The Bad Get Polling!
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Bad Get Polling! |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 15:22
Profile
Homepage
What makes Stalker so evil? You guys think a good villain is someone who can also be considered good... this baffles me. Shouldn't the best villain be an actual villain? Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is Stalker just isn't villainy enough. Sure you sympathize with him, but that's what makes him a crappy villain. A villain should invoke hatred, no? [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 15:26: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 16:18
Profile
I disagree completely. There are many different kinds of villains out there. Some are greedy, evil, insane, etc. There are others who have an agenda who believe they are doing right even though they are causing harm to the protagonist. Being evil is in no way a requirement to be a villain in a story. When a villain can be sympathized with, it makes him/her more human and it can make the player think, "yeah in his/her situation, I might do the same thing". Not that this is essential, but it helps this type of villain. Other types of villains such as those mentioned above are helped by other things depending on their situation and motivation. Perhaps antagonist for Jaen or Stalker is a better word, but either way we are splitting hairs. [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 16:20: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 16:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:How can the person be called a villain if you think this? Are there any requirements for being a villain at all for you guys? I am begining to think the Silent Assasin is right... clearly Ghandi must be a villain as well. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 17:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:Characters ought to resemble real people. Real people act according to motivations which can be understood. (Even delusional people have motivations which can be understood, albeit only with knowledge of their delusions.) A person with motivations which can be understood is a person who can be sympathised with. As for Gandhi being a villain: Why not? Nathuram Godse obviously thought he was, and he had understandable reasons for thinking that. (Whether they were sufficiently good reasons to justify killing him is a matter of opinion -- Godse still has supporters today.) An antagonist isn't necessarily a bad person, just a person who opposes the goals of the protagonist (who is, in turn, not necessarily a good person). [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 17:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 17:25
Profile
Homepage
We're not voting for the best antagonist here. We are voting for best villain. There is a difference. Stalker, if you can even call him a villain, is a poor example of one. Who cares if he has character, that doesn't make him a good villain. He is rather pathetic: I don't fear him, I don't hate him, I feel sorry for him. What kind of villain is so bad at what he does that you feel sorry for him? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 6009
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 17:42
Profile
quote:It really depends on the definition you use for villain - one of the definitions, and the interpretation that a lot of people are using in this case, is "A dramatic or fictional character who is typically at odds with the hero." This is no different from an antagonist - and the most interesting antagonists are generally the ones that have real motivations and aren't just plot devices. Posts: 18 | Registered: Friday, June 24 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 17:55
Profile
Homepage
How hard did you have to look to find that definition? I guarantee that 90% of the definitions out there have the words evil or wicked in it. It makes me so angry that you are all attempting to make yourselves look deep by picking the character that can be sympathized with. It just doesn't work that way. Your supposed to hate a good villain, not agree with him. Your supposed to fear him, not feel bad when you bathe the people he was tying to save in his blood. Good villains: Palpatine from Starwars, The Master from Fallout, Arthas from Warcraft. Good antagonists: Vader from Starwars, Salieri from Amadeus, Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. I wouldn't oppose to Stalker winning an antagonist poll, but this should be the thread all about the guys who sit in their towers cackling and ordering innocent children to be slaughtered! Edit: Had to get Kelandon's quote right. [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 18:01: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 18:56
Profile
Homepage
Whoa! It's just a game poll! No need to get so worked up about it. Furthermore, it's only opinion. We are just as entitled to our opinions about what makes a good villian as you are to yours. There's enough pieces of work featuring various "villians" available to accomodate everyone's definitions. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 19:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:It sounds as though you're talking about heroic fantasy, something vaguely akin to Lord of the Rings (although Sauron has his own subtle motivations, lust for power and the like, but that's neither here nor there). I'm not sure that anyone in any Blades scenario (E or A) has pulled off a good Sauron-style villain. In a completely different point: by your definition, Stalker isn't a villain. However, he's included in the poll as a villain. The poll can't be wrong about what it means by a villain. Therefore, your definition isn't applicable to the poll. Thus, the relevant definition for the poll must be "antagonist." :P [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 21:53: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 20:49
Profile
Homepage
Whoah... didn't expect something like this to draw so much anger. Sure, BoA doesn't have many "twirling the curly evil mustache as the attractive woman is tied to the train tracks"-style villains. That's probably a good thing, really. Heck, if that's the villain you want, then Kharprev from DoK wins, hands-down. :P -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 6009
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 20:49
Profile
quote:Not very hard - its one of the definitions on a dictionary.com search. Not to mention that it isn't the number of definitions with a certain meaning that matter; any meaning of a word can be used in an interpretation. What gives you the right to judge which interpretation is the right one? Posts: 18 | Registered: Friday, June 24 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 21:48
Profile
My dear Emperor. As a villian I must take exception to your rather narrow view. Many of my fine villanous brethren would be excluded from our ranks if you had your way. You speak as if you command legion and your opinion is law. Are you, too, a villain? Should you not be defending our rights? Didn't you get the memo about the TPS reports? We need to continue expanding our bases, elsewise how could they become owned? You must know by now that your membership is being reviewed. Good Day, Sir. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:14
Profile
Homepage
Here is my definition of a villain, I'll even exclude the word 'evil.' A villain is: someone who is willing to harm innocents to advance their own agenda. Any objections? Everyone in the poll (that I am familiar with), and every villain from any other medium I can think of fits this description. Stalker fits this description for his destruction of that one city in A Small Rebellion. Stalker destroys one city, showing he is willing to murder to advance his agenda. His agenda is to save the innocent population, which he is in turn harming. This make him both a crappy villain and a crappy hero. You guys seem to judge a villain by 'how many redeeming qualities does this person have?' I, on the other hand, judge a villain by 'how far is this person willing to go to push their agenda?' Your standards seriously dumbfound me. Why would you judge a villain by how human they are? The best villains are those that abandon their humanity. Thuryl says villains should be like real people. This made me think: who is the greatest real-life villain ever to live? I say Hitler, any objections? What were Hitler's ways? Hate, hate, kill, kill, destroy, destroy. That's what a real-life villain does. Who does that sound the most like? Rentar! Only, Rentar has redeeming qualities, you feel sorry for her in the end (something you guys like in a villain). Why then is Rentar not your favorite villain, instead of this puny, rogue hero-wannabe? I just don't understand. If I seem like I am overreacting, it is because I take villains very seriously. Does that make me one of them? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ehhhh. If you mean "greatness" in terms of the sheer scale of harm caused, maybe. But as a character in a story? Not so interesting. Hitler's story is the story of countless tyrants throughout history. The only reason he's such a big figure in pop culture (historical novels, war movies, etc.) is because he's a relatively recent part of history. There's a reason there are more popular novels and movies about Alexander the Great than about Genghis Khan; the former was just more interesting as a person. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:27
Profile
No, you aren't over-reacting. You're just being silly. Hilter was a power hungry schemer that used people's fears as a tool to ultimate power. The vacuum he created served as the catalyst for much we know about him, and for many of the actions which were taken in his name. Rentar is basically an unknown commodity. We meet her in E2, she gives us quickfire. All we know at this stage is that she is uber mage for that tribe of the vahnatai, and she appears to have a chip on her shoulder. How she was portrayed in UV, or why she was chosen as villain, is most likely an error. Some of your rhetoric is admirable, since it helps drown out rational thought, but this bit quote:makes my skin peel. Pol Pot Joseph Stalin Attila and kin various Chinese leaders whom I'm not priveleged enough to know various RCC overlords and their Inquisitors Union Carbide My point is that there are plenty of "real-life and have lived" villains. Hell, you can probably find one in your own school. The point about BoA/E is that the player (you) will react with the scenario is a certain way. Each player will react differently. Some people (gasp!!!) try to kill every creature in every town. Does that make them the villain? Or would the local militia be the villains? Meh, never mind. It's time to go check the statistics anyways. Aran should be done mincing words by now. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:39
Profile
Homepage
I can't believe you both picked the Hitler point to disagree with, it was by far the least important point I was trying to make. If it pleases you, fill in the blank with any villain you desire, and my other points will remain intact. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:42
Profile
quote:I took out the parts that confused you. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:You asked for objections. We gave you objections. Next time, don't ask. [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 23:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 22:55
Profile
Homepage
Very funny. This part still confuses me, however: quote:What exactly are you trying to prove here? Are we no longer discussing the villains from the poll? Thuryl: Yes, and I responded to your objections... did you have something relevant to say? An objection to another point, perhaps? I asked multiple times, and I will continue to do so. [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 22:58: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ] -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 23:05
Profile
Homepage
I think my main point still stands: the player should be able to relate to the villain as a person, not just as a villain. How did the villain feel about his or her parents, are they still alive, and if so what do they think of the villain's actions? Is the villain married? If so, does the villain have children, and how were they raised? If not, why not? Understanding a villain's acts and motivations requires understanding the villain as a whole person, and mundane concerns like these are what real people spend a great deal of their time on. This is one of my main problems not just with Rentar-Ihrno but with the Vahnatai in general: we never really learn anything about their system of family and community, apart from the fact that children are rare among them and that every so often they all go into a long hibernation at once. We don't really get to see how the social issues that their biology and lifestyle present shape their culture. If you're not going to use a non-human species to deal with issues like that, I don't see the point of including them at all instead of just making them another human culture. Most of the time, using non-human psychology to justify actions that would be unreasonable for a human is just an excuse for bad writing. [ Wednesday, October 18, 2006 23:06: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Wednesday, October 18 2006 23:20
Profile
Homepage
Who are you, Sigmund Freud? I'm sorry, I just don't see the point in knowing the entire background of the villain. Knowing their motivats is important, but why does it have to go so much farther? I think if you humanize the villain too much they lose their... villainyness, which was the problem with Stalker. It never hurts to have an air of mystery about them. People say the Darkside Loyalists are better than Rentar, but we know next to nothing about them. I have given many examples over the course of the thread of my ideal villain, care to give me a few of yours? I mean examples that fit your description. Stalker certainly doesn't, unless I missed the part where he goes into great detail about his family background. As for Rentar, you know the most important things about her, her reverence for her ancestors. Her ancestors were violated, her people didn't back her up, what more do you need to know? Why are those feelings so alien to you? -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 00:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:Why have a human villain if you're not going to humanise him? If your plot requires the party to face a threat that isn't a person, make it a natural disaster or, if you must, a mindless monster. Don't make it a person and then pretend it isn't. quote:I didn't vote in this poll because I don't think any of the villains on it are particularly good examples. If I may use a literary example, how about Ivan Karamazov? A villain doesn't absolutely need a family, but he ought to have some kind of life outside of villainy. He could at least have a hobby or something. quote:That there is a "most important thing about her" is one of my problems with her as a character. Real people aren't defined by one quality. quote:Precisely. Her motives aren't alien -- so why make her non-human at all? Non-human civilisations are one of my pet peeves in fantasy; most of the time they seem to be included for no good narrative reason. If a character's motivations are human enough for it to be a human, make it human. If not, it's probably not a compelling character anyway, unless you're a brilliant enough writer to convincingly characterise an entire species and the individuals within it (hint: Jeff isn't). Y'know, a lot of my problems with Avernum 4 would be solved if Rentar had been the protagonist and her perspective had been used to properly flesh out the Vahnatai lifestyle and culture. Having a protagonist who's actually a character instead of a faceless cipher for the player also allows the creation of a better antagonist, since interaction between the protagonist and antagonist helps to characterise them both. Plus, then the story would have ended with the protagonist's defeat, and every story is better if you make it into a tragedy. (Besides, that way whether Rentar lives to stand trial for her actions or dies at the hands of the party is decided by Rentar herself -- isn't it infinitely more dignified for Rentar to choose her own fate rather than being shepherded into a particular decision by the whims of a random pack of nameless adventurers?) [ Thursday, October 19, 2006 02:14: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 06:29
Profile
Whether villain or antagonist, it's a fine and ultimately superficial point. I personally interpret villain more as you consider antagonist, but we are each free to have our own interpretation. As for a villain that I consider a good villain, after a few minutes of thinking, The villain from the movie Unbreakable comes to mind. ************************** SPOILERS BELOW *************************** He was definitely evil and insane, but had a well developed character: a lonely comic book store owner with a debilitating bone disease. In an effort to give his life purpose and prove his bizarre theories about the world, he committed terrorist-like acts against innocents. It was through these that he found the hero/protagonist, his "opposite". This proved his idea that superheros in comic books are manifestations of real humans in the past that exist today. ************************** END SPOILERS ************************** Now we cannot excuse his actions. However, we can sympathize with his plight. He has an outside life, interests, hobbies in addition to the twisted acts of villainery that he did. In no way is he the best villain out there, but he is one that I feel was fleshed out quite well. You can't like him, but you can at least understand, in part, what drove his actions. [ Thursday, October 19, 2006 07:18: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 06:59
Profile
Homepage
Thuryl: I still think that abandoning ones humanity can make them bizarre and frightening, which makes for a good villain. This is what made such great villains out of Hitler, Attila, Ghengis, take your pick. You can still have a developed character and be a cold blooded killed at the same time. My argument is that I don't think you can be sympathized with a be a good villain at the same time. The point where your evil actions outweigh your good intentions is when the line is crossed into villainhood, and I think that Stalker failed to cross that line sufficiently. You say a good protagonist would have made Rentar more interesting. What about Erika? You even had the pleasure of watching the two of them duke it out. Or Bon-Ihrno, who tried to explain Vahnatai culture to you as best he could? I think you underestimate the Vahnatai as characters. As for your point on non-human characters. I’m afraid I don’t know where you are going with this. Do you seriously think being a vahnatai makes Rentar less interesting? I just don't get that. How can you not like non-human characters in fantasy? I can't help but think they tend to play a major role in just about any really good fantasy out there. They provide not only a window into a bestial word, which humans find unsettling, but they can also force you to see humanity in other things. I don’t understand why you think this is a flaw, rather than a great plot enhancer. In conclusion, I assumed you voted for Stalker. Since you didn't, I really don't know why we're arguing anymore. Do you think he was a good villain or not? *i: Great villain example, it fits my description well. However, I think revealing that he is a villain was in itself a spoiler. -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Thursday, October 19 2006 07:18
Profile
If you look at the DVD box and read the back, it is not too hard to infer. But either way, I'll make it more ambiguous. quote:That is a matter of opinion. I still consider Stalker a villain if you agree with the Empire side. If you agree with the rebels, Volpe and his enforcer Jaen are the villains. From either perspective, one can view the other's acts as evil and wrong. The villain of a game need not be a static thing. [ Thursday, October 19, 2006 07:23: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |