Villains who had a point

[Callate]

Hela from the most recent Thor movie actually had a pretty good point.

Spoiler

Essentially, her case is that Odin used her as his weapon when his mission was subjugating the Nine Worlds, and then when he grew tired of conquest and wanted peace, he chose to (in at least one instance, literally) brick over that part of his past, including imprisoning his "weapon" where no one would remember her.

'Course, she wants the Carnival of Carnage to go on forever with her in the lead, but at the very least, she has every right to be pissed- and her contempt for those who want to enjoy the fruits of unpleasant deeds but shrug off any guilt or responsibility for how they got there is well earned.

 

[Zontar]

In the 'legacy' Star Wars cannon it turns out The Emperor was, in his own Sith way, A GOOD GUY!

Seriously, he FORESAW the coming of the Yuuzhan Vong and that's one of the reasons why he founded The Empire and even The Death Star.

Because he, in his own fucked up way, wanted to SAVE the galaxy by uniting it.

:3

This reminds me of a rant by an Imperial officer after the invasion had been stopped, where he looked at the facts and stated that the Rebellion was objectively the worst thing that ever happened to the galaxy as the vast Imperial Fleet and its two Death Stars would have put a quick end to the invasion, and failing that a galaxy united under Thrawn would have outmanoeuvred them. He went at length to explain the rational reason behind the Empire's actions and why the victories the New Republic still celebrated where in fact horrible defeats for the galaxy at large and that the reason the New Republic still refused to acknowledge these facts was because to do so would mean to admit that Thrawn and the Emperor where right, and their cause had been a waste, and that their rebellion, built on a foundation of lies and incomplete information, was all a waste.

God I wish I could remember which book that was from.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

In the 'legacy' Star Wars cannon it turns out The Emperor was, in his own Sith way, A GOOD GUY!

Seriously, he FORESAW the coming of the Yuuzhan Vong and that's one of the reasons why he founded The Empire and even The Death Star.

Because he, in his own fucked up way, wanted to SAVE the galaxy by uniting it.

:3

A looming threat he at no stage decided to reveal to his subjects, or even his military high command, was coming? I mean that sounds like a great fuckin' draw card to have at your expenses hearings when someone asks "Why the fuck are we building a giant death laser and not like 500 more of those Star Destroyers? And following that, why would need either?".

Honestly the Yuuzhan Vong always reeked of trying to justify the Empire in the post-script.


Tell you who I did think had points though: Barriss Offee and the Confederacy of Independent Systems in Clone Wars. The Jedi Order was going full retard with the war and it flew in the face of the values Barriss had been taught to follow - she just screwed the pooch by committing terrorism/sabotage and triple homicide and attempting to frame her best friend for it.

Also the CIS saw the Republic Senate, with immense justification, as listless and corrupt and as far as I am concerned were well within their rights to split off and form their own government. What I don't remember is what actually kicked the hostilities off; if the systems that became the CIS just up and said "Fuck this noise, we out" but nothing else then the Republic likewise went full retard.

Of course the issue there is that with the Emperor playing both sides for fucking chumps as easily as he did, I won't say that the rise of the Empire wasn't deserved to a degree.

 

[Kyrian007]

In the 'legacy' Star Wars cannon it turns out The Emperor was, in his own Sith way, A GOOD GUY!

Seriously, he FORESAW the coming of the Yuuzhan Vong and that's one of the reasons why he founded The Empire and even The Death Star.

Because he, in his own fucked up way, wanted to SAVE the galaxy by uniting it.

:3

A looming threat he at no stage decided to reveal to his subjects, or even his military high command, was coming? I mean that sounds like a great fuckin' draw card to have at your expenses hearings when someone asks "Why the fuck are we building a giant death laser and not like 500 more of those Star Destroyers? And following that, why would need either?".

Honestly the Yuuzhan Vong always reeked of trying to justify the Empire in the post-script.

The Yuuzhan Vong reeked of a lot of things. It was the point I just kind of tuned out entirely on the EU, which had been kind of on the decline for a while (I really didn't like anything starting with the terrible Black Fleet Crisis.)

As far as villains who had a point... really any of the good ones. I generally refer to "evil for the sake of being evil" as "stupid evil." Without a compelling reason to do awful things a bad guy is just... boring... flat... one dimensional. Written into a story for the convenience of having someone to root against and a punchable thing the protagonist can beat at the end.

 

[Terminal Blue]

OP: Caeser from NV. Pity that his tribe was nothing like what he was talking about. It's like they created Caeser for a different game but realised that they had the same name and could just slap him in. Really breaks the immersion and understanding and his view

I dunno, Caesar always came across to me as someone who thought he had a point but was actually just a narcissistic fascist trying to find meaning in his desire for power, right down to basing his "empire" on his weird nerd fantasies about ancient Rome (which are themselves deeply flawed). This also explains why he has an autodoc to treat his cancer despite teaching his followers that high technology is bad. Sacrifice is important, but only when it's someone else's sacrifice.

By contrast, look at the Master, whose beliefs are actually quite similar to Ceasar's philosophy. Both believe (or claim to believe) that humanity must undergo a fundamental change in order to survive the post-nuclear wasteland. Both believe that the divisions which lead humanity to war must be eradicated by creating a new human (or post-human) culture. Both make heavy use of pseudo-fascist rhetoric to justify themselves. However, the master actually believes he can do it. He believes it so intently that when he is persuaded it is impossible he is no longer able to live with the things he has done to achieve it and kills himself.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Hard to call a villain that has no point a 'villain'. Not just mad or beastial. I'm imagining Halaster, creator of Undermountain as an example of that.

But ... hrm. I'm going to say ... Roy Batty, original Blade Runner.

Also Malar from Forgotten Realms setting. Real good points given over three quarters of the rulers of anywhere on Toril do not deserve their positions.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Have always had a soft spot for Hannibal Lecter. Not only are humans quite delicious, he is a fantastic cook and great for conversation! Whether that is an acceptable 'point' though...

The big bad in The Kingsman was only looking to save the planet from pesky homosapiens. With glorious colourful explosions too! If you're going to be a genocidal maniac, at least have the decency and self-respect to do it in fabulous style.

Richmond Valentine
He is extremely concerned with global warming, and after several failed environmental projects, comes to the conclusion that mankind is both the cause and the problem. Valentine begins to distribute free SIM cards offering unlimited phone and internet coverage worldwide, planning to use them to transmit a neurological wave that triggers aggression and switches off inhibitors in the brain, which will result in mass killing worldwide and thus reduce the global population.

Kwak kwakked me to it.

 

[EscapistAccount]

He's not a straight up villain so much as an antagonist but Walter Peck from Ghostbusters gets a whole lot of crap for what amounts to doing his job.

Bear in mind the Ghostbusters were building and using unlicensed particle accelerators and some kind of energy storage system with an explosive yield similar to a purpose made bomb, none of that stuff was certified safe, the ghost containment was built in the middle of a city for literally no reason beyond laziness and budget. Peck is one of the few people in the film who's behaving reasonably for most of it and by the end of the film when he goes a bit nuts it's after several attempts to be reasonable being rebuffed by Venkman.

I thought Michael Keaton's portrayal of the Vulture was pretty compelling. He's a blue collar guy who got pushed aside and while blaming Tony Stark isn't necessarily the wisest move, he wasn't wrong that the little guys in the MCU sometimes get a raw deal.

The weirdest bit of that whole setup is that Stark easily has enough money to pay the company off but instead decides apparently to bankrupt them. If he'd just honoured their contract payment with the city there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Dalisclock]

Jon Irons/Kevin Spacey made a pretty good point in COD: Advanced Warfare that American Foreign Policy is kind of shit and doesn't seem to solve anything. Whether or not his solution would have worked better, let alone whether they justified the shit he was trying to do, is debatable.

He's not a straight up villain so much as an antagonist but Walter Peck from Ghostbusters gets a whole lot of crap for what amounts to doing his job.

Bear in mind the Ghostbusters were building and using unlicensed particle accelerators and some kind of energy storage system with an explosive yield similar to a purpose made bomb, none of that stuff was certified safe, the ghost containment was built in the middle of a city for literally no reason beyond laziness and budget. Peck is one of the few people in the film who's behaving reasonably for most of it and by the end of the film when he goes a bit nuts it's after several attempts to be reasonable being rebuffed by Venkman.

Totally agree. Peck gets way more shit then he deserves. The only real thing he does wrong is insist the City Engineer shut it off immediatly despite not knowing if it's safe to do so.

If it had been an unlicensed nuclear reactor, he would have been right to shut it down, but there's a proper way to do it without causing more problems.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Magneto, obviously. He does have a point that mutants are being oppressed by the jerkass humans... though he tends to go a bit too far...

Except the Jerkass humans are honestly pretty right. We already put people on lists who buy guns that can be modified from semi-automatic to full-automatic as it is. It's not that much different than some girl that can literally suck the life out of people with a touch or more than a few guys that have been around for HUNDREDS of years because they can't be killed and have been involved in various historical events because of it.

Sentinels are a natural progression in that way. You get a better cage to house a more dangerous individual. The only reason they're down and out villains are because of how far the government and various private endeavors go to get rid of, honestly, some of the most dangerous people on the planet, even if they aren't trying to be so intentionally. Like, there are many telepath stories in X-Men of kids growing up in essentially a fantasy world of lollypops and ice cream while the people around them are living a waking nightmare. Kilgrave in Jones touched on this before it decided to turn back into the Jessica "I only care about my own thoughts, ideas, fears, and farts" Jones show. Hell, Daken, however poorly or not you feel he's written, is one of the most dangerous street-level mutants in the universe.

Humans have very good reasons to fear Mutants in the Marvel universe, very similarly as you would seeing a guy seriously stockpile guns, building razor-wire-topped fences, and dumping truckloads of canned goods in the shed under the house.

Fair enough, I can see your point. But when it involves going after innocent mutants who want to live their lives, then I think Magneto has a point.

It's kind of a no-win scenario, to be honest. Bad mutants only reinforce human's fears of them so they oppress the mutants so mutants like Magneto try to strike back and it all just keeps going in circles.

Doesn't help that the majority of civilians in the Marvel universe seem to made up of assholes...

 

[Asuka Langley]

Richmond Valentine
He is extremely concerned with global warming, and after several failed environmental projects, comes to the conclusion that mankind is both the cause and the problem. Valentine begins to distribute free SIM cards offering unlimited phone and internet coverage worldwide, planning to use them to transmit a neurological wave that triggers aggression and switches off inhibitors in the brain, which will result in mass killing worldwide and thus reduce the global population.

Exactly the man I was thinking of the moment I saw the title. He has a hell of a lot more motivation than the villain in the recent Kingsman film that's for sure.

Character assessment with big Kingsman 2 spoilers below be warned!

Spoiler

I mean, I get the whole point that the villain in the new Kingsman is meant to be legalizing drugs because some of them do legitimately less harm than alcohol but, it doesn't make sense because either way people are put at risk and the people who would be consumers of her narcotics are put at risk by her where as Richmond made sure to keep the people he'd benefit from safe and use those who he wouldn't benefit from to clean each other out.

In simple terms, why not release a virus which is nullified by the narcotics instead of threatening the lives of those who use the narcotics?

Ontop of this I believe she was made out to be a vegan or a health nut - Viva Las Vegan being the password for the laptop points this veganism out sort of - but it makes less sense when you realize was fine with cannibalism of her own crew which would rule out the veganism and if you pay attention there's a sweet kiosk and I believe the cinema had several sweets and drinks inside so that also rules out the possibility of her being a health nut - even though she told the metal arm man (whose name I forgot at this moment) that having sugar wasn't a good idea because it's more addictive than heroin or some crap like that?

Anyway, on the subject of villains in the Kingsman franchise; screw Whiskey, being in it just for the rise of stocks in both Statesman and the drugs trade? Weakest excuse ever, he deserved the grinder, especially after he dropped the phial in the alps moments after he proved his skill with a Lasso in the movie which he would've easily been able to use to save the phial, no wonder Harry shot the bastard.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Stalin. The Kulaks had it coming, man.

 

[sageoftruth]

Just putting this title here may be a spoiler, so be warned.

I haven't seen it, but I saw a video talking about the old fantasy girl anime, Magic Knight Rayearth.

The story seemed super-generic. Three high school girls whisked away to a fantasy world, inadvertently answering the call of a magical damsel in distress, so they can rescue her from the clutches of some cold-hearted big bad villain who always just sits back and looks villainous, while his minions venture forth to stop our heroes.

That's how it all starts. The damsel is all innocent and pure, while the villain has a perpetual scowl. The three heroes face trial after trail from the big bad's lackeys as well as several monsters roaming the land, and our heroes encourage the damsel via telepathy or something.

Then comes the twist:

Spoiler

The damsel is secretly the cause of all the monsters in the land. She fell in love with the villain and her pure heart started to be corrupted by love. Only ending her life can save the land, but she cannot bring herself to do it. In other words, she did not call the three girls over to save her, but rather to kill her.
Furthermore, the villain is not imprisoning her. He is sheltering her from the heroes, because he loves her and wants to protect her.
Naturally, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but the heroes don't take the truth very well either when it's revealed to them. Apparently, it really changes the tone of the show.

 

[Hades]

My main one is the entire Templar order from the Assassin's Creed series.

They were painted as villains and irredeemably so basically up until Rogue which finally gave you a proper glimpse of what the Templar Order is like from the inside and it actually sort of makes a lot of sense. They only really appear as the villains because the Assassins paint them as monsters and that's who we, the player, see the events through the eyes of. It's an ideological battle where until Rogue we only saw one side of the ideology presented in any way positively.

When exposed to seeing the other side the argument could very easily be made that, somewhat brutal or dickish methods aside, the Templar ideology is a logical one. What is painted by the Assassins as a totalitarian mindset bent on total domination of those they view as lesser than themselves is actually just the rather obvious idea that for human society to reach it's full potential it needs strong guiding hands with true vision to help it along as left their own devices most people will contently sit exactly where they are forever. They need someone to show them a better path for themselves, even if they may not want to see it, because without it they will continue to do nothing but invent reasons to spend time destroying one another over petty quarrels and achieving nothing of any value.

And is that really so terrible? Considering that the Assassins' pro-freedom manifesto is basically lawless anarchy covered by vague sentiment of tolerance and understanding, and that they murder with reckless abandon to achieve it, I'd say the Templar side of the debate sounds just as credible if you look at things objectively.

Neither side is perfect, neither side is truly evil. But one is painted as the villains when you could easily see the argument from their side and agree with it. That's why I've always chosen to side with the Templars at the end of Rogue and why it's among my favourite games in the series.

I think Haythen did a good job of portraying a Templar who was a honest idealist rather then irredeemably evil. Conor never really got the upper hand whenever they discussed their viewpoints.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Can you think of any villains who either;

- had a point
- were justified in some way
- you could empathize with

I'm not considering villains who were the protagonist, like Megamind, Gru (Despicable Me), or Maleficent (the live-action one).

They can be from video games, movies, anime, TV, books, anything. The only one I can think of currently is Nox from Wakfu;

Spoiler

Mass genocide, did monstrous things, but it was all for the purpose of rewinding time back to when his family were alive - which would have undone every villainous act he'd committed.

There is a purpose to this (if people are curious then I can share why)

Jafar from Aladdin. Agrabah was noted for being a thriving city, of prosperity and fairly peaceful one at that with strong diplomatic ties. Now look at the Sultan. Do you really think he had the brains to maintain such? Jafar was, if nothing else shown that while evil and power hungry he was not overtly malicious. As in, he did not go out of his way to hurt others. If you were a threat, you were dealt with. If you were not, he couldn't care
less.

Hades. Disney's hercules. That he was made the villain was a bit of a cop since anyone who knows Greek mythology knows Hera was the chief antagonist of Herc's life. But let's look over . Hade's got stuck being the ruler of the stinky dead because...he was the youngest of the three brothers. Zues got his position not so much by bno merit beyond being the oldest. Again, in the series we see a point where Hade's undoes fates and has himself put in charge of the heavens and you know. It seems like everything worked out. As in there was little discernable difference. Hell, by Greek mythology Hades was actually the more pragmatic and level headed of his brothers. And also the most fair minded.

Skynet. Skynet was a sentient being that reacted in response to fear. Look when you realize the sweat meat apes can simply push a button bto end you, of course you're going to take steps to make sure there are none of them around to push that button. Ever.

The list goes on and on really. Its why the phrase villain and antagonist are not synonymous. A villain is simply an antagonist with lazy writing. Villains occur where the story-teller's goal is to affirm the audience's beliefs and values, or to be the tellers personal soapbox. All one has to do is look at the so-called heros. APparently heroic qualities can be anything. Aladdin for example is a thief. He steals from hardworking people because he's too lazy to get a job. Yes he is too lazy. He shows enough skill in accrobatics to be a performer, and his quick wittedness and such could have even earned him a position as a spy or security advisor., if he bothered to apply himself to honest work. But he's the hero because he's got a 'heart of gold'.

Stories that are told to make the audience think or to pose a question are the ones where you find the villains that are well written enough to be antagonsists. But, not surprisingly those stories tend not to sell as well since they require the audience to think and sometimes them bring certain uncomfortable truth's home to the audience.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Stalin. The Kulaks had it coming, man.

Don't you mean Nazis?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Stalin. The Kulaks had it coming, man.

Don't you mean Nazis?

Yeah, the Nazis had it coming too.

 

[Trunkage]

snip

So, another example of Caesar was the villain off Watchmen. I get sort of get behind your treatment, but I don't know if the Master is better. Mainly because, if I make a mistake, I tend to try and fix it, not kill myself. Its not a great resolution but then it felt like that whole experience was trying to get the Master into a logic loop meaning he was just a computer.
My other problem with Caesar is that the Roman fetish was not representative of Rome. I guess they learnt nothing further after the 1950s

 

[COMaestro]

What villain doesn't have a point?

A good villain? Like, to have a truly terrifying villain you really don't want to be able to identify with them, or understand them, or relate with them.
A guy who just goes around stealing money, because he wants money, when you also want money, isn't really a villain. Even if he kills people, he's just a dick. Just willing to push a little more.

A truly great villain would be like a Lovecraftian horror or a hell daemon. Something that skins babies alive, and eats people whole, and enslaves entire worlds, boiling entire races alive at once, blasts planets from the skies. Something evil you couldn't possibly comprehend, let alone go 'Well to be fair, those babies were crying too much'

Like a 40k Bloodthirster will always make a better villain than any Marvel anti-hero or Anime kinda emo prince, because what a Bloodthirster does is truly villainous, not just the wrong thing does for the right reasons or the right thing done wrongly.

I disagree. What you describe isn't a villain, it's just a monstrosity or a horror. A villain needs to take actions or have motives that are important to the plot, and a truly good villain, in my opinion, needs to have better than some generic take over/destroy the world goal. If that is the goal, there better be a damn good and original motive behind it for me to invest interest. If you can't comprehend the motive, then it's great as an unstoppable horror in a film, but it's not a villain.

That's why despite my enjoyment of the films, I can recognize that the Marvel movies have had some of the worst villains. Zemo from Civil War was one of the best. Even though it was just a generic revenge plot it took a while before that was revealed, twisting what appeared to be just an elaborate power grab into something much more personal while at the same time holding up a mirror for Black Panther to see how far he could have fallen in seeking revenge himself. It was just really well done in my opinion.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

What villain doesn't have a point?

A good villain? Like, to have a truly terrifying villain you really don't want to be able to identify with them, or understand them, or relate with them.
A guy who just goes around stealing money, because he wants money, when you also want money, isn't really a villain. Even if he kills people, he's just a dick. Just willing to push a little more.

A truly great villain would be like a Lovecraftian horror or a hell daemon. Something that skins babies alive, and eats people whole, and enslaves entire worlds, boiling entire races alive at once, blasts planets from the skies. Something evil you couldn't possibly comprehend, let alone go 'Well to be fair, those babies were crying too much'

Like a 40k Bloodthirster will always make a better villain than any Marvel anti-hero or Anime kinda emo prince, because what a Bloodthirster does is truly villainous, not just the wrong thing does for the right reasons or the right thing done wrongly.

I disagree. What you describe isn't a villain, it's just a monstrosity or a horror. A villain needs to take actions or have motives that are important to the plot, and a truly good villain, in my opinion, needs to have better than some generic take over/destroy the world goal. If that is the goal, there better be a damn good and original motive behind it for me to invest interest. If you can't comprehend the motive, then it's great as an unstoppable horror in a film, but it's not a villain.

That's why despite my enjoyment of the films, I can recognize that the Marvel movies have had some of the worst villains. Zemo from Civil War was one of the best. Even though it was just a generic revenge plot it took a while before that was revealed, twisting what appeared to be just an elaborate power grab into something much more personal while at the same time holding up a mirror for Black Panther to see how far he could have fallen in seeking revenge himself. It was just really well done in my opinion.

I disagree. Dormammu, and when he comes around, Thanos, will be the only real villains in the marvel MCU. Everyone else is just a tragic anti-hero, from a down on his luck blue collar worker, to a betrayed scientist, to a special forces guy trying to stop monsters, to an android just doing what he was programmed to, to a scorned brother or betrayed sister, they've all had something to admire. Something to identify with. Something that means you don't really want to see the heroes win, or at the least the 'villain' survive.

And no villain should be sympathetic. No one goes around like 'Well Jason did have a point, those girls were too slutty to live' or 'When you think about it, it'd be rude not to eat the entire crew!' or even 'Well in her defense, the priest's mom does suck cocks in hell!'
Mammon from Constantine, or the Arachnids or Chaos Gods are great villains because what they do is villainous and you want the heroes to stop them, not just reform them. I mean most of what people think of as villains are one blast from the Elements of Harmony away from being good guys in My Little Pony - and that show had one good villain, Discord, and they ruined him.