Sympathetic villains - how do you feel about them

[king81992]

Not to mention he was a paid assassin for years before his son died, just because he didn't want to be put out to pasture, right (I think, it's been a while since I read that)? No morality or even emotional justification for that.

I don't have a problem with that. I don't even consider those to be sympathetic villains (the categories you listed , I mean- alas several of the actual character have absolutely had the "sympathetic" treatment). But I'm talking about when it results in fans clamoring for their redemption, deliberate attempts by writers to make you pity them, or heroes respecting them or liking them, despite their deeds (particularly annoying when it results in fans/characters/creators blaming someone else for the villain's deeds). All of which happen a lot in comics. And popular ones can end up with their bad deeds (including murder, rape, torture) just swept under the rug or minimized or treated as "for a good cause" when in fact they were actually done out of selfishness or at least without any sort of positive goal at first.

Deathstroke isn't really a sympathetic villain, writers just pretend he is or try to justify his crimes.

Mr. Freeze and Harley are sympathetic in a way, if writers wanted to they could fix his wife( for real and not revive her as a villain/ crazy person like Lex recently did)and have him reform/ retire. Harley's issue is that she gets a free pass for everything due to the LOL crazy and randumb factor'and characters who should have problems with her antics play along with her or get written as being wrong.

[godisawesome]

Deathstroke isn't really a sympathetic villain, writers just pretend he is or try to justify his crimes.

Mr. Freeze and Harley are sympathetic in a way, if writers wanted to they could fix his wife( for real and not revive her as a villain/ crazy person like Lex recently did)and have him reform/ retire. Harley's issue is that she gets a free pass for everything due to the LOL crazy and randumb factor'and characters who should have problems with her antics play along with her or get written as being wrong.

Harley honestly worked great as a protagonist in her original Solo and in Gotham Sirens, where they never pretended she wasn’t still a super villain and there was still some restraint on the part of writers.

[Lightning Rider]

I don't have a problem with that. I don't even consider those to be sympathetic villains (the categories you listed , I mean- alas several of the actual character have absolutely had the "sympathetic" treatment). But I'm talking about when it results in fans clamoring for their redemption, deliberate attempts by writers to make you pity them, or heroes respecting them or liking them, despite their deeds (particularly annoying when it results in fans/characters/creators blaming someone else for the villain's deeds). All of which happen a lot in comics. And popular ones can end up with their bad deeds (including murder, rape, torture) just swept under the rug or minimized or treated as "for a good cause" when in fact they were actually done out of selfishness or at least without any sort of positive goal at first.

I think villainous characters with redemption stories have to be few and far between. Most villains are pretty irredeemable, and don't have a realistic path towards redemption. Most of the time, redeeming them would be boring anyway.

I think it's simply a case of fans wanting to have their cake and eat it to - they wany someone brooding and violent who sticks it to the good guys, but then also gets to save the day at the end. Modern culture is pretty obsessed with anti-heroes anyway, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people want fan-favorite villains to make the jump.

That said, I'm drawing a blank as to lots of specifics. Harley, Ivy, Killer Frost, Deathstroke, and Black Adam are the ones that come to mind, though the first 3 seem to get much more leeway, whereas Deathstoke and Adam are successful anti-villains. Only some of The Rogues were ever given a path to redemption, which was mostly reversed in-story, though Legends and Flash made Captain Cold into a hero, which I wasn't a big fan of.

For me, David Graves is an example of the modern sympathetic villain. Extreme family-related trauma and bitterness. I wouldn't say he's a candidate for redemption, but he also wasn't murderous enough to qualify as irredeemable, if I remember right.

[Restingvoice]

It is something we've discussed before, but I just thought of it again because of this Reddit post.

So, my questions with the audience:

Do you think the sympathetic villain has become as much as trope as the mustache-twirler? I very much do. I practically roll my eyes when each new one is introduced now.

Do you keep sympathy for villains with tragic long-term, no matter how horrible their actions? After a villain has been retconned with more sympathetic origins, do you like retcon their histories to make past actions less bad?

Do you consider villains that believe they are serving some greater purpose, that they are righteous, to be generally sympathetic, even if nothing bad happened to them? Does it matter if you agree with that purpose?

How much culpability/responsibility do you give villains for their villainous actions when you view them sympathetically?


To what degree do you think heroes should keep giving them more chances, keep trying to redeem them, especially if they were former friends? This was something I believe came up when discussing Cheetah and Wonder Woman a while ago. At what point does it seem the hero cares more about or feels more sympathy towards the villain than the villain's victims? I mean, I get fans caring more - the villain is a recurring character, the victims are often just plot devices - but it's definitely something to shy away from in-universe. Though, of course, the hero sometimes does also have a strong (historical) bond with the villain than the victims, too.

There's a sympathetic villain in DC?
DC trying to sell them as sympathetic maybe
Then again I'm not a symp
Kite-Man's more of a nuisance so he doesn't count

No

No

More like, "cool reason, still murder"

if I'm taking anything from DC seriously, I'll keep a list of sins and if they have atone to that

Depending on the heroes. Batman, for example, is stubborn, and he views Arkham inmates as mental patient, including Joker. Superman is about hope. Wonder Woman, if they can be friends again she will because love and peace is more important than grudge. Dick doesn't want to stop believing in people.

for me never, because I don't blame heroes for offering help. I blame villains for not taking it and committing more crimes. Now if the heroes stop protecting the people from them, then we have a problem.

[I'm a Fish]

It depends on the story.

I think having sympathetic villain can add depth to the story, and in turn, the hero. Like how Batman refuses to kill Joker despite his various crimes actually adds depth to his character in stories like Under the Read Hood and they didn't have to make Joker sympathetic at all to accomplish it, but they did have a sympathetic villain in Jason. Fleshing out the villain usually fleshes out the hero.

Also regardless if you give them a sympathetic backstory or not, a villain in a villain because they are in some way self-destructive, which prevents them from getting the help they need to truly change.

[Agent Z]

Sympathetic villains aren't overdone, they just tend to stand out a bit more. Like most things, it depends on execution.