What Are All The Types Of Villains You Can Think Of?

[Bamax]

Sometimes it is really obvious. Other times not so much.

Want an example of the not so obvious? War. Two sides fighting... I am sure there are respectable guys on both sides who in their normal life hold the door open for others and pay their bills on time. The only thing that makes them fight each other is their leaders.


Want an example where the difference between villainy and heroism is super obvious?



The hero more or less tells the villain to care about others and not to drop them to their deaths ("Don't do it Gobby!")

The villain, if he wanted to be sarcastic and chew the scenery more he could have replied, "Why? This is all your fault and you know it. You wanted to play hero so play!"

I think there are many key differences that separate villains from heroes, so that there is no one size that will fit all villains so to speak.

There are immoral villains like the Green Goblin who think they are accountable to no one, which leads them into battle against the hero who naturally will hold them accountable.

There are also villains who are just doing their job, because it is their duty and that is all they feel. It's not personal.

Any other villain types I may have missed?

[Keklas Rekobah]

It is easy.

Villains act; heroes react.

Heroes have morals; villains have work-ethic.

Villains sacrifice others for personal gain; heroes sacrifice themselves to benefit others.

Sometimes, however, it just depends on who is on which side of the airlock.

[Bamax]

It is easy.

Villains act; heroes react.

Heroes have morals; villains have work-ethic.

Villains sacrifice others for personal gain; heroes sacrifice themselves to benefit others.

Sometimes, however, it just depends on who is on which side of the airlock.

You just described immoral type villains, which I previously showed an example of.

But yeah... sometimes villains are just following orders.

I imagine that is exactly the case for some Umiak, while no doubt there are also some immoral Umiak villains that also exist, just like immoral Loroi villains likely exist since organized crime exists among Loroi.

I guess I will think of one more type besides immoral and duty villains.

Heroic villains: These guys actually think THEY are the hero and the hero is the villain and they are doing the right thing. Contrast that with immoral villains like the Green Goblin who knows he is the villain but hates the hero because they are good and a hero.

I imagine there are individual Umiak that could fit this niche well also

[Snoofman]

It is easy.

Villains act; heroes react.

Heroes have morals; villains have work-ethic.

Villains sacrifice others for personal gain; heroes sacrifice themselves to benefit others.

Sometimes, however, it just depends on who is on which side of the airlock.

You just described immoral type villains, which I previously showed an example of.

But yeah... sometimes villains are just following orders.

I imagine that is exactly the case for some Umiak, while no doubt there are also some immoral Umiak villains that also exist, just like immoral Loroi villains likely exist since organized crime exists among Loroi.

I guess I will think of one more type besides immoral and duty villains.

Heroic villains: These guys actually think THEY are the hero and the hero is the villain and they are doing the right thing. Contrast that with immoral villains like the Green Goblin who knows he is the villain but hates the hero because they are good and a hero.

I imagine there are individual Umiak that could fit this niche well also

There could also be villains among the loroi ranks who exploit the their inferiors.

[Arioch]

Villains create problems; heroes solve them.

[Werra]

Unless the villain is pragmatic. Then he solves lots of problems, permanently.

[SVlad]

Villains can believe that they are heroes who solve problems.

[G. Janssen]

Heroes are the shallow, goody two-shoes characters in most stories. Villains are the ones who have depth, character, cunning and intelligence. Villains are interesting.
I'll take Darth Sidious over the infantile, idiotic Jedi anytime.
I'll take Lex Luthor over Superman anytime.
Omni-Man and Homelander ftw.
Any movie that has a villain or very flawed hero in it as a protagonist ceases to be fun and becomes boring when the villain becomes stereotypically good. See Megamind, Hancock (he really should have 'failed' catching that kid) & Despicable Me.
Why do people skip to the end of a thriller? To see who did the killing, how it was done and why. People want to learn about the villain. Not about the protagonist who doesn't surprise at all by solving the case.
Why did you watch Roadrunner cartoons? Was it to watch the running chicken say 'meep meep'? No, you wanted to watch the coyote. And deep, deep down, you wanted him to catch that annoying bird after all those failed attempts, butcher it and eat it.

[Bamax]

Heroes are the shallow, goody two-shoes characters in most stories. Villains are the ones who have depth, character, cunning and intelligence. Villains are interesting.
I'll take Darth Sidious over the infantile, idiotic Jedi anytime.
I'll take Lex Luthor over Superman anytime.
Omni-Man and Homelander ftw.
Any movie that has a villain or very flawed hero in it as a protagonist ceases to be fun and becomes boring when the villain becomes stereotypically good. See Megamind, Hancock (he really should have 'failed' catching that kid) & Despicable Me.
Why do people skip to the end of a thriller? To see who did the killing, how it was done and why. People want to learn about the villain. Not about the protagonist who doesn't surprise at all by solving the case.
Why did you watch Roadrunner cartoons? Was it to watch the running chicken say 'meep meep'? No, you wanted to watch the coyote. And deep, deep down, you wanted him to catch that annoying bird after all those failed attempts, butcher it and eat it.

You are right of course.... partially.

Occasionally goody two shoes guys CAN show depth.

Indeed check out Superman here. Guy has known a lot more than he lets on... even as Superman.

And Lex finally realizes it. It's a really touching scene that pulls at the heart strings.

[Bamax]

Villains create problems; heroes solve them.

That is true even on a personal level. Everyday I should ask myself am I solving more problems than I am creating... it's a good modus operandi to live by.

Thanks!

Am I more hero than villain (don't answer it it's a rhetorical question)?

[Bamax]

Unless the villain is pragmatic. Then he solves lots of problems, permanently.

Yet he is still considered a villain for causing problems... for everyone not on his side.

Zod would qualify. I also agree that in this film he was more complex as a character and even had more lines than Superman, so he was far more interesting.

[Arioch]

Perhaps it's better to use the terms antagonist and protagonist rather than villain and hero, as in the mechanics of literature these roles have nothing to do with good or evil or likeability or relatability.

All stories are about conflict, and the role of the antagonist is to create that conflict. Antagonists don't have to be evil, and the best antagonists have very good reasons for doing what they're doing, but if the antagonist wasn't creating some kind of chaos or problem that needed to be solved, then there wouldn't be a story.

Solving this problem is the job of the hero or protagonist or main character, which are often interchangeable terms for the same role, but not always. The protagonist is not always heroic, and sometimes the hero is not the protagonist. Examples of the latter are Philippe Gaston in Ladyhawke (who is an assistant to Navarre, the actual hero), or Ahmed in The Thirteenth Warrior (who does some heroic things, but is really secondary to Buliwyf).

[DevilDalek]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[Bamax]

Perhaps it's better to use the terms antagonist and protagonist rather than villain and hero, as in the mechanics of literature these roles have nothing to do with good or evil or likeability or relatability.

All stories are about conflict, and the role of the antagonist is to create that conflict. Antagonists don't have to be evil, and the best antagonists have very good reasons for doing what they're doing, but if the antagonist wasn't creating some kind of chaos or problem that needed to be solved, then there wouldn't be a story.

Solving this problem is the job of the hero or protagonist or main character, which are often interchangeable terms for the same role, but not always. The protagonist is not always heroic, and sometimes the hero is not the protagonist. Examples of the latter are Philippe Gaston in Ladyhawke (who is an assistant to Navarre, the actual hero), or Ahmed in The Thirteenth Warrior (who does some heroic things, but is really secondary to Buliwyf).

When you say good, I do not think you mean necessarily ethically good, but rather a reasonable reason for doing evil as opposed to the green goblin who at times seemed he was evil just because he enjoyed being evil... which is not a reason most can sympathize with.

I can actually sympathize with Zod as he is doing literally what he was made to do.

Some say he could have terraformed mars but if mars were a better place to terraform he would be have gone there.

Earth was their only way he could see to revive his world.

[Werra]

Good and evil in the moral sense also fits. Not all stories have antagonists that are morally evil or heroes that are good. Achilles for example is a really shitty person, but definitely a hero.

[Bamax]

Good and evil in the moral sense also fits. Not all stories have antagonists that are morally evil or heroes that are good. Achilles for example is a really shitty person, but definitely a hero.

Yeah morals do not necessarily matter when even villains can be heroic.

Magneto in cartoons and comics is a bit of a wildcard. One moment he is helping and fighting alongside the heroes, the next he is fighting against them.

Magneto is a villain who moonlights as a hero whenever he feels like it.

Magneto does solve problems that is for sure.