Villians that weren't actually doing anything Illegal.
- Thread starter Fniff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yeah...actually, if your the galactic gov't everything you say is legal...is legal!kashif1 said:
This is a minor complaint, but "antagonist" does not always mean "bad guy". It is simply a character that opposes the main character (or protagonist). For example, in Death Note, Light is the protagonist and L the antagonist, though I think most people will agree with me in saying that Light is the villain and L the hero.Poke_Freak said:
Oh. My. God! Your family is responsible for creating pop-under advertising, aren't they?SmoothNRK said:
-----
On topic, the "Bad Guy" whatshisname from Eragon. So he killed the dragon riders. Doesn't read like they were a particularly heroic or even halfway decent bunch, let alone "good guys". Then he ruled a kingdom which, it seems, ran fairly and justly. That whiney little anakin-wannabe Eragon is the real villain in the story.
well dr.horrible kinda works.he did steal some stuff. and attempted to do some illegal things in an attempt to rule the world in order to save it.
for those who don't know who dr.horrible is watch dr.horribles sing along blog
for those who don't know who dr.horrible is watch dr.horribles sing along blog
well palpatine did break a few laws while he was the actual emperor, before he turned the republic into a dictatorship, which since vader did most of his work after palpatine took full control he's legaly in the clear.Reeper0278 said:
u have a point there...but a good lawyer could argue the fact. since the ccoyote used bombs and such. sooo it's hard to tellCkeesy said:
DracoSuave said:
I agree with this, he was fairly heroic in his own way. Also I figure most people here are too young to have taken Ethics, or don't remember it. In general there is no real absolute "right and wrong" system of morality that everyone agrees with, and what is right can matter of perspective. It's also relatively easy to talk about moral right and wrong while seperated from having to be a person actually making the desicians, especially when the desicians get big enough.
At any rate, for those who read past that, over the years there have been many "Ozymandias" type villains who were arguably doing the right thing in the overall scheme of things.
In terms of strict legality one of the big conflicts of more modern heroic fiction has dealt with bad guys that ARE operating legally but doing the wrong thing at least from the perspective of the heroes (and presumably the viewer given the narrative). The "Evil Corperation" has become a stock villain nowadays. A classic American take on the genere would be something like say Robocop. OCP was operating mostly within the law, and their objectives were very much to create a much better enviroment out of a totally decimated urban wastlenad, albeit at the expense of the lives of a lot of people who weren't even paticularly innocent (check out the stuff going on in the backround of Robocop). The quintessential conflict in Robocop being the hero needing to find a way to break the law/resist programming to stop his creators from doing something bad, but technically lawful given that they pretty much own the area this is taking place in.
You'd be surprised by just spinning things a little how many heroic stories can easily be turned around to make the hero seem like an evil putz, and the bad guys like victims.
Oh and honestly, for those who have read THIS far and have actually read the graphic novel "V For Vendetta", it's a lot more ambigious than the movie which was pretty much turned into a giant anti-"W" rant. In the graphic novel to put it simply pretty much everyone is a complete putz, and V is an insane psychopath. As an ordinary person I would have probably wanted to side with Susan simply because he's at least well intentioned, as opposed to V who would love to see everyone killing everyone in the streets in complete Anarchy (he's characterized a bit differantly... someone seeking anarchy purely for purposes of vengeance, NOT a freedom fighter. He's also a sadistic twit at times who is insane enough to hold conversations with statues). I mean things probably won't end that well for me either way in an absolute view (which is kind of the point), but with V's victory I'm far more likely to be anally raped, tortured, and dumped in a gutter by someone tougher than me just because it amused them.
Until he introduced the population to drugs, corruption, and he took little girls to create drugs. Up until then yea everything he was doin was perfectly understandablej0z said:
Daedalus1942 said:
Hmmm, well you can only kill someone/something once. Arguably worse than either of those things would be being able to gain control over everyone. This could involve outright slavery or mind control of some sort, or simply gaining control of a commodity or technology that everyone needs that nobody can dispute.
Let's say for example we have an intersteller empire. Space travel depends on a substance like "Spice" from Dune to be possible. The exact substance or the way it's used does not matter. Heck, maybe it's just a specific kind of computer chip, or a rare alloy. The bottom line is that if one person could get de-facto control of whatever that is, they would then have control of the entire destiny of the empire because nobody could do anything of consequence without their approval. Chances are any such technology would need to be kept "open" with no person or group, even a goverment, having exclusive control.
In such an enviroment if you were given a choice between oh say the complete destruction of whatever ethnicity would most annoy you (Blacks, Whites, Jews, Asians, whatever it doesn't matter), or some dude calling himself "Dark Lord Gates" or whatever having a tyrannical grip on the destiny of everyone forever more by controlling that technology exclusively... well genocide is the right option to pick because it does LESS Damage in the final equasion.
This basic arguement could be made about anything that is absolutly nessicary, yet cornered by a single person. There are indeed some things worse than genocide in the overall scheme of things.
In general a monopoly or cartel can be a far worse thing than a mass murderer, or act of genocide, depending on what the monopoly is. While akin to mind control, if you for example managed to addict everyone to a substance that only you had... well that's probably worse overall than killing them.
In the overall scheme of things someone like Ted Turner (or anyone) getting control of all the media and being able to control information on a societal level strikes me as a more dangerous thing than Hitler. Truth is I'd rather see a holocaust, even of my own ethnicity (white) than I would see one man in that position. What that person could do would be far worse than merely being able to kill a whole lot of people.
Well they we're still Templar though I don't recall if their personal lives had any real crimes but one of thier main goals is global thought control to make the masses forceibly complacent and lose free will. (So I think it was smoke an mirriors that they we're still evil but he didn't want to clue in on the real reason.)dark_taint92 said: