Thread:BeholderofStuff/@comment-2059440-20181104050249/@comment-2175012-20181105215427

Jester of chaos wrote: Personally I believe a lot depends on the reasoning of what they do: Aladdin while a thief did it for survival vs petty greed so I wouldn't call that villainous, Phoebus was a very reluctant accessory at worse and did everything he could to avoid some of the actions Frollo wanted while actively opposing and risking a potential execution so personally wouldn't call him a villain.

Compare that say to Kuzco who while eventually learned the error of his ways only after multiple attempts on his life in the end while before was willing to condem a village by destroying it for a vacation home and had people harmed (one guy thrown out a window) for inconveniencing him. Basically he did rather heinous things for petty self gain vs any reasonable or relatable reason thus I would call him a villain for a majority of the first film.

For the sake of the wiki I believe we have to look at things in a neutral perspective and ask: "Did this character evil or simply a jerkass" if 'evil' the new question is "why and what crimes", some are self explanatory others aren't. I was originally planning on creating a page for one scientist who broke the law but decided he didn't count as his actions while illegal didn't hurt anyone with his one crime: cloning the recently deceased to revive them thus giving them a second chance, even the film implied the law was outdated with the scientist even helping te hero and confronting the villain for abusing and corrupting his research. Being a criminal in and of itself isn't enough especially if solely survival but the reasoning can make a major difference.

Along with the idea on how individuality is played, I would agree that the character's motivations would play a factor in it.