Jump to content

Which types of villains do you prefer?


Dragoncat
 Share

Villains  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is your preference?

    • Psychopath criminals
      14
    • Sympathetic villains
      37


Recommended Posts

Psychopath Criminals: No remorse for their actions, enjoy killing and taunting the heroes, often in pursuit of power. Example: Mumkhar(Xenoblade Chronicles)

Sympathetic Villains: They have a complicated motive, sometimes paired with a tragic backstory, and they are humanized and given redeeming qualities. Example: Black Knight(Fire Emblem Path of Radiance)

I find that villains tend to fall into one of those two types in a nutshell. So which do you prefer? I lean toward the latter. BK was redeemed later in RD, he just felt more realistic, because very rarely will someone just be like "Oh, I think I'll burn down that village over there and rape the women for shits and giggles". A bit of an extreme example and BK didn't do that, but yeah. Mumkhar was just an asshole. He worked in the story, I'll give him that, but he looked and acted like a common thug and I only barely pitied him when he finally did meet his maker. The best villains imo can make you feel helpless, want to kick their butts, and make you sympathize with them, all at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmm...generally I tend to like sympathetic villains more but if you really want to make me like your villains a lot you've gotta make them 85% psychopath/15% sympathetic. Needless to say that these kind of characters tend to be disliked by a lot of people but not by me!

Edited by Hekselka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sympathetic villains because I love redemption arcs. Particularly if said Sympathetic villans had done something unforgivable like murder. It makes the redemption arc all the more interesting.

This is why Nyx is one of my favorite characters in Fates. While not really a villain, she has crossed line and committed many terrible acts with no justification, and yet now, she’s very human. I find it fascinating how a ruthless murderer can learn to become better.

Edited by Water Mage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

Hmmm...generally I tend to like sympathetic villains more but if you really want to make me like your villains a lot you've gotta make them 85% psychopath/15% sympathetic.

I think that's a perfect ratio, actually.

25 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

Sympathetic villains because I love redemption arcs. Particularly if said Sympathetic villans had done something unforgivable like murder. It makes the redemption arc all the more interesting.

Redemption arcs are cool! But they can easily be badly written, like if the heroes trust them too soon or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I have a clear preference. Mustache twirling bad guys can be very entertaining like Mumkhar or they can have a cool factor like the non wind waker Ganondorfs. They can also be super boring like Garon however.

Meanwhile Sympathetic villains or villains with a tragic backstory can be interesting like Yggdrassil. On the other hand some of my most despised fictional characters are sympathetic characters done wrong. Villains like Jin or 'Tobi' where every crime they commited is instantly shrugged of because 'they where so sad'.

I think I have a slight preference for sympathetic villains, but on the whole I think its  a matter of excution.

Edited by Sasori
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends. I've seen both types done very well, and I've seen both types done very badly. 

For the former, there have been classic examples like Ganondorf and The Joker, and one or two great examples in FE such as Ashnard. For the latter, there have been classic examples like Amon, and one or two great examples in FE such as Sephirian.

Not only that, but the two types are not mutually exclusive. If anything, it is more of a spectrum. 

For example: Ganondorf is traditionally the former. However, Wind Waker provided a different take on Ganondorf: 

Spoiler

Having witnessed the flood of Hyrule and been trapped inside flooded Hyrule for hundreds of years, he's still a psychopathic megalomaniac, but he's also... tired. He's had time to think about what he truly wanted. The Ganondorf in Wind Waker is a ghost of the past; seeking to restore what was and unable to let go. When you confront him in Ganon's Tower, first he claims that the people of the Great Sea have no chance at a real life; calling their efforts to survive on the islands pitiful, even though they've long adapted to the new world. When you confront him again on the rooftop, he looks... sad, and he just stares out into the horizon and solemnly explains what originally drove him, "[...] No matter when it came, the wind brought the same thing: death. But the wind that spread across the green fields of Hyrule was of a different sort. [...] I coveted that wind, I suppose." These two things he says to the hero in Wind Waker are probably the two moments that most humanized the Ganondorf character. He's still unredeemable, but he's that much more sympathetic as a result. It's almost heartbreaking when his mind can't handle the King use the Triforce to destroy Hyrule once and for all and he goes laughing mad. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would have to go with sympathetic villains for the most part, but there are psychopath ones I like as well.  My all time favorite anime/manga Saiyuki has both types of bad guys and they are all done very well, Ukoku Sanzo just decided he wants to destroy the world for no reason, while Kougaiji is fighting on the bad side to save his mother.  I think it comes down to how well written they are for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no preference. I think both of them have their charm and can work really well if written correctly.

And in this the psycho villain may have an edge because less can go wrong. Characters like Hades or Metal face can say and do the most horrible things with no reason and be incredibly proud of their asshole actions. And its absolutely brilliant. Hades and Metalface stole the show every time they opened their mouth.

Villains that are meant to be sympathetic have a giant flaw. For them to work as characters they need to be sympathetic and if the player doesn't agree with the plot's insistence of them being sympathetic then the whole character falls apart. Arvis is a Fire emblem villain who actually manages to be sympathetic and as such he's by far the best of the bunch but I consider Zephiel a drama queen rather than a sympathetic character and as such I think he fails as a character. With the Tales series I can easily sympathize with Ygdrasial but I don't buy the the supposedly sympathetic side of the villains from Abyss and Vesperia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be able to both understand their actions and why they did them, but also view what they did as decidedly wrong.

For instance, the story (and people reading it) shouldn't shrug off what the villain did because their dad was a jerk, but we should be able to understand how the villain came to do what they did as a result of the dad being a jerk.  

It's a balance you have to hit well.  Without a motivation, there's no character.  They're just doing things because the plot says they do things.  The motivation doesn't even have to be sympathetic, it could be that they're crazy and enjoy it.  So long as there's a reason the audience can understand and it's pulled off in a clear way.

I'm probably explaining this very badly, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of how WW Ganondorf was more sympathetic, yeah.

3 minutes ago, Glaceon Mage said:

I want to be able to both understand their actions and why they did them, but also view what they did as decidedly wrong.

For instance, the story (and people reading it) shouldn't shrug off what the villain did because their dad was a jerk, but we should be able to understand how the villain came to do what they did as a result of the dad being a jerk.  

It's a balance you have to hit well.  Without a motivation, there's no character.  They're just doing things because the plot says they do things.  The motivation doesn't even have to be sympathetic, it could be that they're crazy and enjoy it.  So long as there's a reason the audience can understand and it's pulled off in a clear way.

I'm probably explaining this very badly, sorry.

You explained it well enough, don't worry. And I agree. Bad writing makes a story suffer, and it really shows when a villain isn't pulled off right.

I guess if the motivation isn't crystal clear it leaves room for headcanons. For example, Mumkhar's parents must have been pretty shitty to him, either by abandoning him at a young age or just being shitty parents otherwise. So he had to pretty much make it on his own, and as a result, he became obsessed with power. Or he's got a four inch dick and is overcompensating. Or a bit of both. The only thing I don't understand: How did Dunban NOT see any red flags? He basically used to chum around in the pubs with the guy who became Metal Face. You'd think he'd suspect SOMETHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question because i can't really choose one or the other. It just depends on how it's done. Not every villain needs a reason to be one. Mumkar, for example, was an asshole who just wanted the Monado. But he's a well-written asshole, as in, he does things that make the player hate him but in a good way. Hades from Kid Icarus: Uprising is also an asshole but the way's he's written just makes me wanna smile. He's actually my favorite Nintendo villain. He's an asshole and he wants you to know that and he's proud of it. It helps that the dialogue in Kid Icarus: Uprising is a masterpiece.

 Sympathetic villains can also be good though they've recently been the target of criticism, some of it, unfair imo. For example, we have Berkut's redemption in SoV. A lot of people criticize Alm for forgiving Berkut after his unforgivable things. I often see the "if i was Alm, i wouldn't forgive Berkut" argument. But that's exactly it. You aren't Alm. It's important to understand the perspective of the characters involved. I think the whole point of these "villain redemptions" is to convey a message that living with a grudge forever isn't healthy, though you can find that message outside of video games. Some see it as bad writing, others don't. For me, it depends. I feel that, if we know what the villain's motivations were, then a redemption does work, or at least has a better chance of working. Whereas if the redemption comes out of nowhere, then it is bad writing. Berkut's redemption, for example, was the former imo. We already know what he went through growing up, being taught that might makes right and this feeling was amplified by Duma. It's why i don't exactly understand the criticism here. Could it have been done much better? Yes. Especially since a lot of what we know about Berkut is mostly just told and not shown. 

I think my favorite case of a sympathetic villain has to be Malos from Xenoblade Chronicles 2. Major endgame spoilers below

Spoiler

Malos wants to destroy everything. There's no motive, it's just an instinct. Seems like a psychopathic villain, right? Wrong. Near the end of the game, we learn where Malos' hatred and want for destruction comes from: Amalthus. As the Architect put it, Malos is "an information processing unit". When Amalthus resonated with Malos, Malos awoke with that hatred for the world that Amalthus felt. To put it in simplest terms, Malos is a computer programmed to hate by his administrator, Amalthus.

In other words, none of what Malos did or wanted was his own free will. So while the game doesn't necessarily try to redeem him (he IS the final boss after all), you can actually kinda feel sorry for him.

And, so you don't have to read that spoiler if you haven't beaten the game yet, my point is that the best sympathetic villains are ones that the game doesn't try to redeem.

8 minutes ago, Sasori said:

On the other hand some of my most despised fictional characters are sympathetic characters done wrong. Villains like Jin or 'Tobi' where every crime they commited is instantly shrugged of because 'they where so sad'.

Don't know who Tobi is but are we talking about Xenoblade 2 Jin (cuz that's the only Jin that comes to mind for me aside from Xenosaga Jin but that's a good guy)? If so, i will say that i felt that way at first (though i didn't necessarily despise him for it) but upon looking back at it, Jin's redemption is actually handled decently.

Major XC2 spoilers again, also major spoilers for XC1

Spoiler

Yes, Rex does forgive Jin even after the atrocities that he had committed but it didn't really come out of nowhere. First, there's the fact that we know Jin's motivations and backstory, which is important for this argument. But also, one thing i really liked about this whole thing was how the game challenged and handled Rex's belief that Jin should be forgiven. Both Morag and Brighid are reluctant to forgive him. Malos straight-up asks how Rex is able to forgive Jin after he killed a ton of people. Rex himself is still willing to fight Jin if he keeps getting in his way but not necessarily kill him, mirroring how Shulk put aside his hatred for Egil but it still 100% willing to keep fighting him if Egil doesn't stop his actions.

So, assuming we're speaking of the same Jin, no, his crimes weren't "instantly shrugged off". Ahkos and Patroka though....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Armagon said:

 

  Hide contents

Yes, Rex does forgive Jin even after the atrocities that he had committed but it didn't really come out of nowhere. First, there's the fact that we know Jin's motivations and backstory, which is important for this argument. But also, one thing i really liked about this whole thing was how the game challenged and handled Rex's belief that Jin should be forgiven. Both Morag and Brighid are reluctant to forgive him. Malos straight-up asks how Rex is able to forgive Jin after he killed a ton of people. Rex himself is still willing to fight Jin if he keeps getting in his way but not necessarily kill him, mirroring how Shulk put aside his hatred for Egil but it still 100% willing to keep fighting him if Egil doesn't stop his actions.

So, assuming we're speaking of the same Jin, no, his crimes weren't "instantly shrugged off". Ahkos and Patroka though....

 

I did mean Xenoblade 2 Jin.

Spoiler

You are not wrong in what you are saying. I liked Morag's and Brighid's reluctance at Jin and I thought it showed good character on Rex's part for him trying so hard.

But Jin still killed people with a superweapon, tried to trigger a world war and his end goal is destroying the world. Forgiving Jin and trying to stop, not kill Jin is all well and good, but there's that and there's mourning him as a 'splendid soul' like he never hurted a fly.

There is also Amalthus who has very similar motivations as Jin yet the game is much less on his side. He has his sympathetic backstory and some nicer  moments, but both the game and the cast are much more willing to paint him as the villain. That actually made me feel like he succeeded in being a good sympathetic character.

And yeah I have no idea what happened to Akhos who had all his cruelty just simply vanish just so they could do a touching sendoff.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion about forgiving villains is always very interesting. A lot of people complain about villains being forgiven to easily, but I always think “What the point of not forgiven them?” and “Why hold a grudge?”, the heroes realize that they gain nothing by gain nothing by holding grudge, and if the villain is willing to make amends, all the better. After all, why kill of a villain, when you can make them work for the greater good? That’s not to say they forget all of the atrocities that the villains committed, such as say killing innocents, but making the villain realize why their unforgivable actions were wrong is always fascinating. And having trying tinmake amends with the person they hurt is always very interesting. Besides, it’s a work of fiction. The sense of morality of our world shouldn’t always aply to a world of fiction.

Again, take Nyx from Fire Emblem Fates, again while not a villain, she killed a lot of innocents people in the past for own amusement, so by all means the army should treat with scorn right? But since she’s remorseful, the army treats her, which I find fascinating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends of the story. The main antagonist is the one who is, most of the time, driving the story. If you want to have moral complexity, you can't also have comically evil story. For example, FE4 haev both Alvis, but also Manfloy who sucks all complexity by being a generic evil guy. Or worse, Gandolf (a generic bandit at teh head of a country). And that's obviously a huge problem with FE Fates.
However, it also have Travant, which is my favourite kind of asshole.
He's similar to Leundar Balbatos in Tactics Ogre LUCT (though maybe slightly more sympathetic). They are unredeemable jerkass that caused tons of troubles, and they'll never feels sorry for what he's done. But it's because they are convinced it's how the world works. It's interresting because they are past all redemptions, they are clerly villains, but they have somewhat grounded motives (Travant do what he does for his country)

And sometimes villain aren't actual character, but more forces. The typical example is the Demon King (both in Sacred Stones, andin most Dragon Quest Game.). Or Ganon, for what I understand. Manfloy could fall in that category, but that isn't clear enough. I don't care about those type of villains, because I'm not supposed to. I care as much as I would care about an earthquake's feeling, at least (or just barely more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Water Mage said:

This discussion about forgiving villains is always very interesting. A lot of people complain about villains being forgiven to easily, but I always think “What the point of not forgiven them?” and “Why hold a grudge?”, the heroes realize that they gain nothing by gain nothing by holding grudge, and if the villain is willing to make amends, all the better. After all, why kill of a villain, when you can make them work for the greater good? That’s not to say they forget all of the atrocities that the villains committed, such as say killing innocents, but making the villain realize why their unforgivable actions were wrong is always fascinating. And having trying tinmake amends with the person they hurt is always very interesting. Besides, it’s a work of fiction. The sense of morality of our world shouldn’t always aply to a world of fiction.

Again, take Nyx from Fire Emblem Fates, again while not a villain, she killed a lot of innocents people in the past for own amusement, so by all means the army should treat with scorn right? But since she’s remorseful, the army treats her, which I find fascinating.

 

The problem isn't really that they're forgiven, it's that they're forgiven too easily. Look at Avatar, when the bad guy came to the good guys he wasn't forgiven, he had to work and show the good guys that he was sincere this time and it made his character all the stronger for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Armagon said:

Mumkar, for example, was an asshole who just wanted the Monado.

He wanted it at the beginning but I think what he really wanted was power. Once he was Metal Face he was perfectly content to not have the Monado because what he had now was so much better in his opinion. What do you think of him having a bad childhood with shitty parents? Would that be a good reason for his assholeness, do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sympathetic villains.  Everyone is the hero of their own story, and generally should have some reasonable justification for their actions unless they're a sociopath (and even then...).  The former are still entertaining to watch, and can be interesting in their own right.  They just don't engage you on a deeper level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sasori said:

I did mean Xenoblade 2 Jin.

  Hide contents

You are not wrong in what you are saying. I liked Morag's and Brighid's reluctance at Jin and I thought it showed good character on Rex's part for him trying so hard.

But Jin still killed people with a superweapon, tried to trigger a world war and his end goal is destroying the world. Forgiving Jin and trying to stop, not kill Jin is all well and good, but there's that and there's mourning him as a 'splendid soul' like he never hurted a fly.

There is also Amalthus who has very similar motivations as Jin yet the game is much less on his side. He has his sympathetic backstory and some nicer  moments, but both the game and the cast are much more willing to paint him as the villain. That actually made me feel like he succeeded in being a good sympathetic character.

And yeah I have no idea what happened to Akhos who had all his cruelty just simply vanish just so they could do a touching sendoff.

 

Spoiler

Yeah, i do agree that the "what a splendid soul" line shouldn't be in the game. I don't know if that was in the Japanese version as well but either way, it felt unnecessary especially given how the game was already redeeming him in a way similar to Egil. But aside from that one line, Jin's redemption was handled nicely. Of course, Jin isn't as good as Egil. Egil is in the Top 3 Xeno villains imo, along with Id from Xenogears and Malos.

I also agree that Amalthus was a better sympathetic characters, because it goes back to my belief that the best sympathetic characters are the ones that the story doesn't try to redeem. That said, Amalthus is only a mid-tier Xeno villian because he's kinda underdeveloped. Hopefully the story DLC dives more into his character, given that it seems to take place during the Aegis War, which was directly caused by Amalthus.

 

12 minutes ago, Hekselka said:

The problem isn't really that they're forgiven, it's that they're forgiven too easily. Look at Avatar, when the bad guy came to the good guys he wasn't forgiven, he had to work and show the good guys that he was sincere this time and it made his character all the stronger for it.

This is true (never seen Avatar but i know who you're talking about). But it's also important to understand the perspective of the characters involved as well. We have people criticizing Alm for forgiving Berkut but when you think about it, Alm had just found out who his real family is. Given how he's written, it would actually make less sense for Alm to not forgive Berkut.

I'm not saying this works all the time. Obviously, if the characters involved in the whole thing are poorly written, then the whole thing falls apart. But perspective is still important to understand. 

3 minutes ago, Dragoncat said:

He wanted it at the beginning but I think what he really wanted was power. Once he was Metal Face he was perfectly content to not have the Monado because what he had now was so much better in his opinion. What do you think of him having a bad childhood with shitty parents? Would that be a good reason for his assholeness, do you think?

I don't think he had a bad childhood or anything. It's implied that Dunban, Dickson, and Mumkar were all best friends. I think what really happened was that Mumkar grew jealous upon the Monado seemingly choosing Dunban, and it just went downhill from there. After all, the Monado was the most powerful weapon that could be used against the Mechon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Armagon said:

I don't think he had a bad childhood or anything. It's implied that Dunban, Dickson, and Mumkar were all best friends. I think what really happened was that Mumkar grew jealous upon the Monado seemingly choosing Dunban, and it just went downhill from there. After all, the Monado was the most powerful weapon that could be used against the Mechon.

It could still work though. If you grow up with shitty parents, you're probably more likely to get that jealous and bitter. But okay.

What's up with his design though? The devs totally made him look like a bandit on purpose. That rubs me the wrong way because the most evil people can look normal or even attractive, like serial killers who lure victims with their good looks. At least give him some irises in his eyes for cripes' sake.

Also, there is an H in his name that you're forgetting, no big deal though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an actual writing perspective I prefer unsympathetic villains, not because I think they're better but because sympathetic villains are really easy to mess up for me. From an actual character standpoint I like both, because both can be really entertaining or enjoyable when well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dragoncat said:

It could still work though. If you grow up with shitty parents, you're probably more likely to get that jealous and bitter. But okay.

What's up with his design though? The devs totally made him look like a bandit on purpose. That rubs me the wrong way because the most evil people can look normal or even attractive, like serial killers who lure victims with their good looks. At least give him some irises in his eyes for cripes' sake.

Also, there is an H in his name that you're forgetting, no big deal though.

The best part about that design is how Metal Face and Mumkhar are so obviously the same person. And all the while Dunban is all confused about who this giant robot who talks like his friend, fights likes his friend and knows him personally could possibly be. 

I think that other traitor would have done a lot at  better hiding his evil nature than Mumkhar if he didn't go out of his way to suspiciously mumble to himself every time he thinks the cast isn't looking. While not a prettyboy traitor number 2 looks pretty normal and friendly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Armagon said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Yeah, i do agree that the "what a splendid soul" line shouldn't be in the game. I don't know if that was in the Japanese version as well but either way, it felt unnecessary especially given how the game was already redeeming him in a way similar to Egil. But aside from that one line, Jin's redemption was handled nicely. Of course, Jin isn't as good as Egil. Egil is in the Top 3 Xeno villains imo, along with Id from Xenogears and Malos.

I also agree that Amalthus was a better sympathetic characters, because it goes back to my belief that the best sympathetic characters are the ones that the story doesn't try to redeem. That said, Amalthus is only a mid-tier Xeno villian because he's kinda underdeveloped. Hopefully the story DLC dives more into his character, given that it seems to take place during the Aegis War, which was directly caused by Amalthus.

 

This is true (never seen Avatar but i know who you're talking about). But it's also important to understand the perspective of the characters involved as well. We have people criticizing Alm for forgiving Berkut but when you think about it, Alm had just found out who his real family is. Given how he's written, it would actually make less sense for Alm to not forgive Berkut.

I'm not saying this works all the time. Obviously, if the characters involved in the whole thing are poorly written, then the whole thing falls apart. But perspective is still important to understand. 

I don't disagree, hell I'm fine with the Alm and Berkut moment. Alm was obviously very emotional and shaken because of Rudolf's revelation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Refa said:

Sympathetic villains.  Everyone is the hero of their own story, and generally should have some reasonable justification for their actions unless they're a sociopath (and even then...).  The former are still entertaining to watch, and can be interesting in their own right.  They just don't engage you on a deeper level.

And this is one of the thousand reasons Trails is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that it's important for tragic villain backstories to be tragic in a way that makes sense. An example of a tragic backstory being handled poorly is in FE6; Zephiel's generic bad childhood gives him a hatred for humanity. The fuck did that come from? It's expected that, because he had a bad childhood, he turned out bad; no further explanation is required. A well done tragic backstory serves to explain the villains actions, and is linked to their worldview and choices. An example of this is Joffrey Baratheon; everything he does can ultimately be traced back to his toxic upbringing giving him a worldview that violence is the only solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...