Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2175012-20171030003307/@comment-3581997-20171211200645

Do we really want to file just a very large body-count under the qualifiers for Pure Evil? Most villains do more and more elaborate things, and this has been sounding more and more like there is no room for Outright Villainy and everyone is either Pure Evil or some sort of tragic anti-villain. Isn't malice more important for our classifications than how many people died? Adolf Hitler was not terrible because of the number six-million after all; Indeed if those six-million were killed indiscriminately it would just be the standard path of trying to take over the world. But singling out a certain people who were never his enemy prior and attempting to exterminate them on merit of existing... well different kettle of fish.

A lot of these discussion seem to be under the impression that killing, enslaving, blowing up areas etc, are extraordinarily evil on their own, and frankly it seems far too maudlin considering what an antagonist's role is. Let's look at a villains goals, is the goal itself evil beyond validation? Personally I don't think attempting to rule the galaxy, world, country, tri-city-area or sand-box really matters, it is just setting various sizes of risk for the story conflict - and from there are their methods practical? To use old Adolf again, wiping-out all the Jews and Gypsies, didn't benefit his domination goals at all, he just disliked them, no practical purpose, he had the opportunity to do excess cruelty and indulged in it. For Adross, or Robotnick it seems blowing up a planet or 3 or creating a cybernetic slave army have practical purposes for their plans. How are they above or beyond the goals of an Outright Villain? Success or failure seem besides the point. Are all we only looking at lack of redeeming qualities and not the weight of their intent?