Does Anyone Else Hate Sympathetic Villains?

[Chessie]

I like two sides to everything, so its nice to have a deeper perspective on that villain. I guess what does annoy me is when there's a whole sob story to why the villain has turned evil.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

I like villains that aren't necessarily "sympathetic", but rather, "understandable".

If I can see from that person's point of view how they would benefit from their course of antagonistic action, awesome. But a bad guy/girl who's bad for the sake of being bad can get pretty boring.

I don't need a reason to like them; I need a reason to understand why they are doing what they're doing and how their victory would pay dividends.

 

[Mindfire]

UPDATE: I still find Vaarsuvius a compelling and sympathetic character even after the Faustian Pact thing. I guess this pretty much makes it official. I don't hate all sympathetic villains (which is what V pretty much is now), just Redcloak for some reason. This despite the fact that what V did was far worse than anything Redcloak has ever done.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

UPDATE: I still find Vaarsuvius a compelling and sympathetic character even after the Faustian Pact thing. I guess this pretty much makes it official. I don't hate all sympathetic villains (which is what V pretty much is now), just Redcloak for some reason. This despite the fact that what V did was far worse than anything Redcloak has ever done.

Is Vaarsuvius a goblin? Maaaybe it's just sympathetic goblin villains you hate?

 

[Feo Takahari]

Alternately, we get a lot of rhetoric from Redcloak trying to justify why he does what he does (which was getting increasingly feeble at the time I stopped reading.) It's pointed out from the very beginning that Vaarsuvius is making a stupid, stupid decision, and it's possible he's more sympathetic by virtue of less authorial pressure to find him sympathetic.

(OOTS is weird about its villains, which is part of why I stopped reading. Every time a villain other than Redcloak or Belkar seems like he might be complex and interesting, the author either plainly shows that said villain is doing something horribly wrong, or gives one of the heroes a monologue about how bad and horrible the villain is. Yet Redcloak is allowed to maintain an ambiguous status for hundreds of strips, and Belkar was showing vague signs of character development at the time I stopped reading.)

 

[Mindfire]

Is Vaarsuvius a goblin? Maaaybe it's just sympathetic goblin villains you hate?

No, Vaarsuvius is an elf. In a desperate attempt to save his family he

Spoiler: Vaarsuvius's actions

made a deal with three demons (technically a demon, a daemon, and a devil) in order to temporarily gain ultimate magical power at the cost of damning his soul to hell (temporarily). He then used this power to not only destroy the dragon threatening his family, but also used a magic curse that instantly killed every single being related to that dragon on the face of the earth. Essentially genocide. (The spell he cast was actually called Familicide.) The dragon itself and most of its relatives were evil, since they were black dragons, but I've read a bit ahead in the wiki and it turns out that the spell not only affected the dragons, but anyone with dragon blood, including some "dragonborn" humans (to use the Elder Scrolls term). In the evil scale, extincting an entire species ranks a bit higher than sacking a city.

And despite the fact that Redcloak's deeds pale in comparison to this, I still hate him while sympathizing somewhat with Vaarsuvius.

 

[Fantasy Writer]

I like villains that aren't necessarily "sympathetic", but rather, "understandable".

If I can see from that person's point of view how they would benefit from their course of antagonistic action, awesome. But a bad guy/girl who's bad for the sake of being bad can get pretty boring.

I don't need a reason to like them; I need a reason to understand why they are doing what they're doing and how their victory would pay dividends.

Excellent thoughts. I had a difficult time writing my first villains. For one thing, they weren't human. With a human the writer can delve into the villain's mind and show his actions and thoughts. But with a machine, how do you portray evil? I gave him a cartoonish cloak, a desk made from skulls and had him smash them regularly in a fit of anger. (Bad in every sense, yes? Never published it, btw.) Perhaps the original poster's problem with sympathetic villains has to do with getting in their heads. When you flesh out the character you simply have to touch on what's going on there. So, to make them human, you give them hemorrhoids and arthritis, and concerns about their relationships. "Oh, Helen is so going to hate cleaning the blood off my doublet again." That sword injury he picked up from the hero in book one is just giving him a huge pain in this damp cave. So, inadvertently, you have made the villain sympathetic by portraying him as human.

I've come to the conclusion that the most evil, unsympathetic monsters are human. Dr. Hannibal Lector in "Silence of the Lambs." "I love the French. They taste like chicken." On the other hand, Veeger, the deep space probe in Star Trek, was not evil or sympathetic. It just was. Likewise, every 1950's monster was completely unsympathetic. Giant ants? Even the 50 foot woman was not sympathetic. (Where did she get that A times 10 to the 8th size bra?) But, other than the fact she was jealous and jilted, we never got into her head and jealousy hardly makes one sympathetic.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I've come to the conclusion that the most evil, unsympathetic monsters are human. Dr. Hannibal Lector in "Silence of the Lambs." "I love the French. They taste like chicken." On the other hand, Veeger, the deep space probe in Star Trek, was not evil or sympathetic. It just was. Likewise, every 1950's monster was completely unsympathetic. Giant ants? Even the 50 foot woman was not sympathetic. (Where did she get that A times 10 to the 8th size bra?) But, other than the fact she was jealous and jilted, we never got into her head and jealousy hardly makes one sympathetic.

Spinning this around a little, Thomas Harris' portray of Hannibal Lector in Hannibal is very sympathetic. He is still monstrous and unapologetic about it, but you come to understand more the reasons why he does what he does. As far as sympathetic villains go, Hannibal is a shining example - though it is hard to call him a villain, as he is actually not an antagonist in either book. His characterization does not change one jot from book to book - just the reader's perception of him.

 

[Mindfire]

Incidentally, I also like Tarquin. He's pretty cool in a Darth Vader sort of way. Still dislike Redcloak though.

 

[Ankari]

I started reading Order of the Stick because of this thread. So far, I'm 100 comics in. I love it! I particularly liked the goblin teenager strip.

Thanks!

 

[Mindfire]

I started reading Order of the Stick because of this thread. So far, I'm 100 comics in. I love it! I particularly liked the goblin teenager strip.

Thanks!

Haha you're welcome, though I warn you, it's somewhat addictive.

 

[Queshire]

Now, I've just skimmed this thread, so please excuse me if I repeat things that have already been said.

To answer the question posed by the thread title, no, no I do not hate sympathetic villains. Some of the most memorable series I've read have had sympathetic villains or in one particular recent cases, two sides who were both good but with mutually exclusive goals.

As for OOTS, I'd say one of the larger themes through out its run is "What do Alignments really mean?" and it isn't limited to just Redcloak. There's Belkar, the goblin teens early on, Miko, Shojo, the Monster in the Darkness, Malack, just a bunch of them. With just nine alignments, there's so many view points and ways to go about following their alignment. If you removed that, if you just went by the text book interpretation of the alignment, well it'd be a poorer story for it.

Honestly, for now at least, I can't help but think that the age of black and white conflict is over, and.... I don't see the problem with that.

 

[Mindfire]

Honestly, for now at least, I can't help but think that the age of black and white conflict is over, and.... I don't see the problem with that.

I wouldn't say over. These things come in waves. A belief in objective right and wrong is not something that will just disappear, after all. Nor should it, I think. And it bears mentioning that some, dare I say most, of pop culture's most impactful and memorable narratives feature what is essentially a black and white conflict.

 

[Zero Angel]

I think you do lose something to the humor if you don't have the D&D background.

Although nowadays racial alignments are much more wishy-washy (to the point that they're now just "the alignment of a typical creature of this race"), there was a time when they were inviolate in the text. I think Drizzt changed some of this along with all the people that wanted to play the evil races without being evil. I haven't read OOTS in years, but my memory of it was a joke/commentary about this old system...maybe a joke that went on wayyyy too long.

Is OOTS the one where the dwarf thinks all trees are plotting to attack?

 

[Steerpike]

I think OOTS came about during the 3e era, well after Drizz't, who came either right at the end of 1e or the beginning of 2e, maybe ten years prior.

 

[Devor]

UPDATE: I still find Vaarsuvius a compelling and sympathetic character even after the Faustian Pact thing. I guess this pretty much makes it official. I don't hate all sympathetic villains (which is what V pretty much is now), just Redcloak for some reason. This despite the fact that what V did was far worse than anything Redcloak has ever done.

I love Vaarsuvius, and I suppose we're about to find out how much of a villain the character really is. I think that's a great example of a genuinely sympathetic villain.

But I think most of the time I hate when the narrative suggests I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a villain based on .... what? Broken rationalizations for why they're pushing children out windows or executing the puppeteers? I think there's a difference between a villain having "their own perspective" and a villain whose perspective actually becomes justifiable.

Vaarsuvius was desperate, made a bad choice, and continues to pay the consequences. I can sympathize with that. But Redcloak manipulates everybody around him, and is every bit as hypocritical as his view of the people he slaughters. Having a reason and a development makes him a good character. But I've got no sympathy for him at all.

 

[Mindfire]

I love Vaarsuvius, and I suppose we're about to find out how much of a villain the character really is. I think that's a great example of a genuinely sympathetic villain.

But I think most of the time I hate when the narrative suggests I'm supposed to feel sympathy for a villain based on .... what? Broken rationalizations for why they're pushing children out windows or executing the puppeteers? I think there's a difference between a villain having "their own perspective" and a villain whose perspective actually becomes justifiable.

Vaarsuvius was desperate, made a bad choice, and continues to pay the consequences. I can sympathize with that. But Redcloak manipulates everybody around him, and is every bit as hypocritical as his view of the people he slaughters. Having a reason and a development makes him a good character. But I've got no sympathy for him at all.

I think what irks me about Redcloak is that the author is, in a sense, "trying too hard." Like he's ramming it down your throat that Redcloak is supposed to be sympathetic and you're supposed to like him. Or else. Whereas with Vaarsuvius and Tarquin, much less effort was spent on pushing the audience to like them. Vaarsuvius is more or less back to being a good guy now even though his actions still have major consequences. But Tarquin is thoroughly evil (though a bit... nicer than most villains I guess) but I find him likable. Redcloak... meh.

 

[Zero Angel]

I think OOTS came about during the 3e era, well after Drizz't, who came either right at the end of 1e or the beginning of 2e, maybe ten years prior.

You're right, but they reference a lot of things from the previous editions and I feel the writer writes for D&D fans, not just 3e D&D.

Can anyone listen to the song DnD by semisonic without thinking of Dungeons and Dragons? Semisonic - DND Lyrics - YouTube

 

[A. E. Lowan]

While we're being a little musical, here is Richard from the WoW inspired comic LFG. Hilariously, unapologetically evil, Richard is actually a protagonist, but I think he belongs in our little debate if only to provide mirth.

 

[Mindfire]

Heh. It would be interesting to see Richard interact with Belkar. Or Xykon.