Talk:Emerald Sustrai/@comment-26129461-20150620122517/@comment-25555436-20150620140103

@Maki: Sympathetic villains are more likeable, and more interesting. What you're saying Maki, is entirely different. One thing is making a villain more complex, and sympathetic. Another thing is making them look like angels and making the heroes seem like the real villains.

They need to be evil, and they easily can still be evil after being made complex and sympathetic. For example, a villain that is trying to plunge the world into utter chaos and destruction. Eeeevil. But said villain has a reason for this goal: He had a shitty life where he saw the worst of the world. And despite being evil, he has some redeemable qualities.

Result: A villain that keeps being evil, and the heroes keep looking like heroes, but also has a backstory and a pair of traits that make him more sympathetic, likeable and interesting to the audience. No need for neutrality, unless you're specifically going for Moral Ambiguity.

If you give the audience a simple villain with nothing redeemable or anything that could cause any sympathy, you end up making a dull villain that rarely anyone remembers unless they suffer Draco In Leather Pants (or are in a kids show). Of course, you can't either give a villain that seems more heroic than the heroes, that is even worse. You need to be in the center of the scale.

Roman can easily go the Joker route; a tragic backstory, yet the character itself is obviously, utterly evil. However, they are evil in a way that makes them cool and interesting despite lack of redeemable traits. A kind of evil the audience loves and doesn't need more spice. However, currently Roman seems to be the only one to be capable of going this route.