• We are currently experiencing a flood of requests from bots scraping the forums. Unfortunately it has gotten to the point where it is negatively impacting the site. As a result the forums may be slow and you may periodically experiance an error message. We are aware of the problem and apologize for the inconvenience.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Heroes and Villains

Thanatos

Well-Known Member
We all know the respective roles which heroes and villains play in stories. The question is whether the hero or villain is more important to the story? How many times have we seen the protaganists of a certain story carry the rest of the cast through the whole title? Yes, how many times do we root for a villain's diabolical schemes, even though we already know that said villain will inevitably be thwarted? Or is there a line drawn somewhere, where there is a concerted effort to play hero off villain and vice versa, but often at the expense of other character development?

I ask this because I personally feel that heroes are given too much credit in stories. Yes, we often see from the hero's point of view, especially if the story is in first person. Yes, the hero's actions are often excused because we know HIS validation of those actions, while the villain gets no such luxury. However, how many times do we see heroes and protaganists simply dwindling to nothing more than carbon copies of each other, often being able to be used interchangably?

On to villains. For everything that the hero is, surely behind every hero there is some bad-assed, kill-em-all-and-show-no-mercy villain? For every Beowulf there is a Grendel? For every F4 there is a Dr Doom? Villains often offer the most in terms of character building, and are pretty damn fun to write as well, especially when their darker psyches are explored, as in their motivations, their twisted views of the world, and the sympathy they can invoke when readers realise that villains are, in a nutshell, sometimes simply shortchanged by life itself. We often talk about how heroes are often ordinary people doing extraordinary acts, yet how often is a maligned villain often simply a victim of circumstance, someone at the wrong place at the wrong time?

Saying that, I want to open this debate to everyone. Do we go for the "Superman-esque", boyscout hero to save the day, do we delve into and attempt to understand the minds of Hannibal and his kin, do we play them off like Infernal Affairs (HK original of The Departed), do we root for the anti-heroes (come on, we all know that Snape DIDN'T turn bad :)) or do we root for the villains that are blessed with a shade of grey morality?

Discuss
 

Ledian_X

Don Ledianni
Both the hero and the villain are important to the story. They'd be the protagonist and the antagonist respectively. Without them, you don't have much of a story. In fact, most if not all stories kind of need them.

We do see what you're saying several times but I try to keep my characters' personalities unique to his our her self. One character's a wiseass while the other may be the ultimate badass. It all depends on how you want your character to be portrayed. Sometimes, I even use my personality for one character. For the others, I just look and see what fits wiht each character's background.

For someone who was abused, they'd be quiet yet determined to prove themselves.

We don't usually see "wrong pleace/time." For a while, it seemed like people like Hulk, Ghost Rider and others were in the wrong place. But, they're more anti heroes in a shade of gray. Personally, I use a vilain that's a shade of gray. He has bad intentions but some people think he may have the right idea.

I don't go for a boyscout to save the day. That's been done. My heroes are basically like real people. They react like you or I would. If there's a bunch of baddies causing trouble, they don't say "LET'S SAVE THE DAAAAAAAY!"

They'd be more like "Not this again...Okay, let's get this over with!"

Reacting like real people and adding realism would make things work better.

LX
 

Thanatos

Well-Known Member
Both the hero and the villain are important to the story.

Cannot deny that. Of course they are as essential to a story as a teabag and hot water is to making tea. However, you may have misunderstood the OP. It was meant to focus on the hero-villain dynamic that so many people do not pay enough attention to. Let me give you an example. LOTR, for all its greatness, was flawed in that there was not enough villain-hero dynamic. Hack and slash through hordes, and a journey to dump the one ring. Compare that to it first age counterpart, the Sil, and we have a much more active villain. You can understand why the Sil is often hailed above the LOTR triology.

We don't usually see "wrong pleace/time." For a while, it seemed like people like Hulk, Ghost Rider and others were in the wrong place. But, they're more anti heroes in a shade of gray. Personally, I use a vilain that's a shade of gray. He has bad intentions but some people think he may have the right idea.

Except that they WERE in wrong place/wrong time. Would Banner have been willingly bombarded by gamma rays if he had a choice?

I understand that heroes AND villains are both important, but I was just querying about the dynamic that people try to incorporate, as it really is what holds many stories together.
 

EmberGryphon

Meowth Fanatic <3
At some point, the hero-villian dynamic is controlled as much by the reader as by the author. ^_^ To build up on your Beowulf vs Grendel analogy; Grendel was explained as being an evil monster, Son of Cain, ect... But at the same time, he was developed as being a curious, hungry child, who simply didn't see humans as anything other than tiny little animals and who needed his mother to take care of him. His character can be read either way. Grendel and Beowulf weren't arch-enemies; while one person might read Grendel as a monster who would destroy Europe and Beowulf as the only hope for mankind, or whatever, the story still sets up that Grendel was a fairly stupid, adolescent monster, and Beowulf killed him for money and honor.

It's the sort of dynamic I like. The reluctant, scared or selfish hero, with motives beyond that of 'save everyone else!', against a villian with his own motives, not necessarily just wanting to commit as many atrocities as possible, as fast as possible. And totally having his (or her) own set of morals. Grey morality for-the-win.

...That's it. ^_^
 

Arcanine Royale

Well-Known Member
Take Star Wars. The story definitely revolves around Darth Vader, at least for Episodes 1-3 and latter portions of Epi 6. He's certainly the villian, in the latter half of three, 4, 5, and the early portion of six.

However, Darth Vader, if you have seen Episode III, did not become a villian just because he thought, "Well, this Jedi business is boring. I think I'll join Darth Sidious and destroy the Republic." That's not what happened.

He was, in a way, forced into it. Darth Sidious "persuades" him, he has nightmares about his wife, Padme, dying, and with elder jedi lacking respect and trust for him. Add to the fact that the galaxy is in the middle of the war, and the pressure of Anakin/Darth Vader being the supposed "Chosen One", and Anakin/DV has a load of trouble.

He doesn't just turn from the angellic kid on Tantooine to the Dark Lord in Black Armor with the flick of his wrist.

If you can apply this to your own story, you can have great villians. Villians aren't pure evil. Often, they have a streak of good or mercy in them. Or... they aren't just out to get the main character, which they are often portrayed as doing.

So, villians have motives. And their motive isn't to destroy the main character as often shows have them doing. Take, for example, Team Rocket - not Jesse, James, Meowth, etc, but the one headed by Giovanni. They have plans, ranging from genetic manipulation and cloning to manipulating the government. Okay, maybe they don't exactly do that in the anime or games or manga, but...

So, if the villian is driven by these motives, they would stay in character. Actually, this applies to all characters.

To follow the actions of the hero, explore the reason the villian is a villian/the villian's mind, the anti-hero that really is a hero, or the villian who was betrayed?

Well, it all depends on what you want to write.

You wouldn't have a comedy by looking into the villian's mind.

You wouldn't have a dark story by having a Superman-esque hero.

It all depends...
 

Ledian_X

Don Ledianni
Star Wars is a great example of why someone goes bad. I would have mentioned it but ya know it slipped my mind really. I don't really like boy scout heroes and heroines. If you're going into battle, you need a keen look at the world. My heroes and heroes put on their uniforms to fight the good fight because they've seen what the baddies have done and want to use their powers to help.

That's how you do a hero. Anakin went from hero to anti hero to bad guy in three eps. Though, again, I like it when the moptives aren't clear like that of Magneto. He wants to end mutant opression like Xaiver. But, his means to an end are far more violent.

Xaiver is like Martin Luther King and Magneto is like Malcom X. Magneto wants mutants to rule as it's a natural progression. Prof X wants coexistance. Both in the eyes of the reader can be viewed as correct. Magneto himself is neither good or evil. He wants to save mutants his way.

LX
 

Thanatos

Well-Known Member
To build up on your Beowulf vs Grendel analogy; Grendel was explained as being an evil monster, Son of Cain, ect... But at the same time, he was developed as being a curious, hungry child, who simply didn't see humans as anything other than tiny little animals and who needed his mother to take care of him. His character can be read either way. Grendel and Beowulf weren't arch-enemies; while one person might read Grendel as a monster who would destroy Europe and Beowulf as the only hope for mankind, or whatever, the story still sets up that Grendel was a fairly stupid, adolescent monster, and Beowulf killed him for money and honor.

Good post. Not many people care about older works like Beowulf anymore. Seeing the name slaughtered by movies pains me still.

The reluctant, scared or selfish hero, with motives beyond that of 'save everyone else!', against a villian with his own motives, not necessarily just wanting to commit as many atrocities as possible, as fast as possible. And totally having his (or her) own set of morals. Grey morality for-the-win.

Well it depends. Some of the best stories ever were written with despairing heroes pitted against overwhelming odds. LOTR for example. In some, the dynamic is such that the roles are interchangeable. Iliad for example. Hector was portrayed to be the hero, but how many know that he tried to run when confronted with death? Was Oddysseus a hero when he schemed, plotted and connived to sack Troy?

He was, in a way, forced into it. Darth Sidious "persuades" him, he has nightmares about his wife, Padme, dying, and with elder jedi lacking respect and trust for him. Add to the fact that the galaxy is in the middle of the war, and the pressure of Anakin/Darth Vader being the supposed "Chosen One", and Anakin/DV has a load of trouble.

SW is certainly an example. Vader is a pop-culture icon. However, they failed to give the young Anakin much gravitas, though. Wooden acting sure did not help.

I would love to see Darth Revan on screen. He was the ultimate SW anti-hero in my opinion. In more ways than one.

EDIT: Ledian, I would not fault the uniforms. They were more of a peacekeeping task force for whom war was a last option. It was not their fault that their hands were forced by the political play by Sidious. Think of them as your GL corps or Nova corps.

Spot on about the analogy. X even died for his cause. Mags is an anti-hero. I like his characterisation a lot. He really has progressed through the years.
 
Last edited:

+Rhapsody+

DELETE DELETE
Thanatos said:
I ask this because I personally feel that heroes are given too much credit in stories. Yes, we often see from the hero's point of view, especially if the story is in first person. Yes, the hero's actions are often excused because we know HIS validation of those actions, while the villain gets no such luxury. However, how many times do we see heroes and protaganists simply dwindling to nothing more than carbon copies of each other, often being able to be used interchangably?

I completely agree with the fact that heroes are given too much credit. In the end, you'll always know that the hero won and the villain lost, even if the story is left open-ended.

Currently, I'm working on a fic that does not feature a protagonist, per se, but all of the characters are neither good nore bad. Yes, they all do things that would be considered bad in a society, and make their decisions based laregely on human nature, but that's the point of the story. I'm attempting to explore human psychology with this, and I've always thought that your typicals hero/villain conflict was generic.

I find that it is rare for me to truly find a story where I come to fully understand the villain and appreciate him/her, because villains often seem to be overshadowed by heroes.

As for anti-heroes. . .I find it cliche when we discover that a character has moved to the "dark side," yet in the end, SURPRISE HE'S STILL GOOD OMG. I find that although anti-heroes are interesting to write about, it's hard to figure out what to do with them in the end that won't have readers flinging rotten objects at you because their fate is overdone and/or unoriginal.
 

Thanatos

Well-Known Member
Yeah, heroes are given a little too much credit, and anti-heroes are pretty much written to death these days. As you said, very cliche.

Villains overshadowed by heroes? I personally find a villain more interesting, becausethe whole storyline depends on the villain and his actions. Of course, the hero has a part to play, but villainy leaves more room to explore, I guess.
 

Literate

black cat, black cat
In the end, you'll always know that the hero won and the villain lost, even if the story is left open-ended.
Exact reason why most of the time, my antagonist wins, or it's a tie between the two. Sadistic, yes, but still, if heroes win, it'd better have to be with great, great losses. I can't stand any "saving the world" thing.

Personally, if I ever wrote a fic with a hero and a villain, I'd focus on the hero, trials and troubles and all, and then, when it comes time for them to "stop" the villain... Well, let's just say it's when the story stops.

For example, one of my current stories, I have it where the antagonist knows the protagonist (whoever he is) and still able to come up with a plan that'd wreck half the world, if not the entire universe. Far-fetched by itself, common sense in the story. For me, personality makes up the entire character, motives and whatnot stem from it in a way that would be logical.

By the way, first person would still work in the antagonist's eyes and still not reveal their plan.

-Lit
 

+Rhapsody+

DELETE DELETE
Literate said:
Exact reason why most of the time, my antagonist wins, or it's a tie between the two. Sadistic, yes, but still, if heroes win, it'd better have to be with great, great losses. I can't stand any "saving the world" thing.

This is why I actually prefer stories where the endings aren't so happy. I'd actually have the hero die instead of win and live happily ever after. But that's just my sadistic tendency.
 
I'VE BEEN IN THIS TOWN SO LONG THAT BACK IN THE CITY I'VE BEEN TAKEN FOR LOST AND GONE AND UNKNOWN FOR A LONG TIME!!!

XP Brain Wilson > j00.

Okay, so that aside, I'll pitch in my two cents.

I think that its a good idea to look at where the concept of heroes and villians came from (Van Dyke Parks, duh! xP). Even better, where stories came from.

To my understanding story telling was both a means of entertainment, passing off of knowledge, and explaining things (myths and religion). Now, since several sort of societies and cultures emerged, stories are going to be from their persepective, with them being the victor, at least in the sense that the ideal person of that particaular culture is the victor.

I guess you could make the jump that stories are a sort of propoganda. But with the rise of seperate classes where people could actually live off of writing stories, and if you make yet another jump they write personal propoganda. The hero is the ideal person, or the hero is them.

Its been expressed that (well-written) stories convey a theme, a message or something. Sometimes its obvious, sometimes its subtle, but for the most part, its always there. Looking at stories as just heroes and villains is looking at things from one dimension. The hero changes throughout the story, and that change is kinda what allows the hero to triumph over the villian. And sometimes there is no villian, just a conflict, inner or otherwise.

Heroes and Villians are a sort of moral marker, placed by the author, and sometimes switched around by the reader.

Forgive me if that didn't make any sense. xD
 

Orange_Flaaffy

Jello Pokéballs
I actually love save the world stories that have a happy ending :). But I also like when the villian is given enough depth that they have a reason for being 'evil' as well...
I think you can have a classic good vs. evil story and still have enough depth to pull off the reader actually being sad the villain died. I loved the ending of Magic Knight Rayearth for the twist ending in the fact that the villain they had been fighting all along was not the true villian of the story and he was actually a sad soul...
 

Seiryu

Resident dragon
In response to the first question, I think that both the hero and the villain are equally important to the storyline overall.

I will agree that the villains are often overshadowed by the heroes, but I believe that that's because, at least in a lot of stories, the focus isn't meant to be on the villains, at least not as much as it's meant to be on the hero(es). The story isn't about the villains, it's about the hero(es) and how he/she/they beat the bad guys, save the world, fulfill some sort of dream or whatever. As a result, in a lot of stories you have a plot that focuses almost entirely on the heroes with a villain/antagonist who, say, wants to destroy the world or whatever. In the end, we know who the heroes are, what their goals are, and why they're doing what they're doing (no matter how generic the characters and their goals and motivation may be), but we don't receive the same treatment for their enemies. Sure, we know what they're trying to accomplish, but many times that's it. And even in stories that have fully-realized villains, the story will end up being less about them and more about the heroes because, again, the story's not about the villains.
This applies in reverse, actually; in a story that has a true villain as the main character, you're probably not going to see the hero's point of view quite as much as you are the villain's.

Thanatos said:
Yeah, heroes are given a little too much credit, and anti-heroes are pretty much written to death these days. As you said, very cliche.
I personally prefer anti-heroes traditional heroes, and I don't think it's the fact that anti-heroes are everywhere that makes them cliche, but rather the way in which they're written. Take a look at many amateur (and even some professional) stories with anti-heroes as main characters, especially the ones with a good vs. evil conflict. Nine times out of ten that character becomes practically a shining paragon of virtue whose questionable morals are either dropped completely as part of the story (usually shortly after meeting the obligatory love interest) or are otherwise rarely if ever referred to.

I've actually yet to see a story with an anti-hero whose bad habits or personality traits carry on throughout the story and consistently factor into how he or she reacts to a situation. Usually, those habits and personality traits disappear once they become inconvenient for the main character. For example, I can't remember reading a story in which the cowardly main character bails on his friends at a critical moment for fear of his own life, and I've rarely seen an instance in which the main character is so focused on his goals or ideals that he'll willingly and remorselessly screw over anyone (including his so-called allies) if he deems it necessary.

Thanatos said:
Villains overshadowed by heroes? I personally find a villain more interesting, becausethe whole storyline depends on the villain and his actions. Of course, the hero has a part to play, but villainy leaves more room to explore, I guess.
Actually, that may be partly why you rarely see people write stories in which the story's main villain is the main character. It's also why a lot of people tend to hate blatant Mary-Sues: the main character is in control of the plot. The plot revolves around that character, his choices, his actions, and everything else about him. And quite frankly, even if that sort of thing isn't boring to write about, it can sure as hell be boring to read.

As for the villains having more room to explore than heroes (in the sense that these heroes are generally virtuous and have little to no "evil" in their personalities), then that's true. But for everything you can make into a villain (once morally righteous but now "evil," wants essentially what the protagonists want but goes about it in a less moral fashion, etc.) you can make into a "hero," even though there seems to be a certain line of morality that defines whether or not a story's main character is truly a "hero" or "villain." In some stories, I can just see some omnipotent judge saying something like "Okay, you've intentionally killed a hundred people. Congratulations, you are officially a villain!" or "Hmm, your record looks clean. Yep, you're still a hero!" xp

That's when I stop using the words "hero" and "villain" and focus more on the broader "protagonist" and "antagonist"--when the personalities and morals of the characters delve into both sides of the equation so that they're more gray than they are white or black. In fact, that's why I tend to like characters like that; it shows that they're actually human (or whatever race they happen to be) and that the author has put a decent amount of effort into the character, and given that both sides are like this and the author's at all talented, you can't be entirely sure who's right and who's wrong.

In fact, even if one side of a conflict is obviously heroic or whatever but the other side isn't villainous, then I'm still going to use "protagonist" and "antagonist" over "hero" and "villain." The way I see it, the latter two terms imply some sort of struggle between good and evil, which it really isn't if one or both sides are essentially gray or if both sides are white or black.
 

Chibi Pika

Stay positive
The plot of my fic is not about my protagonist. :) As far as LC goes, the question of whether the "hero" or "villain" is more important is very easily answered. Persoanlly, I think it would be facinating to write my fic from Stalker's point of view. The only problem with that would be the time frame and the suspense--both would be shattered.

I think that the less important the main character is, the better. Now I'm not saying they can't be significant (I like Harry Potter as much as anyone else. xP). Likewise, if no effort is made to justify the villains actions, then the author had better be going for an evil character (and had better have the skills to back it up.)

I like it when the protagonist has no control over the plot, and not only that, but when the plot itself is so deep as to not even completely concern the protagonist. (Unfortunate Events, anyone?)

In any case, returning to my own fic. The struggle is between opinion. To capture the Legendaries or not? To save the world through war, or conquer it bloodlessly? Toying around with motives is fun.

I try to give each character their own moment. A moment to condemn and glorify their actions and intentions, whether protagonist or antagonist.

~Chibi~;249;;448;
 

Arcanine Royale

Well-Known Member
Actually, that may be partly why you rarely see people write stories in which the story's main villain is the main character. It's also why a lot of people tend to hate blatant Mary-Sues: the main character is in control of the plot. The plot revolves around that character, his choices, his actions, and everything else about him. And quite frankly, even if that sort of thing isn't boring to write about, it can sure as hell be boring to read.

There are four types of stories - milieu (place), character, plot, and idea. Each of these come and go with their respective "subject." Thus, if the story is about say, Ash Ketchum (as the anime is) it will ultimately end when A. he dies. B. he becomes a master or C. he resolves his goal in some other way.

The character story is often used in journey fics. Mary-Sues are really just a definition that some people made in order to put down others, in my opinion. Though there are certain faults that should be pointed out about characters.

A truly great story has multiple conflicts, characters that are neither wholly good or wholly evil, and being evil being a blurred line that is not noticable when crossed or uncrossed.
 

The Burnt Shadow

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻)
I actually prefer villains over heroes. Heroes always save the day and are ussually cliche, like some baddie with a stupid name comes and tries to destroy the world with using thier powers and some sort of moral value. In my fic, I'm writing about some girl who travels with a mysterious guy and to defeat some regular baddie that's trying to get rid of them. Yeah it sounds all cliche, but near the end, something very interesting happens.

I'd prefer heroes being dark or having mysterious unknown pasts that they need to discover as they work thier way through the world. I also prefer villains having some other goal that doesn't include world domination or complete anhilation. That would be too obvious, anyone could think that up. Instead of aiming for the world, they should try aiming at something like a feared title or something...
 

Seiryu

Resident dragon
The character story is often used in journey fics. Mary-Sues are really just a definition that some people made in order to put down others, in my opinion. Though there are certain faults that should be pointed out about characters.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that I was operating under the premise of Pokemon fanfics, while I was actually talking about conflict-based fanficion, sci-fi, and fantasy as a whole.

I can see what you mean, too; I suppose that I shouldn't have use that analogy. But for some reason, as intersting as a villain might be as a character, I for the life of me can't imagine such a character-type story being truly interesting (especially considering how most villains don't do much more than sit in their evil castle drinking wine and planning how they'll dupe the heroes next).

I will agree that some people here throw the term "Mary-Sue" around a bit often. I, however, use the term very infrequently and only for the most extreme cases. In my opinion, a Mary-Sue is someone who is...perfect. God incarnate. The number 42. She is the best. No, not "best battler but worst coordinator" to stick with Pokemon fanfiction, but the best. At everything, often on her first try. Any and all conflicts involving her are resolved with a flick of her wrist--including the big "showdown" between her and the main evil figure/rival/general antagonist in the story. And she will often have scores of special abilities, with no discernible weaknesses, that'll make her sweep across the world (or region) all the easier. She is the most beautiful and friendliest person in the world, and any other emotions she feels--anger, sadness, etc.--are greaty affected by that; for instance, she only feels "righteous" anger. Every other person swoons over her (and I do mean every) and all of the pokemon love her. And she is never, ever wrong about anything.

To some things up, in my opinion a Mary-Sue basically invokes the author to warp and bend the universe to best suit her needs and wants, usually because the character is so precious to the author that he/she can't bear to see ickle Mary-Sue get hurt physically or mentally or have any sort of trouble on her quest.

I'd prefer heroes being dark or having mysterious unknown pasts that they need to discover as they work thier way through the world. I also prefer villains having some other goal that doesn't include world domination or complete anhilation. That would be too obvious, anyone could think that up. Instead of aiming for the world, they should try aiming at something like a feared title or something...
Sure, anyone can come up with a bad guy who wants to destroy or conquer the world, but what are the odds are that the plot (or a plot that doesn't involve a bad guy like that) will be written with any amount of proficiency? And what's wrong with a bad guy like that, if it makes things more interesting to read or write? That's what I like about the "destroy the world" antagonist in one of my fics: he has a personal reason for wanting to destroy the world, and he probably wouldn't do it if he could achieve his goal using a different method. (And in my opinion, the fact that the reason my main protagonist faces him isn't to save the world makes it better.)
 
Last edited:

Rane

Really?
Ah, this brought up some old thoughts.

The villian, in my eyes, have grown while the hero has stayed the same throughout the years. The typical villian is big, strong and dumb as a shaft while the Hero usually were the smaller underdog type of character. Recently, the villian has adopted this role much more.

My view on a perfect villian is a character who never goes by as especially noteable. He (or her, but I'll be reffering it as he) prefers to stay behind while his big, strong and dumb henchmen do the rest. This resembles the brainy character that alot of writers like to use, but it's not exactly the same. Sure, he does all the thinking and has an intelligence level much higher than that of the normal goons, but he's not the typical nerd type brainiac.

I'm no fan of the old school Hero/Villian story. I'd rather have two equals fighting for different causes, with neither being either good or bad. I mean, alot of german soldiers during WW2 thought of Hitler as a great man, as opposed to the general view. I'm sorry if this offended someone, but it's a fact. Personally, I never thought of Hitler as a great man, but to be fair, neither is George W Bush.
 

Sybot

Well-Known Member
I hate writing outright heroes and villians. Almost all of my characters are shades of grey. In my fic, for example, there is only one outright hero and one outright villian character, but neither of them are the main protagonist or antagonist.

In my view clear-cut 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are too boring, cliche and unrealistic. In real life no one is 100% good or bad.
 
Top