Good one dimensional characters?

[Talakeal]

During the recent twitter kerfuffle about orcs*, one comment which I kept seeing over and over again was that one-dimensional villains and monolithic cultures are actually better for the narrative as they are less realistic and therefore more fantastic, but I am trying to wrack my brains trying to think of an example where this actually holds true.

Even mindless stuff like zombies, Terminators, or the Borg have some really good explorations of their humanity and individuality in the sequels.

People also claim that is makes characters look less heroic if they are conflicted about why they are fighting, but I actually don't think that is true; for me seeing Faramir ponder on whether his foes are really evil makes him look noble, while, say, Wikus in District Nine laughing about burning Prawn children because he doesn't consider them people just looks like a monster.


So, can anyone give me some examples of narratives which are (or would have been) improved by one dimensional villains?



*Which this thread is not about as it would almost certainly stray into territory which is against the forum rules.

[Rakaydos]

During the recent twitter kerfuffle about orcs*, one comment which I kept seeing over and over again was that one-dimensional villains and monolithic cultures are actually better for the narrative as they are less realistic and therefore more fantastic, but I am trying to wrack my brains trying to think of an example where this actually holds true.

Even mindless stuff like zombies, Terminators, or the Borg have some really good explorations of their humanity and individuality in the sequels.

People also claim that is makes characters look less heroic if they are conflicted about why they are fighting, but I actually don't think that is true; for me seeing Faramir ponder on whether his foes are really evil makes him look noble, while, say, Wikus in District Nine laughing about burning Prawn children because he doesn't consider them people just looks like a monster.


So, can anyone give me some examples of narratives which are (or would have been) improved by one dimensional villains?



*Which this thread is not about as it would almost certainly stray into territory which is against the forum rules.

Goku is a good one dimentional character, because his one dimention is chosen so that other characters react and grow in his presence, even if he does not.

[Lethologica]

Palpatine is always Palpatine, and it is excellent. (Note: haven't watched TROS and don't intend to.)

[Fyraltari]

A one-dimensional villain needs one thing: charisma, boat-loads of it.

If a villain is simple they must be menacing, they don’t challenge the hero’s morality so they must challenge the hero’s ability they must be able to convince the audience that they are a threat.

There are two ways to do this: the first is to keep the bad guy away from the screen, if the public never sees him, they can’t relate and he can’t fail to meet the public’s expectations. Sauron from the The Lord of the Rings (but not the Silmarillion) and XANA from Code Lyoko are good examples of this. They are less characters than concepts, the unseen leader of the forces of evil, the relentless, unforgiving machine of destruction who drives the plot and sends his agents everywhere.

The other kind is over-the-top in his villainy. He knows exactly what he wants and who he is and he never doubts. His every actions are to fulfill his desires but he is extremely competent. This is tougher because the actor/writing has to live up to his reputation in front of the audience. Darth Sidious from Star Wars, Gul’dan from Warcraft, Euron Greyjoy from A song of ice and fire are good examples and the Joker from The Dark Knight. That kind of villain is fun to see win (because they are so shameless in their atrocity it’s cathartic) and fun to see loss (because we hate their guts). But if you don’t go far enough (or go too far) they will feel cheap. The key here is that their ego must be matched by their ability, blowhards make very poor simple villains.


As for your actual question, it’s hard to think of stories who would benefit from a simple vilain as that often can clash with the themes of the story and is hard to pull off. The best I can think is stories that try to have their cake and eat it, when they try to both play then villain as this huge end-of-the-world threat and add a dumb excuse-backstory that barely features into the plot to pretend to be deeper than they are.

[Rodin]

A one-dimensional villain needs one thing: charisma, boat-loads of it.

Or as Xykon puts it: Style. Xykon is a great example of how to use a one-dimensional villain. He wants power for power's sake. He's evil because he enjoys being evil. There's not much more to his motivation or character than that. This allow the much more complex Redcloak to take a back seat and slowly develop his character and plotting while Xykon drives the plot. They enhance each other above what either could be solo.

One big mistake with one-dimensional villains is trying to make them NOT be one-dimensional. Let's take DBZ vs. Bleach.

Both Freeza and Cell are one dimensional. Freeza is an evil overlord who wants immortality. Nothing more, nothing less. Cell is driven to be the most powerful and wished to prove it. Again, it's hard to spin out his motivations any further. It works for the show that they're in. They're evil, they're powerful, our heroes need to stop them. The end.

Aizen attempts to have more dimenions and fails miserably. His motivation is that he was so strong he got lonely? Or was it that he wanted to defeat the Soul King for some undefinable reason? His characterization is all over the place and it winds up detracting from the character. If Aizen were simply a lunatic who wanted to rule the universe that would have been perfectly fine. Instead the story tries to make him a conflicted character, and it just doesn't work. Especially since this conflict comes years after his introduction.

[Saph]

So, can anyone give me some examples of narratives which are (or would have been) improved by one dimensional villains?

The Xenomorphs from Alien. The T-1000 from Terminator 2 and the T-800 from Terminator 1. Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. Joker from Batman. Reavers from Firefly. The Borg from Star Trek. Various villains from Princess Bride. Zombies from every zombie movie ever. The Predator from Predator. Most good Disney villains (Maleficient, Ursula, Jafar, Scar). Jabba the Hutt. Most serial killers from slasher movies. And so on.

Yeah, a lot of these end up being 'developed' or 'explored' in expanded material, but most of the time, those developments don't add anything to the villains, and often they actively diminish them. With all the villains I've just listed development isn't necessary - they're perfectly functional on their own. Would Alien be a better movie if we had 2-4 hours of backstory explaining that the Xenomorphs were some combination of biological weapon and accident, and showing exactly where they came from and how they were created and how they evolved into the iconic Xenomorph? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they made a movie called Prometheus doing exactly that, and it sucked.

One-dimensional villains can work fine. Complex multi-dimensional villains can work fine. You don't have to choose between the two.

[Vinyadan]

What does "one-dimensional" mean, though?

Take the Predator, he is a treacherous ambusher who will nonetheless abstain from shooting someone unarmed.

Sauron the Great can be scared and confused. Aragorn does that on purpose. And Gandalf observes that even he wasn't always evil.

And possibly one-dimensional villains are rarely alone. The Alien has the Corporation and the Synth. Sauron has Saruman.

I see Palpatine described as a good character, but I thought that he was the only positively badly written character in the OT, and borderline incomprehensible/self-defeating in the PT. Maybe he's better in the books?

[Seppl]

Take the Predator, he is a treacherous ambusher who will nonetheless abstain from shooting someone unarmed.

Sauron the Great can be scared and confused. Aragorn does that on purpose. And Gandalf observes that even he wasn't always evil.

But that's at most 1.1-dimensional, isn't it?
The Predator's motivation can be described with two words: Honorable hunter.
Sauron (without consulting the Silmarillion) is still an evil overlord, out to conquer the world. When he thinks Aragorn might oppose him, his immediate reaction is to attack because he knows no other recourse. A fact that Aragorn actually counted on when he revealed himself.

Contrast to Sauron in the Silmarillion, where he gets a lot more character: A motivation to bring technological progress to the world. A motivation to appease his master Morgoth. A motivation to just destroy for destruction's sake because that is what Morgoth wanted. Bringing more destruction and corruption because it would annoy the Valar who have humiliated him. Personal grudges against certain groups of Elves and Humans.
While those are already going on in the background of TLotR, most people would not really pick up on those because Sauron can still be adequately described as "evil overlord".

[Kitten Champion]

One-dimensional characters can work when you've got a specific trait or characteristic that you're keen on exploring, but... at the same time it is something which can only get you so far --

The Terminator was a great villain, and its emotionless relentless pursuit of the main characters really works. Terminator 2 brought the Terminator back but with a multifaceted character and as a hero... and then they had nowhere to go because repeating the same conflict over and over again with marginally different iterations of these same characters is actually quite irksome.

The Predator. Excellent action movie, took a Contra-esque shoot'em'up with Arnie and dipped it in Sci-Fi fun with the sudden addition of a fairly creative alien hunter adversary. Since then? Well, Predators was okay, I guess. Still, the Predators are one-note and they - the various writers who've been paid to try - have not much to go on really, as all they have is "they like hunting, and have some kind of honour code" to do anything with.

Zombies aren't characters. They are a natural disaster. The same can be said for the Xenomorph, with the Xenomorph being an antagonistic force. It is space Jaws. The main villain of Alien are the amoral capitalists and their loyal minions that don't care if you're killed horribly if it increases their bottom line, the Xenomorph is merely the embodiment of that horrific callousness. This goes for Resident Evil as well, with Umbrella Corp shenanigans.

I think the Borg are possibly the single greatest example of why a one-dimensional villain is problematic in the long-term. After Best of Both World's they clearly had no idea what they could do with them, so we get a story about rogue drones for TNG. Then in First Contact they immediately bring in The Queen to give the Borg more of an ego and sense of humanity. Then we go to Voyager where much of the Borg-related content was about Seven of Nine's quest to regain her humanity The Borg story either becomes The Best of Both Worlds again and again but less interesting because there's nothing else to the Borg except to be aggressive colonizers, or you change the Borg to give them something to hang your narrative on -- like Jeri Ryan.

I would say my overall point is individual one-dimensional characters can work if you construct the narrative around the idea they embody and know what you're doing, but they often don't have long-term versatility especially in the hands of other writers. They are - most often - just cheap inserts to getting the narrative where you want it to go, if we're being realistic.

I would also say it's a weak idea when applied to a civilization and the whole planet/race of hats concept, at least the vast majority of the time. If you're doing a quick-and-dirty television script for Star Trek then it's understandable, but still not laudable in any way. It's particularly bad when you actually intend them to be a reoccurring presence -- see Ferengi in early TNG. There's no room to give them depth or do a story which isn't - in this case - "Capitalism = bad" or something similar.

Edit: Where that does work is Menippean satire, where the point is to exaggerate some aspect of the human experience and examine it's potential folly in hyperbolic terms rather than present a realistic and coherent world.

[trtl]

Spoiler: Major Spoilers for Avatar the Last Airbender

Show

Just my two cents: Fire Lord Ozai (Avatar, the Last airbender) is fairly one dimensional. He works, however, because he serves as a foil for Zucko, Azula, and Aang. While he is a simple character, the role he plays in shaping these three, much more complex characters, makes him feel a little less cliche. What's more, the show only has so much time, making Ozai a more interesting character might have been cool, but not at the expense of the beloved characters that he allows to take center stage. A story isn't a history lesson, some characters have to take the back burner, I'd take a fascinating hero and a bland villain over a mediocre hero and a mediocre villain any day.

Of course, if you do decide to relegate a character to little more than a foil, then you need to work with that. Look at every scene with Ozai and you'll realize he is only present for the major landmarks in the character's journey (eg. Zuko's exile, redemption, and decision to join the avatar, Azula's ascension to Fire Lord and accompanying insanity, and Aang's decision to spare his life) and the major plot points (decision to use Sozin's comet to raze the earth nation). In other words, one dimensional characters get old fast, so you can't let them overstay their welcome.

[Saph]

I would say my overall point is individual one-dimensional characters can work if you construct the narrative around the idea they embody and know what you're doing, but they often don't have long-term versatility especially in the hands of other writers.

While this is absolutely true, I think it's fair to point out that it's also true of most other villains as well. Most complex, multidimensional villains also end up not having much long-term versatility, because keeping a villain interesting and threatening for an extended multi-arc story is really quite hard, especially when you have other writers taking over.

Usually what tends to happen to 'complex' villains that the writers like and want to keep around is that they join up or ally with the protagonists one way or another, or at least become neutral. At which point they just have to make up a new villain to oppose instead.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

During the recent twitter kerfuffle about orcs*, one comment which I kept seeing over and over again was that one-dimensional villains and monolithic cultures are actually better for the narrative as they are less realistic and therefore more fantastic, but I am trying to wrack my brains trying to think of an example where this actually holds true.

My first issue with this is that that argument is clearly nonsense. "Less realistic therefore more fantastic" is ridiculous in the face of it. But don't take my word for it, listen to a great writer instead:

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.

Or its more modern variant (mostly attributed to Clancy, of all people, if a quick google check is to be believed)

The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense.

But leaving aside for a moment the idea that fantasy is "made better" by monolithic culture, I agree with everyone else that has posted great one-dimensional evil characters, and the reasons why they work, but I want to highlight the commonality to all of them: it works only for individuals, and usually individuals ruling over a set of other, more complex, characters. Voldemort, Lord Ozai, Jafar, etc all are megalomaniacs with interesting subordinates that make up for their lack of dimensionality. It doesn't work for entire cultures, because entire cultures cannot work with a single focus, unless that focus is at the very base of the pyramid of needs. If the group is not in a desperate fight for survival where all they care about is their next meal, then they cannot just be operating as a one-dimensional unit.

Orcs can't just be killing machines, because a culture that has huts and weaponsmiths cannot just be killing machines - someone has to organize things. Someone has to make weapons and huts. Someone has to do this and that. Intelligence, in short, requires something other than single-focus one dimensionality. Zombies, zergs, borgs, etc. are all one and the same: unbridled hunger, and it works as a force of nature, but if you want them to be anything else, they require more than the one devouring hunger dimension, or they fail to be in any way plausible. And, to go back to the quotes above, plausibility in fantasy is required to make sense.

(Sorry if this is a bit of all-over-the-place, it was written as a stream of consciousness post)

Grey Wolf

[Dienekes]

I kinda think we need to define terms here a little bit.

As far as I understand it, one dimensional characters are basically just stand in models in roughly the shape of a character.

Two dimensional characters are fleshed out a little bit, given goals and personality.

Three dimensional characters are fleshed out and allowed to grow, be dynamic, and change in their personality.

The Xenomorph was a one dimensional character. It was just the super hunter. It didn’t really have personality or anything to them, just a fantastic design allowing the other characters to play off of.

Big Brother is also basically a one dimensional character. He’s a looming presence in the story. He is the head of the evil government. All character that can be applied to him can only be done so because it is necessary to fit the setting.

Boba Fett and Darth Maul are one dimensional characters. They’re basically tools of the empire, just given a design and a line of dialogue to imply depth without actually having to give them any.

Two dimensional characters do have some emotional depth to them. Paddington Bear, Palpatine, Chewbacca, Fire Lord Ozai, James Bond (mostly), the Joker all I think pretty squarely in this spot. They have ideologies, personalities, and competing goals and beliefs. But they’re mostly not thoroughly examined and allowed to grow outside being pretty archetypal.

But these characters can be great for exploring some theme or event (like most James Bond movies) or for allowing other characters to bounce off of and react to. Paddington Bear is a perfect little bundle of joy, it is everyone who interacts with him who goes through a character growth arc. Similarly Palpatine is just evil personified in the OT, but his presence allows Luke and Anakin to confront the evil within themselves and find redemption.

That’s what makes them good characters. Because they work in the story they’re written in and make that story more entertaining and/or poignant as a result.

[Rogar Demonblud]

One I haven't seen mentioned yet is DC's Doomsday. He solely exists to wreck s###, including anyone who gets in the way. They tried to give a backstory later that revealed he was an Ancient Kryptonian bioweapon project, but it really didn't change anything about Doomsday (Kryptonians, however...).

[Fyraltari]

Orcs can't just be killing machines, because a culture that has huts and weaponsmiths cannot just be killing machines - someone has to organize things. Someone has to make weapons and huts. Someone has to do this and that. Intelligence, in short, requires something other than single-focus one dimensionality. Zombies, zergs, borgs, etc. are all one and the same: unbridled hunger, and it works as a force of nature, but if you want them to be anything else, they require more than the one devouring hunger dimension, or they fail to be in any way plausible. And, to go back to the quotes above, plausibility in fantasy is required to make sense.

I agree with this. An interesting thing with the very first orcs, the ones from the Lord of the Rings, is that even though there are all evil, they are all evil in different ways. Ugluk is a proud barbaric warrior, Shagrat and Gorbag are two work-buddies who exchange stories of the guys they killed and plan their retirement (and Shagrat is loyal while gorbag is greedy), the mountain orcs want to avenge their dead leader and go home, Grishnâk is ambitious enough to want to steal the Master-Ring etc.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm not quite certain that the term one-dimensional character can be interpreted as anything but purely subjective. But I do think that the idea can be more easily applied to a character that has little presence in the story. The less varied the situations a character is depicted as interacting with, the less opportunity the audience has to see a character responding to situations in diverse ways. The less complex one's understanding of them needs to be to feel like you could explain them. Or write a story with that character. And thus, the more likely people might believe the character is one-dimensional.

The way to make a good one-dimensional character is therefore to make them a non-character who has nevertheless done one major thing (or is only ever known/seen to do one type of thing) that the audience knows about and has lasting consequence for the story and/or characters in the story. Most slasher/monster killers fit this sort of criteria, I think. Many evil overlord archetypes seem to fit this as well.

If the villain is fun to watch because they look neat, do or say funny things or kill off annoying characters for the catharsis of the audience, that helps make them more fun for the audience. Charismatic presence is always a bonus for enjoyability.

Although I'd like to point out that good is also a subjective quality. A good one-dimensional character in my view is only as good as their usage as a foil to other, more fleshed-out characters. Characters don't really exist in vacuums, and don't really make a whole lot of sense outside their fiction with the thematic counterbalance they produce within their own world. I like the villain of Galaxy Quest. He's my favorite one-dimensional villain, probably.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Urizen, of Devil May Cry V.

Admittedly, this is greatly enhanced by being an interactive medium. In anything but a game (or the darkest of stories where literally anyone can die) posing a legitimate threat can only carry a character so far, because it's hard (though obviously not impossible) to make the audience believe the main characters will actually die. Urizen is the first boss in the game, and he wipes the floor with you after doing the same to basically every other major character in the series, all while literally lounging on his throne. Many levels and many more hours later, you've got new techniques, new gear, and plenty of practice with each, and you're finally ready to take him on.

If you look at his dialogue and goals objectively, they're pretty cheesy, even cliche. But he's got the raw power to back them up, and by the time you've heard them you've already died to him quite a few times, which makes them feel legitimately intimidating.

Spoiler

Show

Urizen actually used to be a far more complex character, Virgil, but by the time of DMC V he has literally severed that part of his psyche. It's interesting, because it's almost a reconstruction of the pure evil villain archetype.

[TeChameleon]

I'd say early Doctor Doom made for a pretty good one-dimensional villain; he didn't really have any goals beyond showing up/destroying RIIIICHAAAAAARDS!!!, but a compelling visual design, legitimate stage presence, and genuine threat levels made him a lot of fun to read.

[Man on Fire]

During the recent twitter kerfuffle about orcs*, one comment which I kept seeing over and over again was that one-dimensional villains and monolithic cultures are actually better for the narrative as they are less realistic and therefore more fantastic, but I am trying to wrack my brains trying to think of an example where this actually holds true.

Even mindless stuff like zombies, Terminators, or the Borg have some really good explorations of their humanity and individuality in the sequels.

People also claim that is makes characters look less heroic if they are conflicted about why they are fighting, but I actually don't think that is true; for me seeing Faramir ponder on whether his foes are really evil makes him look noble, while, say, Wikus in District Nine laughing about burning Prawn children because he doesn't consider them people just looks like a monster.


So, can anyone give me some examples of narratives which are (or would have been) improved by one dimensional villains?



*Which this thread is not about as it would almost certainly stray into territory which is against the forum rules.

You are looking for this

[DeTess]

A well-executed one-dimensional villain is better than a poorly-executed multi-dimensional villain, so I reckon most examples of cases where a simple ham-and-cheese sandwich of a villain would have been better are because the more complex villains was poorly written.

That having been said, there's room for both in my opinion. A 'force of nature' villain presents an entirely different challenge than a complex individual. I recently played a game where the final-but-not-really boss and the actual final boss both had the same end-goal, yet one was a force of nature villain, and the other was a human with very good and understandable reasons for his actions. The force of nature boss was an interesting technical challenge and made for some nice fireworks in the ending cinematic. The other made for a heart-wrenching set of encounters making me actively question whether opposing him was the right thing to do. It's this second boss that'll stay with me for a long time.

Or to put it in a slightly less meandering manner. One dimensional villains are great if the emotion you're trying to evoke is a feeling of righteousness and certainty as that villain gets his but kicked. More complex villains are great if you're trying to say something more. Both have their places in naratives, and one isn't inherently better than the other, but you do need to understand when to use which.

[understatement]

I think a rule of thumb is that on the white-to-black morality scale you either have your villains on the grey zone (villains either with troubled, fleshed-out backstory/motivations like Zaheer from LoK or Cersei from GoT), who are developed characters but still staunchly evil.

Barring that, though, making a one-dimensional character tick is a buttload of charisma. For villains, style over substance is definitely at play, which is why Scar and Joker are so memorable.

[Fyraltari]

You could also have your antagonists on the white zone.

[Talakeal]

You could also have your antagonists on the white zone.

I don't know what that is. Care to elaborate?

You are looking for this

That is a good explanation, and I mostly agree with it.

Still, that really doesn't work as well for a recurring villain or for an entire species imo.

I'd say early Doctor Doom made for a pretty good one-dimensional villain; he didn't really have any goals beyond showing up/destroying RIIIICHAAAAAARDS!!!, but a compelling visual design, legitimate stage presence, and genuine threat levels made him a lot of fun to read.

Dr. Doom is great on every level. He doesn't need extra dimensions to his character to be awesome, but he certainly hasn't been hurt by being fleshed out over the years.

My first issue with this is that that argument is clearly nonsense. "Less realistic therefore more fantastic" is ridiculous in the face of it. But don't take my word for it, listen to a great writer instead:

Orcs can't just be killing machines, because a culture that has huts and weaponsmiths cannot just be killing machines - someone has to organize things. Someone has to make weapons and huts. Someone has to do this and that. Intelligence, in short, requires something other than single-focus one dimensionality. Zombies, zergs, borgs, etc. are all one and the same: unbridled hunger, and it works as a force of nature, but if you want them to be anything else, they require more than the one devouring hunger dimension, or they fail to be in any way plausible. And, to go back to the quotes above, plausibility in fantasy is required to make sense.

I think this answers itself; a race of mindless killing machines that has huts and weaponsmiths makes no sense; and the lack of sense is what makes it so fantastic. I think.

[tyckspoon]

I don't know what that is. Care to elaborate?

Referring to the distinction in meaning between 'antagonist' and 'villain', I think. An antagonist is just something that gets in the protagonist's way. It does not require being a Bad Guy or even being something that is capable of moral or ethical thought at all - Man vs. Environment (wilderness survival and exploration stories, for example) is one of the big superclasses of plot structures. You can have antagonistic characters that are recognizably good and potentially even helpful to the story lead, except in that in this particular story they want something different than what the protagonist wants.

Villain usually denotes somebody unpleasant, unethical, or for lack of more nuanced language, evil. And just like you can have non-villainous antagonists, you can have villainous protagonists (They're fairly common in modern media, even - see Breaking Bad, Dexter, like 3/4 of the cast of Game of Thrones.) Although often in a longer work you will either see the villain protagonist either lead themselves to their own destruction, or learn to shed their villainous traits, because most of the media consuming market doesn't really like to see thoroughly unpleasant people succeed in the long run.

[Fyraltari]

I don't know what that is. Care to elaborate?

What tyckspoon said. I always enjoy a story where both opposing parties seek mutually-exclusive but equally good outcomes. Or when both are trying to do good but have a different understanding of what ‘good’ means regarding the old action/consequences debate.

I think this answers itself; a race of mindless killing machines that has huts and weaponsmiths makes no sense; and the lack of sense is what makes it so fantastic. I think.

No it makes it implausible. Fantasy is when the work presents us with something we know doesn’t exist (orcs, magic, honest politicians, the city of Bielefeld, a troll-less internet, etc.). Implausibility is when a part of the reader’s brain goes ‘huh that doesn’t make sense’.

A villain being a warlock dealing with demons is fantastical. The same vilain owning a yacht on an accountant’s salary is implausible.

Basically if you want an always evil species you will have to explain in your text how that species manages to function despite each and every member being violent, cowardly, selfish(, dumb) and cruel. How come they manage to co-operate? Who raises their young? Who tends the sick and wounded? And why?
Shouldn’t they all be constantly fighting each other? And if so how do they survive?

This can be done. You can have the species function with a hive mind, in which case it’s less a species than a giant organism who happens to be evil.
You can also have the species be artificial in some way (robots, genetic manipulation to create super soldiers, whatever) in which case whoever created them probably had the foresight to supply them with an infrastructure to fullfill the non-combatant rôles without which they are doomed to a quick extinction. Hell that may even give your heroes a clever way to defeat them. Sure you can’t beat the Deathkillorons in battle but if they can’t fly their ships because somebody just freed their pilot slave-race and they are now stuck on planet Murderhellfire, does it really matter?

Or you could have your species not be made of ethical monsters and allow your antagonists to be their own characters which would force the protagonists to question their own morality and grow as characters, just saying.