Times where the hero seems like the villain

[Kecunk]

I'm going with Gundam Wing. I've just started watching it now (at episode 4) and the good guys seem to murder soldiers in their sleep, even trainees. I'm a reservist so maybe this hits a little close to home but they seem to slaughter people for no real reason other than "they're soldiers so who cares". I don't hate it and don't want to make this some sort of weird social justice thing I just think these heroes are kind of monsters.

Its been a while since I watched gundam wing so I don't really remember everything 100% but I think what you say is kinda part of the story The gundam pilots are basically brainwashed (well brainwashed in the sense that they've lived their whole lives only exposed to one point of view of the conflict)I don't want to spoil anything but they learn the error of their ways later on in the series

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Superman in Man of Steel. I don?t want to beat a dead horse, but seriously, the movie seems to just overlook the fact of how much unnecessary destruction Clark causes to Metropolis during his fight with Zod. ?Protector of Earth? he was not.

Goku in Dragon Ball. If you?ve read the series and see the sheer amount of times he?s allowed such villains as Vegeta to escape just so he can fulfil his battle addiction and ?fight them again sometime?, you should agree with me. I know he?s basically a man-child and Dragon Ball?s heroes are only heroes in as much as they?re just martial artists with superhuman powers who tend to get themselves embroiled in fights with villains who happen to want to destroy the planet or something (Gohan ? especially when he?s the Great Saiyaman - is the closest we get to a bonafide hero, which is ironic since he never liked fighting in the first place), but it?s really to an unhealthy degree that Goku prides a battle with a worthy opponent over the lives of his family and friends, even after he?s been shown the danger of said action.

Ranma in Ranma ½. I haven?t read the manga in a long while, but I just always thought he was a cocky little shit that, like Goku, seemed to create the majority of the problems he tried to solve. Same goes for Akane, who borderline-abuses Ranma because she's the most fucking tsundere character in existence.

Integra from Hellsing. Technically, the antihero Alucard is the protagonist of the series, but Integra is still classed as a ?hero?. There?s one scene in the series that kind of made me think, ?Even if it?s justified, you still gave your vampire assassin an order to slaughter a crew of innocent, deceived human beings who were just doing their jobs based on the info they?d been given. They weren?t even fucking vampires?. (Good, I said that without technically spoiling anything.)

Light Yagami, from Death Note, acting like a villain throughout the entire series.
He's a mass murderer with a God complex. Not to mention the fact that he's a genius, and will do whatever it takes not to be caught by the police. He uses the Death Note he finds to rid the world of its criminals - seemingly a noble pursuit, sure, but it quickly turns questionable when the God complex kicks in and people you like start dying as a result of his overly convoluted (albeit awesomely put together) plans.

The difference is that Light is meant to be a villain protagonist. The series made it clear, even shortly after the beginning that, while we may be willing to root for him just so we can see his cat-and-mouse game with L, he's an immature narcissist who early on kills a guy (Lind L. Tailor, right?) just because he thought he was the same detective that was questioning his moral authority.

In this series, it's clear that, while he has his flaws, L is meant to be the hero. He's just not the protagonist, so there's less focus on his ideals (if any; even Near seems to care more about the morality or lack thereof of Light's actions than L, who sees Light as his mental equal).

In Death Note, I find both L and Near to be... kind of intended to be heroic in a sense, despite being antagonists. At least in the end. But they have little qualm with torture or inhumane treatment and (especially Near) treat serious cases like a game to be won. "If you can't win the game, If you can't solve the puzzle, then you're just a loser", is a rather telling quote from him. And of course Light is obvious, though he clearly wasn't meant to seem like a hero (besides, contrary to what's stated earlier in the thread, his god complex is obvious from the first episode). Really, I think Matsuda is the real hero of Death Note.

OK, yeah, this I agree with. It seemed like Near cared more about getting revenge on Light for

Spoiler

killing L

than stopping Light from killing people (I do think Near respected L, even if that quote implies otherwise; I think Near was just stating a fact but not caring about the tactless nature of how he said it, since he's that kind of character), even if he disagreed with Light imposing his own morals on the rest of the world. But yeah, Matsuda was the closest to a pure hero we got, as well as the closest to a relatable protagonist character.

 

[Thyunda]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

Does that change my point any? A bitter truth is always better in the long run than a sweet lie.

Are you going to provide some evidence of this? Some that I won't just disprove out of hand?

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Lelough from Code Geass is a pretty easy choice. I mean he leads a terrorist group, he does some very questionable things, and he seems very egotistical. As I watched the series, I truly thought of him as a selfish man who was doing all of this not for his sister. But to fulfill his own desire for power. Then the last episode happened and all of that doubt was blown away.

Am I wrong for still rooting for him cause I loved his character, and at least agreed Charles was being a bigger dick?

OT: Yeah, gonna go with this one too cause I lack any other choices. I still felt Lelouche was at least trying to do the better thing, even if his means weren't always right.

 

[Thyunda]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

Does that change my point any? A bitter truth is always better in the long run than a sweet lie.

Are you going to provide some evidence of this? Some that I won't just disprove out of hand?

Holy shit dude. Fucking forget about it. This argument is really stupid. I didnt like the ending. Deal.

So...would you have rather I kept quiet and let you give your opinion unchallenged?

 

[Shocksplicer]

What on Earth? Two pages and 63 posts and NOBODY has mentioned Captain Walker from Spec Ops: The Line? God, the things he did in the short game was 50 times worse than most of the stuff mentioned here.

Spoiler

Seriously, 47 totally innocent civilians and several soldiers he BURNED ALIVE with white phosphorous -- Something that I took for granted in Alpha Protocol. Then he wastes the rest of the water supply in Dubai so mostly everyone will die of dehydration, soon. Urgh, and those are just the mandatory evil things Walker does, there are some choices in the game that makes him do even MORE dastardly things.

I mean, seriously, he did so many TRULY evil things that, in the end, he has the option to kill himself and I couldn't put the trigger to my chin fast enough.

It's a thread about characters you're SUPPOSED to like, but DON'T. You're supposed to think he's a lunatic by the end.

OT: Most of the main characters in Lost, especially Jack and Kate.
Just about the entire cast of Glee at one point or another.
The main characters of 24 could get a bit TOO torture happy at times...

 

[Ambitiousmould]

I have been re-playing Just Cause 2 recently, and I realised something. Scorpio is basically a terrorist in the employ of the USA. I mean yes, Baby Panay is clearly an arsehole dictator, but Scorpio's cause is far from just here because he isn't fighting for revolution or freedom, he is fighting because:
There is a huge oil field that the US (among others) want. I mean yes in the end he does nuke it, but simply removing a much needed resource probably wasn't the best way to go.
Then there's the means. Basically he blows things up regardless of consequence. Including radio towers and fuel supplies, which are most definitely things that the people need. And the random gunfights he starts in the streets. Then all the innocents that will be killed by the government because of some made-up link to him used to fill some quota for killing "traitors" and I have a sneaking suspicion that he doesn't lose sleep over that. If anyone is the hero in that game it is 'Bolo Santosi, leader of the revolutionary army known as The Reapers'.

Imagine it from someone else's point of view. For instance, imagine 2 Panauan pipeline workers, talking and working when suddenly...
'Oh my god! Is that that bastard Scropio?! Every time he comes by the fucking police turn up, shooting everything, taking people away after - that's if he doesn't bloody blow them up first! And what the shit is he doing to that pipe?!'
Which is followed by an explosion as destroys a piece of pipeline and therefore the livelihoods of about 50000 people who work on that pipe and/or need the fuel it carries.
'Well that's fucking great, now I'm out of a job. And now what is he doing? OI! PRICK! GET OFF THAT WATER TOWER! WE'RE IN THE FUCKING DESERT, DIPSHIT, WE NEED THAT PISSING WAT-'
BANG!
'Oh well now we're all going to die of thirst. How is this dickhead better than our pissshit government? Talk about out of the fucking frying pan.'

He just reaps wanton destruction for his own and the Agency's selfish wants. Not that it doesn't make a great game, but still.

 

[ABLb0y]

What on Earth? Two pages and 63 posts and NOBODY has mentioned Captain Walker from Spec Ops: The Line? God, the things he did in the short game was 50 times worse than most of the stuff mentioned here.

Spoiler

Seriously, 47 totally innocent civilians and several soldiers he BURNED ALIVE with white phosphorous -- Something that I took for granted in Alpha Protocol. Then he wastes the rest of the water supply in Dubai so mostly everyone will die of dehydration, soon. Urgh, and those are just the mandatory evil things Walker does, there are some choices in the game that makes him do even MORE dastardly things.

I mean, seriously, he did so many TRULY evil things that, in the end, he has the option to kill himself and I couldn't put the trigger to my chin fast enough.

The reason no-one's mentioned it is because Walker isn't portrayed as the hero, it's made clear from pretty much the word go he's a psychotic nutter whose every good deed makes everything worse. This thread is for characters who we are told are the heroes despite doing bad things.

OP: My vote goes to Lisa Simpson. She's basically an insane eco-terrorist but the show keeps on telling us she's the good guy. An episode that springs to mind is the one were Grandpa becomes a bullfighter and she convinces him to let the bulls free, sitting on a deck chair held aloft by balloons, watching as the bulls injure and possibly kill innocent townsfolk. But, hey, at least Lisa's happy, so who cares if several characters were never seen again after that episode, implying she killed them?

 

[Mike Richards]

Superman in Man of Steel. I don?t want to beat a dead horse, but seriously, the movie seems to just overlook the fact of how much unnecessary destruction Clark causes to Metropolis during his fight with Zod. ?Protector of Earth? he was not.

Two indestructible beings of god-like power go to all out war with each other, one of which has never been in combat before a day or two previously and the other determined to kill every human being on Earth in a grief filled rage, and you expect the city to come out of that unscathed? It's not unnecessary, it's a miracle that it wasn't much, much worse, and they have Clark to thank for that. I don't think Man of Steel was overlooking the collateral damage, I think all of the previous movies were overlooking the unavoidable truths that come with characters this powerful.

Anyways, my vote goes for the Destroy ending of Mass Effect 3. Yes, the Reapers are defeated, but you've also exterminated the newly sentient Geth, killed EDI, forever erased all knowledge of every single one of the millions of species the Reapers collected, and left the galaxy with no plan in place to resolve the next conflict between the created and the creators. And no one will ever know what the Reapers were trying, however poorly, to accomplish or why. Nice job breaking it hero.

Honestly, as much as I can't stand the "You just didn't get it" excuse, it's always felt like the ending for people who weren't paying attention. There's a reason why it's the red option.

 

[Thyunda]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

Does that change my point any? A bitter truth is always better in the long run than a sweet lie.

Are you going to provide some evidence of this? Some that I won't just disprove out of hand?

Holy shit dude. Fucking forget about it. This argument is really stupid. I didnt like the ending. Deal.

So...would you have rather I kept quiet and let you give your opinion unchallenged?

Considering you have nothing to say more than "I disagree", I can this would go nowhere. I'd rather skip to the end.

Well, your evidence was that people believed that the Earth was flat and that they were better off learning the truth - I merely pointed out they didn't believe the Earth was flat.
My evidence is that you were more content enjoying your opinion than having it proved wrong simply for the sake of 'the truth'.

 

[Winthrop]

Snip

While I mostly agree with everything you are saying, Ivalice has a huge problem that I don't believe you mentioned and it makes Mewt a bit more villainous. At the start of the game, three bullies beat Mewt up. Later in the game, the players party fights three zombies. The names of these characters are the same implying that while Mewt and his friends got all the things they wanted, his enemies were being tortured and put through hell. Its not a huge logical leap (though i admit it is still a logical leap) to assume that every monster in Ivalice was a person in the real world and that they are being beaten and suffering through some horrid existence because of Mewt. Marshe (not sure on that spelling) still had pretty much no motive to destroy Ivalice and it does make him seem like quite a jerk, but destroying that world did do quite a bit of good for many people.

 

[Thyunda]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

Does that change my point any? A bitter truth is always better in the long run than a sweet lie.

Are you going to provide some evidence of this? Some that I won't just disprove out of hand?

Holy shit dude. Fucking forget about it. This argument is really stupid. I didnt like the ending. Deal.

So...would you have rather I kept quiet and let you give your opinion unchallenged?

Considering you have nothing to say more than "I disagree", I can this would go nowhere. I'd rather skip to the end.

Well, your evidence was that people believed that the Earth was flat and that they were better off learning the truth - I merely pointed out they didn't believe the Earth was flat.
My evidence is that you were more content enjoying your opinion than having it proved wrong simply for the sake of 'the truth'.

Except you didn't prove my opinion wrong. You clutched at straws that didn't really have anything to do with my point.

But...but I did prove you wrong. The truth...man. The truth. You backed your opinion up with shoddy evidence and haven't provided an alternative, so in proving your evidence non-existent, I proved your point wrong. That's how truth works, dude.
If you need further evidence - how would you feel if this 'evidence against Christianity' started a war and people died over it? Would you still insist the 'truth' was better?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Snip

While I mostly agree with everything you are saying, Ivalice has a huge problem that I don't believe you mentioned and it makes Mewt a bit more villainous. At the start of the game, three bullies beat Mewt up. Later in the game, the players party fights three zombies. The names of these characters are the same implying that while Mewt and his friends got all the things they wanted, his enemies were being tortured and put through hell. Its not a huge logical leap (though i admit it is still a logical leap) to assume that every monster in Ivalice was a person in the real world and that they are being beaten and suffering through some horrid existence because of Mewt. Marshe (not sure on that spelling) still had pretty much no motive to destroy Ivalice and it does make him seem like quite a jerk, but destroying that world did do quite a bit of good for many people.

Well, that depends, actually.

It's possible that only the asshole/criminal people became monsters. Almost everyone else seemed to have gotten more or less the job they were good at/already had in the real world. I just assumed that since people seemed to get what was the best fit for them, those who were kinda monstrous on the inside became monsters in Ivalice.

Not to mention, those bullies had it coming. They not only decided to ONLY pick on Mewt during the snowball right, but they put a goddamn ROCK in one of them. Hell, they probably liked being zombies/vampires going around hurting passersby!
>: (

 

[Michael Legault]

Well, there was the time when Richard Ralh cut a bloody swath through a gaggle of unarmed, pacifist protestors in the Sword of Truth books and was portrayed as being completely right to do so, because apparently the pacifists didn't have "moral clarity" or somesuch.

Oh wait, the guy above me already mentioned Sword of Truth. And that's not sarcasm, I really didn't notice until I had finished writing that paragraph. Yeah, those books have a lot of those moments.

I really liked the first four or five of those books, then they just started to get waaay too rapey... I only read up to chainfire... And halfway through that looked up and was like 'why the hell am I reading this!?' I ended up finishing it but have no interest in reading the last book, my wife says I am not missing out. And a sincere thanks to the above poster for the spoiler, I tried getting her to tell me what happens and she refused... But she has no trouble telling me what happens in game of thrones lol

 

[Kmadden2004]

Captain Janeway in Star Trek Voyager.

Truly one of the most unhinged, villainous captains in the history of Starfleet. And, yes, I'm including Peter Weller's character from Into Darkness in that count.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I actually do think it is possible for a decent, level-headed writer to make a convincing case for the virtues or selfishness. Needless to say that this writer is NOT Rand or Goodkind.

I thought The Fountainhead made a better case for it, or at least for selfishness on a personal level with the basic idea being that no one can live your life for you as much as one can breathe for you. As far as I know, as I haven't read it, Atlas Shrugged promotes selfishness on a societal level. Given, The Fountainhead's protagonist was still quite a douchenozzle.

Why has noone said breaking bad yet? Walter white is the epitome of this. He is the hero of the story yet hes so evil. As he gets more and more into the path of villainy I still found myself rooting for him.

I could say wolf of wall street is the reverse. He was an absolutely horrible evil man but I liked him. He was incredibly charming and charismatic and he had the lifestyle we ALL want

Breaking Bad's main idea was showing how the hero actually slowly changed into the villain, so I wouldn't call him an example of this trope. It was intended to make him more and more villainous.

I wouldn't say I would want Jordan Belfort's lifestyle though, Scorsese made that lifestyle look absolutely pathetic, empty, petty and vile. Just like Jordan Belfort himself. And that's why I adore that movie so much.

Captain Janeway in Star Trek Voyager.

Truly one of the most unhinged, villainous captains in the history of Starfleet. And, yes, I'm including Peter Weller's character from Into Darkness in that count.

Care to elaborate on that? She's actually my favourite Star Trek captain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

He was right about geocentrism though.

 

[Michael Legault]

The main guy in the movie Limitless

***SPOILERS***

The guy gets hooked on a magic drug that cures him of his laziness and idiocy. He uses he new found powers to become personally wealthy, fuck other people's girlfriends, possibly kill prostitutes and lie to the girl he ostensibly loves.

The movie portrays all this as okay as the 'hero' is some blue collar shlub whereas the big revealed antagonist is a self-made businessman so he's 'bad'.

No negative consequences comes to the hero at the end btw. Even the murders are sorta just forgotten about and he gets everything he ever wanted free of strings.

Fuck this movie.

It's a movie about cocaine, probably written by a coke head. That was the only impression I got from that movie... Hearing how it ends pisses me off as I was hoping he would end up a drooling idiot after being cut from the wonder drug... Is it too much to ask to have one sector of entertainment not be okay with performance enhancing drugs? Kids in the hall said it best with Bruno Puntz-Jones and Franchesca Fiore, 'They never kill hero in American movie, always the puppy licking the face, or the player throw the ball to win the big game' classical storytelling never ended so happily... Probably because people got sick of hearing 'then what happened!?' hell even I would be like 'then he fucking died! Now fuck off!'

 

[hermes]

Others have said this, but, KRATOS.

The writing in God of War 3 was so bad he would kill all of humanity by the middle point, and the game would still insist on him being the hero. I would not have a problem buying the antihero version if it wasn't trying so hard to paint it as a sympathetic character: After he infected every human with horrible diseases, flood every city, released the undead in the world and dry every plant in the planet (not to mention killing innocent people with his own hands), I am still supposed to care because Zeus called him a douche? Or because he tries to save the life of a single girl (whose father he killed, by the way)?

Good thing he still got time with all this apocalypse he caused to take part in an orgy with Aphrodite, though, because we all know he is a man with his priorities straight, yet haunted by the memory of his family...

 

[fletch_talon]

I read a book once called "The Last Templar". It was about modern day templars trying to find the diary of Jesus Christ. The story was pretty decent adventure romp, until the very end when they discover actual proof that Christ was just a mortal man. And then the main characters throw it into the sea. This was supposed to be some turning point for the main character, who was an atheist who didn't like organized religion. After spending time in a village of christians who weren't assholes, she decides that believing in Christ is too important for people, and it's what allows them to be good. It pissed me the hell off when I read it, because it assumes that the only reason people are decent is because God expects it of them. Fuck that.

Is...is that what you took from that? I would have thought that the action was down to the fact that a lot of decent people are Christians and there's literally no reason to tear their lives up just for the sake of being 'correct'.

A lot of people used to comfortable that the world was flat and the sun revolved around us. That doesn't mean we bury and ignore truth in the name of stability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

No they didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Yes they did.

Or did someone edit the post so it no longer says "in medieval times" as you seem to have assumed he meant?

Dude, no you didn't. All you did was show I got one example of my point wrong. That's all.

And not even that, as seen above. Whilst its certainly a common misconception that medieval Europeans thought the earth was flat, prior to the ancient Greeks working it all out, it was a somewhat prevalent belief.

 

[hermes]

Kratos is not a hero.
Walter White is not a hero either.

I don't know where people got that idea from...

Maybe from the writing. I am not talking about Walter White here, but Kratos specifically.

In all the games, he is supposed to be taken as the "hero" simply because the villains are so much worst (the basic idea of the antihero). But in many of them, they are not. At least in 2 and 3, Kratos accounts to being a mass murderous, power hungry guy with weapons. He is more bloodthirsty as a God of War than Ares (and that is saying something), and by the end of 3, he has turned the world into a wasteland several times over. That would be fine if he was portrait like the villain; however, the writing in the game still insist of him being on the right, because the world owes him something, because he is trying to redeem himself or because the Olympians and the Titans used him.

By the end of 3, all the story of Pandora always made me gag. He is shown to be redeemable and the hope of the world because he cares about a small child; yet he has killed countless people for reasons that goes from collateral to not finding a doorstop...