What is better: Evil Villains or sympathetic villains?

[The Overlord]

What is better: Evil Villains or sympathetic villains?

 

[The Question]

What about villains who are both?

 

[SuperFerret]

I agree with the Question, the best are those who are both. Guys who are completely evil are fun for a bit, but they eventually get to be one-dimensional. And those who are completely sympathetic slip from the classification of villainy altogether.

 

[Manic]

And then you've got your villains that constantly switch between both extremes. Like Magneto.

"Ooooh, I'm so sympathetic that I've given up my life of villainy!"
"Wait, now I'm angry and will lash out against any and everyone!"
"I just want mutants to be left alone."
"Kill all humans!"

 

[SuperFerret]

And then you've got your villains that constantly switch between both extremes. Like Magneto.

"Ooooh, I'm so sympathetic that I've given up my life of villainy!"
"Wait, now I'm angry and will lash out against any and everyone!"
"I just want mutants to be left alone."
"Kill all humans!"

So.... Magneto has been going through his "changes" for the past few years?

 

[Manic]

Try decades. I'm pretty sure he was an X-man in the 80s.


Worst male villain menopause ever.

 

[The Overlord]

What about villains who are both?

Like who?

 

[The Geek Vault]

Like who?

Dr. Doom

 

[The Overlord]

Dr. Doom

I would say Doom is more noble than sympathetic per say.

 

[yihdego]

The skrulls? They want a homeworld and can you blame them after Galactus ate theirs?

 

[Arach Knight]

I always found that the best villains were the ones who would do anything to achieve their goals, but their motives were of a sympathetic nature. This is the opposite end of the same spectrum that anti-heroes exist on. It is more believable that a human would act in selfishness rather than in altruism. But it is also believable that some of the most questionable actions may have an understandable/justified motivation. Dr. Doom, Magneto, Superboy Prime etc. All people who through tragedy, sought equity in life. In the pursuit of that equity, they have destroyed any and all who stood in their way.

 

[The Question]

Like who?

I was just saying, wouldn't both be better? But if you're looking for specific examples:

The Joker: The guy is bat**** insane. He's not fighting for anything that could be seen as a just cause. He's completely lost inside his own head, fufilling these fantasies of his because he can't cope with his own life. Anything he wants to be, he becomes, because the last thing he'd ever want to be is himself. His actions are completely unjustifiable, but I think we can all sympathize with what lead him to that breaking point, because he is quite clearly broken.

 

[The Geek Vault]

I was just saying, wouldn't both be better? But if you're looking for specific examples:

The Joker: The guy is bat**** insane. He's not fighting for anything that could be seen as a just cause. He's completely lost inside his own head, fufilling these fantasies of his because he can't cope with his own life. Anything he wants to be, he becomes, because the last thing he'd ever want to be is himself. His actions are completely unjustifiable, but I think we can all sympathize with what lead him to that breaking point, because he is quite clearly broken.

Actually the Jokre is kinda sympathetic in the beginning, He lost his wife and child and went nuts.

 

[The Overlord]

I was just saying, wouldn't both be better? But if you're looking for specific examples:

The Joker: The guy is bat**** insane. He's not fighting for anything that could be seen as a just cause. He's completely lost inside his own head, fufilling these fantasies of his because he can't cope with his own life. Anything he wants to be, he becomes, because the last thing he'd ever want to be is himself. His actions are completely unjustifiable, but I think we can all sympathize with what lead him to that breaking point, because he is quite clearly broken.

The problem is Joker has had too many "Rape the Dog" moments to be sympathetic: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeTheDog

As soon as a villain crosses certain lines, they are no longer sympathetic, that's why Toyman being a child killer was recently ret conned away, because once a character has a label like that, it sticks.

Joker at this point has killed kids for fun, frankly after that I don't care about his little sob story, I don't feel sorry for him, too many "rape the dog" moments.

Saying Joker is sympathetic, is like saying Red Skull is sympathetic because of his rough childhood, well after all the acts of terror, racism and genocide, he committed, I really don't care. It takes more than a sob story to be sympathetic.

 

[The Question]

Actually the Jokre is kinda sympathetic in the beginning, He lost his wife and child and went nuts.

That's what I was saying. You can't sympathize with his actions, but you can sympathize with how he got to that point.

The problem is Joker has had too many "Rape the Dog" moments to be sympathetic: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeTheDog

As soon as a villain crosses certain lines, they are no longer sympathetic, that's why Toyman being a child killer was recently ret conned away, because once a character has a label like that, it sticks.

Joker at this point has killed kids for fun, frankly after that I don't care about his little sob story, I don't feel sorry for him, too many "rape the dog" moments.

Saying Joker is sympathetic, is like saying Red Skull is sympathetic because of his rough childhood, well after all the acts of terror, racism and genocide, he committed, I really don't care. It takes more than a sob story to be sympathetic.

I think that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Like I said, his actions aren't what you sympathize with. You can write off any villain as "well, he's just evil, lost cause, end of story." But that is a massive disrespect to the character, and really, quite lazy on the part of the artist. To get to that point of anti-social behavior, a lot of the time, requires a very long and painful downward spiral. Isolation (real or perceived), loneliness, self loathing (and ultimately turning that self loathing outward onto society), a desire to matter or to be noticed, a need to prove oneself, these are all things that many people go through, and some or all of them can lead to or influence the descent into darkness that leads to a villainous character. Now, obviously, a writer uses their characters for a variety of reasons. If you're writing some kind of cautionary tale, or simply wants the villain to be a flat out bad guy for the audience to hate, that's fine. But I think one sign of a talented writer is when he takes a villain and makes his audience come to under stand how the character got to that point, maybe even sympathize with it, if not his actions after that point. That's what I personally prefer, because it treats the villain as just a fully formed character as the protagonist.

 

[The Overlord]

That's what I was saying. You can't sympathize with his actions, but you can sympathize with how he got to that point.



I think that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Like I said, his actions aren't what you sympathize with. You can write off any villain as "well, he's just evil, lost cause, end of story." But that is a massive disrespect to the character, and really, quite lazy on the part of the artist. To get to that point of anti-social behavior, a lot of the time, requires a very long and painful downward spiral. Isolation (real or perceived), loneliness, self loathing (and ultimately turning that self loathing outward onto society), a desire to matter or to be noticed, a need to prove oneself, these are all things that many people go through, and some or all of them can lead to or influence the descent into darkness that leads to a villainous character. Now, obviously, a writer uses their characters for a variety of reasons. If you're writing some kind of cautionary tale, or simply wants the villain to be a flat out bad guy for the audience to hate, that's fine. But I think one sign of a talented writer is when he takes a villain and makes his audience come to under stand how the character got to that point, maybe even sympathize with it, if not his actions after that point. That's what I personally prefer, because it treats the villain as just a fully formed character as the protagonist.

Understanding someone and sympathizing with them is two different things. You seem to be confusing them. I understand why the Red Skull is an evil monster, but I would never feel sorry for him.

Says you a lot of people would disagree and I haven't liked the direction they have taken with the Joker over the past decade.

In real life, when a serial killer goes around killing kids, people don't care how bad his childhood was, they wouldn't feel sorry for him and they would hate his guts. If Joker was in the real world, almost no one would feel sorry for him and people would be howling for his blood. You can argue that Hitler had a rough life, that does that mean people would feel sorry for him?

 

[shapeshifter]

So.... Magneto has been going through his "changes" for the past few years?

menopause

Personally i think it really depends on your perception of villains.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't sympathize with the Joker. He's chaos personified. That's what makes him cool. **** his wife and kid; he's so far from the human being he was at that point that their loss is not really relevant anymore.

 

[The Question]

Understanding someone and sympathizing with them is two different things. You seem to be confusing them. I understand why the Red Skull is an evil monster, but I would never feel sorry for him.

Says you a lot of people would disagree and I haven't liked the direction they have taken with the Joker over the past decade.

In real life, when a serial killer goes around killing kids, people don't care how bad his childhood was, they wouldn't feel sorry for him and they would hate his guts. If Joker was in the real world, almost no one would feel sorry for him and people would be howling for his blood. You can argue that Hitler had a rough life, that does that mean people would feel sorry for him?

You seem to be confusing sympathy with pity. When you sympathize with someone, you understand their feelings and experiences through your own. If you can do that with a villain, then you've made a very human character.

As for your comment about serial killers, that is an over simplification. Yes, many people would hate his guts and howl for his blood, as you say. Others would simply say put him in jail and forget about him. And others would feel that he was a monster because of his environment and deserved a chance at redemption. And regardless, it doesn't matter how the masses would react to a villain if he or she was real. What matters is showing the character to the viewer or reader that makes them compelling, which involves showing sides of them the public would never see if they were real. I would expect The Joker to be an unpopular figure among the people of the DCU. But the readers are not the people of the DCU.

I don't sympathize with the Joker. He's chaos personified. That's what makes him cool. **** his wife and kid; he's so far from the human being he was at that point that their loss is not really relevant anymore.

Like I said: I don't sympathize with what he does now. I sympathize with how he got to that point.

 

[Kitsune]

Jokers had so many "rape the dog moments" that he should be paying the dog rent.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

You seem to be confusing sympathy with pity. When you sympathize with someone, you understand their feelings and experiences through your own. If you can do that with a villain, then you've made a very human character.

I'm pretty sure relating through personal experience is empathy. Sympathy is just being able to put yourself in the other person's shoes and feel for them. At least, that's how I always understood the difference between those two terms.

 

[Harlekin]

Lately, I tend to prefer the villains that are y'know, villains. So you can put me down in the 'evil villains' category.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I like a variety, myself. There's room for every kind of villain, and the best villains aren't necessarily the ones with super-deep characterization; they're the ones who fit their heroic counterparts well. The Joker is the quintessential Batman villain because he's the chaos to Batman's order, the one element Batman can never hope to control or quantify or predict, Magneto creates a great ideological challenge to Xavier's dream, etc.

 

[DoomJester]

I like both and I like surprises. I mean, villains who are sympathetic because maybe they want to do something you'd think is generally good for everyone but they do it in a way that is bad. Like, Luthor wants to protect humanity by killing superman (or so the story goes). Well, that sounds really interesting. Super-man Prime, at least in Infinite Crisis (before he came back just angry and evil) had a perfect villainous turn. He really didn't mean to kill whoever it was he killed, but then he got caught up. Now he just "looks really cool" and "kills people to death."

Lady Death (in her Chaos series, not in evil ernie) is theoretically interesting because she is basically a villain but she is just surrounded by people far worse than her.

But I also like villains who are just evil because good needs to win over evil, none of this post-modernist far-left critique of power stuff. Good vs evil, to be concluded.

But I also like villains who surprise you-- like I read a Thor issue where Absorbing Man kidnapped a doctor so the doctor would help his wife. Something like that is also interesting.

 

[The Overlord]

You seem to be confusing sympathy with pity. When you sympathize with someone, you understand their feelings and experiences through your own. If you can do that with a villain, then you've made a very human character.

As for your comment about serial killers, that is an over simplification. Yes, many people would hate his guts and howl for his blood, as you say. Others would simply say put him in jail and forget about him. And others would feel that he was a monster because of his environment and deserved a chance at redemption. And regardless, it doesn't matter how the masses would react to a villain if he or she was real. What matters is showing the character to the viewer or reader that makes them compelling, which involves showing sides of them the public would never see if they were real. I would expect The Joker to be an unpopular figure among the people of the DCU. But the readers are not the people of the DCU.

I think you are confusing sympathy with empathy.

Not it matters, if you make character too evil, you can't relate to them at all. I can't relate or put myself in Joker's shoes, because I don't go around poisoning children for kicks and I would never do that. After a certain point, a character can become so evil that there is no way to relate them, because you can't put yourself in that characters shoes, because most people would never do the things Joker does.

Are you saying red skull is relatable just because he had a rough childhood? After a certain point joker's past comes across more as sob story a psychopath tells to get off the hook, then a sympathetic origin.

Really how many people have defended or felt sorry for Ted Bundy?