Times where the hero seems like the villain

[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...

 

[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.

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.

Doesn't matter; he's Superman. There's no reason why he couldn't just lure him out into space and have the battle there, with little to no damage to the surrounding planets or the people in them. You'd think, if Clark has already lost Krypton, he wouldn't want to lose Earth, but he barely seemed to care that every punch he landed on Zod probably wiped out an office worker in a building as well.

 

[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.

Doesn't matter; he's Superman. There's no reason why he couldn't just lure him out into space and have the battle there, with little to no damage to the surrounding planets or the people in them. You'd think, if Clark has already lost Krypton, he wouldn't want to lose Earth, but he barely seemed to care that every punch he landed on Zod probably wiped out an office worker in a building as well.

I've always figured that if he tried to lure him away, Zod would have just said 'fuck it' and started killing everyone until he came back. At that point he didn't really want anything but killing Clark and the rest of the human race along with him. But more importantly this kind of collateral isn't just a factor of Man of Steel, this is a pretty long standing issue. Consider this:


That's six, maybe seven buildings Darkseid gets punched through by my count. Not to mention additional damage to any of the buildings surrounding where he lands, that was a pretty big impact. Are we really supposed to believe that every single one of those were empty? Are we really supposed to tell ourselves that, what, somehow he angled his punch just right so that it avoided anyone who might be in the way? And that's not even considering the cost and difficulty in repairing them later. Those are not the kind of damages buildings are designed to sustain and keep standing easily.

And yet this is remembered as one of animated Superman's crowning moments, possibly even on the short list for the character in all of his appearances. And it's not a problem here because... reasons? And how many other fights in all of his 75 years have gone like that? If these kind of things are going to be an issue then they need to always be an issue, it shouldn't get a pass just because it's a show people already decided they liked versus a movie people already decided they didn't, and that's what I see happening every time I see people discuss it. We can't have it both ways.

To me, this is exactly the kind of thing I love seeing in Superman. The great myth about him is that he's perfect and untouchable and he always wins flawlessly because everything is easy for him. I find him and his stories much more interesting when they address the inherent harsh truths and difficult realities and then show him trying to rise above them, that's what makes him a symbol of hope. And that's what I loved about Man of Steel. These are the unavoidable facts about how the human race reacts to things, these are the unavoidable facts about what beings with that kind of power would be capable of, these are the unavoidable facts about what his place in the world is. And this is how he tries to be something more, and make something better out of them.

In any case, this is still my favorite moment of Superman from anything, ever.

 

[Flames66]

In Principal, I agree with Magneto. I don't agree with his methods, but I agree with his ideals. In X-men First Class

Spoiler

I would have blown the piss out of that fleet.

 

[Fox12]

snip

I was trying to think of a series that perfectly encapsulated the OP's question and you just took the cake. I remember reading this on the recommendations of a libertarian friend of mine and after I finished I asked him if he actually believed this stuff. Never have I read a book filled with such vile, hateful characters that I was supposed to sympathize with. This book more than anything, is a testament to how shit of a writer Ayn Rand is. The only characters who have any actual depth are Taggart and Rearden, while the rest of the world is filled with one dimensional, straw man dumbasses. And even then they are portrayed as anything but likable. When I actually made it to that godawful speech, I made it about a third of the way through before realizing how long, boring, and preachy it is and ended up skipping the rest of it. Never have I read a book with so much contempt for others and never have I held such contempt for a novel.

Fun fact: The Atlas Shrugged Part 3 movie actually took to Kickstarter to ask for funding. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasshrugged/atlas-shrugged-movie-who-is-john-galt

Ugh. That's funny, since all th Libertarians I know hate that book (and I know a lot).

Incidentally, since Rands philosophy is that success and making money are the main pillars of morality, and since her movies make no money, doesn't that make the Ayn Rand institute immoral based on its own principles?

 

[She-Pudding]

Most of the main or supporting character from the 3 games made by team Cavia: Drakengard, Drakengard 2, and NieR. Everyone is tragically flawed, their worlds are very visibly ending, and most of them have a hand in it one way or the other. The games essentially set up unavoidable tragedy and presents everyone as both victim and villain.

(I would say "spoiler warning" here, but this game has been out for over a decade. So warning for those of you who still plan on purchasing one of the first games for the PS2... not that I would reccomend against it ;] )

For example, Drakengard's main character, Caim, has a tragic past and an increasingly dismal future. Pretty basic dark fantasy stuff. But instead of doing the hero thing (growing up, finding something to fight for, overcoming evil, aquiring a hobby...) he ignores his only living relative and dedicates his life to gleefully slaughtering legion after legion of possessed (not evil or willing) enemy soldiers for the sick satisfaction of doing so. Upon banishing the evil force that bound them, he kidnaps the very young, formerly possesed child who unintentionally released said evil and spends the next few years physically and mentally beating her. The next time this girl merely sees him, she screams bloody murder, reverts to a child-like state, and begins crying for him to stop hurting her. But... that dude had very little to live for, and throughout the game, those few things were constantly being destroyed, killed or "sacrificed", so... I kinda got where he was coming from. Like that side of you that's had enough and at least wants to take the world down with you.

And then does, as litterally as possible, because it's an RPG.