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 01-08-2020, 08:01 AM   #1
Kfireblade
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Default The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Naturally, its a pretty blurry distinction between the two, but somewhere there has to be a thin red line were once a character has crossed it they can no longer be considered an anti-hero, they just are a villian, no matter how good their intentions. For example compare Punisher and Ozymandias. Both are willing to kill, but while Frank only kills those that deserve it (in his mind at least) Adrian ended thousands of innocent lives to achieve his goals, No matter his intentions he clearly is a villain. The distinctions not always so clear though and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so when exactly dose an anti-hero become a full-blown villain, no matter how good their intentions. A vigilante on the streets killing and maiming violent criminals to try stop the harm they are doing is a anti-hero (even if they are as brutal as Frank Castle) but what if that same anti-hero realizes the massive amounts of harm certain big corporate executives and politicians do in the world and starts targeting the worst of them?
Kfireblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 09:14 AM   #2
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

Depends on your genre - if the setting is dark enough, thousands of innocent lives might be a necessary price to save the lives of millions. The price and the legitimacy of targets are really plot decisions.
If you can fix a single source of absolute morality in a setting, then it should be possible to determine absolute right and wrong - otherwise, as in real life, there will always be questions.

Motivation might be a filter - but that too depends on what is seen as an appropriate cause. In universe values dissonance is an entirely valid thing as well - as in real life if party A considers party B as evil villains against whom violence is justified, there may be those who regard party A as evil villains and support party B, those who dislike party B but regard party A's response as unacceptable and making villains of them as well and those who regard both positions as dangerous nutters and would like to see both removed so that normal people can go about their business.

This is why so many attempts at portraying heroics misfire - somewhere, values dissonance or unconsidered consequences come in.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 01:36 PM   #3
Irish Wolf
 
Irish Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Earth, mostly
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

The Colonel has a good point; if pressed to define a "red line" applicable to most situations, though, I suppose I'd have to say that it's crossed when the person forgets or ignores the well-being of others (the supposed motivation for being an antihero in the first place) and begins acting only for his own enjoyment. If Frank Castle stopped limiting his targets to organized crime and just started shooting anyone who looked like they might be a mobster, he'd be a straight-up villain.

For another example, there's Dr. Horrible from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog; he started out wanting to control the world for its own good ("This appeared as a moral dilemma/'Cause at first it was weird - though I swore to eliminate/The worst of the plague that devoured humanity/It's true I was vague on the 'how'..."), but by the end was driven solely by his own rage over Penny's death, and went from petty theft and "freeze rays" to murder (which was how he also went from "minor annoyance to Captain Hammer" to "full member of the Evil League of Evil").
__________________
If you break the laws of Man, you go to prison.

If you break the laws of God, you go to Hell.

If you break the laws of Physics, you go to Sweden and receive a Nobel Prize.
Irish Wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 02:06 PM   #4
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

I don't think that I would base this on the ethics the character adheres to, because different cultures, religions, and philosophies have different ethical standards. I think that "anti-hero" ought to be based more on the structural role of the character.

What I would say is that the anti-hero is a PC, but the villain is an NPC. Or in more literary terms, the anti-hero is the protagonist of a work, or is allied to the protagonist, or is one of a group of protagonists; the villain is an antagonist. The reader, viewer, or player is expected to sympathize with the anti-hero but not with the villain.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 02:52 PM   #5
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 whswhs View Post
I don't think that I would base this on the ethics the character adheres to, because different cultures, religions, and philosophies have different ethical standards. I think that "anti-hero" ought to be based more on the structural role of the character.
I arrive at the same conclusion from a different premise. The term arose in discussing literature, and its original sense included (indeed, mostly referred to) characters who played the role of a hero while lacking some of the attractive qualities of a traditional hero. A hero is "a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities"; the anti-hero does the great or brave acts while lacking one or more of the fine qualities or failing to win the admiration. The hero is not necessarily moral and the anti-hero usually not immoral.

For example, Gregory Peck's character in the deconstructionist western The Big Country is an anti-hero because he is more moral than the traditional heroes of westerns: he doesn't brag, he refuses to use violence to assert or gain status, and he is not willing to kill. His social peers patronise him, the ranch hands hold him in contempt, and his fiancée dumps him. That sort of thing never happened to the traditional ideal hero. Nevertheless, he has more real courage than they have, ends the range war by courage and strength of character, and he ends up married to a better woman than his original fiancée.

For a contrast, a traditional hero such as Odysseus could be driven entirely by his own interests, i.e. quite morally neutral, so long as he was charismatic, handsome, brave, and able to kill lots of warriors. I consider the great hero Achilles to be a complete monster, morally, but literarily he is a straightforward hero¹. "Sacker of Cities" was an epithet of respect in much heroic literature.

An anti-hero is a character who is treated as a hero by the narrative but not by the other characters.

Now, other peoples have different customs and ideals, and their heroes are different in from our heroes. But that doesn't make them anti-heroes. Because they defend our enemies against our heroes they are antagonists and often villains. Consider for instance Attila the Hun, who is a monstrous villain in Romance accounts and a hero (in the sense of a great defender of his people, not a protagonist) in three Norse sagas².
____________
¹ Real-world people gave him semi-divine honours after his death — Alexander and Hephaistion are recorded as performing a sacrifice to him on his supposed tomb — so he was a literal as well as a literary hero.

² Atlakviða, Volsunga saga, and Atlamál.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.

Last edited by Agemegos; 01-08-2020 at 03:02 PM.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2020, 11:29 PM   #6
Johnny1A.2
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

As others have noted, there are lots of possible ways to define the difference.

One approach among others is that an anti-hero is doing unpleasant or even villainous things, due to a motivation that isn't villainous, or at least is far less villainous than his opposition. That motivation should, in this context, be something that the reader or viewer might seriously think, "If I was in his shoes...I might do that under those circumstances."

This approach requires that the means that anti-hero are using actually are necessary, or at least arguably defensible, even if nasty and unpleasant. The anti-hero shouldn't generally be enjoying what he's doing, even if it really is justified by circumstances.

But the means should also be repellent and arguably immoral even in circumstances, as well, otherwise the AH is simply a hero doing a nasty job.

Example of what I mean:

1. John is trying to keep the super-plague from getting into the city. Beyond the city wall are monsters, starvation, and thirst. If even one infected carrier gets in, the whole city, or most of the populace, is likely to die a nasty, slow death. Therefore, John refuses to let in any refugee who can't be confirmed with certainty to be plague free, even if that means condemning innocent men, women, and children to a slow death outside from monsters and the elements, because the risk to the millions of people inside the wall is too great. It's not that he doesn't care, or doesn't wish he could help them, but the risk is just too great.

John, in scenario one, isn't an anti-hero, he's a hero in a horrible position.

2. Same scenario, but now Dave has decided he just can't live with this policy, and is about to open the gates to try to save some of the people outside. John tries reasoning, Dave's conscience won't let him listen. John makes it a legal order, Dave dismisses that with moral contempt. Dave is physically in a position where John can't physically stop him from breaking the seals.

So John puts a gun to Dave's 5-year-old son's head and says, "Touch that lock and I blow his brains out." John means it. Dave either backs down or his son dies.

Dave backs away from the gate. John is an anti-hero here, or a reasonable candidate for one, because his means are evil, but his alternatives are worse. John very likely saved the city. But he was ready to murder an innocent child in cold blood, too. This is the sort of quandary that marks 'anti-hero' as opposed to 'villain'.
__________________
HMS Overflow-For conversations off topic here.
Johnny1A.2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 08:40 AM   #7
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 Johnny1A.2 View Post
As others have noted, there are lots of possible ways to define the difference.

One approach among others is that an anti-hero is doing unpleasant or even villainous things, due to a motivation that isn't villainous, or at least is far less villainous than his opposition. That motivation should, in this context, be something that the reader or viewer might seriously think, "If I was in his shoes...I might do that under those circumstances."

This approach requires that the means that anti-hero are using actually are necessary, or at least arguably defensible, even if nasty and unpleasant. The anti-hero shouldn't generally be enjoying what he's doing, even if it really is justified by circumstances.

But the means should also be repellent and arguably immoral even in circumstances, as well, otherwise the AH is simply a hero doing a nasty job.

Example of what I mean:

1. John is trying to keep the super-plague from getting into the city. Beyond the city wall are monsters, starvation, and thirst. If even one infected carrier gets in, the whole city, or most of the populace, is likely to die a nasty, slow death. Therefore, John refuses to let in any refugee who can't be confirmed with certainty to be plague free, even if that means condemning innocent men, women, and children to a slow death outside from monsters and the elements, because the risk to the millions of people inside the wall is too great. It's not that he doesn't care, or doesn't wish he could help them, but the risk is just too great.

John, in scenario one, isn't an anti-hero, he's a hero in a horrible position.

2. Same scenario, but now Dave has decided he just can't live with this policy, and is about to open the gates to try to save some of the people outside. John tries reasoning, Dave's conscience won't let him listen. John makes it a legal order, Dave dismisses that with moral contempt. Dave is physically in a position where John can't physically stop him from breaking the seals.

So John puts a gun to Dave's 5-year-old son's head and says, "Touch that lock and I blow his brains out." John means it. Dave either backs down or his son dies.

Dave backs away from the gate. John is an anti-hero here, or a reasonable candidate for one, because his means are evil, but his alternatives are worse. John very likely saved the city. But he was ready to murder an innocent child in cold blood, too. This is the sort of quandary that marks 'anti-hero' as opposed to 'villain'.
The problem with that approach is that a skilled author can depict a villain* that way. In War and Remembrance I got the weird impression that I could have been like Rudolf Hoss were I in his shoes. Which shows that there is a little villain in all of us perhaps.





* It is amusing by the way how we carry our snobbery into our language. Villain means sharecropper and Noble means descendant of a successful bandit.
__________________
"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, 09:14 AM   #8
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 Irish Wolf View Post
For another example, there's Dr. Horrible from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog; he started out wanting to control the world for its own good ("This appeared as a moral dilemma/'Cause at first it was weird - though I swore to eliminate/The worst of the plague that devoured humanity/It's true I was vague on the 'how'..."), but by the end was driven solely by his own rage over Penny's death, and went from petty theft and "freeze rays" to murder (which was how he also went from "minor annoyance to Captain Hammer" to "full member of the Evil League of Evil").
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.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 10:22 AM   #9
khorboth
 
khorboth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Default Re: The line between anti-hero and full on villain.

I agree that it depends upon the genre and the narrative. I recently finished watching Death Note. I'm still not sure how we're supposed to think about Light. Or consider any of the main characters in The Gap Cycle.

Batman is an anti-hero because he is shunned by the establishment while doing good. Superman is a hero because the establishment acknowledges him as good, and he does good.

I think that might be the crux of it. If the narrative paints them as good, but the establishment sees them as evil or subversive, they are an anti-hero. If the establishment is on their side, they are a hero. If the narrative paints them as ambiguous or bad, they're not a hero or anti-hero regardless of the views of the establishment.

Note that "establishment" is also defined by the narrative. It's all very literary and hard to bring into a gaming environment.
khorboth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2020, 02:45 PM   #10
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 khorboth View Post
I think that might be the crux of it. If the narrative paints them as good, but the establishment sees them as evil or subversive, they are an anti-hero. If the establishment is on their side, they are a hero. If the narrative paints them as ambiguous or bad, they're not a hero or anti-hero regardless of the views of the establishment.
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.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos 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 06:07 AM.


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