which villian type is worse?

[Aurora Moon]

Had an argument with friends. so to help me settle the argument, tell me your opinion on this.
So in your opinion, which Villain type is worse:

1) The villain who justifies everything by claiming that it's all for the greater good, and that he really has good intentions.

2) Or the villain who knows what he does is wrong, but does it anyway. He at least owes up to the fact that it's a bad thing he's doing.

Personally, I think number one is much more worse and dangerous. After all, Hitler thought he was doing things for the greater good, etc. Nothing more dangerous than a delusional guy who thinks that he's saving the world by killing people, etc.

[Backward Galaxy]

The second one. Someone who wants to do right can potentially be reasoned with. Someone who knows the difference and does it anyway can't.

[Aurora Moon]

I dunno, somebody who's convinced that they're always in the right can't be reasoned with. I've had dealings with religious fanatic types who set out to actively hurt people who they saw as being against god, etc. They genuinely thought they were doing things for the greater good, they couldn't see that they were going against the bible in a major way (you shall treat others as you would like to be treated, do no harm, etc).

On the other hand, people who do know it's wrong and does it anyway probably have their reasons for doing that in the first place.... and to me I feel that they would be easier to deal with.

[Backward Galaxy]

I mean, its like asking if I'd rather drown or burn to death. I just think 1 has a moral compass and 2 does not. That, to me, makes 2 more unpredictable and less likely to care about anyone but themselves. If I can convince 1 that something is right, I can possibly keep them in line. I'd pretty much have to jail 2 and throw away the key.

[Shelby Kent]

Wow, I can see why this would cause an argument. I think you can make a good case for both options.

But if I had to choose, I think I'd choose #1 as worse.

Since you say #2 knows what he/she does is wrong, that tells me that at least you or we (a.k.a the "good" guys) share a common value with #2 villain, b/c every party agrees that the offense can be defined as "wrong."

But #1 doesn't even see that the offense is "wrong," meaning that you/we (the "good" guys) aren't even on the same page w/ regard to how we value something, which I think makes it much much harder to argue w/ #1 or get #1 to change his/her "evil" ways.

If #2 at least agrees that what they are doing is "wrong" (and thus has some of the same values, tho' admittedly in a perverse sort of way) then maybe the way forward w/ someone like that is to appeal to their self-interest. Versus w/ #1 if they are convinced that they are right, then I don't see how you can ever move them from that position.

So maybe what I'm trying to say is #2 is thoroughly corrupt and that very corruptness can actually be used to your advantage, to at least get them to consider moving their position. You can use their immorality and selfishness as a tool. But what can you use to move #1 if they know they are right, they know they are not corrupt and they know you are wrong?

[Aurora Moon]

I guess to me it would depend on the crime being committed.

If a kid steals candy knowing it's wrong, then you could easily shame him into never doing it again.
Likewise, if a homeless man was really starving to death and were desperate enough to steal even though he knew it was wrong... that sort of thing could be forgivable.

Some villains have the mindset that, if you have no bike then it's better to steal a bike and ask for forgiveness later on. The fact that they would ask for forgiveness later on indicates that they knew it was wrong, and that part of them did feel guilty about it.

On the other hand... if it was something truly psycho like murder, torture, etc then I would understand your stance on this.

But I have to say, some villains from the first example? They delude themselves into thinking they have morals and that they're in the right. But that doesn't mean that they actually have a solid moral core to start with... like I said, I have some experience with religious fanatics. today they might say burning people at the stake was wrong and that's something the two of you would agree on. But then the next day they'd decide that maybe burning people at the stake did weed out all the immoral people after all, and that it wasn't so wrong after all.
After all, nothing like a good old-fashioned stoning, lynching and the like....

To me, the well intentioned extremist is always more unpredictable and dangerous that way. you think you reached a middle ground with those guys, and they're finally starting to see things your way. But then they decide that you're probably just some devil person sent to test their faith, and there goes all that hard work in trying to make them see reason.

[Glove]

"Religious fanatics" are the weirdest. One might say that "Muslim extremists" are worse for the suicide bombings and the beliefs that they are cleansing the world of infidels, but in the Christian bible's Old Testament God tells his Jewish leaders to "Totally Destroy" his enemies...including their women, children, homes, properties, and animals. The Holy Catholic church started a Holy War to get everyone to think their way and a Spanish Inquisition to torture those they thought were "in league with the Devil"...or were just people they wanted to get rid of. None of this is right. It's NO better than when the Nazis imprisoned, tortured, and killed Jews during WWII...and they all thought or think that they are doing the right thing. I guess that I would go with option #1 being the worse.

[HalJordan4184]

The second is worse. It's the difference between being a "bad guy" and truly "evil". Look at the Joker. There is a reason the Joker gives Batman so much trouble. He's pure evil. Insanity for insanity's sake. The Joker has no endgame. A person from Category 1 could actually reach their goal, and would stop. There is an amount of reason that could be applied. They won't all be fanatics. People in the second category though, they're your Jokers. Evil for the sake of evil. A good category 1 guy, Lex Luthor. He actually does good on occasion, and for actually noble reasons. He is consistent in his motivations, and his actions follow through from his stated positions. There is an level of actual trust that can be had with a Lex Luthor.

The Joker though, no dice. There is no reasoning with him for the most part. Him changing his mind, won't occur because of a sound argument, or appeal to a flaw in his reasoning or plan.

While a fanatic who thinks they are right can do a lot of evil in the world, their motivation isn't necessarily to do evil. People from Category 2, they get the trophy for worst because their motivation is simply to do evil. As Alfred said, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

[Backward Galaxy]

Joker vs. Lex Luthor. That's a good analogy. And I'd much rather meet Luthor. Joker is scary as hell.

[Aurora Moon]

The Joker is insane though, and there's some debate that insane people doesn't really know right from wrong. If this is true, then the fact that the Joker does the things he does because he thinks it's "funny".... well, that tends to belong in a different category.

Category three: the villain who does not care about right or wrong. Worse, he doesn't know right from wrong to start with.

[Backward Galaxy]

The Joker is insane though, and there's some debate that insane people doesn't really know right from wrong. If this is true, then the fact that the Joker does the things he does because he thinks it's "funny".... well, that tends to belong in a different category.

Category three: the villain who does not care about right or wrong. Worse, he doesn't know right from wrong to start with.

When you presented the initial query, I assumed you group all villains into either category 1 or category 2. I'm sure we can delineate many more shades if we wanted to, but that would seem to dilute the pool.

I also don't think we can categorize Joker as insane. He's fully functional. He knows when he's breaking the law. He understands what the rules of society are and chooses not to follow them. If there actually was a Joker operating in today's society, I'm relatively certain they would send him to jail as a serial killer. I doubt the insanity defense would get him off the hook. A truly insane person is different.

[Aurora Moon]

There is such a thing as a fully functional insane person. Many mental disorders allows for the people to fully function in society and for them to understand the rules of society. they just have those urges to do bad things at times.... which is sometimes controllable with medicine.
Or they're simply wired to have a lack of empathy, etc.

But yeah, you're right. adding more categories would just dilute the point of this agreement. The Joker though.... sometimes I just feel like he's in a whole other category into himself. He's just so hard to define.

Maybe it would be more fair to bring up more villainous examples?

Villains who I feel falls into Category 1:
Doctor Doom.
Poison Ivy
Magneto
RA's Al-Ghul
V from V for Vendetta. (although he seems to be more of an anti-hero or even anti-villian)
Sinestiro.
Maxwell lord
Equinox (From one of the batman cartoon series. He wanted the universe to be a better place... by destroying and resetting the entire universe.)
Mr. Freeze
Darkseid (this one is kind of arguable, but he got his reasons for wanting to rule the entire universe).
Brainaic

Category two:
Black Adam
Deathstroke
Two-face
Professor Zoom
Catwoman
Riddler
Captain Cold
Bane
Black Manta
Pegugin

[Glove]

The closest thing to real life category two people would be these freaks that are going out and sniping cops or a few years back when those two guys were shooting all those people out in Washington DC, or even these people going into movie theaters or schools and shooting mass people. There's no way you can tell me that they think they are doing this for the greater good. Their soul intention to cause mayhem and maim/kill people. Most of the time category two people aren't going to be around long. This is pretty bad, but you give category one people a little power and it seems to go to their heads. These people seem to be around doing their dirty deeds for a longer time. Soon, it becomes a monster that they can't control.

OK, I'll bite on the fictional character thing. Wish I would have thought of this earlier.

Since we're discussing the Joker vs. Lex Luthor. I'll say Heath Ledger's Joker is scary (probably the scariest portrayal of the Joker). I'd be more afraid of, NOT Kevin Spacey's version of Lex Luthor, but his version of John Doe from the movie Seven. The Closest Lex ever came to being portrayed in this manor was the newest version where Lex spoke of "Devils coming from the sky and not from beneath." In a crowded room, I'd be more afraid of the Joker because he'd just kill you to scare the crap out of everyone in the room to set the tone. John Doe wouldn't do a thing. He'd wait until he got you in private, tie you to a chair, spout off Bible verses, and force you to eat spaghetti until your stomach burst. That's come creepy stuff. The Joker would go on about how his face was scarred, break of pool cue in half so that he could have try outs, and add to his mob. I still think that the person who thinks they are doing right thing (holier than thou-type) is much worse than the person who knows they are doing the wrong thing just to create chaos.

[Shelby Kent]

I guess to me it would depend on the crime being committed.

Agree. Context is everything.

If a kid steals candy knowing it's wrong, then you could easily shame him into never doing it again.
Likewise, if a homeless man was really starving to death and were desperate enough to steal even though he knew it was wrong... that sort of thing could be forgivable.

For me, I wouldn't consider either of these to be villains. Now I do think a psychopathic child could be a villain, but if all I've got is a one-off case of a kid stealing some candy, then no.

Some villains have the mindset that, if you have no bike then it's better to steal a bike and ask for forgiveness later on. The fact that they would ask for forgiveness later on indicates that they knew it was wrong, and that part of them did feel guilty about it.

Or it could also be that they know their culture/society considers it wrong, so they apologize just as a form of manipulation (we always like people to apologize when they do wrong, don't we) and they fake feeling guilty, when in reality they feel no guilt.

I think #1 category villains actually consider themselves heroes; whereas I think #2 category villains would be willing to agree they are "bad" guys or villains or whatever (and maybe even revel in seeing themselves as such). And that's where perspective also matters. Because for example let's say most ISIS members consider themselves heroes, while they consider the U.S. and other such countries as full of villains. To them, WE are villains who are deluded into thinking we do what we do for the greater good. #1 villains will often do what they do b/c of principles; whereas #2 villain might only care about his/her individual self-interest which could change at any given moment, depending on circumstances. If you have principles, you might be more willing to die for them martyr-like and it might be harder to agree to change your actions/behavior by compromising. But if you're coming from a place of absolute self-interest then you might be more willing to turn on your criminal buddies if you are in gang, or change your actions to avoid jail, or change your actions in response to a payoff, or even work with the cops temporarily if it suits your purposes -- if you are operating only from the principle of self-interest then you are not concerned about the greater good, but only your own "narrow" good.

[Aurora Moon]

The top experts on ISIS would disagree with you, Shelby. A lot of the ISIS members seem to revel in people's negative reactions towards them, and they seem to want to western world to become prejudiced towards middle-eastern people and create more wars. This is due to the fact that it leaves a lot of middle-eastern people vulnerable and hurt, which makes them ripe for recruiting.

This is very similar to how the KKK and neo-nazis recruits people. In the 80's they would go around defacing schools at night with racist expletives, but set it up to seem like somebody from the school had done it. This would cause the Latinos and blacks to wonder which white guy at the school had done it, and the non-white school population would then gang up on the white population, which made the white students angry and bitter because they knew they hadn't done it.
The Neo-nazis and the KKK then swoop in, acting very sympathetic towards the white students... and pretty much planting suggestions in the white students' minds that the blacks, etc were all to blame for their misery. Boom, instant recruit.

The ISIS acts similar to the KKK and neo-nazis, because they want to be attacked, etc. But they deliberately place their bases in highly populated areas full of innocent civilians.... knowing that the innocent civilians would blame the western world for attacking them when they had done no wrong.

That isn't to say that those ideological organizations doesn't have their share of religious fanatics.... they most likely do. But this kind of behavior makes them seem like they're category two instead of one. That is, they seem to revel in being seen as the bad guy. for some ISIS members, this might be just a prosecution complex.