Why are simple minded villains looked down upon?

[Tolvir]

12 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

  Hide contents

 

 

I'd like to agree with this. A villain doesn't necessarily have to be thought provoking, but they certainly shouldn't be obnoxious.

People have mentioned how much charisma helps an otherwise plain villain, and I would like to add "commanding presence" to the list of equally effective traits. A villain who is legitimately intimidating can compensate for a lack of complexity with an abundance of awe- which is very hard to maintain when engaging in edgy monologues.

A common issue with villains who aren't thoughtful is that they aren't entertaining or engaging either. It would be better if they kept their mouth shut and allowed their actions to generate their presence, but superficial cackling simply becomes obnoxious. They're strawmen- less than stock characters, and there's really no reason for them to engage in soliloquy (commonly about Social Darwinism or Nihilism*) aside from presenting pretentious illusions of depth, or wasting the audience's time to fulfill an unnecessary and in fact frustrating quota.

*- The reason these two are so often the subject of such ramblings is because no one will question it if you completely misrepresent them for the sake of cheap villainy.

 

T

This was all actually very off topic so I spoilered it. My bad, I got a bit carried away.

Nah I fully agree, an air of charisma around the villain, a reason for them to be intimidating, etc is better than the bland Saturday Morning Cartoon villains. Hell, in a way thats an insult to some of the Saturday Morning Cartoon villains that did achieve that.

Take Handsome Jack for example from Borderlands 2. He was a complete PoS evil villain, yet he was entertaining and charismatic because of the way he dealt with the "heroes" of the game. Or The Lich King from Warcraft who was intimidating and scary to deal with, any encounter outside of the last raid with him was an unwinnable scenario that forced you to run.

[Jotari]

Villains act, heroes react, generally speaking. So a villain who acts without strong reason feels weaker than a hero who reacts without a strong reason. A reacting hero, even if their motivation is one note, is still interacting with the world, their motivation doesn't need to be as strong because literally anything they could do (even not acting) furthers the narrative (provided the villain continues to force a reaction). Their reasons, not matter how shallow are clear based on their circumstances.

When it's the villains who's one note, then it feels weaker because by there very nature they're the ones creating the situation. If their reason for creating the situation is one note then the situation, and by extension the entire narrative, feels weaker.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

On 9/19/2018 at 10:41 AM, Hawkwing said:

It's not pessimism; it's realism.

I think we'll get along just fine.

On 9/19/2018 at 10:41 AM, Hawkwing said:

Granted, not everything can be well-written, but aiming to deliver strong morals will have a lasting impact more than anything else will, and I believe that all shows, children to adult, should strive towards that.

How very Platonic. I have more opinions on the subject, but that would be a bit too off topic for now.

On 9/19/2018 at 10:41 AM, Hawkwing said:

A somewhat relevant quote I thought about from C.S. Lewis:

"Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring two pence about how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."

Lovely. Which book was this from?

 

On 9/20/2018 at 12:38 AM, Jotari said:

Villains act, heroes react, generally speaking. So a villain who acts without strong reason feels weaker than a hero who reacts without a strong reason. A reacting hero, even if their motivation is one note, is still interacting with the world, their motivation doesn't need to be as strong because literally anything they could do (even not acting) furthers the narrative (provided the villain continues to force a reaction). Their reasons, not matter how shallow are clear based on their circumstances.

When it's the villains who's one note, then it feels weaker because by there very nature they're the ones creating the situation. If their reason for creating the situation is one note then the situation, and by extension the entire narrative, feels weaker.

Hey an original perspective on the thread, that's pretty slick.

A friend of mine has said in the past that heroes are "knights of the status quo." I'm not sure exactly how to articulate it or if the point even holds up, but the idea that the hero enforces our outlook or society in some placating way might have to do with it. Even heroes that change the world tend to make it more like ours or how we'd like to imagine our world is/can be and don't do so with means that all too drastic. What fits into those categories depends on the author and their environment, of course.

I think it's kind of interesting how people argue about what is good and why that is, but for most of human history, people assumed goodness/virtue to be fundamental to the universe, rather than a human invention. The idea that someone would want to do the right thing for no reason was, to them, obvious and accepted. It mostly is today, you really only see that questioned by asinine critics and silly folks on internet forums- like us.

[Hawkwing]

14 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

I think we'll get along just fine.

Pessimists and Cynics only know half the world.

14 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

How very Platonic. I have more opinions on the subject, but that would be a bit too off topic for now.

I've found that you can go off-topic as much as you want, as long as you give a separate answer that's relevant to the subject at hand. Putting the off-topic thing in a spoiler You can PM me if you want. Or start a topic elsewhere. This is really only in the General Fire Emblem category because Surtr was brought up.

14 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Lovely. Which book was this from?

I believe it was from one of the articles or essays he wrote. I didn't have much luck finding the specific one, though. Scarily, I actually found this very topic when searching it up.

On a random yet strangely relevant side-note, Lewis wrote a defense of the Lord of the Rings against the criticisms that it was too black and white and overall unrealistic. It was called "The Dethronement of Power", and is overall an interesting read.

14 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

A friend of mine has said in the past that heroes are "knights of the status quo." I'm not sure exactly how to articulate it or if the point even holds up, but the idea that the hero enforces our outlook or society in some placating way might have to do with it. Even heroes that change the world tend to make it more like ours or how we'd like to imagine our world is/can be and don't do so with means that all too drastic. What fits into those categories depends on the author and their environment, of course.

I think it's kind of interesting how people argue about what is good and why that is, but for most of human history, people assumed goodness/virtue to be fundamental to the universe, rather than a human invention. The idea that someone would want to do the right thing for no reason was, to them, obvious and accepted. It mostly is today, you really only see that questioned by asinine critics and silly folks on internet forums- like us.

Good heroes and moral teachers don't so much as create new rules as they remind us of the old ones.

'Course, we've been ignoring what we mean by "good" this entire thread. Although perhaps that's because it could be an entire topic in and of itself.

[AnonymousSpeed]

4 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

You can PM me if you want. Or start a topic elsewhere. This is really only in the General Fire Emblem category because Surtr was brought up.

 

Maybe. Iunno.

 

4 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Good heroes and moral teachers don't so much as create new rules as they remind us of the old ones.

Makes that C.S Lewis quote seem all the more related, doesn't it?

 

4 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

'Course, we've been ignoring what we mean by "good" this entire thread. Although perhaps that's because it could be an entire topic in and of itself.

Most certainly, though most people probably have similar enough ideas that we needn't define it before we begin.

[NekoKnight]

@Icelerate

I think you're mistaken if you think heroes are given a free pass for blandness. One thing that can set a generic hero apart from a generic villain is the amount of interaction they have with other elements. The hero can react in a myriad of ways to different events but a generic villain will often just hit the same beats over and over again.

To give an example, Surtr's appearances amount to him causing suffering and destruction, and nothing else. But a protagonist like Alfonse can give a unique reaction, such as the moral dilemma of leaving his citizens behind in order to search for the way to defeat the villain.

 

[Icelerate]

On 26/09/2018 at 2:39 AM, NekoKnight said:

@Icelerate

To give an example, Surtr's appearances amount to him causing suffering and destruction, and nothing else. But a protagonist like Alfonse can give a unique reaction, such as the moral dilemma of leaving his citizens behind in order to search for the way to defeat the villain.

 

If you've watched Teen Titans, what do you think of Trigon? I think he's just like Surtr although better executed and was very entertaining for me personally. 

[NekoKnight]

2 hours ago, Icelerate said:

If you've watched Teen Titans, what do you think of Trigon? I think he's just like Surtr although better executed and was very entertaining for me personally. 

Sadly I do not recall the show well enough to comment on it.

[Sand55]

Yeah, I've gotta say I can't stand Roy's and Eliwood's and Marth's (etc. etc.) personalities because they're just so darn heroic and noble and upstanding perfect people, all the time. Nobody is perfect; your characters have to have flaws and unresolved issues. That's why I like Eirika (only slightly more than the other protagonists): She takes a few chapters to fully commit to fighting Grado, and doesn't want to kill Lyon until the very end.