Also I have a new game idea for a new story, that is similar to the controversial game Hatred. It would be about a psychopathic spree killer who wants to kill as much people as possible to satisfy his bloodlust. So he would be clearly Pure Evil too and my first ever main character who is a Pure Evil villain. I mean I already had one who was the rapist incest cult leader of my horror story, but he turns more into the main villain later.
And the Gangster Boss would also count, right? Because he is the main antagonist in the first part and the reason everything bad happens in this story and the Wolf Ladys turn to the dark side (For a moment). And then appears as the secondary antagonist later anti-hero in the third part and one of the two main antagonists in the fourth and last part.
I need someone to talk again, so I want to talk with you if it's ok.
I think I reached my end, I'm maybe mentally ill now. Because I have suffered to so much shit and also have made so much mistakes, that I'm now really depressed and nihilistic, and just can't enjoy anything anymore. And I don't know if that will change...I thought I was done with all the suffering but I lived to much in the past and did too much mistakes. I have met so many bad and disgusting people, who destroyed me mentally and also lost my hope. I don't know what to believe anymore. And I'm so scared of dying. I'm scared of lose everything for good. My family, my friends, my drawings, my stories, our pets etc. Even if I could have a great life now, because I got money and are healthy and live, I can't enjoy it, because of my negative thoughts. I'm not even trying to reach my dreams anymore, because I got nihilistic thinking and think that it will be forever gone when I die, so what was the point I'm living and putting my work in something? If I should be happy because I have drawn something good, have a new game, going to do something with my friends and family, got my driving license or got got grates in school, I don't feel joy anymore because of my thinking that everything is finite. i lost everything, I lost my hope, my dreams, my joy to live.....
Well I may be somewhat of a nihilist I do believe you can't look for inherent meaning in things: life is what you make it and while the future is uncertain that's nothing to be afraid of, think of it as a blank canvas which means endless possibilities. Trust me we all have fears, insecurities and times where we are cynical/depressed, He'll with me it's nearly a daily thing but you have to try to be positive and if necessary I strongly recommend seeking professional help.
Thank you so much, guys! You are the best. People like you give me hope, that still good people exist on this planet. I will go to a psychologist and I hope it will help me. Otherwise I can't live happy anymore.....
And Jester, how do you "survive" every day? You meant that it's a daily thing for you. But how can you still be positive and not been already in "a deep hole opf depression"?
I mostly decide to minor joys in some things I enjoy but the thing I focus on is less positive: I want to outlive some of the people who abused me so I can have the last laugh. I also tend to be a smart-ass and joke with both coworkers I like and those I don't. It is just the way I use to deal with it.
Jester, I'm like you. I focus a lot on avenging me on people who have wronged me in the past. What I tell myself to deal with it is nothing last forever so these people don't last forever and I believe in some karma where everybody will pay for what they did.
So for me it's very hard to create minor villains or characters in general. I don't know if I already talked with you about it, Jester. So even if it can get confusing by creating so many characters and having so many stories, I want to create many minor or even one-shot villains for my stories, mostly the ones who have a Big Bad (and maybe even Bigger Bad) as a villain. So these are then the minions of said Big Bads. But it's so hard to come up with good names, character designs, personality and abilities. Because all of them need to stand out in character in their own ways, right? I'm very good at creating main characters, giving them great and unique character designs and names, and them having great personalities. But not gonna lie, I'm sucking at creating unique minor or one-shot villains. Do you have any idea how can I do that better?
Well you can use name generators on the internet to get an idea of a name either to use or create similar to (I use that and names from myths/scripture a lot), powers I look up on the super power wiki or google some and designs is just whatever you want.
Yeah I sometimes did the name generator thing, but I wasn't always happy with that either. But yeah it's good for myth and fantasy names. I also don't know how I was coming up with random names on my own that some characters in my stories have, but the important thing is that they are great names. And thanks, I will look into that super power wiki.
What I noticed in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is that Jean Pierre Polnareff got the second most screen time of all the characters and more attention and roles. And that is when I remember rightly, because the creator of Jojo liked him the most from all of the main characters. But that's honestly my only neagitve critic on that part. Because two other characters don't get the attention he gets and so are not as developed as he is. It's a waste. I like Polnareff but Araki shouldn't have made him more important than the other characters.
I had the same problem with the Wolf Lady. I preferred her more than the main character, because she is one of my favourite characters of my own and more likeable and interesting. So she got more attention and screen time than the main character. But I'm going to change that. And honestly, Araki should have done the same with Polnareff and given the other two more attention.
Also Villains By Proxy don't necessairly mean that they are automatically Delusional too, right?
Because even if they don't want to be evil, some of them know what they do is. For example, my Wolf Lady is Villains By Proxy and Delusional because she wants to help society and thinks what she is doing is right even if she go the extreme and unrightful path, but also doesn't want to be a evil person. And the main protagonist nephew in the other drama story of mine would just be Villains By Proxy because he knows he does bad things but doesn't really want to do these, but is forced due to extreme psychosis because of drugs, so he always can't control himself in killing people.
Yeah that can be an issue but I can respect the creators decision if that's what they feel will be the most entertaining for them to avoid burnout or what they felt was best. Correct not all Villains by Proxy are delusional.
Strategic will be someone who is having either extremely complex strategies, multiple strategies or plans everything out similar to a general in the army. An opportunist will mainly just take whatever happens and use it to their advantage but not always with a plan beforehand.
I'm always so excited to think about movies, video games, comics, mangas, tv series, animes, cartoons etc that come out in the future. And not only that, I always think if they get some new heinous and vile villains that could count as Pure Evil or if the heinous standard is just too high and jacked up. Like with the upcoming MCU movies and series. I mean there is no specific number of villains who are able to count but I think if the heinous standard is too high and jacked up it's to hard and nearly impossible for new villains to count, right?
I'm also excited if Jojo Part 8 is going to have a Pure Evil villain again or if there are just too many in the Jojo series. I mean if I think correctly, Part 6 and 7 didn't have one.
What for example would cause a series to have a "destroyed" heinous standard, where new villains can't qualify anymore?
In one of my most extreme and brutal stories, I already talked with you about, there is the main villain who is the only villain who is heinous and vile enough to be Pure Evil, because the heinous standard of the story is so jacked up. Nearly every character is a criminal or evil person in the story or at least many are neutral and grey zones. Even the main protagonist has done plenty of heinous crimes, even like child murder or abuse of his friends and family. But he has redeeming qualities and reforms himself. The main villain however stands out because he is the cause for most bad things happening in the story. He killed his former friend the ruler of his race, so he can become the new dictator of his race and the land. He kills his own minions for minor mistakes, he forces his race to be on his side, otherwise they will be executed and also uses them as human shields when the other race attacks, he hates the other races for no reason, he has nearly exstinct the human race, killing even innocent children and infants, he turned his land in a dictatorship land with nothing than death and suffering, he experimented on infants, he raped his own sister and numerous other women like the girlfriend of the protagonist before killing them, killed his own parents, tortured his prisoners, mostly per skin peeling, commited a killing-spree in a kindergarden, merged with a alien and tried to destroy and rebuild the entire universe etc. You see, he stands out as the worst character in a story where many characters hav e done many heinous things, and are mostly neutral and grey zone characters. And he's so evil that no one else in the story can be compared to heinoussness to him, the heinous standard is messed up. Not even his loyal right-hand can be as evil as him, even when he is really heinous too. So that is an example of a story where no villain ever can count again, because there is already one villain who does nearly every worst crime imagineable. Ironically, the main protagonist was always evil and the extremely heinous main antagonist was a former war hero.
Basically whenever something like rape, torture, planetary destruction etc. is a common place. When almost every villain does extremely gruesome acts it becomes very hard to stand out or if the "heroes" do similar. It's a major part why GTA only has two as the others don't really stick out or some stories ultimately don't have some.
I'm still wondering why bondage and stuck stuff is so wide spreed, especially in animes and cartoons. Isn't it really for showing characters in defenseless and dangerous situations? Because sometimes I have the feeling it's also for entertaining fetish scenes.
Myself personally like those scenes and it's a fetish of mine. But even if I put this stuff often into my stories, it's mostly in stories where it is fitting, and don't overuse it or put it in unfitting stories because the fear that I destroy these stories then.
I have now new stuff for the first installment of my zombie story, that would make the first main villain even more heinous and unique from the other seven extremely heinous ones. Like I already said, he commited various experiments on people, including children. One child that he experimented on, he infected with the virus so she slowly transforms into a zombie but is consious for a long time and suffering pain and always crying out for her parents. Her father wants to help her but can't, because it's impossible. That leads to him commiting suicide after bein mentally destroyed by his daughter's fate. So I think that would push this villain much more forward to Pure Evil.
I've counted and I have likely much more Pure Evil characters than Pure Good ones. There are many stories of mine who just have Pure Evil villains or one Pure Evil villain but not a single Pure Good hero. Mostly the stories who are dark itself, where most heroes just aren't pure hearted and/or the setting is a Crapsack World.
I think some of my villains aren't Big Bads like I thought.
Because one villain is more like Ernst Stavro Blofeld who works more like a Bigger Bad in the background and just appears rarely, but is a Big Bad and not a Bigger Bad. But with my villain, I thought she would be a Bigger Bad but I don't think so anymore. I thought a recurring villain in the story would count as the Big Bad because he appeared as the main antagonist in the second season of the series, a cameo character in the first film and the secondary antagonist of a later film. But he is not the only recurring villain and not even the most recurring and important. The hard thing is that in this story there are many villains and many of them are recurring and play multiple important roles. It doesn't make it better that this story has a series with three seasons and like six movies. It's one of my biggest stories. So because the one villain is the most impactful who had the most influence over the story and the plot, I think she would count as the Big Bad and not Bigger Bad. She is also the main antagonists of two movies where she appears physically and is the overarching antagonist of all other movies and the series. But then, in the series there is a background villain who is the main antagonist in season 3 and the overarching antagonist of the entire series. He has a right-hand woman who is the most recurring and major antagonist in the series. So is it possible that he would count as a Bigger Bad and his right-hand woman as the Big Bad, even if the film series has already a Bigger Bad who also has a little influence over the series?
Also I have still problems with understanding the category The Heavy, and I think it's kinda abused. It says that it must be a villain who has the most influence over the plot, the life of the protagonists, being the most personal enemy etc. But doesn't that mean that every Big Bad is also The Heavy? And also, can in one story exist more than one The Heavy and is it also just with longrunning series or also can count in a one parter?
No, sometimes the Big Bad counts but as we currently use it not always, sometimes it's a mugger who caused the event that made the hero decide to start the path of being a hero, sometimes it's the Big Bad that ordered everything and did it themselves other times their second in command decided to take matters in their own hands thus indirectly cause it etc.. As for The Heavy I don't recall any instance where the same story had more than one and it's only for long running storylines not simply one or two movies.
I have two Bigger Bads in my stories who still haven't meet the protagonist/s personally and aren't punished a single bit, or haven't done much action on their own etc. All other ones I have (I have not many) are either death and/or defeated. So these two are the only ones who have open ends and their story in which they appear are also not finished. I thought on leaving it like it is right now but it feels really unfinished and unsatisfying. What do you think should I do?
For one of the two, a rich female hybrid creature between a eagle and a dragon, I had plans for how she will appear in the last part of the story and what role she gets. I either thought she would be shot into space and then flying there for all eternity without getting help or she gets stuck half of her body (again my stuck fetish comes out with shoulderls lol) in a jelly cube or in a pipe that sucks her into it (which I have drawn already). The latter would make more sense because it could be build by the protagonists brother who is very talented in technicial stuff. And I won't do the trapped in space thing because she didn't deserve such a cruel fate. Even the most heinous villain in this story (which I think is Pure Evil), yes she is not the evilest because she somewhat cares for the Big Bad, got not a real gruesome death. So which one would you be for?
Also, I want her to have a disgraceful and embarrissing defeat, because in all scens she is shown she is portrayed really dangerous and sinister, which she is, but it would be funny if such a villain would have a stupid defeat.
So you mean like her still stucking in the pipe and is not seen after?
I either thought that would happen, or that we see her later still stucking in there, or that she is locked into an prison cell with still stucking in the pipe or that she is freed from the pipe but put into an prison cell.
I have watched Final Space season 1 a year ago and I'm currently watching the second season.
What I want you to ask is, what is different that villains in this can qualify as Pure Evil? The series is an black comedy adult cartoon series and it's often funny and not really taken seriously. But it has three Pure Evil villains. I mean sure they stand out and being played seriously and the show has his dark and sad moments. But the heroes also do heinous stuff that isn't taken seriously, even if it's mostly not on purpose and by accident. For example, a robot lures away some cult members so they can go to the evil Worthrent and that causes all of them to fall down a cliff and dying brutally or a alien that wants to go to his marriage and is pushed by one of the main characters by accident out of the space shuttle so he splashes on the ground and his wife is crying. That's all played for laughs but the series still manages to have three Pure Evil villains. How?
The heroes don't really do heinous things from what I recall, they trick the cult as the cult is trying to unleash the Titans who would be basically destroying the universe, the guy wanting the marriage if it's who I think it is (Clarence) is basically can be argued somewhat of a villain and a big part of it is all the really heinous acts are portrayed seriously while the heroes generally do some relatively minor in comparison stuff but still can be somewhat graphic stuff which is played for laughs.
Then I see no problem that heinous villains who are played serious count in my black comedy stories.
Like I once told you, my one protagonist kills mostly by accident too and it's played for laughs. And in another story where the heinous standard is extremely jacked up it's still played very dark and seriously, even the actions of the main protagonist who is really heinous. That's why I think in that story only the main antagonist can count because even if the heinous standard is so extremely high, he still manages to stand out.
It's always amazing for me when Comedys have really serious and dark villains in it, to the point they can even qualify as Pure Evil. That's why I'm also trying to do this, but it's hard to make. Like you said, the protagonists and nearly every character can't commit really heinous and vile crimes and it can't be played for laughs.
Because I have Disney + now, I watch many cartoons and one of them I'm watching at the moment is Darkwing Duck. I somehow never really saw that show, even not as a kid. And I notice that some of the villains are rarely even killing people and that in a cartoon show that's with anthropomorphic cartoony ducks. That is very interesting and new for me. Also that the show has one Pure Evil villain and of course lots of bondage and stuck too. I love that show now, to be honest, especially because it feels so different from Disney shows like Duck Tales for example.
We already talked often about my villains in one of my most biggest and best stories and the most darkest and depressing one. Two of them were clearly potentional Pure Evil qualifier which we agreed. One of them the main antagonist, the uncle of the protagonist who is the reason why everything terrible in the life's of the protagonists is happening, torturing his own daughter physically and mentally, killed indirectly and directly many of his family members, abused his family members, forced his son to kill their pet dog to "punish" him, scarred his own mother as a kid with a knife and brainwashed his own nephew the main protagonist which results in him killing unintentionally his own parents and little brother. The other one the right-hand of the uncle who kidnaps, tortures and rapes little children.
The other two that would might qualify too, we were not sure about them. But now I have added some crimes and details that make them even more heinous and vile in their own way.
The first one was a one-shot villain who appears in just one episode of the main series. He is a "friend" of the pedophile and is a criminal who kidnaps teenage girls and sells them as sex slaves on the black market. He doesn't care if they are raped and/or murdered by his buyers, he just cares about money. On the pedophiles orders, he kidnaps the daughter of the main antagonist and tries to sell her to a rapist. He also abuses the kidnapped girls in hitting or yelling at them if they cry or scream. Even if he doesn't seem as vile and heinous in a story who is already full of dark and twisted characters, I think he stands out in the ressources he has, as he just appears in one episode but still causes so much despair. Also his crimes are somewhat "unique" for the story.
The second one is from the spin-off story, which is suprisingly a little more lighthearted and funnier than the main story and not as dark. Also because there are not as many major character deaths. This one is a former russian war veterian who now leads a weapon and rocket business. In his companys basement he secretly builds a bomb which he wants to use to destroy the city he lives in to cause a nuclear warfare. He personally kills everyone who learns about his secrets. One of them is one of the main characters who wanted to spread it out in the court. After the russian guy kills him, he fakes evidence and incriminates the protagonist to have commit the murder and forces the judge to give him the death sentence. But the father of the protagonist protects him and takes all the blame. So the father is imprisoned and is nearly put on death row. But luckily the protagonist proves that his father is innocence and that the russian guy is the real murderer. And also, the russian guy forces a scientist to help him create the bomb and if he would refuse he would do bad things to his family. Even if he isn't as dark as the villains in the main story, I think he is personal and unique enough to be a potential qualifier.
Not honestly sure the trafficker may not cut it given his abuse is very tame in comparison to the other including they people who but them so I'd say provably not. The Russian one has a better shot given the lower Heinous Standard but not sure as some sounds to a lot of would-be tyrants to target a city, most villains are willing to attack people who cross them and some do target things like the father, if it were a young child maybe but due to not I lean slightly to no.
But how about the personal things like wanting to incriminate the protagonist for the murder he commited so he gets clean out of it, nearly causing his pure hearted father to be executed in death row and blackmailing the scientist to kill his entire family?
Sure, in the main story, villains do much worse, especially the pedophile, but then again, it's it's own spin-off with a more lighthearted tone, so it's more cut off to the main story and it's heinous standard.
Yeah lean to no on both. The Russian a lot is not uncommon for villains as most are willing to incriminate another or use blackmail, the city thing gives him some room for argument but not a lot in my opinion on its own as method could be worse than just an explosion for a would-be tyrant.
Yeah but isn't the In-Story Heinous Standard what matters? I mean in General it's standard villainy to be a would-be tyrant terrorist who tries to bomb everything, but for that story it's unique and different what no other villain in the story does.
But I can understand your point with the blackmailing and incriminate thing or even with the threatening to kill his slaves family thing. It's unique and vile in this story but nothing compared to serial killers, mass murderers, child murderer, rapists, child molestors, pedophiles, family murderer etc that are present in the story. These ones not only try to kill children and try to kill tons of people, they already did, and that in the worst possible way.
Well one has to pass the general standard (beyond what normal villains would do) and the stories own Heinous Standard. The Russian I feel mostly falls under the norm though maybe a little worse, the trafficker might in another story but the Heinous Standard is just too high in that particular story.
But why do we have a General Standard? Because every story has it's own or not, so why also comparing with the other stories which are different in tone? I mean I can somehow understand how it is meant. Like there are plenty villains in movies and video games who all seem the same and are the "norm", even if they seem evil enough in one setting more than in another.
Because the general standard separate simply irredeemable and Pure Evil, it prevents simply having characters who don't really do enough from being added. A general standard eliminates those who do Standard Villainy.
I'll give examples of several irredeemable characters who fail:
1. King Sombra is one who has no redeeming features in the show yet ultimately fails partly because most of what he did is standard tyrant behavior and lack of personality on the first two episodes despite being dark in the first two.
2. Chris Hargensen who doesn't count because Carrie did more but solely because Carrie has the power (and Carrie had redeeming fractures). Some versions she may love her boyfriend or have some remorse but most she clearly doesn't.
3. Hou-Ting no redeeming features or really any power but fails the Heinous Standard and outside that noting goes beyond standard villainy.
4. Coco LaBouche has no redeeming factors and the worse of the series yet fails primarily due to having done nothing too extreme despite kidnapping the babies. Not even much comedy (although the defeat is mildly comedic) for her.
5. Bishop is often regarded as the most hated character in the series but most argue he doesn't count because despite Dracula doing far worse (and a few other vampires) he is tragic.
6. Aloysius O'Hare was a greedy businessman that had no redeeming factors yet too genric to even hope to count.
A simply irredeemable character may lack any positive features but don't either fail the story Heinous Standard or the general due to not doing enough while a Pure Evil one will go the extra mile to show themselves beyond the standard villainy expected from their occupation or in general. A Pure Evil who say has a generic goal of taking over the world will try genocide/mass murder, subjecting others to Fates Worse Than Death or other very brutal means (like starving, torture and/or rape) often to the point that even the higher ups that don't suffer the worse will hate him.
Ok now I understand more. They need the "extra mile" and uniqueness to count. And because the heinous standard is so jacked up in this story of mine it's very hard. So I think you convinced me to also lean towards no. Because even if the spin-off takes place in a more lighthearted setting, it's still the same universe. And like you said, the bombing tyrant thing is unique for that kind of story but it's also very standard villainy and doesn't go over the edge. But maybe that could be the point of him qualifying but not sure now. And the blackmailing of killing ones family, wanting to put someone on death row who is innocence and killing one of the main characters is very standard in this setting. If you compare, there is a really bad father in the same universe who tortured his own family, caused their deaths directly and indirectly, destroyed the life of his nephew and many other innocent people, tortured his own daughter physically and mentally, laughed about his right-hand man's death, scarred his own mother for life and many more. Then there is a pedophile who kidnaps, rapes, tortures and kills little children in very disturbing and brutal ways. And then there are many other villains in this story who are doing really evil stuff, which is either not as heinous as the main villain and the pedophile or they have freudian excuses. Like the assassin who is hired by the main villain to kill innocent people and which he enjoys, but he was traumatised and never loved in his childhood and everyone bullied and abused him to the point he mentally colapsed and thus killing everyone who wronged him, and also in the end shows remorse and cries when he is remembered of his dark past. Then there is a contract killer who is hired by the main villain to kill his nephew. A murderous and brutal crime lord who is also hired. A psychotic serial killer who breaks out of his cell and kills many police men and asylum workers. And some more. So it's really hard that the human trafficker who sells teenage girls as sex slaves to rapists to count even if he stands out with his crimes, but given the fact that his friend the pedophile does much worse with children and teenager, it's not really possible.
Yeah your Heinous Standard is just so high I find it hard for either to stand out, the spin-off for me has a slightly easier chancd if pretty much nothing is connected bu even then not sure with him as I get the feeling like he needs a bit more. The trafficker himself however has a unique crime to the setting but so much competition it just feels impossible for him to stand out enough as is.
Yeah but I will left him that way. I don't really care if he would be a standard villain or a Pure Evil one. And yeah, like I said, the traffickers friend who tortures, rapes and kills children and teenager is much worse and clearly outsmarts him. So if I have to decide than I say, the main villain and the pedophile just counts as Pure Evil but the trafficker and the russian terrorist not.
I don't know why it is me everytime who get his favourite characters hated on. First Krystal from Star Fox and now Yoshi. I know there are very minor people who hate Yoshi and he has a really big fanbase, and I also know that there is always someone who doesn't like something and hates on something. But I just can't understand how you can't like characters like him. I mean, I did know that since many years ago that this YouTuber don't likes Yoshi, but I didn't mind anymore, but then, today I watched a video where he was in and he saw Yoshi and said "I hate Yoshi". I mean who cares? It's so unnecessary to say that, it just annoys many people. But that isn't why I don't like this guy. The reason is that he is toxic in general and is hating on many things and talks b*llshit and lies and if someone wants to correct him, he doesn't accept it. And when the people were right about it, he doesn't say anything and don't says something like "I'm sorry I was wrong" or something like that. He is really a annoying and unsympathic person, so it makes me even more mad that a stupid human being like him hates on Yoshi.
Also, I work onto my old video game story ideas again and currently refresh the zombie story. If you remember, I said there is a Big Bad and a Bigger Bad in the story. The Big Bad is an sleeper agent who was responsible for most of the plot in the first three games and was the man behind everything. The Bigger Bad is the "zombie king" who was a former partner of the surgeon villain and mutated duo to a failed experiment, but gained omnipotent power because of it. He is responsible for the entire zombie outbreaks, without him, it wouldn't happen. But I'm currently thinking about changing it that the Big Bad of the story isn't the sleeper agent but the surgeon. Because the sleeper agent first appears in the third game and seems to be an ally, but in the end turns out to be the helping hand and the man behind most things. But the surgeon was the first main antagonist of the series and I'm trying to integrate him more into the story, even after his death in the first game, but he deserves to have much more impact and role for the story because he was the first main villain. I also have prequel games that are explaining how everything startet and what happened before the first game, so I thought about him playing a big role in these prequel games too and that he was most of the reason for everything that bad happens in the story. And even after his death, he has a important and impactful posthumous role in the series. So what do you think would be better?
But also, he is one of the only antagonists you never fight personally and who is a non-action villain without a boss fight. So would he be great as a weak and non-action Big Bad or should that instead go to a villain who has fighting skills and is fought against in boss battles?
I mean he could be like all the other villains and mutate in the course of the story, so he would be also physically stronger than before. But that can't happen because it isn't possible in the prequels where he is just a normal human and would be unlogical because in the first game he is a normal human, so it would be unlogical for him to go from normal human to mutant to normal human again. Just isn't possible. And because he already dies in the first one, he can't come back in later ones.
I wonder that if we would use the Delusional category like it is described, wouldn't just many or nearly all villains count as these?
Because the category describes it's not just for villains who think they are good people and doing right, but also for villains who think a person deserves bad or is an evil person who just doesn't, people who think someone other is a good person, and other factors. Is that right?
It is those who believe they are good and the reason they feel others deserve it due to being wronged by them. People like Joker and Bane in the film count as he sees what he is doing as natural thus not a bad person or doing something for the greater good but a lot of villains do not count. Plenty of villains never present themselves in anyway indicating they feel they are good or like they care either way.
Yeah I agree, I also noticed these things. There are plenty of villains who know they are evil. But I was wondering. I was the most confused because I don't know if they suddenly count if they just show "a little bit" delusions. But what about them saying that someone gets what they deserve or that their revenge is needed. Or if a villain blames another character for their own actions. Would that be Delusional?
Also because we put King Boo now under this category. I guess because he said in the third game that Luigi and the others deserve to be captured in paintings.
I'm totally down right now again and have taken out that anger in front of my sister and father. I really have become misanthropic. Because I saw that someone has written an article about how he hates dogs but he isn't a bad person, and it was shocking how many people in the comments agreed to him and said dogs doesn't matter and a human's life is meaningful but not a dog ones and that it doesn't matter if dogs die. I was so freaked out by that.
I don't know, I really have become mentally ill I guess. Because I'm so personally attacked and angry and depressed by these things even if it's just about a fictional character. I was always sensitive, but not in this extreme way that I can't enjoy life anymore. In the past, I fastly forget about someone unimportant who hated on something. But nowadays I'm broken by it.
I can't really off much help with it but I recommend taking a step back from the Internet then to hell ease your nerves as there will always be negative people out there who will do something like this.
Yeah I should that too and never watch, read, hear or think about toxic people again. But that isn't so easy. Especially because you will always see something like that on the internet, even if you don't want that. It is often inevitable.
And that wasn't all what yesterday happened. It was my worst day. Then I have drawn something and my programm suddenly crashed, then everything was gone. And after that I was on TS with my best friend and his online people. My friend was joking and said one of them would be a furry and he replied "furries are disgusting". Then I was shocked and insulted him. You must imagine that this one person on the TS who said that is a very toxic person who always hates on something, is a fat kid who just sits in his room, insults you and something, is a misogynist and nobody really likes him because of how he is.
I noticed that many villains are rich and wealthy, especially in videogames, and the ones who are dicators, monarchs, mobsters or scientists. And it isn't always stated clear but heavily implied with all the expensive stuff they have (like with Bower and Dr.Eggman).
These are clearly wealthy people and in my stories you exactly know which villains are the rich and wealthy ones, too. But I have one villain where it isn't clear and that's the Wolf General. Because he has all the military stuff under his control. He has many aircrafts (one of them is a zeppelin), many tanks, a big army and many bases. But he lives in a more realistic world and isn't it in reality like that the government pays everything for the military? But if it is like that, it wouldn't make sense, because in the final part he appears, the government wouldn't support him because he is trying to forcefully take over the government with his army.
The government generally just gives a budget and watches the spending to ensure use in proper ways so yes generally the government pays for everything necessary. As for explanation it is possible he's doing it in secret with him weeding out anyone he knows may not ageee with his plans.
I also made his father the owner of the army, who passed away and so his son get everything. So maybe his father was rich, because if you are the owner of your entire own army, you must be some kind of wealthy.
I also wondered if a villain must be the main antagonist two or more times to count as the Big Bad, or if it's also possible if he is the main antagonist one time but later appears as still major roles but not as the main antagonist anymore. Like the secondary or a major antagonist.
Well not sure one person can own the army unless they are essentially ruling the country already but could be wrong. For Big Bad you pretty much have to be the main antagonist and even then you need to be in charge of the others generally speaking yet not all main antagonist don't count as Big Bads (be it not long enough story, too few villains or other reasons).
So it doesn't work if a villain is just the main antagonist one time and later appears as the secondary antagonist?
Because a few days ago I told you that I guess the surgeon is the Big Bad of my zombie story, do you remember? But I listed all his roles down and he is just the main antagonist for one game. In the other ones he is one time a minor antagonist and in the other two parts he is the secondary antagonist. The other villain, the sleeper agent, I first thought would be the Big Bad, is the unseen main antagonist of the first trilogy and first appears onscreen in the third part, where he already dies. But I think that isn't enough, because he don't appears in the later games and also has not that great impact like the surgeon. And I don't know if the surgeon would be maybe one of the two main antagonists of the fifth game instead of the secondary antagonist. Because he kinda works together with the zombie-king who is his old apprentice. The zombie-king I thought would be the Bigger Bad, because he causes all the stuff the zombies do and appears just in the fifth part onscreen. But not sure anymore because the surgeon seems more in charge and was the one who caused the first outbreak.
I'm now thinking that one villain in one of my video game series won't count as a Big Bad and is instead just a recurring villain and the main archenemy of the protagonist. Because he only is the main antagonist of one game and later appears just as smaller roles or the secondary antagonist. I think no villain in this series will count because there are many different and no real "main enemy" and many of them are recurring but the same as the other. There are like three villains who are the main antagonists for two games, so not one of them stands out as the Big Bad.
Also I have a villain who I thought would be the Big Bad but I'm now also not sure. Because he's the secondary antagonist of the tv series with his father being the main antagonist, and he then appears again in the second movie as the main antagonist. But he wouldn't count because he's just the main antagonist of one movie and the secondary antagonist of the series, right? The father is more likely to count because he is the main antagonist of the tv series.
But there is one tricky case which again surrounds the Wolf General. Like I said he is the main antagonist of the first and fifth part and also appears in the fourth as a major one. However, another villain who is his right-hand and the secondary antagonist in the first part, has also two main antagonist roles. The first one being the second part and the second one the third part of the spin-off. But I think the Wolf General still would count because the other one is in one part of the main story and one part of the spin-off, while the Wolf General is two times the main antagonist in the main story. What do you think?
Could you give me an advice? You know that I'm also drawing my characters. So with my new characters, or even old ones I refresh, I'm always having no problem in designing them, make them unique and make them look good and just how I imagined them to look like. I even have no problems with the more complex ones who have a very hard and detailed art style, just like the Wolf Lady. But somehow, and I don't know why, my first characters ever from my first story ever, make me so much trouble everytime. They have easy styles themselves but it's somehow so hard to draw. I drew the main character and his girlfriend last year. I was happy with their styles and just like I imagined them to look like. But I thought I'm now not happy anymore because it seems it is their design itself that is the problem. They just look kinda crappy and are kinda in the Uncanney Valley. I never had this with my more cartoony characters before, even the ones who are more cartoony than these two. And then there is the archenemy and Big Bad. I inspired him from Bowser but wanted to make him look unique and different from him. But everytime I draw him, he looks too much like Bowser and I also don't can make his body shape. It's really frustrating. I want to change there designs, maybe completely, even if it hurts. Can you give me an advice how I should change it or where I can find help?
Also, if a villain, for example, is an overall antagonist in the series, but can't be the Big Bad because he is the secondary antagonist in the first season and the main antagonist in the second season, can he still be considered The Heavy, because he has the most influence and is the most recurring from all the villains?
I'm not really a good artist and haven't drawn in years but just take a break and try to later focus/re-evaluate on what you truly wanted then to look like. You can research mythical characters for basic design ideas or genres for clothing ideas. For the question on The Heavy it truly depends if the story could happen without them or not as it's possible but not a guarantee.
Ok thanks. But like I said, I don't know if a break would really help.
Also, I saw the proposal for the Doctor and you said you would vote no before you saw the cutscene that shows his heinousness. But isn't our rule that it is enough for games to just explicity describe what the villain has done for horrible crimes?
One needs to be seen doing something vs just told in a bio, if it weren't for the cutscenes like that for the game it wouldn't count especially given his acts in the present is identical to everyone else's.
So if I would make that one game idea I had, with the many different creatures and monsters, which is inspired by SCP, I have to make them do something onscreen besides their bio/information papers?
How could I do that? For example, the first one is said to have people poisoned slowly and had one man infected with a poison where he is kept alive with pain but isn't able to die. He also rapes victims with his tentacles. So do I have to show how he is killing the player slowly with his poison, to show how heinous he is besides his bio?
In my zombie story I have maybe two Pure Good heroes. One of them is an ally of the main protagonist who appears in the fourth game and is a insecure and nervous man. He is very smart and knows much. He also saw the zombie apocalypse coming and tried to warn everyone to save them, but they didn't believed him. He also would have taken his own life for the protagonist because he didn't want him to sacrifice himself. The other one would be the later girlfriend of the main protagonist who helped in saving the destruction of humanity and did her best to stop the zombie hordes growing. The only problem that could stop her from qualifying is that she assisted the one scientist in his evil plans, but not on free will and was brainwashed by him. When she got her own will back, she instantly fought on the good side again. So would that be disqualifying or not?
When I look at the Jojo universe, many villains who are Pure Evil or ones who are not, are suffering fates worse than death and are into "and I must scream" situations. It's often very unique and creative.
Then I wondered if I have also villains who suffer these fates. And I really don't have many of them. Most of my Pure Evil villains just die horribly and brutally, also the ones who aren't Pure Evil. But few got fates that are worse than death. Also, it's kinda unfair in my stories and also in Jojo, that some villains don't get fate worse than death who would deserve it more and other ones get worse fates who aren't even Pure Evil or not even close to it. But I think it's random, and Araki just makes deaths and defeats that come into his mind and who are kinda fitting for his villains. That's what I mostly do. But it's kinda more realistic because in real-life, it's the same. Many people got different fates, which they deserve more or less.
One of my villains who got one of the worst fates ever is a disgusting and heinous serial killer and serial rapist who killed and raped many innocent women. And the ones who survived, were disturbed for life and had lost everything. He got experimented on in prison and that caused him to become completely immortal. So he can't age and can't be killed. He gloats about it and how he is going to kill and rape women forever. But he gets his punishment in falling into molten metal and being fused with it. So he is hardened with the metal and is a kind of statue. This causes him to be still conscious but unable to do anything. And that forever.
Possible he could come back but a good way to make him suffer for a long, long time (far more then a human lifespan though likely the material would degrade or a person try to break it one day in the distant future).
One villain of mine who has the exact same fate as his victims and gets some of his own medicine, is the supernatural serial killer from the one story I told you about. He himself isn't supernatural but his knife is. He uses it to kill many innocent people, which souls are then trapped in the knife for all eternity and they feel constant pain. In the final, he is himself killed by the main protagonist with his own knife, what means he also is trapped with his victims and suffers for all eternity.
Yes, but also the serial killer and rapist deserved it, even if his crimes weren't as horrible as his fate. But I mean he not only killed and raped innocent women, but also scarred many of the survivors for life. And yes, the supernatural killer did know what he was doing and that the knife was a eternity torture weapon and really enjoyed killing people with it.
I know that if a animal has human features it's called anthropomorphic animals. But it's not an specific term because it can mean either animals who walk on all fourth but can speak and act like humans or ones who are build like humans and wearing clothes. So I just use humanoid animals, but I don't know if that's the real term. I don't even know if it has a specific term. I looked on TV Tropes and the closest that would come to that kind of animals were Funny Animal or Beast Man. But Funny Animal is a more cartoony and exaggerated humanoid animal and Beast Man are mostly characters who look and are more human, like Wolverine or the tribe in Avatar. But are humanoid animals really supposed to be a different kind of Beast Man too? I mean to what category does Loona, Fox McCloud, Krystal, Legoshi, Juno, Haru etc count?
I have eleven Bigger Bads in all my stories and much more Big Bads, which is normal to have more from, since Bigger Bads are more rare. I can tell you what their role is and two of them I'm not sure would count as Bigger Bad or Big Bad too.
First is a rich female hybrid anthro, who financed the main antagonist and Big Bad of the story so she also became rich but because of that, she had to search ancient treasures for the hybrid to make her more rich, so she did her dirty work and thus the hybrid is pulling the strings in the background and is indirectly responsible for the plot. The second one is a simple "in the background and pulling the strings" antagonist who sends his highest henchman, the Big Bad, to conquer the world for him. The third one is an galactic overlord who trained his adopted children to become super-soldiers and sended his best "son" to destroy earth and humanity for him. His son is the Big Bad of the story and appears the most and has the most influence in everything, but his father is above him in the background. And many more, I don't have the time to write them all down.
These three and the other ones I have are obvious Bigger Bads. But I have two or maybe three ones who I don't know are really the Bigger Bad or also or instead the Big Bad.
The first one is a beast king who made one of the good guys a king himself and had the control over him and was the reason for him to turn to the dark side. The warrior king is the most recurring main antagonist of the story and the beast king always gives him orders from the shadows and let him make his dirty work. Sounds also like a clear Bigger Bad, right? The problem is, he now, also appears often in the story and is more common in the later parts, with him also being often the main antagonist and not lurking in the shadows and doing nothing. The second one is kinda like Demise. He was indirectly the reason for all evil in the world and gave his dark energy to his little brother so he continues doing evil stuff, causing the little brother to be the Big Bad. The big brother however dies at the beginning and his brother continues his evil deeds. The third one I think is the most complicated one. He is the self called "zombie king" and the one who is indirectly and directly responsible for all the zombies in the world and all the death and pain. The surgeon is I think the Big Bad because he is two times the main antagonist. But the problem is that the surgeon was the one in the first place to create the first zombie outbreak and made the "zombie king" a zombie because of one of his failed experiments. Also the zombie king was his apprentice and the surgeon was his mentor. But after he turned into a zombie, he had more control over his mentor and in the last part also betrays and kills him when the protagonist beats him.
But could the Beast King and Warrior King both share the Big Bad role? Because they are both the main antagonists of the series and share the role. The thing is, the Zombie King can just be the Bigger Bad but not the Big Bad because he appears just one time as the main antagonist but is responsible for everthing and works in the background until the final.
I really would say the Zombie King is likely the Bigger Bad and the surgeon the Big Bad, even if it seems the other way around. But even if the surgeon played a major role in his transformation, the Zombie King himself caused much more event directly and indirectly, whenever the surgeon did many things but not caused everything. Also it doesn't matter that he was the former apprentice of the surgeon, so that he would be under and not over him, because he enslaved his former mentor, so the surgeon was his minion. Both worked together just for their own benefits and not cared for one another. The surgeon just accepts his enslavement so he wouldn't be killed and maybe have the opportunity to overthrow and kill his former apprentice. But like I said, after the boss battle against the surgeon, the Zombie King kills him for his failure. Leaving him to be the final and last antagonist.
I always remember some stupid person from my old school who was very annoying and talked always bullshit. I think she was the kind of person who always hates on villains or most villains. I have one character she was always hating on, a female anthro dragon, and that for no reason, I didn't even told her what she is alike, just that she is evil. And I was shocked when she said "she doesn't care about when she dies she still has a son, the son can go to his father". Like WTF, how heartless can someone be? Especially because that is the point. The father is a REALLY HATEABLE character because he left her and his son and she was the one being a great mother to him. I hate people who talk shit like that. I can still enjoy this character but it kinda somehow destroyed her a little bit for me. Because if I think about it, there will be more people like her who hate my or other characters for no reason at all and say heartless unnecessary shit. Many people seem to just look on the surface of a character and not into the insides, that they have a good heart deep inside. That's just sad. Because the Dragon Lady, yes, is arrogant and egotistical, threating her minions mostly like trash and deserves to got punished, but after all, she deeply cares for her son and loves him with all her heart, which he sadly often don't appreciates because he's an edgy teenager. Also, I heard many people hating on Thanos or other villains with sympathic motives. But with this characters it's mostly because they killed many important characters. But still, I think it isn't a reason to hate them. I don't hate Thanos because he killed Loki or Heimdall. Maybe just a little bit but not in general.
Well killing off characters others like does justify hating them at times but not always and just having sympathetic motives doesn't mean they are necessarily likable. I get your point though and it depends on how a story plays put if I like a character at the end of the day.
I agree with you. Sorry I didn't really outthinked what I wrote. I meant it is justified to hate a character when he kills off a beloved character and sure you didn't are suppossed to like him just because he has sympathetic motives. I can relate sometimes and respect that. I accept people's opinions when they hate Thanos. But I don't get it why there are so many and why they hate him overall. For me, I rarely hate characters, I only hate them if they are portrayed really cowardly and annoying. And if someone kills off a favourite character of mine I just hate them for that, but not in general, like with Thanos. I like Thanos but hate him for what he did to Loki, Heimdall and other innocents.
But the absolute stupiest thing is that if people are like that girl, which hated my character and said heartless things. She can hate some of my characters, it's ok, but you need a reason to and it's complete bullshit to say something like "I don't care if she dies and her son doesn't has a mother anymore". That is just too much and over the top. No one deserves to have his parents taken away from them. And at least you should like or respect her for being a good hearted mother, even if you don't like her.
Yeah I mean if the mom was abusive to the kid I could get it but otherwise it does come across as just being a jerk. I mean I don't always mind when a villain is killed even if they have a kid but at the same time I do feel bad for the kid unless said parent was abusive.
My one villain who is a illegal dealer in the dark web, also commits human trafficking and sex slavery. He let kidnap girls and women and sells them on the black market, even to pedophiles and rapists. So my question is, would he then also count as a rapist, even if he didn't commit it himself?
I read about a controversial topic because I talked with a friend about it. This topic is if rape is worse than murder or not. In media, like films etc, rape is always portrayed worse than murder. And I thought many people would think that too. But it's not like that. Indeed, many people find murder much worse than rape, and are toxic about people who say it the other way around. I just don't understand why. For me rape is much worse, because you have to live with this traumatic experience <our entire life and may never healed from it, and if you are murdered, you are gone and don't suffer anymore. Like we say, there is worse fates than death in the world. Torture and rape are much worse than murder for me, but it depends how gruesome the murder is. What do you think?
Sure, but like I said, mostly the victims of rape who live are mentally destroyed for life or even commit suicide. But it depends how mentally strong a person is. And I agree, that's why I find villains more heinous and disgusting if they commit rape.
I agree with you that the two of my four most heinous villain in the story with the mentally ill teenager, are likely to not count. Sure their actions are kinda unique but don't reach the extremely high heinous standard, even if one of them is a one-shot villain. But because the uncle is already the evil driving force in the story who is responsible for most of the deaths and tortured his own family and other people mentally and physically, destroyed many lives of innocents in the process and his right-hand man who is a disgusting pedophile who tortures, rapes and kills children and teenagers, the other villains can't just reach that level of evil. Even the uncle I think makes a short cut, because of how heinous his right-hand man is. But they both are clearly Pure Evil and the most heinous villains in the story. But with the other two, I just don't feel it, like you said. Sure the human trafficker sells teenage girls to rapists, but honestly, it's nothing compared to what the pedophile does, in torturing and raping children and teenager for hours, before killing them. And the russian terrorist, while heinous for the spin-off standards, I'm not sure about him and also lean towards no. He seems very generic in that universe. Like I said you can argue that it's a spin-off but it's still the same universe where serial killers, mass murderer, drug dealers, pedophiles etc exist in.
But I'm still unsure about the russian terrorist. What makes him so unique evil for this story to me, is that he wanted to blame the protagonist for a murder he commited and ended up nearly putting his father on death row. And the thing that he forces a scientist to help him and if he would refuse he would kill his family and that he nearly nuked an entire city from america.
I watched the movie Game Over, Man! yesterday and I liked it, but not loved it. But what kinda ruined the movie for me and was totally unnecessary, was the scene where the cute little dog was blown up in a bloody explosion. That made me so angry and sad, also I hated the villain after that so much who was responsible for it. And I said to my sister before that I'm sure the dog is going to die, and I was right. He first didn't die when there was a failure with the bomb but the second time he really did. And that just felt unnecessary. I don't know why it is in fiction, but for most people (including me) it's more horrible, disturbing and sad if a animal or a child dies than a adult or teenager. Maybe that is because they are more innocent and helpless than adults and teenager, though there are many innocent adults/teenagers killed in fiction. Maybe that's also why not many children and animals die in movies or games. But yeah, that kidna ruined the movie for me. And also kinda the disturbing but somehow funny scene where one of the protagonists cut off a bad guys ear and skin with a slicer.
Yes exactly. I liked it how The Meg has done it. The poor whales where killed for sure and onscreen by the shark, but the little cute dog survived. They first made it like the dog isn't able to swim back and is eaten by the shark, but at the end of the movie he is shown to have actually survived and still swimming in the sea. He then is rescued by the main characters. That was a twist that was suprising for me and my father when we watched it and made us happy. First I was pissed at the shark but then when the dog wasn't eaten, I felt kinda bad for the shark because he was brutally killed. But also deserved it because he killed a baby whale and his mother. But somehow, dog deaths are worse to me than whales. But just a little bit. But somehow I didn't freaked out when the baby whale brutally died when the shark ate him. I was just shocked and a little bit sad.
In one of my horror stories, I'm not sure, but I think I have a Big Bad and a Bigger Bad. Because the overarching antagonist is a man behind everything who pulled the strings. He first appears in the second game and is revealed to be evil and the one responsible for all the undead monsters, because he created them. He seemingly dies at the end of the game but in the fourth one, he is revealed to be ressurected. He is the main antagonist of both ones and dies for good in the fourth one. The fifth one is a spin-off and a prequel with a different protagonist and he's not the main antagonist of this one but again the reason for the plot, because he killed the little son of the main antagonist of this game and blamed the protagonist for it. He would clearly be the Bigger Bad. Then there is the main monster who is the titular-main antagonist of the entire series. Appearing as the main antagonist in the first one, the central antagonist in the second, the main antagonist again in the third and a posthumos background character in the final fourth one. He is always the main threat in nearly all the games and has a big impact while his master and creator works in the background. He I think would be the Big Bad. What do you think?
The one of my vilest horror villains, I don't think is mentally ill or psychotic, even if he is twisted. He is more of a psychopath. I'm still unsure because he raped, tortured and killed a teenage girl and her little sister, and after that still had their corpses which he used to play with, like changing their clothes, making them "fresh", changing their hair styles and talked with them like living humans. But he seems stabile.
Even in my video game stories, where I have always the same main villains (just in video games targeted for children), I try to use them not too often and also create new and fresh villains who stay just for one game as the main villain, or on exceptions maybe one more game but not as the main one. The Big Bad of the series is in these games where there is another new villain, either an minor antagonist, an anti-hero or isn't in that game at all, it varies. So it's similar to villains like Bowser and Dr.Eggman. I love these kind of franchises, where there is one Big Bad and Archenemy of the hero, but sometimes, to keep it new and fresh, there are new big villains and storylines. I even try that more often than Nintendo or Sega does with Mario and Sonic. Because I'm not really a fan when a Big Bad stays the main antagonist for every game. And in my story ideas for movies and tv series, it's completely different as with my game ideas. There are also existing Big Bads and Archenemies, but they aren't as common and they just appear two to three times as the main antagonist but then are gone or just left as side characters or anti-heroes. They also have always different goals and motivations. Because in a movie or similar media, you just can't have often the same villain and he needs to change his goals and not stay the same, or it gets very boring. At least that's my opinion.
Mine tend to have one goal that’s consistent (often becoming a God and remaking the world or just destroying everything) though the way tends to vary. That’s not to say they are the only villains but rather they are the major ones. Granted I only have three series’ I plan to potentially make: one with three parts an the other potential would be just one or two long ones.
Ok interesting. Yeah that's what I also meant. It doesn't need to be a completely different goal and motivation, but it must vary to keep it interesting and not boring. Though I have many movie villains in my stories that change their goals completely. Like the Military Wolf General who in his first appearence just is a little bit generic, wanting to steal the ancient artifact from the deuteragonist (the later girlfriend of the protagonist) and to become a billionaire. Besides that he wants to kill the protagonist out of revenge for what he did to him in the past. When he returns in the fifth part however, he has a completely different goal. He now tries to overthrow the current government with a civil war to become the new leader of the country, because he is disgusted at how the government is threating their people and country. He wants equal rights and a better and safer lifes for everyone. So he changes from a greedy deluded villain to a much more sympathic anti-villain. Or the Gangster Boss from the story with the Wolf Lady first tries to dominate the entire city with his crime gangs and rule everything, and in the fourth and last part where he returns, he becomes rich and very wealthy and wants to buy his way to the top and rule the city as a mob boss. He is an example of a villain with the same, similar goal that varies and changes a little bit.
Sure, it would be disappointing either way, but at the end and maybe a heroic death he deserves, would be much better than that. I really think movies and games need to stop killing off main characters like they are nothing. I mean sure it might be more realistic, but it doesn't have to because it's a fictional story, and also the fact that the main characters often always survive everything. I mean like Marvel for example. Sure important heroes died in Endgame, their deaths are just perfectly done, but then there are characters who are just killed off in kinda disappointing and out-of-character deaths. Just like Loki and Heimdall. I mean sure they wanted to show how powerful, scary and brutal Thanos is, but especially with Loki and his magic tricks it seemed unbelievable. Another problem what video games and movies, especially Marvel, has is that villains are killed off too easily or quickly, and are kinda wasted. That is even a problem in most of my stories, where sometimes nearly even all villains die.
I don’t have an issue when they kill off main characters or heroes if it’s to finish an arc or story but it should at least be them going out in a decent fight not just getting effortlessly best. For me Thanos killing then wasn’t an issue as I would of missed then but it was obvious they’d be back very soon making the killing meaningless.
The worst thing of Last of Us 2, what annoys me the most, is the really bad written und unrealistic ending. Sry if I sound harsh, but it just makes me mad that everything was destroyed by this dumb story, even the great story of the first game.
I still don't know if I should give my Lizard-Dinosaur General villain redeeming factors. It's the only story of mine where I'm not sure what to do with the characters and story arcs in the course of the story. Especially with this guy. I mean when I created him I wanted him to be kinda a anti-villain and remorseful villain or just a complete irredeemable monster. So first I went with him being a pure evil villain but then I made it that in the later parts he becomes tragic and remorseful. But that doesn't just feel right. With all my other stories I already know what to do with the villains. I even have Made of Evil villains in a few story, who aren't Pure Evil but irredeemable evil. Or this alien warlord who isn't pure evil at first but just goes to far in the end, in becoming completely irredeemable and too heinous and vile. So I thought about him (Lizard-Dinosaur General) to go the other way around. But I saw that often, villains who are first Pure Evil but later redeem themselves or show positive qualities out of nowhere, aren't very welcomed by the audience. I can understand that. So I think about him staying pure evil like first. Because I don't really need him to be an On & Off villain and I have no plans and ideas for him switching to the good side for a short time. And I don't see a reason why. Also I don't want to overuse the On & Off villains in my stories. I love that if heroes and villains work together against a bigger threat, but I shouldn't overuse it. Also I don't think that you can forgive a villain if he did such heinous things. And when they do, they should have noble goals or positive qualities in the beginning and not just radomly thrown in in later parts. Like Thanos for example. But for the Lizard-Dinosaur General, he commited various war crimes and killed millions of people, he threats his minions like trash and uses them as meat shields, he attempted to wipe out every life being and culture except his own and he murdered the parents of Kate and the uncle of Jay, the both protagonists. That isn't really forgivable. Compare it to the Dragon General from the other story of mine who is very similar to him in appearence in some characteristics. But in comparission to the L-D G, the Dragon General is polite and didn't really attack innocents who aren't in his way. He shows that in his first appearences (the third one or so). He doesn't take his crimes and goals as far, he didn't killed a family member of the protagonists and he shows respect and honor. His only really bad thing is that he threats his minions often badly. But also respects and cares about them.
Yeah you're right. And it's more natural if he's just a irredeemable villain, because he just got to far and never showed any positive trait in the first place.
Also I noticed that I'm too focussed on the Pure Evil and Pure Good category and often forcefully want to write my characters that way. That isn't really healthy. Especially because I want to make most of my heroes Pure Good just because they look cute and like nice, polite and friendly people, what isn't always the case with their characteristics, personalities and acts. Like for example, a very muscular man who looks angry, can be Pure Good, because he might look brutal but he has a heart of gold and does outstanding heroic things, and a cute looking rabbit can be a Heroic Jerk or Anti-Hero despite his cute and friendly looks. And with Pure Evil, I don't want to make my most badass and cool-looking villains that way, because I think it's a waste of personality, because then they can just be evil and no good and they are one-dimensional characters. But that also isn't really true (except the good part stuff), because they still can be great and enjoyable and fitting characters. I think I need to learn and change that.
If you remember, I was afraid to do tie up or other things to the Wolf Lady. But now I drew a funny idea I had for her own spin-off story. There, she is tied up with truck wheels who are put on her and he villain says he's sorry but they didn't had ropes, so they have to use the wheels instead. That is a creative capturing scene.
And the other thing I thought about is my one Big Bad villain from a science fantasy story of mine. He is a demon who wants nothing more than chaos and destruction. He is the devil himself. He commited multiple mass murders with his minions and massacred and destroyed an entire village. He then captured the dog and girlfriend of the main protagonist and tried to suck all the life energy out of them, to become all powerful. His final goal is to spread darkness and plague all over the world. While he sounds heinous enough to count as Pure Evil, the thing is that he is likely not. Because he is a "Made of Evil" character who can do just evil and doesn't seem to have Moral Agency. However, I'm not sure my story made that clear. Because he does have a sadistic personality, can talk etc. So how do we know, if he would really be a MoE character or rather a Pure Evil one?
But also, I don't think if he would have Moral Agency, his crimes would come near as close to two of the other villains in the story who are more likely to count as Pure Evil. First a sadistic and power-hungry torturer who lives of others pain, who infects innocent people with a specific gruesome poison which leads to them feeling constant pain permanently, which would go on for ever if there wouldn't be a cure to it. And the other one who is a former hero who was a guardian but got hungry with power and magic, so he brutally snapped the neck of his friend and partner, commited multiple mass murders and genocides in which he destoryed entire villages and civilisations and at the end tried to destroy the entire world to rebuild it in his own image.
Well show he isn’t able to fully understand other life often and and other demons being very similar in personality with not understanding the concept of good beyond they wouldn’t be able to do things they find fun.
I don't know, but again I feel like I made a big mistake with the Wolf Lady, that she is tied up with truck wheels next to her uncle. I think again that I ruined her and now that I completely ruined her for good. Even if I created a funny scene, where the villain says that he is sorry and didn't had ropes, so instead he used truck wheels. What do you think about it? Do you think I should worry or not?
I think you shouldn’t worry so much, the point in being a writer is creating a story you like and wish to share. If you don’t like the idea I guess you could remove the scene but remember you are writing this story in part for fun so I don’t think you “ruined” her or anything.
I mean I like that idea, it's very fitting and funny. But I don't wanted to put "bondage" and "stuck" stuff on the Wolf Lady, because I often overuse this stuff in my stories even if it's unfitting, you know. Because that's my kinda fetish, my favourite stuff. But then, I also have the fear that this stuff ruins my characters, even if it fits into the story.
I now made the scene even better, and now I don't really regret it anymore. I thought about finally drawing a first picture where she is in action and badass, and not like a damsel like on the others. I combined that with the wheel stuck scene and it was easy to draw and I drew it very fast. There she let herself fell on the ground and rolls over the villains, and says a one-liner like "let's ride!". That makes her even more badass and likeable. Especially the fact that she is tied up and in danger but is still able to defend herself and get out there of her own, in using the wheels she's stuck in and uses them to roll over the bad guys.
I'm sometimes not sure if a few of my heroes would still count as Pure Good, even if they are Vengeful. But I read in the category that they can be Vengeful, if it's not selfish and just for them, but if they do it for someone else.
So I have the one anthro fox hero who is a real "White Kight". He saved his world multiple times from great threats and saved all the people. But he isn't lethal, to his villains either, just kills in self-defense. In the later parts of the story, his uncle is killed by the main villain, and he freaks out about it. Later he swears to avenge his uncle. In the end, he first let the villain live, because he didn't want to become a monster like he is and noticed how vengence blinded him. But afterwards, the villain tries to backstab him and he changed his mind and kills him. So what do you think?
Shido from Date A Live becomes somewhat vengeful when he finds out Westcott killed his parents, experimented on his sister drastically shortening her life, caused the death of millions along with sever torture but tries to offer Westcott a chance at redemption, compare that to Kiritimati who while justifiably pissed only spares Sugo’s life at the last second while partly due to not wanting to go to prison When knowing Sugo likely would be imprisoned (he does later trap PoH in a fate worse than death). There’s also Batman who won’t kill on a whole but will essentially cripple his enemies in some stories.