Are There Any Chaotic Evil Disney Villains In The Disney Universe?

[Xyril]

And yet Robin Hood is constantly referenced as a paragon of Chaotic good. And yet he clearly had a goal larger than himself. At least in most modern interpretations of the character. That and the whole concept of an anarchism is listed as a chaotic philosophy and anarchists clearly have a desire to cause lasting impact on the world. Or to use D&D specifically, Drow society is listed as strongly chaotic evil as is Lolth herself and she clearly has goals she is working toward while Drow society is built around serving a greater purpose just doing so in an underhanded (and frankly poorly thought out) way.

That's a good point. I guess my way of looking at it starts to break down when you start thinking of "breaking down existing order/institutions (without necessarily having a specific idea to replace it)" as its own long term goal, and not a reflection of more short-term impulses

For me it is that lack of deeper motivations that keeps him from being Chaotic Evil. He is not rebelling against social status or the right of kings or the way society works in the township. He is completely and perfectly willing to live in them and be restricted by them as long as his merry way of living his life by pure machiasmo is fulfilled. And though he lies to get what he wants, he still frames his actions under -if not law exactly- the betterment of society and the protection of others.

I guess I'm more willing to throw him under the chaotic bus because he clearly has no attachment to those norms for their own sake, and by his arbitrary and selective way of applying them he's inherently undermining them.

Then again, I'm also the guy who once argued that Palpatine was evil neutral, bordering on evil chaotic, because the Sith and the vision of a greater Sith Empire were all transient (though very, very long lasting) means to a particular selfish end (his own power and immortality.) Although the end of the last trilogy of which we shall not speak

Spoiler: Major recent movie spoilers

Show

The fact that he seemed legitimately resigned to let himself die in order to pass on the Empire and the mantle of Sith Master to his successor seriously undermined my argument on this one.

has led me to reconsider some of my evidence, Palpatine didn't really seem to buy into the Sith as wholeheartedly as he could have. He arguably followed the Rule of Two to the letter, but he sure bent the hell out of it. As for the Empire itself, he obviously didn't buy into a lot of what the Empire was selling (given his history, it seems like the whole xenophobic ideology was a means to an end, and not indicative of his personal feelings... which is about the nicest thing we can say about Palpatine.) That part of the evidence isn't too strong though, since the Empire was born out of deception, and you could easily argue that a legitimately lawful character could be loyal to a true cause (the Sith) while hiding behind one or more facade regimes that they're willing to prop up or discard as they need to.

But again I would say even this interpretation depends on the edition.

Oh, I agree completely. My general sense of greater good and long-term versus short-term thinking has mostly been from my reading of source books and non-D&D fiction where the authors have mentioned (either in or out of source) how they envisioned alignment when making a character, and then trying to find some sort of common ground that has lasted the ages. Admittedly though, I was probably most influenced by stuff from the latter half of DragonLance at its peak, which was pretty influential, so maybe the things I've looked at would have been disproportionately influenced by, I guess 3.5 or so?

[Rodin]

Gaston could have gotten the "hero of the wrong story" role if he wanted it. When Maurice comes back to town he goes straight to Gaston's hunting lodge. He's raving about a monster, but Gaston doesn't have to take that part seriously. All he needs to do is go with Maurice to check on Belle. If Maurice is crazy, he gets kudos for bringing Maurice safely home. If Belle is really in danger it would become quickly apparent. She isn't in town and has no friends other than the bookshop owner. Every result is a win for Gaston, as he is acting out of concern for Belle's safety no matter what is actually happening.

If he does this, he shows up at the Beast's castle with a legitimate reason to fight.

Instead, he chucks Maurice out in the cold and doesn't bother to go check on Belle. It's only when his "trophy" is being taken from him that he acts.

[Wraith]

The Titans from Hercules qualify. They are literally born of Chaos, and their only goal is Evil - to kill the Gods (particularly Zeus) and then raze the world back into formlessness.

Hades from the same film might be close, but his goals are more selfish than purely destructive so he's probably closer to Neutral Evil.

Also there's Satan from Fantasia, Shan Yu the Hun from Mulan and I'd also argue William 'Bill' Sykes from Oliver & Company since murder, kidnapping, actively corrupting other people to commit evil acts, and setting his rottweilers on people for fun are all in a day's work.

Madam Medusa from The Rescuers. Definitely Evil, and they don't come much more Chaotic either.

And then it depends on what you consider to be the Disney "Universe". Can we include video games? Because that gives us the Darkness from Kingdom Hearts. the Shadow Blot from Epic Mickey and - technically, due to cross-over shenanigans - Sephiroth.

[Liquor Box]

I can buy Gaston as being the hero rather than evil in the Beauty and the beast story.

We are using DnD alignment here, and it is a staple of DnD alignment that killing apparently evil monsters is good. And the beast was evil - he was a beast, he was made a beast because of selfishness and unkindness (although Gaston doesn't know this), he kidnapped the old fellow, then he kidnapped the girl. In DnD slaying such monsters was a good act. Even in modern DnD interpretations is probably is, given the beast would appear clearly evil to Gaston.

Gaston risks his own life to confront the Beast. He storms the castle with the villagers, but goes on to fight the Beast on his own.

I see someone in the thread suggested he did this for selfish reasons - but from memory he even stated his reason as being because the Beast was a threat to the town.

I don't quite remember the film well enough to recall whether Gaston did anything evil (maybe he did), but I think he got quite a lot of good credits in his heroic death. At least as much as the Beast earned when fighting the wolves (which seemed to be presented as his heel to face turn).

For more evidence of Gaston's heroism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJTqmpBnI0

[paddyfool]

Yzma, from the Emperor's New Groove, arguably. Yes, she wants political power, which is classically lawful evil ... But she's unmethodical and thoroughly eccentric about it. So her motivations are LE but her character and actions are CE.

[hamishspence]

I don't quite remember the film well enough to recall whether Gaston did anything evil (maybe he did), but I think he got quite a lot of good credits in his heroic death. At least as much as the Beast earned when fighting the wolves (which seemed to be presented as his heel to face turn).

He did lots of evil things.

And his last act was to sneak up and stab Beast in the side after Beast had spared his life - before losing his balance from Beast's agonised flailing.

That's no "heroic death".

If I was DM-ing using Fiendish Codex 2 rules - I'd give Gaston 6 Corruption Points for Cold Blooded Murder for that act alone.

And rule that Beast had been subjected to a True Resurrection spell (and a Remove Curse) from the forces of the divine.

[Murk]

Off the top of my head, I'd argue:

Mother Gothel
Madam Mim
Pete
Shere Khan
The Beagle Boys
Oogie Boogie

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.
At least in both Disney movies he seems very consistent and orderly. In fact, most of his motivation in killing Mowgli comes from a strong belief in the natural order of things, the way "things should be", the natural hierarchy of animals (with him on top) - which he feels humans upset.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, it's been some time.

[GeoffWatson]

Peter Pan.

[Wraith]

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.
At least in both Disney movies he seems very consistent and orderly. In fact, most of his motivation in killing Mowgli comes from a strong belief in the natural order of things, the way "things should be", the natural hierarchy of animals (with him on top) - which he feels humans upset.
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, it's been some time.

Arguably as they are animals, all of the non-Mowgli creatures in The Jungle Book are True Neutral as their entry in the Monster Manual depicts.
Shere Khan specifically so - 'protecting the balance' is archetypal Druid talk, and given that the movie ends with Mowgli burning down the entire forest and putting the lives of all of his friends at risk just to also get at Shere Khan pretty much proves him right.

So it's very much a case that he is Neutral, but just happens to be an A**hole about it.

In the live action version it's closer to Evil - it's more clear that he just likes hunting and killing humans, the rhetoric about 'the greater good' is just that, and he kills a number of other sentient creatures like Akala along the way with no pretence of it being 'for the good of the forest'. It's just what he wants to happen, and he'll kill and maim until he gets his way.

[CharonsHelper]

Peter Pan.

Lol - an argument could be made that he's CN, but he's not really evil. Just thoughtless at times - mostly due to being a child.

[Dire_Flumph]

I would only disagree with Shere Khan.

Fair enough, and it was an off the cuff list. It's been awhile since I've watched the animated, only saw the live-action once, and been even longer since I read the book, but I remembered him being "The only order you need to worry about is DO WHAT I SAY!". Even Scar had a hierarchy around him. I'm also taking cues from the Disney animated sequel, which I remember upping the evil factor of the character quite a bit.

[Eldan]

Lol - an argument could be made that he's CN, but he's not really evil. Just thoughtless at times - mostly due to being a child.

In the movie at least. The book, I'd say, adds a lot more evidence for evil, though he probably still edges out as CN, just barely.

[InvisibleBison]

Shan Yu the Hun from Mulan

I see Shan Yu as more NE than CE. His invasion of China is motivated by a desire to prove that he is stronger than the Chinese and their wall, which doesn't seem particularly Lawful or Chaotic. He certainly doesn't seem to have any ideological objection to the hierarchical, bureaucratic nature of the Chinese government.

[Xyril]

I see someone in the thread suggested he did this for selfish reasons - but from memory he even stated his reason as being because the Beast was a threat to the town.

Go back and read Rodin's post, (slightly before yours), it's pretty on point.

Gaston could have gotten the "hero of the wrong story" role if he wanted it. When Maurice comes back to town he goes straight to Gaston's hunting lodge. He's raving about a monster, but Gaston doesn't have to take that part seriously. All he needs to do is go with Maurice to check on Belle. If Maurice is crazy, he gets kudos for bringing Maurice safely home. If Belle is really in danger it would become quickly apparent. She isn't in town and has no friends other than the bookshop owner. Every result is a win for Gaston, as he is acting out of concern for Belle's safety no matter what is actually happening.

The reason so many folks see Gaston as the villain is because his conduct implies a complete lack of a noble motive. He doesn't care about the villagers--if he did, he could have protected Maurice from real, immediate danger: Taking things at face value, Maurice was a hysterical, possibly crazy old man running around frantically in the cold, in real danger of dying from hypothermia or harming himself. For far less effort than forming a lynch mob, he could have protected Maurice by seeing him safely to town, or even just letting the old man in to his home to warm up and calm down.

As a general rule for reading subtext in Beauty and the Beast, every time Gaston sings about something, it's a pretty big lampshade telling you that you should look to his actions to show how it's largely BS. Kill the Beast couches his motivation in terms of riding the town of an immediate threat, but for the entire movie up until then, it was obvious Gaston didn't care about the town except as a source of praise and support. The same goes for the Toxic Masculinity song (I don't remember it's real name.) If you look at Gaston's boasts and compare to his actual behavior, it becomes clear that his assertions about ability are arguably true (in terms of physical strength, appetite, and looks), but in terms of character (stuff you may think of as traditional chivalric notions of masculinity, such as courage), his boasts are proven empty over the course of both movies.

Usually, when someone tries to stab someone in the back--even if, unlike Gaston, all of his other actions have testified to his good character--he's generally relegated to anti-hero, morally ambiguous protagonist, or some other part of the off-white palette to the Superman's heroic pure-white. I can't think of a single work of fiction where the "villain" showed the alleged hero mercy, and said "good guy" immediately repaid him with a backstab.

Also, in the musical Gaston (played by Hugh Jackman) once peed himself on stage. That gives him chaotic points to me.

[understatement]

Do the hyenas from The Lion King count?

[Rodin]

Do the hyenas from The Lion King count?

As villains, certainly.

As Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure.

Scar scans as Lawful Evil to me. He twists the inheritance rules by killing Mufasa and thinks he has killed Simba as well. He then launches a despotic rule.

So how do we define his underlings? The hyenas give off a very chaotic vibe, but they don't actually do much. When they try to kill Simba the first time, he's on their turf and is fair game. The second time they're acting on Scar's behalf. They form up under him as an evil army, complete with goose-stepping.

Then again, they turn on Scar at the end of the movie. There's no loyalty there and turning on your master doesn't seem very Lawful to me.

I could be persuaded either way on this one. It doesn't feel right to just peg them as Neutral Evil.

[CharonsHelper]

As villains, certainly.

As Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure.

Scar scans as Lawful Evil to me. He twists the inheritance rules by killing Mufasa and thinks he has killed Simba as well. He then launches a despotic rule.

So how do we define his underlings? The hyenas give off a very chaotic vibe, but they don't actually do much. When they try to kill Simba the first time, he's on their turf and is fair game. The second time they're acting on Scar's behalf. They form up under him as an evil army, complete with goose-stepping.

Then again, they turn on Scar at the end of the movie. There's no loyalty there and turning on your master doesn't seem very Lawful to me.

I could be persuaded either way on this one. It doesn't feel right to just peg them as Neutral Evil.

Yeah, that's a good summary. I'd probably peg them as CE, but hardly hardcore chaotic. Plenty willing to fall in line to strength for a steady supply of food. But that's sort of the epitome of chaotic alignments in an organization - they rely upon the power/charisma of a singular individual rather than the organizational structure itself.

While I definitely see the hyenas as CE, Scar himself could be argued as either either LE or NE; I'd lean NE (he uses the rules to his benefit - but he's hardly bound to them since he had no loyalty to his brother - who was the rightful ruler).

In this context though, I was thinking that we were picking out CE villains, and I'd say that the hyenas are solidly in henchman territory rather then being full-fledged villains in their own right.

[GrayDeath]

Its clear as they that they fit.

They are, after all, Sith Laughs.
















ill show myself out.

[Liquor Box]

He did lots of evil things.

And his last act was to sneak up and stab Beast in the side after Beast had spared his life - before losing his balance from Beast's agonised flailing.

That's no "heroic death".

If I was DM-ing using Fiendish Codex 2 rules - I'd give Gaston 6 Corruption Points for Cold Blooded Murder for that act alone.

And rule that Beast had been subjected to a True Resurrection spell (and a Remove Curse) from the forces of the divine.

What is it that you think is the evil act there? The backstab, or trying to kill someone who had decided not to kill you?

Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.

Go back and read Rodin's post, (slightly before yours), it's pretty on point.

As near as I can tell Rodin says that Gaston could have done better by checking out Maurice's story instead of dismissing it as not true. Rodin is right he could have. And we know as viewers that would have been the correct choice to make (because Maurice wasn't crazy), but was it a more moral choice? Either way, failing to choose the most morally optimal choice available does not make one evil. Gaston could have come across as more selfless if he did what Rodin said, but not acting that way doesn't make him evil.

The reason so many folks see Gaston as the villain is because his conduct implies a complete lack of a noble motive. He doesn't care about the villagers--if he did, he could have protected Maurice from real, immediate danger: Taking things at face value, Maurice was a hysterical, possibly crazy old man running around frantically in the cold, in real danger of dying from hypothermia or harming himself. For far less effort than forming a lynch mob, he could have protected Maurice by seeing him safely to town, or even just letting the old man in to his home to warm up and calm down.

Didn't he have him locked in some asylum, which was standard practice for dealing with people who were crazy at the time (and now, but with more process)?

Again, I appreciate that we know that Maurice was not crazy and there really was a dangerous Beast out there, so Gaston was ultimately incorrect.

As a general rule for reading subtext in Beauty and the Beast, every time Gaston sings about something, it's a pretty big lampshade telling you that you should look to his actions to show how it's largely BS. Kill the Beast couches his motivation in terms of riding the town of an immediate threat, but for the entire movie up until then, it was obvious Gaston didn't care about the town except as a source of praise and support. The same goes for the Toxic Masculinity song (I don't remember it's real name.) If you look at Gaston's boasts and compare to his actual behavior, it becomes clear that his assertions about ability are arguably true (in terms of physical strength, appetite, and looks), but in terms of character (stuff you may think of as traditional chivalric notions of masculinity, such as courage), his boasts are proven empty over the course of both movies.

So it comes down to an interpretation that we should look past Gaston's stated reasons because we don't find him likeable. I do understand why most people would find him unlikeable (he's clearly arrogant even if deservedly so and his fondness for Belle seems superficial), but that doesn't equate to evil (although maybe it does in a disney plot? maybe it's a simply as that?).

Not sure what you mean be the toxic masculinity song (doesn't the show predate that term?), I only recall kill the beast, and the song I linked from him. What boasts does Gaston make about his character that you think indicate the opposite?

Usually, when someone tries to stab someone in the back--even if, unlike Gaston, all of his other actions have testified to his good character--he's generally relegated to anti-hero, morally ambiguous protagonist, or some other part of the off-white palette to the Superman's heroic pure-white.

Well, since the alignment framework we are using is from DnD it is worth noting that backstab is a game move widely accepted as not being evil.

But, I agree that Gaston s not a hero of pure morality, and is more ambiguous.

I can't think of a single work of fiction where the "villain" showed the alleged hero mercy, and said "good guy" immediately repaid him with a backstab.

Here's an example that you should be well familiar with as a frequenter of this forum
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

There are lots of examples and an entire TV tropes page dedicated to this trope.

[Gallowglass]

Hmmm... thinking back to the very beginning, why wouldn't the Evil Stepmother, Evil Queen and Maleficent be Chaotic Evil?

Evil is unquestionable. So let's look at Chaotic.

The Evil Stepmother capriciously tortures and abuses Cinderella because she resents her even though it's arguably a poor long term decision.

The Evil Queen is told that Snow White is prettier than her and responds by ordering her horrific execution. Even after that fails and Snow white is beyond any threat to her, she doggedly pursues her driven by pure hate.

Maleficient is annoyed at being left off a party invite and proceeds to curse a BABY.

They seem pretty Chaotic Evil to me.

[Rodin]

Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.

Because Gaston believes no such thing. When he states his reason, he is LYING.

Again, per my earlier post:

1) Gaston does not whip the villagers into a riot when Belle reveals the Beast in the mirror. He does so when he realizes Belle is in love with the Beast. His motive isn't "protect the village", it's jealousy.

2) When Gaston arrives at the Beast's chambers, the Beast is entirely passive. When the Beast refuses to fight back, Gaston mocks him for being too kind. Gaston then prepares to murder the Beast in cold blood.

3) When the Beast does fight back, Gaston utters not one word about removing a threat to the village. He doesn't declare the Beast evil. Instead, he goes on one long rant about how inconceivable it is that Belle would pick the Beast over Gaston. His final line in the fight is "BELLE IS MINE!!!!"

If that doesn't convince you of Gaston's motives, I don't know what will.

Didn't he have him locked in some asylum, which was standard practice for dealing with people who were crazy at the time (and now, but with more process)?

Again, I appreciate that we know that Maurice was not crazy and there really was a dangerous Beast out there, so Gaston was ultimately incorrect.

No, he didn't. He had his men throw Maurice out into a blizzard. He didn't give a crap about Maurice, he just thought of him as a harmless loon.

Gaston then has a light bulb moment. Gaston doesn't care what happens to Maurice, but Belle does. So he bribes the asylum keeper with a sack of gold to lock Maurice up, with the explicitly stated goal of forcing Belle to marry him. Again, see the earlier quote from the asylum keeper in the thread.

Gaston's arc in the story moves from "won't take no for an answer" to "blackmail the woman into marrying him" to "try to murder the woman's lover in a jealous rage".

He's Evil. We can debate what type according to narrow and often contradictory D&D rules, but that doesn't change his character. Gaston does nothing in the movie for anyone but Gaston, and every action he does take is aimed at forcing an unwilling woman to bear his children.

[GrayDeath]

Hmmm... thinking back to the very beginning, why wouldn't the Evil Stepmother, Evil Queen and Maleficent be Chaotic Evil?

Evil is unquestionable. So let's look at Chaotic.

The Evil Stepmother capriciously tortures and abuses Cinderella because she resents her even though it's arguably a poor long term decision.

The Evil Queen is told that Snow White is prettier than her and responds by ordering her horrific execution. Even after that fails and Snow white is beyond any threat to her, she doggedly pursues her driven by pure hate.

Maleficient is annoyed at being left off a party invite and proceeds to curse a BABY.

They seem pretty Chaotic Evil to me.

1: But she uses the Law to gain, and keep, her cushy "job", and aims to do the same to get one of her daughters to marry the prince. Aside from her randomly cruel treatment of Cinderella, I simply see no Chaops there at all.
neutral Evil tending Lawful Evil if you ask me.

The Evil Queen reacts normally for any Despot wanting to kep their pwoer. using her Kingdom and "laws" in it to destroy a "potential Rival".
Again nothing remotely chaotic, and by "virtue" of being an Evil Queen, she almost perfectly fits the Lawful Evil bill (and might be I am misremembering, but I dont remember her being anything more chaotic than being capricious in her punishments).

Maleficent, Ill give you, without a doubt.

Unlike of course we are talking the Angelina Jolie one.^^

[Xyril]

What is it that you think is the evil act there? The backstab, or trying to kill someone who had decided not to kill you?

The combination of the two, in specific circumstances, and the immediacy of the follow up. There is plenty of fiction where two rivals fight, one has the chance to kill the other, but does not--perhaps out of mercy or other purely altruistic reasons, perhaps out of fear of greater consequences, or maybe just a desire to preserve a worthy opponent for a later fight. For example, the man in black in The Princess Bride spared Inigo Montoya because he didn't want to kill such a worthy opponent. "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window than an artist like yourself." This doesn't mean that Inigo Montoya was obligated to never attack his opponent again, nor does it mean he's necessarily obligated to show mercy in return if the roles were ever reversed.

Likewise, it's not inherently evil to stab someone in the back, or to otherwise exploit the element of surprise--particularly if the killing is justified or necessary to begin with, and the heroes would have a minimal chance of success if they just walked in front of their target and challenged him to a duel. However, the manner in which you achieve surprise has a huge impact on the morality of the act. If you're a rogue sneaking past a bunch of guards to assassinate a target in his bedroom, that feels more morally neutral to me. In contrast, many cultures--fictitious or otherwise--hold hospitality to be sacred, and exploiting these rules to attack or capture someone is generally reviled. In Game of Thrones and ASOFAI, numerous characters all along the hero to villain scale use tricky tactics, plan ambushes, betray their employers or their lords, or otherwise do sneaky, deceptive things to kill enemies who might not even know they're your enemies. However, the Red Wedding was singularly reviled by pretty much everyone because it violated hospitality--even the perpetrators' allies weren't shy about condemning them as morally bankrupt (when out of earshot.)

In war or warlike cultures particularly, there are often rules or norms that serve to make the horrors of war less horrible, or to facilitate certain necessary functions that often serve to do the same--for example, safe passage for messengers or envoys. People who violate these norms undermine something that benefits everyone, and if we were to condone those who violated them in order to murder someone, then these norm would quickly become unusable.

Surrender is another such example. If you surrender, that doesn't mean you never fight again. However, if it was widely considered acceptable or morally good for surrendered combats to try to surprise on their captors as they're being secured, or while their enemy is treating their wounds, then nobody would ever except a surrender except when they have such an absolute advantage that there is minimal risk--and even then, they might not bother. War would be even bloodier than it was now.

While Gaston didn't explicitly surrender, he also didn't try to keep up the fight when Beast spared him. He didn't run off to get stronger before seeking an entirely new fight. He didn't stand up five minutes later and challenge the Beast, proudly boasting that he wasn't dead yet. Instead, he mere minutes after the Beast let him live, Gaston snuck up on him as his guard was down and he was distracted by trying to help Belle, who Gaston allegedly loves.

Gaston went after the Beast for the stated reason of removing a threat to the village. Just because the Beast had not killed Gaston when it was able does not mean it wasn't a threat to the village. Is it evil to kill someone who you believe is evil and a threat to your village even though they did not take the opportunity to kill you? I'd require some convincing.

This whole line of reasoning makes me wonder who the villain is, to be honest. Let's break it down.
1) You conclude someone is evil and a threat.
2) You attack someone without provocation.
3) You lose.
4) Despite your attack, that person lets you go, not using more force or causing more harm than is necessary to defend himself and his friend.
5) You refuse to acknowledge this new information that might prompt you to revisit your initial conclusion (really, more of an assumption) that your target is evil and a threat.
6) Instead, you put the burden of proof on other people to convince you not to attack again.

Here's a harsh truth about life: The world is full of people who are stronger, better trained, better armed, charismatic leaders, clever tacticians, or otherwise have the ability to kill you and everyone you love, even if you try to the best of your ability to defend yourself. You're only alive because most people are inherently decent and don't want to go around murdering folks for trivial reasons, or they don't want you dead enough for it to be worth dealing with the consequences, or they simply don't even know you exist, or if they do, don't care about you either way. The capacity to harm you isn't, by itself, a threat--at least not one that you have a legal or moral right to preemptively neutralize using lethal force.

What then is a threat you can and should act on? From a legal standpoint, the requirements are stringent, and vary by jurisdiction. From an ethical perspective, it's a bit more expansive, and generally hinges in the likelihood that this person who can harm you will harm you, perhaps through malice, recklessness, greed, or something else entirely. If the Beast were a mindless animal, totally driven by instinct, then perhaps you could argue that proximity is the immediate danger--like a hungry wolf or an overprotective mother bear, if they live close enough to regularly encounter large numbers of humans, there might invariably be an attack. However, the Beast wasn't that close--until the movie, nobody in the village even realized he existed. Also, the Beast isn't a mindless animal--anybody who was paying attention during the attack on his castle would clearly realize it. More importantly, Gaston at that point absolutely knew that Beast was intelligent--the fact that Belle cared about Beast largely motivated the whole murder attempt.

So then, when dealing with a human, capable of reasoning, when does someone who can hurt you become a threat that should be dealt with? I pose that question to you: You're the one arguing that it's morally right to preemptively kill a threat, so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like."

Either way, failing to choose the most morally optimal choice available does not make one evil.

No, but it does provide evidence with which to infer motives, which you can then used to evaluate the credibility of previous statements. It's not evil of me to wear leather shoes and leather jackets. However, if I go around stating that I'm a vegetarian and that other people should be as well because I believe that the exploitation of animals in any form is immoral, the whole wearing leather thing is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't take my stated motives at face value.

I am under no obligation to help my neighbor if he comes to my door on a cold night. However, if I keep styling myself as "the guy who loves his neighbors and would do anything to help them," and I don't even do the minimum amount to help, then people will start to question my sincerity.

So it comes down to an interpretation that we should look past Gaston's stated reasons because we don't find him likeable.

No, it doesn't. It's not about likeability, it's about comparing specific stated motives to specific depicted actions, and seeing if they are consistent.

Not sure what you mean be the toxic masculinity song (doesn't the show predate that term?), I only recall kill the beast, and the song I linked from him.

*sigh*

I literally state in the my post that it wasn't called "The Toxic Masculinity Song," and that it was term I applied as a joke because I couldn't remember the proper name.

I suspect that this statement might have more nuance than you're willing to appreciate, but I'm one of those people who believes simultaneously that 1) "toxic masculinity," meaning the phenomenon of people imposing certain expectations of "manly" behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual males or to society as a whole, but also that 2) sometimes people go too far in dismissing more stereotypical and traditional masculine traits as part of "toxic masculinity." Specifically, I think it's negative that when we tell boys that being athletic, brave, and aggressive is the only way you can be manly, but I think it's also bad that some folks go too far the other way and dismiss being athletic, brave, and aggressive as being inherently negative. So I was trying to make a joke for folks who have similar sentiments and also can recognize nuance. Clearly you didn't get the joke, and that's fine.

Here's an example that you should be well familiar with as a frequenter of this forum
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

This example isn't really on point for many reasons. Technically, it wasn't a backstab. I used the term broadly, to include sneak attacks that take advantage of the element of surprise, but even under that expansive definition, your example doesn't count. Xykon didn't let his guard down, and Roy only "surprised" him in the sense that it would be surprising he would bother to try again.

From a moral standpoint, there are other key distinctions. First, Gaston had already lost. There was a struggle that either could have theoretically won, but Beast did. By all rights, he could have killed Gaston, but chose not to. In OOTS, they were technically in the middle of a fight still. Roy did not surrender, submit, or get beaten into helplessness. Xykon was arguably showing mercy only in the sense that Roy walked into that fight with such weak abilities that he had a negligible chance of winning to begin with.

Instead, the exchange was more of a parlay. Roy realized his best shot had no effect, but he was still up and fighting. Xykon just wanted to get rid of an annoyance, so he tried offering a negotiated settlement that would save him the trouble of dealing with the Order. Naturally, Xykon being Xykon, he did it in a (probably) unintentionally patronizing way that only guaranteed Roy would want to fight. When he struck Xykon again, he wasn't attacking an opponent who he let believe that the fight was over--both of them knew very well that they were just talking as a free action.

More importantly, while this whole exchange didn't paint Roy as a villain, it did however undermine our image of the sort of hero he is, which kind of supports my whole point. Roy generally thought of himself as the only sane man of the group, who makes logical, tactically sound short-term decisions but also keeps the team pointed out their long-term goal--and for the most part, the audience was led to agree. His death was the culmination of many cracks in this facade, in which we realize that Roy also has his blind spots, particularly in terms of the Blood Oath, and his willingness to allow his focus to override logic and morality. As I've outline, hitting Xykon wasn't a sneak attack or a backstab, but it was stupid and self-defeating--something inconsistent with Roy's self-image. At that point, he knew he had no way of succeeding. In terms of Azure City, this was the last chance to help in the defense, but in terms of the Blood Oath and stopping Xykon once and for all, Xykon was actually kind of right: The only way the Order could have won was to get stronger and try again.

There are lots of examples and an entire TV tropes page dedicated to this trope.

Also, you're going to have to cite the specific TVtropes page. I can think of many that you could be referring to, but all of them are about ways in which such an act changes how you see the hero. The only page I can think of where trope doesn't make the hero less heroic is "Good is Not Nice," and that one doesn't contain any examples.

[Xihirli]

I'll step in with Maleficent and disagree here:

1. Anger at lack of decorum (not being invited despite considering yourself a member of the nobility that OUGHT BE invited) is a Lawful motivation.
2. Considering punishing a child a suitable reaction to being slighted by their parents, unfortunately, has a long tradition in law, and comes from the lawful tradition of considering children the property of parents.

Maleficent's actions were Evil, and her motivations were Lawful. She is Lawful Evil.

EDIT: Also why in the hells are people justifying Gaston's actions? The "hero of another story" narrative is present in Beauty and the Beast as a criticism of those other stories, not as an endorsement of Gaston.

I'll also toss my hat in to say that Scar is at least not Lawful Evil. He exploited the Laws present to enact his evil, but the reason his kingship goes so poorly is his violation of the most important law of the land: the "circle of life." Technically, his greatest crime was tainting the lion ethnostate* we are presented with as the good kingdom. That's not a criticism of the movie, that is the reality we have to adopt in order to follow the narrative. Scar's failings, aside from killing his brother and trying to have a child assassinated, are all in his disregard for the laws of the land he is exploiting. Scar is either Neutral or Chaotic. But Zira is Lawful.

I think a clearly Chaotic Evil disney villain is easy to find in N'Jadaka, though. He exploits the chaotic portions of Wakandan Law to take power, and once he does he immediately begins removing the systems of law that allowed another person to usurp the throne. Once he's done using them, he sees the laws and traditions of Wakanda as his enemy, because those laws and traditions are there to create a peaceful(ish) exchange of power, which he cannot allow now that he holds the power. N'Jadaka has the fruit that confers the next king burned, and he attempts to throw out the rules of the duel that made him king technically before it's even completed. Once he has used the rules of how to choose a king, he removes those rules, leaving only "I am the King."

*More of an Apartheid state, really.

[Liquor Box]

Because Gaston believes no such thing. When he states his reason, he is LYING.

Again, per my earlier post:

1) Gaston does not whip the villagers into a riot when Belle reveals the Beast in the mirror. He does so when he realizes Belle is in love with the Beast. His motive isn't "protect the village", it's jealousy.

2) When Gaston arrives at the Beast's chambers, the Beast is entirely passive. When the Beast refuses to fight back, Gaston mocks him for being too kind. Gaston then prepares to murder the Beast in cold blood.

3) When the Beast does fight back, Gaston utters not one word about removing a threat to the village. He doesn't declare the Beast evil. Instead, he goes on one long rant about how inconceivable it is that Belle would pick the Beast over Gaston. His final line in the fight is "BELLE IS MINE!!!!"

If that doesn't convince you of Gaston's motives, I don't know what will.

As to your first point, isn't this where Belle shows Gaston the beast in the mirror (which Gaston snatches from her at the beginning of the scene)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh98Kscctw4
Are we possibly thinking of different versions of the story?

As to your second and third point, I agree that it is not very kind to mock your rival when fighting him by saying you are going to have your way with the girl he likes. But in the context of a fight to the death, it's kind of by the by. I don't think it is a particularly firm guide to his motives either - he is taunting the Beast (perhaps to gain advantage in the fight, perhaps just to be mean), not giving him a lesson in morality or hashing out their differences.

No, he didn't. He had his men throw Maurice out into a blizzard. He didn't give a crap about Maurice, he just thought of him as a harmless loon.

Gaston then has a light bulb moment. Gaston doesn't care what happens to Maurice, but Belle does. So he bribes the asylum keeper with a sack of gold to lock Maurice up, with the explicitly stated goal of forcing Belle to marry him. Again, see the earlier quote from the asylum keeper in the thread.

Is that clear, or is that an interpretation where you draw some inferences to suggest that Gaston's stated reasons are not his real ones?

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Show

The combination of the two, in specific circumstances, and the immediacy of the follow up. There is plenty of fiction where two rivals fight, one has the chance to kill the other, but does not--perhaps out of mercy or other purely altruistic reasons, perhaps out of fear of greater consequences, or maybe just a desire to preserve a worthy opponent for a later fight. For example, the man in black in The Princess Bride spared Inigo Montoya because he didn't want to kill such a worthy opponent. "I would sooner destroy a stained glass window than an artist like yourself." This doesn't mean that Inigo Montoya was obligated to never attack his opponent again, nor does it mean he's necessarily obligated to show mercy in return if the roles were ever reversed.

Likewise, it's not inherently evil to stab someone in the back, or to otherwise exploit the element of surprise--particularly if the killing is justified or necessary to begin with, and the heroes would have a minimal chance of success if they just walked in front of their target and challenged him to a duel. However, the manner in which you achieve surprise has a huge impact on the morality of the act. If you're a rogue sneaking past a bunch of guards to assassinate a target in his bedroom, that feels more morally neutral to me. In contrast, many cultures--fictitious or otherwise--hold hospitality to be sacred, and exploiting these rules to attack or capture someone is generally reviled. In Game of Thrones and ASOFAI, numerous characters all along the hero to villain scale use tricky tactics, plan ambushes, betray their employers or their lords, or otherwise do sneaky, deceptive things to kill enemies who might not even know they're your enemies. However, the Red Wedding was singularly reviled by pretty much everyone because it violated hospitality--even the perpetrators' allies weren't shy about condemning them as morally bankrupt (when out of earshot.)

In war or warlike cultures particularly, there are often rules or norms that serve to make the horrors of war less horrible, or to facilitate certain necessary functions that often serve to do the same--for example, safe passage for messengers or envoys. People who violate these norms undermine something that benefits everyone, and if we were to condone those who violated them in order to murder someone, then these norm would quickly become unusable.

Surrender is another such example. If you surrender, that doesn't mean you never fight again. However, if it was widely considered acceptable or morally good for surrendered combats to try to surprise on their captors as they're being secured, or while their enemy is treating their wounds, then nobody would ever except a surrender except when they have such an absolute advantage that there is minimal risk--and even then, they might not bother. War would be even bloodier than it was now.

While Gaston didn't explicitly surrender, he also didn't try to keep up the fight when Beast spared him. He didn't run off to get stronger before seeking an entirely new fight. He didn't stand up five minutes later and challenge the Beast, proudly boasting that he wasn't dead yet. Instead, he mere minutes after the Beast let him live, Gaston snuck up on him as his guard was down and he was distracted by trying to help Belle, who Gaston allegedly loves.

I agree with most of what you say here. A person who is spared is under no obligation to not attack the person who spared them if the circumstances justify it. Also nothing wrong with a 'backstab' or attacking with surprise unless you adhere to some specific code that prohibits it.

The bit I find hard to follow if your brief conclusion that doing these two things in combination raises them to being something that overrides any previous good acts.

In Troy, the defeated greeks leave, and leave the Trojans a gift, which implies surrender. The gift is of course hides a sneak attack. Not depicted as an evil act. In Vikings Ragnar negotiates a peace with the Parisians which includes him converting. Then he claims to have died, and his subordinates ask to escort his coffin into the city for a burial in accordance with his new found beliefs - but he's not dead and him an his followers attack by surprise. Again not depicted as evil.

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Show

This whole line of reasoning makes me wonder who the villain is, to be honest. Let's break it down.
1) You conclude someone is evil and a threat.
2) You attack someone without provocation.
3) You lose.
4) Despite your attack, that person lets you go, not using more force or causing more harm than is necessary to defend himself and his friend.
5) You refuse to acknowledge this new information that might prompt you to revisit your initial conclusion (really, more of an assumption) that your target is evil and a threat.
6) Instead, you put the burden of proof on other people to convince you not to attack again.

Here's a harsh truth about life: The world is full of people who are stronger, better trained, better armed, charismatic leaders, clever tacticians, or otherwise have the ability to kill you and everyone you love, even if you try to the best of your ability to defend yourself. You're only alive because most people are inherently decent and don't want to go around murdering folks for trivial reasons, or they don't want you dead enough for it to be worth dealing with the consequences, or they simply don't even know you exist, or if they do, don't care about you either way. The capacity to harm you isn't, by itself, a threat--at least not one that you have a legal or moral right to preemptively neutralize using lethal force.

What then is a threat you can and should act on? From a legal standpoint, the requirements are stringent, and vary by jurisdiction. From an ethical perspective, it's a bit more expansive, and generally hinges in the likelihood that this person who can harm you will harm you, perhaps through malice, recklessness, greed, or something else entirely. If the Beast were a mindless animal, totally driven by instinct, then perhaps you could argue that proximity is the immediate danger--like a hungry wolf or an overprotective mother bear, if they live close enough to regularly encounter large numbers of humans, there might invariably be an attack. However, the Beast wasn't that close--until the movie, nobody in the village even realized he existed. Also, the Beast isn't a mindless animal--anybody who was paying attention during the attack on his castle would clearly realize it. More importantly, Gaston at that point absolutely knew that Beast was intelligent--the fact that Belle cared about Beast largely motivated the whole murder attempt.

So then, when dealing with a human, capable of reasoning, when does someone who can hurt you become a threat that should be dealt with? I pose that question to you: You're the one arguing that it's morally right to preemptively kill a threat, so the burden of proof is on you to define "threat" in such a way that isn't "anybody who is stronger than me and who I don't like."

I don't think there's much doubt that the Beast was villainous, even through the show didn't frame his actions that way. After all he was a beast as punishment, he did imprison first the father then the daughter. The question here is whether Gaston was also evil.

I'm not sure I agree that its common decency that limits murdering - perhaps instead societies where we band together, and punish murderers. Maybe a mixture.

I agree with the rest of what you say. I think the virtue or evil in Gaston's quest to kill the beast should largely be framed by whether Gaston did believe the Beast a real and imminent danger to himself and others. In my opinion that is the question that best guides the morality of his actions, rather than discussing his competing motives.

It seems to me that the a beast in this story would be seen in a similar way to an orc in DnD of the time (although probably not anymore)- something that is always evil and exists to be killed by heroes. On that basis alone Gaston may have believed the beast evil, even if wrongly so - but if he was wrong his attack would not have been justified. But Gaston had further evidence of the beast's danger, he had recently kidnapped and imprisoned two villagers (whether Gaston cared about those two or not, that still presented the beast as dangerous). I also don't think that the fact that a dangerous beast who does not finish off something it was fighting is necessarily no longer dangerous.

No, but it does provide evidence with which to infer motives, which you can then used to evaluate the credibility of previous statements. It's not evil of me to wear leather shoes and leather jackets. However, if I go around stating that I'm a vegetarian and that other people should be as well because I believe that the exploitation of animals in any form is immoral, the whole wearing leather thing is pretty good evidence that you shouldn't take my stated motives at face value.

I am under no obligation to help my neighbor if he comes to my door on a cold night. However, if I keep styling myself as "the guy who loves his neighbors and would do anything to help them," and I don't even do the minimum amount to help, then people will start to question my sincerity.

Sure, fair enough. But does Gaston say (or imply that)? You mentioned a song where he extolled his virtues, but I'm not sure which you mean.

I certainly don't think the fact that he didn't believe Maurice and told him to go away implies that he wouldn't defend the village from a threat. I mean Maurice was acting crazy, so Gaston threw him out of his lodge and Maurice had to go home - publicans do that to poorly behaved patrons all the time. It doesn't imply that anything nice they do for their fellows in insincere.

No, it doesn't. It's not about likeability, it's about comparing specific stated motives to specific depicted actions, and seeing if they are consistent.

Great. What is the specific action that is inconsistent with Gaston wanting to take up arms in defence of the town?

*sigh*

I literally state in the my post that it wasn't called "The Toxic Masculinity Song," and that it was term I applied as a joke because I couldn't remember the proper name.

I suspect that this statement might have more nuance than you're willing to appreciate, but I'm one of those people who believes simultaneously that 1) "toxic masculinity," meaning the phenomenon of people imposing certain expectations of "manly" behavior in a way that is detrimental to individual males or to society as a whole, but also that 2) sometimes people go too far in dismissing more stereotypical and traditional masculine traits as part of "toxic masculinity." Specifically, I think it's negative that when we tell boys that being athletic, brave, and aggressive is the only way you can be manly, but I think it's also bad that some folks go too far the other way and dismiss being athletic, brave, and aggressive as being inherently negative. So I was trying to make a joke for folks who have similar sentiments and also can recognize nuance. Clearly you didn't get the joke, and that's fine.

Yes, I was just wondering which song you meant.

Spoiler: Spoilered for length

Show

This example isn't really on point for many reasons. Technically, it wasn't a backstab. I used the term broadly, to include sneak attacks that take advantage of the element of surprise, but even under that expansive definition, your example doesn't count. Xykon didn't let his guard down, and Roy only "surprised" him in the sense that it would be surprising he would bother to try again.

From a moral standpoint, there are other key distinctions. First, Gaston had already lost. There was a struggle that either could have theoretically won, but Beast did. By all rights, he could have killed Gaston, but chose not to. In OOTS, they were technically in the middle of a fight still. Roy did not surrender, submit, or get beaten into helplessness. Xykon was arguably showing mercy only in the sense that Roy walked into that fight with such weak abilities that he had a negligible chance of winning to begin with.

Instead, the exchange was more of a parlay. Roy realized his best shot had no effect, but he was still up and fighting. Xykon just wanted to get rid of an annoyance, so he tried offering a negotiated settlement that would save him the trouble of dealing with the Order. Naturally, Xykon being Xykon, he did it in a (probably) unintentionally patronizing way that only guaranteed Roy would want to fight. When he struck Xykon again, he wasn't attacking an opponent who he let believe that the fight was over--both of them knew very well that they were just talking as a free action.

More importantly, while this whole exchange didn't paint Roy as a villain, it did however undermine our image of the sort of hero he is, which kind of supports my whole point. Roy generally thought of himself as the only sane man of the group, who makes logical, tactically sound short-term decisions but also keeps the team pointed out their long-term goal--and for the most part, the audience was led to agree. His death was the culmination of many cracks in this facade, in which we realize that Roy also has his blind spots, particularly in terms of the Blood Oath, and his willingness to allow his focus to override logic and morality. As I've outline, hitting Xykon wasn't a sneak attack or a backstab, but it was stupid and self-defeating--something inconsistent with Roy's self-image. At that point, he knew he had no way of succeeding. In terms of Azure City, this was the last chance to help in the defense, but in terms of the Blood Oath and stopping Xykon once and for all, Xykon was actually kind of right: The only way the Order could have won was to get stronger and try again.

I'm not sure I buy your distinctions here. In neither case did Gaston or Roy surrender. In both cases it appeared that they were beaten. One might have inferred from the Beast's actions that he was not so evil. Xykon went further and actually reassured Roy that he was not seeking to end the world. I think Roy's attack was a sneak attack, his attack surprised Xykon, who was parlaying, cutting him off mid-sentence. Xykon even gave Roy several more chances to stop.

As to your last paragraph, that may be reasonable Roy character analysis, but it doesn't go to his morality generally or at that moment - moreso to his tactical ability.

Also, you're going to have to cite the specific TVtropes page. I can think of many that you could be referring to, but all of them are about ways in which such an act changes how you see the hero. The only page I can think of where trope doesn't make the hero less heroic is "Good is Not Nice," and that one doesn't contain any examples.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...airPlayVillain

This was the one I was referring to. Given your response to Roy, I'm sure you'll note several distinctions. The question is whether those distinctions are meaningful. So far I haven't thought so.

[Xyril]

Is that clear, or is that an interpretation where you draw some inferences to suggest that Gaston's stated reasons are not his real ones?

Per the original animated movie script:

(GASTON pulls out a sack of gold and tosses it in front of
him. He takes out a piece, scrapes it on his chin and continues.)

Aah, I'm listening.

GASTON: It's like this. I've got my heart set on marrying Belle, but she needs a little persuasion.

I mean, technically you have to make a minor inference or two, since he doesn't outright say, "This money is for you to wrongfully imprison Maurice, which I want you to do so that I can coerce Belle to marry me, and to possibly release him at a later date if, and only if I ask you to. You see, I will tell Belle that I am the only one with the power to have Maurice freed, and that I will only do so if she agrees to marry me. I will do so in explicit words, because apparently nobody in this world understands subtext."

[Liquor Box]

Per the original animated movie script:

(GASTON pulls out a sack of gold and tosses it in front of
him. He takes out a piece, scrapes it on his chin and continues.)

Aah, I'm listening.

GASTON: It's like this. I've got my heart set on marrying Belle, but she needs a little persuasion.

I mean, technically you have to make a minor inference or two, since he doesn't outright say, "This money is for you to wrongfully imprison Maurice, which I want you to do so that I can coerce Belle to marry me, and to possibly release him at a later date if, and only if I ask you to. You see, I will tell Belle that I am the only one with the power to have Maurice freed, and that I will only do so if she agrees to marry me. I will do so in explicit words, because apparently nobody in this world understands subtext."

Sorry, I was finishing my reply to your previous post before I saw this one.

I do understand subtext, but you'll have to accept that people may differ on what the subtext is. Your inference here seems fair. I'd also have to accept that arranging someone's false imprisonment, to coerce an attractive girl into sex is not especially heroic. How do you think it compares to the Beast imprisoning Belle for similar reasons?

You all have got me watching youtube clips from the cartoon.

[Peelee]

I'd also have to accept that arranging someone's false imprisonment, to coerce an attractive girl into sex is not especially heroic.

That is....quite an understatement.

How do you think it compares to the Beast imprisoning Belle for similar reasons?

How is that relevant? Is there a one-Evil-character-per-story limit?

[Xihirli]

No, don't you see? If the beast did something bad, that means Gaston was good.

[Liquor Box]

How is that relevant? Is there a one-Evil-character-per-story limit?

Because there is an argument over whether it was evil for Gaston to attack the Beast. One limb of that argument seems to be that Gaston should have been able to ascertain that the Beast was not evil and dangerous, and therefore should not have attacked.