A whole team of guys more powerful than me show up from outer space with kryptonite?
They don't need to be more powerful than you. Superman is weakened by proximity to kryptonite.
This, of course, is my main problem with the Superman character. He's invincible, which is fucking boring, but then he's completely negated by kryptonite, which is also boring. And bad guys can just, like, get kryptonite. Even though it's super rare, they just happen to have it.
A whole team of guys more powerful than me show up from outer space with kryptonite?
They don't need to be more powerful than you. Superman is weakened by proximity to kryptonite.
This, of course, is my main problem with the Superman character. He's invincible, which is fucking boring, but then he's completely negated by kryptonite, which is also boring. And bad guys can just, like, get kryptonite. Even though it's super rare, they just happen to have it.
I agree. But the point is that a smart, powerful, and evil bad guy with ambitions would be unstoppable and make for truly boring fiction.
The problem is with any character that is "perfect" in some way. You can't challenge that except by contrived negation, and that's fucking boring.
The point is that a villain doesn't need to be perfect to be unstoppable. Even regular old villains with issues are only beaten by heroes due to really contrived bullshit. How many times could a bad guy just have shot James Bond in cold blood? The emperor could have trivially killed both Skywalkers while they were flying from Endor to the Death Star. Any Spider-Man villain could have just gone after him with an assault rifle instead of fucking useless robot arms and pumpkin bombs. Even flawed villains fail simply because they hold back. The one flaw every villain has is they hesitate to exterminate the good guys. Remember Magneto had a whole asteroid to himself? He could have broken off a piece and just dropped it on the X-Mansion. Done and Done.
The point is that a villain doesn't need to be perfect to be unstoppable.
Well, any of the things you mentioned would constitute "perfect" villainy. It's simply not interesting. The bad guy could just nuke the city. Done. He could execute his plan flawlessly and take out the hero.
But that's not compelling in any way. The purpose of a villain in any story is to provide a struggle or challenge for the protagonist, and if they just whip out the "I win" button, your story will suck balls.
I could see compelling fiction where the "bad guy" won and was in charge. Then the story becomes about the struggle of the heroes under the heel of the bad guy.
Actually, here's a great example of a bad guy "winning:" Senator Palpatine. He just fucking took over and created the Empire. Sure, he got beat, but the point is that he was winning up until that crucial moment when Vader turned around.
The original trilogy was all about struggling under a bad guy who won.
What exactly is it that gives the bad guy such an advantage compared to a similarly powerful good guy?
Good guys have morals that restrict them. Even if they can overcome those morals, they might hesitate. If you have a superpower of some sort, even a fraction of a second of hesitation is enough to make all the difference. A truly evil bad guy with superpowers will just kill you instantly with no hesitation or remorse.
Your definition of evil is weird. It completely disregards the psyche of the person you're categorizing as evil. The way you describe evil superman is as a hedonistic, amoral, solipsist megalomaniac. He's a meat machine responding only to simple stimuli. Not only is he a boring villain, hes also a boring, shallow person and less complex than even the most mundane of street thug characters. He doesn't have to even be evil for that to be true.
Evil isn't defined by who kills or who cheats or who behaves selfishly. A cheater is lauded in comics if he cheats the evil character. A killer for justice is a hero. A selfish character can have other qualities that make others forgive them. This is not to mention that evil and good in fantasy are often far better delineated than in mundane stories. You're making the argument that evil characters can't be powerful because it would be boring, but what makes it boring is a lack of character complexity.
You can have a powerful evil character, and the character can be conflicted, but that doesn't mean they can't truly "win."
You can have a powerful evil character, and the character can be conflicted, but that doesn't mean they can't truly "win."
If they're conflicted are they truly evil?
Of course! If you're any kind of writer at all you don't make characters that are an absolute because people aren't absolutes. Evil in fiction more often begins with subtle distinctions. Or are you debating that no one is ever truly evil? In that case, call it a goal that conflicts with others instead of evil. The game remains the same.
Scott, your definitions here are effectively pointless, consisting of little more than a dynamic, unreachable goalpost.
Yeah, its the argument that evil is only the total abandonment of anything but self-interest, which is debatable at best and at worst completely impossible save for in a vacuum. So yes, it would be boring to have an absolutely powerful character who only acted in self interest, but that's never the case. Even the evil superman character has limitations, and relies on a steady supply of the things he wants produced by others. He can't create willing women or food out of nothing, so just for that he has to rely on the means of producing those, and where his goals conflict with those means he is weak. How much dissent is tolerated? Is he a perfect judge of that amount, or can he be wrong and let himself be endangered? Can he hear the contents of a letter being written, can he effectively parse all of the sound and actions on earth in order to remain in absolute power? Etc.
Not to Godwin the thread, because this is a legitimate question that I think is relevant to furthering the discussion: Would you consider Hitler "truly evil"?
I'm of the opinion that the sort of pure evil you seem to be talking about doesn't exist among any humans, and couldn't exist among any fictional character who had enough of a personality to reasonably be called a character.
Cool. I'm just saying I can't think of a single piece of fiction where a truly bad bad guy wins, keeps winning, is happy about it, and can't be beat.
Have you read 1984? If not, you should!
Of course I have read 1984. Big Brother does fit the bill. You don't imagine him suffering under his own tyranny. He's almost definitely breaking every rule that he makes everyone else obey, like a King. The real question there is, does Big Brother exist? He could be a fiction within the fiction. A persona created by the party to fulfill a role in the propaganda.
If that is the case, I don't imagine anyone in the society living it up. Maybe there is a council at the top, and they are all suffering under each other's watchful eyes. None of them can break any rules because the others will use it as a means to expand their own power. Or maybe there isn't even a ruling party of sorts, but the bureaucracy itself is so cemented in place that nobody can escape it. There might even be a single living entity that forces the society other than the society itself.
Since I've been thinking about this all day, I finally found the perfect bad guy.
Hans fuckin Gruber.
He doesn't give a fuck. He'll just kill people, or order them killed no problem. He's crazy smart and has a plan. All his men are loyal and equally ready to just fucking kill anybody at the drop of a hat. The only reason he fails is because John McClane is just better. No stupid slow deaths with a laser. No being conflicted. Just do whatever you gotta do to make the heist work.
Now what if you took that same situation, but John McClane doesn't exist. If Hans was the best, and there was nobody better on Earth.
Something else interesting. I'm watching Hajime no Ippo, it has no bad guys. Ippo has to fight against all these other boxers, and the show is structured so you always root for him against the opponent. But all the opponents are also good guys. Everyone is an awesome respectable dude with boxing skills. There's no evil boxer like the evil team in Shaolin Soccer. It's all bromance domestic disputes.
What if the story was ALL bad guys? The bad guys win, and always win, because there are so many of them. The good guys are few and weak, if they even exist. However, there can still be an interesting story due to conflict amongst the bad guys.
What if the story was ALL bad guys? The bad guys win, and always win, because there are so many of them. The good guys are few and weak, if they even exist. However, there can still be an interesting story due to conflict amongst the bad guys.
What about bad guys and anti-heroes? The Boys springs to mind.
The Boys has good guys and bad guys. It's pretty clear. It's just that the bad guys look like what good guys usually look like and vice versa.
What if the story was ALL bad guys? The bad guys win, and always win, because there are so many of them. The good guys are few and weak, if they even exist. However, there can still be an interesting story due to conflict amongst the bad guys.
Comments
This, of course, is my main problem with the Superman character. He's invincible, which is fucking boring, but then he's completely negated by kryptonite, which is also boring. And bad guys can just, like, get kryptonite. Even though it's super rare, they just happen to have it.
The problem is with any character that is "perfect" in some way. You can't challenge that except by contrived negation, and that's fucking boring.
But that's not compelling in any way. The purpose of a villain in any story is to provide a struggle or challenge for the protagonist, and if they just whip out the "I win" button, your story will suck balls.
I could see compelling fiction where the "bad guy" won and was in charge. Then the story becomes about the struggle of the heroes under the heel of the bad guy.
Actually, here's a great example of a bad guy "winning:" Senator Palpatine. He just fucking took over and created the Empire. Sure, he got beat, but the point is that he was winning up until that crucial moment when Vader turned around.
The original trilogy was all about struggling under a bad guy who won.
Evil isn't defined by who kills or who cheats or who behaves selfishly. A cheater is lauded in comics if he cheats the evil character. A killer for justice is a hero. A selfish character can have other qualities that make others forgive them. This is not to mention that evil and good in fantasy are often far better delineated than in mundane stories. You're making the argument that evil characters can't be powerful because it would be boring, but what makes it boring is a lack of character complexity.
You can have a powerful evil character, and the character can be conflicted, but that doesn't mean they can't truly "win."
I'm of the opinion that the sort of pure evil you seem to be talking about doesn't exist among any humans, and couldn't exist among any fictional character who had enough of a personality to reasonably be called a character.
If that is the case, I don't imagine anyone in the society living it up. Maybe there is a council at the top, and they are all suffering under each other's watchful eyes. None of them can break any rules because the others will use it as a means to expand their own power. Or maybe there isn't even a ruling party of sorts, but the bureaucracy itself is so cemented in place that nobody can escape it. There might even be a single living entity that forces the society other than the society itself.
Hans fuckin Gruber.
He doesn't give a fuck. He'll just kill people, or order them killed no problem. He's crazy smart and has a plan. All his men are loyal and equally ready to just fucking kill anybody at the drop of a hat. The only reason he fails is because John McClane is just better. No stupid slow deaths with a laser. No being conflicted. Just do whatever you gotta do to make the heist work.
Now what if you took that same situation, but John McClane doesn't exist. If Hans was the best, and there was nobody better on Earth.
What if the story was ALL bad guys? The bad guys win, and always win, because there are so many of them. The good guys are few and weak, if they even exist. However, there can still be an interesting story due to conflict amongst the bad guys.