Is a villain/character being 'fun to punch' a bad thing?

[Naruzeldamaster]

My favorite villains in any media, are the ones that don't have to 'try' to make you want to punch them, while at the same time almost wanting to root for them. Like, did I actually want Thanos to win in avengers? Nah, bad guys are bad guys for a reason, and he kinda did 'win' technically. But I could tell he was the hero of his own story. To me a good villain, regardless of what trope they're being played as (even the moustache twirling type) they need to be entertaining/engaging to be around. Where that entertainment comes from depends on the narrative, it just needs to be there to begin with.

Some of these characters aren't always villains too. There's a character I'm like 'dude, we're friends and all but WHY are you like this' every time he speaks. He's an idiot, he's a schemer, you almost always want to punch his teeth in when he says 'hey, sooo' but he's pretty entertaining.

 

[pmmg]

Doesn't finding things fun to punch say more about you than the one being punched?

I bring to mind Capt Hammer, who seemed to take such joy in punching Dr. Horrible. Was he really a good guy? Does Batman enjoy punching Joker? I think not. I think he would prefer Joker stopped making it so he had to.

I think on a cartoon wave-length, such villains might serve this purpose, but...

Anyway....Yes, making an understandable, but dis-likable Villain/Hero is good material. Use as needed.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Doesn't finding things fun to punch say more about you than the one being punched?

I bring to mind Capt Hammer, who seemed to take such joy in punching Dr. Horrible. Was he really a good guy? Does Batman enjoy punching Joker? I think not. I think he would prefer Joker stopped making it so he had to.

I think on a cartoon wave-length, such villains might serve this purpose, but...

Anyway....Yes, making an understandable, but dis-likable Villain/Hero is good material. Use as needed.

I mean more in the sense of, you know how evil they are, you know you have to stop them (cause you're the good guy) but they're entertaining/interesting characters anyhow. Being able to see that they're not 'cartoonishly' evil dudes just being evil makes them more interesting/engaging when the time comes to have the big punch out. The actual engagement could be watching a cutscene and pressing A sometimes, but make the spectacle of the fight cool and the villain someone intriguing and cool as a character and it's a fun fight anyway. (especially if you can end it without the villain actually dying in the end)

Being able to punch bad guys is one of the primary reasons I play video games, but it's much less about the activity itself and more about being allowed to make a difference in that story. (I know *I* didn't take down the big mean dragon lord, but I felt like I was helping the heroes do it) Normally as a ten year old I'd never think of trying to take down the local mafia, for example. But because Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow allows this, it can be pretty fun, even if the story (especially in pokemon) is pretty simple most of the time.

Batman villains are a pretty good example of what I mean. Cause like ya said, Batman tends to hate resorting to a punch out, but the villains often feel they got no other choice (especially Joker) and in video game form, they're fun to beat up and you want batman to win, but they're actually engaging villains with good writing most of the time. (live action bane is one of the few times they aren't) So it feels rewarding when you land that final blow. Batman villains especially you just know they're going to get up to their nonsense sometime later anyhow.

 

[BrittleBones]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think some of the best villains are mustache-twirling shameless gremlins. One of the most prominent of these sorts of villains in my mind is Dr. Doofenshmirtz. He's dumb, but can be smart when he needs to be, too. He's shameless, self-aware, and even has sympathetic moments here and there which presents him as a multifaceted character, as all characters obviously are- though the story doesn't need to focus on that because it doesn't need to. Ice King from Adventure Time is similar, though a bit less witty and a bit more pathetic, especially when you dive into the later seasons and explore his backstory in more detail (which in my opinion doesn't make him a worse character but does make him a bit less... entertaining to watch at times. Though Adventure Time as a whole straddles the line between entertaining and thought-provoking really well).

The key, though, is that just being a jerk isn't enough. In a nutshell, they need to be, first, entertaining, and second, self-aware. Those traits are what makes the best kind of mustache twirling villain. There's a difference between using this trope as a lazy fall-back when you don't want to invent a deep, complex backstory for a character in a story that otherwise takes itself seriously, and using it cleverly, among a story that is already lighthearted and/or comedic.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think some of the best villains are mustache-twirling shameless gremlins. One of the most prominent of these sorts of villains in my mind is Dr. Doofenshmirtz. He's dumb, but can be smart when he needs to be, too. He's shameless, self-aware, and even has sympathetic moments here and there which presents him as a multifaceted character, as all characters obviously are- though the story doesn't need to focus on that because it doesn't need to. Ice King from Adventure Time is similar, though a bit less witty and a bit more pathetic, especially when you dive into the later seasons and explore his backstory in more detail (which in my opinion doesn't make him a worse character but does make him a bit less... entertaining to watch at times. Though Adventure Time as a whole straddles the line between entertaining and thought-provoking really well).

The key, though, is that just being a jerk isn't enough. In a nutshell, they need to be, first, entertaining, and second, self-aware. Those traits are what makes the best kind of mustache twirling villain. There's a difference between using this trope as a lazy fall-back when you don't want to invent a deep, complex backstory for a character in a story that otherwise takes itself seriously, and using it cleverly, among a story that is already lighthearted and/or comedic.

Honestly you voiced my opinion on the subject better than I ever could (I'm historically bad at phrasing) especially with what makes Doofenshmirtz an awesome baddie.

My favorite villains are the ones who 'love their job' and ham it up, but sometimes have moments of pause/clarity, where they actually question if THEY are the bad guy. (or similar moments of clarity, like how in the game Xenoblade 2, the main antagonist Malos, questions his own motives a few times, which is an interesting shake up from the way he is the rest of the time, which is very much a moustache twirling germline who hates humanity, also his voice actor KILLS the roll. That also helps) Depending on how it's handled I like the ones that go 'well this is how the world sees me' (but it can be kinda dull if it's played too straight) but then in the same breath they're like 'fuck it, you guys put up a good fight so bring it on'

Heck, even if they're bad to the bone, it'd be cool to have a villain (not the main antagonist) get into a punch up with the protagonists and have that 'oh fuck, I'm on the losing team, can I switch sides?' moment. I wouldn't want it to become a cliche, but I'd love to see that more often.

 

[Azul-din]

And then there's Hamlet:' ... one may smile and smile and still be a villain..' Those are the worst kind. I don't mean the moustache twirling git from panto, more like the one who always says he or she is the soul of kindness, the syrupy social worker who undermines and degrades her clients, the kind old pastor with his taste for little boys or girls, the martinet father who beats and terrorizes his children 'for their own good'...the kind, in short that you yearn to see getting a dose of their own medicine or being exposed for the monster they really are. Think Uriah Heep in Dickens.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

And then there's Hamlet:' ... one may smile and smile and still be a villain..' Those are the worst kind. I don't mean the moustache twirling git from panto, more like the one who always says he or she is the soul of kindness, the syrupy social worker who undermines and degrades her clients, the kind old pastor with his taste for little boys or girls, the martinet father who beats and terrorizes his children 'for their own good'...the kind, in short that you yearn to see getting a dose of their own medicine or being exposed for the monster they really are. Think Uriah Heep in Dickens.

Those villains are good too, but I feel like they serve a different purpose (narratively I mean) they're there so you can axe them off without regret on either your part or the readers part.

 

[Azul-din]

Those villains are good too, but I feel like they serve a different purpose (narratively I mean) they're there so you can axe them off without regret on either your part or the readers part.

A comment worthy of the late great Robert E Howard! Human relationships are seldom so simple. Even in Fantasy.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

A comment worthy of the late great Robert E Howard! Human relationships are seldom so simple. Even in Fantasy.

Honestly even with villains I prefer only killing them off as a last resort, I know as a writer I SHOULD be ready to off characters.
But seriously, axing off a fun villain (especially a well written one, unless their whole point is to die at some point) for no reason is probably worse than killing off a fun protagonist. Not only do you now have to fill the 'void of power' left by them, if you kill off the only entertaining villain of the group, nobody's left but the boring 'counsel of the seven evils' and that doesn't make for good entertainment. Plenty of comical groups of baddies wouldn't be as entertaining if they didn't have the one 'goober' in the group.

Now say I want to write an absolute monster, if the story needs that I will, but I'm still going to attempt to make them entertaining to be around/stand up to.

 

[The Dark One]

I had an absolute ball writing the MC in my most successful novel (Straight Jacket). He's arrogant, judgmental, deceptive and hilarious. The majority of readers detest him (they're supposed to) but can't stop themselves from continuing... and then everything changes.

 

[pmmg]

Why would there be only one entertaining villian? Have more than one and problem solved.

This topic makes me think of old saturday morning cartoons with distardly whiplash and gargamel and skeletor. Was it fun to see those get theirs? Sure. They earned it .

And i think its important to show that sometimes good people need to do things to confront the bad in others.

And i would certainly agree, in the right kind of story these are the right kind of villains.

But this is not my type of thing. And not the type i choose to write.

I dont celebrate the idea that here is a category of ppl and we get to be as mean too as we like. And ive seen a bit of that in recent years with various political groups. From my perspective, this is an attitude we could use less of.

Along with the message that sometimes good ppl need to stand up, we also need the message that restraint must go with the ability to do violence. That is one of the great requirements of manhood. That we can, but we choose to be gentlemen instead.

I wish this had not been couched in ‘fun to punch’. That attitude does not go with what being a hero is about. I dont punch cause its fun, but that it became necessary. And i hope it does not.

I just find i dont want to cater that its fun to do. But that it sometimes becomes necessary to do. Im having trouble separating that from the spirit in which this thread was meant. Sorry.

 

[pmmg]

As for offing characters, i do not hold myself to a special pedestal because i have done it. I just let things go to their likely conclusion. Sometimes that means a character does not make it.

I believe in giving the story what it needs and impossible survival is not the flavor of it.

I think its important cause it keeps the struggle real and the stakes high. Everyone plays for keeps. Killing them is some times well planned and sometimes just worked at that way. I am willing to let it be. I hope the reader likes it that way too. Its kind of the atmosphere i let them expect.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Some characters are complicated and nuanced and sympathetic to the reader. And some are like Slinkies. They aren't useful for much but make you smile when you push them down the stairs. Some characters are just like that. We do have one, though, who manages to be all of it. He's a joy to watch go while he beats the verbal crap out of our protagonists, but then he's also a joy to watch getting his lunch handed to him in his own high-rise office by the person you'd least expect. He's also a lawyer, which just adds to the enjoyment.

 

[Devor]

I dig this so much that the title of my WIP is Smughitter.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

As for offing characters, i do not hold myself to a special pedestal because i have done it. I just let things go to their likely conclusion. Sometimes that means a character does not make it.

I believe in giving the story what it needs and impossible survival is not the flavor of it.

I think its important cause it keeps the struggle real and the stakes high. Everyone plays for keeps. Killing them is some times well planned and sometimes just worked at that way. I am willing to let it be. I hope the reader likes it that way too. Its kind of the atmosphere i let them expect.

My main point is, if I'm going to kill off a villain, or even a protagonist, I want that death to serve a purpose. Narratively or otherwise.
Simply offing a character for shock value does nothing for me narratively, especially if it's a minor character who only appears in one scene. The only time I consider this a valid tact is if we're writing something like Saw or something, where characters are expected to die. But even then I like the character to accomplish something narratively before offing them. A given character might have the purpose to die at some point (because they'd nuke the world or whatever or because it's a horror story and that's how things just 'go' in that genre. Or maybe they're the protagonists wizened old mentor going off for a final showdown with their rival.) but I'd much prefer that the death is something that won't annoy the reader. Both in execution and in story purpose.

I've watched plenty of shows and played plenty of games where a good villain randomly gets killed off. Now, it isn't so much a 'aww, I liked that character' I mean it kind of is. But it's irritating to see a character with potential get offed before they meet that potential. (unless of course, that's the point) Seen plenty of shows 'write off' a character in a rushed way, and it's not really cool to do.

That being said, some types of villains are 'easier' to kill off when the time needed to do so comes. I am pretty sure I worded my statement poorly when I first explained it. But I hope that makes sense now.