This is an incredibly good video by all measures. It has everything it needs, no more and no less. It gets to the point and makes the case precisely. I also think the product placement was expertly handled. Which was also needed. Bravo LD! Bravo!
Completely off topic, my copy of Miracle child arrived this morning and its bloody brilliant. Will there be more from Doc Alpha or are you working on something else?
@@paullockhart9997 Awesome! Very glad you enjoyed it! I'm both working on another project and a second Dr. Alpha comic right now. Both are already in the works. Thanks again for the feedback!
But this is a very moralistic and black-and-white approach. The villain does not necessarily succumb to temptation or is subject to one of the cardinal sins. People think Daenerys Targaryen is evil because she burned down the capital of the Seven Kingdoms. But if you take real life, people don't know that Clinton bombed Belgrade. And if they do, they think it's fair. And also, some people, such as Chris Chan, George Floyd, Joe Biden, are considered saints by people with certain political views. Doesn't that mean they're good people? Or, for example, Gaddafi is considered the incarnation of Satan, although for some reason Libya turned into hell after his death.
@@ahoramazda6864 Well, those examples are mostly not about villain origin, but about different point of view on good and evil. In real world people tend to make their side "good" and other side "evil", no matter what is happening. Same goes for fiction, though we usually see only one side of the conflict, and dont pay attention to this. For example, is SW for loyal Empire planets Darth Vader was their hero and defender, and rebels were some kind of terrorists.
@@8xENDerx8, As for Vader, I don't know if he can even be considered a villain. Do not forget that he was a puppet and watchdog of the Emperor. Although the issue of free will is another topic. Well, anyway, even if you play by your rules - I have already given examples of how characters with similar traits are actually different and unrelated, just in other comments. But you probably haven't seen them, so I'll briefly recap. Jon Snow and Ramsey Snow. They are both bastards of noble houses and that's where the similarities end. They did not know each other personally and ended up on different teams due to the actions of other characters. The problem is that even if John wasn't a bastard and a good guy, he would still probably become Ramsey's enemy. Why? Because Ramsey is a degenerate and a psychopath. Partly for this reason, even another villain or other psychopath doesn't necessarily team-up with him. This is partly why I disagree with LD about evil counterparts. This is not a very common occurrence for many media. Often the villain and the hero are not connected thematically or even on a personal and story level.
@@ahoramazda6864 Your example kinda sucks for this kind of discussion. First of all, Ramsey is not Jon's main villain. There's a reason why there's 2 seasons after his death. Second, Game of Thrones deliberately goes out of it's way to avoid establishing a "main hero" and "main villain". GoT is equally about Jamie Lannister and Daenarys Targaryen as it is about Jon Snow.
Reminds me of the Joker Movie where Arthur Fleck becomes the Joker when all the crappy things to him culminates into him discovering the lies of his mother.
It’s just like colossus said in Deadpool “Over a lifetime, there are only four or five moments that really matter. Moments when you are offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend, spare an enemy.”
I've had this thought often. Hell, you could even make the whole "the universe revolves around me" as their power set for the hero to fight against. The villain who has everything they could ever want vs the hero who must struggle ever step of the way. My idea was this: After an epic story, during the final battle between Sue and the Protagonist, he fails, and is cut down by the overpowered Sue, who in her obvious amazing power, shall always win. However, this isn't the end. Have you heard of memes? No, not the silly Internet cats, but the kind that Richard Dawkins talks about. Memes, according to him, were akin to an infectious idea. Your at the mall and see someone wearing a shirt you like, later you see it in the store and decide to buy it. You put it on, walk outside and someone tells you that they like your shirt, and want to get one too. So they get a shirt as well, and so on and so forth. The idea being spread around is that the shirt is something everyone needs to be wearing because "it's cool", and this concept can be applied to every ideal you can think of. Metal Gear Rising bases it's entire plot around this concept, and it's quite fascinating, but back to Mary Sue. Our protagonist, while he may get struck down, passes his memes of struggle and sacrifice onto Mary Sue. She comes out of the battle a changed woman, and this battle perhaps, becomes the catalyst for a redemption arc down the line. One where she leans that life is meaningless without struggle and sacrifice.
@@dr.fiction7 I don't feel optimistic about rehabilitating Mary Sues, honestly. There's a Chinese webnovel that I've been reading called "Quick Transmigration Cannon Fodder’s Record of Counterattacks" that has Mary Sue-ish "main characters" as the villains of the story that might be worth checking out, but the protagonist drops back into bad authorial habits pretty fast.
@@dr.fiction7 The idea of a villain where "the universe revolves around me" and has everything they could ever want to win reminds me of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Part 5: Golden Wind. Basically the Villain of that part (no spoilers in case you haven't seen it yet) has Fate on their side, they are essentially a Mary Sue in that sense, and uses that ability in hopes of controlling Fate and the World. However the main Character and his friends have to fight against this, and through their resolve and self sacrifices try to turn Fate to their side in the end as their only hope of beating the unstoppable villain. Though I won't spoil if they succeed, as Jojo isn't scared to have the main characters lose in the end. Jojo often plays with Fate as its own force of nature that drives the universe, no different than the Force of Gravity (which it's compared to), which makes it very interesting to read into it in depth.
@@GBDupree It's ok, Part 5 is my favorite so far. Yeah, Diavolo honestly did have fate on his side up until the very end. King Crimson was a nutty ability, and it took an asspull from fate itself via the arrow in-order to beat him. Hell, DIOs heaven plan relied somewhat on the forces of Gravity "aka fate" in order to succeed, but fate itself chose the side of justice, and brought about Pucci's demise.
@@dr.fiction7 Yeah, I always thought it was interesting how often Fate tends to prefer the Villains at the beginning (maybe because of their Charisma?). But because the Villains always become too selfish, or succumb to fear and act out of that that they lead to their own demise. Like Pucci was working towards what could be considered a selfless goal, yet it is his act of selfishness to protect himself from dying that leads to him losing and dying anyways. He wanted everyone to accept their fates, yet couldn't accept his own, so Fate turned away from him.
Joker's "One Bad Day" failed because the torment of both Gordons came specifically and quite proudly from a lone, vengeful psychopath. If anything, he only proved Jim and Barbara right about every crimefighting instinct they ever had. What's more, Bruce became Batman because of the random, senseless nature of his parents' deaths. Lacking a central figure to strike back against, he instead declared war on crime itself. Mr. J isn't anywhere as good at this psychology thing as he thinks he is.
@@Crimson522 In multiple continuities he does get the chance and almost kills Chill but doesn't. Ironically the best example off the top of my head is Brave and the Bold.
Joker's own "One Bad Day" is also different to what he tried to do to them It wasn't just one bad thing that ruined his life, he had an entire week of bad luck, culminating in an entire day in which Murphy's Law went harder than ever thought possible: >His attempt at a stand up career is going nowhere >His wife miscarries and then dies >He's betrayed constantly and extorted into joining a heist as a patsy >During the heist, after he's left to get caught as the crime boss "The Red Hood", he falls into a vat of chemicals with a helmet/mask on >When he finally washes out of the drainage, being burned the entire time by the chemicals which got caught under the mask as well, he finally rips the mask off and sees his now disfigured face in a puddles refection, THAT's when it all comes together and he breaks He didn't push anyone else nearly as hard, and the biggest difference of all: He didn't have anyone left to rely on or comfort him, like Bruce with Jim (at the scene) or Alfred (the rest of his life), or anyone he still needed to protect, like both Gordons and each other (or the whole city). There's also something to be said that his mental breakdown definitely made him incredibly self-centered/narcissistic, so he probably focused solely on the "Something REALLY Bad Happened To Me" and didn't think about how all of it came together, including the things that could have softened it for him if they were there. (realizing that last part would only make it worse for him tbh)
I noticed something about Spider-Man and Batman's rogues gallery a while back: all their villains had a situation similar to the hero's, but responded to it in negative way. Doc Ock is a genius like Peter, Osborn gained super-strength that matches Spider-Man's. Most of those villains reflect one facet of the hero. The Penguin: Bruce Wayne's wealth. Mr. Freeze: the pain of losing someone. I noticed this when the Joker said, "I've demonstrated there's no difference between me and everyone else. All it takes is one bad day," but he caved to his insanity and became a clown, while Bruce rose above it and became Batman. Just wanted to mention that. Now I'd better watch the remaining 16 minutes and 20 seconds in the video to see if LD already covered that, or shot my idea down with something smarter.
On the subject of the Penguin, I think they ought to play up that wealth aspect. Instead of being a mobster, have him mirror Bruce more and be a wealthy billionare. Say he got that way through corporate espionage and sabotage and good old fashioned murder. Because how often is Batman's money itself challenged?
@@the_clark_side8466 They could also do that with Lex Luthor, I think. He's more like Bruce than Cobblepot is, and could challenge Bruce's wealth, charisma, philanthropy, and probably more.
Theres also owlman in one version when the justice league went to universe 3 batman and owl man fought 1 vs 1 and owlman won batman over to why he became a villian of the crime syndicate for a while in there fight saying this so what at least no 8 year old will ever lose there parents again because of some punk with a gun owlman is a bruce wayne that gave into vengeance on that day in crime alley.
@@tomspiegel5322 yeah, but Lex is Superman's villain. They could do a crossover every once in a while, so being a regular antagonist (outside the Justice League) is out.
Hardest hitting part of this whole video? The last comment about the pudding. Why? Because it shows that it's not the big choices, but the little ones, that carry you down the road to villainy. When the big choice comes, it's easy to decide for evil, because you've been doing it all along anyway. And with that comes the realization that I am NOT "the hero" of my own story. I'm probably the villain. Or, at least, a henchman. Ugh. That hurts.
Having the insight to see the weaknesses within yourself may instead be interpreted as the 'call to adventure' of your own hero story, Storm. Don't write yourself off so easily.
Yoda: A Jedi's strength flows from the Force, but beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression - the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice. Luke: Vader. Is the dark side stronger? Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. - Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Darth Vader essentially makes the same choice twice: as Anakin he chooses to betray his masters in the Jedi council to save his family and becomes Darth Vader, as Darth Vader he chooses to betray his master Palpatine to save his family and becomes Anakin again. The main difference is when he falls he allows his fear of loss to cloud his judgement and accidentally kills Padme, where by the time he finds out that Luke, his son, is alive he’s had time to cool down.
Whether seeking power can be considered good or evil depends on the reason you are seeking it. Let's say, for example, you have two men who each pick up a gun; the first takes up his weapon to rob a convenience store, the second to defend his loved ones from a gang of thugs who are breaking into his house at 3:00 am. The difference in morality there should be obvious.
Not so obvious if the owner of that store is a big asshole who kicked the cute kitten or sells overpriced soda :) Also considering how many times heroes are robbing people and destroying their stuff you may start questioning who is the villain at all LOL But considering seeking of the power the main difference I see is that society doesn't want villain to have that power while it is ok to have that power for the hero So in practice hero is just given the power to punish the villain and then he has to lose the power or become the villain himself. Hero can only exist as long as villain exists which probably why heroes make sure that villains will not go away anywhere.
Well the real answer these days seem to depend on the race, sex, sexual preference, and religious and political affiliation of the two individuals. If one is the wrong combination of those traits they are the villain no matter which options they take. If one is the right combination of those traits they are the hero no matter which options they take.
@@TheRyujinLP no, it's the content of one's character that decides what they will do. People get their choice nothing is decided for them, just because a black man raised by a single mother is statistically the most likely to commit a crime or kill someone, doesn't mean he doesn't get a choice in the matter, does he choose to act upon his unchecked rage or rise above and become stronger. Destiny is not written for you, nobody decides what you do besides you. People are not a summation of all the labels you tack onto them, they are their own selves. This is why you can play as evil races in dnd, just because Drow are evil does not mean your Drow character has to be evil, you get to choose to be different, to be better.
I've always found Rorschach to be an interesting subject when it comes to a "Hero". Ultimately Rorschach was a hero despite his many flaws. He has a staggering amount of negative traits but when the chips are down. Rorschach will give his life for truth and justice. His unyielding stance in that is what makes him a hero.
Rorschach may be brutal, self-righteous and borderline sociopathic, but he has the virtue of *integrity.* "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon." The man's integrity to me is like that of Javert from Les Miserables (fittingly, both choose death over violation of their code) and I really feel sorry for him when he demands Dr. Manhattan to blow him up.
@@gregorde It’s because Rorschach (or rather The Question) is based on an ideology that Moore disagree with and thinks that all other people disagree with as well, missing essential points of said ideology.
12:27 Another possible reason why seeking power is often seen as villainous : because, whatever motive drove you to seek this greater power, there comes a point when you come face to face with an obstacle that requires what yoy have recently learned to overcome, for instance an average mugger, and normal people may get carried away in the moment and either get humbled by a near defeat or come to their senses just barely before they land the killing blow. When you have capability above that of the opposition, it feels so easy to step onto that slippery slope of power tripping.
"seeking power is often seen as villainous" interesting claim as this looks mostly as part of the the propaganda narrative that status quo is good. because all mainstream fiction is about protecting status quo regardless of how horrible it is and any attempt to escape your fate is seen a villainous. Heroes, most of the time, will just get their powers by some higher force effortlessly because of absurd amount of luck and villains need to struggle to get into the position they are. And they seem rather extremely unlucky people who have to fight against the whole universe.
@@deltaxcd this just seems like a classic villain apology mindset. Villains aren't these baby boos who are unlucky because of society. If a society is unjust the majority don't benefit. What seperates a hero from a villain is how they oppose it. Batman and The Punisher both go against the law, but neither are seen as Villains to us, because they don't do evil or vile things to prove their point
@@storysurgeon5922 well rather than comparing superhero with supervillain compare things like SnoWhite and evil queen because Snow White was blessed with beauty and Queen is getting old granny which is losing all her potential and she is not happy about that. Or if you insist on batman then compare him with some street robber who probably has no money to buy a meal and gets attacked by multibillionaire vigilante. Whose single toy costs more than all those robbers can steal in whole year. When we have some super villain his goal is typically to change the world itself in one way or another like doctor doom who wants to build a better society.
I feel like this is the logical extension of the idea that villains are the heroes of their own stories. That most villains do not see themselves as the antagonist of a greater story, but rather as the main character in their own, where their actions are justified. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that, as they see themselves as the hero of their own story, they would undergo their own hero's journey, but twisted by their own slanted view of the world.
It could be seen that way but it will be not just conflict between people but between different worldviews and moral systems. otherwise when hero and villain meet in the end rather than fighting they should just converge as they share the same story.
You're totally right. I have read a bunch of stories where the main character is not a nice person. They're greedy, selfish, manipulative, and care very little about the people around them. Anything good that they do is out of convenience rather than a desire to help people. If they were the antagonists rather than the protagonists, I would be wishing for their defeat. However because they are the protagonist and they do good things sometimes, I can't help but wish for their success. Sometimes I don't realize how evil they are until I think about the actions they do from an outside perspective. It's kinda scary how much a person can overlook just because of the perspective that they are viewing those actions from.
@@33pandagamer that's asian storytelling method where it does not matter who is god who is evil. All what matters is that you follow a story of some person with his group of friends. but as i know this is forbidden to do in US where hero has to be totally good and villian can be anything and in result audience start hating that mary sue hero
"Somebody ask you to put on that costume or you take it upon yourself? You know what I think of you, hero? You know you're one bad day away from being me..." - The Punisher
Personally I prefer the vision that The Punisher is just a psychopath that wanted an excuse to kill and had the perfect one the moment his family was murdered. He is a lot like The Joker, except the clown is sincere to himself
@@zakazany1945, But the Punisher is possibly the only sane character in the entire Marvel universe. And I'm not even exaggerating. He really fights crime, and not just changes the location of the criminal.
@@zakazany1945 not really, no. 1. He's a vigilante, so when the law becomes inadequate, he just does what they won't. 2. Psychopath. You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. If he was, he would be killing whenever and whoever he saw fit. Psychos are indiscriminate and sadists. He kills murders, rapists, psychos, perverts, etc and he usually does it with guns.
@@PelemusMcSoy Because they don't have the guts to go that far in a story. They'd rather build a straw man and beat it up, declaring themselves the winner.
@@SamtheBravesFan Uh, it's usually just the gratuitous violence and implied rape that's the issue in that story, not the delving into deep characterization.
@@mousermind I think that's what he's saying. They went that far with the violence and whatnot to prove the point while a lot of stories just go "he's the bad guy who wants to do a thing" Like when's the last time Lex Luthor has actually succeeded in doing something irrevocably terrible to someone before Superman stopped him? Like yeah there's always some kind of world controlling plan but for the most part no one (that we see mind you obviously collateral exists) really gets dumpstered on in such a raw and permanent way that Barbra does in Killing Joke
Very poiniantly explained! A villain only views themselves as the product of the past, the result of "the one very bad day". There is nowhere else to go. Heroes see the bad day as a choice than an impulse or the only conclusion. A hero uses it to transform themselves interiorly for the better. Also, love to see Literature Angel make a reappearance! More of him please!
@@schwarzerritter5724 You could argue that a villain is also motivated by their past to take action. The excuse concept applies more to the nihilistic villains. A villain that supports a controversial cause that involves killing people may have been motivated by bad events in their life to believing it is right.
@@justmonika2345 the reason it's an excuse is because even if it's motivation to do their methods, the villainous things they do in their mind, are justified by this
Another great video! It's really sad to see these basic concepts be ignored just to "subvert audience expectations". I'm quite fed up with the concept that "The"heroes" are actually evil" trope. It belittles kindness and compassion. Core emotions of humanity. All of the stories that follow this "modern" narrative feel soulless when condition them to more classic or "predictable" ones.
Democrat here totally agree!!! Deconstruction is dumb now. What's the point of giving the main character a goal if the author isn't going to have them meet that goal in the end? Like romance for example What's the point of building up that these two individuals (boy and girl) respectfully are going to get together at the end if one of them turns out gay in the end. Makes no sense except to try to be different just because you can for no reason. That's why being predictable to me is more important than gotcha.
I've noticed this happening in anime for a while now. I even jokingly told my friends that "at this point, a generic JRPG hero who has a sword and defeats the evil demon king to save the world is more subversive than the misunderstood antihero with a necromancer ability who rebels against the church and joins the demon king to reveal that the heroes were actually evil." It's been done to death. I honestly would like to see more "generic" hero stories, because it doesn't pretend to be edgy and dark when it blatantly just wants to have a hero story but be taken seriously. I get it, after reading dark fantasy, I got really annoyed when normal fantasy would use magic to sidestep Consequences for actions. It felt cheap. But when everything is a gritty "trope subversion" world, the kid with an enchanted sword who just wants to do his best to help his friends is far more captivating than a devious rouge and his "monstrous" companions that are basically just humans with a couple of bonus features like horns.
@@derpfluidvariant0916 also magical girl stories now every since madoka came out everyone and their mom is trying to be the next magical girl edge fest because it's "in" right now which is becoming boring not mention most of the female cast in these shows are lesibian because they the plot says so. Saving the world and defeating the big bad has been a staple in storytelling for years breaking that just adds confusion and desaray.
@@candicemceady308 I've never watched a magical girl anime, as I tend to like shonen and seinin more, but I'm sorry that it's happening over there too. Any good Magical girl animes with interesting casts I should check out?
@@derpfluidvariant0916 sailor moon tokyo mew mew cardcaptor sakura doremi wedding peach corrector yui ask dr rin and Saint tail. These are all great magical girl shows.
Off topic, but would you ever be interested in talking about characters who are written to be god-like characters and how to make it work? For example being, characters like Saitama from One Punch Man, Molecule Man from Marvel, or Dr. Manhattan from DC. Basically characters who are so powerful to the point that they can break a story when used wrong, and the slippery balance in using said characters.
Sure am. In fact, that was the one I was going to publish next, but I decided to go with this one first. But a One Punch Man video actually is in the works.
"You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." This is the difference between the hero and the villain. Both are monsters, but the hero is virtuous because he can control his monstrousness, and the villain cannot.
There's a number of conclusions that can be drawn from this video, but I think the one that struck me for now is, a hero moves on from their grief and lets go while a villain will seek revenge. Often we see people excusing other's bad behavior because of past wrongs that were done to them or because they had bad influences or was raised that way, but unfortunately for these bad actors, they were the ones who did the crime, so it's still their fault even if they had some tragic backstory that set them down the wrong path. In present day, they still hurt others, and so in present day they're the villain. When talking about a lot of these sympathetic villain characters, I think it's more important than ever to remember that their histories give reason to their actions but doesn't excuse them. I think a lot of people forget that the villains hurt people and wind up removing any agency these characters had in their life decisions.
I think it's a mistake to use selfish and selfless as a mark villainy. I think being a selfish villain is easier to write but I think there are cases of selfless villains. A means to an end even if those means are the greatest of evils. I think Ozymandias form watchman is the closest thing I can think of for this point.
I think villains like Ozymandias don't really qualify as 'selfless' due to the whole 'murdering millions for the greater good' thing. That kind of flies in the face of the definition. Perhaps it's more like they convince themselves of their selflessness while at the same time reducing every individual into a nebulous 'Humanity-as-a-Whole' concept.
@@Ariaelyne Great care must be taken to understand that selfless is unequal to good and selfish is unequal to evil. It is possible to commit good selfish acts and evil selfless acts. In Ozymandias case he is trying to stop a war that will kill 100s of millions if not destroy the earth as we know it. He is not doing it for fame or fortune he will not be remembered and will not directly profit in any way with this great and terrible act. A mostly selfless act that is horrible evil for the means in which it is carried out. As for the good selfish act well we go back to the problem of the great fire and the two passageways. This man is in a burning building. He comes to a fork in his path. Down one way is 5 complete strangers and the other way is his wife. He only has enough time to go down one passageway and he chooses his wife. Selfish yes but is it evil? This is why I disagree with the video. I also think after thinking thru it that limiting our heroes and villains as always selfless and always selfish is well just that limiting.
Funny you bring up "The Killing Joke" as it offers the Joker a moment where he can have redemption, even after doing the horrible things that he does. Batman offers him that chance. But the Joker rejects that with his now classic joke.
I like to see it as when someone is at the brink of thier future and you choose a side. Batman shows this best when his parents die. He easily could have gone down the path of destruction but he chose the path of justice instead Reverse wise many villains start out as people who are at the bottom of thier life and choose to lash out whether or not they are justified like mr freeze who we all see is the most heroic villain as life constantly destorys him.
Well, considering Batman he is not on the path of justice. He is on the path of revenge trying to relive his trauma but to be in control this time. He doesn't give a shit about justice or wellbeing of anyone. As I understand Batman is trying to get a revenge on individuals while Joker is taking a revenge on society itself by trying to expose it and show how evil is the world itself and he is just the reflection of that world. Being beneficiary of the evil world batman can't understand Joker.
Yes this reflects the common topic of current marvel heroes seeming to be of villainous stock!!! this will work well in my stew, thank you LD for the quality content
Just as some heroes follow the hero's journey and some do not, the same is true for villains. Some people - real and fictional - are inherently evil and some are inherently good when evaluated purely based on their virtues and vices. A psychopath who mutilated puppies for fun from a young age is certainly not a hero. However, heroes can have vices, and (although rare) villains can have virtues. What counts as a virtue or a vice comes down to subjective morality, but even that is inconsistent due to our tribal nature. This leads to the next complication: 'hero' and 'villain' are subjective terms. For instance, Darth Vader was a villain to those who wanted to live independent of the Empire's rule. However, to many of the core system's citizens, he was a hero who united the galaxy. He either fought destructive terrorists insistent on destabalizing the galaxy, or noble rebels fighting for sovereignty, depending on your perspective and morality. The problem of good and evil, hero and villain being subjective has a simple solution: develop a moral code, then pick a side. (Just a rant - not directed at anyone in particular.)
Morality is an interesting topic. Like, why is it morally wrong for a person to kill someone who murdered their parents? The argument is that it makes that person no better than the murderer, but that's inherently flawed because of the difference in circumstance. The person who murdered the parents more than likely did so indiscriminately. Without reason. That makes them dangerous, while the survivor seeking retribution has a clear goal and if they succeed they remove a dangerous element from hurting others. Now you can argue the often self destructive path something like that entails, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the final morality of the situation.
@@jovenc4508 Exactly! There are many who believe that vengance is virtuous (provided it isn't petty), that turnabout is fair play, and "do unto others". As such, they'd believe avenging the death or abuse of their friends and family is virtuous. However, there are many others who subscribe to the "just as bad as them" and "never kill" moralities. As such, they'd believe such revenge is villainous. Many people are incapable of realizing that other people have a different moral code. Now this certainly doesn't mean that everyone believes they are acting morally all the time. Many people perform acts that they believe are immoral in order to benefit themselves or others. And again, there are sick individuals who always tortured puppies for fun - an act we can all agree is evil. But there are also many instances of people who perform ambiguously moral acts, such as Marvin Heemeyer (aka Killdozer guy). Ambiguously moral not because they did both right and wrong, but because whether the act was a net moral, immoral, or neutral one depends on the moral code assessing it.
@@the1necromancer I got called "evil" one time becaue I pointed out to somebody that their safety is not my responsibility. That I am not obligated to place myself in harms way to save their life. Just because the idea of self sacrifice for others is considered "noble" it often becomes expected. I have no delusions of grandeur. If a situation goes south I may stay and help and I may run for my own life. There's no way to know until it happens and it's not right or wrong either way.
I liked this, very well thought out and I see the logic in our argument, and how this can be used to create compelling heroes and villains, and relationships bewteen them. However, I remember something from 'The Anatomy of Story' by John Truby, chapter 5, moral argument. He talks about the repition of heroes (although i think he more means protagonists in this case) making choices bewteen rightous actions and wrong actions, specifically in reference to tragedies ending in tragedy because the 'hero' repeatedly makes immoral decisions. My counter-argument based on this is that, rather than the Joker saying 'you get one bad day and then then you are bad and insane forever', in the temptation phase of the Heroes' journey, they have multiple opportunites to choose good and bad, and may make a mixture of them, in your analogy of having desert, over the course of a week, the (paragon)hero may forgoe desert everyday, or maybe he'll have desert on Tuesday and Thursday but be otherwise abstemious to add moal grey, maybe a villain who finds redemption at the climax has desert everyday except Sunday. But, it's not just one moment that defines hero or villain. Even then, i have enough sense to realise that my 'multiple choice model' at least requires a longer run-time, as I am adding more into the story. Ramifications of this on pacing, television scheduling or audince bladders could be sever.
I think that's my favorite part of One Punch Man. The study of dichotomy. The fact many people are contrasted with the choices they make and how close heros and villains are just separated by a few choices or ideas.
Villains tend to have turned their backs on society for selfish reasons. A hero might also turn their backs on society, but for heroic/selfless reasons. The idea is why would someone choose the selfish option like Macbeth did. What flaw in their character did they fail to overcome?
Very excellent and very awesome, but I'm not sure about the ending. Villians can be nihilistic and still be disciplined enough to avoid many temptations. The one thing that they cannot do is sacrifice themselves out of love for something that they see as greater than themselves. It took a real leap of faith for Luke to believe in his father. That is a test that most would not pass. I'm still thinking this through. I was following along and found myself in total agreement up until the final few seconds of the video. Or maybe C.S.Lewis is right and you are using one of the Devil's tricks to fool us into believing that the difference between good and evil can come down to something as small as just dietary habits ;-) In which case, kudos to you young Wormwood! I'm going to take a free course on the C.S. Lewis from Hillsdale, and get back to you if I find a better way of articulating my point. Thanks again for another Great and Thought Provoking video!
I don't agree, a villain can sacrifice itself for a cause greater than himself. I know it's a bit extreme, but let's look at the nazis : there was million of them. In a group that big, there were some nazis, warcriminals, etc, making the sacrifice of their own live, willingly, to permit the victory of their idea. In the fictionnal world, nothing stop a perfect asshole, a villain, to believe in what he's fighting for, to the point he would gladly throw his life away in order to assure the triumph of his ideology.
@@cpp3221 I agree with what you are saying. I was thinking of the Communist villains as well. They really believe in what they are doing. That is why I added the vague 'out of love' clause to contain them. They can be willing NPCs chained to an evil ideology. But what they do cannot be said to be done 'out of love.' Love doesn't throw acid in a child's face. I am still thinking this all through. It is an interesting question.
@@cpp3221, There is one small thing here that many people don't take into account. It's not about the goals that a group of people pursues, but about the methods. Because even if we give an example of radical groups, they do not consider themselves villains, but fighters for justice and goodness. In books and films, especially lazy ones, the villain has an inherently unrealistic goal - to take over or destroy the world, and not just rule some part of it. Therefore, over time, it is difficult to believe in such a thing.
I disagree a Villian can sacrifice himself for his goals,look at a suicide bomber for example (a trope that's been used several times for a Villian). Or the Villian that wants to destroy the entire world for some reason, he's not excluding himself. I'll have to say there's no single formula in creating a good Villian, just like i don't think there's a single formula in creating a good hero (i know LD has the Hero journey that he loves talking about but it's far from the only formula used to creating a successful hero).
This juxtaposition/dichotomy comes up really well in Orson Scott Card's "Tales of Alvin Maker" -- the titular Alvin isn't perfect, but he learns at a very young age that his power & ability shouldn't just be used for his own self-interest. He's confronted with the reality of the consequences of a single selfish childhood act, and thenceforth spends the rest of his life trying to use his power to help others...and eventually to help other people gain the same power as himself. When his younger brother has the same power, he's thrilled. Meanwhile that younger brother, Calvin, grows resentful of Alvin and selfish, possessing the same power but focusing entirely on self-aggrandisement and opposing Alvin. Seeking fame & glory, he wanted to be "the most special"; while Alvin, finding joy in his power, wanted to share that power & joy with others.
There are three types of actors in stories: the hero, the villain, and the civilian. A hero acts for the betterment of others / society. They become "super" when they sacrifice for this. A villain acts for the worsening of others/society. They become "super" when they sacrifice for this. A civilian acts for the status quo of others/society. I'm not sure what they become when they sacrifice for this, but it's not considered "super." A tragedy? A victim?
Would you say a hero changes things? and if so can/will you name some? I think villains are to often agenst the status quo, but im into the system is the real evil thing.
@@beyond-journeys-end Moses to Rameses. Luke Skywalker to Palpatine. Kamina, and then Simon, to their villains. And the list goes on. The real thing that defines a force of change, or a force of protection, as a hero or a villain is if they are good or evil, these distinctions are not exactly correlated.
I think the civillian that sacrifices itself for something else ceases to be a civillian, a passive backdrop, and becomes and active actor. Now, with regards to their own willingness and knowledge, when they sacrifice: - if the status quo is shown to be good, they become then a hero - if it is not, then a villain But if, after their sacrifice, their perceptions about the status quo are shown to be wrong, then: - if they thought society was good, but it was bad, its portrayed as a tragedy of deceit or lack of knowledge - if they thought society was bad, but it was good, they become a victim of ironic/poetic justice In cases when they don't know what they are sacrificing for, its the same as all of the above, depending on their intentions.
A good moment that shows the diverging path of hero and villian I recall comes from the Justice League Crisis and Two Earth's animated film. During a climactic fight Batman faces off against Owlman is evil counter part, the nihilistic villian seeking to destroy all life with a dimensional bomb to "prevent anyone from ever going though what he did". Owlman asks how Batman a person with the same intelligence and emotional wounds as him can't see that it's the right thing, they are after all the same. Batman points out that there is one important diffrence "We both stared not the abyss, but you blinked!" As Both Batman and Owlman where confronted with the same emotions where thier parents died. Batman chose to become a champion to fight to make a world where such tragic events where minimalized, while Owlman chose to embrace the nihilistic idea that life is nothing but pain and not worth liveing. Both wants to eliminate the pain of loss but one decided to eliminate anything that could lead to loss by ending existence itself.
Not gonna lie, when you said that a hero sticks to his diet while a villain will eat that pudding he said would be the last one, I felt that. :p Time for my redemption arc.
Man, this opened my eyes and I'm definitely gonna use this info for designing my fantasy story. I'm inspired now. Thank you very much. I personally designed the MC of my book to be alternating between hero and antihero, as in some points of the story he sacrifice himself for the sake of others and in other points he commits to a greater good for his own wishes. The MC is literally broken inside (his soul is shattered into fragments and his journey is one of healing and self discovery) and he travels around the world exposing himself to new experiences in order to build himself, either he becomes a hero or a villain. Great part of his development is thanks to his friends that join his journey as he advances in the story. They all come to the conclusion of not separate from the MC as they saw that he would take a bad turn without their presence. I also designed the true purpose in life of the MC as he becomes the only one capable of destroying the foundations of the world. He learns the true nature of those foundations and feels sickened from it, so he takes upon himself to destroy those foundations and liberate the world. For the rest of humanity he is a villain but for him he is a hero fighting for a greater good. This also separates the MC's friend into two groups, one that follows the MC and one that hunts him down to prevent the destruction of said foundations.
Looking at this, this can be why we often see in stories how good and evil don't always fall in line with the law or any mechanically functioning ideal, one defined by rules that are meant to be unyielding. In the past, I more thought this was because authors wanted to make some sort of social commentary, but with this video, I think even beyond that it's impossible to make a believable story that incorporates both, or perhaps even to have a system in real life that will always successfully differentiate between good and evil (i.e., make the right choice). If good and evil are almost the same but the only difference are inner strength and motivations, then how is a third party who knows nothing about the person supposed to be able to judge them other than through past completed actions? People can make the differentiation through common sense or observations, but there are too many exceptions in real life to write this down in law. Perhaps this was what the Batman and Gordon relationship was pointing at.
One example i really love that demonstrates this perfectly it's in the "Crisis on Two Worlds" animation from DC. Owlman, Batman's evil version of another earth claims that they are not different, but in the end Batman says "There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us, you blinked".
Power can even be the primary motivator of a hero as well, its what you want power for that matters. There are many Anime/Mangas where the hero aspires to be the best they can be, to push their limits. The villains do the same thing for the sake of inflicting that power on others, but the hero seeks it to better themselves, to "be the best." Self improvement vs domination. For the Hero it is "BECOME the strongest, through hard work" for the villain it is "BE the strongest, so that [temptation]".
Yes, this how you create good villains. By writing them to embracing their vice and making them truly evil as a result. Never have your hero give in to vice or they will be doomed to be designated.
BTW, I may be seeing things, but on your question, a while ago, on whether a racist can be a hero, there may be an example in popular media. Check out Bad Travelling in the third season of Love, Death and Robots. Of course I may be reading too much into it, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'd also like to bring up the importance of growth and hard worth. Heroes tend to gain power the slow, arduous way - they grind, and grind, and grind, until they become masters at what they do. In the process, they learn just how dangerous the power they seek can be, and the need to control it (and by extension, oneself). OTOH, villains tend to take the fast lane or the easy way out. They are stronger initially, but that power is like a fire- it burns bright, causes destruction, and ultimately burns out. They skip the grind and never learn the lessons needed to control that power, or avoid it's seductive and destructive qualities. Often they become the victim of their own hubris.
You talk about "the dubious quality of the prequel trilogy". I love your videos and I'd be interested in you talking about that. I myself love the PT as much as the OT as they form in my mind (and GL's as he often stated himself) one continuous story that has an enormous respect of continuity, character building, character development and world building instated with incredible heroes and villains worthy of being part of "modern mythology" as the Iliad was in its time. I think of myself as pretty open-minded but never heard or seen actual substantial arguments about why the prequels are bad. It's always "Well everybody says so..." or "It's not what I imagined it to be so it's bad..." or "CGI bad but I love the MCU and see no hypocrisy in that..." or even, at their most desperate hours, "It makes LITERRALLY TWO throw away lines in the OT (that have no impact on the story or characters mind you) not work anymore..." I would be very interested by your take on it since you're always well thought out in your explanations. Do you think you will someday talk about that ?
I always saw the villain moment is when the bad guy can justify his cruelty. This is the moment it all makes sense to them even if it's theological or purely selfish.
This was a awesome video. A lot of Batman villains definitely had the one "bad day" and or made the choice of villainy. This gives me a idea, you could make another video talking about characters that became villains during other steps of the Heroes Journey. My favorite example of this (bring it back to Batman) is Jason Todd as his reasons for being a villain (granted briefly) was due to the his "death", the events that happened after and his "rebirth". He was fine, going through the heroes journey being a hothead but with good intentions. But then he he got tricked by the Joker and killed (ok, MAYBE you can argue he fell to temptation of Jokers trick but what he does later doesn't relate to the temptation itself). When he comes back as the Redhood and is a villain (albeit briefly) he says the reason he was doing the bad stuff wasn't because of what Joker did to him, or the fact that he was killed... it was because Batman didn't kill Joker AFTER he died. He felt betrayed because after the Joker killed him and later paralyzed Barbra Batman never killed the Joker. His reasoning for villainy in that moment while selfish was more do to his death, the events afterword and rebirth. In this case it is pretty literal and I know not many characters fall into that category. Heck, that's all i can think of right now. Can you guys think of other villains that turned evil at other steps of the hero's journey?
Another great video by Literature Devil. To add to it, something that everyone already knows today, is that some villains also believe they are the Heroes, but are actually doing the wrong thing.
It's an interesting concept in what separates a hero from a villain, with lots of examples and a very broad explanation for it. A simple statement sums it up nicely: Bothe heroes and villains stared into the abyss, but when the abyss stared back the villains blinked.
"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss... and when it looked back at us... you blinked." - Batman, to Owlman, Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths
An issue I take with this viewpoint on a Hero/Villains journey is putting all the weight of their future decisions on that one singular moment. It's basically saying that a Hero isn't allowed a moment of weakness where they actually make the wrong choice, otherwise that would be them giving into the temptation and heading down the path of a villain. It takes away some of their agency. The fact that there's no moment where they give in to the temptation and then have to fight the urge to keep going with it, which WOULD lead them fully down the Villain's path. The Hero can easily be someone who refuses to kill whenever possible, even if it would be easier. But when they're put into a moment where they lose themselves to rage they end up breaking that rule and ending the life of the one who caused it. But that doesn't mean they're suddenly a villain. They would be a villain if their grip on morality kept weakening and they kept killing more and more frequently for lesser and lesser reasons. But depending on the setting, this could also be seen as a moment where they realise that sometimes you have to take a life to save others, which could also be a heroic trait. It's one of Batman's biggest flaws in most iterations. He allows these villains to keep living and as a result thousands of innocents die because of his actions. Just how many would be spared if he the Joker wasn't around anymore? As much of a moral high-ground as his non-killing gives him, the loss of life caused by it takes away from it as those are lives he could have saved but didn't.
What many refuse to recognize is the boundary between good and evil is very blurry. We simplify it, but good and evil is complex if they exist at all. Civilizations have 3 stages of morality. 1: outcome based 2: intentions based 3: emotionally based At each lower stage the civilization carries out acts that the prior tier would deem evil. Going beyond this you could adopt the mentality of intelligence where outcome and rational are more important than whether something is good or evil. Anyway you look at it, our civilization is rife with evil that the masses refuse to look upon or act. A pervasive self serving apathy.
I've only seen the beginning, but I already love this video. A lot of people ignore how important going back to basics is and making villains that are opposite to the heroes, but use the same power(Like Superman and Lex Luthor), but it honestly makes for a very interesting character study and can be more then just "lol the writers were lazy and just made evil supes" like a lot of writers tend to regard it as. Don't get me wrong, I love a multilayered story and all that, but sometimes having a simple dynamic like this can be more impactful then if you made everyone's morality various shades of grey.
The idea of the child becoming an adult in the Hero's Journey reminds me of one villain in particular: Syndrome. Here's a classic example where the idea is most obvious. Buddy wanted to help Mr. Incredible just to show that he was capable of using his knowledge of tech to advantage. Mostly...he just wanted to show off. As Syndrome, that has not changed. He is still trying to show off, only now to show he is superior to these so-called "supers". Despite all his bluster regard "outgrowing" Mr. Incredible and trying to say that if everyone is super no one will be (which is wrong on a fundamental level, but that's a different discussion), he is still the pedantic child trying to show off his genius to the world. He failed in the Hero's Journey because he succumbed to the temptation to show he was "better".
@@LiteratureDevil I'm certainty a fan of the Michael Keaton / Kevin Conroy versions but get absolutely sick & tired of certain writers who want Batman to be able to prevail against EVERYONE due to the fact he's the odd one out in all of the Justice League... Here's an idea:- "Correct heroes for the correct villain"
This reminds me of Link and Ganon in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. When Link fought Dark Link in the Water Temple. Scanning Dark Link with Navi just says, "Conquer Yourself." Link fights against Dark Link, and Link wins the fight. And, thus, he continued on his hero's journey. However, Ganon was supposed to be a hero, as well (to the Gerudo). But, when Ganon fought his Dark Self...Dark Ganon ended up conquering Ganon; and, that's when Ganon turned into the villian of that story. The true definition of the heros journey is to become strong enough to over-come the Shadow/Darkness within. Meanwhile, the villian's journey begins when the Shadow/Darkness wins.
A interesting take. Liked the majority of this video. The only thing that irked me was prequel bashing. (It's as if commentators have to say, or can't resist saying something negative about them everytime, instead of just explaining their story as normal for the thesis they're making. Not to mention they're a lot better than anything we're getting now.) But all the same, like the idea and the exploration of the killing joke and how it shows the difference between the hero and villain's journey.
There is an argument in the JoJo fandom on how Funny Valentine and Enrico Pucci are not villains but well this video have given me a way to fight that argument ok here it goes. Spoilers for Part 6 and 7 Enrico Pucci: Pucci started off in a good place. he was the son of a priest and wanted to become one. He lived a life dedicated to god. At some point he met DIO. DIO gave him a stand arrow and a small insight to his plan with his "Do you believe in Gravity" speech. Some time when Pucci was 15 - 17 his sister Perla started to fall for a man named Wes. A few days later though whilst Pucci was cleaning the confession box he heard a confession which later led him to discover that Wes was his sort to be dead brother. This is when Pucci is overcome with desire. He doesn't tell the pair as he is far too concerned of his future job as a priest and to not break the rule about telling others about confessions. Instead he hires a private detective to break up the couple. The Private detective turned out to be working for the KKK and lynches Wes and Perla dies from suicide. From this point onwards Pucci turns to the words of DIO and joins him. He goes down a path of villainous and selfish actions in order to find what he believes to be good for humanity. Funny Valentine: Funny Valentine's father died due to suicide from not wanting to give up his country during a war and passed his handkerchief to Valentine. This drives Valentine to Patriotism and to join the army. On one unfortunate day Valentine's platoon ride until the devil's palm and die. Valentine the surviving member finds the heart of the Saint's corpse. This discovery drives Valentine to seek greater power to put himself and the USA above society, a power grab for his own benefit not caring who he tramples on in his drive for power. the JoJo of the part Johnny is sort of similar to Valentine but took a different route. Johnny at the start of SBR had nothing, no friends, family or the ability to walk. In his lowest moment of his life he discovers the phenomenon known as the Spin. this discovery drives Johnny to join the SBR race in order to learn it's secrets in order to walk again. early on in the race he discovers the left arm of the Saint's corpse. Johnny then thinks of seeking the corpse to heal his injuries. Two men striving for greater power for their own benefits but this is when the main different lies. When Gyro was about to be lost to sugar Mountain Johnny sacrificed the saint's corpse's ears and right leg to the main villain's minion as well as defeating Valentine to protect Lucy and Stephen Steel after accepting the cry for help. Pucci and Valentine people who's selfish ambitions lead to them loosing everything. Pucci is erased from existence and Valentine dies and looses the Saints corpse to Johnny, Lucy and Stephen Steel.
a hero displays virtue often beginning a journey in a situation that is contrary to the virtue they will later represent. While a villain will go further than the hero ever did away from the virtue that the hero is learning.
I’ve often heard that heroes are boring and villains are interesting, but I think that’s backwards. The villain is the character who gave in to his demons rather than fight them, he took the easy solution. The hero is the one who chose to fight his demons and take the difficult but right solution. And I think we can all agree that characters who struggle to find the right answer are more interesting than characters who will always take the easy way out.
But this is a very old and even outdated flawed morality, which does not really distinguish you from villain fans. In a way, you're even a little worse. Because villain fans don't understand that they like it when a villain behaves like a hero and a fighter for social justice. Therefore, in the movie Joker, when rich kids in the subway (for some reason) start bullying a woman, the Joker did not join them, but took the hit himself ... Like a hero. Your mistake is assumption that the villains don't struggle at all, so they are not interesting. Try watching the series "Banshee", for example. There is one of the most well-designed villains, IMO. You can empathize with him and you can hate him and you can root for him - moreover, at the same time in some cases. In the case of heroes - I cannot empathize with Daredevil and Batman, who, by not killing the villain, allow him to commit new murders, refusing to go against their "moral code" - in fact, they are simply afraid to get their hands dirty, because they are selfish.
@@ahoramazda6864 the reason batman does not kill villains is not because of moral code but because they are nothing but toys for him and he expects to fight then again and again. probably villains don't kill batman for the same reasons as they know that he will not really harm them and prison is easy to escape
I don't know that many villains who gave up to their demons most often hero gets everything handed on a silver-plate while villain has to make sacrifices or suffer serious loss. like batman did not suffer any serisu loss, he was super rich kid with unlimited resources that he decided to use to build cool toys and play hero, he did absolutely nothing to improve society fight corruption or do anything good at all besides fighting petty crime
@@deltaxcd, Well, if you think that Bruce Wayne would have made society by going into politics, then his actions would not necessarily have led to a positive result. Besides - if Bruce Wayne was just handing out money to everyone, then it would be a story about a communist or a democrat (although democrats usually give out other people's money, not personal). In addition, in some media, Batman is involved in charity work.
@@deltaxcd, As for the villains, I don't agree that they always have to sacrifice and make an effort. They almost always get fanatical minions that are loyal to the villain, even if he kills them or destroys the world. Although in reality, bandits and mercenaries are not known for honesty or loyalty. It seems to me that many would give out their bosses simply for free, even without threats and fists during interrogation. Well, or they would have killed the villain before the hero had time to come to him, because there are known cases of betrayal by subordinates. If you look at Joker (2019), he acts more like a villain than a hero. He has virtually no villainous acts and they are almost always shown to be sympathetic or understandable. Same goes to many "misunderstood villains" in today's media. All incarnations of the Kingpin get power and money, even if his new incarnation is stupid as a box of stones and could count on the role of a bouncer in a bar, but nothing more.
Shigaraki from my hero academia also went through a villains journey parallel to the protagonist's heroes journey, and he also became a villain due to "one bad day".
something common that makes the villain is seeing the means (stuff like money, power, sex) as the objective, wich turns the noble objectives into means(people, comanionship, a bigger pourpose)
There are a bunch of Batman lines that work so well for this but this is my favorite Justice League Crisis on Two Earths Batman to Owlman: There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss. But when it looked back at us. You blinked.
And there is still the thing about "one story's villain, another story's hero". The temptation part isn't always as black-and-white as it's painted afterwards. What for one side is succumbing to to weakness and betraying what one had stood for, for another is finding strength to overcome old shackles. What for one side is the virtue of staying true to oneself, for the other is the weakness of not taking the step. What's more important is not the exact big choice, and not fully even the motivation in the moment of choice, but how it escalates further... Vader didn't turn full villain just by betraying the Jedi (there was plenty of tensions all along) or by tapping into dark side (the Light that doesn't allow you to even glimpse the opposite isn't that pure either; ironically, the Sith were the ones truly studying the Force in its entirety) or by choosing to side with the guy who actually orchestrated the entirety of Clone Wars (although, Palpatine was the power-hungry villain all along). Getting rid of all that corruption the Republic was built on had quite some righteous appeal. Vader truly fell when he allowed his insecurities to take over and at slightest suspicion of betrayal attacked the one person he swore to protect at any cost, the one he actually did this for.
I'm not a villain for having the second bowl of pudding...its for the third...and then loving pudding so much that I'd clobber the cousin to take _their_ pudding, too! Regret for having the second bowl and resolve not to lose ones self in the throes of rapturous pudding, evermore, is how a hero advocates to run the healthy road and reject the temptations of puddings to come.
Guess I'm a villain. A writer's quibble coming. A cross-road reference is different than fork-in-the-road. In the context you were opining, you should have used fork-in-the-road. The former is used to indicate a joining and sharing of different things and ideas. A reference to the markets that tended to spring up around them. The latter is used to describe when someone needs to make a momentous choice in their path.
I haven't Consumed enough Good Media to make an exhaustive List of Great Villains that would fall into a 'Villain's Journey Archetype But I could name a couple that would be nice case studies to try and fit them into this hypothetical Model: -General Arvis (Fire Emblem Geneology of the Holy War) -Wiegraf (Final Fantasy Tactics) -Griffith (Berserk) -Kotomine Kirei (Fate Series particularly his Fate Zero and Fate Stay Night Fate Route and Heaven's Feel depictions where he features prominently.)
I have an idea for a book that's a villains journey. About a failed hero taking a dark baptism for selfish reasons, believing he can use the power given to destroy the cycle of dark lords rising. Only to discover too late that once he accepted the power his fate & place in the world was set in stone
Villains are like the 7 deadly sins from Dante's Inferno but personified through different individuals who have fallen into the path to temptation. They are carrying or have become their own hell and it's their journey to get out with the help of the Hero or abandon all hope by serving evil like a helpless slave.
As much as Macbeth is the villain of William Shakespeare's play of the same name I think that lady Macbeth is the second villain of the story as she is the one who pushed Macbeth to kill king Duncan and if she hadn't pushed the idea onto Macbeth then he wouldn't have done it as for the weird sisters I see them as chaotic neutrals
one must see themselves in a crossroad with every decision they made in life, some crossroads may more significant than other but still they're the accumulation toward your true self, big or small decision remember to be considered
" Madness! I demand of destitution, shame, and loneliness of scorn. It is my destiny! It is my right! Nothing will deter me from it!" Skeletor uttered this in the Masters of the Universe film. Frank Langella was given a chance to be a big ham, but his lines delivered so much power, but this particular line sounds like that of a man who, at the crossroad of temptation, accepted temptation knowing it would lead to being shamed and scorned and he equated it to power which he believed was his ultimate destiny. While Skeletor's backstory was never delved within the film, that simple line speaks volumes of who he is and where he came from and how he came to be the scourge of Eternia.
Long story short - "villains are just the evil counterparts of the heroes." This is a rather lazy and formal approach, especially when it is not found in modern media. Even in the media that LD cited as an example, villains and heroes are different. But the author made them similar through generalization and simplification. In fact, after Dune, written in the 60s, we do not see a character like Feyd-Rautha (not counting the film adaptation from Lynch). Often we see villains and heroes who are hardly related to each other - both thematically and in terms of plot and character relationships. Yes, there is a cliche "You and I are not so different" - but it is not necessarily true. A villain can lie, he's a villain! Let's take Jon Snow and Ramsey Snow for example. They are similar only in that they are bastards in the northern heathole. The only difference is that one commits crimes (and for some reason was not caught and killed for them) and the other went to prison for nothing. If they were connected thematically, then Ramsey would not hunt people, but wild animals, including wolves. Then the confrontation with the Starks, whose symbol is wolves, would be more symbolic. Considering that Ramsey is a sadist, a psychopath and a barbarian, any sane character would have opposed him. Therefore, it doesn't matter who Jon Snow is. Even if they were both evil, it wouldn't necessarily make them allies or put them on the same team. If we talk about Jon Snow and the Night King, then this conflict is invented by the showrunners, because in the book there was only the Night Queen. And that's just the first thing that came to my mind. If we take the less popular and less criticized works, we will find even more examples that refute the conclusions of LD.
@Jacks Ragingbileduct, But if we think according to this logic, then Guts is actually a villain, because he succumbs to anger and even sometimes lust. While his opponent is basically the Messiah. Well, or if you take The Elders Scrolls - then all the races created by the "evil gods" are also evil. Even if they are good people - but they are prone to theft, like the Khajiit, or to anger and barbarism, like the Orcs. The Dunmer don't mind about political assassinations. But I don't consider them evil because they give in to temptetions. I judge characters by their actions. From my point of view - inaction can be as bad as murder. Many American idols because of their inaction allowed crime. And people think it's a good thing. Although in reality - the media demonize weapons in order to one day ban it.
@Jacks Ragingbileduct, While I disagree with Alan Moore on many things, I think one of his thoughts about abandoning moral absolutism is pretty valid. In one of the interviews, if I remember correctly, he criticized superhero morality with a clear division into black and white. This morality is not realistic, does not take into account the nuances of life and kind of contradicts itself. Because if we take real life - vigelantes are considered lawbreakers, that's why they are kind of bad guys, even if they do good things... Well, in theory. If we talk about flaws and overcoming them, then this is partly a stereotype from the "hero journey". The hero or villain doesn't necessarily change by the end of the story. For example, Batman will be chasing villains forever, because his story has no end... Except for Batman Beyond, where he partly retired due to age. Although even there, Batman's story isn't quite over yet. I think the ideal hero depends on the circumstances in which he finds himself and the opportunities that he has. When Batman spares the Joker in The Killing Joke or Under the Red Hood, he already knows what the Joker is capable of and that he won't change. Therefore - mercy from Batman was a manifestation of personal selfishness, not selflessness. As for the villains, we can empathize with the villain if he is redeemable or morally gray. Most sane people cannot empathize with unredeemable evil. Although, there are people who are fans of real criminals, but this is rather a manifestation of the disease - hybristophilia and so on. Speaking specifically about fiction and media, we should not forget that the antagonist is not necessarily the villain and that the villain is not necessarily obvious. For example, I heard a rather interesting theory, according to which - the antagonist of Berserk is not really a villain, but only a puppet in the hands of dark forces. Partly for this reason, Vader cannot be considered a full-fledged villain, because he was essentially a puppet and watchdog of the Emperor.
Great video but I can’t fully agree with the temptation point. Sometimes heroes fall to temptation before they truly become heroes. That’s what leads to the atonement. A grand majority of heroes are not perfect because they are relatable on some level. This is the truth of a hero. You will fail, you will be guilty/shamed, but will you stand back up, right your wrongs, and protect others? Even Prince Zuko went from villain to anti villain to total hero. He even sacrificed himself to save Katara, who was the main person who didn’t trust him, during his duel against Azula.
The difference between a Hero and a villain is the Hero is aligned or representative of what the story considers truth or virtuous while the villain fails to or actively rejects to do so. I would say it isn't as simple as whether or not they fall to temptation, because a hero character can still be seen as the hero if the story views simple pleasures or the aspirations of the soul and will as virtue. I would say ultimately it is somewhat shortsighted to view it simply though the lends of selfishness or temptation, as what is selfish or temptation can vary depending on perspective. In a story where the moral is to not waste ones youth for example and enjoy it while it lasts, the bitter adult that crushes the hopes and dreams of the youth due to themselves giving into this idea of giving up your youth for the sake of the cold machine of adult society becomes the villain to a group of protagonists who advocate for enjoying said youth while you still have it. Lets take Batman himself as a next example. In many stories, vigilantes are expressly the villains of the story due to their methods goign against the law as they are taking matters into their own hands. This can be considered selfish and arrogant as the person believes themselves as above the law. Yet here, Batman is still the hero. Why? Because Batman aligns with the moral core thematic the story considers to be virtue. In this regard, it is less black and white and more about the perspective of the narrative and how much the merit of that purposed virtue actually has and/or resonates with the plight of the human condition.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
Get NordVPN exclusive deal here: [nordvpn.com/literaturedevil] Try it risk-free thanks to their money-back guarantee!
This is an incredibly good video by all measures. It has everything it needs, no more and no less. It gets to the point and makes the case precisely.
I also think the product placement was expertly handled. Which was also needed. Bravo LD! Bravo!
For your next video, may I suggest applying this logic to Kathleen Kennedy to explain the Fall of Lucasfilm into villainy...
Completely off topic, my copy of Miracle child arrived this morning and its bloody brilliant. Will there be more from Doc Alpha or are you working on something else?
@@paullockhart9997 Awesome! Very glad you enjoyed it! I'm both working on another project and a second Dr. Alpha comic right now. Both are already in the works. Thanks again for the feedback!
I have to admit, that was the best segway I've seen on youtube LOL
Joker: "Why aren't you laughing?" Batman: "Because I've heard it all before, and it wasn't funny the first time."
Profound and badass.
“And the noble Luke Skywalker faces the eternal vile incompetency of Rian Johnson”
Ha Literature Devil you’re a riot
I was like "HOLD UP FULL STOP" cuz I was laughing so damn hard.
I heard that line in the video, and I detected no lies. Rian Johnson is the true villain of Star Wars.
Because god forbid Kennedy catches any fucking flak.
I always felt like Kathleen Kennedy is the one true evil behind all of StarWars sequel trilogy
@@MammothBehemoth She's the Palpatine. Always in the shadows and let's Maul/Dooku/Grievous/Vader do her bidding, but actually caused everything.
If a Hero can be defined by his/her journey resisting the temptation, then the journey of Villains is how his/her spiralling falls on the temptation
But this is a very moralistic and black-and-white approach. The villain does not necessarily succumb to temptation or is subject to one of the cardinal sins.
People think Daenerys Targaryen is evil because she burned down the capital of the Seven Kingdoms. But if you take real life, people don't know that Clinton bombed Belgrade. And if they do, they think it's fair.
And also, some people, such as Chris Chan, George Floyd, Joe Biden, are considered saints by people with certain political views. Doesn't that mean they're good people?
Or, for example, Gaddafi is considered the incarnation of Satan, although for some reason Libya turned into hell after his death.
@@ahoramazda6864 Well, those examples are mostly not about villain origin, but about different point of view on good and evil.
In real world people tend to make their side "good" and other side "evil", no matter what is happening.
Same goes for fiction, though we usually see only one side of the conflict, and dont pay attention to this.
For example, is SW for loyal Empire planets Darth Vader was their hero and defender, and rebels were some kind of terrorists.
@@8xENDerx8, As for Vader, I don't know if he can even be considered a villain. Do not forget that he was a puppet and watchdog of the Emperor. Although the issue of free will is another topic.
Well, anyway, even if you play by your rules - I have already given examples of how characters with similar traits are actually different and unrelated, just in other comments. But you probably haven't seen them, so I'll briefly recap.
Jon Snow and Ramsey Snow. They are both bastards of noble houses and that's where the similarities end. They did not know each other personally and ended up on different teams due to the actions of other characters. The problem is that even if John wasn't a bastard and a good guy, he would still probably become Ramsey's enemy.
Why? Because Ramsey is a degenerate and a psychopath. Partly for this reason, even another villain or other psychopath doesn't necessarily team-up with him.
This is partly why I disagree with LD about evil counterparts. This is not a very common occurrence for many media. Often the villain and the hero are not connected thematically or even on a personal and story level.
@@ahoramazda6864 Your example kinda sucks for this kind of discussion. First of all, Ramsey is not Jon's main villain. There's a reason why there's 2 seasons after his death. Second, Game of Thrones deliberately goes out of it's way to avoid establishing a "main hero" and "main villain". GoT is equally about Jamie Lannister and Daenarys Targaryen as it is about Jon Snow.
Reminds me of the Joker Movie where Arthur Fleck becomes the Joker when all the crappy things to him culminates into him discovering the lies of his mother.
It’s just like colossus said in Deadpool
“Over a lifetime, there are only four or five moments that really matter. Moments when you are offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend, spare an enemy.”
It occurred to me that Mary Sues make some of the best villains. That might even be an idea worth exploring.
I've had this thought often. Hell, you could even make the whole "the universe revolves around me" as their power set for the hero to fight against. The villain who has everything they could ever want vs the hero who must struggle ever step of the way. My idea was this:
After an epic story, during the final battle between Sue and the Protagonist, he fails, and is cut down by the overpowered Sue, who in her obvious amazing power, shall always win. However, this isn't the end.
Have you heard of memes? No, not the silly Internet cats, but the kind that Richard Dawkins talks about. Memes, according to him, were akin to an infectious idea. Your at the mall and see someone wearing a shirt you like, later you see it in the store and decide to buy it. You put it on, walk outside and someone tells you that they like your shirt, and want to get one too. So they get a shirt as well, and so on and so forth. The idea being spread around is that the shirt is something everyone needs to be wearing because "it's cool", and this concept can be applied to every ideal you can think of. Metal Gear Rising bases it's entire plot around this concept, and it's quite fascinating, but back to Mary Sue.
Our protagonist, while he may get struck down, passes his memes of struggle and sacrifice onto Mary Sue. She comes out of the battle a changed woman, and this battle perhaps, becomes the catalyst for a redemption arc down the line. One where she leans that life is meaningless without struggle and sacrifice.
@@dr.fiction7 I don't feel optimistic about rehabilitating Mary Sues, honestly.
There's a Chinese webnovel that I've been reading called "Quick Transmigration Cannon Fodder’s Record of Counterattacks" that has Mary Sue-ish "main characters" as the villains of the story that might be worth checking out, but the protagonist drops back into bad authorial habits pretty fast.
@@dr.fiction7 The idea of a villain where "the universe revolves around me" and has everything they could ever want to win reminds me of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Part 5: Golden Wind. Basically the Villain of that part (no spoilers in case you haven't seen it yet) has Fate on their side, they are essentially a Mary Sue in that sense, and uses that ability in hopes of controlling Fate and the World. However the main Character and his friends have to fight against this, and through their resolve and self sacrifices try to turn Fate to their side in the end as their only hope of beating the unstoppable villain. Though I won't spoil if they succeed, as Jojo isn't scared to have the main characters lose in the end.
Jojo often plays with Fate as its own force of nature that drives the universe, no different than the Force of Gravity (which it's compared to), which makes it very interesting to read into it in depth.
@@GBDupree It's ok, Part 5 is my favorite so far. Yeah, Diavolo honestly did have fate on his side up until the very end. King Crimson was a nutty ability, and it took an asspull from fate itself via the arrow in-order to beat him. Hell, DIOs heaven plan relied somewhat on the forces of Gravity "aka fate" in order to succeed, but fate itself chose the side of justice, and brought about Pucci's demise.
@@dr.fiction7 Yeah, I always thought it was interesting how often Fate tends to prefer the Villains at the beginning (maybe because of their Charisma?). But because the Villains always become too selfish, or succumb to fear and act out of that that they lead to their own demise. Like Pucci was working towards what could be considered a selfless goal, yet it is his act of selfishness to protect himself from dying that leads to him losing and dying anyways. He wanted everyone to accept their fates, yet couldn't accept his own, so Fate turned away from him.
Joker's "One Bad Day" failed because the torment of both Gordons came specifically and quite proudly from a lone, vengeful psychopath. If anything, he only proved Jim and Barbara right about every crimefighting instinct they ever had. What's more, Bruce became Batman because of the random, senseless nature of his parents' deaths. Lacking a central figure to strike back against, he instead declared war on crime itself.
Mr. J isn't anywhere as good at this psychology thing as he thinks he is.
Bruce did have a singular figure to blame, Joe Chill. Although he never got the chance to take him down
@@Crimson522 In multiple continuities he does get the chance and almost kills Chill but doesn't. Ironically the best example off the top of my head is Brave and the Bold.
Joker's not very good at psychology, but very good at brainwashing his psychologist sadly. (Harley Quinn)
Joker's own "One Bad Day" is also different to what he tried to do to them
It wasn't just one bad thing that ruined his life, he had an entire week of bad luck, culminating in an entire day in which Murphy's Law went harder than ever thought possible:
>His attempt at a stand up career is going nowhere
>His wife miscarries and then dies
>He's betrayed constantly and extorted into joining a heist as a patsy
>During the heist, after he's left to get caught as the crime boss "The Red Hood", he falls into a vat of chemicals with a helmet/mask on
>When he finally washes out of the drainage, being burned the entire time by the chemicals which got caught under the mask as well, he finally rips the mask off and sees his now disfigured face in a puddles refection, THAT's when it all comes together and he breaks
He didn't push anyone else nearly as hard, and the biggest difference of all:
He didn't have anyone left to rely on or comfort him, like Bruce with Jim (at the scene) or Alfred (the rest of his life), or anyone he still needed to protect, like both Gordons and each other (or the whole city).
There's also something to be said that his mental breakdown definitely made him incredibly self-centered/narcissistic, so he probably focused solely on the "Something REALLY Bad Happened To Me" and didn't think about how all of it came together, including the things that could have softened it for him if they were there. (realizing that last part would only make it worse for him tbh)
@@Crimson522 There was an issue a while back where Batman would find Chill every year on the anniversary of the Waynes' death and beat him to a pulp.
I noticed something about Spider-Man and Batman's rogues gallery a while back: all their villains had a situation similar to the hero's, but responded to it in negative way. Doc Ock is a genius like Peter, Osborn gained super-strength that matches Spider-Man's. Most of those villains reflect one facet of the hero. The Penguin: Bruce Wayne's wealth. Mr. Freeze: the pain of losing someone. I noticed this when the Joker said, "I've demonstrated there's no difference between me and everyone else. All it takes is one bad day," but he caved to his insanity and became a clown, while Bruce rose above it and became Batman.
Just wanted to mention that. Now I'd better watch the remaining 16 minutes and 20 seconds in the video to see if LD already covered that, or shot my idea down with something smarter.
"A World of Gothic Horror: The Problem With Modern Batman Stories" by In Praise of Shadows. Somewhere around 32-33 min explores that idea.
On the subject of the Penguin, I think they ought to play up that wealth aspect. Instead of being a mobster, have him mirror Bruce more and be a wealthy billionare. Say he got that way through corporate espionage and sabotage and good old fashioned murder. Because how often is Batman's money itself challenged?
@@the_clark_side8466 They could also do that with Lex Luthor, I think. He's more like Bruce than Cobblepot is, and could challenge Bruce's wealth, charisma, philanthropy, and probably more.
Theres also owlman in one version when the justice league went to universe 3 batman and owl man fought 1 vs 1 and owlman won batman over to why he became a villian of the crime syndicate for a while in there fight saying this so what at least no 8 year old will ever lose there parents again because of some punk with a gun owlman is a bruce wayne that gave into vengeance on that day in crime alley.
@@tomspiegel5322 yeah, but Lex is Superman's villain. They could do a crossover every once in a while, so being a regular antagonist (outside the Justice League) is out.
Hardest hitting part of this whole video? The last comment about the pudding.
Why?
Because it shows that it's not the big choices, but the little ones, that carry you down the road to villainy. When the big choice comes, it's easy to decide for evil, because you've been doing it all along anyway.
And with that comes the realization that I am NOT "the hero" of my own story. I'm probably the villain. Or, at least, a henchman.
Ugh. That hurts.
Exactly. The final big choice that changes a normal person into a villain is, quite often, the final result of a long string of bad/wrong decisions.
Witcher 3 has a pretty elegant way of saying this. One of it's more sinister quests is simply named:
"Evil's First, Soft Touches"
Having the insight to see the weaknesses within yourself may instead be interpreted as the 'call to adventure' of your own hero story, Storm. Don't write yourself off so easily.
Yoda: A Jedi's strength flows from the Force, but beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression - the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.
Luke: Vader. Is the dark side stronger?
Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
- Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Darth Vader essentially makes the same choice twice: as Anakin he chooses to betray his masters in the Jedi council to save his family and becomes Darth Vader, as Darth Vader he chooses to betray his master Palpatine to save his family and becomes Anakin again. The main difference is when he falls he allows his fear of loss to cloud his judgement and accidentally kills Padme, where by the time he finds out that Luke, his son, is alive he’s had time to cool down.
That same fear of loss that damned Anakin to evil redeemed him in the end.
Darth Vader saved Luke Skywalker. Anakin Skywalker died in his arms.
Whether seeking power can be considered good or evil depends on the reason you are seeking it. Let's say, for example, you have two men who each pick up a gun; the first takes up his weapon to rob a convenience store, the second to defend his loved ones from a gang of thugs who are breaking into his house at 3:00 am. The difference in morality there should be obvious.
Not so obvious if the owner of that store is a big asshole who kicked the cute kitten or sells overpriced soda :)
Also considering how many times heroes are robbing people and destroying their stuff you may start questioning who is the villain at all LOL
But considering seeking of the power the main difference I see is that society doesn't want villain to have that power while it is ok to have that power for the hero
So in practice hero is just given the power to punish the villain and then he has to lose the power or become the villain himself.
Hero can only exist as long as villain exists which probably why heroes make sure that villains will not go away anywhere.
It is not about the reasons alone. The lengths you are willing to got to get the power are as important as the reason.
The bad means to get to a noble end, can make you easily fall from anti hero to villain pretty quick.
Well the real answer these days seem to depend on the race, sex, sexual preference, and religious and political affiliation of the two individuals.
If one is the wrong combination of those traits they are the villain no matter which options they take.
If one is the right combination of those traits they are the hero no matter which options they take.
@@TheRyujinLP no, it's the content of one's character that decides what they will do.
People get their choice nothing is decided for them, just because a black man raised by a single mother is statistically the most likely to commit a crime or kill someone, doesn't mean he doesn't get a choice in the matter, does he choose to act upon his unchecked rage or rise above and become stronger.
Destiny is not written for you, nobody decides what you do besides you. People are not a summation of all the labels you tack onto them, they are their own selves.
This is why you can play as evil races in dnd, just because Drow are evil does not mean your Drow character has to be evil, you get to choose to be different, to be better.
I've always found Rorschach to be an interesting subject when it comes to a "Hero". Ultimately Rorschach was a hero despite his many flaws. He has a staggering amount of negative traits but when the chips are down. Rorschach will give his life for truth and justice. His unyielding stance in that is what makes him a hero.
Moore never understood why people liked Rorschach. But he definitely fit the one bad day trope- we see the day that broke him.
@@gregorde In his own words, Walter Kovacks died that day, From then on there was only Rorschach.
Rorschach may be brutal, self-righteous and borderline sociopathic, but he has the virtue of *integrity.* "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon." The man's integrity to me is like that of Javert from Les Miserables (fittingly, both choose death over violation of their code) and I really feel sorry for him when he demands Dr. Manhattan to blow him up.
Yup. He is the hero of Watchmen no doubt.
@@gregorde It’s because Rorschach (or rather The Question) is based on an ideology that Moore disagree with and thinks that all other people disagree with as well, missing essential points of said ideology.
12:27 Another possible reason why seeking power is often seen as villainous : because, whatever motive drove you to seek this greater power, there comes a point when you come face to face with an obstacle that requires what yoy have recently learned to overcome, for instance an average mugger, and normal people may get carried away in the moment and either get humbled by a near defeat or come to their senses just barely before they land the killing blow. When you have capability above that of the opposition, it feels so easy to step onto that slippery slope of power tripping.
"seeking power is often seen as villainous" interesting claim as this looks mostly as part of the the propaganda narrative that status quo is good. because all mainstream fiction is about protecting status quo regardless of how horrible it is and any attempt to escape your fate is seen a villainous.
Heroes, most of the time, will just get their powers by some higher force effortlessly because of absurd amount of luck and villains need to struggle to get into the position they are. And they seem rather extremely unlucky people who have to fight against the whole universe.
@@deltaxcd This is wrong on so many levels.
@@s3studios597 I don't know how to reply to that
@@deltaxcd this just seems like a classic villain apology mindset. Villains aren't these baby boos who are unlucky because of society. If a society is unjust the majority don't benefit. What seperates a hero from a villain is how they oppose it. Batman and The Punisher both go against the law, but neither are seen as Villains to us, because they don't do evil or vile things to prove their point
@@storysurgeon5922 well rather than comparing superhero with supervillain compare things like SnoWhite and evil queen because Snow White was blessed with beauty and Queen is getting old granny which is losing all her potential and she is not happy about that.
Or if you insist on batman then compare him with some street robber who probably has no money to buy a meal and gets attacked by multibillionaire vigilante. Whose single toy costs more than all those robbers can steal in whole year.
When we have some super villain his goal is typically to change the world itself in one way or another like doctor doom who wants to build a better society.
I feel like this is the logical extension of the idea that villains are the heroes of their own stories. That most villains do not see themselves as the antagonist of a greater story, but rather as the main character in their own, where their actions are justified. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that, as they see themselves as the hero of their own story, they would undergo their own hero's journey, but twisted by their own slanted view of the world.
It could be seen that way but it will be not just conflict between people but between different worldviews and moral systems. otherwise when hero and villain meet in the end rather than fighting they should just converge as they share the same story.
You're totally right. I have read a bunch of stories where the main character is not a nice person. They're greedy, selfish, manipulative, and care very little about the people around them. Anything good that they do is out of convenience rather than a desire to help people. If they were the antagonists rather than the protagonists, I would be wishing for their defeat. However because they are the protagonist and they do good things sometimes, I can't help but wish for their success. Sometimes I don't realize how evil they are until I think about the actions they do from an outside perspective. It's kinda scary how much a person can overlook just because of the perspective that they are viewing those actions from.
@@33pandagamer that's asian storytelling method where it does not matter who is god who is evil. All what matters is that you follow a story of some person with his group of friends. but as i know this is forbidden to do in US where hero has to be totally good and villian can be anything and in result audience start hating that mary sue hero
"Somebody ask you to put on that costume or you take it upon yourself? You know what I think of you, hero? You know you're one bad day away from being me..."
- The Punisher
Personally I prefer the vision that The Punisher is just a psychopath that wanted an excuse to kill and had the perfect one the moment his family was murdered. He is a lot like The Joker, except the clown is sincere to himself
@@zakazany1945, But the Punisher is possibly the only sane character in the entire Marvel universe. And I'm not even exaggerating. He really fights crime, and not just changes the location of the criminal.
@@zakazany1945 him being a psychopath doesn't really make sense tho
@@dunkyking6310 The Punisher is a serial killer. He IS a psychopath.
@@zakazany1945 not really, no.
1. He's a vigilante, so when the law becomes inadequate, he just does what they won't.
2. Psychopath. You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. If he was, he would be killing whenever and whoever he saw fit. Psychos are indiscriminate and sadists. He kills murders, rapists, psychos, perverts, etc and he usually does it with guns.
I hope literature devil talks about killing joke and how modern writers are afraid and ashamed of it
Why are they afraid and ashamed?
@@PelemusMcSoy Because they don't have the guts to go that far in a story. They'd rather build a straw man and beat it up, declaring themselves the winner.
@@SamtheBravesFan Uh, it's usually just the gratuitous violence and implied rape that's the issue in that story, not the delving into deep characterization.
@@mousermind I think that's what he's saying. They went that far with the violence and whatnot to prove the point while a lot of stories just go "he's the bad guy who wants to do a thing"
Like when's the last time Lex Luthor has actually succeeded in doing something irrevocably terrible to someone before Superman stopped him? Like yeah there's always some kind of world controlling plan but for the most part no one (that we see mind you obviously collateral exists) really gets dumpstered on in such a raw and permanent way that Barbra does in Killing Joke
Are we all forgetting that it could just be the rooftop scene between Batman and Batgirl, yes that rooftop scene.
Very poiniantly explained! A villain only views themselves as the product of the past, the result of "the one very bad day". There is nowhere else to go. Heroes see the bad day as a choice than an impulse or the only conclusion. A hero uses it to transform themselves interiorly for the better.
Also, love to see Literature Angel make a reappearance! More of him please!
I have some plans in mind. Glad you liked it!
A hero takes their past as motivation, a villain as an excuse.
@@schwarzerritter5724 You could argue that a villain is also motivated by their past to take action. The excuse concept applies more to the nihilistic villains. A villain that supports a controversial cause that involves killing people may have been motivated by bad events in their life to believing it is right.
@@justmonika2345 the reason it's an excuse is because even if it's motivation to do their methods, the villainous things they do in their mind, are justified by this
Another great video! It's really sad to see these basic concepts be ignored just to "subvert audience expectations". I'm quite fed up with the concept that "The"heroes" are actually evil" trope. It belittles kindness and compassion. Core emotions of humanity. All of the stories that follow this "modern" narrative feel soulless when condition them to more classic or "predictable" ones.
Democrat here totally agree!!! Deconstruction is dumb now. What's the point of giving the main character a goal if the author isn't going to have them meet that goal in the end? Like romance for example What's the point of building up that these two individuals (boy and girl) respectfully are going to get together at the end if one of them turns out gay in the end. Makes no sense except to try to be different just because you can for no reason. That's why being predictable to me is more important than gotcha.
I've noticed this happening in anime for a while now. I even jokingly told my friends that "at this point, a generic JRPG hero who has a sword and defeats the evil demon king to save the world is more subversive than the misunderstood antihero with a necromancer ability who rebels against the church and joins the demon king to reveal that the heroes were actually evil." It's been done to death. I honestly would like to see more "generic" hero stories, because it doesn't pretend to be edgy and dark when it blatantly just wants to have a hero story but be taken seriously. I get it, after reading dark fantasy, I got really annoyed when normal fantasy would use magic to sidestep Consequences for actions. It felt cheap. But when everything is a gritty "trope subversion" world, the kid with an enchanted sword who just wants to do his best to help his friends is far more captivating than a devious rouge and his "monstrous" companions that are basically just humans with a couple of bonus features like horns.
@@derpfluidvariant0916 also magical girl stories now every since madoka came out everyone and their mom is trying to be the next magical girl edge fest because it's "in" right now which is becoming boring not mention most of the female cast in these shows are lesibian because they the plot says so. Saving the world and defeating the big bad has been a staple in storytelling for years breaking that just adds confusion and desaray.
@@candicemceady308 I've never watched a magical girl anime, as I tend to like shonen and seinin more, but I'm sorry that it's happening over there too. Any good Magical girl animes with interesting casts I should check out?
@@derpfluidvariant0916 sailor moon tokyo mew mew cardcaptor sakura doremi wedding peach corrector yui ask dr rin and Saint tail. These are all great magical girl shows.
Off topic, but would you ever be interested in talking about characters who are written to be god-like characters and how to make it work? For example being, characters like Saitama from One Punch Man, Molecule Man from Marvel, or Dr. Manhattan from DC. Basically characters who are so powerful to the point that they can break a story when used wrong, and the slippery balance in using said characters.
Sure am. In fact, that was the one I was going to publish next, but I decided to go with this one first. But a One Punch Man video actually is in the works.
@@LiteratureDevil I hope Satoru Gojo from Jujutsu Kaisen is in there.
Disney Hercules is a good example
"when used wrong"
So like 90% of modern isekai protagonists.
@@pawarl.o.s.881 for sure
"You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." This is the difference between the hero and the villain. Both are monsters, but the hero is virtuous because he can control his monstrousness, and the villain cannot.
Jordan Peterson isn't? Great quote by the way.
That sounds an awful lot like chivalry.
There's a number of conclusions that can be drawn from this video, but I think the one that struck me for now is, a hero moves on from their grief and lets go while a villain will seek revenge. Often we see people excusing other's bad behavior because of past wrongs that were done to them or because they had bad influences or was raised that way, but unfortunately for these bad actors, they were the ones who did the crime, so it's still their fault even if they had some tragic backstory that set them down the wrong path. In present day, they still hurt others, and so in present day they're the villain. When talking about a lot of these sympathetic villain characters, I think it's more important than ever to remember that their histories give reason to their actions but doesn't excuse them. I think a lot of people forget that the villains hurt people and wind up removing any agency these characters had in their life decisions.
I think it's a mistake to use selfish and selfless as a mark villainy. I think being a selfish villain is easier to write but I think there are cases of selfless villains. A means to an end even if those means are the greatest of evils. I think Ozymandias form watchman is the closest thing I can think of for this point.
I think villains like Ozymandias don't really qualify as 'selfless' due to the whole 'murdering millions for the greater good' thing. That kind of flies in the face of the definition. Perhaps it's more like they convince themselves of their selflessness while at the same time reducing every individual into a nebulous 'Humanity-as-a-Whole' concept.
@@Ariaelyne Great care must be taken to understand that selfless is unequal to good and selfish is unequal to evil. It is possible to commit good selfish acts and evil selfless acts. In Ozymandias case he is trying to stop a war that will kill 100s of millions if not destroy the earth as we know it. He is not doing it for fame or fortune he will not be remembered and will not directly profit in any way with this great and terrible act. A mostly selfless act that is horrible evil for the means in which it is carried out. As for the good selfish act well we go back to the problem of the great fire and the two passageways. This man is in a burning building. He comes to a fork in his path. Down one way is 5 complete strangers and the other way is his wife. He only has enough time to go down one passageway and he chooses his wife. Selfish yes but is it evil? This is why I disagree with the video. I also think after thinking thru it that limiting our heroes and villains as always selfless and always selfish is well just that limiting.
Funny you bring up "The Killing Joke" as it offers the Joker a moment where he can have redemption, even after doing the horrible things that he does. Batman offers him that chance. But the Joker rejects that with his now classic joke.
I like to see it as when someone is at the brink of thier future and you choose a side. Batman shows this best when his parents die. He easily could have gone down the path of destruction but he chose the path of justice instead
Reverse wise many villains start out as people who are at the bottom of thier life and choose to lash out whether or not they are justified like mr freeze who we all see is the most heroic villain as life constantly destorys him.
Well, considering Batman he is not on the path of justice. He is on the path of revenge trying to relive his trauma but to be in control this time. He doesn't give a shit about justice or wellbeing of anyone.
As I understand Batman is trying to get a revenge on individuals while Joker is taking a revenge on society itself by trying to expose it and show how evil is the world itself and he is just the reflection of that world.
Being beneficiary of the evil world batman can't understand Joker.
Yes this reflects the common topic of current marvel heroes seeming to be of villainous stock!!! this will work well in my stew, thank you LD for the quality content
Just as some heroes follow the hero's journey and some do not, the same is true for villains. Some people - real and fictional - are inherently evil and some are inherently good when evaluated purely based on their virtues and vices. A psychopath who mutilated puppies for fun from a young age is certainly not a hero. However, heroes can have vices, and (although rare) villains can have virtues. What counts as a virtue or a vice comes down to subjective morality, but even that is inconsistent due to our tribal nature.
This leads to the next complication: 'hero' and 'villain' are subjective terms. For instance, Darth Vader was a villain to those who wanted to live independent of the Empire's rule. However, to many of the core system's citizens, he was a hero who united the galaxy. He either fought destructive terrorists insistent on destabalizing the galaxy, or noble rebels fighting for sovereignty, depending on your perspective and morality.
The problem of good and evil, hero and villain being subjective has a simple solution: develop a moral code, then pick a side.
(Just a rant - not directed at anyone in particular.)
Morality is an interesting topic. Like, why is it morally wrong for a person to kill someone who murdered their parents? The argument is that it makes that person no better than the murderer, but that's inherently flawed because of the difference in circumstance. The person who murdered the parents more than likely did so indiscriminately. Without reason. That makes them dangerous, while the survivor seeking retribution has a clear goal and if they succeed they remove a dangerous element from hurting others. Now you can argue the often self destructive path something like that entails, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the final morality of the situation.
@@jovenc4508
Exactly!
There are many who believe that vengance is virtuous (provided it isn't petty), that turnabout is fair play, and "do unto others". As such, they'd believe avenging the death or abuse of their friends and family is virtuous. However, there are many others who subscribe to the "just as bad as them" and "never kill" moralities. As such, they'd believe such revenge is villainous.
Many people are incapable of realizing that other people have a different moral code. Now this certainly doesn't mean that everyone believes they are acting morally all the time. Many people perform acts that they believe are immoral in order to benefit themselves or others. And again, there are sick individuals who always tortured puppies for fun - an act we can all agree is evil. But there are also many instances of people who perform ambiguously moral acts, such as Marvin Heemeyer (aka Killdozer guy). Ambiguously moral not because they did both right and wrong, but because whether the act was a net moral, immoral, or neutral one depends on the moral code assessing it.
It's tough to know how long your comment will end up when you're writing it on a phone.
@@the1necromancer
I got called "evil" one time becaue I pointed out to somebody that their safety is not my responsibility. That I am not obligated to place myself in harms way to save their life. Just because the idea of self sacrifice for others is considered "noble" it often becomes expected. I have no delusions of grandeur. If a situation goes south I may stay and help and I may run for my own life. There's no way to know until it happens and it's not right or wrong either way.
I mean to be fair, reacting by dressing in a bat suit and fighting criminals is also sort of insane, he just didn’t turn evil
I liked this, very well thought out and I see the logic in our argument, and how this can be used to create compelling heroes and villains, and relationships bewteen them.
However, I remember something from 'The Anatomy of Story' by John Truby, chapter 5, moral argument. He talks about the repition of heroes (although i think he more means protagonists in this case) making choices bewteen rightous actions and wrong actions, specifically in reference to tragedies ending in tragedy because the 'hero' repeatedly makes immoral decisions. My counter-argument based on this is that, rather than the Joker saying 'you get one bad day and then then you are bad and insane forever', in the temptation phase of the Heroes' journey, they have multiple opportunites to choose good and bad, and may make a mixture of them, in your analogy of having desert, over the course of a week, the (paragon)hero may forgoe desert everyday, or maybe he'll have desert on Tuesday and Thursday but be otherwise abstemious to add moal grey, maybe a villain who finds redemption at the climax has desert everyday except Sunday. But, it's not just one moment that defines hero or villain.
Even then, i have enough sense to realise that my 'multiple choice model' at least requires a longer run-time, as I am adding more into the story. Ramifications of this on pacing, television scheduling or audince bladders could be sever.
I think that's my favorite part of One Punch Man. The study of dichotomy. The fact many people are contrasted with the choices they make and how close heros and villains are just separated by a few choices or ideas.
This came at a Very good time since I’m trying to properly define some of the villains of my story and it’s proving pretty challenging.
Villains tend to have turned their backs on society for selfish reasons. A hero might also turn their backs on society, but for heroic/selfless reasons. The idea is why would someone choose the selfish option like Macbeth did. What flaw in their character did they fail to overcome?
Very excellent and very awesome, but I'm not sure about the ending. Villians can be nihilistic and still be disciplined enough to avoid many temptations. The one thing that they cannot do is sacrifice themselves out of love for something that they see as greater than themselves.
It took a real leap of faith for Luke to believe in his father. That is a test that most would not pass.
I'm still thinking this through. I was following along and found myself in total agreement up until the final few seconds of the video.
Or maybe C.S.Lewis is right and you are using one of the Devil's tricks to fool us into believing that the difference between good and evil can come down to something as small as just dietary habits ;-) In which case, kudos to you young Wormwood!
I'm going to take a free course on the C.S. Lewis from Hillsdale, and get back to you if I find a better way of articulating my point.
Thanks again for another Great and Thought Provoking video!
This is more of a subjective take, but I think the best stories are those where you cannot label any character as a "Hero" or "Villian".
I don't agree, a villain can sacrifice itself for a cause greater than himself.
I know it's a bit extreme, but let's look at the nazis : there was million of them. In a group that big, there were some nazis, warcriminals, etc, making the sacrifice of their own live, willingly, to permit the victory of their idea.
In the fictionnal world, nothing stop a perfect asshole, a villain, to believe in what he's fighting for, to the point he would gladly throw his life away in order to assure the triumph of his ideology.
@@cpp3221 I agree with what you are saying. I was thinking of the Communist villains as well. They really believe in what they are doing. That is why I added the vague 'out of love' clause to contain them. They can be willing NPCs chained to an evil ideology. But what they do cannot be said to be done 'out of love.' Love doesn't throw acid in a child's face.
I am still thinking this all through. It is an interesting question.
@@cpp3221, There is one small thing here that many people don't take into account. It's not about the goals that a group of people pursues, but about the methods. Because even if we give an example of radical groups, they do not consider themselves villains, but fighters for justice and goodness.
In books and films, especially lazy ones, the villain has an inherently unrealistic goal - to take over or destroy the world, and not just rule some part of it. Therefore, over time, it is difficult to believe in such a thing.
I disagree a Villian can sacrifice himself for his goals,look at a suicide bomber for example (a trope that's been used several times for a Villian). Or the Villian that wants to destroy the entire world for some reason, he's not excluding himself. I'll have to say there's no single formula in creating a good Villian, just like i don't think there's a single formula in creating a good hero (i know LD has the Hero journey that he loves talking about but it's far from the only formula used to creating a successful hero).
This juxtaposition/dichotomy comes up really well in Orson Scott Card's "Tales of Alvin Maker" -- the titular Alvin isn't perfect, but he learns at a very young age that his power & ability shouldn't just be used for his own self-interest. He's confronted with the reality of the consequences of a single selfish childhood act, and thenceforth spends the rest of his life trying to use his power to help others...and eventually to help other people gain the same power as himself. When his younger brother has the same power, he's thrilled. Meanwhile that younger brother, Calvin, grows resentful of Alvin and selfish, possessing the same power but focusing entirely on self-aggrandisement and opposing Alvin. Seeking fame & glory, he wanted to be "the most special"; while Alvin, finding joy in his power, wanted to share that power & joy with others.
16:57
Good video. But that last moment with the pudding? I feel personally attacked.
There are three types of actors in stories: the hero, the villain, and the civilian.
A hero acts for the betterment of others / society. They become "super" when they sacrifice for this.
A villain acts for the worsening of others/society. They become "super" when they sacrifice for this.
A civilian acts for the status quo of others/society. I'm not sure what they become when they sacrifice for this, but it's not considered "super." A tragedy? A victim?
Your description of a civilian sounds more like a soldier.
Would you say a hero changes things? and if so can/will you name some?
I think villains are to often agenst the status quo, but im into the system is the real evil thing.
@@beyond-journeys-end Moses to Rameses. Luke Skywalker to Palpatine. Kamina, and then Simon, to their villains. And the list goes on.
The real thing that defines a force of change, or a force of protection, as a hero or a villain is if they are good or evil, these distinctions are not exactly correlated.
I think the civillian that sacrifices itself for something else ceases to be a civillian, a passive backdrop, and becomes and active actor.
Now, with regards to their own willingness and knowledge, when they sacrifice:
- if the status quo is shown to be good, they become then a hero
- if it is not, then a villain
But if, after their sacrifice, their perceptions about the status quo are shown to be wrong, then:
- if they thought society was good, but it was bad, its portrayed as a tragedy of deceit or lack of knowledge
- if they thought society was bad, but it was good, they become a victim of ironic/poetic justice
In cases when they don't know what they are sacrificing for, its the same as all of the above, depending on their intentions.
@@yag0d Thanks
A good moment that shows the diverging path of hero and villian I recall comes from the Justice League Crisis and Two Earth's animated film. During a climactic fight Batman faces off against Owlman is evil counter part, the nihilistic villian seeking to destroy all life with a dimensional bomb to "prevent anyone from ever going though what he did". Owlman asks how Batman a person with the same intelligence and emotional wounds as him can't see that it's the right thing, they are after all the same. Batman points out that there is one important diffrence "We both stared not the abyss, but you blinked!" As Both Batman and Owlman where confronted with the same emotions where thier parents died. Batman chose to become a champion to fight to make a world where such tragic events where minimalized, while Owlman chose to embrace the nihilistic idea that life is nothing but pain and not worth liveing. Both wants to eliminate the pain of loss but one decided to eliminate anything that could lead to loss by ending existence itself.
Man, I feel personally called out by that ending. Great vid
Lol! Thanks, very much appreciated!
There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us, you blinked. ~Batman
Not gonna lie, when you said that a hero sticks to his diet while a villain will eat that pudding he said would be the last one, I felt that. :p
Time for my redemption arc.
Enjoying the voice impressions. Wonderful videos, keep up the good work.
*_“You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.”_* heh...
Everything is better in the original Klingon.
Man, this opened my eyes and I'm definitely gonna use this info for designing my fantasy story. I'm inspired now. Thank you very much.
I personally designed the MC of my book to be alternating between hero and antihero, as in some points of the story he sacrifice himself for the sake of others and in other points he commits to a greater good for his own wishes. The MC is literally broken inside (his soul is shattered into fragments and his journey is one of healing and self discovery) and he travels around the world exposing himself to new experiences in order to build himself, either he becomes a hero or a villain.
Great part of his development is thanks to his friends that join his journey as he advances in the story. They all come to the conclusion of not separate from the MC as they saw that he would take a bad turn without their presence.
I also designed the true purpose in life of the MC as he becomes the only one capable of destroying the foundations of the world. He learns the true nature of those foundations and feels sickened from it, so he takes upon himself to destroy those foundations and liberate the world. For the rest of humanity he is a villain but for him he is a hero fighting for a greater good. This also separates the MC's friend into two groups, one that follows the MC and one that hunts him down to prevent the destruction of said foundations.
Looking at this, this can be why we often see in stories how good and evil don't always fall in line with the law or any mechanically functioning ideal, one defined by rules that are meant to be unyielding. In the past, I more thought this was because authors wanted to make some sort of social commentary, but with this video, I think even beyond that it's impossible to make a believable story that incorporates both, or perhaps even to have a system in real life that will always successfully differentiate between good and evil (i.e., make the right choice). If good and evil are almost the same but the only difference are inner strength and motivations, then how is a third party who knows nothing about the person supposed to be able to judge them other than through past completed actions? People can make the differentiation through common sense or observations, but there are too many exceptions in real life to write this down in law. Perhaps this was what the Batman and Gordon relationship was pointing at.
One example i really love that demonstrates this perfectly it's in the "Crisis on Two Worlds" animation from DC. Owlman, Batman's evil version of another earth claims that they are not different, but in the end Batman says "There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us, you blinked".
Power can even be the primary motivator of a hero as well, its what you want power for that matters. There are many Anime/Mangas where the hero aspires to be the best they can be, to push their limits. The villains do the same thing for the sake of inflicting that power on others, but the hero seeks it to better themselves, to "be the best." Self improvement vs domination. For the Hero it is "BECOME the strongest, through hard work" for the villain it is "BE the strongest, so that [temptation]".
Yes, this how you create good villains. By writing them to embracing their vice and making them truly evil as a result. Never have your hero give in to vice or they will be doomed to be designated.
BTW, I may be seeing things, but on your question, a while ago, on whether a racist can be a hero, there may be an example in popular media. Check out Bad Travelling in the third season of Love, Death and Robots. Of course I may be reading too much into it, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'd also like to bring up the importance of growth and hard worth. Heroes tend to gain power the slow, arduous way - they grind, and grind, and grind, until they become masters at what they do. In the process, they learn just how dangerous the power they seek can be, and the need to control it (and by extension, oneself). OTOH, villains tend to take the fast lane or the easy way out. They are stronger initially, but that power is like a fire- it burns bright, causes destruction, and ultimately burns out. They skip the grind and never learn the lessons needed to control that power, or avoid it's seductive and destructive qualities. Often they become the victim of their own hubris.
You talk about "the dubious quality of the prequel trilogy".
I love your videos and I'd be interested in you talking about that.
I myself love the PT as much as the OT as they form in my mind (and GL's as he often stated himself) one continuous story that has an enormous respect of continuity, character building, character development and world building instated with incredible heroes and villains worthy of being part of "modern mythology" as the Iliad was in its time.
I think of myself as pretty open-minded but never heard or seen actual substantial arguments about why the prequels are bad. It's always "Well everybody says so..." or "It's not what I imagined it to be so it's bad..." or "CGI bad but I love the MCU and see no hypocrisy in that..." or even, at their most desperate hours, "It makes LITERRALLY TWO throw away lines in the OT (that have no impact on the story or characters mind you) not work anymore..."
I would be very interested by your take on it since you're always well thought out in your explanations. Do you think you will someday talk about that ?
Probably the best analysis of this dichotomy I have ever seen.
I always saw the villain moment is when the bad guy can justify his cruelty. This is the moment it all makes sense to them even if it's theological or purely selfish.
This was a awesome video. A lot of Batman villains definitely had the one "bad day" and or made the choice of villainy. This gives me a idea, you could make another video talking about characters that became villains during other steps of the Heroes Journey.
My favorite example of this (bring it back to Batman) is Jason Todd as his reasons for being a villain (granted briefly) was due to the his "death", the events that happened after and his "rebirth". He was fine, going through the heroes journey being a hothead but with good intentions. But then he he got tricked by the Joker and killed (ok, MAYBE you can argue he fell to temptation of Jokers trick but what he does later doesn't relate to the temptation itself). When he comes back as the Redhood and is a villain (albeit briefly) he says the reason he was doing the bad stuff wasn't because of what Joker did to him, or the fact that he was killed... it was because Batman didn't kill Joker AFTER he died. He felt betrayed because after the Joker killed him and later paralyzed Barbra Batman never killed the Joker. His reasoning for villainy in that moment while selfish was more do to his death, the events afterword and rebirth.
In this case it is pretty literal and I know not many characters fall into that category. Heck, that's all i can think of right now.
Can you guys think of other villains that turned evil at other steps of the hero's journey?
Another great video by Literature Devil. To add to it, something that everyone already knows today, is that some villains also believe they are the Heroes, but are actually doing the wrong thing.
It's an interesting concept in what separates a hero from a villain, with lots of examples and a very broad explanation for it. A simple statement sums it up nicely: Bothe heroes and villains stared into the abyss, but when the abyss stared back the villains blinked.
What is a Villain's Journey? A miserable little pile of secrets!
You're a hero for the Rian Johnson reference.
Nice job with the sponsor part. 👍
Thanks lol
"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss... and when it looked back at us... you blinked." - Batman, to Owlman, Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths
An issue I take with this viewpoint on a Hero/Villains journey is putting all the weight of their future decisions on that one singular moment. It's basically saying that a Hero isn't allowed a moment of weakness where they actually make the wrong choice, otherwise that would be them giving into the temptation and heading down the path of a villain. It takes away some of their agency. The fact that there's no moment where they give in to the temptation and then have to fight the urge to keep going with it, which WOULD lead them fully down the Villain's path.
The Hero can easily be someone who refuses to kill whenever possible, even if it would be easier. But when they're put into a moment where they lose themselves to rage they end up breaking that rule and ending the life of the one who caused it. But that doesn't mean they're suddenly a villain. They would be a villain if their grip on morality kept weakening and they kept killing more and more frequently for lesser and lesser reasons. But depending on the setting, this could also be seen as a moment where they realise that sometimes you have to take a life to save others, which could also be a heroic trait.
It's one of Batman's biggest flaws in most iterations. He allows these villains to keep living and as a result thousands of innocents die because of his actions. Just how many would be spared if he the Joker wasn't around anymore? As much of a moral high-ground as his non-killing gives him, the loss of life caused by it takes away from it as those are lives he could have saved but didn't.
Always good to see a video upload from LD. I always try to keep these tips and lectures in mind when writing.
Hey! Glad you liked the video!
@@LiteratureDevil It's an interesting twist from the Hero's Journey. I might want to write something like that one day.
What many refuse to recognize is the boundary between good and evil is very blurry. We simplify it, but good and evil is complex if they exist at all.
Civilizations have 3 stages of morality.
1: outcome based
2: intentions based
3: emotionally based
At each lower stage the civilization carries out acts that the prior tier would deem evil. Going beyond this you could adopt the mentality of intelligence where outcome and rational are more important than whether something is good or evil.
Anyway you look at it, our civilization is rife with evil that the masses refuse to look upon or act. A pervasive self serving apathy.
New to the channel, and I love the voices! Thank you for all of your clear and concise hard work.
I've only seen the beginning, but I already love this video. A lot of people ignore how important going back to basics is and making villains that are opposite to the heroes, but use the same power(Like Superman and Lex Luthor), but it honestly makes for a very interesting character study and can be more then just "lol the writers were lazy and just made evil supes" like a lot of writers tend to regard it as.
Don't get me wrong, I love a multilayered story and all that, but sometimes having a simple dynamic like this can be more impactful then if you made everyone's morality various shades of grey.
The idea of the child becoming an adult in the Hero's Journey reminds me of one villain in particular: Syndrome.
Here's a classic example where the idea is most obvious. Buddy wanted to help Mr. Incredible just to show that he was capable of using his knowledge of tech to advantage. Mostly...he just wanted to show off. As Syndrome, that has not changed. He is still trying to show off, only now to show he is superior to these so-called "supers". Despite all his bluster regard "outgrowing" Mr. Incredible and trying to say that if everyone is super no one will be (which is wrong on a fundamental level, but that's a different discussion), he is still the pedantic child trying to show off his genius to the world. He failed in the Hero's Journey because he succumbed to the temptation to show he was "better".
12:11 Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! For actually classing Batman as a CRIME-FIGHTER!!
No problem. Modern mainstream writers tend to want superheroes to be so many other things...except for crime fighters lol.
@@LiteratureDevil I'm certainty a fan of the Michael Keaton / Kevin Conroy versions but get absolutely sick & tired of certain writers who want Batman to be able to prevail against EVERYONE due to the fact he's the odd one out in all of the Justice League...
Here's an idea:- "Correct heroes for the correct villain"
This reminds me of Link and Ganon in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
When Link fought Dark Link in the Water Temple. Scanning Dark Link with Navi just says, "Conquer Yourself." Link fights against Dark Link, and Link wins the fight. And, thus, he continued on his hero's journey. However, Ganon was supposed to be a hero, as well (to the Gerudo). But, when Ganon fought his Dark Self...Dark Ganon ended up conquering Ganon; and, that's when Ganon turned into the villian of that story.
The true definition of the heros journey is to become strong enough to over-come the Shadow/Darkness within. Meanwhile, the villian's journey begins when the Shadow/Darkness wins.
Best sponsor plug ever! Also, I love the way you break down a villain. It's an excellent means to flesh out my own villains. Well done.
A interesting take. Liked the majority of this video. The only thing that irked me was prequel bashing. (It's as if commentators have to say, or can't resist saying something negative about them everytime, instead of just explaining their story as normal for the thesis they're making. Not to mention they're a lot better than anything we're getting now.)
But all the same, like the idea and the exploration of the killing joke and how it shows the difference between the hero and villain's journey.
There is an argument in the JoJo fandom on how Funny Valentine and Enrico Pucci are not villains but well this video have given me a way to fight that argument ok here it goes.
Spoilers for Part 6 and 7
Enrico Pucci:
Pucci started off in a good place. he was the son of a priest and wanted to become one. He lived a life dedicated to god. At some point he met DIO. DIO gave him a stand arrow and a small insight to his plan with his "Do you believe in Gravity" speech. Some time when Pucci was 15 - 17 his sister Perla started to fall for a man named Wes. A few days later though whilst Pucci was cleaning the confession box he heard a confession which later led him to discover that Wes was his sort to be dead brother. This is when Pucci is overcome with desire. He doesn't tell the pair as he is far too concerned of his future job as a priest and to not break the rule about telling others about confessions. Instead he hires a private detective to break up the couple. The Private detective turned out to be working for the KKK and lynches Wes and Perla dies from suicide. From this point onwards Pucci turns to the words of DIO and joins him. He goes down a path of villainous and selfish actions in order to find what he believes to be good for humanity.
Funny Valentine:
Funny Valentine's father died due to suicide from not wanting to give up his country during a war and passed his handkerchief to Valentine. This drives Valentine to Patriotism and to join the army. On one unfortunate day Valentine's platoon ride until the devil's palm and die. Valentine the surviving member finds the heart of the Saint's corpse. This discovery drives Valentine to seek greater power to put himself and the USA above society, a power grab for his own benefit not caring who he tramples on in his drive for power. the JoJo of the part Johnny is sort of similar to Valentine but took a different route. Johnny at the start of SBR had nothing, no friends, family or the ability to walk. In his lowest moment of his life he discovers the phenomenon known as the Spin. this discovery drives Johnny to join the SBR race in order to learn it's secrets in order to walk again. early on in the race he discovers the left arm of the Saint's corpse. Johnny then thinks of seeking the corpse to heal his injuries. Two men striving for greater power for their own benefits but this is when the main different lies. When Gyro was about to be lost to sugar Mountain Johnny sacrificed the saint's corpse's ears and right leg to the main villain's minion as well as defeating Valentine to protect Lucy and Stephen Steel after accepting the cry for help.
Pucci and Valentine people who's selfish ambitions lead to them loosing everything. Pucci is erased from existence and Valentine dies and looses the Saints corpse to Johnny, Lucy and Stephen Steel.
a hero displays virtue often beginning a journey in a situation that is contrary to the virtue they will later represent. While a villain will go further than the hero ever did away from the virtue that the hero is learning.
Ok that was the best sponsorship detour I have ever seen
@13:51 Joker took the simp path. Batman approves of this message.
Exactly lol
I’ve often heard that heroes are boring and villains are interesting, but I think that’s backwards. The villain is the character who gave in to his demons rather than fight them, he took the easy solution. The hero is the one who chose to fight his demons and take the difficult but right solution. And I think we can all agree that characters who struggle to find the right answer are more interesting than characters who will always take the easy way out.
But this is a very old and even outdated flawed morality, which does not really distinguish you from villain fans. In a way, you're even a little worse. Because villain fans don't understand that they like it when a villain behaves like a hero and a fighter for social justice.
Therefore, in the movie Joker, when rich kids in the subway (for some reason) start bullying a woman, the Joker did not join them, but took the hit himself ... Like a hero.
Your mistake is assumption that the villains don't struggle at all, so they are not interesting. Try watching the series "Banshee", for example. There is one of the most well-designed villains, IMO. You can empathize with him and you can hate him and you can root for him - moreover, at the same time in some cases.
In the case of heroes - I cannot empathize with Daredevil and Batman, who, by not killing the villain, allow him to commit new murders, refusing to go against their "moral code" - in fact, they are simply afraid to get their hands dirty, because they are selfish.
@@ahoramazda6864 the reason batman does not kill villains is not because of moral code but because they are nothing but toys for him and he expects to fight then again and again.
probably villains don't kill batman for the same reasons as they know that he will not really harm them and prison is easy to escape
I don't know that many villains who gave up to their demons most often hero gets everything handed on a silver-plate while villain has to make sacrifices or suffer serious loss.
like batman did not suffer any serisu loss, he was super rich kid with unlimited resources that he decided to use to build cool toys and play hero, he did absolutely nothing to improve society fight corruption or do anything good at all besides fighting petty crime
@@deltaxcd, Well, if you think that Bruce Wayne would have made society by going into politics, then his actions would not necessarily have led to a positive result.
Besides - if Bruce Wayne was just handing out money to everyone, then it would be a story about a communist or a democrat (although democrats usually give out other people's money, not personal). In addition, in some media, Batman is involved in charity work.
@@deltaxcd, As for the villains, I don't agree that they always have to sacrifice and make an effort. They almost always get fanatical minions that are loyal to the villain, even if he kills them or destroys the world.
Although in reality, bandits and mercenaries are not known for honesty or loyalty. It seems to me that many would give out their bosses simply for free, even without threats and fists during interrogation. Well, or they would have killed the villain before the hero had time to come to him, because there are known cases of betrayal by subordinates.
If you look at Joker (2019), he acts more like a villain than a hero. He has virtually no villainous acts and they are almost always shown to be sympathetic or understandable. Same goes to many "misunderstood villains" in today's media.
All incarnations of the Kingpin get power and money, even if his new incarnation is stupid as a box of stones and could count on the role of a bouncer in a bar, but nothing more.
Shigaraki from my hero academia also went through a villains journey parallel to the protagonist's heroes journey, and he also became a villain due to "one bad day".
he thanos snapped his entire family lol
something common that makes the villain is seeing the means (stuff like money, power, sex) as the objective, wich turns the noble objectives into means(people, comanionship, a bigger pourpose)
Another great video! Great punch line too!
There are a bunch of Batman lines that work so well for this but this is my favorite
Justice League Crisis on Two Earths
Batman to Owlman: There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss. But when it looked back at us. You blinked.
Great video as always LD
And there is still the thing about "one story's villain, another story's hero". The temptation part isn't always as black-and-white as it's painted afterwards. What for one side is succumbing to to weakness and betraying what one had stood for, for another is finding strength to overcome old shackles. What for one side is the virtue of staying true to oneself, for the other is the weakness of not taking the step.
What's more important is not the exact big choice, and not fully even the motivation in the moment of choice, but how it escalates further...
Vader didn't turn full villain just by betraying the Jedi (there was plenty of tensions all along) or by tapping into dark side (the Light that doesn't allow you to even glimpse the opposite isn't that pure either; ironically, the Sith were the ones truly studying the Force in its entirety) or by choosing to side with the guy who actually orchestrated the entirety of Clone Wars (although, Palpatine was the power-hungry villain all along). Getting rid of all that corruption the Republic was built on had quite some righteous appeal. Vader truly fell when he allowed his insecurities to take over and at slightest suspicion of betrayal attacked the one person he swore to protect at any cost, the one he actually did this for.
Am I the only one who wants to read a story where Devil and Angel are the main characters? I love their dynamic
The Devil Is a Part-Timer. Season 1 is on Netflix, I'm not sure on the manga's availability though.
I'm not a villain for having the second bowl of pudding...its for the third...and then loving pudding so much that I'd clobber the cousin to take _their_ pudding, too!
Regret for having the second bowl and resolve not to lose ones self in the throes of rapturous pudding, evermore, is how a hero advocates to run the healthy road and reject the temptations of puddings to come.
Guess I'm a villain.
A writer's quibble coming. A cross-road reference is different than fork-in-the-road. In the context you were opining, you should have used fork-in-the-road. The former is used to indicate a joining and sharing of different things and ideas. A reference to the markets that tended to spring up around them. The latter is used to describe when someone needs to make a momentous choice in their path.
""We not so different, you and I" -Dr. Evil"
"See, I did mention it," -Dr. Evil
I haven't Consumed enough Good Media to make an exhaustive List of Great Villains that would fall into a 'Villain's Journey Archetype But I could name a couple that would be nice case studies to try and fit them into this hypothetical Model:
-General Arvis (Fire Emblem Geneology of the Holy War)
-Wiegraf (Final Fantasy Tactics)
-Griffith (Berserk)
-Kotomine Kirei (Fate Series particularly his Fate Zero and Fate Stay Night Fate Route and Heaven's Feel depictions where he features prominently.)
I have an idea for a book that's a villains journey. About a failed hero taking a dark baptism for selfish reasons, believing he can use the power given to destroy the cycle of dark lords rising. Only to discover too late that once he accepted the power his fate & place in the world was set in stone
Villains are like the 7 deadly sins from Dante's Inferno but personified through different individuals who have fallen into the path to temptation. They are carrying or have become their own hell and it's their journey to get out with the help of the Hero or abandon all hope by serving evil like a helpless slave.
As much as Macbeth is the villain of William Shakespeare's play of the same name I think that lady Macbeth is the second villain of the story as she is the one who pushed Macbeth to kill king Duncan and if she hadn't pushed the idea onto Macbeth then he wouldn't have done it as for the weird sisters I see them as chaotic neutrals
I like your Joker impression. Especially the “Why aren’t you laughing?” part.
one must see themselves in a crossroad with every decision they made in life, some crossroads may more significant than other but still they're the accumulation toward your true self, big or small decision remember to be considered
first time seeing one of your videos, great stuff! got me hooked already
" Madness! I demand of destitution, shame, and loneliness of scorn. It is my destiny! It is my right! Nothing will deter me from it!" Skeletor uttered this in the Masters of the Universe film. Frank Langella was given a chance to be a big ham, but his lines delivered so much power, but this particular line sounds like that of a man who, at the crossroad of temptation, accepted temptation knowing it would lead to being shamed and scorned and he equated it to power which he believed was his ultimate destiny. While Skeletor's backstory was never delved within the film, that simple line speaks volumes of who he is and where he came from and how he came to be the scourge of Eternia.
Deep down he needs everyone to be like him to excuse his horrid behavior.
Ok, ok, I'll give: that is the best ad integration I've seen XD
To me, I think what makes a villain, is the response to a traumatic event. How they'd carry themselves from that day forward.
I learn English better with this guy than I do in school
I'm trying to write a Villain characters backstory and I was pointed towards this video. It helped me get an idea of what to do
I like the wheel of time answer to the question better, the difference is whether you are willing to pay the price or not.
Long story short - "villains are just the evil counterparts of the heroes." This is a rather lazy and formal approach, especially when it is not found in modern media. Even in the media that LD cited as an example, villains and heroes are different. But the author made them similar through generalization and simplification.
In fact, after Dune, written in the 60s, we do not see a character like Feyd-Rautha (not counting the film adaptation from Lynch). Often we see villains and heroes who are hardly related to each other - both thematically and in terms of plot and character relationships. Yes, there is a cliche "You and I are not so different" - but it is not necessarily true. A villain can lie, he's a villain!
Let's take Jon Snow and Ramsey Snow for example. They are similar only in that they are bastards in the northern heathole. The only difference is that one commits crimes (and for some reason was not caught and killed for them) and the other went to prison for nothing.
If they were connected thematically, then Ramsey would not hunt people, but wild animals, including wolves. Then the confrontation with the Starks, whose symbol is wolves, would be more symbolic. Considering that Ramsey is a sadist, a psychopath and a barbarian, any sane character would have opposed him. Therefore, it doesn't matter who Jon Snow is. Even if they were both evil, it wouldn't necessarily make them allies or put them on the same team.
If we talk about Jon Snow and the Night King, then this conflict is invented by the showrunners, because in the book there was only the Night Queen.
And that's just the first thing that came to my mind. If we take the less popular and less criticized works, we will find even more examples that refute the conclusions of LD.
@Jacks Ragingbileduct, But if we think according to this logic, then Guts is actually a villain, because he succumbs to anger and even sometimes lust. While his opponent is basically the Messiah.
Well, or if you take The Elders Scrolls - then all the races created by the "evil gods" are also evil. Even if they are good people - but they are prone to theft, like the Khajiit, or to anger and barbarism, like the Orcs. The Dunmer don't mind about political assassinations.
But I don't consider them evil because they give in to temptetions. I judge characters by their actions.
From my point of view - inaction can be as bad as murder. Many American idols because of their inaction allowed crime. And people think it's a good thing. Although in reality - the media demonize weapons in order to one day ban it.
@Jacks Ragingbileduct, While I disagree with Alan Moore on many things, I think one of his thoughts about abandoning moral absolutism is pretty valid. In one of the interviews, if I remember correctly, he criticized superhero morality with a clear division into black and white.
This morality is not realistic, does not take into account the nuances of life and kind of contradicts itself. Because if we take real life - vigelantes are considered lawbreakers, that's why they are kind of bad guys, even if they do good things... Well, in theory.
If we talk about flaws and overcoming them, then this is partly a stereotype from the "hero journey". The hero or villain doesn't necessarily change by the end of the story. For example, Batman will be chasing villains forever, because his story has no end... Except for Batman Beyond, where he partly retired due to age. Although even there, Batman's story isn't quite over yet.
I think the ideal hero depends on the circumstances in which he finds himself and the opportunities that he has. When Batman spares the Joker in The Killing Joke or Under the Red Hood, he already knows what the Joker is capable of and that he won't change. Therefore - mercy from Batman was a manifestation of personal selfishness, not selflessness.
As for the villains, we can empathize with the villain if he is redeemable or morally gray. Most sane people cannot empathize with unredeemable evil. Although, there are people who are fans of real criminals, but this is rather a manifestation of the disease - hybristophilia and so on.
Speaking specifically about fiction and media, we should not forget that the antagonist is not necessarily the villain and that the villain is not necessarily obvious. For example, I heard a rather interesting theory, according to which - the antagonist of Berserk is not really a villain, but only a puppet in the hands of dark forces. Partly for this reason, Vader cannot be considered a full-fledged villain, because he was essentially a puppet and watchdog of the Emperor.
Great video but I can’t fully agree with the temptation point. Sometimes heroes fall to temptation before they truly become heroes. That’s what leads to the atonement. A grand majority of heroes are not perfect because they are relatable on some level. This is the truth of a hero. You will fail, you will be guilty/shamed, but will you stand back up, right your wrongs, and protect others? Even Prince Zuko went from villain to anti villain to total hero. He even sacrificed himself to save Katara, who was the main person who didn’t trust him, during his duel against Azula.
The difference between a Hero and a villain is the Hero is aligned or representative of what the story considers truth or virtuous while the villain fails to or actively rejects to do so.
I would say it isn't as simple as whether or not they fall to temptation, because a hero character can still be seen as the hero if the story views simple pleasures or the aspirations of the soul and will as virtue. I would say ultimately it is somewhat shortsighted to view it simply though the lends of selfishness or temptation, as what is selfish or temptation can vary depending on perspective. In a story where the moral is to not waste ones youth for example and enjoy it while it lasts, the bitter adult that crushes the hopes and dreams of the youth due to themselves giving into this idea of giving up your youth for the sake of the cold machine of adult society becomes the villain to a group of protagonists who advocate for enjoying said youth while you still have it.
Lets take Batman himself as a next example. In many stories, vigilantes are expressly the villains of the story due to their methods goign against the law as they are taking matters into their own hands. This can be considered selfish and arrogant as the person believes themselves as above the law. Yet here, Batman is still the hero.
Why? Because Batman aligns with the moral core thematic the story considers to be virtue.
In this regard, it is less black and white and more about the perspective of the narrative and how much the merit of that purposed virtue actually has and/or resonates with the plight of the human condition.