My Hot Take on Sympathetic Villains

[TASTYLEADPAINT]

Am writing my main character as an extreme fascist that commit eugenics, genocide, and ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. I gotta say, it was fun writing it. Geneva Convention is a Geneva Suggestion.

This. War crimes are fun. Everyone should try them

 

[Representing_Tromba]

This may be controversial, but I will air my opinion nonetheless. As someone who was on the sympathetic villain bandwagon, I can testify to the fact that I thought they were cool. I am a big fan of character depth, so I thought making villains complex was something to be admired, but I've realized that complexity doesn't necessarily equate to good writing. What am I trying to say? Sympathetic villains are a double-edged sword, and the reason for this is simple. They can only be so sympathetic until readers start wondering, 'Why are they the villains again?' And when this happens, I would go as far as to say that they aren't villains anymore. It would be better to call them antagonists. Why? Because fundamentally, a villain is a character that you root against. You may like them or think they are interesting, but you don't want to see them win in the end. So when a writer evokes that reaction from their audience, they have succeeded in creating a villain.

Some of you may think this is a wild claim, and not all stories stick to tradition like this. Sometimes, the protagonist is the villain, and the antagonist is the hero. Take Light from Death Note, for example. I don't know how it was for you, but I sure as hell didn't want him to win. I wanted L to kick his ass, but unfortunately... we all know what happened to L

In conclusion, we root for a hero and root against a villain. The moment you start to make your audience feel bad for your villain, they stop being villains. I rest my case.

Heroes and villains are kind of two sides to the same coin. Both the hero and the villain believe that they are right and the hero of their own story. Making a villain sympathetic isn't supposed to be a pity party that justifies their actions. It's supposed to make them relatable to the point of understanding their motives. The former is just poor writing with the exception of protagonist villains and anti-heroes. Villains are the antagonists for a reason and making them sympathetic does not justify what they've done but instead, should explain to the reader (and possibly the characters) what motives and experiences made them choose their path.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

Am writing my main character as an extreme fascist that commit eugenics, genocide, and ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. I gotta say, it was fun writing it. Geneva Convention is a Geneva Suggestion.

I thought it was a bucket list!


Speaking of the topic, The Ancestor of Our Sect isn't Acting Like an Elder, the most underrated xianxia I know, has sympathetic villains but it doesn't make them likeable or not villains.

 

[Kureous]

Sympathetic villains are made to contrast the hero's journey and roadblock their progress, creating the problem where sometimes you can't force everyone to your will. There will be someone who will oppose your journey, whether they are good or not, mainly they are just someone who don't like your opinion. Whether they are right or wrong, you can see that they are just like living beings, forced into a path they don't like but for the sake of their happiness, they will oppose the other, even if it means death for them.

Not everyone is equal, the world is unfair to them, they suffer grief unlike others who can cope. Plus, one can understand that they aren't made protagonist, mainly because you only see it from the main perspective(I.E. The protagonist view) which the author can designate them to be either good or evil.

TL;DR: The author decides their lives because they are gods. Even if the villain is the kindness man you know, if the author decides he is a villain, he will be a villain.

You are unknowingly agreeing with me here. 'There will be someone who will oppose your journey' is another way of saying antagonist. After all, an antagonist is an opponent, nothing more, nothing less. I am not hating sympathetic villains or saying they can't be done right. Heck, my antagonists fall into this category more often than not, but I am saying that I've rediscovered what it means to be a villain.

A villain is someone you, as a reader, root against. You may like them or find them interesting, but you don't want them to win. When you're more busy feeling bad for them than rooting against them, they are not villains anymore. At that point, 'antagonist' is a better term that can be used to describe them. They are simply characters with their own beliefs and motives opposing the hero on their journey.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

The most common example is fantasy worlds where all humans are racist for no reason

It usually makes sense to me. Medieval settings => competition for limited resources, most notably, land => collision of interests of races => general dislike among those who are humans to those who are not (and vice versa) + politically charged propaganda.

but then the main characters are even more racist against humans and the author pretends that it doesn't count because they are the 'good guys'

Main character is not human +main character fights against humans (racial competitors) for resources + main character wins => main character is a war hero => main character is "the good guy"

It's like the nazis. It wasn't like the allies were nice either, but they are now "the good guys" (I do not support the nazi ideology)

Or people hating on the DPRK for no real reason (as most information you have on them is more likely to be either blown out of proportion or outright fabricated) when they are the victim party. Yet they are "the bad guy" whatever awful shit is done to them by the West doesn't count.

 

[Bartun]

Well, I'm planning to write my main villain as despicable as possible, so no sympathy for him.

 

[forli]

It usually makes sense to me. Medieval settings => competition for limited resources, most notably, land => collision of interests of races => general dislike among those who are humans to those who are not (and vice versa) + politically charged propaganda.

That doesn't even resemble the way that racism is portrayed in most web novels. Humans are never given a good reason to be racist, the author just says that they are evil and leaves it at that.

Main character is not human +main character fights against humans (racial competitors) for resources + main character wins => main character is a war hero => main character is "the good guy"

It's one thing to have the people on the MC's side think that they are a hero while making it clear that the reality of the situation is morally ambiguous at best, but almost no web novel ever does that.

What you usually see is the non-human MCs being portrayed as flawless mary-sues for doing things that would never be tolerated from a human MC, all in service of some pathetic power fantasy.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

That doesn't even resemble the way that racism is portrayed in most web novels. Humans are never given a good reason to be racist, the author just says that they are evil and leaves it at that.

It's one thing to have the people on the MC's side think that they are a hero while making it clear that the reality of the situation is morally ambiguous at best, but almost no web novel ever does that.

What you usually see is the non-human MCs being portrayed as flawless mary-sues for doing things that would never be tolerated from a human MC, all in service of some pathetic power fantasy.

Bruh, not again. Chill, relax.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Bruh, not again. Chill, relax.

They can't get that one novel out of their head. It is like war flashbacks.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

That doesn't even resemble the way that racism is portrayed in most web novels. Humans are never given a good reason to be racist, the author just says that they are evil and leaves it at that.

It's one thing to have the people on the MC's side think that they are a hero while making it clear that the reality of the situation is morally ambiguous at best, but almost no web novel ever does that.

neither has to be said outright. You might as well expect the author to include all the legislative documents of their fictional kingdoms.
Or the physical rules of alternative realities. Or whatever else that is always implied but never written out.
I have seen writers type plainly how sides of a war are victims of propaganda but it usually ends up condescending and awkward and even hypocrytical. It is more of a sign of bad writing than anything.

What you usually see is the non-human MCs being portrayed as flawless mary-sues for doing things that would never be tolerated from a human MC, all in service of some pathetic power fantasy.

The story is ultimately seen from the main character's perspective. I don't know about others but I generally do not condemn myself for any decisions I make because they might contradict the moral rules of other people.

 

[Cipiteca396]

Hm. This topic is starting to look like a valid addition to the bingo board.

As for your 'hot take' on the subject... It's kinda wrong. You can sympathize with a villain and still recognize that they're a villain.

In Overwatch 2, they added a new omnic 'hero' recently called Rammatra. He's polite, grew up in a monastery as the child hood friend of one of the nicest healers around, has witty banter with other heroes, and is the leader of a terrorist organization that violently opposes humanity.

Or that's the gist of it, I didn't actually read the backstory. I just got that from dialogue in game.

See, he has good reasons to hate humans, he's charismatic, and so on and so forth. But that doesn't suddenly stop him from being a villain. A sympathetic villain is still a villain no matter how much you like him or feel bad for him, because he tries to hurt innocent people. You can understand him, but that doesn't mean his actions are correct.

---

They can only be so sympathetic until readers start wondering, 'Why are they the villains again?' And when this happens, I would go as far as to say that they aren't villains anymore. It would be better to call them antagonists.

It seems like you've tunneled in on a certain possibility- the 'designated villain'. A character who is so sympathetic that you start to think, "Hey, is this guy really a villain at all?" You've taken this trope (which is considered bad writing, by the way) and given it the wrong name by mistake.

A designated villain and a sympathetic villain can NEVER be the same thing. Because ultimately, a sympathetic villain must actually, truly be a villain to fit the definition; and a designated villain is only a villain in name or because the author said so.

In a way you're right. It's just that you're trying to tie a correct opinion (designated villains are not villains) to an incorrect statement (sympathetic villains are not villains).

 

[Civilian]

It's pretty situational imo, some stories need them others definitely not. Take the new peter pan movie where they tried to make captain hook a "sympathetic villain" but all they did was make the hero (peter pan) look like an ass. Just a misunderstood villain because a bad guy being a bad guy apparently means you are a bad writer nowadays.
On the other hand if the villain is evil just because idk, someone stepped on their yeezys or something then that could make for a fun comedy, but not for a villain you wanna take seriously. (I believe it could still work somehow tho. Free idea for a villain's origin? )