I've just finished reading Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation on Lords of Shadow 2 and feel the urge to take another crack at debating a certain issue. Now, in Yahtzee's EP, a lot of what he had to say sounds valid; the game idea he described, where Dracula would wake up finding his position of power gone and have to rebuild his empire from the ground up, sounds very interesting. He wouldn't have to be a hero to make it an interesting game; playing a straight-up villain would make a unique (if not 100 percent original) sort of game that would allow for some character study and a chance for insight into the psychology of Dracula: a man gifted with what is effectively immortality (baring a vampire hunter getting his sights trained on him) and having command over a variety of unholy abominations and a range of demonic powers, but at the cost of having to feed off the living constantly to keep his sanity, lest his hunger turn him into a ravenous beast. It certainly sounds like a better game idea than the one Yahtzee described in his ZP, the one they actually went with: Broody McChop Chop runs around in modern day and in his head space wrecking shit like a barbarian on steroids.
Where I disagree with Yahtzee, however, is that his proposal would make Dracula a sympathetic character. I think it would make him an INTERESTING character...but I don't think the fact he wouldn't be on top would automatically make him sympathetic. What makes someone a villain is that no matter what their personal baggage, it doesn't justify what they're doing. Now there are different types of villains, two of which are the straight-up villain and the sympathetic villain, and Dracula has traditionally fallen in the former category. I define the sympathetic villain as the ones whose goals and motivations are relate-able, understandable, and sometimes even admirable. These goals never justify the means the villain chooses to use to pursue them, but that's why they're the villain; their road to hell is paved with their good intentions. Their attitudes are often those of people who have gotten fed up with something and have snapped, or are so fanatically driven on achieving something they ignore the collateral damage. Examples of this kind of villain would be Dr. Octopus as he was portrayed in the Spiderman 2 movie, Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Col. Frank Hummel in The Rock, General Azimuth from Ratchet and Clank, Andrew Ryan of Bioshock, Roy Batty from Blade Runner, Mr. Freeze from Batman TAS and Magneto from X-Men.
The straight-up villain, on the other hand, are ones whose goals and motives are completely self-centered. They may have their own personal justifications, but they're reasons that no sensible person would relate with; things like hubris, a love of destruction, greed, hatred, etc. Primary examples here abound: Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, Kefka from FFIII, Dr. Doom from The Fantastic Four, The Joker from Batman, Buffalo Bill from The Silence of The Lambs, Mick Taylor from Wolf Creek, The Kurgen from Highlander, the list goes on.
Now note that the big deciding factor between these two types of villains isn't whether or not they're underdogs or in positions of power; it's their motives. Your straight-up villains that are, say, the rivals to the hero or are serial killers, they're not always commanding vast legions of minions or wielding the power cosmic. But that doesn't make them someone I'd feel bad for, not after the fifth time they've chopped off some poor passerby's head and nailed it to a wall. Meanwhile I would feel a bit for the military commander that leads his troops into battle because he thinks its the only way to protect his country. Cities may be occupied, thousands may fall in battle, but it's hard not to feel at least a little respect for the general who says "We may not like it, but this must be done to protect our own."
So to bring this full circle, that's why I don't think Dracula the villain will ever be the sympathetic kind. As the villain, his villainous actions include the killing of innocents to sustain himself; there's no plausible motivation you can give him for that to make me feel sorry for him. He's forced to in order to exist? Yeah well a) why not survive off of blood donations? and b) he put himself in that situation when he made his deal with the devil for immortality and power. This is, admittedly, going by the traditional backstory for Dracula and vampires in general. Because humanity hates him? Yeah, it's kinda hard to like someone that looks at you and sees dinner. A blood-drinking mass murderer that draws power from hell itself does not make for a relate-able bad guy. Although throw some glitter on him and he apparently makes for good teenage girl bait.
Where I disagree with Yahtzee, however, is that his proposal would make Dracula a sympathetic character. I think it would make him an INTERESTING character...but I don't think the fact he wouldn't be on top would automatically make him sympathetic. What makes someone a villain is that no matter what their personal baggage, it doesn't justify what they're doing. Now there are different types of villains, two of which are the straight-up villain and the sympathetic villain, and Dracula has traditionally fallen in the former category. I define the sympathetic villain as the ones whose goals and motivations are relate-able, understandable, and sometimes even admirable. These goals never justify the means the villain chooses to use to pursue them, but that's why they're the villain; their road to hell is paved with their good intentions. Their attitudes are often those of people who have gotten fed up with something and have snapped, or are so fanatically driven on achieving something they ignore the collateral damage. Examples of this kind of villain would be Dr. Octopus as he was portrayed in the Spiderman 2 movie, Captain Nemo from 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Col. Frank Hummel in The Rock, General Azimuth from Ratchet and Clank, Andrew Ryan of Bioshock, Roy Batty from Blade Runner, Mr. Freeze from Batman TAS and Magneto from X-Men.
The straight-up villain, on the other hand, are ones whose goals and motives are completely self-centered. They may have their own personal justifications, but they're reasons that no sensible person would relate with; things like hubris, a love of destruction, greed, hatred, etc. Primary examples here abound: Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, Kefka from FFIII, Dr. Doom from The Fantastic Four, The Joker from Batman, Buffalo Bill from The Silence of The Lambs, Mick Taylor from Wolf Creek, The Kurgen from Highlander, the list goes on.
Now note that the big deciding factor between these two types of villains isn't whether or not they're underdogs or in positions of power; it's their motives. Your straight-up villains that are, say, the rivals to the hero or are serial killers, they're not always commanding vast legions of minions or wielding the power cosmic. But that doesn't make them someone I'd feel bad for, not after the fifth time they've chopped off some poor passerby's head and nailed it to a wall. Meanwhile I would feel a bit for the military commander that leads his troops into battle because he thinks its the only way to protect his country. Cities may be occupied, thousands may fall in battle, but it's hard not to feel at least a little respect for the general who says "We may not like it, but this must be done to protect our own."
So to bring this full circle, that's why I don't think Dracula the villain will ever be the sympathetic kind. As the villain, his villainous actions include the killing of innocents to sustain himself; there's no plausible motivation you can give him for that to make me feel sorry for him. He's forced to in order to exist? Yeah well a) why not survive off of blood donations? and b) he put himself in that situation when he made his deal with the devil for immortality and power. This is, admittedly, going by the traditional backstory for Dracula and vampires in general. Because humanity hates him? Yeah, it's kinda hard to like someone that looks at you and sees dinner. A blood-drinking mass murderer that draws power from hell itself does not make for a relate-able bad guy. Although throw some glitter on him and he apparently makes for good teenage girl bait.
