Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Roleplaying in General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2020, 03:37 PM   #11
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
I'd say Doctor Horrible was a villain throughout, though he was sympathetic because he was kind of socially pathetic and was fettered by his own unwillingness to be too evil (wouldn't fight a hero in a park because kids might get hurt). He would be what TV Tropes calls an Anti-Villain. Once Penny was gone, he just no longer cared how much pain he caused.
... was there a sequel to Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog that I somehow missed? The story I saw, the Doctor was a decent guy who happened to be a supergadgeteer and had some villain-worship issues; he didn't even have a coherent idea of what he was doing as a villain ("It's about disrupting the status quo because the status... isn't quo;" "Then I win – then I get/Everything I ever/All the cash – all the fame/And social change/Anarchy – that I run;" etc), and couldn't bring himself to kill Captain Hammer even after psyching himself up for it. When Penny died, he joined the Evil League of Evil, but the crime-montage really looked like he was phoning it in and was a broken man ("And I don't feel... a thing"). Ya'll seem to be talking about something completely different.

...

To the topic at hand, as others have noted the technical difference is the story's narrative structure (is the character a protagonist or antagonist). For the way a lot of people look at it, I think it boils down to a combination of goal, how well the character's actions represent the goal, and in some cases how extreme the character gets in pursuing the goal. Thanos in the MCU is a villain - he has a good goal (stop suffering, creating a universe/galaxy of plenty), but his actions don't mesh well with that stated goal (he causes more suffering than he prevents, and killing off half of the producers isn't going to magically create a world of plenty) and are far too extreme. Skitter from Worm is an antihero - she actually starts as an aspiring hero, infiltrating a villain organization. It doesn't take her long to realize the "heroes" aren't really that much better than many of the "villains," and she becomes a full-time supervillain largely to allow her to guide the Undersiders into being a decent organization. She uses some extreme methods, but they always mesh well with her plans to help people, and when she does bad things (sending bullet ants after thugs, lying to an ally so that she'll attack while there are still allies and innocents in the area of effect, shooting a baby, to say nothing of her crimes against free-will as Nephri), she only does it because the alternatives are worse (allowing innocents under her protection to continue being terrorized, allowing a pseudo-Endbringer to escape, allowing a disaster that will kill the majority of humans across multiple worldlines*, and allowing humanity to be completely wiped out, respectively).

I've seen comments online defining nominal heroes as villains, due simply to the disasters they failed to prevent (or had an unwitting hand in, even if it's just "the villains attacked because they wanted to capture/kill the hero"), but I strongly disagree with those. A hero who fails from time to time is likely still a hero, just not a particularly lucky/skilled one.

*She was wrong about this one, sadly, meaning the baby largely died in vain.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 05:09 PM   #12
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
I'll just add that it's a matter of the establishment seeing them as unheroic, and that being evil or subversive is only one possibility. Back when heroes were expected to be large, strong, handsome, vigorous, well-born, and violent Horatio Hornblower could be an anti-hero by being plain and unconfident, Gregory Peck's character in The Big Country could be an anti-hero by avoiding brag and violence.
On the other hand, both agree with the audiences' concept of a hero more or less. Gregory Peck is what they would teach their boys to be like. While Hornblower generally gets the approval of the establishment even if he does not get the approval of himself.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 05:23 PM   #13
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
On the other hand, both agree with the audiences' concept of a hero more or less. Gregory Peck is what they would teach their boys to be like. While Hornblower generally gets the approval of the establishment even if he does not get the approval of himself.
Yes, these characters were part of a major long-term trend of change in the idea of a hero from a figure that was enviable in every way (or who had a single disastrous flaw, if the work was a tragedy) to someone much more relatable, with a single decisive virtue.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 06:14 PM   #14
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
Yes, these characters were part of a major long-term trend of change in the idea of a hero from a figure that was enviable in every way (or who had a single disastrous flaw, if the work was a tragedy) to someone much more relatable, with a single decisive virtue.
Sounds sort of like the change from DC superheroes in the 1950s to Marvel superheroes in the 1960s.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 01:03 AM   #15
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
... was there a sequel to Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog that I somehow missed? The story I saw, the Doctor was a decent guy who happened to be a supergadgeteer and had some villain-worship issues; he didn't even have a coherent idea of what he was doing as a villain ("It's about disrupting the status quo because the status... isn't quo;" "Then I win – then I get/Everything I ever/All the cash – all the fame/And social change/Anarchy – that I run;" etc), and couldn't bring himself to kill Captain Hammer even after psyching himself up for it. When Penny died, he joined the Evil League of Evil, but the crime-montage really looked like he was phoning it in and was a broken man ("And I don't feel... a thing"). Ya'll seem to be talking about something completely different.
His very first outing is a robbery, to steal materials for the big crime that will serve as his Evil League of Evil audition. He doesn't hurt people - at least not until his failed audition means only a murder would get him in, and Captain Hammer pushes him too far - but he does intend to rule the world. That he has vague ideas that he'll fix perceived problems once he does, IMO, isn't enough to avoid the label of villain.

He could also be considered a tragic hero, in the context of another level of the story: bully's victim takes attempt for justice too far. But neither context would reasonably pitch him as an anti-hero.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 02:32 AM   #16
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
His very first outing is a robbery, to steal materials for the big crime that will serve as his Evil League of Evil audition. He doesn't hurt people - at least not until his failed audition means only a murder would get him in, and Captain Hammer pushes him too far - but he does intend to rule the world. That he has vague ideas that he'll fix perceived problems once he does, IMO, isn't enough to avoid the label of villain.

He could also be considered a tragic hero, in the context of another level of the story: bully's victim takes attempt for justice too far. But neither context would reasonably pitch him as an anti-hero.
I was mostly responding to the comments indicating he went full capital-E Evil once Penny died, which I really didn't see in the ending.

From a literary standpoint, he's an antihero simply by virtue of not being a traditional hero but being the protagonist. In more common terms, he's arguably an antihero because, while he's doing villainous things, he's purposefully avoiding undue harm to innocents and is at least partially motivated by a desire to improve the world. Skitter from Worm, once she opts to dedicate herself to being an Undersider rather than an unofficially-undercover superhero, still counts more as antihero than villain for largely the same reasons (although she is much more effective, and far more ruthless, than Horrible was, as is appropriate for the respective genres of the stories). Of course, both characters are defined as "villains" in their respective settings.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 06:04 AM   #17
khorboth
 
khorboth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
From a literary standpoint, he's an antihero simply by virtue of not being a traditional hero but being the protagonist. In more common terms, he's arguably an antihero because, while he's doing villainous things, he's purposefully avoiding undue harm to innocents and is at least partially motivated by a desire to improve the world.
I'm not sure about Horrible. I think he may be an example of someone who starts as an anti-hero even if he thinks of himself as a villain and then crosses the line. Not too far over the line, but we see him sliding toward real villainy. He starts with good intentions and some delusions. We see him pushed and pushed. Then, finally, he gets to a breaking point, and I feel like it's a story of a real villain's origin story. This is how an anti-hero got pushed until he became an anything-justified grater-good type villain. We don't see him do anything truly Evil, but he feels like he's sliding that way at the end.
khorboth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 02:39 PM   #18
Johnny1A.2
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
The problem with that approach is that a skilled author can depict a villain* that way.
Yes. If a character isn't at least debatably on the wrong side of the moral line, he's probably not an anti-hero. The 'anti-hero' combines moral uncertainty with support.

One good working definition of an anti-hero is a character you root for, but aren't sure you should, but also aren't sure you shouldn't.

Note that this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether the character thinks he's wrong or not.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here.

Last edited by Johnny1A.2; 01-12-2020 at 02:49 PM.
Johnny1A.2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2020, 10:14 PM   #19
Johnny1A.2
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

An example of what I mean that anti-hero status lies in the mind of the reader/viewer rather than the character: the recent Godzilla King of the Monsters movie.

Spoilers follow.

The character of Emma Russell probably thinks of herself as a hero, or at least an anti-hero, but most of the audience probably sees her as a deluded (at best) villainess in releasing Ghidorah. In her own mind, she's doing something hard but necessary in releasing the Titans, she's trying to 'save the world', and the murders and betrayals and destruction along the way are necessary collateral damage. She's even right, in part, about some of the beneficial effects of the Titans.

But she fails of anti-hero status (I suspect) for most viewers because:

1. There are other, better ways to do what she's trying to do.
2. Her own ego and emotional damage are a big part of the actual reasons she's doing it.
3. She's reckless and absorbed in her own fantasy-view of what she's doing, ignoring the external realities around her until it's too late.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here.
Johnny1A.2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2020, 03:29 PM   #20
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2 View Post
The character of Emma Russell probably thinks of herself as a hero, or at least an anti-hero, but most of the audience probably sees her as a deluded (at best) villainess in releasing Ghidorah.
Most well written villains will likely see themselves as heroes. Even those that recognize their own villainy will see their own actions as either justified or beyond their own control.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.