Palps was a stereotypical psychopath. There is nothing particularly interesting about him. He shines only because most of the other characters are so terribly written. The best antagonists are the ones you want to root for. Not because the protagonists are idiots, but because the motivation of the antagonist is compelling as well as his character.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I rooted for Palpatine. The best evil villain is the one you despise as a character, yet are fascinated with knowing about him. Palpatine.
I suppose this is a difference in opinion then. To me, the worst villains are the ones that are psychotic monsters. Card carrying evil psychos are easy to write and take little skill on behalf of the writer. Nothing about them questions or challenges the reader/viewer. They are two dimensional placeholders designed to make sure that we always know who the good guys are.
Writing about a mixed villain with ambiguous goals, now that takes skill. When the author can make you doubt the motives of the heroes and doubt the supposed evil of the villain, thats when you know you the author has forced you to think.
Originally posted by AutokratMaybe I've just got a thing for the all-powerful, conniving, manipulative, megalomaniacal, embodiment-of-evil, mechanist of all woe, who's been controlling both sides of the worst conflict ever, ever.
I suppose this is a difference in opinion then. To me, the worst villains are the ones that are psychotic monsters. Card carrying evil psychos are easy to write and take little skill on behalf of the writer. Nothing about them questions or challenges the reader/viewer. They are two dimensional placeholders designed to make sure that we always know who the good guys are.Writing about a mixed villain with ambiguous goals, now that takes skill. When the author can make you doubt the motives of the heroes and doubt the supposed evil of the villain, thats when you know you the author has forced you to think.
But Valerian's got a point. Vader's a very close second for me.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Writing about a mixed villain with ambiguous goals, now that takes skill. When the author can make you doubt the motives of the heroes and doubt the supposed evil of the villain, thats when you know you the author has forced you to think.
Characters like Palpatine possess an acute deficit of concern for any topic or individual aside from power and self-glorification. Consequently, this trait serves to render them irredeemable--in effect, making them far more dangerous than a weak villain that attracts a pity-party because his wife is dying (thereby motivating all of his "villainous" deeds and setting up for a predictable Heel Face Turn).
Originally posted by Elok QuintlyNothing you said there conflicts with anything he said.
And such characters are better functional villains how? The sort of villainy you have specified *cough*Vader*cough* just so happens to be the type exploited and beguiled by "Complete Monster" characters exemplified by Palpatine.Characters like Palpatine possess an acute deficit of concern for any topic or individual aside from power and self-glorification. Consequently, this trait serves to render them irredeemable--in effect, making them far more dangerous than a weak villain that attracts a pity-party because his wife is dying (thereby motivating all of his "villainous" deeds and setting up for a predictable Heel Face Turn).
Originally posted by Elok Quintly
And such characters are better functional villains how? The sort of villainy you have specified *cough*Vader*cough* just so happens to be the type exploited and beguiled by "Complete Monster" characters exemplified by Palpatine.Characters like Palpatine possess an acute deficit of concern for any topic or individual aside from power and self-glorification. Consequently, this trait serves to render them irredeemable--in effect, making them far more dangerous than a weak villain that attracts a pity-party because his wife is dying (thereby motivating all of his "villainous" deeds and setting up for a predictable Heel Face Turn).
You have completely misunderstood what I am trying to say. I do not consider Vader a particularly interesting villain. Never, did his goals make me wonder who was on the right side. Vader is and always was Sidious’ lapdog. He is pathetic, stupid and irredeemable. He potential to be a solid tragic villain, but Lucas blew that.
What I am speaking of is say a “villain” like Ozymandias from Watchmen. Consider that he ruthlessly murders two million people without hesitation, indicating that he is not the “weak villain that attracts a pity-party” as you seem to believe I like. However, Ozymandias also saves the world from a nuclear holocaust by killing those two million people. His actions are horrific, his intentions ambiguous, the consequences good. As the antagonist, Ozymandias’ actions force the reader to think. He is not some weak crying pansy, no, he is a master manipulator that pulls of a horrific plot and saves the world by doing so. This shocking dichotomy makes Sidious pale in comparison.
Anyone can write about a psychotically inhuman maniac that manipulates people like pawns. Characters like that are boring and flat with no development or dynamic. Very few people can successfully write about a manipulating genius that does something horrific, but brings about good consequences by doing so.
That is the difference. Sidious is a juvenile villain that commits blatant acts of evil for the lulz. A villain like Ozymandias is a mature villain that questions the very ethical foundations that most readers stand on.
Originally posted by Autokrat
You have completely misunderstood what I am trying to say. I do not consider Vader a particularly interesting villain. Never, did his goals make me wonder who was on the right side. Vader is and always was Sidious’ lapdog. He is pathetic, stupid and irredeemable. He potential to be a solid tragic villain, but Lucas blew that.What I am speaking of is say a “villain” like Ozymandias from Watchmen. Consider that he ruthlessly murders two million people without hesitation, indicating that he is not the “weak villain that attracts a pity-party” as you seem to believe I like. However, Ozymandias also saves the world from a nuclear holocaust by killing those two million people. His actions are horrific, his intentions ambiguous, the consequences good. As the antagonist, Ozymandias’ actions force the reader to think. He is not some weak crying pansy, no, he is a master manipulator that pulls of a horrific plot and saves the world by doing so. This shocking dichotomy makes Sidious pale in comparison.
Anyone can write about a psychotically inhuman maniac that manipulates people like pawns. Characters like that are boring and flat with no development or dynamic. Very few people can successfully write about a manipulating genius that does something horrific, but brings about good consequences by doing so.
That is the difference. Sidious is a juvenile villain that commits blatant acts of evil for the lulz. A villain like Ozymandias is a mature villain that questions the very ethical foundations that most readers stand on.
Would you say Lumiya was an interesting villain? I don't believe she was actually pure evil or selfish. She didn't set out to rule the universe. I could be wrong about her, but that is the way I seen it. I found LOTF books boring so I didn't continue with the story.
What do you think about Ra's Al Ghul from Batman? He did not seem so evil and power hungry. He seemed like a man that had his love tooken from him, and was deeply hurt by it and it changed him. He seems to have a deep hatred for evil corrupt people and will risk innocent lives to wipe those type of people out. He seemed loyal to the ones loyal to him. You also have him using the evil people he hates so much to accomplish his goal. It makes you wonder what type of person he truely was. I find villains like that interesting.
I also enjoy the pure evil individuals like the Joker, Sidious, Voldemort etc... These are the people you just can't relate to, but can't help but to wonder what goes on in there messed up minds. You wonder how it is possible to have no love in your heart. They laugh maniacly like they are not all there (Sidious, Joker), when actually they are some of the smartest people you can think of.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
I also enjoy the pure evil individuals like the Joker, Sidious, Voldemort etc... These are the people you just can't relate to, but can't help but to wonder what goes on in there messed up minds. You wonder how it is possible to have no love in your heart. They laugh maniacly like they are not all there (Sidious, Joker), when actually they are some of the smartest people you can think of.
Ditto.
Anyone can write about a psychotically inhuman maniac that manipulates people like pawns. Characters like that are boring and flat with no development or dynamic. Very few people can successfully write about a manipulating genius that does something horrific, but brings about good consequences by doing so.
I still argue that as far as evil and villainy is concerned--barring the more ambiguous overarching role of antagonist--a character without any scruples that does nothing good is more effective at arousing the ire of the audience, and thus fulfilling their role as a pure villain.
The reason I find Palpatine such an effective villain is because I can’t relate to him. It’s no secret archetypes are key to the foundation of Star Wars—Luke Skywalker isn’t exactly the poster child for a morally ambiguous hero, nor is Palpatine meant to be a morally ambiguous villain. Star Wars’ concept of morality deals with a spectrum; degrees of good and evil. It’s not just black and white (despite what Ushgarak says). Palpatine is meant to illustrate just how far down the dim, windy path of the dark side one can go: ultimately one abandons any pretext of good intentions for self-indulgence.
That isn’t to say that I like all of my villains completely irredeemable. Dooku is a superb villain because of his rich history: he’s a principled former Jedi whose critique of the Republic is valid: the Senate is horribly corrupt and the Jedi are shackled to a flawed institution. But it’s his pride, vanity, and need for praise that ultimately forces him to succumb to the dark side. His hero-worship of Sidious is almost pathetic; a man of his pedigree is reduced to a pauper. Vader is an effective villain (particularly in the OT) because he’s a ruthless, tenacious hunter who is ultimately conflicted and then redeemed by the love of his son. Grievous is effective because despite his utter lack of morality, he is perhaps even more tragic than Vader: he was a victim of corruption in the Jedi and the Senate, as well as the Sith, who arranged for his brainwashing into a Jedi killer and then discarded when he outlived his usefulness. Phennir is similar to Dooku, though not quite as bad. He’s a pragmatic, ruthless Imperial who ultimately has no evil intentions: during the Second Galactic War, he arranges for a coup against his inept political leader. To replace him? No, but rather to find a better leader. Pellaeon is one of my very favorites because though he is moderate compared to Grievous or Tarkin, he was an avowed disciple of the Empire during its most brutal times and spent decades defending it.
When it comes to literature and music, you have concept and delivery. A lot of people like Neil Young because he’s an acclaimed lyricist and songwriter. I personally can’t stand him; he’s got a truly terrible voice, with no technical skill whatsoever. Strong on the concept, poor on the delivery. I love Journey, even though I’d agree that few of their songs reach the same level as Young’s, because their delivery is nearly flawless.
And I would argue that real life shows us that the spectrum in Star Wars is similar, if not the same, to the one in real life. For every Martin Luther King, you have a Malcolm X. You even have an Adolf Hitler—someone for whom I’ve never seen an adequate defense or justification in terms of his actions. Thus it’s entirely possible that people like Palpatine do or could exist, thus granting validation to his believability as a character. Palpatine was trained presumably from infancy by the most dangerous cult in existence, equipped with supreme mental abilities (supernatural and otherwise), and conditioned to believe that his primary existence is the acquisition of power. It’s not like he came out of the womb scheming.
It’s his delivery that makes him a truly phenomenal villain: his perception, his adaptability, and his lack of hesitation.
Malcolm X and Hitler are poor comparisons to Palpatine. Hitler was a deluded despot that believed that what he was doing was right. Malcolm X was a radical rights activist that believed that what he was doing was right. Even a psychopath acts in such a way that what they believe they are doing is “right” (as they have no concept of right and wrong to begin with.)
People can be emotionally driven to commit acts their ethical sense may tell them is wrong, but no one acts to deliberately to commit what they believe is wrong, because it is wrong. This is simply not how a human being acts. Palpatine does not act like a human being. To be sure, he fits the setting, but Star Wars is not a mature setting. As far as most science fiction goes, Star Wars is childlike in comparison. When I look at it that way, I suppose my dislike is less against Palpatine but the setting he exists in. Luke the archetypical hero needed an archetypical villain to face off against. Of course, I hate archetypes with a passion.