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

[Corty]

I'm just curious, for writing's sake, and I am also open to your own examples and opinions!

 

[LuoirM]

I legit don't know my brain just doesn't work like that to think like that like uhhwrhjiwkhrwkbwrj

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

I always try to go for complex villains. I'd like them to have purpose why they're doing their shit.

 

[Bobple]

I do enjoy both, but I do run into the situation where if I read a lot mediocre villains of one type, I do want to read a bit of the other type.

 

[TroubleFait]

Sauron and Voldemort don't do anything for me, but I really love Palpatine, especially in the prelogy.
Gollum is okay, I wouldn't call Thanos that complex, I don't know who Hans Landa is.

But if I were to think of my favourite villains, overall they're complex. Or not even villains. Like the runaway replicant in Blade Runner.

 

[MatchaChocolate69]

Palpatine is not evil! He loves democracy

 

[Indicterra]

A terrifying villain, someone who can instill fear into not only the character but the reader's itself.

Amon from LOTR are the best example I can give, his actions, his powers, his character all of it come together to make perfect horror character of sort, for me at least.

I literally prayed for him not to show up when I get notification for every new chapter.
For your question I will choose Thanos, I can relate with the dude, half yall need to go.

 

[GoodPerson]

Hold on a minute...

If I think more thoroughly, basically, my OCs' organization fell into the complex evil category.

Oh no...

 

[Insomniologist]

Whichever one Skeletor falls under.

 

[Generic.Archdemon]

I'm just curious, for writing's sake, and I am also open to your own examples and opinions!

Depends on how much screen time I am giving them.

 

[Simple_Russian_Boi]

Complex villains are fun to watch and fun to write, but sometimes you just want to see a pure full-send motherfucking evil pice of garbage that does everything just for the sake of evilness.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Where's the "cartoonishly evil" option?

Out of those, pure evil. Relatable Evil has been overdone in the last decade, and gone so far that Hollywood is now straight-up selling us villains as protagonists

 

[SailusGebel]

Straight-up evil, but not a stupid murderhobo, or retarded variant.

 

[Corty]

Where's the "cartoonishly evil" option?

Out of those, pure evil. Relatable Evil has been overdone in the last decade, and gone so far that Hollywood is now straight-up selling us villains as protagonists

I put it into the same thing as evil-evil.

The crux of my question is which is more interesting: an evil guy because he is evil or an evil guy because of circumstances.

 

[greyliliy]

Both. Lol. I love straight up evil villains that have complex motivations and character. XD

But I lean toward the first option. I love Sadist!Villains and they tend to have simple motives: It makes me feel good so I do it.

 

[TotallyHuman]

I'm just curious, for writing's sake, and I am also open to your own examples and opinions!

The ones who sell their souls to this great witch!
But really, it is my belief that an author who uses a villain that doesn't illustrate a point is a bad author.
Villains are not antagonists, they are bad guys. Which means the author has a point to make as to why they are bad and why it is bad to be bad.
If this is not done this is just poor writing
EDIT: another thing is that a villain has to lose DUE TO THEIR OWN FLAW. If a villain wins or even doesn't lose it means the author has not shown that the villain's way is erroneous but shown that it is just another valid way of action instead which stops a villain from being a villain. If a villain loses but not due to their own flaw it means that they were just unlucky and/or the author was not able to make a compelling point.
As to your question, none is better than the other.
ANOTHER EDIT:
Now that I think of it, a villain can technically win, like in starship troopers, and there are stories where there are only villains but that is a whole other can of worms

 

[Lorelliad]

The best villains are the ones that make you question your motivations! It's why I love Maruki far too much. Plain old power hungry is fun sometimes, but its not as a joy to read as morally complex villains with distinct goals.

 

[TroubleFait]

If this is not done this is just poor writing

Only the Sith deal with absolutes.

another thing is that a villain has to lose DUE TO THEIR OWN FLAW. If a villain wins or even doesn't lose it means the author has not shown that the villain's way is erroneous but shown that it is just another valid way of action instead which stops a villain from being a villain.

I wonder where Dune falls in regard to this. The Harkonen and the Emperor fail because of their own flaws, sure. So do the Bene Geserit, when they fail. And so do every other villain, in fact? Huh.

Except Paul and his son. Those don't really fail, do they? And yet the whole point is that they should have, and now everyone is screwed.

If a villain loses but not due to their own flaw it means that they were just unlucky and/or the author was not able to make a compelling point.

Yeah, those happen a lot. Garbage, almost every time.


EDIT: In Wakfu, Nox fails, and it's a tragedy. If he had won, everyone would have been happier for it. But he fails, and once he does you can only say, "Of course you mad bastard. And look at what you've done, all for nothing."
It's very sad and poetic.

 

[TotallyHuman]

Except Paul and his son. Those don't really fail, do they? And yet the whole point is that they should have, and now everyone is screwed.

I never read Dune and from what I heard of it, I am not compelled to read it.
But failing does not necessarily mean "failing at winning a battle" or such. If a villain has a goal, even a noble goal like world peace or such, but winning doesn't bring them close to their goal and instead makes their goal harder to achieve it means the villain's means were flawed, the villain was flawed.
And if the villain wants to destroy the world, for example, and wins, achieving their goal, then they can't be called a villain because within the world of the story they are a consequence of the world being the way it was.

Only the Sith deal with absolutes.

Didn't watch SW either

 

[georgelee5786]

Both are good, but I prefer straight up evil