Why do so many people love the Villain?

[Badger Kyre]

Heroes and villains are essentially two sides of the same coin. The hero is the upholder of a society's values, the villain the breaker of said values. Our fascination with the villain is, in many way, our fascination with defying our own society and the order of our lives. The best villains are the ones that might have been us had events gone differently in our lives or had we given in to a moment of rage, of desire, of weakness.

Take the phenomenon of the villain monologue. Ever notice that most of the time the hero doesn't really have a good comeback? A few heroes might do a Shut-Up-Hannibal and punch the guy while he's still talking, but most of the time the hero responds with some thin gruel about the villain being insane or evil or "defier of the social order," as if what the villain is saying must automatically be taken as crazy talk. It isn't always black and white, and it takes a good writer to show that while a villain may be bad, he isn't necessarily wrong. A true villain doesn't just jeopardize life and liberty; he forces you to consider why you believe what you believe.

Example: In "The Dark Knight," the Joker's premise is that most people aren't too far away from embracing anarchy. On the one hand, the Joker's final social experiment (the bobby-trapped ferries) falls through and shows that the people of Gotham City aren't willing to destroy each other. But then Harvey Dent turns into Two-Face and shows that, yes, even the best of us can fall from grace. So despite being defeated in the end, the Joker's argument isn't completely refuted.

Several good points...

and I'm wondering if you're a fan of Grendel, Wicked, etc?

Interesting to me is how frequently the Joker is coming up...
Frank Miller's "Return of the Dark Knight", which I WISH they had made a movie instead,
had the Batman - in many ways a vigilante anti-hero ( to what degree his vigilantism makes him an anti-hero is an ongoing theme of the book, repeated at the end of BoonDock Saints )...
his version of Batman is to ME the most interesting ( definitive, even ) and for most of the reasons you discuss, about the only time I thought someone had made the Batman as interesting as the Joker.

 

[AvsJoe]

Villains are interesting. Certainly more so than the average hero.
Villains are fun.
Villains are escapism at its finest.
I loves me a good villain even more than a great hero.

 

[Kollega]

There are at least three reasons.

Reason number one: the villain is not evil enough. His villainy may not be blatant enough, his magnificence may overshadow his despicable acts, or maybe he's even genuinely sympathetic: an anti-villain, if you will.

Reason number two: people would like to be the villain, for one reason or other. Ones want to stomp on kittens and shoot innocents just because they're complete jerks, other believe that utopia justifies the means (sadly, in most cases it dosen't).

Spoiler: And the reason number three is...

And the reason number three is...

Good is boring, evil is edgy: rather popular excuse.

There are other reasons, i'm sure... but those are the most noticeable.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Which villain? Sometimes, it's because the villain is either sympathetic, or simply cool and charismatic enough to make up for it.

Interesting, coming from a Neutral Drow - which a purist like me would say is a contradiction in terms. Should i blame Anne Rice for starting that, Joss for following it, or Just RA Slaverbore?

Usually Neutral Evil, keep in mind. Only outsiders, animals, and some aberrations are "always" something. Hell, our pantheon includes a Chaotic Good goddess.

Blame <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Azure_Bonds>SSI for that. Naturally, I'm going to come away impressed by the really cool-looking, genuinely challenging enemies who also have the best equipment in the game (and a faction that's willing to aid you in light of a mutual goal). My other common internet alias, Drow Lord, comes directly from that an enemy in that game.

I never read any of Salvatore's stuff until 2007 (though I do like Drizzt's character, especially early on, during the Dark Elf and Icewind Dale trilogies). Didn't know Anne Rice or Joss Whedon did anything with dark elves.

But seriously - I'll leave "which villain" up to you, and ask you to choose one you like, and tell me why ?

Okay, I like Kotomine from Fate/Stay Night. He's the only villain I know of who honestly turns being literally "born evil" into a compelling backstory, and he's also a magnificent bastard behind the scenes, general badass, and occasional ally against a situationally-greater evil. And he's voiced by Jouji Nakata, which is a major plus. I certainly didn't want him to succeed (that would have resulted in the manifestation of all the evils of the world being born and causing havoc), but he was interesting to read about.

Of course, now I have to ask you...do you mean love the villain as in "sympathize with the villain" or "consider the villain well-written?" There's a big difference. For example, I think Kyoka Nanjou from A Drug That Makes You Dream is a pretty well-written villain. By the end of the game, I also hated her so badly that I wanted to rip things apart whenever she showed up. I can't think of anyone else or anything else that has ever filled me with that level of pure loathing and rage.

Sometimes, it's because the hero suffers by comparison in characterization or motivations.

Ah, hit the nail with that one... I am so often expected to like the "protagonist" simply because he/she is the "Hero"
which to me is closely related to the " care about this world enough to save it" when the writer hasn't done a damn thing to make me care enough about that world to give a fat rat's ass what happens to it.

If the hero lacks in characterization, that's entirely the fault of the writer, not the concept. To continue the take fantasy literature take, the protagonists of, say, the Belgariad and Malloreon series are wonderfully characterized and fun to read about, while the Wheel of Time ones tend to be mixed in sympathetic qualities, but usually go through enough character development to be interesting or likable. But then there's something like Eragon...

 

[dlawnro]

The best villains are the ones who have a strong and developed reason for doing what they do. However, the hero doesn't usually get as much of a reason. I mean, if the villain is going to destroy the world, does the hero really need a reason to fight the villain? The hero's in it to do what we believe is right, so there's usually not as much development in his reasons for action. Thus, the villain becomes so much more interesting because we like to see why he does what we wouldn't do.

 

[Stuntcrab]

Because people want something new, like everyone is saying they want to see the bad guys win for once.

 

[Weaver]

I usually cheer for whomever I can come to grips with better. If a villain has believable motives which aren't just "I'm soooooooo evil" I can sympathize with them. When they're undertaking a huge feat of ambition and careful planning I almost just admire them for all their hard work. Then of course the "HURRRR I A HERO I GOOD!!!!!!!" comes in a ruins bloody everything.

 

[InnerRebellion]

The villain usually has a more interesting story...now, what I would like to see is a better version of this:

Hero: You can't win this -Villain name-
Villain: Ah, but I already have, for you see, everything that has happened has been beneficial to my plan. Not everything was what I had planned, but the events that have led to this very moment are very helpful to my plan. Even your meddling has helped me move my plan along, and for that, I thank you. [draw gun/sword/whatever]
Hero: I will fight you!
Villain: But it is not you who I wish to kill, my friend. You see, there is one last part to my plan...[turn weapon on self]
Hero: You're mad!
Villain: Am I? Or are you? Think of all the men you killed trying to find me, while I never touched a single person. Who is the villain here? [pull trigger/thrust sword/whatever is required to kill self]

 

[MajorKris]

I often feel sympathy for certain villains. Like Bakura from Yu-Gi-Oh. If I saw my parents brutally murdered in front of me, I'd probably be fucked up too. It's not really a matter of "liking" or comparing myself to certain villains. Sometimes I just feel that they deserve a happy ending...but usually they end up dying horribly.

 

[sircashews]

I don't usually like villains unless they're really good villains. What I mean by that is that I can see where they're coming from and actually favor they're perspective.

Well that and occasionally villains come along where it's fun just to cheer them on while they create chaos.

 

[Nemorac]

As I have seen other people say on here, it depends on the villain, but sometimes, it just depends on what I'm feeling at the time. Sometimes, I'm all for seeing the good guys win. Other times, I want to see death and destruction. It all depends on how the characters are portrayed, how the story advances, and what I am feeling at the time.

If I may delve into the subject of anime for a second, while Light Yagami is the protagonist in Death Note, I would call him the villain of the series, with L, Near, and Mello being the protagonists. During the first half of the story, the confrontations between Light and L were exciting, and I kind of almost wanted both of them to win, but moreso L. After L was killed, I became more interested in Light, wanting to see exactly the king of world he'd create with the Death Note.

So, it's all a matter of perspective.

 

[octafish]

Villains generally have more fun. They are generally more interesting than the "hero". Most importantly a well done villain thinks they are the hero.

 

[Dr_Baron_von_Evilsatan]

Heroes whine too much and spend too much time on complaining about being the chosen one, pathetic and awkward romances, and bland melodrama. Villains, on the other hand, do whatever they want (which is the fun stuff) and don't have to go through all that crap. In some small way, we envy them. we wish that, when that jerk in the Honda cuts us off on the highway, we could run them off the road and then throw a beehive and a box full of bottle rockets down their sunroof (instead of just cursing at him/her).

 

[Nemu]

Villains make everything interesting:

Without a villain, there is no need for a hero.

Without a villain, there is no story.

Without a villain, the _________ win.

Without a villain, there is no diabolically awesome music.

Without a villain, there are only frosting-less cupcakes---AND NO-ONE WANTS THAT.

 

[Anarchemitis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_basic_principles_of_animation#Appeal

 

[Badger Kyre]

Usually Neutral Evil, keep in mind. Only outsiders, animals, and some aberrations are "always" something. Hell, our pantheon includes a Chaotic Good goddess.

Blame <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Azure_Bonds>SSI for that.

I played that, but IIRC, SSI isn't responsible for making Drow no longer necessarily evil.
As I said, I'm a purist, so far as i'm concerned, taking the Drow out of Greyhawk robbed them of their context - and they have ONLY one Goddess - the very creation of the Drow is due to Lolth ( lilith, cough cough) - her evil and betrayal.
They are inherently evil by nature and origin, just as ORCS are evil by nature being created by Gruumsh - they are, in effect "aberrations" in that sense... ( the source of their inherent powers)
- and drow/assassin/spider to > vampire is a jump made so often it's surprising to me it wasn't made part of the canon...
but, that's my take, and yes, I know, it's obsolete and unpopular. The idea of the Drow (which is really from norse "black elves" - and means 'black' as in darkness and evil, not color, and those are INHERENTLY evil ) - sorry, tangent city is where i live - the Drow as a race of kin-traitor vampires, never to have young, surviving the cataclysm Lolth is partially responsible for by hiding forever in the depths of the earth, is one I think much more chilling than where TSR took it when they bought Forgotten Realms as part of their bid to market D&D to a larger, younger demographic...
But even for ME, I digress.

The habit of taking INHERENTLY evil beings and making them "player characters" if you will ( protagonists) - and no longer INHERENTLY evil...
What I meant by Anne Rice was interview really affected how vampires were seen, this influenced quite a few other writers with the "sympathetic monster" trope, by which I was referring to Joss, and Salvatore, and lately Twilight.
An interesting point, IMO, is that in many of these when they quit being "evil", they retain their powers - or in the case of twilight, have powers without any of the DISADVANTAGES.
Personal nit, but that always bothered me - much like a Cleric that turns against his Deity yet keeps his powers.
Hell, the Drow in D&d online can walk around in the sunlight - no reason to even call them "Drow" as far as I'm concerned ( well, they are still black, and still elves, I... guess).

Naturally, I'm going to come away impressed by the really cool-looking, genuinely challenging enemies who also have the best equipment in the game (and a faction that's willing to aid you in light of a mutual goal). My other common internet alias, Drow Lord, comes directly from that an enemy in that game.

I see you blame SSI (ah, you make me weep for my gold box games) not for the "cheapening" of the Drow, but for your love of them. ( My first encounter with the Drow was their first appearance - at the end of the "Giant" series, right on up to Lolth's Queen of the Demonweb Pits).
Azure bonds... Sigh.
You know , that series made even the Zhentarim a serious enemy - not like the boks of the creator of the setting where the Zhentarim tend to be laughable mooks.
The Beholder from "Azure Bonds" is the encounter i recall best - he genuinely made you feel like you had been out-manuevered by something older and smarter than you.

As i was attempting to say, you menat Azure BOnds started your fascination with the Drow, rather than the beginning of TSR's "softening" of the Drow -
which you can see in other series when a "villain" race gets too popular - the Klingons are a good example -
and with that, I think we're back on track.

Yes, I think you hit it on the head - they made the Drow DAMN interesting, and damn tough -
and over and over in this thread, we see how much more interesting writers have made their villains than their "protagonists" which they keep Vanilla, either out of poor writing or out of thinking the readership can only identify with a fairly plain hero.

Okay, I like Kotomine from Fate/Stay Night. He's the only villain I know of who honestly turns being literally "born evil" into a compelling backstory, and he's also a magnificent bastard behind the scenes, general badass, and occasional ally against a situationally-greater evil...

I'm unfamiliar with that one, but I agree, he sounds like a villain who would be interesting to read about.

Of course, now I have to ask you...do you mean love the villain as in "sympathize with the villain" or "consider the villain well-written?" There's a big difference. For example, I think Kyoka Nanjou from A Drug That Makes You Dream is a pretty well-written villain. By the end of the game, I also hated her so badly that I wanted to rip things apart whenever she showed up. I can't think of anyone else or anything else that has ever filled me with that level of pure loathing and rage.

That's a DIFFERENT point, but a damn fine one. Related, however, that it is still about GOOD WRITING.
Want me to emotionally invest in your story? MAKE me care about your world ( or whatever is at stake)... make me WANT to see the villain get STOMPED.

If the hero lacks in characterization, that's entirely the fault of the writer, not the concept.

couldn't agree more - and I say that about the writers as well who expect us to care because "the world is going to end"- not always, but USUALLY this is a cop-out of poor writing, which is why i say, make me care about your world ( or hero ) - rather than count on me caring about them just because they are the "protagonist" or world. This has been a crutch definitely over-used in a lot of comics and other escapist fantasy - and could be a WHOLE 'nother thread.

As an example of the opposite, although I don't care for them, soap operas tend to be a good example of how a good writer can make someone care about events that are IRRELEVANT - ie, nothing is at stake, yet it has been made interesting enough to make people care about what happens anyway. ( an emotional stake)

 

[Badger Kyre]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_basic_principles_of_animation#Appeal

which to me the key word in that was CHARISMA.
Which i think alot of these posts point out is SADLY lacking in many "protagonists" - and often shining in spades in these villains.

 

[Abanic]

Since the days of the Ancient Greeks, the greatness of the hero is defined by what the hero must overcome. Hence, the 'villain' has a lot of attention payed to it by an audience that is secretly scrutinizing the antagonist to ensure that it measures up to the hero. This has led storytellers throughout the ages to utilize their limited time to detail the adversary, while having the hero be "the person who stops the bad guy". In many peoples minds, that is the key to being a hero; observe something heinous and attempt to stop it.

The best villains are 'dark reflections', those tragic characters whose reasonable decisions have led them to a point where they are now seen as an enemy. These dark reflections beg the question from the audience: "what would YOU do in the same situation?" The horrifying reality to these great villains sets in: your path might be all too similar to the choices made by this character at whom you 'boo' so loudly.

Where would the hero be without a challenge? Who would Heracles be without his Trials, Beowulf without Grendel, Hamlet without his uncle, The Three Musketeers without a Cardinal Richelieu? Who would Batman be without his Rogue's Gallery, He-Man without Skeletor, Autobots without the Decepticons; none of these characters would be interesting without something of equal (or greater) power to put their heroism into perspective.

A villain can identify the caliber of heroism without the audience knowing anything else about the hero. In the Lord of the Rings mythology, most fans have never heard of Tuor, but I can easily put Tuor into perspective by letting people know 'during the Fall of Gondolin, Tuor killed five Balrogs'. With that one statement, anyone who knows even a little bit about Lord of the Rings instantly understands the caliber of hero that Tuor is.

Villains are incredibly important, because they define the hero.

 

[Tourette]

I think it goes back to Star Wars for me when it first came out in the late 70's. Darth Vader was the coolest villain ever and since then I have always rooted for the bad guy.
C'mon, even the heroic Spiderman was more fun when he was bad in the third movies when he had his black symbiote suit and KotOR was made a lot more fun when taking the evil options.
I guess there is a little of Jimmy the Gent in all of us as he always rooted for the bad guy at the movies.

 

[Umwerfer]

Any author or somesuch need to think outside the box to create a good villain. The villain is the heavy lifter who moves the entire plot forwards. Getting so much attention and responsibility often results in non-stereoptypes, making him/her a far more interesting than the usual emotionally tormentet hero.