Hi there, and I hope you're doing well. I just happened to notice a response you just left to a comment I made under a blog that was proposing creating a "Near Pure Evil Wiki" and characters that could go on it. You can already check back to see my response where I stated most of what I thought was important, but I wanted to message you directly to clarify that I did not mean to come across like I was trying to degrade anyone else's opinion. It's just that apart from the concept of having that type of wiki itself seeming awkward, especially/precisely because of how subjective the concept already is, I simply thought that at least a few of the characters listed were very clear non-examples and that they shouldn't be listed as candidates for that type of wiki anyway just because they were brought up and rejected. That said, a couple of the most clear examples of that, Vincent (Over the Hedge) and Lapis Lazuli, weren't even brought up and rejected, so I'm not really sure why this user suggested them.
Anyway, all I meant to state was that if there did happen to be enough interest in a wiki about that for it to be created, the most fair way to do it would be to include characters that fit most of the actual criteria as established on FANDOM rather than any character that anyone happens to think comes close to qualifying. Otherwise, there could be a number of characters on it that the vast majority of people don't think qualify (again, hypothetically speaking/typing). I'm sorry if it came across like I was being rude. Hopefully, after seeing enough of my comments over the last year and two months since I joined due to commenting on a number of the same things, you know by now that I'm not the type of person that is inclined to insult/disrespect those with differing opinions, or at the very least, am close-minded enough to not try seeing their point of view.
It's fine. You didn't seem rude exactly, I just know there are some users that will vote on proposals that they disagree with and then talk to the proposer like they don't know what they're talking about. You weren't doing that so sorry if I came off a little strong but your comment kinda reminded me of that sort of thing.
I understand. I'm relieved that that's not how I came across, but I'm still sorry that I reminded you of those kinds of remarks. As I stated before, if anything, I actually think a lot of candidates that have been proposed and rejected were cases where I could understand why someone would think that about them. There have just been a few odd ones that were clear non-examples, at least in my opinion, and I didn't want another user to classify them as "nearly pure evil" just because they were proposed and rejected, or something to that effect. If that's going to become a thing, like with the category itself, I just want them to encourage them to put thought into it and set out a reasonable criteria for it rather than base it on something like that.
Good question. Yes, I think I would. Among other key factors, his actions, especially his attempted genocide of the pandas, easily stand as some of the most heinous atrocities in the Kung Fu Panda series, and he's largely played very seriously. If it weren't for having a couple of mitigating factors, namely caring enough about the Soothsayer enough to set her free, and genuinely wanting his parents to love him, he would probably qualify, seeing as how there's no real justification for his most heinous acts. As you probably know, the main reason he does what he does is because he had such a lust for power that being the ruler of Gongmen City wasn't enough for him, so even if he was looking for love and happiness, he was very obviously looking for it in the wrong places, and he has no one to blame but himself for that.
I mean yeah I guess I agree that there are some villains that are closer to pure evil than others. And I agree that some of the villains on that list really weren't close to pure evil. For example if you compare Lord Shen to Vincent from Over the Hedge you could probably see the difference.
...Possibly. It still sounds like a strange idea to create a wiki around to me though, because as we've established, characters who have been rejected vary quite a lot from one another, and obviously, that wiki would be one of those ones where the idea behind it is to devote itself to compiling specific types of characters, and if the characters only have that in common... the idea doesn't seem very focused.
...I don't know, I just don't think there's any need to create an actual wiki for villains that are close, but don't make it, because if we're going to do that, then why not have a wiki for anti-villains or tragic villains, you know what I mean? I already feel like by having a Pure Evil Wiki, we're, if somewhat unintentionally, making it look like they're more important, and creating that just emphasizes that idea even more... that is, the idea that villains who are pure evil, or who at least make a strong attempt at being so, are the only ones important enough to deserve their own wiki. I haven't been a user for very long, but it's obvious that the people who run Villains Wiki are trying to encourage people to not think that way, and I agree; it's an unhealthy mindset to develop. I don't mind the Pure Evil Wiki itself too much, because in a sense, it does acknowledge the sub-set of the most "pure" villains that are compiled here, but running any further with it just feels like unnecessarily, if somewhat unintentionally, glorifying the concept. Does that make any sense?
Hi Modernmymidon can secondary antagonists be opening antagonists and also I've sent more messages on the discussions page so will you reply to my messages please and also can you make those pages Sable International and such