|
|
Post by Erika on Jul 4, 2014 21:34:34 GMT -5
What is a villain? Why do villains do what they do? At what point does a person decide that they want a red card? Discuss the truly villainous villain, their desires and their motivations.
This is a short answer assignment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adamant Ace on Jul 6, 2014 18:29:27 GMT -5
A villain is someone who actively works to better his/her own situation without regard to the well-being of others or even deliberately at the expense of others.
They may simply hate people and/or society. They could be acting out of greed. They could be doing it for fun. Alternatively, they could be acting as heroes in their own eyes and be trying to change/save society and/or the world (such as Ra's al Ghul or the Operative from Serenity).
They probably decide that they want a red card when it becomes apparent to them that it is probably the most effective way for them to achieve their goals.
For each villain, the motivation is probably going to be different. Some may act out of spite towards the world/humanity, while others may be simply out to make a better life for themselves. I covered the basics of this already, but IMO, a villain is defined by their actions, not by their motivation.
Grade: Double points for bringing up an interesting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jul 7, 2014 10:02:13 GMT -5
IMO, a villain is defined by their actions, not by their motivation. This is an interesting outlook, and one that I don't think we see much in media that has clearly defined good and evil. Are people evil because they do evil things? Or do they do evil things because they are evil? I think most of the time we see the latter, although obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two. Would you say, then, that a person who is mean, cruel, hateful, etc, isn't actually a villain until he commits a crime? Or would it be that he probably wouldn't want to commit the crime unless he was a villain in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by steamtech on Jul 14, 2014 7:47:12 GMT -5
A villain is any public figure that takes a stand against the established paradigm of a society. The reasons for this are varied, and should they prove successful, history can retroactively make a hero of a villain, but the only thing that makes a villain a villain is the fact that their methods are considered immoral, illegal, or both. As a result, villains come in a variety of types, from contemptible monsters to idealistic revolutionaries.
Villains commit acts of villainy for a variety of reasons. Most villains are products of their environment, having personal tragedy or defining events of how they were raised leading them to acts that most would consider vile. An excellent example of this is Magneto, having his family torn from him at a young age while being subjected to the worst of man's inhumanity to man. Given the power to change things, he set out to make sure that no one would be able to hurt his family, the mutants, again. He is a villain for his methodology, but the reasons for his actions ring with a quality most often heard at human rights rallies.
I would find it hard to believe that most registered red carders are with the Villain Agency because they wanted the red card. For many, it might have been the only option. Not everyone is as lucky as we are to have gotten full ride scholarships, and without being able to afford the education to apply for a blue card, it would not surprise me to learn that many supers are recruited so as to gain sanctuary from past actions that would get them labeled as vigilantes and locked up. (In the words of Evil Inc.'s Miss Match, "You're a hero because it's right. I'm a villain because it's what's left.") At least with the red card, they have a support system backing them. For those who actually chose the villain life, I'd think that the main attractions were the same blanket coverage the desperate individuals sought, as well as access to allies, labor, and materials they might not otherwise have. A little regulation for what is essentially sponsorship is an attractive notion to many. In some cases, supers turn to villainy simply as a way to make rent. If crime didn't pay, there would be no criminals, and in some cases (especially when powers result in physical mutation), crime may be the only career path available to a super. A lot of heroes, especially the gadget/power armor using variety are independently wealthy. Without that edge, crime appears a lot more appealing.
The truly villainous villain is a creature that not only defies society in some way, but is actually incapable of functioning in said society. This category sees a lot less sympathetic idealists and a lot more unhinged sadists. Brutus was a villain for his (admittedly tricked) role in the betrayal of Caesar, but he truly thought that he was doing the right thing at the time. Some men, to quote The Dark Knight's Alfred, just want to watch the world burn. These are the exemplars of the "villainous villain." The title of villain can be worn by many, but the stigma of it is generated by terrorists who bomb their own people to send a message, by serial killers who follow their own twisted reasons. Some, like the Coroner, aren't even aware of how far they've fallen. They simply create pain wherever they go, and are unable to care about it. It is important that I emphasis unable, for that is what separates the villains from the monsters. A simple villain can force himself not to care about the consequences of his actions, while a monster lacks the ability to comprehend why he should care.
Grade: 625 Points. A very nuanced response.
|
|
|
|
Post by sync1ine on Jul 17, 2014 8:43:41 GMT -5
What is a villain? This could easily have been the subject of a thesis. Perhaps it will be mine.
Society defines BOTH heroes AND villains by their actions, NOT their motivations. If you kill people, or rob, or rape - sure, you are a villain... but do not forget that if you upset the status quo or discomfort those in power, you are a villain then, too. Thus, the early issues with Batman's career.
I am going to begin by pointing out a major difference between heroes and villains, and then explain and elaborate upon the theme.
Heroes REACT to villains and are defined by the very existence of villains. Heroes destroy plots, defeat plans, break machines and apprehend those responsible. In other words...heroes exist as guardians of the existing order, and ONLY because villains do. The story of their life is primarily scripted by others, and with luck, they write the ends of chapters. Heroes are characters in a movie.
Villains create. They plot, plan, build, organize and exist completely INDEPENDENTLY of heroes. A villain has some purpose or goal in life that has absolutely nothing to do with heroes as a general rule, whether it is great or small, and with few exceptions any Hero is merely one obstacle among many before them. The story that a villain writes is primarily his own. He writes the majority of it and heroes help with the ends of chapters if they get lucky. Villains are screenwriters who must ALSO perform in their movie.
Why do villains do what they do? Their motivations and their actions are as endless as humanity's own, and the choices they make are defined by their internal ethics. Since humanity defines villainy by actions and not motivation, extremely simple everyday acts can rewrite people's lives or place them at odds with the majority, labeling almost anyone a villain.
After the fact it becomes obvious that Eli Whitney should have had a red card. To make a buck he invented the cotton gin and prolonged the existence of slavery in America by nearly a hundred years. Was anything other than human suffering, cheap cloth and his own personal wealth the result of the invention? In his defense, he did become a one percenter. Perhaps his new position of power and wealth acted to reshape the perception of how he got there, and allowed him to write the ending to his own life differently than his actions would have warranted.
Indeed, history is filled with so-called villains who have purchased respectability. Apparently the accumulation of wealth, power and leverage can allow society to ignore their own rules about villainy and change a villain into an upstanding citizen. I would hypothesize that many villains recognize this and act accordingly. How often does a villain say that people are fools and will recognize the villain's own genius in time? Apparently, successful villains become masters of industry, politics and the military and hatch from a villainous cocoon into a butterfly of respectability.
This lesson is not wasted on serious villains.
At what point does a person decide they want a red card?
I would suspect that few villains give a damn about the card. However, it would appear that some villain somewhere has done well for himself,and has purchased respectability, and now gets to hand the things out. Good for them. If the price of doing business in the area is a card, well, it's cheaper than college.
"The truly villainous villain" is an interesting term. Who defines the terminology? I would say that someone who embraces the shocking, revels in horror, and reaches for ever newer ways to impose themselves on others has approached this phrase for most of us, and if they do this while pursuing villainy as a career, then we have found a good example. Very few villains care about such things, and I would go so far as to say that it is a serious aberration when it occurs and acts as an impediment to that villain's success. Villains are defined by acts that are contrary to the status quo, and such acts are best committed via stealth. "Truly villainous" acts can be quite modest or defined by regional standards, but they always result in outrage, and outrage gets in the way of the task at hand. Generating general outrage is a source of difficulties that could have been avoided.
The Joker is clinically insane, and is obsessed with a theme that life is pointless and chaotic, and that he is merely a clown laughing at the chaos and attempting to awaken others to pointlessness. This theme is now more important than any other plan or plot the Joker may have. He has focused considerable effort and genius on expanding this theme and promoting it. As a result he has accomplished little as a villain other than a few fatalities, outrage and pain. He has been incarcerated for most of his career.
The Marquis de Sade (once he chose to publish himself widely outside the 1% and influence society at large) was considered a villain and clearly an aberration. Yet he has harmed relatively few people and can be considered to have done considerable good for others.
Doctor Doom's native land is a relative paradise by western standards. His acts inconvenience many people in the west and they have labeled him as a truly villainous villain. Latveria disagrees. I would point out that the United States has been doing far more damage to Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 14 years than Doom has ever done to the US. To his own people, he is a hero, and nearly a demigod. I feel it necessary to point out that Doom has never bothered with a Red card and might well be considered a vigilante given the nature of popular opinion in his homeland. This raises the question of whether you can simultaneously be a hero and a villain, or if vigilantes are in fact an intermediate state.
Grade: Check Plus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Jul 18, 2014 20:26:08 GMT -5
The concept of villainy being defined by actions, rather than motivation, appears to be a popular topic this semester.
There is one thing I will point out is that villains, in this universe, DO actively seek out their red cards, and it is something that they go to college for. (Or they have some sort of equivalence degree, take placement tests, etc.) Some of your classmates are seeking red cards at this very moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kashiro on Jul 19, 2014 5:31:01 GMT -5
As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a villain is: 1) a character in a story, movie, etc. who does bad things, 2) a person who does bad things, 3) someone or something that is blamed for a particular problem or difficulty. Antagonist, on the other hand, is defined as a person who opposes another person. Now, the first two definitions of villain are straightforward. However, the third definition is intriguing, as it defines it as the person blamed for the problem, not the cause. This brings up a good question of morality and conspiracies, of the motives of villains and those that are dubbed villains. The definition of antagonist simply requires opposition to an action. But does that mean that by opposing a hero one is assumed to be a villain? There is a great deal of leeway between these definitions, and I stand by the phrase the indomitable skitter lived by: "Doing wrong for the right reasons." Now this bring up great questions. Can you blame a man for becoming what may appear to be a villain if the system fails him? If he needs the money they gain for medical bills, for food for his family? We have many great examples of this conundrum in history, from the tale of Jean Valjean, to the modern Walter White. And so who is truly to blame? I say the system. The system fails those without voices, so that those without voices must either resort to villainy or be crushed. So, I define a normal villain as one who is a victim of circumstance.
Note the use of the phrase 'normal villain'. Now, I will discuss the real villains. Those that do it because they can, because it is fun. The real villains have motives and dreams that I cannot say, for they are as human as the rest of us, and I cannot say the motives and dreams for humanity as a whole. And there are many reasons to become a villain. Too many to list. So, in my opinion the real villain is an enigma, for I have never met someone who is not a victim of circumstance.
On the matter of the red card. I believe that the person should get a red card once they have decided they wish to be a villain, fully and truly. Not when they have been in the job for x years, nor because they have risen to a certain status. This is totally unrelated to my definitions of the 'normal' and 'real' villains as described above as, like everything else, all individuals have different reasons for doing things and I can only hope to explain what I think is the best time to. Which is, when one has truly come to terms with the decision of becoming a villain, that is when they decide to get a red card.
Now, there is one type of villain I have not yet discussed. This is the supervillain. What makes a supervillain different from a villain? Simply, presentation.
500 style points. Presentation is everything
|
|
|
|
Post by Twitch on Jul 23, 2014 20:24:28 GMT -5
The topic of villainy can't be approached without first entering a philosophical minefield - what is evil? Cultural, religion, personal experiences and even the barriers of our own language prevent us from agreeing about anything. I will try to avoid the worst of this by simply paraphrasing the great Sir Terry Pratchett. "Evil starts from treating people like things."
With this said, I will now step squarely onto a explosive. We're all evil. Even an innocent baby views his/her mother as a source of comfort and food. The ability to see other people as people is not natural. Goodness is not natural. However, this is not the assignment to be explaining my theories of goodness and theism. I've declared everyone of us evil, but it's obvious we're not all villains.
My definition of 'villain' is this: it's a given label. The label is assigned when us other evil humans feel threatened by the difference in the villain's evil and the giver's standard of permissible evil. Playing tricks on the telemarketer (who's just trying to make a living) is permissible, playing tricks on the lady with Alzheimers is not. In both cases, the prankster is treating people as fun toys, but I sure most readers don't find the later as funny as the first. However the prankster is merely a 'bad guy/girl.' A villain is someone who make us feel so threaten she/he 'must be stopped.'
With my previous points in mind, it is easy to see that a villain can have any motivation and justification. The red card chosen when the villain decided the label is useful to his/her goals.
The last part of this assignment is a bit subjective, however, I will state that the truly villainous villain is someone who treats people like things and justifies it. (Magneto's plan for Rouge in the first X-Men movie.) Like the villain, the bad guy, and the rest of us evil people, the T.V.V. can have any number of reasons, emotions, desires. They just creep us out more.
Grade: 2 Ocelots
|
|
|
|
Post by rypperd0c on Jul 25, 2014 9:36:14 GMT -5
There is nothing profound about evil. Someone does not have to have some special talent to wallow around in evil, this is a paraphrase of Coran Horn's discussion in I, Jedi about the nature of the Dark Side of the Force. There are a lot of evil people in the world. To be a Villain is to be visibly evil, and to accept the label that goes with actively knowingly violating the social contract.
The willful and deliberate decision to become a villain is typically motivated by one, or both, of two factors. The first is often the most obvious, it is Greed. The willful violation of society's rules and expectations for personal gain. We see this over and over again with bank robberies, hostage situations with demands for ransom, and endless pursuit of the "Big Score." The other primary motivation to become a villain is Ego. This is seen in the person that is repeatedly creating situations that lead to media coverage. This is the person that is not robbing a bank for the money, but to simply prove how better they are than anybody else by doing what others cannot.
It is important to remember that the two motivators, Greed and Ego, are often both present in an active villain. The person that can build giant robots that are in defiance of most modern technology, and sometimes even the laws of physics, could gt rich selling his creations in a free market economy. Unfortunately, the inventor's Ego is going to demand that he prove how his giant robot is better than any others, not by some official, media intensive challenge to other inventors, but by some plot to rob a bank, or take a hostage and demand a ransom, because these are seen as ways to make money quickly.
Of these two motivators, Greed generates the stupid villains. Ego spawns the dangerous ones. The ego driven villain will become the Nemesis, the one with the obsession to destroy the hero that proves that the bad guy is not as special as he wants to be.
Either of these types can set out to gain their 'Red Card.' The quest for money and/or fame can easily draw in those that willfully choose to be agents of destruction, seeking out the title of Villain as a way to validate their life of self destruction.
Grade: also two Ocelots, but different ones than before.
|
|
|
|
Post by cannonshop on Mar 30, 2016 2:24:39 GMT -5
what is a Villain?
Thinking on this, I think it's better to ask "Why a Red card?" The red card, is supposed to be the inverse of the Blue card-so let's consider the freedom a Red card gives you, versus the rules you're under when you go for the Blue Card.
1. Blue Cards (Heroes) are there to uphold the "Laws"-regardless of the actual justice OF those laws, by definition they're all about blind adherence to an imposed and largely arbitrary order that, for the most part, protects the criminals at the top of society-you know the ones, Congressmen, political machines, mayors who got into office by lying, duping, sometimes stealing and often by stomping on anyone who got in their way. Blue cards are why multibillionaires can spend enough money on an armored suit to productively employ a thousand skilled workers in activities that benefit them and their neighbours. Blue Cards are how a political machine can maintain a lock on elective office and distribute power to cronies, Blue cards make it so that police can pull over a minority and beat the living crap out of them for driving the wrong kind of car, or in the wrong area, at the wrong time of day. Blue cards, are why a cop can empty twenty rounds into a homeless person armed with a butterknife, and only get a couple of days' suspension because "the guy was armed and didn't drop it when we told him to."
Blue cards prop the system up, they preserve the ingrown establishment-they have to, or they end up being hunted as 'Vigilantes.'
2. Red Cards-can do all of the above...but they can also say, "no, I'm not putting up with it. You die." A Red Card means you have the power, and are willing to make the choice. Reds are exclusively responsible for their own actions, they do not have a 'system' they can pawn their accountability off to-if a Red Card lets a crooked political operator keep an incompetent in office to preserve an oligarchy of cronies-well, it's because he (or she) decided that it's in his or her interest. They aren't required to act, but they're also not required to NOT act when the system is fundamentally unjust to those not in power.
I can rob a bank for any reason, or none, I can choose to kill someone because I don't like them, or because they got in my way, or because I think it's funny, or because they're a skumdog exploiting the system's weaknesses and oversights to oppress their fellow man (or woman). AS a Red-Card, or "Villain", I have one more option than those...
I can forgive. I am not obligated to hold your actions against you, forever or until some arbitrary time limit imposed by an appointed judge is over. I have total control over my own motives, I have total control over my actions-this is what it really means...
"Heroes" are servants of the State, of the System, they have given away their fundamental right-of-power to be accountable and responsible for their own choices and actions, they are 'bound by law' and bureaucracy, registered, numbered, overseen, controlled, directed, commanded.
Villains are free to choose their actions, regardless of what society says, and it scares the crap out of the sheeple-because by choosing the red card, you choose to whom, and whether, you will submit to humiliations, meddling, interference, and only you have to bear the mental consequences from making that choice. (though you often get the opportunity to impose such consequences on others...for not submitting to your will-just like the people running the Heroes do...)
Expounding further...
Heroes-are other-directed. All of them. They are all there to be famous, look 'good' (Whatever that means) and 'help'.
Villains-are self directed. They choose who they help, who they hurt, and why. Villainy is villainy, because the villain is free, while the Hero is a Servant.
Grade: 36# of butter
|
|
|
|
Post by Twitch on Apr 26, 2016 16:24:46 GMT -5
"Heroes" are servants of the State, of the System, they have given away their fundamental right-of-power to be accountable and responsible for their own choices and actions, they are 'bound by law' and bureaucracy, registered, numbered, overseen, controlled, directed, commanded. The question is to whom or what are any individuals accountable? Majority opinion? A personal code? Or perhaps some independent absolute morality? While I understand your personal choice for a Red Card, I disagree that us Heroes have given up accountability and responsibility. By registering as a Blue Card instead of being a vigilante, I have given up a good deal of my privacy and autonomy - if anything I've allowed others to impose THEIR standards of accountability on my actions. You seem to have some unstated code of humanity/behavior that find lacking in Blue Card Holders. Yes, some use the system to deflect consquences. However, don't think for a minute that the Red Card doesn't do the same. There is a court precedent for this. If Henchman/woman 'A' brings Mastermind 'B' a victim, the henchperson can usual get out on bail if the victim is rescued alive. However, if this happened outside the Card system, it's different. Kidnapper/conspirator 'A' can easily be charged with ANY additional crimes (torture, illegal detainment, attempted murder) against the victim that conspirator 'B' commits. The Red Card protects Henchmen from the responsibility of enabling and assisting Villains hurt people. |
|
|
|
Post by cannonshop on Apr 27, 2016 3:12:59 GMT -5
"Heroes" are servants of the State, of the System, they have given away their fundamental right-of-power to be accountable and responsible for their own choices and actions, they are 'bound by law' and bureaucracy, registered, numbered, overseen, controlled, directed, commanded. The question is to whom or what are any individuals accountable? Majority opinion? A personal code? Or perhaps some independent absolute morality? While I understand your personal choice for a Red Card, I disagree that us Heroes have given up accountability and responsibility. By registering as a Blue Card instead of being a vigilante, I have given up a good deal of my privacy and autonomy - if anything I've allowed others to impose THEIR standards of accountability on my actions. You seem to have some unstated code of humanity/behavior that find lacking in Blue Card Holders. Yes, some use the system to deflect consquences. However, don't think for a minute that the Red Card doesn't do the same. There is a court precedent for this. If Henchman/woman 'A' brings Mastermind 'B' a victim, the henchperson can usual get out on bail if the victim is rescued alive. However, if this happened outside the Card system, it's different. Kidnapper/conspirator 'A' can easily be charged with ANY additional crimes (torture, illegal detainment, attempted murder) against the victim that conspirator 'B' commits. The Red Card protects Henchmen from the responsibility of enabling and assisting Villains hurt people. This is because Henchmen are servants. Much as blue-cards are, they surrender a portion of their will and natural accountability to a greater power in exchange for protection. The Greater Power in the case of Heroes, is, of course, "Society"-regardless of the level of actual 'justice' that society actually demonstrates. This is characterized by upholding laws (even when said laws are blatantly irrational), protecting authority figures within that society, etcetera. There are other sacrifices you heroes make that perhaps illustrate my point... would you say Doctor Wright was in any way,shape, or form, a fit mold for the senior position as a villain? He certainly doesn't fit the profile of physical perfection imposed on your lot, and it is questionable whether he was even mentally capable of achieving his schemes at all-yet, he was the Villain, while ColdFire was the Henchman. Meanwhile, the excellent "Sidekick Girl" would fulfill every aspect of being a proper "Hero" if she weren't short, flat-chested, and somewhat average seeming with a disdain for stripper-floss costumes, yet she is saddled with an incompetent "Hero" barely able to handle her own emotional shortcomings, never mind the somewhat dim wit and ineffectual powers-not because of any reasonable standard-but solely based upon appearance and family background. Further evidence: When one of your colleagues was killed by the supervillain "The Coroner", her brother rightly sought Vengeance-and what did the heroes do? Ostracism and a dedicated effort to protect the very criminal that harmed his family. A villain is free to pursue vengeance, or to forgive trespasses, without losing their status in the community, so long as the choice is theirs alone, not forced by some arbitrary set of imposed rules. A Villain is not forced to conform to some arbitrary physical perfection, attractiveness, or other non-practical imposition, their status is simply based on a combination of their own efforts, and their ruthlessness in pursuit of their goals. The willingness, in short, to throw society's standards away and pursue their OWN path. |
|
