Hero Leaders and Villain Leaders

Good or evil, cartoons have portrayed many characters as leaders of a large of people; be they as small as a motley crew of misfits or as large as grand army.

But a recurring thing i keep noticing is that when the hero is the leader of a group, he/she is usually chastised by nearly ll of their followers, they receive questions for nearly ever decision they make and usually, they are constantly put in positions where they'd like nothing better than to be rid of their title as leader. However, with the villains; they get unconditional respect from their followers, their orders are followed without question or compromise and they are given every reason to revel in their power.

An example that comes to mind for me is "Thundercats (2011)"; Lion-O is the hero, yet he is given nothing but grief for his position as king. While, in contrast; Mumm-Ra, the villain, is respected by all of his followers and is never questioned in regards to any of his decisions

Obligatory:

It probably stems from the idea that the hero should usually be the underdog, combined with the fact that the heroes are the ones we follow (and are thus the ones who receive the most drama). Thus, heroic organizations are disorganized mavericks fraught with inner conflict but ultimately pull through in the end, while villainous organizations are nebulous, terrifyingly efficient and - with the exception of The Starscream and whatever faction he/she might have - can be almost hive-mindedly devoted to their leader so as to make them more effective antagonists.

If the villains are fighting, unless there's the risk of a Bigger Bad taking over and bringing the entire organization under his/her rule instead, it runs the risk of diminishing the threat they pose to the heroes. In situations where the main conflict focus is between the heroes and the villains, it's rare to see the villains' resolve crack in a way that isn't either caused by the heroes or the result of someone trying to usurp someone else.

I think it's a great idea to see more villainous organizations that can be as unorganized and full of individual personalities as the heroes (if written right, it tends to make the villains a lot more interesting), but I can see why it's a convention that gets followed all the time.

edited 10th Jan '14 12:50:29 AM by KnownUnknown

Lion-O was a tool, can't blame them for giving him grief.

A tool AND the leader of a remnant of a racist and oppressive government. You can see why the other inhabitants of Third Earth would be reluctant to trust him.

The heroes are supposed to undergo Character Development while the villains rarely do; so conflict within the hero team is likely to happen (inevitably leading to a reinstatement of trust later) while villain teams are usually led by the most powerful and therefore rarely challenge their leaders (though it can be fun to see when it happens.)

Writers are in love with the idea that Ambition Is Evil, especially in stories aimed at younger audiences. Add to that, though we've largely discredited it in government, many cultures are still in love with the idea of the Divine Right to Rule; that some people are naturally gifted by God to be leaders of men, born with all the skills required. That some people are just better than others by the right of their birth.

Thus, heroes are portrayed as reluctant, ambitionless regular guys who just want to live their life and have no desire for the power that is thrust upon them, but are naturally graced with the skills, discipline, physical virtues, or other plot-related requirements to use that power responsibly and effectively. They don't want to be kings, but they were born to be kings, and so if a king is required, then a king they shall be.

By contrast, villains become leaders because of their evil, evil ambitions. They're cruel, malicious, power-mongering killers because they are living outside their role, trying to become kings when destiny has not chosen them to be kings, and maiming or killing anyone who stands in their way. In addition to this, we've conflated "good" leadership with democratic - everyone has a voice in what happens and all the subordinates are free to challenge the leader's opinion or decisions - and "evil" leadership with commanding - the leader gives orders and the subordinates carry them out, with nary a word of dissent spoken.

It's a very simple Aesop about good people living up to the responsibilities that society/friends/family/God would give to them, while bad people try to seize power and responsibility that is not their right by birth. It's also a terrible moral, but our society loves it and eats it up by the score, so it's probably not going anywhere anytime soon.

edited 10th Jan '14 8:22:52 AM by TobiasDrake

Yes,you often see when mooks or other weak antagonists question their leader, they are often killed, fired, or otherwise disposed of.

Where as when the same thing happens to the hero or other good guys, its a lot less cruel, showing the heroes as fairer and more just.

Unless, of course, the one asking is portrayed as wrong.

edited 10th Jan '14 8:46:34 AM by woodywoo01

Villain teams tend to run on fear and intimidation, so no one who values their life is going to question the boss unless they either actively hate him or think they can take him (at which point they usually start trying to take the leader position for themselves).

Hero teams, in contrast, run on a mix of necessity and respect, so those who have an issue with the hero nearly always feels free to speak their mind.

I wonder if this is why villains (except for a certain few) are weirdly popular with people. You see I've started my Theories of Personality course and we've discussed the Freudian Trio. The Id represents are desires and villains are all about acting on that and not giving a damn what anyone thinks, while Heroes tend to be held back by the Superego (who represents society's morals/rules-which can be annoying sometimes).

edited 13th Jan '14 2:53:13 PM by WorldTurtle

@Tobias: To me it looks more like the villains are the ones claiming Divine Right. The villain is the one who demands absolute respect and authority and anyone who suggests they aren't perfect and infallible as leaders quickly get silenced or worse. The heroes on the other hand, know that their leader wasn't chosen by god or whatever and he can, and sometimes 'should', be questioned or criticised. This seems like the logical worldview of a culture that values personal freedom and constitutional governing; the good guys are those who challenge their leaders and the leaders who can take criticism and work to improve themselves, while the villains demand unquestioning loyalty to authority.

edited 14th Jan '14 8:06:14 AM by Druplesnubb

It's often because the forces of good are an alliance of necessity in some form or other. Look at Lord Of The Rings or the Star Wars original trilogy. Good lacks unity because "good" is really self-interested in a different sense, usually of preserving the status quo. The forces of evil are unified by fear of force, so they likely have a lot of disunity under the surface, but the strength of the leader's personality and the threat of terror they might impose keeps the peace (like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or Syria under Assad. The societies are actually fractious as hell)