Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2175012-20171030003307/@comment-3581997-20171120230719

This is a common occurrence though, why is robotizing animals "heinous"? It is not uncommon in the setting, it has also been done in other media. If this is the major determination factor how do we distinguish it from other works of heel-face-monster? Is it just about how the series treats it and not about standards we have separate from the specific story?

Let me try to show what I mean.

In Buffy/Angel Darla turns a young-man named Liam into a vampire, has him slay his family and goes on a killing spree. But she and the series treat this as a banality. Darla has no soul, she can't have any virtues. However the series treats vampires as just wild animals, as in this is what they do, don't get bit and deal with or shrug off the angst as it comes up. There are far worse creatures but our Darla has met the same standards given for Robotnic.

Now, No Heart from Care Bears wants to turn the whole world to a bunch of quivering jerks however the show, being what it is, treats him like he is the truly heinous one. He wants to eradicate caring/empathy so he is the Dreaded of the show. And they never bother to give him any virtues.

Now, if Robotnic is Pure Evil because of the tone the story wants to pass off, that means we would have to label No Heart as Pure Evil too. If however it isn't about tone and specific actions, such as making people into monsters and having no "good" qualities then villains as common as vampires would all qualify. So which is it, is it neither, is there an exception? Why/When does "heinous" apply?