The worst villain

[Medeus]

3 hours ago, Rapier said:

The easy answer is Gharnef and Medeus, and I'm still thinking if I should accept the "but they're from really old games!" excuse because FE2's Mila and Duma at least had more developed personalities (and FE15 improves that, at least regarding Mila, Jedah and others). Evil sorcerer who wants to ressurect a dark dragon because he's evil and a dark dragon who wants to conquer/destroy the world because he is evil (Lopt has the same problem, but at least Julius is more charismatic).

Duma maybe (and I only say that because his final quote is more meaningful then anything Medeus and Gharnef say), but I can't say I agree with Mila. She never appears in Gaiden proper, so we don't see her character on display anymore then we do Naga (pre-Awakening), and the stray dialogue we get about her paints her as a motherly figure with the only point of interest being her spoiling people. That's still pretty generic and underdeveloped in the scheme of things as she's basically your typical mother goddess archetype with little else. The lore does give her a bit more to work with due to her warring with Duma, but only in the same way it gave Medeus a proper backstory: We learn about what these characters did in the past and how they got to the point we see (well, hear in Mila's case), but nothing that would make them a well fleshed out character. 

Similarly, I wouldn't say Jedah is all that developed in either incarnation. He serves Duma as a part of a cult, but his motivations for why are left up to interpretation at best and he's causing suffering just because it suits him and his god. FE15 does give him more screentime, but in the end he's still the exact same in terms of motivations and isn't far off from villains like Validar in that regard. He serves his god, loves doing evil things for reasons that are not properly explored, and there's little (if anything) that's sympathetic about him.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Medeus

[Rapier]

26 minutes ago, Medeus said:

Duma maybe (and I only say that because his final quote is more meaningful then anything Medeus and Gharnef say), but I can't say I agree with Mila. She never appears in Gaiden proper, so we don't see her character on display anymore then we do Naga (pre-Awakening), and the stray dialogue we get about her paints her as a motherly figure with the only point of interest being her spoiling people. That's still pretty generic and underdeveloped in the scheme of things as she's basically your typical mother goddess archetype with little else. The lore does give her a bit more to work with due to her warring with Duma, but only in the same way it gave Medeus a proper backstory: We learn about what these characters did in the past and how they got to the point we see (well, hear in Mila's case), but nothing that would make them a well fleshed out character. 

Similarly, I wouldn't say Jedah is all that developed in either incarnation. He serves Duma as a part of a cult, but his motivations for why are left up to interpretation at best and he's causing suffering just because it suits him and his god. FE15 does give him more screentime, but in the end he's still the exact same in terms of motivations and isn't far off from villains like Validar in that regard. He serves his god, loves doing evil things for reasons that are not properly explored, and there's little (if anything) that's sympathetic about him.

About Duma and Mila, what sets them apart is the introduction to the game and the descriptions we get about them (I don't remember if it is manual exclusive or not). Mila is portrayed as motherly and bontiful, at the expense of being frugal and prone to decadence. Duma is portrayed as hard working and dilligent, at the expense of being rigid and militaristic. I find this duality interesting.

His motivations are never revealed, but Jedah shows intelligence and wit on his exchanges with other characters, which is what I liked about him. I don't mind that he is evil so long as he isn't being evil for the sake of it - I haven't beaten Echoes yet, but his actions are always for his benefit and Duma's, never his god's alone. He isn't like Gharnef or Validar, selflessly willing to sacrifice themselves for their dark gods without any perspective of personal gain. It is understandable that a greedy, power hungry person would act as Jedah.

tbh, my ideal Gharnef archetype is someone like Bakura, from Yu-Gi-Oh!'s 5th season. He is willing to commit atrocities and awaken a dark god because of misdeeds done to him and his relatives/village, and since the show deals with gray morality at some points, sometimes his thrist for vengeance is understandable, although not justifiable.

[Medeus]

1 hour ago, Rapier said:

About Duma and Mila, what sets them apart is the introduction to the game and the descriptions we get about them (I don't remember if it is manual exclusive or not). Mila is portrayed as motherly and bontiful, at the expense of being frugal and prone to decadence. Duma is portrayed as hard working and dilligent, at the expense of being rigid and militaristic. I find this duality interesting.

His motivations are never revealed, but Jedah shows intelligence and wit on his exchanges with other characters, which is what I liked about him. I don't mind that he is evil so long as he isn't being evil for the sake of it - I haven't beaten Echoes yet, but his actions are always for his benefit and Duma's, never his god's alone. He isn't like Gharnef or Validar, selflessly willing to sacrifice themselves for their dark gods without any perspective of personal gain. It is understandable that a greedy, power hungry person would act as Jedah.

tbh, my ideal Gharnef archetype is someone like Bakura, from Yu-Gi-Oh!'s 5th season. He is willing to commit atrocities and awaken a dark god because of misdeeds done to him and his relatives/village, and since the show deals with gray morality at some points, sometimes his thrist for vengeance is understandable, although not justifiable.

The duality is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that they have little to their characters otherwise. You can't define Mila outside of 'motherly with bountiful powers', and you can barely define Duma outside of saying 'hard working', as what else we hear of them does little to add much else to their traits. That's not a bad thing in terms of their role as Mila is more a backstory character/motivation for Celica while Duma is the final boss and thus has little interaction otherwise, but if you were to look at their characters in a vacuum there's not much to them. It's comparable to the characters involved in the Dragon War and War of Liberation in that regard, we get details about their backstories, but it doesn't fully affect their personalities outside of certain traits and motivations.

Minor nitpick, but Gharnef (or at least, Shadow Dragon Gharnef) couldn't care less about Medeus outside of what he can do for him. The relationship between Gharnef and Medeus is actually somewhat unique among their archetypes as they both see each other as a means to an end and once the war is over, their partnership is over and more then likely (and it's heavily implied Gharnef is plotting it) one would overthrow the other for their own goals. So Gharnef wouldn't blindly sacrifice himself for Medeus' sake, at least not without a potential gain for himself.

Now leading into Jedah, I'll only focus on Echoes here as Gaiden lacks some of the traits you're talking about due to less dialogue. The thing with the point of greedy villain like Jedah is that it's still not that much of a step up from characters like Validar. Yes it's true that we at least have a reason for him to serve Duma that isn't just 'watch the world burn', but we never see what pushes him to get this power. Is it because of the cult influencing his mindset? Is it because he was raised that way under Duma's and Rigel's ideals? It's never delved into why he seeks this strength, he's just shown doing it for his own selfish gain and that's pretty much all that's given. Compare that to the manga's Manfloy (it is implied in FE4, but the manga delves more into it), we know that he wants the Lopt Empire to rise again and thus give him power, but then at the end of the 1st Generation we get to learn why he wants that power. Back when he was kid, he was captured and nearly burned at stake for being a part of the Lopt cult alongside his family and friends. Even though he meant no harm and was just curious what the world outside of the caves looked like, it didn't matter and he was being persecuted outright just for being in that cult. Thus, he grew resentful of the people on the surface, and through that desired power as a way to persecute those who tormented him like they did that very day. So for him, that power was given more meaning to him outside of just plain greed, it was also a way to serve out his own vengeance. Jedah doesn't have that, he has more of a reason to serve his god, it's still not delved into enough to make him that developed as a villain. He still lacks the execution to make his motivations and goals fully understandable, and as a result ends up very limited as a villain.

[Devnad]

Sorry for the necropost but felt like commenting.

I haven't played anything past Fire Emblem 10, so I can't comment on those. Based on what I heard the villains in those games are really boring and not well designed. 
Out of the main villains in FE4 to 10, probably my least favorite villain was Ashnard. It could be that FE 9 had probably the most interesting playable characters in the series, so it made Ashnard look even weaker than he actually was.
I think what makes a good villain is 3 main things.
1. They need to have an interesting motive or an interesting character.
2. They need to be built up throughout the course of the game so when the fight finally happens it feels like the absolute climax.
3. The main character should have some sort of personal element to the villain so the fight against the villain is more emotional and epic.

I think Ashnard failed in all 3. 
While his motive is a little interesting on how he wants to create a world where the only thing that matters is skill (and how it is a direct contrast to Begnion's corrupt system) it's only revealed in battle conversations and the motive only becomes a little interesting in hindsight. All we basically know of him is he wants chaos and his personality is crazy.
They didn't really build him up or have him do anything that makes you look forward to the fight against him. He was just the crazy guy in charge of Daein and he's seen in a couple cut-scenes being crazy and uncaring of everything. (While other people comment on how scary he is without ever really showing why) By far the most memorable and epic part about Ashnard is him capturing a dragon prince and riding him as a mount. But this wasn't found out until after he was killed, so it's already kind of too late.
There also wasn't really that much of a personal vendetta involved between Ike and Ashnard. Ike barely knows anything about him and Ashnard's nothing more than the enemy leader to him. 

Really, the true villain of the game was the Black Knight. I know when I picture the game, I think of the Black Knight before Ashnard.
He had a mysterious motive making him interesting.
He was constantly built up throughout the game and directly kept interfering with the player.
He has the personal relation to Ike by killing his father making the battle more epic.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Devnad

[Shoblongoo]

Anankos. In addition to the reasons raised by others here--i.e. arch-villain of the worst-written game in the series and poorly written to the point of plot nullification--this also has to be one of the most visually confused misfires of a creature-and-concept design I have seen not just in Fire Emblem, but in any game. First Dragon. It's a human face set in stone that breaks open to reveal--a faceless dragon with a ball of eyes in its mouth. And  it's true form is tjust the ball of eyes. Like Grima wasn't a spectacularly-deep villain, but at least the visual profile read Fel Dragon--Bringer of Despair and Destroyer of Worlds. Anankos is the poorly-written big bad of a game with shit writing all-around and suffers the most from the shit writing, because it's all building up to him and what he's doing. Then on top of that, he's goofy-looking.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Hero_Lucina]

56 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Anankos. In addition to the reasons raised by others here--i.e. arch-villain of the worst-written game in the series and poorly written to the point of plot nullification--this also has to be one of the most visually confused misfires of a creature-and-concept design I have seen not just in Fire Emblem, but in any game. First Dragon. It's a human face set in stone that breaks open to reveal--a faceless dragon with a ball of eyes in its mouth. And  it's true form is tjust the ball of eyes. Like Grima wasn't a spectacularly-deep villain, but at least the visual profile read Fel Dragon--Bringer of Despair and Destroyer of Worlds. Anankos is the poorly-written big bad of a game with shit writing all-around and suffers the most from the shit writing, because it's all building up to him and what he's doing. Then on top of that, he's goofy-looking.

Yeah and he also was a pretty harsh ruler from what little Anthony gave us

[Etrurian emperor]

On 5-7-2017 at 3:01 AM, Medeus said:

Similarly, I wouldn't say Jedah is all that developed in either incarnation. He serves Duma as a part of a cult, but his motivations for why are left up to interpretation at best and he's causing suffering just because it suits him and his god. FE15 does give him more screentime, but in the end he's still the exact same in terms of motivations and isn't far off from villains like Validar in that regard. He serves his god, loves doing evil things for reasons that are not properly explored, and there's little (if anything) that's sympathetic about him.

I actually think Jedah has a very sound motive for a lot of the things he does. The god he serves and seems fully devoted to is sick, on the verge of loosing his sanity and apparently in pain. Jedah would rather not have his god daddy be sick, insane and in pain. He's actually a rare Gharnef who is plotting for the sake of someone else, he's doing it all to preserve the god he loves so much. 

I'd say there is at least one sympathetic thing about Jedah. His behavior in the cutscene before the final chapter seems to imply that he's frightened by a world without gods. 

[HylianBelmont]

If we were talking pre-Echoes, than I would have said Grima to be honest (I definitely find Anankos to be a big step up from him) but since Echoes improved him a lot as a character...

I'd say Fomortiis on Eirika's route? I'm not too big on Rudolf either. But I should specify that I don't think either are "bad" villains necessarily. They just aren't my favourites is all.

[HylianBelmont]

On 18/08/2017 at 3:07 PM, Hero_Lucina said:

Yeah and he also was a pretty harsh ruler from what little Anthony gave us

Evil God characters usually aren't the nicest rulers, yeah.

[Rex Glacies]

Firstly, I don't understand the hate on Validar. I mean, he's not perfect (none of the Fire Emblem villains are even close) but he has nigh the same goals as Jedah or Manfroy (from my understanding of Genealogy). He's simply meant to be a culmination of all the Garnef's of the past.

As for the question, do you mean "most evil" or "worst written?" I'm assuming the latter, and I'll say anyone from Fates (except Hans and Kotaro, of whom I actually thought were OK... in a certain aspect of the word). Garon supposedly has some "redeeming" qualities in that it's not actually him, but the fact that everyone almost blindly follows him no matter what just makes him one curly mustache and top hat away from being a cartoon villain.

Iago is no better, following Garon's every order and only being a minor bully to Corrin. In Birthright he has numerous unexplained supernatural powers (summoning Vallaites, possessing Takumi, reviving a dead dragon, etc.) In Conquest he continues bullying Corrin and following Garon's orders. In Revelations you expect to find out why Iago hates Corrin so much and how he received the powers that he has... but instead nothing happens. He is killed and that's the end of it.

As for Anankos, I shall simply quote something from the first page:

On 6/21/2017 at 1:55 PM, Thane said:

My usual reply to this thread is always this: Anankos is the only villain who renders two entire games inconsequential just by existing. I think it's hard to compete with that.

[Sasori]

17 hours ago, Rex Glacies said:

Firstly, I don't understand the hate on Validar. I mean, he's not perfect (none of the Fire Emblem villains are even close) but he has nigh the same goals as Jedah or Manfroy (from my understanding of Genealogy). He's simply meant to be a culmination of all the Garnef's of the past.

 

I believe Validar is disliked because he is bad at his job of being an evil cultist. He seems to make more mistakes then Manfroy or Garnef and he never really seems like the big shot he thinks he is. He is called out ingame on being a bit too smug though so maybe him being incompetent was by design.

[HylianBelmont]

16 minutes ago, Sasori said:

I believe Validar is disliked because he is bad at his job of being an evil cultist. He seems to make more mistakes then Manfroy or Garnef and he never really seems like the big shot he thinks he is. He is called out ingame on being a bit too smug though so maybe him being incompetent was by design.

I suppose you could say that him being incompetent "was all written!" huh?

[HylianBelmont]

17 hours ago, Rex Glacies said:

As for Anankos, I shall simply quote something from the first page:

Thane's quote is more of a "personal" thing than an actual, objective fact through... 

[Emperor Hardin]

On 8/27/2017 at 1:51 PM, Sasori said:

I believe Validar is disliked because he is bad at his job of being an evil cultist. He seems to make more mistakes then Manfroy or Garnef and he never really seems like the big shot he thinks he is. He is called out ingame on being a bit too smug though so maybe him being incompetent was by design.

Considering Chrom's even worse mistakes, doubtful.

[Harvey]

Imo, Zephiel comes close. His reasons of wanting to let dragons take over Elibe is lame and almost redundant considering that Bern is the most powerful country of all over Elibe. 

 

[JimmyBeans]

Gonna have to be Anankos. But I hate Garon the most simply because everything to make even a semi-interesting character was there, but then they gave us that blob abomination, who has no subtlety whatsoever. They could of made him be a fair and just king and then betray at the end being a puppet to anankos. While not the best villain writing that would be a major improvement to what he is currently, given that everyone that sees him for the first time on their blind run of fates can tell hes evil from the moment you see his face.

Also it was painful to watch Xander and the other Nohr royals not be able to tell he was evil at all until the end of conquest.

 

 

[HylianBelmont]

On 9/5/2017 at 1:58 AM, JimmyBeans said:

Also it was painful to watch Xander and the other Nohr royals not be able to tell he was evil at all until the end of conquest.

 

 

The thing is, they DID know he wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world. They didn't know he was an ACTUAL monster being manipulated by an evil God, however.

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, HylianBelmont said:

The thing is, they DID know he wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world. They didn't know he was an ACTUAL monster being manipulated by an evil God, however.

Knowing he was evil also strikes me as a reason they didn't go against him. They know they will be put to death if they do. 

[HylianBelmont]

On 9/13/2017 at 1:31 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

Knowing he was evil also strikes me as a reason they didn't go against him. They know they will be put to death if they do. 

Yep. I recall Leo mentioning something like that in his conversation with Corrin in CQ chapter 14.

[Icelerate]

On 8/17/2017 at 4:13 PM, Devnad said:

Sorry for the necropost but felt like commenting.

I haven't played anything past Fire Emblem 10, so I can't comment on those. Based on what I heard the villains in those games are really boring and not well designed. 
Out of the main villains in FE4 to 10, probably my least favorite villain was Ashnard. It could be that FE 9 had probably the most interesting playable characters in the series, so it made Ashnard look even weaker than he actually was.
I think what makes a good villain is 3 main things.
1. They need to have an interesting motive or an interesting character.
2. They need to be built up throughout the course of the game so when the fight finally happens it feels like the absolute climax.
3. The main character should have some sort of personal element to the villain so the fight against the villain is more emotional and epic.

I think Ashnard failed in all 3. 
While his motive is a little interesting on how he wants to create a world where the only thing that matters is skill (and how it is a direct contrast to Begnion's corrupt system) it's only revealed in battle conversations and the motive only becomes a little interesting in hindsight. All we basically know of him is he wants chaos and his personality is crazy.
They didn't really build him up or have him do anything that makes you look forward to the fight against him. He was just the crazy guy in charge of Daein and he's seen in a couple cut-scenes being crazy and uncaring of everything. (While other people comment on how scary he is without ever really showing why) By far the most memorable and epic part about Ashnard is him capturing a dragon prince and riding him as a mount. But this wasn't found out until after he was killed, so it's already kind of too late.
There also wasn't really that much of a personal vendetta involved between Ike and Ashnard. Ike barely knows anything about him and Ashnard's nothing more than the enemy leader to him. 

Really, the true villain of the game was the Black Knight. I know when I picture the game, I think of the Black Knight before Ashnard.
He had a mysterious motive making him interesting.
He was constantly built up throughout the game and directly kept interfering with the player.
He has the personal relation to Ike by killing his father making the battle more epic.

2

I agree with you that Ashnard is probably the poorest main villain. Don't know why he wasn't mentioned before you did. 

Furthermore, at times it seems like they want to turn Ashnard into a sympathetic villain even though he is nothing of that sort. For example, in RD, Jarrod claims Fiona was smart not to support Ashnard. Why exactly would a tyrant like Ashnard tolerate someone not supporting his war? At first, it seems like he has supporters in Crimea but then, later on, it is said he's oppressing the citizens of Crimea, however, this oppression is never shown so I have a hard time believing such a claim. Logically speaking, shouldn't he try to rally them against Gallia by using racism as a card instead of creating enemies everywhere especially when racism is rampant in Crimea? I get he wants to increase chaos but you're going to fail to extend your reach with your stupid actions. 

Speaking of stupid actions, RD portrayed Ashnard as some cunning guy who made an elaborate plot to seize the throne. If he's so cunning, why is he shown to make foolish decisions again and again? First off, leaving Daein undefended doesn't make much sense because the base of his military might and popular support comes from Daein, which itself is much more militarized than Crimea so losing Daein is a bigger blow to Ashnard's military than losing Crimea. Even if he didn't expect the attack on Daein, he didn't even send any reinforcements. If the excuse is that he's planning to invade Gallia so he can't spare troops to defend Daein, then why didn't he invade Gallia sooner before the Crimean Army seized Daein and left Ashnard open to attack from all sides? At least this way, he could have spread the chaos to Gallia as well while in the original game, he thought keeping troops in the capital would suffice even though it means the scale of conflict is smaller. 

What makes his character an even bigger joke is that the Daein army under Micaiah's leadership puts up a better fight than Ashnard's despite Daein suffering at the hands of Begnion for three years. His goal was only accomplished unintentionally in part 3, long after he's dead. 

Also, does he have to wear armour that makes him impervious to damage from Elincia? It would be more fitting for Elincia to kill Ashnard and reclaim her country than have Ike kill him. 

Plot-wise, FE9 is my second favourite thanks to its rich world building and a rich cast of characters. Unfortunately, Ashnard is not one of them. 

[Etrurian emperor]

On 8-11-2017 at 2:11 AM, Icelerate said:

Speaking of stupid actions, RD portrayed Ashnard as some cunning guy who made an elaborate plot to seize the throne. If he's so cunning, why is he shown to make foolish decisions again and again? First off, leaving Daein undefended doesn't make much sense because the base of his military might and popular support comes from Daein, which itself is much more militarized than Crimea so losing Daein is a bigger blow to Ashnard's military than losing Crimea. Even if he didn't expect the attack on Daein, he didn't even send any reinforcements. If the excuse is that he's planning to invade Gallia so he can't spare troops to defend Daein, then why didn't he invade Gallia sooner before the Crimean Army seized Daein and left Ashnard open to attack from all sides? At least this way, he could have spread the chaos to Gallia as well while in the original game, he thought keeping troops in the capital would suffice even though it means the scale of conflict is smaller. 

This one is actually addressed in the game and his attitude confuses the general left to defend Daein until Ena spells it out for him. Ashnard doesn't need Daein nor does he hold any attachment for the country. 

Ashnard isn't out to rule the world but to free a dark god and create a new social order. Ashnard doesn't even need to win, just keep the war going long enough and get enough countries joining the war to release a dark god. Once the war is already stared Ashnard has no more use for the country. The bulk of his army is already in Crimea where they will be fighting every other country aside from Goldoa. 
One of his general even directly questions Ashnard about why he would divide their forces and give the Crimeans a fighting chance by doing so. The answer is because the war must be kept going for the god to be released. If Ashnard scores a conventional victory then its Ashnard himself who ends up losing because if the war end then so do his plans.

Daein also wasn't completely undefended. It had a strong border fortress, several armies to defend it and a dragon to hold the capital. If the country still loses despite that it failed to demonstrate its value. Ena even says they need to prove their value or the king will never look back at Daein again. 

Ike conquering Daein isn't depicted as Ashnard making a mistake but of him deliberately abandoning it after it no longer served his use. 

[Icelerate]

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

This one is actually addressed in the game and his attitude confuses the general left to defend Daein until Ena spells it out for him. Ashnard doesn't need Daein nor does he hold any attachment for the country. 

Ashnard isn't out to rule the world but to free a dark god and create a new social order. Ashnard doesn't even need to win, just keep the war going long enough and get enough countries joining the war to release a dark god. Once the war is already stared Ashnard has no more use for the country. The bulk of his army is already in Crimea where they will be fighting every other country aside from Goldoa. 
One of his general even directly questions Ashnard about why he would divide their forces and give the Crimeans a fighting chance by doing so. The answer is because the war must be kept going for the god to be released. If Ashnard scores a conventional victory then its Ashnard himself who ends up losing because if the war end then so do his plans.

Daein also wasn't completely undefended. It had a strong border fortress, several armies to defend it and a dragon to hold the capital. If the country still loses despite that it failed to demonstrate its value. Ena even says they need to prove their value or the king will never look back at Daein again. 

Ike conquering Daein isn't depicted as Ashnard making a mistake but of him deliberately abandoning it after it no longer served his use. 

Every bit of territory one controls helps one expand their war-making capability. Him losing Daein left him open to attack from all sides. 

Also, I don't get what releasing a dark god has to do with social Darwinism. That's more like something a mad sage would do, not a mad king. 

I know Ashnard doesn't need to win but he didn't even keep the war going long enough or widespread enough to generate enough chaos. Ashnard wouldn't have been able to score a conventional victory unless he literally conquered the world which would be impossible even if he used the best of tactics. 

That "strong" border fortress got completely decimated by a portion of Begnion army and the remnants of the Crimean army so I don't view this as a strong defence at all. 

If Daein doesn't display its value despite undermanning his forces in it, then I fail to see how it failed to demonstrate its value when Ashnard never even put value in Daein in the first place. Instead, he puts so much value in Crimea despite the fact his ability to wage war would logically be weaker in Crimea than in Daein. 

[NekoKnight]

While I can agree with @Thane that Anankos is one of the worst villains because he devalues two other games, for the actual worst written villain, I have to say Iago.

The problem with Iago that makes him worse than any other villain is that he has no motives. We've had people who are evil because they want power, we've had people who are evil because they worship evil deities, and we've had people who are 'evil' in that they're so insane, they become more a force of nature than a sentient being. Shallow as some of these villains might be, they still have motives. Iago spends all three Fates routes antagonizing the player but he doesn't seem to have a reason for it, and sometimes it's actually self-destructive. Even in the route where you're allied with him, he seems devoted to making the protagonist miserable. I wouldn't have minded so much if he directed his cruelty at the Hoshidans you encounter but he actually impedes his own allies. It reaches such absurd levels of pettiness and lack of self-preservation that he attempts to kill ALL of Garon's children because SURPRISE, they weren't about to let him murder Corrin on a loose pretense. Even if he was successful, he'd then have to explain to Garon that he just murdered all his kids (Garon wouldn't care, but Iago doesn't know that). He loses nothing by not attacking Corrin and friends, and has everything to lose by attacking them. This is what I can only describe as mindless malice. He's a worse written character than actually insane villains because he doesn't have an excuse for such suicidal behavior.

On 6/29/2017 at 8:48 AM, Hero_Lucina said:

Honestly, people say that Anthony has a bad arc, and it's not even his fault. It was the fact of Fates being so poorly written. Maybe if the story in Fates was a bit better, he'd get a better arc. 

Sorry to quote an old post but can I ask why you like Anthony? You say it's the fault of Fates' bad writing that Anthony is disliked, but he just comes across as one-dimensional to me.

[Hero_Lucina]

9 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

While I can agree with @Thane that Anankos is one of the worst villains because he devalues two other games, for the actual worst written villain, I have to say Iago.

The problem with Iago that makes him worse than any other villain is that he has no motives. We've had people who are evil because they want power, we've had people who are evil because they worship evil deities, and we've had people who are 'evil' in that they're so insane, they become more a force of nature than a sentient being. Shallow as some of these villains might be, they still have motives. Iago spends all three Fates routes antagonizing the player but he doesn't seem to have a reason for it, and sometimes it's actually self-destructive. Even in the route where you're allied with him, he seems devoted to making the protagonist miserable. I wouldn't have minded so much if he directed his cruelty at the Hoshidans you encounter but he actually impedes his own allies. It reaches such absurd levels of pettiness and lack of self-preservation that he attempts to kill ALL of Garon's children because SURPRISE, they weren't about to let him murder Corrin on a loose pretense. Even if he was successful, he'd then have to explain to Garon that he just murdered all his kids (Garon wouldn't care, but Iago doesn't know that). He loses nothing by not attacking Corrin and friends, and has everything to lose by attacking them. This is what I can only describe as mindless malice. He's a worse written character than actually insane villains because he doesn't have an excuse for such suicidal behavior.

Sorry to quote an old post but can I ask why you like Anthony? You say it's the fault of Fates' bad writing that Anthony is disliked, but he just comes across as one-dimensional to me.

I rped once as him in a group and I got hooked by accident, but I have no pinpoint reason

[Luis Liberato]

Garon sucks it would have been nice to see his corruption. We don't know much about what led him to be the way he was and what were his motives, like maybe he cared for his people and that's why he gave his soul for that power but instead we got I'm the bad guy now fight me. Also Grima was kinda dumb like just turn around and you win they are standing on your back