Determining who's the most evil villains

[Bahamut2000X]

So a debate that spawned from this thread got me to thinking. So how can you go about determining exactly which fictional villains are truly the most evil of the bunch, and which are just little kids burning the heads off of ants with magnifying glasses.

So I got to thinking about how one would go about and actually solve this dilemma. I've looked around and seen that most everyone states why they believe said villain is the worst of the worst, but half the time they just give physical characteristics of a style they use to spread evil and that can easily be seen as entirely objective point of view as some (like myself) believe the anarchic villains are the best such as Joker and Kefka. Others prefer the type that try and act cool and have a more goth/emo style such as Sephiroth or Kuja, or even Seymour. Some might even prefer the more god-like and omnipotent bunch such as Daos or Yu-Yevon. Now the problem lies in that determining a truly evil villain can't be determined by their style of execution alone or other forms of objective data, so I got to thinking about HOW is someone defined as being evil? The answer would be in the acts that they do that are evil in nature.

So then how would you measure such evil acts? There's numerous acts that are evil, and even more so is the different linking that could determine what is more evil then another. Murder in itself is evil, but even that we have different degrees of. One could of just killed someone in a state of not thinking correctly or in a sudden burst of anger, or they could of killed someone by planning out methodically to kill someone. Even more so you could determine that it would be more evil to torture someone till they die, as opposed say lobbing their head off and just ending it.

But then this again leads to more questions.

What if another person was helping in their acts of evil? What if they only manipulated another person/thing to doing their will? What if they advertently or inadvertently caused a great catastrophe to occur? Where would all of these rack up on being evil? And what about acts that lead to an evil outcome?

With all that in mind I think it can be safe to assume that to truly determine a villain's evil-ness from another villain we can say that for something to constitute as an evil act it must be done with evil in mind. In addition an act that's enacted for the explicit purpose of spreading suffering would be more evil then say an act that had suffering happen but the villain had no intent or idea that would occur to begin with.

Well I'll leave it at that for now as I'm tired and got lot's to do today. I was gonna do an actual Sephiroth/Kefka comparison using the above criteria to determine which is a more evil villain based on more tangible evidence as opposed to just personal preference, but I'll save that for when my mind can think better.

Anyways so ya hopefully this is a good read and no one thinks I'm too much of a raving lunatic with too much time on their hands.

[Big D]

I'd say evilness has to do with the character's motivation for being evil. That's also an integral factor in whether they're a well-developed character or not.

Some villains are evil 'just because'; they try to destroy the world because they can, or because they're bored. This is utterly meaningless to me; all it says is that the writers were too lazy to give the villain a proper story, and instead just wanted a villain to threaten the world.

A lot of villains have a vague, twisted sense of wanting the world to be a better place in some way. Even Sauron (from Tolkien's works) was carrying on Morgoth's plans to make the world, and life itself, a stable and regulated process.

Going back to the rather silly argument that prompted this thread in the first place...

To me, Kefka is a fairly weak villain. Sure, he was evil and insane and hate hate hated everything, but there was very little method to his madness. He wanted power because he was crazy. He became a godlike entity, then decided he had to destroy the world for little reason except that the plot required a threat to the world in order for the heroes to have something to fight against. In plenty of debates about Kefka's meaning as a character, all that can be offerd by some debaters is that he "represents the evil in all of us".

Sephiroth, on the other hand, has a fairly involved past, with layers of betrayal and deceit that turned him against the world. Combining the strongest and worst aspects of two species, his plan to cripple the world would grant him absolute power over all life - something he earnestly believed was his rightful place, though his reasons for that belief changed over time. Unfortunately, a lot of Sephiroth's more... shallow fans are drawn to the style over the substance, which can lead to the impression that he's only popular because of omg teh hawt bishie uber SORD!!! or somesuch.

I like the characters of Kefka and Sephiroth. They're both powerful figures who drive the plots of their respective games. But Sephiroth's motivations set him apart, to me, as a character with more conscious malice, a more genuine willingness to destroy in order to achieve his ends. Mindless destruction is scary and upsetting, but deliberate and purposeful destruction instills a broader range of stronger emotions.

I'm going to tread on uncertain ground here, by bringing reality into it. Let's look at two of the most evil, most despised figures from human history: Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Stalin's purges killed more people than the entire Second World War, but it's the ideological motivations of each campaign of terror that colour how they're regarded by history. The Holocaust, and the Nazi aggressions themselves, were intended to strengthen and purify the human race by eradicating 'inferiority'. Its goal was genocide, executed with a systematic, industrialised precision that consciously devalued countless human lives . Stalin's objective, ultimately, was to secure an absolutely centralised and fully-functioning form of socialism across his entire territory. Paranoia and ruthlessness led him to expel or exterminate entire populations in the pursuit of that goal, but the extermination was not the ideological objective.
I am not saying for a second that Stalin's actions were understandable or forgiveable; nor am I saying that the deaths of up to 100 million innocents are less important or devastating than the 50 million lives lost during the Second World War. All I'm trying to do is highlight the importance of a person's underlying motivations and intentions.

[LunarWeaver]

I personally take a different stance. I think the more motivation a villain has, the more sympathetic character they become and the less truly evil they are, but rather ambitious or sometimes victims of the environment. Somebody like Nene from Blue Dragon does what he does just because it gives pleasure. That's really the depth of evil right there. It would be like committing genocide not because humans were mean to you or you had some weird beliefs, but because you simply wanted to. To me that's much more evil.

That makes them paper thin and the storytelling crappy, but that's really not the opinion I'm giving.

[Captain Maxx Power]

While your posts are probably very interesting, I can save you all a lot of time and tell you the most evil villain is Skeletor. Right, thread over, everyone go home.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Depends on how you define evil though. If one assumes that evil can only be defined in contrast of good (and vice versa) then evil can be viewed two ways: as everything that does not fall into the category of good or as everything that is the opposite of good (thus implying a middle zone). Such a construction of evil presupposes a defined good though.

Even with that model, there still remains the problem of defining good (therefore defining evil). Good can be measured by various things and values. In various systems and social context, different values are given a different priority. Thus, a definition of evil is dependent on that context. One could say, to judge the evilness of the villain, one first look at the context which it is in. Is the villain truly evil within the society he is functioning in? I mean, if the society emphasizes law, order and logic over all else, then someone who is as chaotic and random as Kefka would be truly evil. Yet in a society where say balance is regarded highly, Kefka may be only seen as a necessary balance to the excess good in the world therefore not so evil.

If we are to measure then their evilness by the context of their society, it then makes it difficult to compare villains. Sure, each villain could be evil (to various degrees) in their own society and in other, similar, societies but it would make it difficult for cross-social comparisons.

Therefore, one can conclude that the only way to effectively to compare two villains from their respective social settings is then to create a setting of agreed upon values and use that as a comparison for their deeds.

Then again, what I am saying is merely only functional given the fact if you define evil in a contrast, assuming a intradependency with good.

[Bahamut2000X]

Yeah the whole motivation thing I had going on in the back of my head but I wasn't able to quite get it out there in my initial post. I find the main problem with defining anything as subjective as this is just the fact that it can be taken in so many ways.

Personally I'm leaning towards the best way to determine a true evil villain is based on the one that causes the most intentional suffering and killing of others for nothing more then for pleasure or their own amusement. But it just seems fairly hard in how to exactly determine every scenario on whether it's evil or if it is evil how evil it is.

Yeah I kind of hate all this logical thought process, but it's kind of interesting too if you can ever get past the initial "well 50 different people will have 50 different ways to answer".

While your posts are probably very interesting, I can save you all a lot of time and tell you the most evil villain is Skeletor. Right, thread over, everyone go home.

You've just won the internet.

[Skyblade]

Personally, I don't think motivation really matters all that much. Whether you decide to kill the world because:
A: You were bored.
B: You want revenge for some guy killing your family/love interest.
C: Voices in your head told you to.
D: You just wanted to see if the "End of the World" button would really work.
E: You were interrupted in the middle of your greatest Guitar Hero run of all time and life no longer has any meaning.
F: You think the world doesn't have enough butterflies.
None of that really matters. You're just as much of an evil SOB no matter which answer is correct.

[Kanshisha]

lol, i predict the reasons because of E: You were interrupted in the middle of your greatest Guitar Hero run of all time and life no longer has any meaning. Haha. that can be the case.

[NeoCracker]

I don't think Crazy is evil.

I mean, if a retarded kid slapped his mother, would you still call him a bad boy?

[Bahamut2000X]

Well crazy itself isn't evil no. But add it to an evil person and now you got something that's all kinds of messed up.

[Markus. D]

I believe it is the intent the main villian would have.

and how he/she/it spread his/her/it's intentions.

[Eiko Guy]

Defining he most evil villain is a very difficult thin to do. You have to factor in how much pleasure they ge from what they do. Along with how far they are willing to go before they will give up. Then ther'es still if they know exactly what they are doing, if it's of their free will. Being evil isn't something people just do. Not many villians believe they are evil. They think what the ra ding is the ight thing.

Being the evilest villian is hard to define. Especially with books, movies, Video games, and comic book all having villians that can be added to the roster.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I'd say the strongest villains are those who are the most human but also the most contemptible. My favorite villains are those from games by Yasumi Matsuno of Final Fantasy Tactics, Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy XII fame. I like human villains who are willing to go to any lengths to achieve their own ends. Kefka is a fun villain, sadistic and wicked, but very simple and uncomplicated. Sephiroth is a villain whose backstory and development didn't strike any real believability with me, and he falls to the "descent into madness and let's wipe out the world" syndrome.

Compared to the likes of people like Dycedarg of Final Fantasy Tactics, those two are strictly small fry. A good villain to me isn't someone who's heading towards mindless world destruction. A good villain to me is one who has goals and will use the most despicable and underhanded means to achieve them.

[Monol]

Well said void...but then again this coming from somone resbonsible for making a thread dedicated to villians kicking the crap out each other, should i really be suprised?

I also enjoy villains that have those bizare humanistic qualities about them. I think think the fact that you relate to them in that fashion is what makes them so terrifying in the first place. I like smart villains...the kind of guys that use power through deception and manipulation rather than big boomy booms and lazer shows.

I also like villains with a hint of honor...Like "Die Hard"s last battle. I mean sure (SPOILER)The bad guy pulled a gun on our hero as he lost but that whole fist fight one on one macho bravado moment really gave the guy notches in my book

Mainly though deception. I love watching liars in action (which is sort of ironic seeing how deception is the most dishonorable thing eva lol) but with some sort of morals. I like seeing how they could have used those morals to be stronger but ending up turning into their weakness and therefore "undoing". After all in the end im mainly for the good guys after all

[Nifleheim7]

Like Big D said,i also like to see some motivation in a character on why he's doing what he's doing.
Noone is being born evil.Things happen and experiences move the characters from point A to point B.If the motivation is convincing then you have a succesful character.
I also like villains who have really 'noble' goals and only their methods define them as villains.

Another succesful example for a villain (at least for me) is the concept of Galactus from marvel comics.Here we have a being that devours entire planets in order to sustain itself.Galactus is above morals and ethics,he's doing what he's doing in order to survive (he doesn't care if the planets are inhabitant or not).

My logic of defining a "succesful" evil character is not about who killed the most (which i find to be a bit childish) but what really drives them as characters.If the line between good and evil is a bit blur,all the better.