Why do so many people seem to dislike Sordward and Shieldbert?

[Reinhardt]

1) They're annoying
2) They're obnoxious and keep declaring themselves "celebrities" even though no one knows who they are
3) They made Professor Best Girl cry
4) Their evil scheme is incoherent and dumb
5) Sordward's hair should be censored. Especially the way it flops around while he's laughing. UGH!

 

[Leonhart]

They were rather irritating, selfish, generic, and felt unnecessary in general. They aren't my least favorite villains in the franchise, but they were certainly among the most uninteresting.

 

[SilverSneasel]

They´re really arrogant and selfish. Caused a major ruckus all over Galar. And of course, their ridiculous haircuts.

 

[WaterTypeStarter]

They´re really arrogant and selfish. Caused a major ruckus all over Galar. And of course, their ridiculous haircuts.

Isn't the point of being villains to be unpleasant and troublemakers?

 

[SilverSneasel]

Isn't

Isn't the point of being villains to be unpleasant and troublemakers?

Sure, but for me, it isn´t that kind of "interesting" ruckus, where a villain have an intriguing reason to do their stuff and you´re really captivated by the situation and actually wants to know more about the villain´s point of view. Those two aren´t interesting to this point, they´re just irritating. I guess that´s what I meant.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Isn't

Isn't the point of being villains to be unpleasant and troublemakers?

It's the shallowness of their personalities and motivations that ultimately set them apart from other villains (that and the fact that they were entirely shoehorned in the games without any build-up). If you look at some of the other villains from the series, they generally have much deeper characters and motivations than these two. Giovanni is basically a mob boss, his motivation is simple but powerful; money. That makes sense and is perfectly understandable. Archie and Maxie are naive idealists who are willing to go to any lengths to accomplish their goals, regardless of consequence. Both have a vision for a better future, but both are too short-sighted to see the consequences of this vision, and both ultimately realize their mistakes and pay penance in the end. Ghetsis is an unstable egomaniac with a scheme to take over Unova and rule it with N as his puppet figurehead. He proves that you can indeed make a villain both interesting and truly evil, not just selfish or misguided.

Sordward and Shieldbert have decided that a couple of dogs somehow represent threats to their status as celebrities, and hatch a hare-brained scheme to expose the dogs as... frauds? Destroy their public image? I'm genuinely not sure what the end goal was supposed to be or how it was supposed to work out in their favor (especially when you consider they weren't exactly stealthy with their plans; even if they succeeded in forcing the legendary wolves to go on a rampage, everyone would know they were responsible for it and ultimately bore the blame for any damage the wolves caused). This utterly pales in comparison to most of the villains we've had in previous games.

 

[KillerDraco]

There's one other factor regarding Sordward and Shielbert that I've come to realize, and one I've not seen often mentioned.

It's the fact that the postgame story could actually work perfectly without them, and in fact would probably make more sense. You can still have the threat of Dynamaxing Pokemon as part of a residual energy effect from Rose's meddling (which would honestly have been better IMO to keep the focus on Rose to show how even with good intentions it still has negative consequences). You can still have one of the two dogs getting overwhelmed with Dynamax Energy, while the other enters to save the day and be caught by you. You can still have Hop having an existential crisis leading up to him realizing he wants to become a Pokemon researcher and becoming Sonia's assistant. None of these events necessarily need the bad hair duo, they're just sort of... there.

 

[Dared3v0]

They showed up post game had no character development and their hair is silly

 

[Missingno.Fan]

I mostly hated how they just showed up and left almost as soon as they appeared. Also the hair.

 

[DR.gonzo]

Jedward . Awful UK act that got 15mins of fame. Pretty sure they are based off these 2 . Worst part of the game.

 

[Halkel]

They remind me a lot like a bunch of rich kids who think they know better despite all the research you, Hop and Sonia did and completely disregarded you and Hop's heroics on preventing the darkest day because of the knowledge you picked up from Hammerlocke, Stow-on-Side and Lichester with Sonia's help. I really want to mention how much they remind me of certain politicians but a line needs to be drawn but as soon as they insulted Sonia's work, I really wanted to wring their rich necks.

 

[Redstar45]

They remind me a lot like a bunch of rich kids who think they know better despite all the research you, Hop and Sonia did and completely disregarded you and Hop's heroics on preventing the darkest day because of the knowledge you picked up from Hammerlocke, Stow-on-Side and Lichester with Sonia's help. I really want to mention how much they remind me of certain politicians but a line needs to be drawn but as soon as they insulted Sonia's work, I really wanted to wring their rich necks.

No kidding i hate Elitists no matter what side that they are on ....i despite them

 

[Ophie]

I found them to still be better villains than Rose, in any case.

 

[Nicholas Perkins]

Their names are Sordward and Shielbert.

I don’t need to explain why that’s wrong on, like, every level possible.

 

[Orphalesion]

I found them to still be better villains than Rose, in any case.

Everybody is a better villain/antagonist than Rose. Absolutely everybody
Even characters who aren't even villains/antagonists fulfill that role better than Rose.

 

[TwilightBlade]

Their names are hilariously bad just like their hair and they had boring personalities. I like villains that are interesting not comically bland ones like these two.

 

[Rahus]

I feel that their purpose is what truly kills them for me.

Their entire storyline is just really janky. Like Rose but less forced.

If that makes sense. Idk.

 

[Ophie]

Their names are Sordward and Shieldbert.

I don’t need to explain why that’s wrong on, like, every level possible.

It's "Shielbert," for the record. (The topic title also spells his name wrong.)

 

[catzeye]

I found them to still be better villains than Rose, in any case.

Agreed. While I do take issues with some of the plot, the Royal Twins actually had a more coherent and understandable goal than Rose. Their whole point was to disprove the work Sonia was doing so that they could retain their celebrity status. It's a very workable plot and I think a better use of the wolves and Eternatus than Rose's plan for the mandatory "legendary plot". I think it would've benefitted Sonia's arc to have someone actively challenging her especially since she is known to be prone to quitting. Enough pressure from them would make her want to quite but then find the resolve to keep going. Not to mention if you were to expand the plot to be the main goal, the idea of the twins awakening Eternatus to prove they were the legit heroes makes a lot of sense

I mean there are some obvious plot holes with the royal twins, namely being the fact that for supposed celebrities no one knew who they were. Also the whole coverup portion of the darkest day history wasn't really explained. Like why did someone cover up the mural? Why did one of the tapestries end up at bob's your uncle. Who came up with the 1 hero instead of 2 heroes? Why conceal the existence of the wolves?

A lot of that could've been explained but it wasn't. That being said, I think the basic framework of two pompous villains rewriting history to keep their status is a more entertaining plot than Rose trying to save the region he claims to love by restarting the region's apocalypse.

 

[Reinhardt]

Not to mention if you were to expand the plot to be the main goal, the idea of the twins awakening Eternatus to prove they were the legit heroes makes a lot of sense

I'd say this would've been a much better villain plot for the main story, have Sordward and Shielbert be the leaders of their own version exclusive evil teams like Maxie and Archie, and their goal is to awaken and beat Eternatus (having the hubris to think they actually can defeat a Legendary) so they can be hailed as heroes, but then when it comes to actually facing Eternatus they get absolutely wrecked, so it's up to you to find the Legendary Puppers and save the Galar Region from apocalypse.

This also allows for more exploration of Eternatus and where it came from. Because Eternatus kind of looks like a scrapped early concept design for an Ultra Beast, you could throw in a section of the Darkest Day legend that goes like "The great dragon came to our world from a hole in the sky, as if it were ripped open" alluding to an Ultra Wormhole, and you can have a storyline in the post game similar to (or perhaps instead of?) the Ultra Beast mission in the Crown Tundra, where you find out that Eternatus came from Necrozma's world. Perhaps even have a boss fight against Necrozma like in the Crown Tundra.

I mean there are some obvious plot holes with the royal twins, namely being the fact that for supposed celebrities no one knew who they were. Also the whole coverup portion of the darkest day history wasn't really explained. Like why did someone cover up the mural? Why did one of the tapestries end up at bob's your uncle. Who came up with the 1 hero instead of 2 heroes? Why conceal the existence of the wolves?

It perhaps could've worked better if the Puppers were well-known folk heroes in the Galar region from the start, a legend passed down to each generation like King Arthur or St. George and the Dragon, instead of the mysterious, obscure myth that you have to piece together that they're presented as in the game. Or if it's made clearer in the story that lots of people in Galar heard of the Puppers defeating Eternatus and they're held in high regard because of it.