This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: Nameless YKTTW: From YKTTW
Sunder The Gold: Anyone else think that Gilgamesh, of The Epic of Gilgamesh, belongs here? He's the central character of his epic, but he's such an utter asshole that the gods themselves create a guy (Enkidu) strong enough to put a stop to his bullshit, and for that express purpose.
batfan: No, I don;t think Gilgamesh counts. First of all, "jerk" does not a villain make. I would call Gilgamesh, at worse, a Heroic Sociopath, and even that gets into Alternate Character Interpretation territory. Besides, there's not enough detail given to how he treats his subjects as King to call him evil; it also states that he acts the way he does because he doesn't have an outlet for his semi-god-ness, which makes him restless. This is the reason Enkidu is created. Finally, the Sumerians considered Gilgamesh a heroic chacter for all the great deeds that he did. We may have higher slightly higher standards for our heroes today, but in the time of the Gilgamesh epic (which is remember, literally the oldest story), Gilgamesh was considered very much a good guy.
—-
Lull The Conqueror: Removed Sword of Truth reference. I may not think Richard Rahl is a good guy either, but this seems to be for protagonists the author portrays as villainous. Richard Rahl is more a case of Moral Dissonance.
And I'm not so sure Dexter is really a Villain Protagonist. Anti-Hero, yes. Heroic Sociopath - well, he is literally a sociopath. But aside from the ritualistic way he kills, he's no worse than any other vigilante-hero without a Thou Shalt Not Kill policy. Hell, there are even some people (myself included) who wonder whether he's really a sociopath, or just an extremely messed-up (but functional) guy with a tragic past and a penchant for bloodshed who thinks of himself as a sociopath because his stepdad told him he was. He's certainly an easier character to like than, say, The Punisher, who also never feels bad for killing bad guys either and has killed a lot more people (in many cases for less justification) than Dexter has. People seem to see him as either an Anti-Hero or just a character they don't like.
With that said, I'm not removing the Dexter references right now, because I think this merits discussion.
Nancy from Weeds? Really? The show goes out of its way to show her being forced by economic necessity to sell pot, which is something a lot of people don't think to be evil anyway.
Ross N: Yes really. She has been 'forced' to sell to sell drugs to maintain her old upper middle class lifestyle, not to keep herself and her kids off the streets. Sure it sucks that her husband died and she had no money, but life can suck like that. No excuse for getting involved in a business that has a high chance of messing up her kids lives - either through her being sent to prison or getting into trouble with someone on the other side of the law. And as for selling pot... she isn't selling pot for some moral stand against a foolish law. She is doing it to get easy money.
Now this might make it sound like I dislike the show, but I don't. Nancy being a villain, and yes, evil in a petty selfish sort of way doesn't mean she can't be likeable, or that we can't root for her. Isn't that what this trope is all about?
In any case it is somewhat of a moot point since Weeds is set in a Crapsack World - who else are we going cheer on?
Fast Eddie: pulled ...
- "The student then presents our sculptor with a work fashioned after the sculptor's own style - a likeness of the student himself. It's a monstrosity! A fucking mess! Even worse is that our artist sees that this piece of shit before him is a more reasonable facsimile of his own work than he'd like to think! You fucking idiot! Admire me?!! You shit! I'm the villain in this fucking story!"
Gloating Swine: Rewrote Lulu's entry and nuked all the discussion it spawned. Yes he is a villain protagonist, even he thinks so.
question: would the main character from "Falling Down" fit? He starts out sympathetic, but turns in to a psycho rambo . . .
Fast Eddie: Pulled ...
- Or who is as little as kinda in his way.
Would the Bastard operator from hell be an example of this trope?
Mullon: How about the titular Carrie? She's not really a villain until the end when she goes crazy and kills a bunch of people, and even then it is really hard not to feel sorry for her.
Strictly speaking, an anti hero is a villain in a protagonist role, so this and anti hero should be folded together. those dark and edgy heros are either Heroic sociopaths, good isn't nice, or some other such trope...
Nano Moose: Okay, I'm definitely gonna have to argue with Garrett as a Villain Protagonist. For one thing, it's up to the player's interpretation, who is very much encouraged to play through even Normal difficulty without killing anybody at all. Also, compare him to the other examples here. They eat people alive, kill for pleasure, torture, commit rape, conquer or destroy worlds, or commit genocide. He's a thief who steals from an upper class who are depicted in the games almost without exception as complete and utter bastards, and at very worst he's vengefully, viciously, selfishly pragmatic - like a lot of less idealistic heroes - and a bit of a misanthrope, which does make him a jerk, but not exactly evil. And really, he just doesn't seem to fit the criteria listed in the trope itself - he's not larger than life or funny as hell; he's a fairly restrained character. He doesn't go down in flames, and this fact isn't depicted as a Downer Ending. Finally: hitting people hard enough to knock them out as a substitute for killing them is a solely villainous quality now? Garrett is by no stretch of the imagination a typical hero, but neither is he - well cruel or actively malevolent or over-the-top enough to be a Villain Protagonist. Is anyone going to protest me deleting the example?
BritBllt: Pulling the following Guts example for several reasons...
- In Berserk, Guts would definitely qualify. He kills for fun, he kicks down old people that ask him for help, watches their executions, attempts rape, and takes princesses as human shields. This said, his antagonists are... arguably worse...
He kills demons for fun, he drives people away because he doesn't want them getting hurt by being near him, the rape attempt involved him being mind controlled, and he actually saved the "princess as a human shield" by his actions. And there's no "arguably" about Griffin, the Godhand and the Apostles being worse, given that they're demons out to cause as much human suffering as possible, and he's trying to stop them. Guts is an Anti-Hero, and already has an entry on that page, but Anti-Hero and Villain Protagonist are whole different tropes.
BritBllt: Reading over the page, especially the anime section, it seems like there's a ton of characters who are really AntiVillains. To me, it seems like the trope should be reserved for stories centered on villains who actually are trying to bring about villainous goals with no debating the point, like Disgaea or Death Note or Invader Zim. If the villain has a valid point of view, they're an Anti-Hero or an Anti-Villain, which is a whole different kind of story. And that pothole wall of text for Enterprise would be painful to look at even if it were true (and it's not, it's a rambling mix of Alternate Character Interpretation and Complaining About Shows You Dont Like). Removing the Enterprise entry for now, and I'd welcome anyone who knows their anime to go through the list and see how many of these characters are really anti-villains or anti-heroes in Villain Protagonist clothing.
Matthew The Raven: Is the caption for the Light picture a reference to something or a meme I don't recognize, or is it just horribly written?
BritBllt: I've always wondered the same thing. Catchy in an Engrish sorta way, but I have no idea what it means. But I'm swapping out a pic someone recently added for the old one. From this...
this
◊
back to...
this
◊
(The pics can be seen by clicking on links - showing them on the page was making a mess of things!)
For one thing, the new pic seems way too tall. But for another, I don't think a mere picture of Light's face really conveys the idea of him being a villain protagonist. In that sense, the pic with his hand dripping blood and dramatically holding the Death Note works better. And on a personal note, I think the fan art actually looks a little better. Maybe it's the size or resolution, but that pastel color scheme hurts my eyes...
I don't think the Basterds belong here, if only because their fighting freaking Hitler and the freaking nazis. In terms of the greater of two evils, Hitler always wins. Besides, I wouldn't call the Basterds evil per se. Sure, their about as sociopathic as Herioc Sociopaths get, but i didn't get the sense that they would use the same methods if they were fighting anyone other than nazis. Of course, this movie is an interesting case because its ssometimes hard to tell if the Basterds are even the protagonists, considering Hans Landa got way more screen time, and most of the plot revolved around him and his actions. If Landa were to be defined as the real protagonist of the movie, then yes, he goes here, but not the Basterds. You just can't be villains if your fighting Hitler, regardless of how you do it.
- You can if you're Stalin.
BritBllt: Agreed, and so removing...
- The titular Inglourious Basterds more or less define the word "war criminal".
If only because killing Hitler's just not a villainous goal. I'd say the major difference between Anti Heroes, Heroic Sociopaths and Villain Protagonists is that, while the first two are still doing good even while being morally questionable or outright evil about it, a Villain Protagonist is engaged in outright villainy.
- Yeah. They're not Villain Protagonists, just the extreme end of Heroic Sociopath.
- I don't know. If you read into some of these sites about communist takeovers, Rothschild, and Masonry. Hitler begins looking more and more like a villain protagonist.
