointed the gun at them, and not really hurting anyone else
--Trying to take in another person with similar information as that man who is deliberately hiding that information from them.
--Engage in the kinds of questionable moral practices you see in a lot of Third-world dictatorships: Slavery, treating soldiers as disposable, that sort of thing.
--Show a few instances of genuine kindness towards their own men in other instances.
So given all that, I really wouldn't call them stereotypically, cartoonishly evil. Honestly.

Anyway, defending one of my favorite TV shows aside...


I find villains that have shades of grey in their morality much more interesting, because I don't feel manipulated into hating them. On the other hand, 100% evil villains are still very common in all kinds of media and this got me wondering if there is actually anyone that genuinely enjoys that kind of villany over the more morally ambiguous one.
I personally find it cheap and I think it's so common just because it's easier to write that kind of villains, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe some people like it when it's easy to tell who's right and who's wrong in a story.

I'd like to read your opinion on the matter.

I don't believe that villains of the (former) standard of pure monstrousity are necessarily bad, and I don't believe that villains of the more grey, well-intentioned extremist sort are necessarily bad, and I don't believe that any other sort of viewpoint of villain is bad.

What's bad, sometimes, is when the villain isn't really a human being with reasons behind those views, but simply a vehicle for the plot to happen. Then they kind of suck.

[AgentofHellfire]

Well, the motivation might make sense, but the way the bad guy goes after it might not. In Revolution for exemple, wanting to build a powerful Republic makes sense. Being a **** to everyone doesn't. Being evil doesn't benefit the militia at all, in fact it's quite the opposite.

There was probably resistance, looting, and so forth that the Monroe militia had to crush even before they had the territory, and the guiding philosophy behind Miles' treatment (and a lot of it really was his) of people in the Monroe Republic was basically "keep order through a big stick".

I think eventually everyone just got used to doing things that way.




I can understand it when evil is easier or more rewarding, but it often isn't, instead it's just a trick to make us hate the bad guy or to make the hero look good by comparison.

Enh, there are instances when it isn't. I gave you a good reason for your example, in fact.

[HandofShadows]

Baal, from Stargate SG-1, is an over the top, cliche villain. But he played it so well and, given the chance, was willing to compromise, make deals, and play along even while making sly moves of his own.

Baal in kinda in a class all his own when it comes to being a villian. He is from a species of meglomaniacs who truely belive they are gods. At some point he stopped buying his own propaganda. What's more the last thing he wanted to do was destroy the Earth (totaly unlike all the other Gould) because he ended up really liking the place (Rule, yes, destroy, no). He was still a manipulative SOB who would have no problem stabbing someone in the back, but he could also be cool and even funny at times. Darn few Gould had even the slightest sense of humor.

[Kalmageddon]

Enh, there are instances when it isn't. I gave you a good reason for your example, in fact.

You didn't, really.
But I don't want to derail this thread so let's drop this particular example.

[Tengu_temp]

Personally, I find morally grey villains - especially those who are a blatent attempt to play for sympathy - to be frequently dull and at worst, outright offensive.

If you're going to go out and do things you know damn well are wrong, then at least have the freaking decency not to try and rationalise it to everyone, including yourself about it.

Almost nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy in real life, no matter how horrible they are. They use justifications, such as "I did this because I had to", or "I'm doing this to people who deserve it", or "the end justifies the means". Therefore, well-written villains do that too. Characters who know they are evil and revel in it are extremely hard to write without turning into flat caricatures, and usually don't belong in more serious stories.


(This is also why I have absolutely zero tolerance for criminals.)

Not a good place to discuss this, but: this is not a good thing. Chances are, someone you know and respect did commit some minor crime in the past, or maybe does so even now. And some criminals really don't have any alternative and are forced into a life of crime.

[Finn Solomon]

Villainy, like fine dining, comes in many different flavours and it's nice to sample a wide range.

While I enjoy a good anti-villain from time to time (Dr Doom, Magneto and Serenity's Operative comes to mind), I'm of the opinion that making the villain too cool is not effective storytelling. There's a reason we should cheer for the hero besides his designated role as the hero, and if the villain is more likeable than him then something went wrong.

I haven't seen anyone mention a particular type of villainy I like reading about, namely the brutal, cruel and thuggish villain that Stephen King has mastered. It ties in to his theory that Evil, not Good, is Dumb. The worst Evil isn't done by sinister conspiracies and grand plans, they're more akin to a kid kicking over an anthill because he can. Even though he's written about Killer Alien Clowns and Killer Cars and Killer Possessed Alcoholic Dads, I feel his best villains are simply normal people who have decided that being a **** is easier than being nice to their fellow man.

For a good recent example, read 11/22/63. Lee Harvey Oswald (as portrayed in the story) is the complete epitome of a loser, plagued by his overbearing mother and unable to treat his wife and child with kindness. Yet this absolute worm somehow manages to kill the President for no other reason than because he could.

[Zevox]

Eh, it depends on the story. I can certainly enjoy one-dimensional villains that are just evil because, but it has to be in a story that's either playing it up for laughs, or is strictly a very traditional-style good vs evil fantasy narrative. And the latter has to be pretty well-done to not end up boring - Lord of the Rings or Dragon Quest 8, for example.

I do think that the more morally grey villains with more realistic motivations make for the best ones though, especially if they're well-written enough that you can actually sympathize with their viewpoint. Characters like Magneto when he's done right, for instance.

To use an example most suited for these boards, characters like Xykon can certainly be a lot of fun, but it's characters like Redcloak who are the most memorable and make for the best serious stories, in my opinion.

[The New Bruceski]

I can enjoy Bad Guys anywhere from "could easily be a hero of a different show but their goal conflicts with the protagonists" to "loves to kick puppies while chewing on kittens" as long as there's some logic to it. As soon as a villan's plan is shown to have a goal of destroying the planet/town/et cetera where they live I want the show to acknowledge the guy is suicidal. None of this "pulling the moon into the earth while on my moon base is a perfectly good way of destroying Captain Obvious, and afterward we shall dance a victory jig and have cake."

[Tengu_temp]

I should point out: there's nothing wrong with scenery-chewing, moustache-twirling villains who pick puppies and write their names on the Moon. Rightly written, they can be extremely entertaining. They just don't belong in serious stories.

[Forum Explorer]

My villains can be compleatly evil, killing for the sheer pleasure of it and seeking power for powers sake,

Or they can be warped in mind and body so that they think they are doing good when they are doing evil,

or they can be people who have simply have fallen to evil by taking more and more extreme measures

or they can be deluding themselves into thinking that they aren't evil because of some reason

or even they aren't really evil as much as opposed to the equally as bad establishment.


The one type of evil I reject is ineffectual evil. Like Team Rocket. There is no threat to them, and they'd seriously seem to be happier working in a restaurant somewhere.

[Kitten Champion]

Stevenson's Long John Silver, Doyle's Moriarty, Shakespeare's Edmund, Conrad's Kurtz, Milton's Lucifer; I like a villain with interesting motivations and some complexity. Taking evil too far flattens out a character as quickly as being the unassailable paragon of virtue does, but if it can be done despite that I'd still enjoy the character.

[McStabbington]

The amount of evil is entirely up for grabs. You can be a cosmic-scale threat, or you can just be the kind of guy who kicks a puppy when he won't get caught. And you can have varying levels of justification for that evil: you can fully acknowledge it, or you can rationalize it away, or you can have very, very good reasons for doing what you're doing.

What you cannot have, however, is no plan, and no reason for being evil other than just being evil. You have to have a motivation, even if that motivation is acting out of a certain kind of nature.

To me, I think one of the best villains I've ever seen is Little Bill Daggett from Unforgiven. If you haven't seen that movie, go out and watch it tonight, because it's one of the best meditations on the power of evil acts to linger and echo down through the rest of a person's life. But for those of you who have, you'll probably all remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRi_u4GbfIw) scene, where he talks about how difficult it is to do violence. I mean, not do something stupid and hurried that turns out to be violent, but really plan out a killing of another human being where you know they could be shooting back. Most people, when the reality of the fear and the blood hits a person, can't handle that. The ones who can, who actually enjoy it as Little Bill does? There's something wrong with them. It is at once impressive, and scary, and intimidating as heck. It shows what a formidable person he is, but also that something is very broken about him, even though he exercises that brokenness in the pursuit of the laudable goal of law and order.

[Dienekes]

Let me first say that my favorite villain character of all time is the Joker. You don't get much more blatantly and unrepentantly evil than that.

But it really depends on the a few things; the quality of writing/acting/directing for the character, the way it fits into the world around the character, and the audiences perception of what the character should be.

No matter how mundane your story is, pure evil can be present and can fit into it. Take the real world and look at some serial killers. They do the most psychotic and repulsive things imaginable and if they were presented that way in a crime drama it would fit.

And on the other side of things, in a light hearted story pure evil can exist as well with no motivation beyond hurting things. So long as it's not portrayed too realistically to not gel with the rest of the story.

That said I also really enjoy Javert from Les Mis, who is a man whose sincerest goal is to try to keep the law going and make sure that the chaos of The Reign of Terror does not happen again. He's a fantastic villain. This morally ambiguous character works just as well in some settings so long as he's portrayed to fit the story.

The militia in this show, could probably easily be portrayed as truly evil (I haven't seen the show). But what might get people is when they take actions that seem petty evil for no reason, because that doesn't gel with what the militia seems to be about. While in the same setting, a lone sociopath could probably pull that petty evil off without a seconds thought because it's just that ******** guy and we know how vicious those can be.

Again, so long as it's written well.

[DigoDragon]

I should point out: there's nothing wrong with scenery-chewing, moustache-twirling villains who pick puppies and write their names on the Moon. Rightly written, they can be extremely entertaining. They just don't belong in serious stories.

Perfect example in my mind-
Montalban in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan. He really hammed it up and it was a perfect performance. :smallbiggrin:

[Aotrs Commander]

Almost nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy in real life, no matter how horrible they are.

Not a good place to discuss this, but: this is not a good thing. Chances are, someone you know and respect did commit some minor crime in the past, or maybe does so even now. And some criminals really don't have any alternative and are forced into a life of crime.

Very briefly, I'll just respond to this (and I won't debate this at length and derail the thread, never fear, especially since there's nothing to be debated, since no amount of anything is going to change my mind.)

I'm one of the exceptions to your "almost" and I don't delude myself otherwise. (Which is why I have little tolerance for those that do, and probably why I'm in the minority on grey villains.) So I rather don't care whether it's good or not.

I have one cardinal rule: what one or more adult sentient/sapient creatures get up to on their own time is nobody's business but their own, provided they don't cause harm to any others. Break that, for whatever reason and I will have neither sympathy nor mercy.

Compound that with the fact that my family has suffered from criminal incidents twice in the last six months, I'm afraid that there is absolutely NO tolerance from me to be found, nor will there be.

[Theoboldi]

Very briefly, I'll just respond to this (and I won't debate this at length and derail the thread, never fear, especially since there's nothing to be debated, since no amount of anything is going to change my mind.)

I'm one of the exceptions to your "almost" and I don't delude myself otherwise. (Which is why I have little tolerance for those that do, and probably why I'm in the minority on grey villains.) So I rather don't care whether it's good or not.

I have one cardinal rule: what one or more adult sentient/sapient creatures get up to on their own time is nobody's business but their own, provided they don't cause harm to any others. Break that, for whatever reason and I will have neither sympathy nor mercy.

Compound that with the fact that my family has suffered from criminal incidents twice in the last six months, I'm afraid that there is absolutely NO tolerance from me to be found, nor will there be.

Say, Aotrs, one thing that I am curious about is your opinion on villians who acknowledge that they are evil, but consider their evils necessary for a greater good. Do you consider those the same as those who declare their evil actions as good?
I am mostly asking because I quite frankly don't understand your distinction between villians who admit that they're evil, and those who don't. To me, both of these archetypes are still making excuses for their actions, albeit in the former case these excuses are based on an amoral point of view. I just don't see how any one of these is supposed to be more tolerable than the other.


Anyway, on a personal basis, I enjoy every villian, so long as he fits into the complete narrative. Sometimes that is a mad card-carrying moustache twirler, sometimes it is the well-intentioned extremist. Sometimes I even like the completly oblivious evil, that has no idea that their actions are hurting other people. It all depends on how the villian is used, and I could not possibly rank one above the other.

[Legato Endless]

Say, Aotrs, one thing that I am curious about is your opinion on villians who acknowledge that they are evil, but consider their evils necessary for a greater good. Do you consider those the same as those who declare their evil actions as good?
I am mostly asking because I quite frankly don't understand your distinction between villians who admit that they're evil, and those who don't. To me, both of these archetypes are still making excuses for their actions, albeit in the former case these excuses are based on an amoral point of view. I just don't see how any one of these is supposed to be more tolerable than the other

The difference is a self identified Villain isn't trying to justify actions, he's merely explaining. Aotrs (from what I'm reading) doesn't appreciate the self serving narratives the Visionary or Criminal Villian uses to assuage their conscious. So they really aren't bad, they just did something that looks bad but wasn't because they had reasons They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Hypocrisy, basically.

[thubby]

the best realistic villains don't think they're evil, or they think they're committing necessary evil. their worldview is internally consistent and at some level plausible.

not to godwin the thread so early, but hitler thought he was doing right by the german people.

the operative from serenity is, if a bit ham fisted, in the same vein.

[Kato]

@Aorts & Co: While I myself think that's an interesting (though, likely fruitless) discussion even if this was the place for it I feel the mods would not like discussions on that basis to happen because they are fast to fll into real world politics...



Anyway, on-topic:
I have to agree with the majority... it depends a whole lot on the setting. If the medium isn't trying to be serious, I can take a cartoonish-mustache twirling villain. There are many occasions where it works and is fine.

But in "better" (i.e. more serious, "arts imitates life") works, I prefer villains who are not evil for the lulz. Yes, that even includes the Joker. Once in a while I'm willing to forgive for example a true psychopath who has no idea what is right or wrong but even then somehow justifying his need to cause pain just because often falls flat for me.

Most of the time, in works I really like, I prefer villains with a good motive, who work on "the end justifies the means", or who are just on the other side if a very gruesome conflict, or who work on an entirely different moral system. A really great show for me is one where either party could be the good one, and just because the focus might be on the protagonist doesn't mean he's more right in what s/he is doing. Though, those are rare to come by so I settle for "the villain got a point" shows.

[Dienekes]

I always find it interesting that people seem to think that it is somehow more realistic for villains to not acknowledge their evil.

People who completely and joyously admit they're evil exist in the real world, and a few of them have caused quite a bit of damage.

[Yora]

A good villain does evil things because not doing evil things would mean great obstacles or major inconveniences for their actual plans.

Villains who want to be Evil™ are just silly.

[MLai]

I second that I can enjoy any type of villain. If your villain is a plot vehicle rather than a character, I'm fine with him/her/it being a force of nature, example Sauron.

The caveat is, if your villain is supposed to be a character, then he has to be interesting in his own way. The reason many ppl find irredeemably evil characters as annoying or boring, isn't because it's intrinsically annoying/boring, but because many writers think that archetype is shorthand for being "Now I don't have to work at writing him." No, you do have to work at it still.

For example, take Star Wars prequels. Darth Sidious was at his best when he was the gentlemanly and beguiling senator. He rapidly lost my interest as soon as he became the cackling Evil Witch. Why such a sudden flip? Does being evil mean he had to lose all dignity? All intelligence? Become a giant slice of ham? I guess Lucas thought so.

[BWR]

If I had spent decades fooling everyone and finally brought my plan to ultimate power to fruition and unreservedly won, I would feel a strong urge to rub people's faces in it by laughing manioacally.

[masamune1]

Pain/Nagato from Naruto is a particularly vile example of the hypocrasy and a play for sympathy - we are apparently supposed to feel a bit sorry for him because he's been hard-done to (to the point of them actually having his puppy killed, as if his families' murder was not tragic enough), despite his plan being to repeatedly cause near-genocides forever.

That's pretty harsh. Its well established that horrible, traumatic childhoods are the rule in that verse, not the exception, and Nagato is just one of many victims. The point is that even though he is wrong- and he is established as being firmly wrong-, and even though his sad backstory is a bit melodramatic and not as bad as others (like Gaara or Sasuke) the world he lives in needs badly to change because war and violence are the norm.

And he isn't plotting "to repeatedly cause near-genocides forever". He plans to create a deadly weapon and then give it to every country, because he believes in Mutually Assured Destruction as a policy of peace. His world has seen three world wars in the past 70 years (which themselves followed two lengthy periods of violence and chaos) and a fourth, apocalyptic one breaks out after his death. While he does expect that the weapon / jutsu will be periodically used, its only because he thinks (and with good reason, given his experiences) that people- or at least nation-states- are naturally inclined to violence and will be killing each other whether he gives them it or not. Nagato thinks that his way will at least buy occasional periods of peace, rather than perpetual warfare, and the only objection raised is that he is wrong and the wars will just escalate and kill everyone.

In other words, its "near-genocides forever" vs "near-genocides forever, but with moments of respite in-between". And he has good reason to believe the former; his flaw was not seeing a third alternative (after seeking one, and it blowing up in his face). Plus, he was being manipulated (to some unknown extent) by another villain.

I don't see what makes him a "particularly vile example of hypocrisy and a play for sympathy". At the very least, there are far worse examples out there (many of whom are, unlike Nagato, suggested to be in the right, despite even worse justification and unlike Nagato, acts of sadism). And he is part of a long trend of Naruto villains who have sympathetic backstories. For all that, he is still treated as being in the wrong.


Almost nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guy in real life, no matter how horrible they are. They use justifications, such as "I did this because I had to", or "I'm doing this to people who deserve it", or "the end justifies the means". Therefore, well-written villains do that too. Characters who know they are evil and revel in it are extremely hard to write without turning into flat caricatures, and usually don't belong in more serious stories.

Hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. There are plenty of people out there who think themselves the bad guy. Some, to be sure, lament it, or simply accept it, without seeing it as something desirable, but many others gloat and brag about their evil-ness. And there are tonnes of examples of it throughout history, including recent history. And many who do not are every bit as vile, and sometimes even viler, than those who do. Many others don't see themselves as either bad or good, or think that such things either don't exist or don't matter. Again, history is littered with examples. Even those who do sometimes revel in and laugh at the horror of their victims or of bystanders.

[Theoboldi]

The difference is a self identified Villain isn't trying to justify actions, he's merely explaining. Aotrs (from what I'm reading) doesn't appreciate the self serving narratives the Visionary or Criminal Villian uses to assuage their conscious. So they really aren't bad, they just did something that looks bad but wasn't because they had reasons They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Hypocrisy, basically.

But that exactly is my problem. Villians who self-identify as evil are trying to justify themselves just as much, though they do it by way of rejecting the moral system. They do not see truly view their actions as evil, as otherwise they would be regretting them, but rather just completly reject the 'heroes' (for lack fo a better term) morality and substitute it with one where they are allowed to do whatever they want, thus still seeing their actions as justified. Perhaps it is not as hypocritical, but it still annoys me to no end when someone claims that these self-deceiving people are in any superior to those who want to justify themselves inside the more conventional moral system.

Because of this, I wanted to know his opinions on those who identify as evil, but consider their evil actions as needed, since that archetype seems to avoid the pitfalls of both others at least somewhat, in my opinion.

[masamune1]

They are not necessarily trying to justify themselves. Many are, but others really do simply love it and love viewing themselves as evil. Someone who self-identifies as Good and revels in doing good deeds isn't (usually) secretly evil, so why would the reverse be true?

Also, those who identify as evil but see their evil actions as needed don't necessarily have a problem with being evil. They might smugly think it proves they are better than the good guys (and some might think that while believing the good guys are also needed).

Basically, the whole thing is rather complex, though I think what complicates it is this idea that whether you think of yourself as good or evil has some special importance. Just because you think of yourself as good doesn't make you good, and just because you think of yourself as evil doesn't make you evil.

[Theoboldi]

Basically, the whole thing is rather complex, though I think what complicates it is this idea that whether you think of yourself as good or evil has some special importance. Just because you think of yourself as good doesn't make you good, and just because you think of yourself as evil doesn't make you evil.

Essentially, that alst thing is what I am arguing. Just because these people claim themselves to be evil, and revel in these (by our moral standards) evil acts, does not mean that they truly think of these acts as wrong, since that would require them to actually assign some sort of guilt to their actions.

Then again, my ideas of morality are very estranged, and are based on a very much individualistic view of it.

[Hopeless]

So how do you distinguish an anti-hero from an anti-villain?

Can you be a villain publically but still be heroic?

And vice versa?

The Boys for example where their version of the JL seems an ideal example of a hero team gone seriously wrong, the movie Red makes it look difficult to know whose on what side but I am assuming we're for the most part using literature, radio, film or tv for examples so what's your thoughts on this?

[masamune1]

Essentially, that alst thing is what I am arguing. Just because these people claim themselves to be evil, and revel in these (by our moral standards) evil acts, does not mean that they truly think of these acts as wrong, since that would require them to actually assign some sort of guilt to their actions.

Then again, my ideas of morality are very estranged, and are based on a very much individualistic view of it.

Not exactly. Its like pathological liars- in their own minds, they don't lie; they just don't think in terms of lies and truth. They are more like actors or salesmen- they will say whatever it is they think they need to achieve the desired affect; in short, endless manipulation.

People who claim themselves to be evil can be like that- they simply don't feel guilt at all, just like such liars have no regard for truth (they are often the same person), so they don't have to come up with a new, personal moral system to justify themselves. But they know other people think of their actions as evil and can enjoy that fact.

Others do indeed feel guilt- just enough to stop; they revel in their evil actions (and the evilness of it) and tell themselves they can make up for it / that it doesn't really matter / that they are damned anyway so they might as well enjoy it. And others alternate between loving the act at the time and feeling intense guilt afterwards. Probably others I'm missing out as well.


So how do you distinguish an anti-hero from an anti-villain?

Can you be a villain publically but still be heroic?

And vice versa?

The Boys for example where their version of the JL seems an ideal example of a hero team gone seriously wrong, the movie Red makes it look difficult to know whose on what side but I am assuming we're for the most part using literature, radio, film or tv for examples so what's your thoughts on this?

Of course you can.

Think of Spiderman and Lex Luthor. As far as the Daily Bugle is concerned, Spiderman is a menace even though we know he's a hero; and as far as Joe Public is concerned, Luthor is a benevolent businessman and philanthropist while we readers know he is a murderous egomaniac.

If you mean characters who pretend to be evil but are actually good, plenty of them also. Usually its those characters who are wrongly blamed for some misdeed and go along with it for whatever reason; there are also heroes who infiltrate evil groups as spies, and a bunch of other examples I'm too lazy to think of.

[Frozen_Feet]

So how do you distinguish an anti-hero from an anti-villain?

Can you be a villain publically but still be heroic?

And vice versa?

An anti-hero is a character who lacks virtues of heroism, but sill ends up doing heroic things. An example would be Belkar Bitterleaf. He's a bloodthirsting sadist, but due to happenstance he is working towards a laudable goal - saving the world from evil.

An anti-villain is a character who does have virtues of heroism, but still ends up doing villainous things. An example would be Miko Miyazaki. She does show any of the ideals a paladin is supposed to follow - but because she follows the letter, and not spirit, of her virtues, she instead ends up causing harm.

And, as you should notice from how the two are contrasted in the story, the dividing line is razor thin.

The Greeks put it thusly: "is it better to be a good man, or appear to be good?"

[Thrawn183]

I run D&D villains as about as vile as you can get. You're talking about a world where there are (verifiably) evil gods that will grant you power for being evil, and you even get rewarded in the afterlife for your actions.

That's a much different scenario than anything we've ever seen IRL.

[Ravian]

I like most kinds of villains, what I despise though is pettiness. If there's some drive or directive at least implied I'm fine, but if we go into the territory of "4 teh evolz" (excepting Insanity) then I lose interest.

Wants money and/or power, that's great.

Revenge, even disproportionate amounts to the supposed offense, that's still good.

Devotion to a cause that demands evil, you can't tell me the Nazis weren't realistic villains.

But when we get to evil overlords that want to destroy the world for seemingly no other reason than because they can. (No insanity implied, no Nihilist Philosophy, no Elder Evil demanding it, just that) then it loses credibility.

It's something I noticed as a kid watching cartoons. Destroying the world was what giant monsters did. Villains want to take over the world.

[Forum Explorer]

I like most kinds of villains, what I despise though is pettiness. If there's some drive or directive at least implied I'm fine, but if we go into the territory of "4 teh evolz" (excepting Insanity) then I lose interest.

Wants money and/or power, that's great.

Revenge, even disproportionate amounts to the supposed offense, that's still good.

Devotion to a cause that demands evil, you can't tell me the Nazis weren't realistic villains.

But when we get to evil overlords that want to destroy the world for seemingly no other reason than because they can. (No insanity implied, no Nihilist Philosophy, no Elder Evil demanding it, just that) then it loses credibility.

It's something I noticed as a kid watching cartoons. Destroying the world was what giant monsters did. Villains want to take over the world.

Thing is, I can't think of a lot of villains that actually have destroy the world as their goal with no other reason then because they can. The few I can think of do have a reason (such as nihilism), or because they have a plan to do something afterwards.

[Ravian]

Thing is, I can't think of a lot of villains that actually have destroy the world as their goal with no other reason then because they can. The few I can think of do have a reason (such as nihilism), or because they have a plan to do something afterwards.

It wasn't very common, but when it happened, it stuck out like a sore thumb for me.

But yeah, it's all about motivation. If there's something there, then I'm usually willing to give it a chance. If your villain is cruel, spiteful and malicious, just give me a why, and at the very least you have my acceptance, once you start building freeze rays to start an ice age without any particular motivation though, I'm out.

[Hopeless]

Can help feeling that the way superheroes were written in such comics as the Authority and Boys left me thinking todays superheroes would be publicity obsessed instead of selfless heroes sort of a before and after when dealing with Spiderman for example.

On the villain side I'm left wondering if people would cheer for say malcolm Merlyn if the reason he was the Dark Archer on Arrow was because if he hadn't taken that role someone else would have and he wouldn't have been in a position to limit who died when the Undertaking came about.

Instead as from the latest episodes it appears he was just a sociopath who sought to wipe out the area that forced him to realise how bitter and twisted he actually is all because he put his work ahead of his family ignoring the phone calls from his dying wife only to learn of her death from the policeman who came round to tell him the bad news.

When I watched that clip where he admits finally listening to the recordings of his late wife begging him for help all his eventual quest to find his way back was to wipe out the area where his wife died rather than actually do something to show his wife's memory meant anything to him.

Sorry but given this is a villain thread this example to me is a good way to explain someone who has seriously lost it and somehow continues living with noone the wiser that he's an actual monster.

[MLai]

Why not just take inspiration from IRL villains, i.e. gang members, modern pirates, professional criminals, mafia, etc?

People do not need warped morality to be evil. They can do things that they can acknowledge to be evil; they just need reasons or emotions which override any sense of 1st-world nation morality. Such as anger at the world, or grew up in a hostile environment, or the mafia's sense of tribalism that is more important than what morality of the bigger society-at-large says, or plain simple brain compartmentalism. Etc.

[Tengu_temp]

Hate to break it to you, but you are wrong. There are plenty of people out there who think themselves the bad guy. Some, to be sure, lament it, or simply accept it, without seeing it as something desirable, but many others gloat and brag about their evil-ness. And there are tonnes of examples of it throughout history, including recent history. And many who do not are every bit as vile, and sometimes even viler, than those who do. Many others don't see themselves as either bad or good, or think that such things either don't exist or don't matter. Again, history is littered with examples. Even those who do sometimes revel in and laugh at the horror of their victims or of bystanders.

Nope. The people you describe are a minority - usually sociopaths. The majority of evil-doers think that what they're doing is justified, or make excuses for their behaviour to themselves. "I'm evil, and I consciously choose to do evil even though I have alternatives" is simply not how humans tend to think. I guarantee to you that for every real life villain in history, recent or old, who considered himself evil, there were at least 10 who considered their actions completely justified. Even horrible monsters who commit genocide tend to think that they're doing the right thing, by cleansing the world of undesirables.

[Frozen_Feet]

Actually, while antisocial inviduals can and do admit what they're doing is wrong and still do it, it is one of the traits of that symptom for them to pin the blame on someone else and rationalize their faults.

If anything, they're exactly the sort to try and justify their actions.

Meanwhile the people who don't try to rationalize away their faults and admit they are "bad", "wrong" or whatever have greater tendency to be repentant, depressive etc. and usually are threat only to themselves.

Though there are outliers. There are cases where someone has f.ex. killed someone for vengeance, then willingly surrendered to cops and confessed to every little thing. These people obviously know they were in the wrong, but for some reason saw it as necessary to do. These people don't tend to be common criminals, though, or what we commonly think of as "villains". If anything, they tend to be lauded as heroes.

---


Pain/Nagato from Naruto is a particularly vile example of the hypocrasy and a play for sympathy - we are apparently supposed to feel a bit sorry for him because he's been hard-done to (to the point of them actually having his puppy killed, as if his families' murder was not tragic enough), despite his plan being to repeatedly cause near-genocides forever.

I disagree. Oh sure, there's tragedy to Pain's story, but that's besides the point. The point is that everyone in that series has tragedy. The play isn't for sympathy - it is for logic.

And Pain's plan is perfectly logical. We know it, because it worked in our world. Pain's attempt to stop the endless warring through Bijuu-induced MAD doctrine is one of the few realistic villains goals in that series, or in Shonen in general. Nagato wasn't a hypocrite. His view was perfectly consistent with his experience and the nature of the Shinobi world at large.

[masamune1]

^ "It worked in our world" is a bit of a simplification. There were a number of pragmatic reasons the Cold War never turned hot- and a handful of times war nearly broke out anyway.


Nope. The people you describe are a minority - usually sociopaths. The majority of evil-doers think that what they're doing is justified, or make excuses for their behaviour to themselves. "I'm evil, and I consciously choose to do evil even though I have alternatives" is simply not how humans tend to think. I guarantee to you that for every real life villain in history, recent or old, who considered himself evil, there were at least 10 who considered their actions completely justified. Even horrible monsters who commit genocide tend to think that they're doing the right thing, by cleansing the world of undesirables.

People who commit atrocities and think its fully justified because the victims have it coming...those are usually sociopaths. Sociopaths aren't defined as people who go around thinking "I am evil"; and people who go around thinking they are evil aren't automatically sociopaths. Most sociopaths think they are justified.

As someone who has studied several real-life villains, recent and old, I can guarantee you that its not that simple. Many think they are both, and the reasons for committing genocide are not straightforward (the Holocaust, for instance, was caused by cold hard economics as much as racism, and the initiative was often taken on the ground by racists, psychopaths and sadists who just couldn't be bothered keeping Jewish prisoners alive).

Sociopaths make up about 4-5% of the global population, so they are a pretty significant minority. Most aren't killers or even particularly violent people. They are usually the everyday lazy, amoral ******* who cheats on their spouses, leeches off their friends and lies to get a job. They are more likely to commit benefit fraud or be small-time crooks than decapitate people for sick thrills. "Sociopath" just means someone who grew up to be a particularly arrogant or selfish person.

[Kitten Champion]

I think were misusing sociopath here, a little bit.

Much of what we describe as ethics comes from one's culture, a 14th century peasant crowd cheering at the foot if a pyre burning the local vagrants under the hilarious misunderstanding that they are in fact witches, are not all sociopaths. Atrocities are far too common and widespread to be put at the foot of a personality disorder, it's entirely probable that the torturer, the suicide bomber, the guy wielding the machete as they slice up families or bringing the whip down on the field slaves -- are too committed to society and its values, to the point that they don't think about whether they're doing could be wrong. The school shooter, the serial killer, the closet cannibal necrophiliac rapist, these are extraordinarily rare events.

[masamune1]

I think were misusing sociopath here, a little bit.

Much of what we describe as ethics comes from one's culture, a 14th century peasant crowd cheering at the foot if a pyre burning the local vagrants under the hilarious misunderstanding that they are in fact witches, are not all sociopaths. Atrocities are far too common and widespread to be put at the foot of a personality disorder, it's entirely probable that the torturer, the suicide bomber, the guy wielding the machete as they slice up families or bringing the whip down on the field slaves -- are too committed to society and its values, to the point that they don't think about whether they're doing could be wrong. The school shooter, the serial killer, the closet cannibal necrophiliac rapist, these are extraordinarily rare events.

That's not really how it works. Anti-Social Personality Disorder is a pattern of behaviour and personality- where it comes from has little to do with whether or not you have it. Coming from a certain time or culture isn't a complete non-factor, but the differences in psychology won't be that big. Its really to do with things like lack of empathy and remorse and general selfishness.

I think you are treating all of these groups are far too homogenous. The latter are not all sociopaths, and the former are not always not-sociopaths.
There are numerous different kinds of suicide bombers, numerous different kinds of serial killers, etc. And most sociopaths aren't any or either.

Sociopathy has nothing to do with whether or not you are committed to the values of a society, and nor do personality disorders in general. Sociopathy is officially just another word for Anti-Social Personality Disorder and that's a pretty broad term that covers almost any serious criminal. But the word Sociopath is about developing psychopathic traits because of your upbringing (as opposed to the psychopath, who would be born psychopathic).

The term sociopath isn't simply a synonym for serial killers or spree shooters or whatever, and the psychology of such people is not as far from ordinary violent psychos or professional bullies or terrorists (like 19th century slave drivers) as most people think. To be a serial killer, for instance, you just have to murder 3 people with a gap in between. That's pretty much it. So lots of people qualify as serial killers. Sociopath isn't some kind of special term reserved only for the most bizarre or abnormal kinds of evil.

Its more correct to speak of degrees of sociopathy, and different sorts of sociopath. The cannibal necrophiliac and the spree shooter are two completely different sorts of people, and either or neither might be sociopaths.

[Tengu_temp]

I never said that most real life villains are sociopaths. I said that most people who actually could see themselves as bad guys would be sociopaths, because the side effect of empathy that most people possess is that we try to justify our actions to ourselves when we do somethig wrong. And human power of self-delusion is really strong.

Also, I thought sociopathy means you are incapable of empathy, and has no direct connection to psychopathy or violent or criminal behaviour.

[masamune1]

I never said that most real life villains are sociopaths. I said that most people who actually could see themselves as bad guys would be sociopaths, because the side effect of empathy that most people possess is that we try to justify our actions to ourselves when we do somethig wrong. And human power of self-delusion is really strong.

Also, I thought sociopathy means you are incapable of empathy, and has no direct connection to psychopathy or violent or criminal behaviour.

Most real life villains are sociopaths, or at least display sociopathic traits. And whether or not you see yourself as the bad guy has nothing to do with it. Many sociopaths do, many other sociopaths don't; many non-sociopaths do as well (out of guilt, for instance).

A psychopath is somebody incapable of empathy or remorse; a sociopath is a psychopath or someone with psychopathic traits who owes that to their upbringing (ie. social factors) like an abusive childhood, or an overly indulgent one. Both are officially considered obsolete terms for Anti-Social Personality Disorder, but unofficially many psychologists consider them related but separate terms.

The key traits of sociopathy and psychopathy are lack of empathy and lack of remorse, but that has nothing to do with self-delusion. That sort of thing is more about narcissism- and sociopaths and psychopaths are almost always narcissists. Empathy and shame can play a part, but the utter lack of it is not uncommon in this sort of justifying stuff (in fact it easily leads to it- you just stop feeling empathy for your victims). Rather, it stems from incredulity that anyone would dare think that this awesome person has done something wrong. Or fear at getting caught. Or an honest belief that they had it coming stemming from egotistical prejudices, or because the victims were clearly, clearly, stupid, worthless or weak.

[Kitten Champion]

That's not really how it works. Anti-Social Personality Disorder is a pattern of behaviour and personality- where it comes from has little to do with whether or not you have it. Coming from a certain time or culture isn't a complete non-factor, but the differences in psychology won't be that big. Its really to do with things like lack of empathy and remorse and general selfishness.

I think you are treating all of these groups are far too homogenous. The latter are not all sociopaths, and the former are not always not-sociopaths.
There are numerous different kinds of suicide bombers, numerous different kinds of serial killers, etc. And most sociopaths aren't any or either.

People with anti-social or sociopathic tendencies are fundamentally very rare from a population standpoint, manifestations of violent and barbaric cultural norms are prolific throughout history.

Considering that the vast majority of suicide bombings occurred in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sri Lanka it's safe to say there's a cultural component corresponding to this particularly tactic. It's not so up-in-the-air. Sure, there could be sociopathic suicide bomber, although that's inherently against the characteristics of the sociopath's personality -- but the psychological core of the action is rooted in social integration not selfishness.


Sociopathy has nothing to do with whether or not you are committed to the values of a society, and nor do personality disorders in general. Sociopathy is officially just another word for Anti-Social Personality Disorder and that's a pretty broad term that covers almost any serious criminal. But the word Sociopath is about developing psychopathic traits because of your upbringing (as opposed to the psychopath, who would be born psychopathic).

I disagree, personality disorders are always reflected against the supposed normal mindset.

To quote:

An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior the deviates
markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This
pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:
1. Cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self,
other people and events)
2. Affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, liability, and
appropriateness of emotional response)
3. Interpersonal functioning
4. Impulse control

Anti-Social Personality Disorder is defined thus:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the
rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three
(or more) of the following: having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from
another.
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that
are grounds for arrest.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated
physical fights or assaults.

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure
to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial
obligations.

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing.

You could have an anti-social personality disorder and exists in a society which no way reflects contemporary morality -- sure. However, if hundreds of thousands of people would do the same puppy-kicking craziness put in the same situation does it really matter?




The term sociopath isn't simply a synonym for serial killers or spree shooters or whatever, and the psychology of such people is not as far from ordinary violent psychos or professional bullies or terrorists (like 19th century slave drivers) as most people think. To be a serial killer, for instance, you just have to murder 3 people with a gap in between. That's pretty much it. So lots of people qualify as serial killers. Sociopath isn't some kind of special term reserved only for the most bizarre or abnormal kinds of evil.

No, of course not, but we don't have psychological diagnoses for everyone ever. It's far, far easier to infer someone has a disorder or some kind of neurological dysfunction when they violate standards of their own societies' morality so severely. That or act in such a way that can't be confused with rational.



Its more correct to speak of degrees of sociopathy, and different sorts of sociopath. The cannibal necrophiliac and the spree shooter are two completely different sorts of people, and either or neither might be sociopaths.

No, but neither are rational acts perpetrated by logical persons. Whatever you wish to call the abnormality which motivated them to act is irrelevant outside of medical treatment. The fact remains that these are the outliers. Most ignominious acts were or are being perpetrated by people with understandable motivations and those participating in it may have even been directly rewarded by their own society for doing so.

[masamune1]

People with anti-social or sociopathic tendencies are fundamentally very rare from a population standpoint, manifestations of violent and barbaric cultural norms are prolific throughout history.

Considering that the vast majority of suicide bombings occurred in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Sri Lanka it's safe to say there's a cultural component corresponding to this particularly tactic. It's not so up-in-the-air. Sure, there could be sociopathic suicide bomber, although that's inherently against the characteristics of the sociopath's personality -- but the psychological core of the action is rooted in social integration not selfishness.

The psychological core of the bomber varies from individual to individual. Yes, there is a cultural component going on, but that doesn't mean that all or most suicide bombers have a near-identical mentality going on. There are a lot of sub-types.

Most sociopaths and psychopaths do not commit acts of violence. Many do not even commit acts of criminality, or only commit small petty ones. You can be a psychopath without ever once breaking the law. They are not that rare- about 4-5% of the global population are sociopathic, and that is in a time of relative freedom and peace. Sociopaths, by definition, are bred by social factors, so if those factors change that % might easily either fall or rise.


I disagree, personality disorders are always reflected against the supposed normal mindset.

To quote:

An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior the deviates
markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This
pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas:
1. Cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self,
other people and events)
2. Affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, liability, and
appropriateness of emotional response)
3. Interpersonal functioning
4. Impulse control

Anti-Social Personality Disorder is defined thus:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the
rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three
(or more) of the following: having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from
another.
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that
are grounds for arrest.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated
physical fights or assaults.

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure
to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial
obligations.

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing.

You could have an anti-social personality disorder and exists in a society which no way reflects contemporary morality -- sure. However, if hundreds of thousands of people would do the same puppy-kicking craziness put in the same situation does it really matter?

Well that's the thing. They have tested the criteria and found that around 90% of the prison population qualifies for the diagnosis- To put it another way, the rate of anti-social personalities skyrockets in a culture of violence. So you'd expect to find more anti-social personalities in Nazi Germany than in an advanced liberal democracy, because that culture was designed to breed certain anti-social traits.

I'd add that the above criteria is not really considered all that good; beyond the above, its the personality disorder most interested in external behaviour than internal mindest. So its less about how you think than what you do. And how a sociopath behaves in a given society can be at least partially determined by how sociopathic behaviour is treated by said-society.

Its a question of semantics. Anti-Social personalities aren't defined by a hostility to society or a desire to break the rules (or not just that, at least); ie. the term "anti-social" is misleading. The core of a sociopathic personality is remorselessness and lack of empathy.

Personality disorders are not "meant" to be compared to the supposed normal mindset; that's only part of it, to understand the fundamental psychology behind it. Rather, its about noticing that some people have recurring personality traits. This leads to questions like what a "normal" mindset is supposed to be.



No, of course not, but we don't have psychological diagnoses for everyone ever. It's far, far easier to infer someone has a disorder or some kind of neurological dysfunction when they violate standards of their own societies' morality so severely. That or act in such a way that can't be confused with rational.



No, but neither are rational acts perpetrated by logical persons. Whatever you wish to call the abnormality which motivated them to act is irrelevant outside of medical treatment. The fact remains that these are the outliers. Most ignominious acts were or are being perpetrated by people with understandable motivations and those participating in it may have even been directly rewarded by their own society for doing so.

Rationality is relative. There is nothing inherently irrational about any sort of behaviour, no matter how bizarre or self-destructive horrid. Its logical and rational to the mindset of the person and usually the base motive is entirely understandable- to enjoy themselves, to relieve stress or boredom, to achieve security etc. Fundamentally there is no difference between finding joy in surfing or finding joy in killing a man; except that one requires a lack or suppression of compassion, empathy or guilt. Its the lack of these things that makes somebody sociopathic. A full-blown sociopath or psychopath is simply somebody who has had this lack since childhood; for one reason or another, this has been stunted.

Whether a motivation is understandable or not is not some concrete rock-solid matter; it is entirely up to you, the individual, to understand it. Or not. Whether behaviour is rational simply depends on whether it is the process of rational thinking, which is a subjective process. And rationality is not a priori and it is always, always influenced by irrational factors like instinct and emotion, as well as arational factors like time and culture and place. You are not more rational than somebody just because their behaviour strikes you as crazy- after all, crazy people often think everyone else is mad. Sociopaths are often entirely rational- want, take, have. That may be short-sighted, but its not irrational, especially since high-functioning sociopaths can think longer-term than that. So its more a question of intelligence.

What they are lacking is not the capacity for reason, but the capacity for certain emotions, emotional responses, and emotional depth. All normal, all by definition irrational. Without irrational impulses we would likely just stand still, whither and die.

[masamune1]

And I get the feeling we are going rather off topic here.

[Bhu]

So I recently started catching up with the Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_%28TV_series%29) tv series, watched the first few episodes and I am starting to feel annoyed by how incredibly over-the-top stereotypically evil the Militia is.


I'd like to read your opinion on the matter.

Ambiguity doesn't necessarily mean less cliche or better writing. Plus from a writing standpoint, you need the villain to be disliked. If he isn't disliked or people identify with him, it's hard to see past the 'heroes' of the story beating/torturing/killing him. The modern hero/antihero tends to use methods that in the past would've been restricted to villainy. You need to make the bad guy clear cut in such circumstances to justify the actions the 'good' guy takes. He needs to be dehumanized, or the the actions of the stories protagonist will make viewers uncomfortable.

That being said, needing to establish a clear villain is no excuse for piss poor writing, which is rife in both television and film. I could rant about that for days...