Villains who had a point

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Timedraven 117:
Snip

fix-the-spade:
Snip

Apparently I've been living a lie for a while now, I always thought the Higs were the ones to root for...
Hell, I'd still think they're cool honestly, mostly cause the ISA are boring as hell when compared to cockney space nazis...

I mostly just think they look cool, their ideology is dumpster fire trash floating down a sewage river.

EMWISE94:

Timedraven 117:
Snip

fix-the-spade:
Snip

Apparently I've been living a lie for a while now, I always thought the Higs were the ones to root for...
Hell, I'd still think they're cool honestly, mostly cause the ISA are boring as hell when compared to cockney space nazis...

I mostly just think they look cool, their ideology is dumpster fire trash floating down a sewage river.

They certainly have coolness factor going with them, I mean how awesome can you get with glowing red eyes, gas masks, and a British accent?

Most of these villain explanations seem to have a common thread to them. That the ends always justify the means.

Well, guess what. They don't. I'm gonna start cutting through the bullshit here and say that if your actions are causing more harm than good then no, you ARE the villain. It's simple math. 5-3=2 which is a net gain. Good. 5-6=-1 is a net loss. Evil. This isn't complicated... Well, OK, it is a little complicated but the reasoning for some of these villains is literally insane.

As to the ebb and flow of civilization and what's needed, the answer here actually isn't what you think. We need to reestablish the family and keep pride in check as a whole. It won't solve every single little thing, but as long as humans have free will (And they should. That's a separate topic.) there will always be outliers. If pride is rampant and the family unit is destroyed, the only thing that will rein in the chaos, the only thing that can, is an iron fist.

Dean Wormer

He is just trying to maintain a prestigious college and he is trying to get rid of a disruptive and self destructive fraternity.
Plus if that kind of fraternity was in operation today they would be responsible for so many sexual harassment/assault cases along with negligent homicide (from the pledges and the alcohol)

Oh and one of the pledge members had sex with a 13 year old girl so there's that as well.

Casual Shinji:
the Emperor from Star Wars

Excuse me? The guy who wanted to end the corrupt control of the republic by a Death Cult more concerned with their own power than the suffering of the common people around them? That Emperor Palpatine?

The Jedi were raised in a life of luxury and comfort, trained from a young age to follow the teachings that would without fail lead to more death and destruction, and also would result in more infants being kidnapped from their rightful parents to further the membership of this cult of people obsessed with death and imposing their own views of right and wrong on the rest of the galaxy. The Jedi even proceeded to start a war using highly specialized slave-labor to enforce their views on the galaxy, proving that they didn't care about how they fought, or why, as long as their own best interests continued to be served. Even as it became apparent to them that the path they were following was the wrong one they continued on as before, never stopping to question whether there was an alternative to fighting.

Order 66 freed the galaxy from the oppression of the Jedi, but the senate's corruption and greed would undoubtedly still mire the political process with issues, so the senate had to be disbanded, especially once it became known that there was a group of traitors plotting a rebellion to attack the legitimate government and eventually assassinate the leader of the legitimate government, Emperor Palpatine.

Alderaan was a well known supporter and funder of these terrorists, in addition to being a primary instigator of the rebellion. With Palpatine desiring nothing more than to put an end to the constant fighting and in-fighting between various systems and peoples, it became necessary to build a massive war-engine the likes of which could not be stopped by just a few people with some guns. The Death Star was the ultimate expression of this power, its ability to destroy a planet enough to silence any manufacturing or military headquarters with a single shot. Long protracted battles were not the goal, as they were anathema to what Palpatine really wanted; Peace, Justice, Prosperity, and Security.

Destroying Alderaan was a simple execution of that plan, take out the financiers of terror, and you strike directly at the terrorists themselves by taking out their supply lines. Take out the recruiting and training headquarters and you strike directly at their ability to assemble more troops and keep them adequately trained. While the scale of death caused by the destruction of Alderaan was unprecedented, it was basically a surgical strike at a terrorist leader cell, with minimal collateral damage, in the scale of the galaxy.

The fleet battle at Endor was a final trap, meant to draw out the last surviving members of the largest terrorist cell, and smash them for the last time, ensuring that peace would be achieved at last.

Spade Lead:
Alderaan was a well known supporter and funder of these terrorists, in addition to being a primary instigator of the rebellion. With Palpatine desiring nothing more than to put an end to the constant fighting and in-fighting between various systems and peoples, it became necessary to build a massive war-engine the likes of which could not be stopped by just a few people with some guns. The Death Star was the ultimate expression of this power, its ability to destroy a planet enough to silence any manufacturing or military headquarters with a single shot. Long protracted battles were not the goal, as they were anathema to what Palpatine really wanted; Peace, Justice, Prosperity, and Security.

Destroying Alderaan was a simple execution of that plan, take out the financiers of terror, and you strike directly at the terrorists themselves by taking out their supply lines. Take out the recruiting and training headquarters and you strike directly at their ability to assemble more troops and keep them adequately trained. While the scale of death caused by the destruction of Alderaan was unprecedented, it was basically a surgical strike at a terrorist leader cell, with minimal collateral damage, in the scale of the galaxy.

Surely it was Tarkin that decided to kill Alderaan as a symbolic strike, knowing there was no military justification.

Urgh76:
Griffith is a good villain.

He's a good villain, but I'm not sure that he exactly has a point. It's pretty hard empathizing with a rapist to be fair.

The Egg of the Perfect World comes off as a better conflicted antagonist than Griffith does, if you ask me.

On topic:

image

Arnoxthe1:
Most of these villain explanations seem to have a common thread to them. That the ends always justify the means.

Well, guess what. They don't. I'm gonna start cutting through the bullshit here and say that if your actions are causing more harm than good then no, you ARE the villain. It's simple math. 5-3=2 which is a net gain. Good. 5-6=-1 is a net loss. Evil. This isn't complicated... Well, OK, it is a little complicated but the reasoning for some of these villains is literally insane.

As to the ebb and flow of civilization and what's needed, the answer here actually isn't what you think. We need to reestablish the family and keep pride in check as a whole. It won't solve every single little thing, but as long as humans have free will (And they should. That's a separate topic.) there will always be outliers. If pride is rampant and the family unit is destroyed, the only thing that will rein in the chaos, the only thing that can, is an iron fist.

Yeah, sadly most villians don't even have a high minded goal to fall back on. It's often something petty or greedy. Why does umbrella make zombies? Because PROFIT!(it's never explained how zombies leads to profit though).

I remember some thread a while back where someone tried to argue that Cauis was FF13-2 was a well written villian because reasons, because there was apparently more to his motivation of "Destroy Space-time and doom the entire universe because my not-quite-girlfriend is doomed to die over and over again. My plan won't prevent that, but it'll kill everything else in the universe as well so I guess it's for the greater good" that I somehow overlooked. Also, the fact that all he literally had to do to achieve this was to stab himself in the heart and there is literally nothing preventing him from doing this at any point except....look over there! SMOKEBOMB!

Yeah.

Well, there's a fun example in the old Justice League cartoon. If you remember the Justice Lords episodes, there was a point where Batman faced off against his alternate self and they started arguing about how their philosophies diverged. Now the story goes that originally League!Batman was supposed to win the argument. But when they actually started figuring out the dialogue and Lord!Batman pointed out that their in their world "no 8 year old boy will have to lose his parents because of some punk with a gun"...and they couldn't come up with a good counterargument.

And honestly, it's not not wrong. The argument more or less centered on the trade-off between freedom and safety. How much of one you're willing to sacrifice for the other is ultimately subjective and how much is practically ideal is a moving target defined by culture and familiarity as much as surrounding circumstances. All else being equal, if your hometown adopted martial law tomorrow you'd probably see protests and maybe riots. If you were in your second month of almost daily violent riots, however, martial law would be considerably more welcome.

Now the Justice Lords were wrong on the whole, but they did have a point that trading freedom for safety resulted in...well, greater safety. Our system is intended to minimize the risk of Type 1 errors (false positives), theirs was intended to minimize the risk of Type 2 errors (false negatives). Where our justice system was built around the idea that it was better for 10 criminals to go free than 1 innocent be convicted[1], theirs was that it was better for 10 innocents to be convicted than for 1 criminal to go free. The two philosophies are naturally at odds with each other, but neither is strictly wrong. It's just a question of where your priorities lie.

---

And while not "villains" per se, Christmas With the Kranks makes no secret of the fact that we're supposed to view Mr. and Mrs. Krank as we view the Grinch and Ebeneezer Scrooge[2], and that it is to be a story which caps off with them seeing the error of their ways and learning the true meaning of Christmas...because in light of their daughter being with the Peace Corps this year they decide to spend $3000 on a romantic cruise instead of $6000 on Christmas pageantry. And we're apparently supposed to empathize with the neighbors who flat out harass them over the decision. As the late Mr. Ebert so aptly put it:

The movie's complete lack of a sense of humor is proven by its inability to see that the Kranks are reasonable people and their neighbors are monstrous. What it affirms is not the Christmas spirit but the Kranks caving in. What is the movie really about? I think it may play as a veiled threat against nonconformists who don't want to go along with the majority opinion in their community. What used to be known as American individualism is now interpreted as ominous. We're supposed to think there's something wrong with the Kranks. The buried message is: Go along, and follow the lead of the most obnoxious loudmouth on the block.

[1] Difference between theory and practice notwithstanding
[2] For pete's sake, the name is pronounced cranks, as in bah-humbug cranky, and the movie doesn't present them remotely favorable enough for that to be an intentionally ironic name

Dalisclock:

Arnoxthe1:
Most of these villain explanations seem to have a common thread to them. That the ends always justify the means.

Well, guess what. They don't. I'm gonna start cutting through the bullshit here and say that if your actions are causing more harm than good then no, you ARE the villain. It's simple math. 5-3=2 which is a net gain. Good. 5-6=-1 is a net loss. Evil. This isn't complicated... Well, OK, it is a little complicated but the reasoning for some of these villains is literally insane.

As to the ebb and flow of civilization and what's needed, the answer here actually isn't what you think. We need to reestablish the family and keep pride in check as a whole. It won't solve every single little thing, but as long as humans have free will (And they should. That's a separate topic.) there will always be outliers. If pride is rampant and the family unit is destroyed, the only thing that will rein in the chaos, the only thing that can, is an iron fist.

Yeah, sadly most villians don't even have a high minded goal to fall back on. It's often something petty or greedy. Why does umbrella make zombies? Because PROFIT!(it's never explained how zombies leads to profit though).

I remember some thread a while back where someone tried to argue that Cauis was FF13-2 was a well written villian because reasons, because there was apparently more to his motivation of "Destroy Space-time and doom the entire universe because my not-quite-girlfriend is doomed to die over and over again. My plan won't prevent that, but it'll kill everything else in the universe as well so I guess it's for the greater good" that I somehow overlooked. Also, the fact that all he literally had to do to achieve this was to stab himself in the heart and there is literally nothing preventing him from doing this at any point except....look over there! SMOKEBOMB!

Yeah.

Zombies and other monstrosities weren't Umbrella's main goal originally. They were just bi-products of whatever virus they were making. The original goal for 2/3 founders of Umbrella was immortality; Spencer and Ashford. The third guy, whose name I can't remember, just wanted to do what a pharmaceutical company is supposed to do. The other founders killed him, because they knew he would not go along with the plan.

Sonmi:

Urgh76:
Griffith is a good villain.

He's a good villain, but I'm not sure that he exactly has a point. It's pretty hard empathizing with a rapist to be fair.

The Egg of the Perfect World comes off as a better conflicted antagonist than Griffith does, if you ask me.

Damn straight! Griffith never had a point. Even before going full evil, the fucker was always a huge control freak.

Johnathan Irons from Advanced Warfare.

Particularly in that A: Humans aren't really into freedom as we think we are and have historically willingly abandoned it if there looks to be a better alternative and B: Might makes right has more to do with was is seen as right and wrong than we care to admit.

CoCage:

Zombies and other monstrosities weren't Umbrella's main goal originally. They were just bi-products of whatever virus they were making. The original goal for 2/3 founders of Umbrella was immortality; Spencer and Ashford. The third guy, whose name I can't remember, just wanted to do what a pharmaceutical company is supposed to do. The other founders killed him, because they knew he would not go along with the plan.

I know but it's really, really hard not to make that joke. Eapecially considering how much ends up getting destroyed because of whatever Mutants/Zombies they create, one can only ask "Exactly how is Umbrella making a profit here?"

CoCage:
Damn straight! Griffith never had a point. Even before going full evil, the fucker was always a huge control freak.

Yeah. The whole part were he loses his shit over Guts walking away kinda encapsulates it nicely.

So I watched a supercut of the '97 Berserk show on youtube, and I don't think Griffith is a villain, necessarily. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether he personally has a point or not, because I just see the whole thing as a tragedy. I look at the story as a whole, not the characters individually, so it depends on how other people view it. Griffith had extraordinary ambition, but morally speaking, he never acted out of the ordinary (until the eclipse). Guts left partly because he thought that he had to earn Griffiths friendship that way, ignorant of how much it would hurt him. Griffith was prompted to adrenaline rush through his plan, or seek distraction with the princess, probably both. He went in harder for his dream because the last thing balancing it out, was Guts, and Guts left partly because of what he overheard Griffith saying. I can see the humanity in that whole situation. Horrible things happened to Griffith, and anything he does afterwards, I cannot blame on a 100% sane mind. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't suck, and that Guts doesn't have a right to hate him. Again, I do not look at the characters and their justifications outside of the story as a whole.

I have read up on the events following the eclipse, and it seems to me that the story loses its focus a bit. Not sure if my interpretation is applicable to the later storylines. Casca's (however you spell that name) fate of being caught and destroyed in the middle, and then being left behind by a Guts who could not get past the thought of revenge, is still a very fitting and nice touch though.

Anyone interested in the supercut, I recommend the 2 part "no cheese edit", it's with english dub. I plan on downloading it once the final versions are released. There is also an unedited four part supercut in japanese with english subtitles though.

Paragon Fury:
Johnathan Irons from Advanced Warfare.

Particularly in that A: Humans aren't really into freedom as we think we are and have historically willingly abandoned it if there looks to be a better alternative and B: Might makes right has more to do with was is seen as right and wrong than we care to admit.

Glad I'm not the only one who appreciated this. I sometimes feel like I'm one of the few people who liked the AW campaign, partially due to this. A villain who has a point and some kind of motive.

The "bad guy" in 2012, who is portrayed as this slimy, fat, smug bastard. He and the other world leaders have built these giant arks to preserve humanity's survivors from a world ending tsunami. The "hero" complains that the survivors are rich people who have bought their tickets on the arcs. Bad guy asks who else is going to cough up the billions needed to build them. Hero complains that they could fit ten times more people in the arcs. Bad Guy asks how to store enough food for all of them. Hero complains about who gets a ticket on board, bad guy asks if hero would like to donate his ticket to someone else. Bad guy shuts the doors to the arc early, dooming some of the stragglers to an incoming tidal wave; the guy's responsible for the survival of the entire human race so he has a duty to do that. Also worth mentioning that everything the bad guy does is based on estimates and schedules written up by the hero, and every one of them turn out to be wrong.

God what a shitty movie.

spacemutant IV:
So I watched a supercut of the '97 Berserk show on youtube, and I don't think Griffith is a villain, necessarily. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether he personally has a point or not, because I just see the whole thing as a tragedy. I look at the story as a whole, not the characters individually, so it depends on how other people view it. Griffith had extraordinary ambition, but morally speaking, he never acted out of the ordinary (until the eclipse). Guts left partly because he thought that he had to earn Griffiths friendship that way, ignorant of how much it would hurt him. Griffith was prompted to adrenaline rush through his plan, or seek distraction with the princess, probably both. He went in harder for his dream because the last thing balancing it out, was Guts, and Guts left partly because of what he overheard Griffith saying. I can see the humanity in that whole situation. Horrible things happened to Griffith, and anything he does afterwards, I cannot blame on a 100% sane mind. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't suck, and that Guts doesn't have a right to hate him. Again, I do not look at the characters and their justifications outside of the story as a whole.

I have read up on the events following the eclipse, and it seems to me that the story loses its focus a bit. Not sure if my interpretation is applicable to the later storylines. Casca's (however you spell that name) fate of being caught and destroyed in the middle, and then being left behind by a Guts who could not get past the thought of revenge, is still a very fitting and nice touch though.

Anyone interested in the supercut, I recommend the 2 part "no cheese edit", it's with english dub. I plan on downloading it once the final versions are released. There is also an unedited four part supercut in japanese with english subtitles though.

Mostly agreed.

What I thought really drove home the tragedy on Golden Age arc was that the circumstances that lead to Guts and Griffith's parting of ways were not just utterly trivial, human, and most of all, completely avoidable, but also ultimately pointless, the former going out to try and be worthy of a friendship he already had, and the latter assuring his downfall by buying into his own high-and-mighty bullshit. The series as a whole has its ups and downs, but the Golden Age is truly a storytelling masterpiece in my opinion.

I still think Griffith is a dick, though.

Having just finished it(I know, 15 years late to the party), Dead Cell and their Russian Allies from Metal Gear Solid 2.

I'm not going to mince words. Solidus is a dick and a monster, Fatman is a glory seeking bomb nut, Fortune is kinda axe-crazy and Vamp....god knows what's going on with Vamp. Only Olga comes across as looking somewhat good in the end.

However, their goal of removing Arsenal from the Patriots control, knowing what they were planning on doing with it, was laudable considering the shitty, dominating control of all digital information the Patriots were going for. Their goal of detonating an EMP over New York, not so much(I'm assuming that was the plan at some point, though admittedly I kinda lost track of who was doing what and betraying whom for whom a couple times in the last hour) and the sheer amount of collateral damage implied makes it hard to feel too bad for them in the end.

Cyrus Temple in Saints Row the Third. Simply put, he's put in charge of an anti-gang military force that has super high tech weapons, their own air force and an aircraft carrier, and with the unanimous consent of Congress(Seriously, when does congress agree on anything) is sent to take down a gang(The Saints) that has effectivly conquered an entire city at that point, evaded prosecution, (possibly) blown up a high rise in the middle of a downtown area, stolen a ton of weapons and a very large bomb from a military armory and has access to their own personal air force. They're also shown as being capable of going toe-to-toe with the military AND WINNING, such as being able to blow up STAG's aircraft carrier.

Cyrus has good reason for going as hard as he does, with the exception of the "bad" ending where he uses a flying SHIELD-like Helicarrier to start indescrimantly blowing up the city. Yeah, the Saints are accused of blowing up the equivalent of the Statue of Liberty, but I don't see how blowing up the rest of the city actually solves anything.

Most players don't see it because, well, the Saints are the Protagonists and "Puckish Rogues" but STAG isn't being super unreasonable in their tactics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here