What is YOUR idea of true villainy?
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Fair points. I'd just like to say that from my perspective, the impending war was a lot more certain than you seem to be portraying.
|
The only way you could draw a comparison would be if the US had dropped the bomb on Japan, and China, and Russia, and Germany, and themselves in 1940.....and then convinced everyone that Switzerland did it.
Killing people to end a war that is 4 years old is exactly why they call it war.
Killing people to end a war that hasn't started yet is called murder.
From what you're saying, you'd be okay with it if someone went and shot someone else in the head because they were talking about killing someone?
Because that's more like what Adrian Veidt did. He killed millions of people for simply talking about going to war.
More to the point, look what he did before killing millions of people. He removed the nuclear war deterrent himself. If he hadn't manipulated Dr. Manhattan into flipping out on national TV, any war that would have been started never would have gotten past the opening shots. So, in a very real way, he started the war himself just so he could stop it by killing millions of innocent people.
If that doesn't scream "pure evil" I don't know what does.
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
I think the ultimate villain is someone who thinks what they are doing is for the "good" of his victims. And so actually thinks of himself as a hero. Remind you of anyone?
You know... when I saw Dechs mention it, I cringed... but people didn't jump into the debate about it... Now people are jumping in with their solid-as-fact opinions about it.
Claws, some people would disagree that it is nothing alike.
Let's just leave it at that. What's the point of discussing it further?
Is anyone going to convince the other differently within this forum and this discussion thread?
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
I think the ultimate villain is someone who thinks what they are doing is for the "good" of his victims. And so actually thinks of himself as a hero. Remind you of anyone?
|
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
More to the point, look what he did before killing millions of people. He removed the nuclear war deterrent himself. If he hadn't manipulated Dr. Manhattan into flipping out on national TV, any war that would have been started never would have gotten past the opening shots. So, in a very real way, he started the war himself just so he could stop it by killing millions of innocent people.
If that doesn't scream "pure evil" I don't know what does. |
Remove Ozy from the debate, however. How many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to achieve a goal to save other innocent lives? Is there a strict proportion? Kill one to save a thousand? To save ten? When does it become evil? How long does it remain good?
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Evil is defined by Good as what Good is not. So, to Good, Evil is it's opposite but to Evil, Good is not the opposite of Evil.
|
About half an hour ago, I decided to eat dinner. I don't think you can define eating dinner as an act of good, which means it must be evil. So does eating dinner make me an evil man?
More broadly, viewing every decision as either purely good or purely evil and nothing in-between and nothing besides is very limiting to a story's morality. Not every action an evil character makes HAS to be evil. Indeed, not every action an evil character makes has to be "not good," either. To build a villain by taking a hero and drawing the inverse is simply flawed design.
Evil is not the opposite of good, just as a villain is not the opposite of a hero. This isn't about real-world morality, it's about good storytelling.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Ah, there are clearly a lot of the details that have gone fuzzy in my memory. I concede, the two scenarios are very dissimilar.
Remove Ozy from the debate, however. How many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to achieve a goal to save other innocent lives? Is there a strict proportion? Kill one to save a thousand? To save ten? When does it become evil? How long does it remain good? |
Well, boiling it down, that was the only aspect I was thinking was similar. That's a pretty big aspect to toss aside in order to say they're dissimilar.
And yeah, it's somewhat of an unanswerable question.
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Ah, there are clearly a lot of the details that have gone fuzzy in my memory. I concede, the two scenarios are very dissimilar.
Remove Ozy from the debate, however. How many innocent lives are worth sacrificing to achieve a goal to save other innocent lives? Is there a strict proportion? Kill one to save a thousand? To save ten? When does it become evil? How long does it remain good? |
The only part of your post I was disputing was your uncertainty of whether or not Ozymandias was a villain. And he most definitely was.
The killing of all those people in and of itself is not what makes him a villain. If he had done that in response to someone launching a nuke, maybe it would have been a little harder to say.
The fact that he premeditated creating a situation where the world would be on the brink of destruction (thus giving himself a justification for mass murder) is what makes him a villain.
And the fact that he truly believed he was doing the right thing is what makes him a well written one.
Edit: And I guess with the content of my posts in this thread, MY idea of true villainy is pretty obvious
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
There is no evil in the Rogue Isles like Westin Phipps. Peter Themari comes close, but Phipps is the master of soul-blackening evil. He tells you exactly what it is that makes him so evil, too, in his pre- and post-mission dialogue.
IMO there are too many possible personality types to sum up "villains" as a general category. The modus operandi and general attitude of them varies tremendously. Some villains may be reluctant criminals, others lovers of anarchy, others strictly incapable of empathy (perhaps even physically incapable of it if of robotic or alien origin).
Here are a couple of example personalities that could exist, using some of the enneagram personality models as a base. [Note that I am not a big supporter of "personality tests" in general. I do sometimes find them useful for gathering ideas about character attitudes though.] This is just to help flesh out the discussion with some specific examples of very different villain types.
The "Leader" Type
"In a world filled with so much death and anarchy and destruction, only a strong leader can protect those too weak to defend themselves. People call me a sociopath, but I'm just a person caught between two futures: one of hope, and one of anarchy. I regret that those who choose not to stand behind me must be defeated, but they've made their choice."
The "Helper" Type
"Do you not see how I have suffered for my beliefs? All I ever wanted was something simple. I give and I give and in return I get nothing but ingratitude. And you you dare to call me the criminal, when it is clear I am the one who has been wronged!"
The "Motivator" Type
"I used to be a nobody but NOW look at me! No more mister shoe salesman! That's right, ladies of Paragon! This night stalker is single and the wallet is coming out! But don't cross me. I hate to have to get you dead, or worse, forgotten."
The "Romantic" Type
"I spent many years trying to find myself, and you know what I discovered? Only emptiness. There is no money, no hope, no belief in heaven that can withstand the things I have seen. So I drift from horror to horror without pattern or cause, pausing only briefly to admire the banality of each new death."
The "Thinker" Type
"Only an idiot believes in consequences. There is no right and wrong, there are only mysteries to be solved. But obviously that concept is beyond your grasp, and this is why for all your boasting about "morals" you have not a single unique discovery to call your own."
The "Enthusiast" Type
"I will confess that when I first asked for her hand in marriage, I did not have it in mind that I would kill her. But the opportunity presented itself, and you know, life has a plan. In the end, I'm just glad I got to experience it first hand, and that's what really matters."
The "Skeptic" Type
"I had to kill them all, they knew too much. Yes I know it sets back my plans. Whatever those are. What was I saying? Oh right, I was telling you about my super evil plans, or whatever. Yeah... and then I was going to kill you, because that's what villains do. Right? Wait here a second, I'm going to look it up on Wikipedia."
The "Peacemaker" Type
"When I originally thought 'Hey, I'll become a villain!' it was more about the costumes than anything. But the more time I spent around them, the more I kind of found out they were pretty cool people. Sure, they have their flaws, and that cannibal guy can be a jerk when he's hungry. But so many of them are just lost and misunderstood... I'm happy to fight alongside them."
The "Cannibal" Type
"That Peacemaker guy looks really sinewy."
Let me provide an example of what I mean:
About half an hour ago, I decided to eat dinner. I don't think you can define eating dinner as an act of good, which means it must be evil. So does eating dinner make me an evil man? |
Eating isn't good nor evil, although you could make arguments either way ("That burger could feed someone who is actually starving", "This burger is tasty, nutritious and kept some beef rancher working!"). It's just... room temperature.
There's villainy, which is basically what everyone said, and then there's supervillainy. The difference is performance. I enjoy the latter a lot more.
|
For examples of in-game excellence I really rank Westin very highly, and the tip mission where you let the 'victims' (ghosts) loose on the longbow agent - I love that mission, and was really affected the first time I ran it. Apart from these two examples, I personally don't feel very villainous (certainly not 'super' villainous) most of the time.
Erm? Hot is the opposite of cold but that doesn't mean everything is freezing or searing. Most things are just room temperature, neither hot nor cold by our perception.
Eating isn't good nor evil, although you could make arguments either way ("That burger could feed someone who is actually starving", "This burger is tasty, nutritious and kept some beef rancher working!"). It's just... room temperature. |
That celery was a defenseless sentient life that was ripped from the ground and destroyed before it finished its chlorophyl poem about dimensional gateways!
It's all evil, baby!
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan
Erm? Hot is the opposite of cold but that doesn't mean everything is freezing or searing. Most things are just room temperature, neither hot nor cold by our perception.
|
There are degrees of everything. When you have two competing concepts, it is a big mistake to only define one and then postulate that the other is the same but opposite.
More specifically, I'm talking about character and story design. If you need to create a villain and his story, you don't do this by creating a hero and his story and then inverting everything. The opposite of good is not evil, it is stupid. The opposite of a hero is not a villain, it is caricature. The opposite of a hero's story is not a villain's story, it is a right mess. I've seen PLENTY of games design for a good path and then just invert all decisions to form a bad path. This produces very bad stories in the end.
A good villain is not defined by the hero he is the opposite of. A good villain's story is not defined by the hero's story it is the opposite of. A good villain is defined in and of himself, not as an extension to another character, plot or concept. Said villain's motivations are his own, based on his own logic, his own rationality and his own emotions, not the theoretical opposites of a good characters' logic, rationality and emotions.
Just because you took a good heroic action and made the reverse of it doesn't mean you ended up with a decent villainous action. Instead, most of the time this leaves you with a shallow plot.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I wasn't trying to open that particular can of worms.
|
It's perfectly answerable, at least in my mind.
Any act which saves more innocent lives than it destroys is a "good" act.
It's part of the reason why I struggle so much with the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. I have no doubt that we destroyed less lives than were ultimately saved, but the lives that were saved were primarily our own soldiers. Civilians are not involved in the war effort; soldiers are and should understand the accompanying risks. I know it's a lot more complicated than that, especially when you consider things like Total War, or the opposite direction that our soldiers were largely drafted and thus no less innocent than civilians. Now I'm dangerously close to a political debate, so I'll have to stop here.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
There's villainy, which is basically what everyone said, and then there's supervillainy. The difference is performance. I enjoy the latter a lot more.
|
And it immediately made me think of my favorite super villain of all time:
"There's villainy ... and then there's supervillainy. The difference is performance."
-Doc_Reverend
The fact that he [Ozymandias] premeditated creating a situation where the world would be on the brink of destruction (thus giving himself a justification for mass murder) is what makes him a villain.
|
But of course the ambiguity is, the others really only had his word that all of this was all true. As you say, a very well written villain.
But this is very tangential.
"Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
There's villainy, which is basically what everyone said, and then there's supervillainy. The difference is performance. I enjoy the latter a lot more.
|
(Seriously, if you've never seen Megamind, do so. You can thank me later.)
If I could go back in time and take over the planning team for CoV, I'd ditch Origin entirely and instead have each new villain character choose a motivation, then present story arcs tailored to the various motivations. One of my favorite old superhero pencil-n-paper games, DC Heroes, had five potential motivations for villains: mercenary, thrill-seeker, psychopath, power lust, and nihilist.
34 heroes,
20 villains, Victory, Justice, Infinity, Virtue, Triumph, Exalted -- some more active than others
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Game developers. They are ultimately responsible for every act of villainy in every MMO ever built, or which ever WILL be built. You want the ultimate villain, there ya go. (wink)
Hunter's Forty-Sixth Rule: If your head explodes, you were thinking too much, otherwise you shouldn't worry about the possibility.