Is the Card-Carrying Villain a Necessarily Bad Type of Villain?

When I think of a Card-Carrying Villain, I think of a cackling, mustache-twirling nere-do-well that constantly boasts about how evil they are yet are completely incompetent and their misdeeds are pathetically minor. Many people also say the Card-Carrying Villain is one of the most boring and unrealistic types of villains out there. As most villains in real life don't actually see themselves as evil and view their actions as for the greater good.

Do you think the Card-Carrying Villain can be done in a believable manner? Or it is as generic as people say it is?

I think believable card carrying villains ARE used in the media...they're called Sadists and sociopaths. Well, a sadist anyway, I'm not too sure sociopaths really care about/enjoy the suffering, they just use it as a means.

It can be played realistically.

I mean, the fundemental problem is that people are more likely to become Straw Nihilists than Card Carrying Villains, but the latter does exist.

The best justification I can think of for Card Carrying Villain is a person who takes No Such Thing As Bad Plublicity to a logical extreme. They believe it's better to be infamous than obscure, so they decide to go out of their way to make everyone hate their guts.

I've met some people in real life who are like that. They're so desperate for attention that they believe any attention at all, even outright hatred, is preferable to being ignored.

Would a Complete Monster be more reprehensible as a Card-Carrying Villain than a Knight Templar? After all, they're fully aware of and taking pleasure in their evil deeds rather than trying to justify them as "for the greater good".

I'd say so. Technically, a Knight Templar is a well-intentioned extremist of some sort.

A good formula for how evil a character is goes something like this:

Monstrosity x Scale / Justification = Evil

Also, would a God of Evil rank higher than an Eldritch Abomination? (Though the two tropes overlap numerous times.)

An eldritch abomination is usually depicted as either not noticing or not caring too much about their destruction, it's just we happen to think they look Brown Note and/or can't get out of their way in time. They're as personable as any other natural disaster. They're a tragedy, yes, but you can't hate them specifically, just pick up the pieces and move on. Think of it this way: How many times do you worry about killing a family of dust mites-which may be totally blameless and upstanding as teensy bugs go-when you wash your bedclothes?

A God of Evil goes out of its way to cause trouble and suffering. It's making everyone miserable and having fun with it. It's like a bratty kid with a magnifying glass lazering ants to death.

The overall competence and evilness level of a Card-Carrying Villain is based on the tone and nature of the work they're featured in right? Be it comedic or serious?

Ali Al Sanchez from Mobile Suit Gundam 00 is a Card-Carrying Villain (is his damn catchphrase) and he is a really, really serious enemy. He is really competent.

edited 10th Nov '15 3:03:03 PM by KazuyaProta

Also, a downplayed/subverted example of this trope might be people who say they're evil as self-deprecating humor or to parody what their opponents believe about them. For example, a conservative youtube channel I frequent likes to joke about how they're "eeevuuul"

Can someone put two lists of Card-Carrying Villains that are a Harmless Villain or Complete Monster?

Both the Joker and pre-New 52 Black Manta would be examples of Card Carrying Villain played seriously.

How about Warhammer 40,000?

Classing 40K as played seriously is somewhat difficult. The grimdark is so extreme it becomes downright funny.

I had an idea for a character who, though not technically a card carrying villain, tries to play up their image as one. (He's actually has an ideology he supports, however-he just pretends to be a card-carrying villain)

He's an agent who works for The Empire. His job is to commit deeds so pointlessly over-the-top evil they become a sort of Cassandra Truth: The Empire can just write them off as "Enemy Propaganda".

edited 15th Nov '15 1:56:43 AM by Protagonist506

I'm thinking about a story where a Card-Carrying Villain and Knight Templar are bitter archnemeses. Also, the Card-Carrying Villain is a Complete Monster while the Knight Templar is a Tragic Villain. The latter's disgust toward the former proudly embracing his evil nature eventually leads to him having a Heel Realization and seeking to undo all the crimes he has done for his cause.

Also, I'm picturing a scenario where a comical and incompetent Card-Carrying Villain meets a dark and serious one.

"Villains" and real life don't go together, in my opinion. I also have to disagree that not everyone asshole out there about 'the greater good.' People tend to justify their actions, sure, but that doesn't necessarily make them knight templar-ish, just a bit of a selfish prick. I should know, I'm a selfish prick myself in my day to day life. But I digress.

Card-carrying villains, I think, can be very effective depending on how they're written. Of course, if you stick to some blatant examples (such as the wackier cartoon villains, or some comic supervillains), you'd view them as ineffectual, but even then 'bad' may not be the correct term as it's entirely dependent on the creator in question's intention. Some card-carrying villains are extremely menacing, like Ledger's Joker, as mentioned before.

Only when da Orks are involved. ;P

I'm a writer and I "specialize" in villains. I've written a couple of Card-Carrying Villains successfully; it seems to be more about how their actions mesh with the images they're projecting, as far as how seriously you can take them.

I also have a third one I'm working on who is a subversion, because I like to experiment. So far it seems to be working (it's a series).

If I understand what a Card Carrying Villain is, all you really need to do is make it so that he acknowledges what he does, even give a sense of pride to it in an Izaya Orihara fashion. Or, you could place them in a world which if he acted any other way, he could not obtain attention toward his goal, even if this attention is self-destructive in nature. Basically, this guy HAS to be seen, even if someone else, evil or otherwise, can easily overthrow/ursurp him.

So basically: The card carrying villain can just be a bully.

edited 15th Jan '16 11:07:41 PM by JacksonStillburn

I think it can depend on the tone and what the underlying message of the story is.

On the other hand, with dedicated lunatics like ISIS out there, truth is stranger than fiction.

With any villain (or hero) the key is believability. If their motivation is somewhat sympathetic or understandable (even if it only makes sense to the villain) they'll seem more like a person and less like a cartoon.

ISIS are not Card Carrying Villains. To portray them as such is to entirely miss the point. They're terrible people, but they have an ideology and most of them believe in it. They don't see themselves as evil, and to posit that they do is to reduce real life conflict to the level of a cartoon.

edited 30th Mar '16 9:29:42 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Yeah, radical ideologies such as ISIS are decidedly not Card Carrying Villains. They're actually closer to Knight Templar.

The closest in real life you'll come to a Card-Carrying Villain is a troll of some sort. People who try to be evil to gain attention, for example.

edited 30th Mar '16 3:33:48 PM by Protagonist506

I've played around with it and do think it's doable. I do it with one character and one only. With regards to how I approach it, it's a matter of them approaching it with an Evil Is Cool mentality as well as somewhat mocking the concept of evil as they don't actually believe in it. They're aware of other people's impressions, however, so that's part of the fun (for them).

At any rate, I'd say, assessing my own approach, that motive is key.