Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Villain Protagonist is someone whose intentions and/or actions are explicitly evil, but acts as the protagonist for the story. Its definition is clear, and it's not a subjective trope. An Anti-Villain has heroic or at least sympathetic goals but takes evil actions to accomplish them, and may also be a Villain Protagonist. A Knight Templar does evil actions but deludes him/herself into believing that s/he is doing good. An Anti-Hero is a character who serves as the hero but who may not have heroic goals, or who pays evil unto evil.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Uh-uh. Evil actions have nothing to do with it. Is he opposing someone? He is a villain. Everything he does could be of good intention and he'd still be the villain. In fact, he may sincerely be doing his best to do good, but is not perceiving that he is blocking good.
I added an illustrative example from Macbeth to clear it up a bit.
Edited by FastEddie Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty@Fast Eddie: Yeah, "opposing someone" can be applied to anyone in any conflict ever.
Do you mean "he is opposing good?" Or "he is fighting for something that, ultimately, is a bad outcome?"
Eddie, "antagonist" means "against the protagonist"note —unless it's a "man against self" plot, a single character cannot be both the protagonist (the requirement for the trope) and the antagonist. The trope is when an evilnote character is the protagonist. If this evil character is the antagonist, then it's not the trope.
As other people have pointed out, "against someone" is a useless measure for this, because everyone in a conflict, regardless of morality, are against the people they're having conflict with. Every morally good hero is against the evildoers, but that doesn't make the hero a Villain Protagonist. A villain protagonist needs to be both the main character (or focus character, or protagonist, or whatever other term you prefer) and "against what is good".
To use Macbeth as an example, Macbeth is a Villain Protagonist. He does clearly morally wrong things, but he is the main character of the story (the protagonist). Macduff is the antagonist of the story, even though he is the one who is morally right. (I'll also note that your trying-to-be-clarifying example makes no sense to me.)
Edited by NocturnaIn "If I were an Evil Overlord" collection, edited by Martin H. Greenberg and Russell Davis, most of the stories focus on the POV of (would-be/actual) overlords in question. They are the protagonists of their stories. They are undoubtedly bad, shown or told to be such by their own actions, making them quite clearly villains.
"To Sit in Darkness Here, Hatching Vain Empires" by Steven A. Roman does not have the protagonist facing 'good guy' opposition for most of his story. But a badly misjudged take-over-the-world scheme not only offs the hero, it causes incredible destruction. Afterwards, he kills his incredibly loyal lover, he poisons his eight-year-old niece. And most of his followers. Because he fouled up, both with his Tot W attempt and not ensuring there were enough resources to see them through the escape plan. He is, beyond doubt, a horrible, evil person. Even if his name is Professor Plum. Heroes in the same position handle it very differently
The character the protagonist displays, and how they handle events that balk or stop them, says more about whether they are a villain or not then who or what is opposing them.
Edit: Roman's story is written completely in the first person.
Edited by Candi Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry PratchettJust to alert, Nano Moose removed the example again with the following edit reason: "There's a distinction between "past deeds" and "narrative role". He's not an antagonist - his role in the story is not defined by his opposition to another character/institution/system/et cetera, and his awful past is just that - past. Doing bad things makes one a villain, not having done bad things. Otherwise a lot of Well Intentioned Extremists would actually be heroes because in the past, they did things that were good."
Basically, Villain Protagonist only counts if he was delivering Ellie to her death and knew exactly what he was doing, as well as still stabbing survivors for their supplies. It's no longer the case - it should be Retired Monster.
Ah, I was wondering if I should have brought this here before it turned into an edit war - but I'm very shy about entering such discussion. Sorry.
I did consider the removal very carefully, but what ultimately made me go for it was reading through the examples on the Villain Protagonist page itself and comparing them with Joel, relative to the stories they were in (as well as looking up the definitions of both protagonist and antagonist, though they were only slightly helpful). Sticking a moral judgement as definite as "villain" (or "hero") on almost anybody in the main story of The Last of Us is very difficult, and in the end I just couldn't find it for Joel. Not as he is. If we knew exactly what he'd done post-prologue, maybe it would be easier, but we don't. Not explicitly.
Do we have a consensus that the trope doesn't apply? If so, can someone who is not me kindly wipe the example and explain? I'd like to be sure this doesn't continue, especially with me.
If not, I think the explanation should take into account the relative morals of everyone else in the game, not just Joel. If anyone can explain to me how Joel is objectively as bad as/worse than the worst in the game, and just when Joel does anything wrong that isn't justified by the extreme situations (survival, ethical, emotional) he finds himself in - especially showing malice - I'll fold. But I truly think that the story overall is too ethically grey, uncertain and survival-oriented to make that judgement. Even the end is much less clear-cut than it might appear, no matter what stance you take.
Edited by NanoMooseI don't know the game either. If his actions being villainous are an interpretation, not enshrined in the story itself, then it gets very fuzzy. Villain Protagonist is rarely ambiguous. A criminal who serves as the protagonist because he is fighting worse criminals would count. An Anti-Hero who believes in Pay Evil unto Evil is not, no matter how nasty his actions are, because he occupies a heroic role. A criminal who has reformed and wishes to go straight would probably fall under the Anti-Hero label.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, exactly. The wording makes it sound like it's a fan interpretation (which happens annoyingly often).

16 august, Nano Moose removed a Villain Protagonist example in The Last of Us with the following reason: "A Villain Protagonist isn't a protagonist who's done bad things; they actively do evil things for evil reasons. Joel is ruthlessly pragmatic and selfish, not evil." 3 Sep, Ronin X put this back with the following edit reason:"Regardless of intentions, someone who does bad things is a villain. For example, a great number of fictional works contain a villain who is simple a Well Intentioned Extremist." Look, this is not (yet) an edit war, was a bad idea i alert this?