@Happily_Grim
Because that's the only two choices, really. Either this important, meant-to-be-focused-upon plot villain/mastermind/super-antagonist. And trashy mooks who don't know what they're in for.
It's not just for the reaction of 'oh no they rape', but also because they're in a position of power and it's satisfying to see their power fail them. Who asked them to abuse power?
Every kind of villain has been done to death already. All kinds of antagonist have been explored. All of it is already cliche, and anything else is largely unfitting and either nonsensical or a waste in the slot it's been forced into.
That's my take, anyway. I prefer trashy throwaway villains of little consequence. Not everyone is important, and bad people should just be bad, win or lose. I don't need Rando Grunt #537 having anything more complex to him than being an asshole who's probably going to get a boot shoved up his ass while doing something only an asshole would do - regardless of what it is.
I mean, what else would it be? Random thugs in back alley holding someone up with a gun? That was cliche in the 40-50s on radio dramas. We generally understand them to be bad for enjoying random acts of unnecessary violence on innocent people. Considering how society's molded our way of thinking, what is more innocent than a scared woman (regardless of it's true or not)? Merchants shady dealing? Done to dead. You wouldn't find corrupt nobles where the protagonist is just happening by, usually - but people already screech about how common those are, too.
I'm still on the old 'villains are just plot devices' bandwagon from way before people started riding the villain-fanboy bus, so I'd like to hear what you think would be a better option that hasn't been super cliche for awhile or recently.
Because that's the only two choices, really. Either this important, meant-to-be-focused-upon plot villain/mastermind/super-antagonist. And trashy mooks who don't know what they're in for.
It's not just for the reaction of 'oh no they rape', but also because they're in a position of power and it's satisfying to see their power fail them. Who asked them to abuse power?
Every kind of villain has been done to death already. All kinds of antagonist have been explored. All of it is already cliche, and anything else is largely unfitting and either nonsensical or a waste in the slot it's been forced into.
That's my take, anyway. I prefer trashy throwaway villains of little consequence. Not everyone is important, and bad people should just be bad, win or lose. I don't need Rando Grunt #537 having anything more complex to him than being an asshole who's probably going to get a boot shoved up his ass while doing something only an asshole would do - regardless of what it is.
I mean, what else would it be? Random thugs in back alley holding someone up with a gun? That was cliche in the 40-50s on radio dramas. We generally understand them to be bad for enjoying random acts of unnecessary violence on innocent people. Considering how society's molded our way of thinking, what is more innocent than a scared woman (regardless of it's true or not)? Merchants shady dealing? Done to dead. You wouldn't find corrupt nobles where the protagonist is just happening by, usually - but people already screech about how common those are, too.
I'm still on the old 'villains are just plot devices' bandwagon from way before people started riding the villain-fanboy bus, so I'd like to hear what you think would be a better option that hasn't been super cliche for awhile or recently.
