Are Human Villains Necessarily Scarier than Non-Human Ones?

Many people say villains are their absolute worst when they're simple human beings and that non-human villains come off as less frightening because of how they're easily identified as threats and their nature mitigates their viciousness.

So what do you think? Do you think the best kind of villain should strictly be human? Or can supernatural horrors be worse than humans in a way?

edited 31st Oct '16 5:43:36 PM by superboy313

I think the human/non-human difference doesn't really add all that much to villain quality. They're simply different types of fears.

With human villain, it's kind of "look, Humans Are Bastards, This Is Reality, there could plausibly be a person like this living next to you, isn't this terrifying?!" And when the villain is written well, it works, of course it does. Provided the villain is written well.

On the other hand, non-human villains are scary in another way. It's more of "look, this thing isn't human, it doesn't care about you, it doesn't understand you, you can't understand it, you don't even know why you're dying, isn't this terrifying?!" And again, this works, provided that the non-human threat is well-written.

As for me, I've seen both good human and inhuman villains and while I've always found human villains more loathesome and easier to hate, the non-human ones are somewhat more terrifying for me.

It's hard to say. The alien/supernatural villain can be more purely evil, because it's inherently inhuman, and isn't bound by the same patterns of thought and behavior as us. Thus, it can't really be judged by the same rules.

A human villain can (potentially) be more frightening, because of the "There but for the grace of God go I" factor. Like the Joker once said, "All it takes is one really bad day..." However, this assumes that the audience/protagonist can empathize or sympathize with the human villain in some way. If the human villain is just a one-dimensional, cartoonish Big Bad Evil Guy, it diminishes the impact.

Let me ask you (not directed at anyone particular).

Which is scarier, a superpowerful monster that threatens to destroy the universe?

Or a serial killer hiding under your bed?

There you have it.

I'd say it depends on the person and depends on the writing, really.

For example I find slasher movies a lot scarier when the villain is supernatural because a human villain, I could conceivably conquer. I'd just need to best him physically. He's a human. He can bleed. He can die, I just need to figure out a effective method.

A supernatural abomination however, is the unknown flying against you. You don't know what it is, you don't know how to kill it, only that it defies everything that you've ever known. You're but a insect compared to it, and while you may fight back, you'll probably do nothing except delay (or sometimes speed up) the inevitable. Can it even die?

The human villain's scareness lies in being "real", a threat that might one day actually befall you, a supernatural villain's scareness lies in the exact opposite: It's everything you don't expect, everything you're not trained to deal with.

Either/or.

All types of fear are available to all villains, but some are more easily invoked than others. Human villains offer the horror of the familiar and intimate turned against and made bizarre, of the idea that everyone is about ready to snap and begin to slit throats.

Non-human villains offer the fear of the unknown, and the fear of the possibly unknowable; malevolent forces of nature, beyond comprehension, that cannot be avoided, bargained or reasoned with, fought or controlled. They exist and they destroy, but if you think you understand them beyond that point, they destroy that illusion as well.

edited 26th Oct '15 7:05:24 PM by Night

Exactly.

I personally have a preference for "non-human antiheroes contending with human villains" because it takes one badass mortal to threaten any of my demons. I like exploring jealousy, ambition, and ruthlessness in mortals while simultaneously exploring surprising generosity, unexpected humility, and incredible compassion in my demons. Not that demons are "good" or mortals "evil", but the mortals make excuses for their vices while demons are honest about them.

edited 26th Oct '15 7:20:08 PM by nekomoon14

I'd say it boils down to the type of scare itself, rather than the particular source. The Weeping Angels are incredibly inhuman, but utterly horrifying, because they literally kill you if you blink. That's where the scare comes from - they relate a simple and unavoidable daily occurrence to gruesome and painful death.

Meanwhile, the more you learn about actual criminal psychology rather than movie myths thereof, the less scary serial killers become. In reality, they are rare, disorganized, of less than average intelligence, prone to suicide once their illusory perception of the world is broken (as in, if any potential victim manages to fight back), and in general, there's a greater chance of getting killed by a falling flower pot than ever being threatened by one.

And now coming to a cinema near you: "Revenge of the Falling Flower Pots... 3!!!".

BTK and Zodiac.

Careful about generalization. (Also watch Criminal Minds.)

Given that two of the seven confirmed Zodiac victims survived, while BTK's capture resulted from him outright asking the police if he could be tracked, I think I'll stand by my statement. It's kinda like shark scares - even one case may be enough to trigger instinctive fears, but when it comes to rational considerations, the whole thing simply doesn't hold water.

I very much agree with what the second poster said, and I want to add something.

When it comes to villains, how "realistic" they are is actually far less important than a lot of people think. See, while you yourself know that a werewolf isn't real, it's real for the character in the story. And if the writer has done his job and made you like and sympathise with them, then you will fear for THEIR safety, even if you don't fear for your own.

Now, the counter argument to that, is: "But how can I empathise when the danger is so abstract and unrealistic?"

Fortunately, every single monster, human or otherwise, invokes very realistic terrors hardwired into our brain. Something like a Werewolf invokes the Primal Fear of being Eaten Alive, while a larger scale monster like Godzilla or Cthulhu invoke the equally primal fear of natural disasters.

In a sense they are, because they are more relatable, and thus we can see the monster than lies just beneath the surface, the monster that we all have the possibility to become...

Relatability is incredibly overrated.

Also, seeing the humanity in the monster can actually make it seem LESS scary. Now they're just human. And as pathetic as any other human.

I'm not saying it isn't, just that the closer to you are to the monster, the more you realize that that monster could easily have been you.

I understand. My counterpoint is that identifying yourself in the monster makes the monster less scary.

I do agree that the "Darker Mirror" trope has it's place. It serves as a great wake up call to the protagonist and it can help establish the hero and villain as equals, but if you're trying to use it as a source of FEAR, you're using it wrong.

And my counter-counterpoint is that seeing the monster in yourself can add a more psychological type of fear to a story. Especially if the hero is one of those "I'm the embodiment of good" types. But what do I know? These types of story arnt usually my specialty. :D

I don't know. I've never found that kind of thing really "scary". I'm not saying it has no effect, It's just never been something I've been afraid of.

Then again, "Good" and "Evil" are subjective to me. So a flip in philosophy really isn't that big of a deal.

Ya, same for me. I just thought I'd give this discussion a different point of view. *shrugs*.

And you were right to do so.

Thanks, I like to look at all viewpoints when in a discussion. While I personally don't see the world in "good" or "evil" I have to keep in mind the views of those who do.

edited 29th Oct '15 2:00:51 PM by AustinHinton

I'm the same way. Besides, you can't really call your belief's valid unless they've been challenged.

Those are true words buddy. Words I think more people should heed to.

@ndiana404: There are actually quite a few different types of serial murderers, some of which are of above-average intellect and exhibit a high level of organisation and self-awareness. But these are, indeed, extremely rare. The majority of violent serial offenders are not, say, the Green River Killer, and even then, running into one is highly unlikely either way. You're probably not even their "type," for one thing.

But let's set that aside. What Kakai and Night said already sums up my opinions on the matter, but I would like to add that the line is flexible. Something physically inhuman responding in an all-too-human way or a human being behaving in a truly alien fashion can really mess with you, if done properly.

As with a lot of writing tropes, this ultimately comes down to, as several people have remarked, a case of "how well written is it?" with a side dose of "what effect are you trying to achieve?"

One thing I will note is that human villains, like human characters in general, are liable to be easier to write than non-human ones, due to the simple fact that both author and audience are human.

And of course there are plenty of villains who walk the line. A vampire, when you get down to it, is a human villain granted the powers of a supernatural being. Its abilities are far beyond what a person can do, but its motivations are, in most cases, human and relatable. One of the things that makes the original Dracula a classic is the degree to which the Count is understandable. He's a very old, very bored, very bad man going on one last globe-trotting spree kill.