Bad Guys Going Good

(Note: I'm about two months behind on comics, so if some of my references seem outdated, that's why. Please refrain from mentioning the most up-to-date happenings, or at least provide a spoiler warning beforehand.)

And I don't mean choosing to begin a Brute in Atlas Park.

This has been an ongoing trend at Marvel Comics for a while now (and as that's mostly all I read, the only thing I can specifically comment on).

There are the obvious ones: Hulk began as an Avengers villain, Magento was the X-Men's greatest villain and now he's a member of the team, Emma Frost was always evil eye candy and now she's just a sardonic girlfriend. Juggernaut was an unstoppable engine of destruction, then he began to piss off Cyttorak because he would rather go around that orphanage than through it.

Not to mention the Thunderbolts and all they touch. Baron Zemo was a great villain (although now he's kind of back to being a villain? Hard to keep track with that guy), The Shocker and Boomerang and Calvin Zabo are suddenly concerned with someone other than themselves? Blasphemy!

But perhaps the greatest loss from villainy's ranks would be that of Dr. Doom. Ever since he became the Godfather of Valeria Richards, he's had a surprisingly close relationship with that of his greatest nemesis and his family. In recent issues of FF (and X-Men), Doom has donned the Future Foundation white-and-black costumes and is playing as nice as Doomly possible!

What has always made Doom interesting was the relationships he developed with his archnemeses, but actually joining the team (however briefly this turns out to be), isn't that crossing a line?

What do you think?

Are heroic dalliances for villains a good thing?

They seem to be quite commonplace - Are there any heroes who make selfish, villainous decisions at times and dabble in the "gray"? The only examples I can conjure are the kids in Avengers Academy, and they're kind of still learning. Fear itself: Youth in Revolt (that I also just read) had a really good example of the "Vigilante morality mission" for Hardball as well.

In your estimation, what are the best transitions of villain to hero? Which ones did you know from the start would only be temporary?

For the good of the character, perhaps "FF Doom" will turn out to only be a Doombot, thataway we can have our cake and eat it too!

Good Villains are only Villains because they have an opposing view than the heroes or society or they believe that they can improve society by doing what they are doing.

Why wouldn't a good villain go "good"? They want what's best for society, humanity, whatever. If the best way to do that has changed why wouldn't they also change?

Is that the case with any of the examples I provided?

And I don't think, say, The Joker, Kingpin, Hobgoblin, Carnage, Red Skull, or Annihilus give a damn about the betterment of society as a whole.

More examples: Venom (Lethal Protector?! to be fair, he was always kind of gray), Rhino (for at least a brief stretch in Amazing Spider-Man before he was replaced and/or his fiancee died, I forget which happened first), Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch.

Always grey: Thanos, Galactus, the High Evolutionary (now there's a guy that I would buy the "trying to better society" excuse).

Some points of note:

The Hulk was around for almost 18 months before appearing in the Avengers (in which he was being manipulated by Loki). Before then, he was almost always portrayed as a misunderstood and simple brute, not actively evil or cruel. The Hulk has never (almost, WWH could be considered villainy) been a villain. Many times Hulk has been a pawn in a villainous plot, but once he discovers that he has been deceived and manipulated, he always turns against that same villain and helps the good guys.

Magneto has always been a nuanced villain. The survival and progress of the mutant species has always been his primary goal. Most of the time, he advances that goal as a terrorist, but there have been many times where he has been persuaded to try a gentler path. As there are still less than 250 mutants worldwide, Magneto is playing nice because mutantkind cannot afford to fight amongst themselves and still survive. Magneto is that very rare breed (probably unique) of terrorist who is also a realist.

Emma Frost and Juggernaut have both had life experiences that have altered their viewpoints. They backslide sometimes, but they are not irredeemable.

Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were initially swayed by Magneto's charisma and vision, but they (and the rest of the original Brotherhood) were also abused and browbeaten by him. They were not "true believers" in his cause and methods, but reluctant soldiers. At the first opportunity to switch sides, they took it (first appearance, March 1964, joined Avengers in May 1965).

The Thunderbolts are an interesting study. Baron Zemo is still a villain. Everything he does, he does to advance himself. This was true when he formed the Thunderbolts (he formed the team so he could get access to the world's security databases, which he planned to use in his bid to take over the world), and it is still true now. By occasionally playing the "honorable" villain, he gets some leeway in the way he is treated.

The other Thunderbolts, to varying degrees, began to enjoy the acclaim and celebrity that comes with being a hero. As a result, some of them decided they wanted to actually be heroes instead of simply playing one on TV. If the choice is getting your butt handed to you on a regular basis by "Joe Random Super Hero of the Week" in the midst of some ultimately unsuccessful and unprofitable heist or preventing a heist, kicking some villainous butt and being hailed as a hero, I'd probably take hero. Villainy is rewarding only until you get caught. Heroism can be rewarding even in the face of defeat.

Venom (now Anti-Venom) as hero has always bothered me, as Eddie Brock's transformation from selfish jerk to selfless protector (who still hates Spider Man and Peter Parker) has never rung true.

The Doctor Doom storyline you mention is a surprise to me. Reading the plot summary so far, it looks like Doom has recently suffered a life changing experience (and some brain damage) that have softened his worldview. I would expect that once that pesky brain damage is fixed (which was the carrot held out to him to get him to join the FF in the first place), he will revert to his old self.

While some of the best villains are irredeemable (Joker, Kingpin, Red Skull), the irredeemable villain is also usually kind of boring. They have their schtick, and that is about it. Some of the greatest villains (Magneto, Baron Zemo) have more complex personalities that let them set aside their own plans for a while for the greater good.

The Joker : Depends on incarnation - The Dark Knight version could be considered acting in the betterment of society. The comic version, he started out as a good guy that was pushed over the edge, but either way his focus has been Batman and not society. His entire persona relies on the Batman persona so if Batman ceases to be he would do what is best for himself which is to re-establish Batman. So it makes sense for him to become a good guy outside of Batman's presence.

Kingpin - If I remember right he was a mistreated kid and wanted the bullies to stop. He accomplished this by attaining powers and controlling the bullies. So any evil he does becomes a necessary evil rather than him being evil in general.

Hobgoblin - Crazy people are crazy...

Carnage - same as above...

Red Skull - don't know enough of his history, but isn't his goal similar to the Nazi's? Purification by killing off those who go against him. Yes killing his bad, but his ultimate goal is a utopia where everyone follows the law and such.

Annihilus - no clue

Venom - He's never been evil. He's always just not liked Peter. Outside of that he's always been a fairly decent guy.

Rhino - He'll do anything that makes him a buck, being a common criminal and all.

Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch & Magneto - They all share the view that Mutants are superior and best way to transition is to remove humans. At some points they don't think this is the case and agree with Xavier. They don't want to cause chaos and such.

Thanos - don't know much about him

Galactus - He doesn't want to kill billions of people. He was created by trying to survive and killing planets allows him to continue to survive and his continued survival allows the rest of the universe survive. So if I want to save as many people as possible, not letting the entire universe get whiped out is a good place to start and that's Galactus' function.

the High Evolutionary - Isn't it his goal to create a utopia?

Hulk - He was just out of control when he's considered evil. It is those attacking him that make him so. So when he is in control and not being attacked he's good.

Dr. Doom - Doom is odd. In general he's a good guy/ruler as shown when he takes over the world. The reason he hands it back is cuz he's bored or something. So he puts his own enjoyment before the world, but I'd imagine that he still wants to see that well ruled world. One of the best ways to get that world is for others to step up and one of the best ways to get people to step up is to be the target.

Dunno enough about the people below...
Emma Frost
Juggernaut
Baron Zemo
The Shocker
Boomerang
Calvin Zabo

I never considered Doom to be bad in the classic sense. He sees that the world could be made into a better place for all if only someone would step up and force everyone to work for the common good. The disagreement comes from the "force" part of the previous statement. The whole "ends justifies the means" argument.

Has anyone mentioned Wonderman and Hawkeye? I beleive both of them started out as villians as well.

Hmm....hasn't one of my two favorite blue-skinned redheads(guess the other one) Mystique become somewhat of a anti-hero at least? She's worked with and for the X-men, at least in her own comic run, as I recall?

My bad about the Hulk! I had forgotten it was all a Loki plot! I would have edited, but I was out of town all weekend.

Why is it that the redeemed villain is a more interesting story than the fallen hero? Outside of Mark Waid's Irredeemable, I can't think of too many heroes that were lost to "evil."

I'd say (using D&D terminology) that Venom (the Eddie Brock version) was at best Lawful Evil. He had no problem using a lot of villianish tactics, but there were a few lines that he wouldn't cross. Venom (Mac Gargan) is more Neutral Evil, but the symbiote was more controlling then.

Doom isn't evil.

Well, most of the time. There have been a couple of aberrant episodes.

Doom usually just has an agenda that runs counter to the heroes.

In fact, Jean Grey has at one point mind-scanned him, and realized Doom hasn't got a truly evil bone in his body.

He just honestly believes he needs to be the one running the world because he's the best man for the job. He thinks that under his rule, all of humankind will achieve a perfect utopian society.



-np

Two thoughts on this thread:

Re: Doom, what I've always liked about him is that while he is unquestionably a villain, in the sense that he's an antagonist to the protagonists of the story, and while he does certainly have wicked qualities, he also has good ones. Even if you hold to ideas of absolute good and evil, "hero" and "villain" do not necessarily equate to "good" and "evil" in every story, all of the time. Doom's redeeming qualities don't necessarily make him a "good guy," but they do make him easy to relate to. Note that I tend to lean toward the '80's/'90's Triumph and Torment view of Doom, the quasi-noble character, rather than Mark Waid's "he's an evil, self-delusional guy, self-delusion is inherently evil, and unless you're Green Arrow, you, reader, are self-delusional" interpretation that was apparently the last version of him to make a big splash. To me, what Waid told his readers should make them hate Doom is exactly what I like about him; everyone has egocentric moments now and then, and I don't believe that makes everyone a bad person (Waid has stated, in his writings on Irredeemable, that he does).

This brings me to point #2. Given the prevalence of a kind of jaded cynicism among geekdom, including comic fans, the question of "Why are redeemed villains so much more popular than fallen heroes?" is an excellent one. One would think, given how eager fans seem to see things fail and how quick they are to suspect ulterior motives, that they'd enjoy seeing heroes inevitably stumble, not villains rising above themselves. Anyone have any theories on this? (I have several, but I'm not convinced by any of them yet.)