Are the MLP villains really bad?

[Goat-kun 2,527]

On 11/13/2017 at 5:26 AM, Deleted Ginger Wife said:

One hallmark of a good villain is that you can empathize at some level with them. Maybe not always the case as there are obviously great unrelatable baddies that have no redeeming value, but it is often the case that good ones do. After all, we are all the heroes of our own story, are we not? But, at the end of they day they are still villains ... unless ...

Empathy has little to do with good villains. Their motives and actions instill a sense of dread, awe, and hate in the audience. People like them cause they are badass, and they like to hate them cause they are awful beings. Plus many dreadful villains are excellent meme fountains.

 

FIM villains are bad at being villains. IRL they'd be nothing more than awkward pill-popping Millennials screeching at normies for various insignificant reasons. A world without magic has its perks, eh.

[Jeric 46,854]

Just now, Goat-kun said:

Empathy has little to do with good villains

Depends on what a person looks for in a good villain.

1 minute ago, Goat-kun said:

Their motives and actions instill a sense of dread, awe, and hate in the audience

Certainly there are other emotions they instill, such as pity, uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, etc etc. 

 

2 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Plus many dreadful villains are excellent meme fountains.

So are well presented, favored, and effective villains, but that should go without saying. 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

3 minutes ago, Deleted Ginger Wife said:

Depends on what a person looks for in a good villain.

Indeed, but we are talking about the majority here.

4 minutes ago, Deleted Ginger Wife said:

Certainly there are other emotions they instill, such as pity, uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, etc etc.

Those emotions don't belong to villains exclusively. Heroes (of justice?) can also provide, and so can damsels in distress.

5 minutes ago, Deleted Ginger Wife said:

So are well presented, favored, and effective villains, but that should go without saying. 

Yes, but those kind of villains are the ones who are well presented, favored, and effective

[Jeric 46,854]

13 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Indeed, but we are talking about the majority here.

Funny, I thought that's what I was doing. Silly billy goat, you realize that I'm not just talking about compassionate empathy, right? I think you may be jumping to the assumption that I was talking exclusively about the touchy feely side of the equation and ignoring the Dark Triad. I refer you back to my initial sentence in the paragraph you quoted ... 

One hallmark of a good villain is that you can empathize at some level with them. 

I didn't hire a manatee to mysteriously splice that into to my sentence because it sounds good. Dear lord, do you really see me as a literary neophyte? I gots more game than that. 

Emotional || Cognitive || Somatic. 

You like the kickassery of a chaos causing villain? That's called cognitive empathy. I didn't say relatable. People who say that should shampoo <see the film As Good As It Gets for the rest of that line>

 

24 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Those emotions don't belong to villains exclusively. Heroes (of justice?) can also provide, and so can damsels in distress.

Basically the standard initial framework for a good villain is the same as a hero. The proto question really is -- what makes a great character? From there you add the flavor text to differentiate.

 

 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

1 hour ago, Deleted Ginger Wife said:

Funny, I thought that's what I was doing. Silly billy goat, you realize that I'm not just talking about compassionate empathy, right? I think you may be jumping to the assumption that I was talking exclusively about the touchy feely side of the equation and ignoring the Dark Triad. I refer you back to my initial sentence in the paragraph you quoted ... 

One hallmark of a good villain is that you can empathize at some level with them. 

I didn't hire a manatee to mysteriously splice that into to my sentence because it sounds good. Dear lord, do you really see me as a literary neophyte? I gots more game than that. 

Emotional || Cognitive || Somatic. 

You like the kickassery of a chaos causing villain? That's called cognitive empathy. I didn't say relatable. People who say that should shampoo <see the film As Good As It Gets for the rest of that line>

 

Basically the standard initial framework for a good villain is the same as a hero. The proto question really is -- what makes a great character? From there you add the flavor text to differentiate.

 

 

... Well, we are on a FIM forum.

 

Cognitive, huh. You are right, in a sense. But now your statement has become vague and all-encompassing. It tells one little about building a good character, and even less about villainy. Chaos? Kickassery? Those are not necessary. You can feel the aforementioned negative emotions even for a shrewd politician or a frail noble.

 

The questions here are: "What separates a villain from other characters?" and "What makes a good villain?" There is no straight answer, but the effects are known.

[Jeric 46,854]

2 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

It tells one little about building a good character, and even less about villainy. Chaos? Kickassery? Those are not necessary. You can feel the aforementioned negative emotions even for a shrewd politician or a frail noble.

Those were just examples, but that is a good point you made nonetheless. 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

13 hours ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

Those were just examples, but that is a good point you made nonetheless. 

No one's bad, they're just broken - Meghan 2017

 

It effectively states one has no agency if one is considered broken by an individual who has placed themselves as an arbiter over validity of human behavior. Quite an insulting stance to have. I do sincerely hope she doesn't view real people this way.

 

As Garbage Human would say: FIM villains are nothing more than animals that cannot help but react to their environment in a predictable manner. They cannot even be responsible for their own actions. Such an entity cannot be considered a villain, or sapient.

 

To push it further is to imply that any character is only a sum of their life experiences. That means there are no good characters. There are only characters with "good software".

 

That's not only wrong, it's boring AF. Ah well, it's not like this wasn't expected.

[Jeric 46,854]

1 hour ago, Goat-kun said:

To push it further is to imply that any character is only a sum of their life experiences.

Outside of the epigenetic influences that some theorize, we are mostly the sum of our life experiences. The agency comes in how you choose to format the equation, and maybe the weight assigned to various influencers, which may not actually be true agency. Determinism may not be correct, though libertarian free will is just as mythological. 

Amusingly, characters have true no agency either. The author is God, and God creates God's world in His or Her image. I see nothing surprising or revelatory with that. 

 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

2 hours ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

Outside of the epigenetic influences that some theorize, we are mostly the sum of our life experiences. The agency comes in how you choose to format the equation, and maybe the weight assigned to various influencers, which may not actually be true agency. Determinism may not be correct, though libertarian free will is just as mythological. 

Amusingly, characters have true no agency either. The author is God, and God creates God's world in His or Her image. I see nothing surprising or revelatory with that. 

 

Mostly is not quite good enough. Intelligence and personality traits are heritable to a relevant degree. No to mention other expressed traits and various disorders that too shape who we are. If your defense of such character design holds true, then every individual with the same history shall react the same to all events. Are you willing to bet your soul on this assumption? It's funny cause if we are not 100% defined by our environment, then friendship can never truly be magic. There will always be that one dude or gal who wants to become Literally Hitler no matter what ... Unless it's Meghanverse. There they'll just be broken animals in need of fixing by people who know better ... Yay!

 

Amusingly, not every god is created equal. They are mirrored by their creations. Characters are indeed just puppets, yet within their fake worlds these puppets can have agency which can be explained within the bounds of these fake worlds respectively. As far as I can tell, ponies ain't Zerg. One could easily explain why most Zerg have no agency with lore. Oh shit, I wrote the "L" word! Anyway, without fake agency, the characters are nothing more than bottomless receptacles for ever-changing whims of gods.

[Jeric 46,854]

24 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Anyway, without fake agency, the characters are nothing more than bottomless receptacles for ever-changing whims of gods.

Or ... depending on whether the God is part of a larger organized Pantheon ... occasionally the Gods may fear the peasants* and change their universe. 

*Wait. What the hell would the audience be in that metaphor? 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

12 minutes ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

Or ... depending on whether the God is part of a larger organized Pantheon ... occasionally the Gods may fear the peasants* and change their universe. 

*Wait. What the hell would the audience be in that metaphor? 

Congratulations, you've just severely triggered my battleloli and I'm all out of chocolates! Now she'll search and destroy anyone without a visa in a radius of five kilometers.

 

Change "and" into "who" and you will understand their fear.

[TBD 17,255]

No. Just as Meghan McCarthy said, "They're not bad, they are just  being misunderstood, broken, and/or get off on the wrong hoof" I applaud her for that.