I see so much writing advice saying that the villain is supposed to have believable and interesting motivations, and the hero is supposed to have a reason to be invested in the plot, and this "good idea vs reason to maintain status quo" stuff falls right out of it.
I hate the idea that “interesting/plausible/human” is considered by some to be synonymous with “sympathetic/noble”. Plenty of evil or amoral personalities with long backgrounds and complex/contradicting personalities can be found within our own history. The rise of Fascism, for example, has so much more to it than “people in black shirts doing bad things for shits and giggles”.
I see so much writing advice saying that the villain is supposed to have believable and interesting motivations, and the hero is supposed to have a reason to be invested in the plot, and this "good idea vs reason to maintain status quo" stuff falls right out of it.
Make a proactive hero for once, cowards.
I hate the idea that “interesting/plausible/human” is considered by some to be synonymous with “sympathetic/noble”. Plenty of evil or amoral personalities with long backgrounds and complex/contradicting personalities can be found within our own history. The rise of Fascism, for example, has so much more to it than “people in black shirts doing bad things for shits and giggles”.
deleted by creator
Yeah, exactly. I dislike the tragic/sympathetic villain trope. I want a good reason to defeat them outside of "oh but they're a little extreme"
Make villains villainous again.
It's even worse when they make the hero team up with a shitty person who happens to be on your side.
Villain: Has a point, but murders puppies for no reason.
Hero: Kills villain.
Hero to villain's second in command: "Hey, you don't murder puppies for no reason, do you?"
Second: "Uh, no, why?"
Hero: "Great, you're in charge now. Also I'm joining you."
At least make a sympathetic backstory that makes the villain irrational and insane, ffs