>>
|
No. 69578
File
134620175768.png
- (62.78KB
, 291x456
, 1346046124006.png
)
>>69554
Okay, I admit it's possible to do it--in theory. I haven't yet come across a villain I could actually feel sympathy for that I could also label as engaging or entertaining as the alternative, however~ Most of the time I see it as a sad attempt to make us feel sorry for a character who's done awful things and has already crossed the line into irredeemable for me.
I will say that some villains work better for some kinds of stories, and I think it's bad to dismiss "pure evil" villains for a story where it's nice to have a clear good side and a clear bad side--these things can actually benefit a story! Shades of gray morality doesn't always make a story better, nor is it needed. Sauron didn't need no stinking sob story background, for example, it would've only detracted from The Lord of the Rings to attempt to add one~
>>69558
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you one little bit. Kotomine wasn't sympathetic in any way, shape, or form. His whole character is that he likes doing evil things because they bring him pleasure. That's pretty much the textbook definition of "bad guy." Erika was just an annoying brat who also happened to be a sociopath-murderer.
To sum it up nicely with a favorite quote of mine:
"It's not just about raw power. It's about how far you're willing to go before feeling bad. And me? I ripped off my own living flesh just so that I wouldn't have to admit weakness. You're strictly little league compared to that. That right there? That's the difference between evil with a capital 'E' and your 'evil, but for a good cause' crap. One gets to be the butch, and one gets to be the bitch... Bitch."
-Xykon, to Redcloak right after he manipulated Redcloak into killing his own brother in order to protect Xykon
|