Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
No, he should be pure evil, but also possess a reason for how he got that way.
I'll play the devil's advocate here, with the intent to inspire further discussion. Is there a logical reason for someone to become pure evil? Ian McDiarmid's commentary regarding the Emperor is that he is "worse than Satan" because "at least Satan has a history, and it's one of revenge" -- Lucifer was once the most prominent of all angels and a being of good. Voldemort is another being of pure evil, and his backstory is one that he has no understanding of love. Never did [though Rowling's explanation for this is BS].
There is no reason to explain Palpatine as anything. One of the major faults with the idea that Mr. Lucas had to explain things is one of the reasons the Prequel Triology sucked. The idea that Palpatine needs to explain his motivation or goals serves to do nothing short of crapping all over the already well-established mythology of Star Wars.
Originally posted by Devil King
There is no reason to explain Palpatine as anything. One of the major faults with the idea that Mr. Lucas had to explain things is one of the reasons the Prequel Triology sucked. The idea that Palpatine needs to explain his motivation or goals serves to do nothing short of crapping all over the already well-established mythology of Star Wars.
I suppose I agree, especially with the scale and scope of the saga. It's a galaxy wide conflict with numerous moral layers. To have the main villain be anything but evil incarnate is a bit of a letdown.
Edit: An interesting bit of information, Chill.
Originally posted by Gideon
I'll play the devil's advocate here, with the intent to inspire further discussion. Is there a logical reason for someone to become pure evil? Ian McDiarmid's commentary regarding the Emperor is that he is "worse than Satan" because "at least Satan has a history, and it's one of revenge" -- Lucifer was once the most prominent of all angels and a being of good. Voldemort is another being of pure evil, and his backstory is one that he has no understanding of love. Never did [though Rowling's explanation for this is BS].
Revenge comes across as motivation, via the pathetic dialouge of the prequels, but such is not his motivation; his motivation is power and absolute control: to become God.
I don't know anything about Voldemort. That's far outside my generation's mythology.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Lucifer was thought of as somewhat of a hero by the Romantics, as he tried to bring democracy to heaven. An interesting take on things.
Which places him on the level of Magneto, far more than Palpatine.
And i don't consider Magneto to be a villain, only an anti-hero.
Originally posted by Devil King
Revenge comes across as motivation, via the pathetic dialouge of the prequels, but such is not his motivation; his motivation is power and absolute control; to become God.
Precisely. Palpatine seems to clearly suffer from malignant narcissism. Until Lucas revealed Palpatine's delusions in the commentary (that the Emperor truly believes he's doing good), I always assumed Palpatine merely believed he was above the concepts of good and evil.
I don't know anything about Voldemort. That's far outside my generation's mythology.
Like I've explained to Chill, Voldemort is clearly the most popular and prominent antagonist of our my day, hence why I am using him as a measuring stick. There are many interesting things about the character, but overall? He's a letdown. His incompetence is most frustrating.
Evil can be defined as an absolute absence of apathy or sympathy. Palpatine can seemingly be attributed this characteristic. But, he cares about himself. A character like the Joker can not be assigned this particular scruple. And Magneto is far outside this parameter.
Palpatine cares about himself and his acheivments, what he can distill into himself. Very much a Hitler or Stalin or Satan type character; even if it wasn't his or their idea. Magneto has a goal outside himself, so he isn't applicable. Profound perhaps, but not a villain. The Joker is concerned with the harmful effects on his adversary, but would still be doing what he does without the Batman, which make his motivation less profound and obviously inentional, despite his total lack of concern or apathy for any and every one that is effected. The mindset of Palpatine is to do wrong to acheive a personal-inner goal; the mindset of Magneto is to maybe and forceablly do wrong to acheive some outer goal while thinking he's the best suited to see that goal to fruition, but the mindest of the Joker is to do it because it hurts others.
Originally posted by Devil King
Evil can be defined as an absolute absence of apathy or sympathy. Palpatine can seemingly be attributed this characteristic. But, he cares about himself. A character like the Joker can not be assigned this particular scruple. And Magneto is far outside this parameter.Palpatine cares about himself and his acheivments, what he can distill into himself. Very much a Hitler or Stalin or Satan type character; even if it wasn't his or their idea. Magneto has a goal outside himself, so he isn't applicable. Profound perhaps, but not a villain. The Joker is concerned with the harmful effects on his adversary, but would still be doing what he does without the Batman, which make his motivation less profound and obviously inentional, despite his total lack of concern or apathy for any and every one that is effected. The mindset of Palpatine is to do wrong to acheive a personal-inner goal; the mindset of Magneto is to maybe and forceablly do wrong to acheive some outer goal while thinking he's the best suited to see that goal to fruition, but the mindest of the Joker is to do it [b]because
it hurts others. [/B]
An excellent outlook. Not much to correct or oppose.
Edit: So does that mean that the Joker acknowledges his evil and revels in it? Or does he not believe in the concepts of good and evil?
Originally posted by Gideon
An excellent outlook. Not much to correct or oppose.Edit: So does that mean that the Joker acknowledges his evil and revels in it? Or does he not believe in the concepts of good and evil?
The Joker revels in it; not because he considers it, but because he does not. These concepts, as such, should not enter his mind. And rarely has one over the course of his develpoment. Bottom line is that none of these characters exist in the real world. Satan, the Joker, or otherwise; which is why these attributes can not be ascribed to a human being or an angel, in reality. Hitler loved his dog and Stalin loved his daughter and Palpatine loved his absolutism...because he was fiction based upon supposed reality.
The fact that Palpatine was so evil is the very same argument that he should not have been explained so explicitly in the prequels. If Palpatine is to be the amorphous evil that we all suppose exists in the world, that tempts us all, then he should not be so human and explainable a character. That is why Vader is, and remains, the true villain of the Star Wars saga. He is the human character that chose the wrong path. He is the human with the blood of billions on his hands. And in our world, that implies villany. George Lucas just chose a lazy, selfish manner to explain it.
And if he'd proven to be such a student of Joseph Cambell, he'd have known that was an essential aspect to his story-telling.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I disagree, I think she shits all over Umbridge (who is most probably "influenced" by Ratched, like most of Rowling's second hand creations).
You think?
I think there are too many different types of villains to really be able to have certain attributes that make them all good. Different ones for different types.
Really, the only requirement for all of them is that they simply need to be interesting in some way. Everything else is going to depend on the type.
Who the hell is Dolores Umbridge?
Relatable villains with whom you can empathize are generally good. People who aren't at their core bad people.
Although I do enjoy a good villain with a sociopath streak. Someone remarkably intelligent. Someone ingeniously manipulative. Someone who is fully lucid to the difference between right and wrong but doesn't particularly care. Someone for whom people are not people but merely toys for amusement. Someone who would boast about eating a man's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Someone like Hannibal Lecter, or Bardock.