Monday, 2 November 2009

Villainy - the depths of depravity and beyond.

In my last post I examined my personal beliefs about heroism, and what it means to be a hero. This post is about the complementary subject - villainy.

Firstly, I will say that I believe that there is a fundamental difference between villainy and evil. To me, evil is the belief that one can impose ones thoughts and feelings on others, and that one has the right to do so. Evil has no regard for the feelings of others, because to the evil being, other people are not important. On the other hand, villainy is simply the conscious choice to act out of selfishness. It accepts that the feelings of others exist and are important to them, and then does something potentially hurtful anyway. Not usually because the villain believes he has the right to do it, but because he has a need to do it, because some external force is bearing upon him.

Taking a quick look at some iconic villains, then:

Lex Luthor. Lex is, to my mind, actually evil. He may not be casually cruel, but he certainly feels that he has the right to do anything he pleases. His own cunning allows him to temper his activities in such a way that it is not obvious to the world at large, but his core drive has no sympathy for the plight of other people.

Darth Vader: Okay, not a villain in the superhero sense, but a totally iconic villain nonetheless. The important thing to note about Vader is that he changes. I'm going to ignore The Phantom Menace, because he's too young to actually make reasoned choices, but in Attack of the Clones, Anakin Skywalker is clearly a hero. However, in Revenge of the Sith he rapidly shifts to villainy as a result of his fears of the future, and leaps to evil later on in the same film when Palpatine manages to convince him that taking iron control of his future is the right thing to do. While I think that it was done too quickly, it was actually an interesting visualisation of the fall from grace.

Catwoman. Not sure why I'm pulling DC villains out for this, other than that my exposure to DC was a lot higher than to Marvel when I was younger, because, frankly Batman is COOL. Anyway, Catwoman is a villain. She's a crook, a thief, not out to rule the world, just out for what she can get. She doesn't try to impose herself on other people except to get things she wants.

And, just for completionism, a look at my own villain from City of Heroes (well, City of Villains) - Psychonova. He's evil. I'm really not sure that I can go into all of the reasons why, but he is. He was meant to be, and continues to be, a truly despicable person, without any care or regard for the thoughts of feelings of others. Out for what he wants, and willing to do anything to get it. He's pretty much textbook evil, as far as I'm concerned.

The themes prevalent in those who are truly evil become obvious - some event or knowledge convinces the evil person that they have the one true vision of the way the world should be. Conversely, a villain is usually driven to their actions by some outside force or impulse. While it is possible for a villain to descend into evil, it is quite rare for someone who is evil to then ascend back. But it does happen. Darth Vader is a good case-in-point of this, with his redemption at the hands of his son. One thing that I'm not sure I've ever actually witnessed, though, is an evil person changing to become merely a villain. They will usually jump straight back to good or heroic. The change of heart that makes someone recognise the rights and values of others tends to blot out any prospect of villainy.

I can't take the time to discuss the myriad means by which a villain can descend to that level - might as well try to count the stars in the sky, because there are at least that many answers.

When it comes to roleplaying, then, it is always a good idea for the GM to know if the "bad guy" is villainous or evil, because the flavour of their activity will be coloured by it. A lot of modern comic books take the time to delve into the psyche of the antagonist, to explore what makes them the person that they are, and that is a good thing, since it allows us to explore the human phase-space of experience and events in a safe environment, but the thing that I personally enjoy is a well represented evil character. The Joker. Lex Luthor. Galactus. Megatron. Sometimes I like to hate the bad guy. It's why I made Psychonova as evil as he is - I get a lot of joy out of trouncing someone who is unequivocally evil, and offering that chance to my fellow RPers is part of the joy I take in running plots and GMing.

In conclusion: While similar, villainy and evilness are by no means the same thing. Evil may be a sub-set of villainy, but there are some clear distinctions and knowing the boundaries of each is worthwhile for anyone preparing to play a villain or an evil character. And, while it is a perfectly valid thing in this day and age of social awareness to ascribe motivations and reasoned actions to characters, to give them the chance at the sympathy vote from players, a GM should not be afraid to introduce a "bad guy" who is just plain EVIL. Being able to pound on someone because doing so is simply the right thing to do, without having to second-guess your actions, is one of the great pleasures in roleplaying, and it never hurts to let the players do it.

No comments:

Post a Comment