What is better: Evil Villains or sympathetic villains?

[TheCorpulent1]

Isn't relatability more of a concern for the heroes? I don't need to relate to the Joker. He exists as an obstacle for Batman--the guy I'm supposed to relate to--to overcome.

 

[The Overlord]

Isn't relatability more of a concern for the heroes? I don't need to relate to the Joker. He exists as an obstacle for Batman--the guy I'm supposed to relate to--to overcome.

Well some villains you can relate to and some you can't. Joker you can't.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Because you don't need to.

 

[Arach Knight]

The Joker is not a sympathetic character. "Insanity" is a vauge term that is often misused by the general public to describe a variety of mental afflictions. The Joker is a sociopath. He knows the difference between good, evil, right and wrong. He merely lacks the emotional balance that allows him to empathize with how cruel he is to others. Think of Jeff Lindsay's Dexter (the book version...not the Showtime version). The only difference is that Dexter was trained to put his desires into a positive frame (though he is still a murderer).

The Joker however, had no such training. He shot Barbra Gordon, paralyzing her, even though is intention was to shoot Jim Gordon (and kill him). He has beat Jason Todd with a crow bar, after getting his mother to trick him into finding her. He then betrays her and kills them both, by using a bomb. He did this for sheer joy and to infuriate The Batman. Such a character can hardly be called sympathetic. He is the embodiment of evil. But that is what makes him work so well. If Batman represents absolute justice (fairness) and order then The Joker represents absolute malice (bias) and chaos.

Here are some sympathetic villains;

Dr. Doom: Desires absolute power and the hope of one day having enough of it, so that he can defeat the demon who stole his mothers soul. Noted for never going back on his word, and thus being a sort of noble villain (though you must be careful of the "fine print" with any agreement with Doom).

Magneto: The victim of the Jewish holocaust, Magneto sees the same signs of danger for mutant-kind, that he once saw for his own people. Through any means necessary, he seeks peace and stability for his people, even if it means the subjection of homo sapiens sapiens.

Two Face: A former enforcer of the law as a District Attorney, even in his contorted mental state, Harvey Dent believes in (a perverted) form of equality. He has been known to be a cold blooded killer while on the rare occassion, he has actually aided the likes of Batman and Renee Montoya. Deep down, Harvey is commited to the choice of right or wrong. It just so happens to be governed by a two headed coin.

 

[fifthfiend]

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.

Fact.

With something like the Joker you're beyond anything in his background that could justify his actions. Losing your wife and child and being driven to kill is tragic. Losing your wife and child and being driven to serial-murder children, you were broken long before you had whatever tragedy as an excuse to be the monster you always knew you were.

 

[The Question]

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.

I'm not saying it's his actions you relate to. It's what went through his head and what happened in his life that lead up to that point. A lot of people have become fairly messed up for a variety of reasons. Most of them pulled themselves back up, and thank god for that. But showing that a villain has experienced the same things that a lot of people have that can lead to that kind of anti-social behavior. It humanizes the character, which can be very important.

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

That doesn't matter. The reader isn't the general public of whatever fictional universe the story takes place in. The reader sees the characters in ways the general public of that universe never will.

The Joker is not a sympathetic character. "Insanity" is a vauge term that is often misused by the general public to describe a variety of mental afflictions. The Joker is a sociopath. He knows the difference between good, evil, right and wrong. He merely lacks the emotional balance that allows him to empathize with how cruel he is to others. Think of Jeff Lindsay's Dexter (the book version...not the Showtime version). The only difference is that Dexter was trained to put his desires into a positive frame (though he is still a murderer).

The Joker however, had no such training. He shot Barbra Gordon, paralyzing her, even though is intention was to shoot Jim Gordon (and kill him). He has beat Jason Todd with a crow bar, after getting his mother to trick him into finding her. He then betrays her and kills them both, by using a bomb. He did this for sheer joy and to infuriate The Batman. Such a character can hardly be called sympathetic. He is the embodiment of evil. But that is what makes him work so well. If Batman represents absolute justice (fairness) and order then The Joker represents absolute malice (bias) and chaos.

The Joker isn't a sociopath. He's completely lost in his own mind, acting out whatever fantasies and whims run through his head because he can't deal with the real world anymore. His madness has developed a lot farther than "some eccentric guy who kills people."

 

[Arach Knight]

The Joker isn't that far gone nor does he have any "madness." If he were that "lost" on reality then he would not be able to make sense of anything around him and his judgements would be harmful even to himself. Those sorts of mentally hindered individuals have misconceived perceptions of time and place. They believe themselves to be people they are not. None of those describe Joker, whom you claim is "lost in his own mind." If he were that gone, he would not date Harley Quinn, hate Batman and Jim Gordon, nor would he plan lavish crimes with such meticlously detailed themes on sick jokes based in his perverted sense of humor. If he were truly insane, killing would be an after thought of incident rather than well thought out plans. Some one that mentally lost, doesn't get a gun and knock on a police commissioners door and attempt to murder them at point blank range. A person that "lost" would kill on accident, not on purpose (if at all). Joker wasn't driven so mad that he kills because he can't cope with the world. Joker can deal with the world. And murder and mayhem are his means of dealing with it. Every lost life and injured body is just another punch line to Jokers jokes. Joker is what Cletus Kasady is, without powers. No remorse, all murder and all evil.

 

[The Question]

The Joker isn't that far gone nor does he have any "madness." If he were that "lost" on reality then he would not be able to make sense of anything around him and his judgements would be harmful even to himself. Those sorts of mentally hindered individuals have misconceived perceptions of time and place. They believe themselves to be people they are not. None of those describe Joker, whom you claim is "lost in his own mind." If he were that gone, he would not date Harley Quinn, hate Batman and Jim Gordon, nor would he plan lavish crimes with such meticlously detailed themes on sick jokes based in his perverted sense of humor. If he were truly insane, killing would be an after thought of incident rather than well thought out plans. Some one that mentally lost, doesn't get a gun and knock on a police commissioners door and attempt to murder them at point blank range. A person that "lost" would kill on accident, not on purpose (if at all). Joker wasn't driven so mad that he kills because he can't cope with the world. Joker can deal with the world. And murder and mayhem are his means of dealing with it. Every lost life and injured body is just another punch line to Jokers jokes. Joker is what Cletus Kasady is, without powers. No remorse, all murder and all evil.

I disagree. I generally agree with Grant Morrison's description of The Joker's mental state:

 

[The Overlord]

That super sane stuff is kinda BS.

Really is there any indication Joker can't tell right from wrong?

The fact is Joker has been more as psychopath, less like psychotic for the past 15 years. He isn't insane, because everything he does pre mediated, how many crazy people actual have pre mediated actions, just them just attack people with no planning involved and would have specific, constant disillusion (like thinking they are napoleon). Joker doesn't have any of that. Joker isn't even unpredictable, he goes goes killing people and making lame jokes, in almost every story, he is pretty predictable. When is the last time his insanity showed it self in a harmless form?

If Joker was insane, he would be way more harmless then he is, he is written as psychopath more than any thing else nowadays.

 

[Arach Knight]

Grant Morrison is a respectable writer, but I do not always agree with how he interprets certain characters or books (leather clad non-super hero X-Men come to mind). I can't say that his perspective is invalid...but it is not congruous with other interpretations, including his original take back when Bill Finger and Bob Kane handled it.

"The Joker is a master criminal, initially portrayed as a violent sociopath who murders people and commits crimes for his own amusement."

That was his original take. Here is a more contemporary take from Paul Dini and Alex Ross.

"The Paul Dini-Alex Ross story "Case Study" proposes a far different theory. This story suggests that the Joker was a sadistic gangster who worked his way up Gotham's criminal food chain until he was the leader of a powerful mob. Still seeking the thrills that dirty work allowed, he created the Red Hood identity for himself so that he could commit small-time crimes. Eventually, he had his fateful first meeting with Batman, resulting in his disfigurement. However, the story suggests that the Joker retained his sanity, and researched his crimes to look like the work of a sick mind in order to pursue his vendetta against Batman."

I also don't support the idea of Joker as being a sympathetic villain, due to the circumstances of "A Death in the Family." He beats Jason Todd nearly to death. Blackmails Jason's mother into helping him extort medical supplies from a desperate population. Sells said supplies on the black market and replaces the ones given to the needy, with Joker gas. He then accepts a position as Iranian Ambassador, thus giving him political immunity. That is a little too well thought out for a man who supposedly creates his own reality on a day to day basis. Grant Morrison is a wonderful writer, but this time, i'll have to say that even his writing is wrong, in the face of established legacy and continued legacy from that point foward.

 

[Harlekin]

Dr. Doom: Desires absolute power and the hope of one day having enough of it, so that he can defeat the demon who stole his mothers soul. Noted for never going back on his word, and thus being a sort of noble villain (though you must be careful of the "fine print" with any agreement with Doom).

That's not really Doom's motivation at all. He wants to rule the world and kill Reed Richards. His mom's soul was important too, but he already saved her twenty years ago or so.

 

[shapeshifter]

That's not really Doom's motivation at all. He wants to rule the world and kill Reed Richards. His mom's soul was important too, but he already saved her twenty years ago or so.

can't blame him there.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

That's not really Doom's motivation at all. He wants to rule the world and kill Reed Richards. His mom's soul was important too, but he already saved her twenty years ago or so.

He doesn't even want to rule the world anymore. He did that, found it boring, and returned to Latveria.

 

[The Question]

Grant Morrison is a respectable writer, but I do not always agree with how he interprets certain characters or books (leather clad non-super hero X-Men come to mind). I can't say that his perspective is invalid...but it is not congruous with other interpretations, including his original take back when Bill Finger and Bob Kane handled it.

"The Joker is a master criminal, initially portrayed as a violent sociopath who murders people and commits crimes for his own amusement."

That was his original take. Here is a more contemporary take from Paul Dini and Alex Ross.

"The Paul Dini-Alex Ross story "Case Study" proposes a far different theory. This story suggests that the Joker was a sadistic gangster who worked his way up Gotham's criminal food chain until he was the leader of a powerful mob. Still seeking the thrills that dirty work allowed, he created the Red Hood identity for himself so that he could commit small-time crimes. Eventually, he had his fateful first meeting with Batman, resulting in his disfigurement. However, the story suggests that the Joker retained his sanity, and researched his crimes to look like the work of a sick mind in order to pursue his vendetta against Batman."

I also don't support the idea of Joker as being a sympathetic villain, due to the circumstances of "A Death in the Family." He beats Jason Todd nearly to death. Blackmails Jason's mother into helping him extort medical supplies from a desperate population. Sells said supplies on the black market and replaces the ones given to the needy, with Joker gas. He then accepts a position as Iranian Ambassador, thus giving him political immunity. That is a little too well thought out for a man who supposedly creates his own reality on a day to day basis. Grant Morrison is a wonderful writer, but this time, i'll have to say that even his writing is wrong, in the face of established legacy and continued legacy from that point foward.

I don't see his interpretation as being incongruous. If anything, I see it as tying all the vastly different interpretations of the character together. While the common trend with The Joker is to portray him as a stone cold killer, the fact remains that his character has varied wildly from writer to writer, even by the standards of mainstream American comics. Morrison's idea takes the stone cold serial killer Joker, the high profile thief Joker, the sarcastic crime boss Joker, the hate filled urban terrorist Joker, the harmless prankster Joker, and the Dadaist cult leader/anti-hero Joker, and says that it's all the same, deeply disturbed individual. I would argue that the reason he almost always plays the role of the villain, and the reason why he often falls into the roll of the sociopathic criminal mastermind, is because of Batman. If he follows any kind of logic, it's the logic of a performer. In his mind, he's an actor on a stage, and his life is a show he's putting on. Batman serves as the perfect straight man, in that regard.

Really, though, the thing is that I just find the idea of The Joker shifting his personality on a whim to simply be much more interesting that just having him be an eccentric sociopath. I think it allows writers to do almost anything they want with the character, making him much more versatile, and I think it illustraits the chaos/order duality of The Joker and Batman a lot more strongly. But I think at this point we're getting down to a matter of personal preference and interpretation.

 

[Harlekin]

He doesn't even want to rule the world anymore. He did that, found it boring, and returned to Latveria.

Partially true. Hasn't he ruled the world about three times now?

 

[The Question]

Partially true. Hasn't he ruled the world about three times now?

I think one was in the Marvel 2099 universe. And it was just North America and some small European nations.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

He ruled Earth once, as far as I know, in Emperor Doom. He ruled Counter-Earth (the Heroes Reborn Earth) after he lost his fight with Thor in Heroes Reborn: The Return and crashed back down to that planet. I don't know of any third time.

 

[Vanguard07]

He actually rules the earth now. They just havent shown it yet on panel. It will be revealed in about 4 months.

Incidentally which type of villain would you say Kl'rt is? (if any)

 

[The Question]

He actually rules the earth now. They just havent shown it yet on panel. It will be revealed in about 4 months.

Incidentally which type of villain would you say Kl'rt is? (if any)

I'd say sympathetic, in the sense that his motivations are understandable. He's just a soldier, fighting for queen and country.

 

[shapeshifter]

If doom really ruled the world Richards would be melted down and used to resole doom's boots so he could always be standing over his fallen enemy.

 

[Mutagen]

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.

Me too. I like diversity, my favourite villains have become just plain evil, but that doesn't mean I want every villain that way, or even my favourites forever.

Some of the best stories are when you see their life through their eyes, their ideas, why they do what they do, a purpose.

That being said, a lot of the best "Hero" tales are when facing a foe that you can't sympathize with. A scary bad guy who's random nature might be too much for the hero.

 

[BrianWilly]

There's room for all types. I find myself enjoying the whole gamut of villain types.

What I really do not like and do not approve of, on the other hand, is the notion that someone could be or could have been a completely evil bastard...and yet still try to say, "Oh, but see they're actually good deep down, you know?" Like you want it both ways -- an evil guy, but he's actually good! -- but sometimes those both ways simply can not coexist.

I remember the controversy that existed and still exists for Waid's "Unthinkable" arc, where he made Dr. Doom wear the skin of his one true love, and for Morrison's "Planet X" arc, where he made Magneto an out-of-control dictator. And I completely agree with both Waid and Morrison. So many writers and readers have gotten it into their heads what big, fluffy, misunderstood woobies those two actually are, and while that does have its place, it's about high time someone remembered what those big fluffy misunderstood woobies are also capable of. How many times have we heard the fandom actually say out loud "Magneto is right!" or "Doom is right!" at this point? It's ridiculously comical, because they're not right. It got to the point where, when Doom's "resurrection" came about in Civil War, a whole gamut of fanpersons were actually attempting to make the argument that Doom could lift Mjolnir. Which is insanity. Yes, they are tragic figures. Yes, they are sympathetic. Yet they are also tragic, sympathetic figures who have flirted with torture, murder, and genocide more times in canon than most real-world figures have. They're not right. They're not good.

 

[Arach Knight]

But I think at this point we're getting down to a matter of personal preference and interpretation.

That is true. I feel as though I hastily denied the validity of Morrison's take, because it was not in line with most popular interpretations of The Joker. In all honesty it is probably a better sign that the character has been written so fluidly, that he can be enjoyed from various perspectives, without limiting his characterization. So I make concession and say that we are both correct about the Joker in our own way. The mentally ill interpretation is a sympathetic man who has no ability to function, while the sociopath interpretation is a heartless and calculating fiend. In a sense, it is almost like we as readers create the Jokers reality.

And for those who wonder, yes Doom has already ruled the world. He was President of the Earth (if I am not mistaken. It has been some years since I read it) in Doom 2099. He actually more or less became benevolent and just. That is why I consider Doom to be sympathetic. He is not so obsessed with destroying the world or oppressing people. Now he is immensely egotistical...but that is just a human fault that even good guys (Professor X comes to mind) share.

 

[fifthfiend]

Side note: I think the Joker would be generally a better character if he was less just outright insane and more actually funny more of the time.

Like he should still kill people, just in ways that force you to chuckle, even though you hate yourself for doing it.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm a fan of the completely insane Joker. The Joker who would take potshots at random spots in Gotham City with a sniper rifle because he was bored, then disappear when he found something else to do.