"I don't like the heroes, therefore the villains are good"

Myrmidon · 2011-05-04 18:45:50

How does this train of thought work, exactly? Are stories required to be symmetrical?

Don't get me started on people who apply this to real life, though.

DYRE · 2011-05-04 18:48:36

I guess it's like, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That thing.

Basically, you don't like the heroes, and the villains are working against the heroes. Therefore, you support the villains. And as such, you'll probably say they're good, since good is kind of relative anyway.

Nyktos · 2011-05-04 18:50:58

I guess it's like, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That thing.

Which is, incidentally, also bullshit.

DYRE · 2011-05-04 18:51:35

Well yeah, but that doesn't stop people from using that reasoning.

GuitarBizarre · 2011-05-04 18:56:59

You realise that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't refer to a direct alliance, yes? It means that a savvy tactician can use subterfuge to goad one of his enemies into taking actions that serve his interests, such as wasting military strength on one side of the fight so that when the dust has cleared, our savvy tactician has a much easier time of things?

IE, say Spain, France, and Germany are all at war with each other.

If Spain can convince or trick France into attacking Germany as a priority target, Spain can sit back and play defensively while France wastes their strength on Germany. Once thats done, Spain can step in to mop up the remaining french forces without giving France time to recover their strength.

Nyktos · 2011-05-04 18:59:16

You realise that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't
refer to a direct alliance, yes? It means that a savvy tactician can use
subterfuge to goad one of his enemies into taking actions that serve
his interests, such as wasting military strength on one side of the
fight so that when the dust has cleared, our savvy tactician has a much
easier time of things?

Well, sure, if you're going to use it that way it's reasonable enough, but people use it literally at least as often at this point.

GuitarBizarre · 2011-05-04 18:59:49

Those people are DOING IT WRONG.

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-04 19:51:46

Yes, they are.

I find it a little irritating when people insist, in all seriousness, that the villains were more good than the good guys, but can't back it up without ignoring elements of the actual premise presented to us. I know I've been kind of a broken record about this, but I'd say that Avatar was a case in point; a lot of people say that they were rooting for Colonel Quaritch because the Na'vi were dicks. And the Na'vi kinda were dicks, but Quaritch was a particularly obnoxious flat villain with unsubtle colonial connotations.

DYRE · 2011-05-04 19:57:29

Or like how people say that (in the original Mobile Suit Gundam at least, dunno about its sequels) the Principality of Zeon were somehow the heroes, despite the fact that they were pretty much all portrayed as evil (with the exception of Char Aznable, who didn't particularly like Zeon anyway) and in fact, one of them was explicitly compared to Hitler within the actual series... (and, out-of-universe, The Principality of Zeon was modeled after the Nazis in general)

(only posting this because I haven't seen Avatar, but I have seen Gundam, so... I'm assuming they are similar in this regard?)

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-04 20:03:58

I haven't seen Mobile Suit Gundam, but that sounds like it would irritate me for similar reasons.

To me, it smells of forced edginess and a pretentious desire to be different - "Look at me! I root for blatant Nazi stand-ins and racist colonial analogues!"

Nyktos · 2011-05-04 20:04:10

@Khwarizmi:

I find it a little irritating when people insist, in all seriousness,
that the villains were more good than the good guys, but can't back it
up without ignoring elements of the actual premise presented to us. I
know I've been kind of a broken record about this, but I'd say that Avatar
was a case in point; a lot of people say that they were rooting for
Colonel Quaritch because the Na'vi were dicks. And the Na'vi kinda were
dicks, but Quaritch was a particularly obnoxious flat villain with
unsubtle colonial connotations.

Agreed.

I haven't seen Mobile Suit Gundam, but that sounds like it would irritate me for similar reasons.

To
me, it smells of forced edginess and a pretentious desire to be
different - "Look at me! I root for blatant Nazi stand-ins and racist
colonial analogues!"

In the case of Gundam, it's mostly just because Zeon have cooler mechas.

@DYRE: Friggin' Scherzo...

Codename_M308 · 2011-05-04 20:06:07

Yeah, siding with those who hate your enemies is not enough, especially if you don't agree with them, or in the example I'm bringing up, are making the same mistakes the enemies you hate are making.

In Crimson Echoes, some of the creators sided with King Zeal as the "good" one because Crono and pals keep on sending other eras, like the Reptite timeline created by King Zeal, the Vanguard timeline also caused by King Zeal, and the bad future post-1999 AD to the Darkness Beyond Time, even though 2 out of three points to Zeal being the cause. If Crono and gang didn't try to fix the timeline, than the original timeline would've been in the Darkness Beyond Time instead. Thanks Zeal, for shifting the blame and being praised for it by fans.

Also, the point of all this bullcrap is... to revive the Kingdom of Zeal, which is easier to achieve by going back and rule Zeal again in hope of keeping his wife from going crazy and destroying the kingdom, or failing that, helping Magus destroy Lavos or otherwise prevent the destruction of Zeal in the first place.

And that's the lesson why Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross don't go together. Try and connect one to another, and you end up with crap like this.

MillerCross · 2011-05-04 20:07:34

Eh, if I think the villains are the good guys it's because the writers have failed. Really hard.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-04 20:10:22

Unless it's intentional, in which case it can be fun to read.

Writers trying to please both villain- and hero-lovers end up falling into the worst trappings of antiheroism, IMO.

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-04 20:12:28

Actually, I think it can be indicative that the "villains" are particularly well-written.

For example, Alan Moore intended Rorschach to be unsympathetic, but I found him highly sympathetic nevertheless. I don't think this was a failing on Alan Moore's part, I just really liked the character.

MillerCross · 2011-05-04 20:22:19

But he isn't a villain, now is he? And you don't think he was in the right...right?

Because that's the definition of a good guy. Someone who's doing the right thing. A sympathetic character can be of any moral alliance, but a good guy is...well, good.

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-04 20:25:25

I didn't think anyone in Watchmen was in the right, but I was rooting for Rorschach every step of the way, and I admire him.

But no, he's not a villain, he's a protagonist, and he's a protagonist in a story which doesn't present clear black-and-white morality.

So, not quite the same as in the OP, but I brought it up because I thought it was somewhat comparable.

snowbull · 2011-05-04 20:41:27

I want to hear your opinion on Vriska.

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-04 20:47:51

I like Vriska, but she's neither admirable nor heroic, and I wouldn't class her as a "good guy".

That's not indicative of good writing, though, that's indicative of Hussie being a troll.

MillerCross · 2011-05-04 20:54:19

You were rooting for the sociopath who killed criminals?

...really?

snowbull · 2011-05-04 20:55:10

^^Hussie doesn't troll that often.

Bob · 2011-05-04 20:55:13

Wait what

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-04 20:56:02

^^^ It was either the sociopath, the government-paid sociopath, the emotionally detached god, the unassertive but moral loser, the unwilling but moral chick, or the big bad.

Gelzo · 2011-05-04 20:57:27

As principled as Rorschach was, he was also kind of a deluded dick, so I don't think I can say I admired him per se. He was certainly sympathetic though, in part because he had some pretty good Freudian Excuses.

What about Nite Owl I? He was pretty admirable IIRC.

Moving back to the original topic, I'm more entertained by people who decide that the villains are hot because they're villains, and because they're hot, they must also be the good guys.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-04 20:59:18

Draco In Leather Pants is a truly beloathed trope. It can go die in a fire, since in encourages the absolute worst type of fan communities.

Deboss · 2011-05-04 21:41:27

I'll admit to rooting for Colonel what's his face in Avatar. Not because I felt he was right, but because I found him to be a more amusing character, and I'd rather see more of him than of the Na'vi. Plus the Na'vi were anti-technology, and I can't sympathize with that at all. Given a choice between Luddites and Powered Armor, I'll stick with the powered armor guys.

Gelzo · 2011-05-04 21:45:22

When were the Na'vi shown to be anti-technology? Maybe it's me, but I don't remember anything like that in the movie.

Thorn14 · 2011-05-04 22:20:04

Well they refused medicine and schools.

MillerCross · 2011-05-04 22:21:41

^^^ It was either the sociopath, the government-paid sociopath, the emotionally detached god, the unassertive but moral loser, the unwilling but moral chick, or the big bad.

Just because they are flawed doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be rooted for.

Gelzo · 2011-05-04 22:25:46

^^I think not being interested in technology doesn't necessarily make you anti-technology.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-04 22:29:16

Sociopaths are flawed as well. Rorschach had a fairly good freudian excuse going for him, the big bad's motivations were out of a desire to create utopia and save the world from Armageddon, and Dr. Manhattan's roboticity allowed us to mourn for the loss of his soul. Meanwhile, Dan and Laurie were motivated by their love for each other and a desire to do good. Both noble goals, of course, but what effect would they have on the plot otherwise?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

"I don't like the heroes, therefore the villains are good"

Comments