How evil should a super villain be?

[Gemini]

Annihilus is still the closest thing I've seen to pure unadulterated evil

He wanted to create a bomb by syphoning out the Power Cosmic from Galactus, to destroy the universe, and the Negative Zone so he can be the sole survivor

and he only wanted to do so because of his obsession with survival, with everyone dead there would be noone left to kill him so he can live forever

either him or Quan Chi
[youtube]sqj3PONev5Q[/youtube]
poor Baraka

 

[McCheese]

No, I think some people are Evil exactly for Evil's sake. Because they believe that evil will lead to power. Its the whole concept "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven".

I'm not saying it should be used every day, but I disagree that it can't ever work well in a story.

Evil for evil's sake would be if your only reward is evilness. If you do it for power than you've made a tangible gain. If you get to rule in hell than your gain is the ability to rule, not the ability to be evil.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think that anyone should acknowledge evil as their primary motivation. At least not any human characters.

My stance on Palpatine is that he is amoral and greedy and wants as much power as he can grab, and he thinks that the easiest way to do this is to use the "Dark Side of the Force", which is fueled by hatred.

Basically, he thinks hate is the most powerful force in the universe and thus enjoys using it, but not because he gets pleasure from hate. He gets pleasure from ascending power.

I like power as a motivation, but receiving power through hate is a little hackneyed for my tastes. Palpatine's whole act is way over the top "Look at me! I'm evil!" silliness and I can't take him seriously as a villain.

 

[The Overlord]

The Devil as a corrupting force works because he is not human and therefore lacks the human capacity to choose between right and wrong himself. He is an elemental force with no needs or desires of his own. He is evil incarnate, not an evil guy.

Palpatine is just a dude. He doesn't lack any human capacities. He is not evil incarnate. He's a greedy guy who wanted control of the universe. The "Come to the Dark Side." crap is cheesy and overplayed. Who the **** would call their side dark? With the Jedi dead he could have renamed it the Sunny Rainbow Side if he wanted and no one would have known or cared. Only someone who recognizes that what they're doing is wrong and in direct opposition to good would choose to act the way he does. He lacks basic character fundamentals that make characters believable and engaging. No one is evil for evil's sake.

There's a difference between saying you are evil and acting evil. No one should say they are evil, but some villains should be pure evil in their actions. This is why groups like the masters of Evil are being fazed out.

Bullseye has never said he was evil, but all of his actions prove he is a supremely evil person, he could have made money legitimately as a baseball pitcher, he is an assassin because he is a sadistic psychopath with a god complex. There is nothing good you can say about him, he is more or less pure evil, with no positive quality traits.


Its true in real life, some people like Ted Bundy may not have said they are evil, but their actions reveal a truly evil nature.

A truly evil character shouldn't say they are evil, but they should do cruel and sadistic things for petty and illogical reasons.They are evil for evil's sake because they get psychological pleasure from promoting suffering and there have people that twisted in real life.

 

[McCheese]

There's a difference between saying you are evil and acting evil. No one should say they are evil, but some villains should be pure evil in their actions. This is why groups like the masters of Evil are being fazed out.

Bullseye has never said he was evil, but all of his actions prove he is a supremely evil person, he could have made money legitimately as a baseball pitcher, he is an assassin because he is a sadistic psychopath with a god complex. There is nothing good you can say about him, he is more or less pure evil, with no positive quality traits.


Its true in real life, some people like Ted Bundy may not have said they are evil, but their actions reveal a truly evil nature.

A truly evil character shouldn't say they are evil, but they should do cruel and sadistic things for petty and illogical reasons.They are evil for evil's sake because they get psychological pleasure from promoting suffering and there have people that twisted in real life.

Again, if you gain something (even something like psychological pleasure in Bullseye's case) than you aren't committing evil for evil's sake. You're doing it to gain something.

Everything that anyone has ever done has had a purpose. Ted Bundy killed people to gain some kind of psychological satisfaction. Bullseye kills to support his God complex. There's always a reason and that reason should never be "Because it's evil." because evil has no payoff in and of itself. But committing evil acts to get something else is a perfectly viable motivation.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I think all villains should live in a rock fortress surrounded by molten lava, have useless underlings, and laugh all the time.

80's rocked for me.

 

[ultimatedjf]

Dr. Doom ain't evil.

 

[E]

Great thread, and great responses.

 

[The Overlord]

Again, if you gain something (even something like psychological pleasure in Bullseye's case) than you aren't committing evil for evil's sake. You're doing it to gain something.

Everything that anyone has ever done has had a purpose. Ted Bundy killed people to gain some kind of psychological satisfaction. Bullseye kills to support his God complex. There's always a reason and that reason should never be "Because it's evil." because evil has no payoff in and of itself. But committing evil acts to get something else is a perfectly viable motivation.

I would say committing evil acts because you get pleasure from them is the closest thing you can get to pure evil. Causing suffering isn't a means to an end for such people, suffering is the end they seek ultimately. That's what makes a villain truly evil, instead just being amoral.

Dr. Doom ain't evil.

That never happened, it was all a dream. A dream I say!

 

[Grocer Man]

Dr. Doom ain't evil.

Is that from the famous 9/11 issue?

"Hi kids, I'm crying about a terrible tragedy, even though my favorite plans involve shooting buildings into space, which is probably more painful."

Though I agree, Doom isn't exactly pure evil...I'm guessing Lawful Evil, speaking in D&D terms.

 

[moonmaster]

They should all rape everybody.

Dr. Doom ain't evil.

***** *** mother****er.

 

[McCheese]

I think all villains should live in a rock fortress surrounded by molten lava, have useless underlings, and laugh all the time.

:lol:

80's rocked for me.

Indeed. Truly it was the Golden Age of villainy clichés.

I would say committing evil acts because you get pleasure from them is the closest thing you can get to pure evil. Causing suffering isn't a means to an end for such people, suffering is the end they seek ultimately. That's what makes a villain truly evil, instead just being amoral.

I would agree that it's the closest thing to pure evil, but it's not quite the same. Pure evil has no motivation outside of the evil. People always have motivations, even if they're not conscious of it. Psychological motivations, like taking joy in other's suffering, do count and if done correctly those are the most compelling kind.

People can't be pure evil. Just like someone can't be pure greed or pure kindness for that matter. Humans can act evil, greedy, or kind, but they can't be those things because those are abstracts.

The Devil, evil spirits, or even the dark side can be "Pure Evil" because they are abstract concepts. But people who serve the Devil or the Dark Side cannot BE evil. They just commit evil because of the influence of these outside forces.

Great thread, and great responses.

I agree. We haven't had a serious comic debate thread since Women in Comics.

 

[Jaggyd]

I actually liked Dr Light being a rapist. I like the idea that there are horrid little bastards that have powers. I mean, according to the Dept of Justice, about 120,000 rapes occurred last year, so having supervillains populating the statistical grouping only makes common sense.

I have to agree that most of the time supervillains are either written as over the top queens (Sinestro, Doom, Joker) or complete and total incompetents.


One of my favorite villains in recent history was Black Mask. He was written as a highly intelligent, Machiavellian narcissist. As much as I hated Stephanie Brown dying, I feel that was the only part of it that was actually done well.


I'm personally tired of villains like Apocalypse, and film Luthor. Magneto tends to fall into this from time to time, with that hyperactive megalomania. You can't really take that **** seriously.

:lol:

Indeed. Truly it was the Golden Age of villainy clichés.

I would agree that it's the closest thing to pure evil, but it's not quite the same. Pure evil has no motivation outside of the evil. People always have motivations, even if they're not conscious of it. Psychological motivations, like taking joy in other's suffering, do count and if done correctly those are the most compelling kind.

People can't be pure evil. Just like someone can't be pure greed or pure kindness for that matter. Humans can act evil, greedy, or kind, but they can't be those things because those are abstracts.

The Devil, evil spirits, or even the dark side can be "Pure Evil" because they are abstract concepts. But people who serve the Devil or the Dark Side cannot BE evil. They just commit evil because of the influence of these outside forces.

I agree. We haven't had a serious comic debate thread since Women in Comics.

I so totally agree on all counts. Personally, I have difficulty in believing even Lucifer is truly evil. Depending on the mythology, his motivation was selfish yes, but far from evil.

 

[The Overlord]

:lol:

Indeed. Truly it was the Golden Age of villainy clichés.

I would agree that it's the closest thing to pure evil, but it's not quite the same. Pure evil has no motivation outside of the evil. People always have motivations, even if they're not conscious of it. Psychological motivations, like taking joy in other's suffering, do count and if done correctly those are the most compelling kind.

People can't be pure evil. Just like someone can't be pure greed or pure kindness for that matter. Humans can act evil, greedy, or kind, but they can't be those things because those are abstracts.

The Devil, evil spirits, or even the dark side can be "Pure Evil" because they are abstract concepts. But people who serve the Devil or the Dark Side cannot BE evil. They just commit evil because of the influence of these outside forces.

Well I'm "pure evil" in a abstract way, clearly no one can be "pure evil", just like no one can be pure good but one can be as evil as humanly possible.

If you are a sadistic psychopath without almost no positive qualities, you are as evil as human can get. That's the difference between a character I would consider evil vs. a character is merely amoral to point they commit evil acts to get their way, but don't take particular joy in committing the acts themselves.

I would say there three levels of villainy:

Characters who have noble ideals, but use evil acts to achieve them (Dr. Doom, Magento, etc).

Characters who are amoral to the point they use evil acts as a means to end and don't care who gets hurt along the way, but everything they do is for a reason (Lex Luthor, Kingpin, many of the thug villains).

Finally characters who are sadistic psychopaths who commit very evil acts, often for reasons that are extremely petty or just out and out illogical (Joker, Red Skull, Bullseye, etc)

I actually liked Dr Light being a rapist. I like the idea that there are horrid little bastards that have powers. I mean, according to the Dept of Justice, about 120,000 rapes occurred last year, so having supervillains populating the statistical grouping only makes common sense.

I have to agree that most of the time supervillains are either written as over the top queens (Sinestro, Doom, Joker) or complete and total incompetents.


One of my favorite villains in recent history was Black Mask. He was written as a highly intelligent, Machiavellian narcissist. As much as I hated Stephanie Brown dying, I feel that was the only part of it that was actually done well.
.

See the problem I had with Dr. Light being a rapist, is that it seemed out of the blue. Compare that to Purple Man who was always a sleazy villain (he kidnapped Karen Page in his first appearance and took her to a hotel room, he once force one his mind slaves to marry him, etc) so imaging him as rapist isn't far off. Dr. Light was always portrayed as either a bumbling joke villain or a mad scientist, him going from that to a rapist, doesn't jive, it lacks build up.

Plus you have to deal with these characters in context. Dr.Light fights the JLA, who fight off the wall villains, conquerors and space aliens, so them fighting a rapist is a bit jarring. Purple man fights urban heroes like Daredevil and Luke Cage, who fight gangsters and serial killers, so him being a rapist works in that context. He dressed up like a light bulb and rapes people? It would be like Barracuda showing up in an FF arc, that would just be weird.

Past characterization should determine how evil a villain should be. I heard people had problems with Puppet Master being the head of sex slave ring in a recent issue of Ms. Marvel, because he was never that evil in the past, in his own way he aslways tried to look out for his step daughter for example. Now if a psychopathic creep like the Controller was the head of a
sex slave ring, i doubt anyone would have batted an eye.

 

[McCheese]

I actually liked Dr Light being a rapist. I like the idea that there are horrid little bastards that have powers. I mean, according to the Dept of Justice, about 120,000 rapes occurred last year, so having supervillains populating the statistical grouping only makes common sense.

Considering the psychological make up of your average supervillain there should realistically be a lot more of them. But I'd rather not read too many of those stories, so I'm ok with it just being the occasional superpowered scumbag.

I have to agree that most of the time supervillains are either written as over the top queens (Sinestro, Doom, Joker) or complete and total incompetents.


One of my favorite villains in recent history was Black Mask. He was written as a highly intelligent, Machiavellian narcissist. As much as I hated Stephanie Brown dying, I feel that was the only part of it that was actually done well.


I'm personally tired of villains like Apocalypse, and film Luthor. Magneto tends to fall into this from time to time, with that hyperactive megalomania. You can't really take that **** seriously.

Good villains are hard to come by.

I so totally agree on all counts.

Why thank you.

Personally, I have difficulty in believing even Lucifer is truly evil. Depending on the mythology, his motivation was selfish yes, but far from evil.

Agreed, but that's a separate discussion. I was using him as an example because of his common depiction as such.

 

[Gothamite]

a) Think they're doing good in some big-picture, ends-justifying-means way(Magneto, Ra's Al Ghul, Lex Luthor outside of the movies, etc),

I can't stand Lex Luthor trying to 'save humanity from Superman'. The villain's primary motivation for his evil acts shouldn't just be the hero's goodness conflicting with the villain's ego. I like the Lex of the 80's who was evil and had evil plans and plots in the world of business long before he ever heard of Superman or Krypton or anything of the sort.

That's another reason I don't like Birthright's Lex.

Even my favourite villain, the Joker, often gets thrown into the "evil for the sake of evil" category, but from his perspective, the concepts of good and evil are just a big joke. It doesn't matter.

I have a similar problem sometimes with the Joker. Maybe some people might disagree, but I don't think that the Joker should be someone who would cease to exist if Batman ever stood down. It just doesn't make sense that Batman would continue fighting crime when he could spare all the lives the Joker takes (which arguably outnumbers the amount of lives taken in random street crimes that Batman foils) by stepping down and ending the Joker's bizarre obsession.

I believe that the Joker should exist as a truly insane villain and not an "super-conscious, ultra-intelligent" villain who only exists because he finds Batman so interesting. The Joker's interest in Batman should only be a sidepoint in his character.

What I hate is stuff like Superman Returns' Lex, who claims to want power, but then also relishes in the death of "billions" for no established reason. It's just quick-fix villainy. Boring in a character that big.

I actually liked this, because it establishes Lex as a character filled with simple, raw, illogically pure evil, just as Superman is a man of absolute goodness. Superman was raised to love, whilst Luthor was raised to hate. It's supposed to be black and white.

 

[Random]

I actually liked this, because it establishes Lex as a character filled with simple, raw, illogically pure evil, just as Superman is a man of absolute goodness. Superman was raised to love, whilst Luthor was raised to hate. It's supposed to be black and white.

I think Lex should be a little more complex than just pure evil. He wishes for the advancement of the human race, why he went to the fortress of solitude to begin with, but the prospects of power and getting to a position to rule the world overides his concerns for human life.

 

[Gothamite]

I think Lex should be a little more complex than just pure evil. He wishes for the advancement of the human race, why he went to the fortress of solitude to begin with, but the prospects of power and getting to a position to rule the world overides his concerns for human life.

That's fairly standard evil, if you ask me. I do agree, though. I think that Lex Luthor's one weakness should always be his ego. Superman's selflessness is what allows him to win, time and time again, in spite of the man of steel not even approaching Luthor's staggering levels of intelligence.

 

[Zombipanda]

A villain should be as evil as he needs to be to complement his adversary, and this evil should always be seated in a virtue that parallels the hero they're facing, as a counterpoint to their adversary. That being said, I don't think there's really a foolproof way of measuring evil. Lex Luthor, if Superman weren't around, could presumably have been the man to usher in a Golden Age of humanity, but none of that matters. The good man is the one who acts with compassion and love, regardless of how his life plays out. Lex Luthor's compassion seems to run dry just as soon as he discovers someone who's greater than himself, and from there on, goals of compassion are always trumped by his vendetta against Superman. Kal, on the other hand, despite losing his planet, despite being raised on a new world full of weak men, and facing individuals who are willing to commit any sort of evil, still never loses his resolve to do good. Bruce Wayne is willing to give up a silver spoon life to fight the sort of evil he's come face to face with. He's a victim of circumstance who decides to fight a war he knows he'll never win. Monsters will continue to arise and victimize the innocent, no matter what Bruce does, but that doesn't prevent him from treating all men, including the monsters, with parity and compassion. He believes in the power of the human spirit to overcome, despite knowing that, to a great extent, all of us are completely at the mercy of our circumstances. The Joker isn't strong enough, and after seeing the futility of our ambitions in the face of the world, he cracks. Sinestro is the converse of this, believing the only way to exterminate evil is to limit the will of all people, so evil intent can never be fulfilled.

The only thing that needs to stay constant is the origin of the character's sin, the seed of virtue that blossoms into evil. The extent of the character's evil should fluctuate to provide a balanced counterpoint with that of the hero.

I think the only way we could even begin to measure evil is to judge the world in terms of agents of nothingness vs. agents of creation. True "evil" is the destruction of all things: life, love, thought, words, ideas. Norman Mailer posited the theory that the Devil and God reside in both of us, that there are rules to their game, and when we do great things, it is usually because both the God and the Devil are working through us, in tandem. When we are weak, it's because the force of one is attempting to stymie the intent of the other. It's the third force then, the absence of all things, that's the ultimate adversary.

 

[McCheese]

I actually liked this, because it establishes Lex as a character filled with simple, raw, illogically pure evil, just as Superman is a man of absolute goodness. Superman was raised to love, whilst Luthor was raised to hate. It's supposed to be black and white.

I could not disagree more. As I've already said, no one can be "pure evil" or "pure goodness". As human beings (or sentient and remarkably human looking aliens) we are all born with the innate capability to do both good and evil. Spider-Man is a great hero because he struggles with it. He wants to do selfish things like win money wrestling or take a night off from superheroing so he can get the girl, but he doesn't. That inner struggle is what makes him so easy for readers to identify with. It's what makes him a compelling character. One of the reasons I've never been able to stomach Superman is that there is no internal struggle. He is perfect in every conceivable way. He always does the right thing without a seconds hesitation.

The same thing works in reverse. Lex is evil because he just is sucks. But with Lex believing that he was the future of the world and having that future ripped from him by a ridiculous alien in spandex his actions become far more believable and interesting. He's not a good man, but we can relate to him. He lost something that he believes is rightfully his and he wants it back.

That's the big secret of comics. Black and white is boring as hell.

A villain should be as evil as he needs to be to complement his adversary, and this evil should always be seated in a virtue that parallels the hero they're facing, as a counterpoint to their adversary. That being said, I don't think there's really a foolproof way of measuring evil. Lex Luthor, if Superman weren't around, could presumably have been the man to usher in a Golden Age of humanity, but none of that matters. The good man is the one who acts with compassion and love, regardless of how his life plays out. Lex Luthor's compassion seems to run dry just as soon as he discovers someone who's greater than himself, and from there on, goals of compassion are always trumped by his vendetta against Superman. Kal, on the other hand, despite losing his planet, despite being raised on a new world full of weak men, and facing individuals who are willing to commit any sort of evil, still never loses his resolve to do good. Bruce Wayne is willing to give up a silver spoon life to fight the sort of evil he's come face to face with. He's a victim of circumstance who decides to fight a war he knows he'll never win. Monsters will continue to arise and victimize the innocent, no matter what Bruce does, but that doesn't prevent him from treating all men, including the monsters, with parity and compassion. He believes in the power of the human spirit to overcome, despite knowing that, to a great extent, all of us are completely at the mercy of our circumstances. The Joker isn't strong enough, and after seeing the futility of our ambitions in the face of the world, he cracks. Sinestro is the converse of this, believing the only way to exterminate evil is to limit the will of all people, so evil intent can never be fulfilled.

The only thing that needs to stay constant is the origin of the character's sin, the seed of virtue that blossoms into evil. The extent of the character's evil should fluctuate to provide a balanced counterpoint with that of the hero.

Well said.

 

[The Overlord]

I could not disagree more. As I've already said, no one can be "pure evil" or "pure goodness". As human beings (or sentient and remarkably human looking aliens) we are all born with the innate capability to do both good and evil. Spider-Man is a great hero because he struggles with it. He wants to do selfish things like win money wrestling or take a night off from superheroing so he can get the girl, but he doesn't. That inner struggle is what makes him so easy for readers to identify with. It's what makes him a compelling character. One of the reasons I've never been able to stomach Superman is that there is no internal struggle. He is perfect in every conceivable way. He always does the right thing without a seconds hesitation.

The same thing works in reverse. Lex is evil because he just is sucks. But with Lex believing that he was the future of the world and having that future ripped from him by a ridiculous alien in spandex his actions become far more believable and interesting. He's not a good man, but we can relate to him. He lost something that he believes is rightfully his and he wants it back.

That's the big secret of comics. Black and white is boring as hell.

.

I think Black and white can work in certain cases, like Cap vs. the Red Skull, Cap is 100% right and der Skull is 100% wrong, that's what makes their relationship so interesting. Everything the Skull does is vile and contemptible, that's what makes him a good villain. Sometimes pure good vs. pure evil can be fun.

However that doesn't work with lex, he isn't pure evil, he is more amoral then immoral, every action serves a purpose he never does things without fitting into some larger scheme, he does evil things without a purpose behind them. Magneto is also interesting because he isn't 100% wrong, he does have some good points.

Somethings you want a villain who is sympathetic and other times you want a completely vile villain.