Why do so many people love the Villain?

[Rubashov]

The archetypal villain character is the character that makes things happen, shakes up the social order, and tears down what is established. The archetypal hero character is the character that stops things from happening, props up the social order, and holds together what is established. It's not hard to see why many people might sympathize with the archetypal villain.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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)

...orcs have inherent powers?

And I'm not all that fond of the "Always Evil No Matter What" thing, anyway. Unless something is literally born out of that alignment (ala angels or devils), it makes much more sense to have a cultural evil. Drow are usually evil because of their history, generally amoral "strongest survive" ethic, and insane goddess who encourages it. Orcs are usually evil for some of the same reasons. Hell, even Tolkien seems to have had some good orcs (based partly on his own discomfort about having a completely evil race, and a short line in the Silmarillion).

That's where my neutral drow comes from, to be honest. A pragmatic wizard/rogue (before my friend and I figured out 3rd edition multiclassing rules), my first D&D character, who managed to escape that life and just went along in life.

The habit of taking INHERENTLY evil beings - 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.

I think that's because the D&D equivalent to the Norse dark elves aren't really the Drow, they're the Derro. D&D dark elves just borrowed from the same name for the concept of "evil elves."

Besides, there are good and neutral drow in Greyhawk, too (ever since 1985, when Gygax officially pointed out in Unearthed Arcana that they could be player characters). They're just exceedingly rare.

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).

Huh. At least Everquest gave a huge disadvantage to dark elves by making everyone hate them. I think that's usually supposed to be the disadvantage for Face-turned evil creatures anyway.

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.

Oh man, the caverns under Zhentil Keep...goddamn manticores, goddamn medusa, goddamn beholder. Gimme drow or swamp cultists any day!

...not counting the whole "Beholder Corps" thing.

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.

Damn straight.

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)

[/quote]

Heh. The soap opera thing is a good point, too. I think I'm probably more likely to give a work the benefit of the doubt, to be honest, but definitely. Especially considering the sorts of games I've been getting into the past couple of years (hint: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.135672-Neutral-Drow-reviews-A-Drug-That-Makes-You-Dream>A Drug That Makes You Dream and <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.223721-TYPE-MOON-Review-anniversary-Fate-Stay-Night>Fate/Stay Night), that kind of good characterization is absolutely vital. Something like a TV show or more interactive genre of video game can kinda sorta get away without that (via cool cinematography or gameplay elements), but visual novels...

...yes, I realize the sex is presumed to be the draw, but that's not the case in the better works.

 

[LOZFFVII]

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]

This sounds a lot like a greek tragedy!
...Awesome...

 

[Gigano]

In the fantasy/sci-fi genre, quite possibly because villains are often less familiar than heroes, and thus more exciting. A hero is often written with average-joe audience relatability in mind, which can be hard to pull off in way that hook you on them from the getgo (Luke Skywalker and his "yokel" qualities), while the villain can be considerably more "alien" in appearance and scope - though not too much in motives - from the outset. Of course, the best villains - later on - have even extensive relatability from our darker wants and faults to them (Raistlin Majere), but from the outset they can be "sold" better, and thus hook people.

As have been elaborated on already, they also have the fascination of living out various taboo conduct, and taking their convictions and ideologies to the extreme.

As for "everyday slice-of-life" villain, I'll add my support of Kyoka Nanjou being a very realistic (almost sickeningly so) and well portrayed villain, whom you'll nonetheless end up hating before long. I think it's much harder not to come hate villains who are "ordinary" in an "ordinary" setting, since they don't really have the various fantastic qualities and otherworldly distance; and harder not to sympathize with those who face off against them.

 

[klakkat]

I'm only inclined to prefer the villain when the hero is a hopeless fuckwit. Since I generally stop paying attention to such shows/games well before the villain is adequately established, I guess I don't really prefer the villain. Especially since most villains are crap. I can't think of a single villain I actually respect at the time; Lord Recluse (City of Villains) is probably the closest just because he's the least stupid, but even he has no idea what to actually do with the power he's trying to gather.

 

[MrNickster]

The villain can be an intriguing character if done right. Look at Jason Voorhees-The mystery surrounding him makes him a great character, if monotonous and predictable. Hannibal Lector, another good villain. An insane, cannibalstic murderer who is also a highly intelligent psychiatrist-Not the mindless hacky hacky slice slice of Jason, but an intriguing and smart villain.

Also, the writing in some movies and the narrative of games can set up the hero to be a completely unlikeable fuck nugget or so bland and cliche that he is not interesting at all. The villain is the one in the movie.game trying to kill this shithead, so the audience will root for the villain.

 

[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]

This sounds a lot like a greek tragedy!
...Awesome...

It does? Interesting. I merely came up with that upon reading this thread...I wonder if it could actually be implemented into a short book?

 

[Vilcus]

I think Barney says it best... although he thinks the villains are the good guys.

Spoiler

Barney: Hey, The Karate Kid is s a great movie. It's the story of a hopeful, young karate enthusiast whose dreams and moxie take him all the way to the All Valley Karate Championship. Of course, sadly, he loses in the final round to that nerd kid. But he learns an important lesson about gracefully accepting defeat.

Lily: Wait, when you watch The Karate Kid you actually root for that mean blonde boy?

Barney: No, I root for the scrawny loser from New Jersey who barely even knows karate. When I watch The Karate Kid I root for the karate kid, Johnny Lawrence from the Cobra Kai dojo. Get your head out of your ass Lily.

 

[Miumaru]

Cause the bad guy is usually better. How many times do the good guys win just because of either a dumb "I got friends " reason, or a forced fault of Dr Evil looking away instead of just getting a gun and shooting him thing. Or, commonly enough, some sort of god mode weapon.

 

[standokan]

I don't really know but it probably has something to do with human psychology.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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

Not strictly true, unless you expand the word "villain" to mean "any obstacle."

That's certainly the case with "man vs. man," and many cases of "man vs. society," and even the odd case with "man vs. himself," but I'd be perfectly willing to consider the protagonists of "man vs. nature" stories to be "heroes" in light of what they do. It's perfectly possible to have a protagonist without an antagonist.

 

[Badger Kyre]

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)

...orcs have inherent powers?

oops, poor sentence structure. Other than Infravision, no. I meant Drow,

And I'm not all that fond of the "Always Evil No Matter What" thing, anyway. Unless something is literally born out of that alignment (ala angels or devils), it makes much more sense to have a cultural evil. Drow are usually evil because of their history, generally amoral "strongest survive" ethic, and insane goddess who encourages it. Orcs are usually evil for some of the same reasons. Hell, even Tolkien seems to have had some good orcs (based partly on his own discomfort about having a completely evil race, and a short line in the Silmarillion).

Drow, in Greyhawk, WERE born out of evil..completely, as were Orcs ( Tolkien, you're right, CHANGED his origin story for Orcs for JUST that reason. They were no longer elves physically corrupted by evil.

I think that's because the D&D equivalent to the Norse dark elves aren't really the Drow, they're the Derro. D&D dark elves just borrowed from the same name for the concept of "evil elves."
Besides, there are good and neutral drow in Greyhawk, too (ever since 1985, when Gygax officially pointed out in Unearthed Arcana that they could be player characters). They're just exceedingly rare.

Originally, NO, the Drow were the DROW. Dig up some of their origin stories from Greyhawk.
They are NOT a natural race.
And yes, that changed ( I forgot when, '85 sounds good. NOTE: after the game was getting "cleaned up" and re-marketed ).
Drow were not even In the published greyhawk setting - their mere existence was a secret, revealed in the g1-2-3 modules:
"The first two modules disclose the existence of a secret force behind the giants, which in the third module is revealed to be evil drow elves. The plot involving the drow was continued in four additional modules printed between 1978 and 1980."
Anyway, with respect, I disagree, the Drow WERE the DROW, before, I like how you put it, the DROW place was taken by the Derro. LOL!!!

But seriously:

I think that's usually supposed to be the disadvantage for Face-turned evil creatures anyway.

I think that applies to ALL that, honestly. And I mena, the changes that go in once they start to "face" a villain ( even race ) because it's becoming popular enough to be a protagonist.
Sabretooth... Kilingons...

It's a matter of taste, but I suspect, had you played when Drow were DROW, you wouldn't like them "faced" up any more than I did. You were introduced to the "Forgotten Reams" version of them, so that is what they "are" to you.

Talk about good writing? let me tell you, D&d used to be HARD - worse than gold box - and the villains were TOUGH. THAT will make you hate a villain.
The old DROW, descended form evil, and eviller than the blackest night, were THAT kind of villain. Anything less to me is as bad as Twilight vampires in the face of Dracula.

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).

Huh. At least Everquest gave a huge disadvantage to dark elves by making everyone hate them. I think that's usually supposed to be the disadvantage for Face-turned evil creatures anyway.[/quote]
In fairness, the D&D online game is based in their OTHER setting, Eberron, which is as different from Forgotten Reams as F-R was from Greyhawk and Blackmoor. In Eberron, the "drow" have a totally different back-story, no Lolth, everything... so in that case they were never "evil" per se, and so it's not really... not really ANY REASON TO CALL THEM DROW OTHER THAN SO ALL THE RA SALVATORE 14-yr OLD FANS COULD PLAY ONE IN THE MMO THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL.
* breathe... breathe* ok,ok, sorry.
Anyway, as I said, to me, taking the "drow" out of their greyhawk context, where their origin was related to the cataclysm, and making them no longer about Lolth, etc etc, made them something else entirely.

My take on Drow not-withstanding, I have no problem with fantasy races being born of evil, being EVIL.
I have seen writers - such as Whedon, etc- address that, and it can be interesting.

Heh. The soap opera thing is a good point, too. I think I'm probably more likely to give a work the benefit of the doubt, to be honest, but definitely. Especially considering the sorts of games I've been getting into the past couple of years (hint: <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.135672-Neutral-Drow-reviews-A-Drug-That-Makes-You-Dream>A Drug That Makes You Dream and <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.223721-TYPE-MOON-Review-anniversary-Fate-Stay-Night>Fate/Stay Night), that kind of good characterization is absolutely vital. Something like a TV show or more interactive genre of video game can kinda sorta get away without that (via cool cinematography or gameplay elements), but visual novels...

...yes, I realize the sex is presumed to be the draw, but that's not the case in the better works.

Well, we'll have to look at those reviews. Not a type of game I've tried.

 

[NeutralDrow]

As for "everyday slice-of-life" villain, I'll add my support of Kyoka Nanjou being a very realistic (almost sickeningly so) and well portrayed villain, whom you'll nonetheless end up hating before long. I think it's much harder not to come hate villains who are "ordinary" in an "ordinary" setting, since they don't really have the various fantastic qualities and otherworldly distance; and harder not to sympathize with those who face off against them.

I guess I should occasionally bring up Yakushiji Gaito in these conversations, too. Jingai probably wasn't as developed as his "girlfriend," but I'll be honest, he terrified me the instant he showed up. He was someone who caused my every elementary school bully sense to scream in terror, and every other instinct I possess to tell me he needed to be killed.

...I wonder if I don't bring him up as often because he frightened me so badly. Either way, another example of an ordinary villain who was an effective character, but who I didn't "love."

 

[Badger Kyre]

I think Barney says it best... although he thinks the villains are the good guys.

Barney: Hey, The Karate Kid is s a great movie. It's the story of a hopeful, young karate enthusiast whose dreams and moxie take him all the way to the All Valley Karate Championship. Of course, sadly, he loses in the final round to that nerd kid. But he learns an important lesson about gracefully accepting defeat.

Lily: Wait, when you watch The Karate Kid you actually root for that mean blonde boy?

Barney: No, I root for the scrawny loser from New Jersey who barely even knows karate. When I watch The Karate Kid I root for the karate kid, Johnny Lawrence from the Cobra Kai dojo. Get your head out of your ass Lily.

I'm sorry, that's hilarious!
Again, I'm thinking of wicked.

 

[Guffe]

Probably the main reason is because I want variety. Second is that everything in normal life doesn't always go the way you want either, so when a villain fails to destroy a town you probably relate that to you failing at something. At a smaller scale but it's still a failure, maybe at making a good sandwich or something like that?! (maybe a bad example with city destroying and sandwich failure but you get the point.)

 

[Bill_Stanbrook]

Because the world loves a bastard.

 

[Audio]

(thinking of Bond films...) The Villain is often trying to fix the world. Which is usually the removal of humans; since we are usually the problem. Although the stories make them out to be bad people, they're actually being brave: being the one who pushes the button that changes the world. The people who make this world go around is the people who get shit done...Villains are such people

 

[Gigano]

As for "everyday slice-of-life" villain, I'll add my support of Kyoka Nanjou being a very realistic (almost sickeningly so) and well portrayed villain, whom you'll nonetheless end up hating before long. I think it's much harder not to come hate villains who are "ordinary" in an "ordinary" setting, since they don't really have the various fantastic qualities and otherworldly distance; and harder not to sympathize with those who face off against them.

I guess I should occasionally bring up Yakushiji Gaito in these conversations, too. Jingai probably wasn't as developed as his "girlfriend," but I'll be honest, he terrified me the instant he showed up. He was someone who caused my every elementary school bully sense to scream in terror, and every other instinct I possess to tell me he needed to be killed.

...I wonder if I don't bring him up as often because he frightened me so badly. Either way, another example of an ordinary villain who was an effective character, but who I didn't "love."

I had the exact same reaction to him, he positively screamed mindless brutality in every aspect, his looks, his voice, his actions. I'm not sure he really needed more characterization than he got though, being the primary of the all-to-well known faceless grunts to Nanjou's machinations (and to a great extent the source of them). The last scene with him - the first part of which was one of the worst I've ever experienced in any media - ultimately explicitly hammered through the image of him as the mindless tool he was, unable and unwilling to act on his own when it came to anything but mindless violence; and even that seemed to take approval, given that he didn't try to violate Aeka sooner.

 

[klakkat]

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

Not strictly true, unless you expand the word "villain" to mean "any obstacle."

That's certainly the case with "man vs. man," and many cases of "man vs. society," and even the odd case with "man vs. himself," but I'd be perfectly willing to consider the protagonists of "man vs. nature" stories to be "heroes" in light of what they do. It's perfectly possible to have a protagonist without an antagonist.

Ahh. Here, we see some of the expansions on the "protagonist" and "antagonist" relationships. An "antagonist" does not have to be a person; it can be an object(s), an ideal, a group, a methodology or law, or even the protagonist himself.

What makes a good villain is the ability to hold up a story as both a protagonist and an antagonist (though rarely both at the same time). So there must be something that makes him interesting as both the source of conflict and as the butt and resolver of conflict, though this can refer to different conflicts and involve different methodology and reasoning. A good villain must be someone the audience can identify with on some level, and then must go at least one level beyond anything the audience would ever be willing to do morally (warning: this definition blurs villain and anti-hero). To clarify between anti-hero and villain, the villain must be willing to sacrifice others for his own gain, but unwilling to sacrifice himself for the gain of others under any circumstances (I'm going to ignore 'redemption' for this).

 

[Mordwyl]

More charisma than the protagonist. From Disney alone we have Scar, Jafar, Hades, Yzma, Ursula, Pete and Hell even Chernabog.

That's not to mention the most monumental antagonist of all time: Raoh the Fist King and the End of World Conqueror.