Who is everyone's favorite villain

[zimmerwald1915]

I've heard this described as the Voldemort/Umbridge distinction.

But which of those is supposed to be the good villain?

[Kish]

Well, putting Voldemort in the "too repulsive to read about even to see him fail" category would equate to never getting far enough in the books to learn who Umbridge is, so what do you think?

[Rrmcklin]

Yeah... unfortunately, I basically lost all respect for Xykon when he was crushed beneath the weight of his Idiot Ball outside the ruins of Girard's Gate. When your primary antagonist is this accommodating, I see no way the heroes can fail.



Yeah, whatever else people might say about Miko, this idea that she was static and unchanging is complete nonsense. The character who refrained from executing Belkar after the Inn scene and the character who did her damndest to eviscerate Hinjo for essentially being in her way had clearly undergone a radical shift in underlying priorities.

I'm not really sure what you meant about Xykon being too accommodating? He doesn't care about the Order, so he doesn't care if he kills them or not. There's already been precedence for that. And it's not the Idiot Ball, because he wasn't fooled, again, he just didn't care enough to stay. Saying there's no way the heroes can fail (well, obviously they want because this isn't that kind of story) based on that reasoning doesn't make much sense.

[TRH]

Well, putting Voldemort in the "too repulsive to read about even to see him fail" category would equate to never getting far enough in the books to learn who Umbridge is, so what do you think?

And yet from what I remember, Stephen King apparently thought the inverse, so who knows?

[Synesthesy]

And yet from what I remember, Stephen King apparently thought the inverse, so who knows?

I always thought that Voldemort is not a good villain: he has no good reason, he dies trying to kill a baby because no reason at all but unexplained magic, he return seeking revenge for... what? And the resolution of the 7th book is one of the most anticlimatic ending I have ever read.

Boring.

[Fyraltari]

I always thought that Voldemort is not a good villain: he has no good reason, he dies trying to kill a baby because no reason at all but unexplained magic, he return seeking revenge for... what? And the resolution of the 7th book is one of the most anticlimatic ending I have ever read.

Boring.

Seconded. Voldemort is not HP's best point.

[TRH]

I always thought that Voldemort is not a good villain: he has no good reason, he dies trying to kill a baby because no reason at all but unexplained magic, he return seeking revenge for... what? And the resolution of the 7th book is one of the most anticlimatic ending I have ever read.

Boring.

My problem is that for all the work Rowling put into making him and Harry foils for each other, right down to red eyes, green magic vs. green eyes, red magic, all of those similiarities were puddle-shallow in the end. Harry never could have turned out remotely like Voldemort, and it seems like Tom Riddle was a sociopath from the time he could walk, so he never could have turned out like Harry. So the comparison added no depth to Harry or pathos to Voldemort, and was essentially a superficial waste of time.

[Emanick]

My problem is that for all the work Rowling put into making him and Harry foils for each other, right down to red eyes, green magic vs. green eyes, red magic, all of those similiarities were puddle-shallow in the end. Harry never could have turned out remotely like Voldemort, and it seems like Tom Riddle was a sociopath from the time he could walk, so he never could have turned out like Harry. So the comparison added no depth to Harry or pathos to Voldemort, and was essentially a superficial waste of time.

I disagree with this. Just because Harry didn't turn out like Voldemort doesn't mean he couldn't have. They were both neglected children who first found their place in the world at Hogwarts, but while a lack of love meant Voldemort lost the ability to love and instead sought control over others (and even death itself), in Harry's case he managed to retain the ability to love others and to form meaningful relationships. The point (well, one of them) is that even lack of nurture is not always enough to crowd out either nature or the ability to make the right choices. (Lack of nurture is still dangerous, though - Snape turned out the way he did because one decent friend was not enough to outweigh all the negative influences he was exposed to.)

tl;dr: The contrast between Harry and Voldemort shows that neglect and loneliness early on in life can ruin you, but that this is not inevitable, and that your choices (and the love of others) are key to overcoming this. I guess you can interpret the books as showing that Voldemort was destined from conception to be a sociopath who wouldn't have been capable of love no matter what, but I don't think that's the intended takeaway. The books stress the primacy of choices over innate nature, and Voldemort's loveless background is clearly shown to be a key part of what made him what he was. Would he have been the same way if he was raised by a doting Merope? I doubt it.

With that said, I agree that Voldemort is far from the books' best point. His lack of emotional complexity makes him less interesting than many other characters, and although I don't think he's intended to have been born a sociopath who lacks the intellectual capacity for empathy, it's not entirely clear that he wasn't. I think it would have been better if we had seen a more human side of him as a child that was crushed beneath the weight of his own choices, rather than first seeing an eleven-year-old who already had basically no interest in the value of human life. He's slightly more human than is often believed - the value he places on Hogwarts as an institution and the respect he seems to show for both its teachers and for certain people that impress him (Neville in the Battle of Hogwarts is an example) show that he is interested in some things beyond himself, which is slightly unusual among villains who are generally pillars of monolithic evil. But he is not nearly as complex as many of the protagonists. He is more of a symbol of evil and lovelessness than a human being who grows or struggles with meaningful decisions.

I always thought that Voldemort is not a good villain: he has no good reason, he dies trying to kill a baby because no reason at all but unexplained magic, he return seeking revenge for... what? And the resolution of the 7th book is one of the most anticlimatic ending I have ever read.

Boring.

While I agree that he's not the best villain, I disagree with the rest of this. The reason why he "dies" trying to kill a baby is thoroughly explained - the fact that Harry's mother died for him means that he was protected by her, causing the Killing Curse to rebound on Voldemort. You could ask why this sort of thing doesn't happen more often in the Wizarding World, but to say it's not explained is false. I'm also not sure how you got the idea that he returned seeking revenge; revenge is never one of his motivations. No wonder you didn't get why he wanted it. What he wants is power, control over others, and absolute security from death (overlapping motivations, which is not a coincidence), which is why he wants Harry dead so badly - the prophecy marks Harry out as a direct threat to his life, or at least he interprets it that way.

And the resolution of Deathly Hallows is basically the textbook definition of an incredibly climactic and dramatic ending in my book, so while "anticlimactic" is a matter of opinion, I can't see how you possibly saw it that way. What, does the hero need to stab someone through the heart to make it a proper climax? Or were you thinking of the movie (which is definitely a lot more anticlimactic, and which handled the ending terribly IMO)?

[Synesthesy]

While I agree that he's not the best villain, I disagree with the rest of this. The reason why he "dies" trying to kill a baby is thoroughly explained - the fact that Harry's mother died for him means that he was protected by her, causing the Killing Curse to rebound on Voldemort. You could ask why this sort of thing doesn't happen more often in the Wizarding World, but to say it's not explained is false. I'm also not sure how you got the idea that he returned seeking revenge; revenge is never one of his motivations. No wonder you didn't get why he wanted it. What he wants is power, control over others, and absolute security from death (overlapping motivations, which is not a coincidence), which is why he wants Harry dead so badly - the prophecy marks Harry out as a direct threat to his life, or at least he interprets it that way.

And the resolution of Deathly Hallows is basically the textbook definition of an incredibly climactic and dramatic ending in my book, so while "anticlimactic" is a matter of opinion, I can't see how you possibly saw it that way. What, does the hero need to stab someone through the heart to make it a proper climax? Or were you thinking of the movie (which is definitely a lot more anticlimactic, and which handled the ending terribly IMO)?

First: I never watched the 7th and 8th movies. I only liked the first 2 movies, I really disliked the 3rd, and I watched the rest only because everyone else did. Second: my dislike about the last book of HP is personal taste, I don't think that it's bad written or something, and I have really loved the saga as whole, I have read every book countless time except the 7th, my favourite is the fifth and I loved the ending of the story of Snape, who was the most interesting character in the story.

But, explaining better my point: "my mom loved me so much that protected me from an unstoppable curse that killed everyone else in history" is not an explanation, is a fact. We don't know why this happened. And it's incredible that nobody have ever questioned this, except from Harry. In real world, if we found a baby that not only did not die after being shot, but caused the death of the shooter, we would have all researcher of the world to understand why. But this is a problem, for me at least, that is common in all the world of HP: nothing about magic has been explained with a sufficient depth.

For example, why some people is stronger then others? Hermione is a nerd, but what is the excuse of everyone else? Why Neville is not stronger? Why is so hard master wizardry if the only thing you need to do is go to a library to read some latin word and then repeat them until it work?

Last, about Voldemort motivations, I agree that revenge is not the right word. What I wanted to say is that I find his research of power and immortality not so interesting. He is evil because he was born evil, because he must be evil, etc... You wrote it well. I simply don't find it interesting. For saying "power equals power", and seeking power and destruction for the sake of it, and being interesting, you need to be a really cooler lich, if you understand me.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm not really sure what you meant about Xykon being too accommodating? He doesn't care about the Order, so he doesn't care if he kills them or not. There's already been precedence for that. And it's not the Idiot Ball, because he wasn't fooled, again, he just didn't care enough to stay.

Oh, I'm aware that Xykon doesn't care about killing the Order. But when the same crew of people show up on your doorstep three times with the apparent intent of destroying you or otherwise frustrating your goals (which they had technically succeeded in doing, once) then not caring is pretty idiotic. Particularly when, as Redcloak points out, he could stomp them all with a single spell.

To my mind, Xykon is basically an honourary member of the Order at this point.

[Fyraltari]

To my mind, Xykon is basically an honourary member of the Order at this point.

He does kinda fit between Belkar and V doesn't he?

[TRH]

I disagree with this. Just because Harry didn't turn out like Voldemort doesn't mean he couldn't have. They were both neglected children who first found their place in the world at Hogwarts, but while a lack of love meant Voldemort lost the ability to love and instead sought control over others (and even death itself), in Harry's case he managed to retain the ability to love others and to form meaningful relationships. The point (well, one of them) is that even lack of nurture is not always enough to crowd out either nature or the ability to make the right choices. (Lack of nurture is still dangerous, though - Snape turned out the way he did because one decent friend was not enough to outweigh all the negative influences he was exposed to.)

tl;dr: The contrast between Harry and Voldemort shows that neglect and loneliness early on in life can ruin you, but that this is not inevitable, and that your choices (and the love of others) are key to overcoming this. I guess you can interpret the books as showing that Voldemort was destined from conception to be a sociopath who wouldn't have been capable of love no matter what, but I don't think that's the intended takeaway. The books stress the primacy of choices over innate nature, and Voldemort's loveless background is clearly shown to be a key part of what made him what he was. Would he have been the same way if he was raised by a doting Merope? I doubt it.

With that said, I agree that Voldemort is far from the books' best point. His lack of emotional complexity makes him less interesting than many other characters, and although I don't think he's intended to have been born a sociopath who lacks the intellectual capacity for empathy, it's not entirely clear that he wasn't. I think it would have been better if we had seen a more human side of him as a child that was crushed beneath the weight of his own choices, rather than first seeing an eleven-year-old who already had basically no interest in the value of human life. He's slightly more human than is often believed - the value he places on Hogwarts as an institution and the respect he seems to show for both its teachers and for certain people that impress him (Neville in the Battle of Hogwarts is an example) show that he is interested in some things beyond himself, which is slightly unusual among villains who are generally pillars of monolithic evil. But he is not nearly as complex as many of the protagonists. He is more of a symbol of evil and lovelessness than a human being who grows or struggles with meaningful decisions.

I think your last paragraph gets to the issue that I'm having here. The importance of choices rather than upbringing is asserted, not illustrated. When Aunt Petunia first wakes him up on Dudley's birthday to go to the zoo, he's already become the well-adjusted, mild-mannered (if a bit snarky) kid who's in no credible danger of taking his suffering out on the world. Tom Riddle when Dumbledore first meets him is already a thief and a bully, one who, when confronted with his crimes, only regrets getting caught. If the choices are what's important, then we didn't see the most important ones - their choices in the books themselves are driven by their dispositions from the first time we ever really see them, and those dispositions don't change much. For all that Harry's character arc was building all along towards him sacrificing himself in the Forest for his friends, I have a hard time imagining him, even at this moodiest in OOTP, ever not making that same choice, especially when Voldemort so graciously lays the choice down in front of him to take it or leave it.

And honestly, Voldemort's respect for Hogwarts and for purebloods like Neville...I can't help but suspect that it stems from his cynicism and lack of empathy, in a way. He kills those who won't take his side, but because he seemingly lacks even an intellectual understanding of love or loyalty, he holds out hope that someone like Neville, who'd fought his Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries, who'd just spent an entire year opposing the Carrows' Nazification of Hogwarts, who'd endured torture from them in the process, could still be persuaded to sell out his principles, his friends, and the memory of his parents, and join the Death Eaters instead. An objective observer would find that insane, but Riddle, who thinks love and family and friendship are all polite lies, still hangs onto that delusional hope. Only once that hope is finally dashed is he willing to kill someone. This creates a paradox where Voldemort is somehow too ruthless and not ruthless enough, which is probably the most interesting thing about him. He doesn't kill all potential threats because he fails to understand the implacability of those whose loved ones he's victimized. He even tried to sway Harry himself for the Philosopher's Stone, because he thinks anyone is susceptible to being used until proven otherwise.

[martianmister]

Similarities between Harry and Voldemort was a plot point in the second book and it's resolved by Dumbledore in the end of the same book.

[TRH]

Said similarities remained a motif until the very end.

[Ruck]

If we're talking about "villain as a subset of antagonist", I think the archetypical feature of a villain is the disproportionate amount of effort they expend specifically to nullify the protagonists. An antagonist could be opposed to what the protagonists are doing, where the protagonists are doing it, and/or who the protagonists are; a villain is fixated on that last part, to the point of it being a goal to remove the threat the protagonists (either by eliminating the protagonists' capacity to influence events, frequently by killing them; or converting/coercing them into aiding the villain instead).

Hmm. Not saying this is how I define it, but if you did, that might make, say, Enor and Gannji antagonists, and Tarquin a villain, for a comparison.

I've heard this described as the Voldemort/Umbridge distinction. Good villains are characters a reader wants to see defeated, and hopes it's satisfying when they are. If their denouement is done well, one can enjoy rereading it for their role in it.

Beyond a certain level of sheer repulsiveness are villains a reader just doesn't want to have to deal with existing. One hopes that they'll be gone, that's all. One never looks back over parts of the book that featured them for them, including their far-too-long-delayed defeats.

Of course, which characters one places in the "too repulsive to be a good villain" category is entirely individual.

Nale risked crossing that line for me in book 5, as the stakes were getting too high for his recurring petty grievances, so he exited the story at just the right time.

Oh, I'm aware that Xykon doesn't care about killing the Order. But when the same crew of people show up on your doorstep three times with the apparent intent of destroying you or otherwise frustrating your goals (which they had technically succeeded in doing, once) then not caring is pretty idiotic. Particularly when, as Redcloak points out, he could stomp them all with a single spell.

To my mind, Xykon is basically an honourary member of the Order at this point.

Xykon doesn't consider anyone a threat to him, thus, putting Redcloak in his place was a higher priority than exterminating a potential threat. Straightforward and in character for Xykon, who is both arrogant and unconcerned with details.

Oh, are we doing Misunderstood Andi vs. Bad Bandana again?

I still get chills when I hear "Bandi" and "auto-wrench.”

[Lacuna Caster]

Xykon doesn't consider anyone a threat to him, thus, putting Redcloak in his place was a higher priority than exterminating a potential threat...

Again, Roy had already technically destroyed him once, made no secret of his intention to keep it up, and his team had blown up two of the gates by this time- even if Xykon didn't think they posed a threat to him personally- which is not entirely obvious- the evident threat they posed to his plans should have been enough to justify a five-minute detour.

That degree of arrogance and dismissal of detail is functionally indistinguishable from idiocy. And a pretty selective form of dismissal, given that he was previously willing to spend time talking to Roy and/or pelt him with meteor swarms.

[Peelee]

I still get chills when I hear "Bandi" and "auto-wrench.”

Oh man, I'd forgotten auto-wrench. Those were.... interesting viewpoints.

[Ruck]

Again, Roy had already technically destroyed him once, made no secret of his intention to keep it up, and his team had blown up two of the gates by this time- even if Xykon didn't think they posed a threat to him personally- which is not entirely obvious- the evident threat they posed to his plans should have been enough to justify a five-minute detour.

That degree of arrogance and dismissal of detail is functionally indistinguishable from idiocy. And a pretty selective form of dismissal, given that he was previously willing to spend time talking to Roy and/or pelt him with meteor swarms.

"Should have" seems to be the key point here. You think he should have behaved differently, because you would have behaved differently. But Xykon doesn't have your knowledge or motivations, and what he does do is entirely in character.

The time he took to talk to Roy is indicative of how un-seriously he took him as a threat, which would only give him further reason to not take him seriously. "Oh, it's that guy I dusted with one Meteor Swarm? Whatever, I have bigger fish to fry."

Oh man, I'd forgotten auto-wrench. Those were.... interesting viewpoints.

I love arguments that boil down to "The character I like isn't responsible for their actions."

[Kish]

The time he took to talk to Roy is indicative of how un-seriously he took him as a threat, which would only give him further reason to not take him seriously. "Oh, it's that guy I dusted with one Meteor Swarm? Whatever, I have bigger fish to fry."

Indeed. He was previously willing to tell Roy explicitly, "You're not a threat to me. Really. You should just give up. Not gonna? Okay, I'll kill you with one spell and forget about you before you hit the ground* then."

This is the opposite of evidence that he previously treated Roy like a serious threat.

I am getting the impression that this is more of a statement about what a proper theorycraft villain should do than anything about the specific character Xykon, or even what a good villain in an actual story, would/should do.

*That Xykon was next seen humming "guy I killed, the ground, the ground is calling" is also, in the same way, the opposite of evidence that he went on thinking about Roy in any way longer or more significant than he thought about the hobgoblins who had acid-spitting beetles in their eyes.

[Lacuna Caster]

"Should have" seems to be the key point here. You think he should have behaved differently, because you would have behaved differently...

No. I'm saying a non-imbecile would have behaved differently, based purely on the knowledge and motivations that Xykon already possessed. Nothing to do with meta-information here.

This is the opposite of evidence that he previously treated Roy like a serious threat.

Which makes him a non-imbecile in what respect, exactly?

[zimmerwald1915]

Which makes him a non-imbecile in what respect, exactly?

In the respect that Roy isn't a serious threat. He is certainly not a threat to Xykon's person. If Roy manages to destroy Xykon's body again (a feat he only accomplished using one of Dorukan's sigils last time, and magic like that doesn't grow on trees) he can just grow a new one in his astral fortress - or so he thinks. Nor is Roy a threat to Xykon's overall goals. Xykon's motivation isn't to get the Gates for the sake of it. It's to rule the world. The Gates are a tool he believes can get him to that goal, but there are other means, and he has eternity.

So at best, Roy is an obstacle to Xykon's immediate plans. Meh.

[Kish]

No. I'm saying a non-imbecile would have behaved differently, based purely on the knowledge and motivations that Xykon already possessed. Nothing to do with meta-information here.


Which makes him a non-imbecile in what respect, exactly?

Based on your posts, I suspect we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion on whether seeing a character undone by their personality flaws, or seeing a character act with mechanical perfection and be crushed by greater power, is more satisfying for a story (or perhaps on whether "this is a story, not someone's theoretical optimization exercise" is a relevant point).

Or to put it another way, I suspect your use of "non-imbecile" is functionally identical to my use of "personalityless, error-free murderbot," and conversely that my use of "character" is functionally identical to your use of "imbecile."

Let me state explicitly that I hope that any crunching of numbers will always dictate that, if Xykon's stats and the Order's stats were placed in the hands of forum theoretical optimizers*, Xykon would crush the Order.

*The ones who wouldn't automatically hand the victory to the Order because they have a wizard and a cleric, that is.

[zimmerwald1915]

Let me state explicitly that I hope that any crunching of numbers will always dictate that, if Xykon's stats and the Order's stats were placed in the hands of forum theoretical optimizers, Xykon would crush the Order.

Oh, I don't think that's fair. "Optimization" would imply that the forumites would have the freedom to tinker with the characters' stats, levels, and equipment, but that would seem to be beyond the scope of the exercise.

[Kish]

That may be an implication but it's not a requirement. I would be fine with telling these hypothetical optimizers, "No, you cannot change Vaarsuvius having Conjuration barred, nor can you make Roy a warblade, nor do I care how good the prestige class you found would be for Xykon."

This may be because I am, I freely admit, a sadist.

[zimmerwald1915]

That may be an implication but it's not a requirement. I would be fine with telling these hypothetical optimizers, "No, you cannot change Vaarsuvius having Conjuration barred, nor can you make Roy a warblade, nor do I care how good the prestige class you found would be for Xykon."

This may be because I am, I freely admit, a sadist.

If nothing about the characters can be changed, then there's no "optimization" happening. Is what you're contemplating some kind of arena fight? Ah, what the heck was it called?

If you are, I still don't think that your assessment of the people who engage in that sort of thing, or how they'd handle it, is fair, or even that the result is foregone.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I still get chills when I hear "Bandi" and "auto-wrench.”

Hey, it was just temporary insanity caused by Bandi screaming at her.

(I should probably actually contribute to this thread by saying my favorite villains are probably the IFCC or Malack)

[2D8HP]

Oh, are we doing Misunderstood Andi vs. Bad Bandana again?

...I still get chills when I hear "Bandi" and "auto-wrench.”

Oh man, I'd forgotten auto-wrench. Those were.... interesting viewpoints.

...I love arguments that boil down to "The character I like isn't responsible for their actions."

Hey, it was just temporary insanity caused by Bandi screaming at her. ....

Having witnessed and even participated in boss vs. underling workplace physical fights, I found the Andi/Andromeda vs. Bandana/Beatrice conflict very relatable.

I empathized more with A, and had more respect for B (I hope that doesn't make me a class traitor).

[Bad Wolf]

Xykon. Sorcerers need positive role models. They can take over the world just as easily as a wizard can, and it's important for them to know that.

[zimmerwald1915]

I empathized more with A, and had more respect for B (I hope that doesn't make me a class traitor).

(It does. Please report to your local Party branch for your first in ten sessions of self-criticism.)

[Peelee]

(It does. Please report to your local Party branch for your first in ten sessions of self-criticism.)

Does Party City count as a local branch?