Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-366087-20160325111005

I'm still troubled by the number of characters on VW which were not designed to be "villains" by their creators or settings.

Instead we have a bunch of contributors going over every little thing they say and do across the length of their appearances and or franchise, and declare "that's evil! And that! And this other thing here… that's what makes them a villain!" As if as the audience they know better than those who made the characters.

Now, I'm not talking about Villain Protagonists. They are acknowledge by their settings as criminals and villains. I'm talking about characters where their characteristics and traits are selectively picked at like someone at a buffet kitchen who only selects Sweets and Desserts and wants to declare it a proper meal.

I point to Sam Puckett as a prime example.
 * (Which, BTW, was once deleted, but someone asked for it to be undeleted; at a time when it was being asked of newcomer!me if something was to be decided as staying if I would accept or continue to protest—sort of hypocritical, eh?)

An earmark of every discussion regarding Sam's qualification is a listing of episodes and events and interpretations (what wikipedia calls "original research") in order to say "villain".

In Sam's case there is no doubting she is a Jerk and Antagonistic, but our refocus as to what constitutes villains should call into question if she is still qualified to be here. No to mention, if she belongs, then why not Carly Shay who is at her side at nearly every one of the selected events.

There are others to be sure, she is just my go-to example. 