Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-366087-20170215064802/@comment-366087-20170215203727

People of Gaston's town thought of him as a hero because Gaston TOLD them he was a hero. "No one __________ like Gaston…" and they believed the hype. Being a good, even a great, hunter is not the same as being a TRUE hero.

There are a small class of people who do something heroic, often accidentally, and receive such accolades and news pieces on them that they go out looking for more opportunities to be "heroic" for more moments in the spotlight. Sometimes even manufacturing danger so as to ride to the save the day. A darker example of this would be Syndrome.

These are not true heroes. Gaston, while not manufacturing danger, does rely heavily upon PR and his lackey to build up his exploits so that the townsfolk, who don't venture far from their village, will buy into his hype.

As for "good turned bad"… a strongly stressed NO. Rarely are Evil people "born evil". Most often evil is a result of life choices. Which means nearly every character on this wikia was some form of "good". Which means that a category which would include them would be HUGE.

Which makes the category useless.

For example, nearly every human was born with and has TWO LEGS. Which would be more useful, a "Two Legs" category, or one for those with Less (or more) than Two Legs? Obviously, the group with the smaller less than normal number.

When talking about jobs, do you make a point of saying when someone works during the daytime, or is it more useful to mention when someone has to work at night?

Do doctors need to know about everyone who is in fine health, or do they only need to know about who is sick?

see? Categories about smaller groups are more useful than categories which are about "the norm". And in this case, "The Norm" is that most villains used to be "good".

If anything, I'd be more open to a "Born Bad" or "Born Evil" ("Bad to the Bone. B-b-b-baaad, b-b-b-baaad…") category as more useful than any "was good".