Are Pure evil/Complete Monster villains realistic?

I, personally, keep going back and forth on this issue. Certainly people exist who lack empathy, are completely selfish, and are willing to harm others to get their way, while other people exist who do take pleasure in other people's pain. Yet, I still believe that truly 'evil' people are just a matter of perspective. Hitler, for example, would've been considered a hero in history if his plan had actually worked. As bad as we may think of him now, the Germans needed him. Germany was going through some rough economic times and needed a hero, and that hero was Hitler. And although the idea of exterminating all of the races from the Earth until only the master race remains may seem horrific, in the end, he thought he was going to make the world a better place. You may not agree with his ideals, but surely his intentions were good.

Not that that excuses anything he did. My point is that evil people are only evil because we say it is, because we disagree with what they do and why they do it. We label them as evil so we don't have to concern ourselves with the reasons. It's simply easier to say that they possess a quality that causes them to do things that we don't understand.

At worst, I would say that sadistic people exist. Surely, there are people out there who do intentionally mean to do others harm. These are the bullies who attempt to put other people down in order to make themselves feel people. These people who embarrass others for their own amusement. By themselves, these people can't truly be called evil. They're petty and not at all enjoyable to be around, but they can't do much damage on their own. It's when these type of people are placed in positions of power, or given some weapon, power, or other advantage that they could really do some harm.

It sounds like you're asking if Chaotic Evil is possible in real life. I've got two words for you: Domestic terrorism. Hell, terrorism in general, but it takes a special kind of evil to do it against your own countrymen as opposed to a nation. Do it against another nation and you can explain it on terms of politics or religion; do it against your own people and we're going into ethnic cleansing/psychopathy territory.

A Card-Carrying Villain does evil things because those things are evil. A Complete Monster does evil things because he or she is an evil person who does not care about right or wrong - whether they were born a monster or became one. There's a large difference between doing evil because it's evil and doing evil because YOU are evil. There are some very, very, very bad people out there.

EDIT: My point is, you can write a Complete Monster without crossing into unrealistic For the Evulz or Card-Carrying Villain territory.

edited 19th Sep '11 7:15:02 PM by LoganLocksley

Yes, exactly. This was the point I was trying to make - villains motivated solely by For the Evulz are unrealistic, but that sort of villain is not one and the same as a Complete Monster.

eh, isnt it possible its For The Evuls from our perspective

but just an honest case of differing morals for the actual complete monster?

edited 20th Sep '11 6:54:50 AM by Tarsen

A Complete Monster can do plenty of things For the Evulz, but if that's his primary motivation, he won't be realistic.

edited 20th Sep '11 6:56:16 AM by tropetown

Terrorism is evil, yes, but they don't do it just for kicks. They have motives, which is the important distinction between a Card-Carrying Villain and a realistic one.

Terrorism by definition creates chaos on a large scale for many reasons; be it ideological, political, or for shits and giggles. Under the definition of Character Alignment, the first part (order, chaos) is action while the second part (good, evil) is intent. If your actions are chaotic for evil means regardless of the end goal of establishing a new order (theocracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc.), it makes you Chaotic Evil.

It takes a special kind of monster to create chaos for evil means because nothing kills on a large scale like chaos: when neighbor kills neighbor, countryman kills countryman, brother kills brother. That is a complete monster by definition.

edited 20th Sep '11 10:00:42 AM by EnglishMajor

Most terrorists don't have evil intentions, though. On the contrary. And no, that's not the definition of a Complete Monster. Complete monsters, among other things, lack any altruistic qualities. That makes most terrorists (or all) impossible to be one.

From the entry on Complete Monster:

(I bolded the text)

So a terrorist could or could not be considered a Complete Monster depending on whether or not the observer thinks his justification is strong enough. A Complete Monster isn't really a subjective trope but in the context of being labeled, it is. If you sympathize with the terrorist or his cause, he's not a Complete Monster to you but if you're simply viewing him as a violent monster who murdered your child, he probably would be.

That seems a difficult premise to sustain. How many terrorist movements are successful? Even when you could claim a win, it's more often because their enemies sought to destroy them by destroying the legitimacy of their complaints rather than because they accomplished...whatever they thought they were going to accomplish.

It is a conviction born of rage and like most such convictions there's a pointlessness, a nihilism, to it.

I agree with what Logan said. Whether or not someone is a terrorist doesn't automatically make them a Complete Monster; many terrorists would actually fall under Well-Intentioned Extremist, instead. On the other hand, someone who was a terrorist because they were a sadist, despite the cause, could be considered one.

You stated it more clearly than I did. :)

edited 22nd Sep '11 11:56:49 AM by LoganLocksley

I don't find Complete Monsters interesting. I prefer layered antagonists with good sides.

Can a Complete Monster be done realistically? Probably, if written well enough (e.g. make it clear that they lack empathy, not that that's enough to make a Complete Monster). But I'd still much rather read about an antagonist who struggles with him/herself and has shades of light.

"Are Pure evil/Complete Monster villains realistic?"

That depends, does the following scenario sound realistic?

There's this high school. A boy and a girl from that high school start dating. The boy is a mellow, sarcastic, bisexual Jerk with a Heart of Gold who usually has a lot of suitors but is secretly looking for the right person (READ: yes the "bisexual" part is relevant). The girl is popular, rich and snobbish. The girl likes to treat people she doesn't like very badly. Even her boyfriend's sister. And said sister is supposed to be her best friend. The boy doesn't like this but he sticks by her because by now he's convinced she's the one. What he doesn't know is that the girl doesn't love him. She's only dating him because everyone else wants to and because he's rich. The way she sees it, he's her key to further popularity.

One day, five months after their first date, the boy is listening to the girl talking with her Girl Posse when he has an epiphany; "Wait a minute! Why am I dating this girl? I don't even like her!" He then realizes that she's not the one, he only liked her because she was pretty. He calmly asks her to come and talk to him in front of the lockers and tells her that it's over. She's furious and shouts at him that he'd "never do better than her". They go their separate ways afterwards, but the girl isn't done with him yet. She decides to spread a rumor that the only reason the boy broke up with her is because he had sex with her. He never had sex with her (he thought about it, but had enough restraint brush those thoughts off), but the school wouldn't believe him and the fact that he was bisexual certainly didn't help. The girl gets treated like an innocent victim and the boy's reputation is ruined. After about a month, however, the girl reaps the benefit of having (fake) experience by manipulating a fair amount of boys into having sex with her.

Another month later the boy falls in love with and starts dating another boy. The other boy had just recently come out of the closet and is still somewhat insecure about his homosexuality. When the first boy's ex-girlfriend spots them kissing behind the school, she gets really mad. And then she hears the second boy say that he doesn't want to be too public about their relationship because he doesn't want the school to know he's gay yet. The girl has an idea; she sneaks into the back of the school and hides a video camera which records the two boys when they start kissing. The next day, she shows the tape on the morning announcements, revealing the relationship to the entire school. The second boy is completely humiliated in front of the entire school. People start talking about him behind his back. He gets homophobic messages in his locker and textbooks. It all eventually culminates into him getting attacked in the halls by a Gang of Bullies while they hold his boyfriend back and force him to watch. They are dispersed by the teacher, who then asks the second boy to go into her classroom alone. She gives him some encouraging words, telling him that his sexuality doesn't make him any better or worse than anyone else, as well as revealing that she herself is a lesbian. The second boy feels better about himself afterward.

But will the ex-girlfriend have any of that? No she will not. She starts harassing the boys every chance she can, insulting them, writing insulting things and homophobic slurs in their lockers and textbooks, sticking a razorblade in the second boy's textbook at one point, sending them death threats in the mail, telling the second boy that he "should've killed [him]self after [she] showed that videotape", and even harassing their friends for no real reason. Eventually, she finally gets in trouble. She responds by asking her father to transfer her to another school, which he complies to. The boys and their friends never see her again and are glad to be rid of her. At her new school, she continues to make peoples' lives miserable. In her adult years, she's married to a rich man. She lives the life of luxury. She has no regrets or remorse for her treatment of people and continues to look down on them to this very day. But there's good news; the boys and their friends moved on and forgot about her, even living great lives themselves (the two boys get married and adopt a young girl, for example).

What do you think about that? It's basically a character summary for Marylin Carter, a character from my unpublished shonen ai novel series Crushed and the antagonist of book 2 (or at least I think it's book 2). Does she come across as a complete monster to you guys? More importantly, is she realistic?

edited 29th Mar '12 5:59:12 PM by CJCroen1393

Before anyone will critique it, would you mind parsing that into smaller paragraphs? Nobody likes to read Walls Of Text, you know?

No.

I don't think she's unrealistic, going by that summary. Women scorned (and men, for that matter) can do extreme things out of the desire to hurt the person who dumped them. Some of her actions come off as a bit melodramatic (like her spreading the rumour that she dumped him because she let him sleep with her), but it might come across as more natural in the actual novel as opposed to a short summary.

As for whether she's a Complete Monster, I think I'd need to see the actual story to be able to tell. Her actions towards the protagonist are certainly horrific, but that's all you've given us: we don't know if she loves her father, is nice to her friends, has some psychological problem behind her overreaction towards getting dumped, etc. Having any of these things still wouldn't make her a nice person, but she wouldn't be a Complete Monster.

She sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain and a strawman form of the rich popular girl.

Thanks for the feedback!

I thought about your critique and here's my idea:

In regards to how much she likes her friends and family; no offense, but I don't think having a relative or friend that they like makes a complete monster any less of a monster. I mean (this is provided that you're a Harry Potter fan) if Dolores Umbridge said "I haven't seen my sister in ages. I think I'll invite her to tea next Tuesday!" while in the middle of sicking Dementors on a group of muggle-borns would you say "Oh, she has a sister that she likes, well then she's not a monster she's just a normal villain"?

Because I wouldn't. If anything, it would make her more repulsive to me.

It's true that Even Evil Has Loved Ones but even if a complete monster has them that doesn't automatically exempt them from being a monster, especially if their cruelty outweighs any compassion to others. I never meant for Marylin to have a major role for more than just one book, so her father and Girl Posse will have even less appearances. If I flesh out her family life off-page, however, I'd say her parents spoil her and give her anything she wants, and her girl posse are mostly just bratty yes-women. I also imagine that her parents and friends are rather homophobic, but in the case of her friends, she probably just influenced them into that. The homophobia might have a Freudian Excuse but her cruelty and social climbing are her own choice. I also imagine that even her girl posse and parents think she goes too far, but her parents took the coward's way out and just decided that they had no other choice but to transfer her.

As for her overreaction, she's obsessed with upping her own status so I honestly view her as the type who only had eyes for Jack (that's his name) because he was the only popular guy who was single. Her treatment of Toby (Jack's new boyfriend) is out of a mix of spite, revenge, and homophobia.

Well, okay I guess there are melodramas here and there and she may not be construed as a CM. I'll always see her as such. I have other CMs in my other works, but she and Terrance are the only "realistic" ones I could think of and Terrance is a bit too simplistic (he's Kevin's Depraved Homosexual/Domestic Abuser ex-boyfriend).

Again, thanks for the critique! I'll try to get better if I can!

edited 29th Mar '12 6:02:27 PM by CJCroen1393

The fleshing out example provided there doesn't even really make her any less unrealistic.

Okay, I've been hearing a lot from you. Here's my question: do you hate her?

Because if you do, then I'm at least doing part of my job right.

Also, this is a work in progress, so I still have room to improve.

Not really. She seems so over-the-top "evil" that she just comes across more as a plot device than as an actual character.

According to The Other Wiki:

The More You Know. As for domestic terrorists, there's a reason so many of them write giant manifestos (remember this one from the pilot who crashed his plane into an IRS building in 2010?): they have goals they're attempting to accomplish, so they fall into Well-Intentioned Extremist or Visionary Villain. A true Complete Monster would have to do it with no end goal in mind (not even suicide).

YMMV on that.

She seems realistic (and awful) enough to me as the girl who cannot let go.

edited 5th Mar '12 12:15:35 PM by JewelyJ