[POLL] Which type of villain is more up to your alley?

[2wordsperminute]

Yet another chance to say Bondrewd is one of my favorite villains (and he is closer to the complex side).

 

[esThr]

Mostly complex though straight up evil can be good sometimes (I blame xianxia/cultivation/murim for ruining the straight up evil ones into 1D characters)

 

[CSDestroyer]

Yet another chance to say Bondrewd is one of my favorite villains (and he is closer to the complex side).

The rumble of scientific triumph. Man is evil, without a doubt, but he's motivated by the pursuit of knowledge.

I find outright evil villains fun, especially for tongue-in-cheek and satirical media.

As for the typical villains with a tragic backstory, I've seen it done quite a lot, usually with contrived reasons for being evil, to a point where I now believe that the pendulum swung the other way and people look upon morally gray villains unfavorably because they expect bad writing. Sturgeon's Law, 90% of any particular genre is shit. No exceptions.

 

[Pixytokisaki14]

Always the most complex ones. You actually understand and slightly care for what they're doing. A great example is Otto Apocalypse from honkai impact 3rd. He's such a complex character that I can't explain everything in one thread post so I'm going to simplify.

All the things he did, from performing horrific experiments on children, deleting the memories of the original main protagonist, to literally killing off characters if he deemed them not necessary to his plans. It was all so that he could bring back the only person that he'd ever loved, Kallen. That's the basic gist of it. 500 years of waiting for the perfect opportunity to revive someone who died is something extraordinary. That's why he's my favorite written villain when it comes to fiction. He wasn't evil in start, just a sickly boy who wanted to share his inventions to the world.

 

[DaScoot]

Best villains: Have a goal that's reasonable from at least their own perspective, and they just happen to be opposed to the protagonists.
Fun villains: Might not have some sort of deep philosophy or noble goal but at least they're having fun being a villain or from enjoying the fruits of their labors.
Boring villains: Bigots such as racists or religious fanatics. One-note, two-dimensional, even when they're realistic. They're just not interesting to read about.
Distasteful villains: The straight-up sociopaths who have literally zero redeeming features and may not even really care themselves about the evil they do.

 

[doravg]

Definitely someone who knows they are doing wrong, but still do it because they can't accept life as it is anymore.

 

[PyrusMG]

The straight-up evil cat with a complex evil owner servant.

 

[NotaNuffian]

Complex villain if you want a character.

Simple villain when you just want a hate sink/ target.

 

[AryaX]

Out of those examples... I definitely like Palp and Sauron the most... Voldy is kind of lame... Gollum is fine, when combined with Smeagol and their back and forth at least.. but he is mostly just... funny... hard to see him as a "villain" really... and Thanos is just boring... And Hans... I don't know know Hans...

 

[Corty]

Out of those examples... I definitely like Palp and Sauron the most... Voldy is kind of lame... Gollum is fine, when combined with Smeagol and their back and forth at least.. but he is mostly just... funny... hard to see him as a "villain" really... and Thanos is just boring... And Hans... I don't know know Hans...

Those were just examples, for fairness's sake.

 

[AryaX]

Also... while Palp and Voldy are pretty "straight-up" evil... Sauron does have quite a bit of "complexity"... one just needs to dig a little...

 

[Corty]

Also... while Palp and Voldy are pretty "straight-up" evil... Sauron does have quite a bit of "complexity"... one just needs to dig a little...

As Tolkien explains in one of his letters: “Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

That's pretty basic evil dictator boi behavior.

 

[AryaX]

Indeed... but that is more what he became in the end I think...

 

[ACertainPassingUser]

I prefer the existence of both in the story.

There's the benefit of making the villain character youre working on to become more complex and detailed when compared to your other throwaway villain that the Protagonist has already beaten.

 

[TroubleFait]

Palpatine: absolute evil.
Vader: father who succumbed to the Dark Side.
Dooku: misguided idealist.

It's your pattern but reversed, @ACertainPassingUser.

 

[ACertainPassingUser]

Palpatine: absolute evil.
Vader: father who succumbed to the Dark Side.
Dooku: misguided idealist.

It's your pattern but reversed, @ACertainPassingUser.

Well, that's okay. As long there's enough variety of villains with distinctive qualities, the story would feel more rich.

 

[Comiak]

Machiavellian villains are actually more realistic. You know, the whole "you'll own nothing and be happy" guys. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies charging hundreds of dollars for medicine that cost pennies to make (epipens), American healthcare. Need I go on?

Complex villains are a pure fantasy, real villains are just plain evil.

 

[FlyingPotatoes]

Always better to have a villain with a small conscience making him debate to himself what weighs more than the other~

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

How is Landa a complex villain? Or Thanos?

 

[Corty]

How is Landa a complex villain? Or Thanos?

Just look at their motivation and what makes them tick. It is not simple: I'm evil because I am evil. One is a cold-hearted opportunist who would be just as good at breaking the enigma code for the allies as finding Jews for the nazis, while Thanos also doesn't do it for being evil and fuck with others, but because of conviction, he is doing the right thing.