What makes a villain?

[antaeus]

You're somewhat simplifying it. The thread is asking something of a literary question in an ethics forum.

Agreed! The villain is an antagonist to the protagonist. The story defines them. It really is that simple. For it to be a *good* story, you need to have the audience buy into it and invest. And that's why they killed John Wick's puppy and you suddenly liked the assassin and didn't mind the killing he did.

So, John Wick is a protagonist we can argue is a sociopath. But then, let's dig. It's easy to make a 2 hour villain a sociopath. It's hard to make a tv villain a sociopath. James Sterling of Leverage isn't a Sociopath nor a psychopath. He's an investigator good at his job nearly catching the protagonist. Thus, he's the antagonist. And. The Villain. Shocker.

In real life via this understanding of what these words actually mean? You can damn well be a sociopath or even psychopath perfectly capable of living within society. Look at the people who's sole interest is just to make more and more money for themselves through their company through no care of who they put on the street. Totally legally. With every agency allowing them as no law will stop them from doing this. Until you understand this, you can't just tie the word "villain" to "sociopath or psychopath".

There are plenty of examples of protagonists who are sociopaths or psychopaths:

From Dexter the mass murderer who investigates his own crimes, to Villanelle in Killing Eve who is both protagonist and antagonist depending on the moment, to Amos Burton on The Expanse who is a sociopath who experiences dissonance when he realises his sociopathy, to Patrick Bateman of American Psycho who is aware of his psychopathy and again experiences dissonance but then finally acceptance.

These films depend on us not being sociopaths. We experience sympathy for the characters who's lack of empathy itself becomes a weakness that tugs at our heart strings. They are the protagonists literally because they are sociopaths.

So I think this is the wrong tree to bark up. The real key to the sociopath/psychopath villain relationship is subjective. Like all other villains.

[Gaidin]

It's like I said. She's simplifying it.

Hell, this isn't the question to even ask in an ethics forum. This is the question to ask about character relationships in a story. Not some...life thing.

I mean, maybe useful for a few of Jesus's parables...but...that again diverts from the point of the parables.

[antaeus]

It's like I said. She's simplifying it.

Hell, this isn't the question to even ask in an ethics forum. This is the question to ask about character relationships in a story. Not some...life thing.

I mean, maybe useful for a few of Jesus's parables...but...that again diverts from the point of the parables.

I'm sure I wrote that I was agreeing with you *shrug*

I think this topic is interesting in so far as I find it fascinating to see people try to describe the subjective in objective ways.

[Gaidin]

I'm sure I wrote that I was agreeing with you *shrug*

I think this topic is interesting in so far as I find it fascinating to see people try to describe the subjective in objective ways.

Please. Don't take my post the wrong way.

We're agreeing. That doesn't mean me and you can't preach to the choir for a post or three.

[basics]

There isn't a single person ever born naturally that hasn't had the capacity to be a villain in someone elses eyes. Both Christianity and its opposite Darwinism project that, the former by the fall of man and the latter by the survival of the fittest.

[swabian]

@Morticia

Villains tend to be antisocial personalities, so there is a genetic background as well as biographical markers, such as childhood abuse, but this is not always the case. Villains can be fairly normal, banal people who had a propensity to participate in a destructive social movement for example. Or think of careerists in dictatorships who "just" follow orders. Then we have the fanatics who do heinous acts out of stubborn and unshakeable convictions or simply cowards, who only think of themselves and leave others to their fate even though helping doesn't cause them much risk, which can also be seen as a form of villainy in my opinion.

[mishkin]

It occurs to me now that having a very low self-esteem / need to be "loved" (pathologically) or admired may have something to do with villainy.

[AqD]

That are not sociopaths or psychopaths. I use the psychiatric definition.

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/...h-difference#1
https://www.healthline.com/health/me...alth/sociopath
https://www.healthline.com/health/psychopath

In my opinion that are the obviously villains.

Those definitions are hilarious if you put it anywhere but countries with western values

To quote a few:

- disregarding or violating the rights of others
- tendency to lie often
- manipulating and hurting others
- recurring problems with the law

What if you're the law and you define what rights people have? Or your job is to keep others in line by deception and manipulation? That's in the textbook of emperors and ministers. Pretty much everyone in our recorded history would be psychopath according to you.

PS: I would stress that unless you're a devoted Christian, convincing people they're born with rights and they should obey the law is a manipulation too and possibly deceptive, for there is no truth of anything but perspectives and opinions.

---

So, what do you think of Oda Nobunaga or Nurhaci?

[Gaidin]

Those definitions are hilarious if you put it anywhere but countries with western values

To quote a few:



What if you're the law--

Let me cut you off with what you said and given how often cops lie...

[athanaric]

PS: I would stress that unless you're a devoted Christian, convincing people [...] they should obey the law is a manipulation too and possibly deceptive, for there is no truth of anything but perspectives and opinions.

That sounds like postmodernist nonsense.

What would you think of Oda Nobunaga or Nurhaci?

AFAIK it's been well established that psychopathic traits are more common among political and business leaders than among the general populace. So I think it's highly likely that these two, as well as most, if not all, great conquerors in history, were somewhere on the ASPD spectrum.

Regarding the traits you quoted, I think the point about the frequent lying was that it includes pointless lies that are told just for and giggles, or even involuntarily. Certainly not "lying under duress" in situations where telling the truth would get you killed. And "disregarding or violating the rights of others" probably refers to the violation of personal boundaries as well as infliction of physical harm, not modern day human rights.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Those links i quoted are psychological/psychiatrist clinical criteria for the diagnostic of ASPD.

Surely a sociopath/psychopath can live a life without becoming a criminal as successfull businessmen.

But their personality make it likely that they one day cross the permanent grayzone to a economical crime (fraud etc..) because giving a about risks or needs of others.

Perhaps this part of one article explains it better:

"
To receive a diagnosis of ASPD, someone must be older than 18. Their behaviors must show a pattern of at least three of the following seven traits:

• Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. Theyconsistently break laws or overstep social boundaries.
• Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain.
• Doesn’t make any long-term plans. They also often behave without thinking of consequences.
• Shows aggressive or aggravated behavior. They consistently get into fights or physically harm others.
• Doesn’t consider their own safety or the safety of others.
• Doesn’t follow up on personal or professional responsibilities. This can include repeatedly being late to work or not paying bills on time.
• Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others.

Other possible symptoms of ASPD can include:

• being “cold” by not showing emotions or investment in the lives of others
• using humor, intelligence, or charisma to manipulate others
• having a sense of superiority and strong, unwavering opinions
• not learning from mistakes
• not being able to keep positive friendships and relationships
• attempting to control others by intimidating or threatening them
• getting into frequent legal trouble or performing criminal acts
• taking risks at the expense of themselves or others
• threatening suicide without ever acting on these threats
• becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, or other substances

Other ways to diagnose ASPD include:

• evaluating the person’s feelings, thoughts, behavioral patterns, and personal relationships
• talking to people close to the person about their behaviors
• evaluating a person’s medical history for other conditions

ASPD can be diagnosed in someone as young as 15 years old if they show symptoms of a conduct disorder. These symptoms include:

• breaking rules without regard for the consequences
• needlessly destroying things that belong to themselves or others
• stealing
• lying or constantly deceiving others
• being aggressive toward others or animals

What’s the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?


There’s no clinical difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. These terms are both used to refer to people with ASPD. They’re often used interchangeably.
Some have attempted to distinguish the two by the severity of their symptoms. A sociopath may be someone who only makes minor transgressions that don’t cause serious harm or distress. But a psychopath may be described as someone who’s physically violent or put others in danger. However, when one considers the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, all of these symptoms can be found in the ASPD category.
Exhibiting frequently selfish behavior is in and of itself not sufficient to diagnose someone as a sociopath. An ASPD diagnosis is only given when symptoms happen for an extended period and don’t change because of punishment or lifestyle changes. Someone who’s selfish may show these behaviors for a short while, but feel bad about them or change their behavior over time or because of punishment. "


And in my opinion a sociopath in business, who has ruined with his predator business practices the life of hundred others, is also a villain. Not only the serial murderer.

[Axalon]

Personally, I would generally define the villain as a dishonest, disregarding (as in inconsiderate/disrespectful), dishonorable, egotistical A-hole. This applies in both real life and as well in fiction, me thinks.

- A

[swabian]

@Morticia

Having ASPD or psychopathy does render it (much) more likely to make decisions that lead to a criminal lifestyle. So i guess you wanted to say that you agree that a character pathology still does not make a villain. This is on the other hand also not a very true statement because not all villainy may be legally relevant (and this certainly is the case). It's just that the term "villain" is really just very vague and rather weak regarding it's definition but it's all the stronger regarding the psychological effect it has on people, same as the word "evil".
Of course there are characters, both fictional and real ones, whose misdeeds make a great demonstration of villainy, no doubt. This is nicely reflected by the fact that discussing villainy is as interesting as it is bound to have no real results, which is also why it makes little sense for me to lean to the one or the other in this discussion.

What’s the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?


There’s no clinical difference between a sociopath and a psychopath. These terms are both used to refer to people with ASPD. They’re often used interchangeably.

I'm no psychiatrist or psychologist, but this is really not true or a really outdated information.

Sociopathy was historically the first term which vaguely described both of what is now understood as psychopathy as well as ASPD, but it is the current understanding that psychopathy is really distinct and sociopathy is basically synonymous with ASPD. Psychopathy is different in that it includes some interpersonally observable and diagnosable personality traits that don't typically occur in people with ASPD. There is also a distinction made by some authors between "primary" and "secondary" psychopathy, with secondary psychopathy being described more as a result of nurture rather than nature (like ASPD) and primary psychopathy being the one with the highest "genetic load" (means it's more heritable than all of those constructs).

Psychopathy is also not necessarily regarded as a personality disorder - some psychiatrists and psychologists think of it as one, some don't. In total, it seems to be regarded more as an anomaly or an aberration, because it's clearly not normal and comparatively rare.

What a villain is or isn't on the other hand can only be clearly said in extreme cases and i guess it's one of those words that really shouldn't be seen as objective or of any worth outside of hyperboles.

It occurs to me now that having a very low self-esteem / need to be "loved" (pathologically) or admired may have something to do with villainy.

Yes, narcissism is highly associated with psychopathy after all. But it's really only the admiration part, not the loving part. And there is no real love without real compassion. Real narcissists actually have difficulties with compassion or pity towards them, because the respective remarks threaten their ability to see themselves as perfect. If you would actually utter real compassion with Donald Trump, saying "oh, this guy has to be so stressed out, if he reacts so extreme to the tiniest criticism", he would definitely hate you for it, because you painted him as somehow weak and imperfect. The reality is of course, that people like Trump are certainly suffering tremendously under their own brains "imbalance" or "malfunction" or whatever we want to call it.
Suffering is always a little bit of a redeeming factor in my book, because i can see the human side in a person with extremely maladaptive behavior. It takes the wind out of the sails, so to speak.
And this would be my concluding point about villainy, sort of: the less a villain suffers, the more villainous they really are. In literature the term "anti-hero" is often coined as a form to express this for example (a person who does "evil" things because they fight "evil" or have been treated cruelly).

[basics]

swabian,

Sin makes villains and who is there without sin?

[mishkin]

Suffering is always a little bit of a redeeming factor in my book, because i can see the human side in a person with extremely maladaptive behavior. It takes the wind out of the sails, so to speak.
And this would be my concluding point about villainy, sort of: the less a villain suffers, the more villainous they really are. In literature the term "anti-hero" is often coined as a form to express this for example (a person who does "evil" things because they fight "evil" or have been treated cruelly).

Related to this, beware of people who make excuses for their cruelty. I recently read that "my father used to beat me" or "they also abused me" are often just made up excuses used by abusers, when in reality the victims of abuse tend to show more empathy with other people and of course with other victims. Suffering (usually) makes you empathize with others, it does not make you a villain.

[Derc]

The dose and mixture makes the difference.

[Cyclops]

Related to this, beware of people who make excuses for their cruelty. I recently read that "my father used to beat me" or "they also abused me" are often just made up excuses used by abusers, when in reality the victims of abuse tend to show more empathy with other people and of course with other victims. Suffering (usually) makes you empathize with others, it does not make you a villain.

Indeed, some abusers make excuses, often they were brutalised too. I guess the lesson is to not be a villain by working not to pass on trauma?

Its a very nuanced idea, villainy: Shylock is a villain not because he breaks the law, he merely insists on it being enacted. As a villain he brings into focus the dichotomy of mercy and justice: mercy of course is when we break the law for someone nice. If they're not nice then its injustice...

The dose and mixture makes the difference.

...yes villainy and heroism are alchemy, For all my pontificating I don't have the recipe.

Military training is meant to create "heroes" (literally protectors), and involves a lot of brutalisation too. We've seen Australian forces (our very best too, and high quality people) become villains in Afghanistan, all it took was "too much being a hero".

[AqD]

Regarding the traits you quoted, I think the point about the frequent lying was that it includes pointless lies that are told just for and giggles, or even involuntarily. Certainly not "lying under duress" in situations where telling the truth would get you killed. And "disregarding or violating the rights of others" probably refers to the violation of personal boundaries as well as infliction of physical harm, not modern day human rights.

To receive a diagnosis of ASPD, someone must be older than 18. Their behaviors must show a pattern of at least three of the following seven traits:

• Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. Theyconsistently break laws or overstep social boundaries.
• Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain.
• Doesn’t make any long-term plans. They also often behave without thinking of consequences.
• Shows aggressive or aggravated behavior. They consistently get into fights or physically harm others.
• Doesn’t consider their own safety or the safety of others.
• Doesn’t follow up on personal or professional responsibilities. This can include repeatedly being late to work or not paying bills on time.
• Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others.

......

I can see you two are not politicians

Ancient Legalism was centered around creating arbitrary fear, distrust and peer pressure to maintain the power of the king and eliminate power abuse and corruption, to increase the profit of the King and no one else's.

Deception and manipulation are merely methods to achieve a goal. So are other people, who are merely a means to an end. Since that's how laws were first created, I'd say anyone who ask me to obey social norms unconditionally have ill intentions toward me.

But if you look in more recent centuries, how are nationalists or modern war commanders any different? Take WW1 for example, elites of both sides drove people to die for no benefit of their own - are they psychopaths, even though they had no intention for personal gain? Were American people suffering from ASPD when they invaded Afghanistan or Iraq? It pretty much confirms all your points above (ignoring international laws, fake evidence, lack of long term plan, aggression and zero regard for their soldiers, ...)

---

Personally, I would generally define the villain as a dishonest, disregarding (as in inconsiderate/disrespectful), dishonorable, egotistical A-hole. This applies in both real life and as well in fiction, me thinks.

- A

That's why I mentioned Oda Nobunaga. To give a few examples:

- Being the son of a lord, he spent childhood mingling with peasants, which was considered dishonorable
- He put peasants rather than nobles to high positions, e.g. Hideyoshi. Which was against social norms.
- He welcomed Christianity and attacked religious establishments.
- He abolished long established monopolies, drove nobles to poverty and made nasty peasants rich
- He repeatedly insulted useless officers of high nobility, even patted their heads, a serious offense that eventually got him killed.

So, it's like 100% inconsiderate, disrespectful, dishonorable and egotistical. Is that a villain by your definition?

[pacifism]

Let's all stick to the topic. This thread is about the concept of villainy, not God.

[basics]

pacifism,

If it is not about our relationship with God then it must originate from something else but what else? I believe that there has never been nor ever will be anyone on the planet who has not been a villain in the eyes of another or the victim of one. I mean if we lie, if we steal, if we deceive is that not as villainous as rape, murder or anything as hideous? All these things no matter the level man is quite capable of regardless of his or her beliefs. So was it by chance that that is how we developed?