What's your opinion on Villain Protagonists

Great, but only if they ultimately pay a price for their actions, whether it's through death, imprisonment or personal loss

I like em

>muh freedom, muh oppression, muh struggle
Eren is not a proper villain, I mean just the latest chapter depicts him crying over stomping his enemies, he's just another edgy anti-hero.

>light yagami is a villain
yeah i dont think so

Eren is 100% the villain from the perspective of 99.999% of the population in the SNK world.

The problem is that then incels start to idolize and destroy the author's actual intentions with them. You can already see it happening with Eren from attack on titan.

Light isn't forced to kill people, he himself admits his quest for becoming "God" came up just because he was bored.
Not from the reader's perspective.

to be fair Isayama is doing a shit job at condemning Eren's character plot wise, he really wrote himself into a corner by making such an absurd extreme world setting of "us" vs "them", very few people would think Eren's actions are unjustifiable while reading the manga.

I'm not a big fan of this it's like the only reason they pay the price for their actions is because they are bad people I would rather have a story where anyone can win or lose

Is he a villain or just an Anti-Hero?

Attached: Lelouch Vi Britannia.jpg (1280x720, 68.7K)

They suck because they never win. Nips are too afraid of writting a story where the "bad guy" wins.

light yagami

Anti-Hero ,though near the end of R2 he plays the role of a villain.

Attached: Emperor_Lelouch.jpg (1280x720, 98.15K)

>Not from the reader's perspective.
A villain protagonist doesnt have to be a villain from the audience's perspective. just from the perspective of everybody else in the story.

The best villain protagonists are those that start off sympathetic, like Light. The kind that while you might not personally agree with what they’re doing, but you can understand their motives and they have their own sense of morality. As the series goes on, they become increasing drunk on their own power and their initial motives fall to the wayside for more selfish goals, or they become more comfortable with achieving their initial goal using immoral and ruthless tactics.

I disagree, if we don't as an audience see him as the villain then he is not, thematically speaking.

So a character can go murdering, laughing and genociding but as long as the audience is ok with it he isn't a villain?
You realize that the audience itself might be utterly divided on the topic, right?

Worked for america

A villain is not just an enemy general.
There might be a variety of definitions for what vile deeds exactly make or break the villain, but it is deeds, not perception, that make the villain.

Rent free.

if you are a racist pedophillic sexual cannibal and you watch or read something with a character like that you are not going to see them as a villain, while others are going to see them as a villain. so "thematically speaking" the villain is going to be whoever is the main antagonist, where the story makes it very clear that they are the main antagonist and nothing the reader thinks can change that

Spotted the insecure burger.

>So a character can go murdering, laughing and genociding but as long as the audience is ok with it he isn't a villain?
Obviously a character doing that would be seen as the villain, and I realize that there is a certain nuance to it and the audience sometimes can be divided on the morality of the character's actions.
But sometimes characters considered as villains by the plot tend to be perceived in a different light by the audience, which I believe disqualifies them from being considered villains.

It is the perception of the deeds that make all the difference. Killing people to free them of a worse fate vs looking like you are enjoying said killing makes all the difference although the act stayed the same.

Attached: image0-8.jpg (400x290, 27.93K)

Being the antagonist is NOT synonymous with being a villain.

Didn't that happen in Devilman

>Killing people to free them of a worse fate vs looking like you are enjoying said killing makes all the difference although the act stayed the same.
The difference here is not perception. It's intent.
Those two things are not the same.

Intent is what matters to the viewer.
You can hardly call a character with a noble cause but questionable methods a villain, it's why different labels exist, even if the characters in the story see him as the villain.

user here is right, the words antagonist and protagonist stem from the ancient Greek theaters and do not mean muhv good vs muh evil.

Intent is up to interpretation, unless you make it completely obvious and one sided, there will always be doubts as to what intent governed what action especially if the protagonist has been shown to be capable of both emotions.

it is, when people refer to a villain in real life they say that they are malicious and immoral or whatever. but in fiction it just means that they oppose the protagonist and their ideas and beliefs. you can say whatever you want and believe whatever you want about a character but that stays in the readers head and doesn't effect the story which is clear and set out

The reason Light works so well is that he isn't exactly a villain, closer to an a moral antihero. Sure compared to characters like Naruto, Goku, and even Gon he's a villain, but in the context of the story he's a kid that let power go to his head.

>You can hardly call a character with a noble cause but questionable methods a villain,
Yes, you can. It's an "anti-villain", to be precise, contrasting the "anti-hero", who is not noble, but does good things.
>Intent is up to interpretation,
And so you can argue with other fans on how they should be interpreted.

The best stories are those where both sides have a claim to truth, justice and vindication. When one side is muh destruction and muh domination it gets stale.
One example is how Ishida in Bleach switched to the Quincy side but because Bachs plan was to destroy the worlds it was clear that Ishida would turn back to his friends.
If Bach had a better, feasible alternative, a plan that is actually tempting to see through, then it becomes much harder to predict what a character will end up choosing.