Board Thread:Speculation House/@comment-92.18.23.124-20180102213820/@comment-5426254-20180103055401

Wow. See, my standard for villainy is to see how much of a badass and a challenge that they pose for a hero. They have to be serious, and completely dangerous. Everything Cinder, Adam and Raven do is something a toddler would come up with. And they're doing most of the grunt work on the villiains' side.

Villains aren't simply supposed to show up and be a force of evil - they're also characters in a story, and thus have to be well-written. They have to be a serious threat for the heroes, for that is their job. What these three did with their dog-kicking and illogical plans prove that they are nothing more to be set up to be defeated from the very beginning.

This black and white morality that you look the villains on as if they only exist for your judgment on their morals alone illustrates a failing to understand the nuance behind their existence - and why they do the things that they do, and how effective are they in being a threat to the heroes. While I appreciate force of evil characters, these three are done so terribly in the worst way possible, that it is entirely pointless.

It especially irks me because they have potential to be complex (Adam is a Faunus - could've used him as a mouthpiece for how bad the Faunuophobia is in Remnant, Cinder seeks power and loathes the Maiden system and the concept of destiny - could've shown her why the Maiden system is flawed, Raven abandons Ozpin's cause -could've used her to show why Ozpin makes stupid mistakes). But no. Just three generic punching bags.

There has to be some nuance or complexity, and competence coming from villains as a whole, in order to see from their POV and gain insight behind their decisions. Otherwise, there's no real tension, no real stakes.