I'm split on what I like in a villain. It depends on mood.
Sometimes, you're feeling deep, and you want someone complex, a misguided antihero, someone with logic, someone who was good but became intoxicated.
Other times, you just want an evil bastard who's just cruel and mean for no reason, it depends on the mood.
The various Megatrons across the Transformers continuities pretty much hit both ends of this spectrum. One of my favorite simple ones was the Beast Wars-era iteration of Megatron. He had no sympathetic side, he was just an evil jerk who wanted power, and did it with sarcasm and humor to match the cruelty. He wasn't deep, he was just a FUN villain.
Same goes with the new movie version. He wasn't deep at all, he was just a crazy scenery-chewing berserker who wanted power and was willing to bust anyone up to get it, and who simply thought humans were inferior. Once again, he was simply fun, and his sheer insanity stole the movie for me, despite his relatively small amount of screen time.
Now if I want a deep villain, I go to the recent IDW comics version of Megatron. I've yet to read his origin story miniseries, but I hear it makes him out as an antihero leading an oppressed people, who just uses malicious means to achieve his end. Regardless, by the "present day" portion of the comics, which I HAVE read, he's a cool, logical leader, who still sees himself as leading his people out of oppression, only he uses drastic means to achieve this end. A telling scene for me was when he chides Starscream's group in the first miniseries for going against him, saying that they're supposed to be better than fighting amongst themselves. Of course, he then beats the hell out of them. And in the next miniseries, he's shown to be more than willing to drop his conflict and unite with the good guys to drop a larger threat, without even hesitating. He even meets with Optimus Prime to discuss their planet's future after that. Of course, later on, he gets juiced on the token super-power MacGuffin, and reverts to the typical megalomaniacal caricature, but the fact that he has reason to (infinite power and whatnot) and the fact that Optimus Prime literally calls him out on the personality change in a brilliant bit of dialogue really did it for me. That's the kind of complexity I like. I haven't read past Escalation, so I'm a bit behind, and I don't know if they'll continue the cartoonish personality change, or if he'll revert to his old mindset now that he's un-juiced (I really hope so).
This just adds to my theory about utilitarian villains. Our morality is very local. Big planners like the Borg are unsettling to us regardless of the utility of their plans if implemented.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The best villains are either heroes from another perspective (even a warped one), or are unstoppable and/or incomprehensible forces of nature.
Watchmen was great for the former, The Joker or The Borg are good examples of the latter, I think.
The Borg (TNG-era, before all that Voyager crap) were unstoppable, but they were not incomprehensible. In fact, they made perfect sense. Like Locutus said in "Best of Both Worlds", they seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" by assimilating them. By a lot of metrics, the Borg society is better than ours: no crime, no poverty, no social injustice or inequality. They realise that and want to improve us to their level, by force if necessary. It's the "we're doing this for your own good" mentality taken to the extreme.
Moreover, the Borg's methods are not evil. They never attacked another ship except in self-defence when they were attacked. And they only destroy ships when they have to: when the Enterprise saucer section was a defenceless and harmless "sitting duck" at the end of a battle with a Borg cube, the Borg spared them. And they created Locutus to "facilitate assimilation" of the Federation, even though they did not need to because there was nothing the Federation could do to stop assimilation. They created Locutus because they thought it would help us accept assimilation, not because they needed it.
I don't know about this "never attacked another ship except in self defense" bit. I seem to recall that they were the aggressors when the Enterprise encountered them. Didn't they rip out a chunk of the ship for investigation? And then beam a small boarding party onto the deck?
The Borg would have taken the saucer section if they hadn't had bigger fish to fry - ie, Earth. You're right in that they didn't destroy it out of any sense of vengeance or anything. I wouldn't say they "spared" them; that connotes a sense of mercy. The Borg are utterly merciless and utterly pragmatic; the only reason they didn't wreck the saucer is because it wasn't a threat and never could be. If it actually posed a threat they would have destroyed it immediately before taking off. It's been a while, but did the saucer actually do anything effective? If so, then the only reason it survived was narrative necessity.
As for Locutus, I completely disagree that they made him to facilitate assimilation for the humans; they did it to facilitate assimilation for themselves. They gained access to military, technological, and cartographical information from an important leader of their enemy. But your take is ultimately similar to mine, maybe: I think the reason they created a named entity wasn't to make it easier for humans, it was to try to make a more convincing argument to the humans, by means of an entity they could more effectively relate to. The grotesqueness of that is really great. But it was all just for increased efficiency and functionality for themselves. They don't care how the humans take assimilation, they just care how quickly and effectively assimilation can be performed.
The Borg are a great piece of speculative sci fi, I must say.
Hitchcock did that whole thing with Psycho where we know Norman Bates is a fucking psycho but are forced to identify with him due to Hitchcock's evil genius.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I'm split on what I like in a villain. It depends on mood.
Sometimes, you're feeling deep, and you want someone complex, a misguided antihero, someone with logic, someone who was good but became intoxicated.
Other times, you just want an evil bastard who's just cruel and mean for no reason, it depends on the mood.
The various Megatrons across the Transformers continuities pretty much hit both ends of this spectrum. One of my favorite simple ones was the Beast Wars-era iteration of Megatron. He had no sympathetic side, he was just an evil jerk who wanted power, and did it with sarcasm and humor to match the cruelty. He wasn't deep, he was just a FUN villain.
Same goes with the new movie version. He wasn't deep at all, he was just a crazy scenery-chewing berserker who wanted power and was willing to bust anyone up to get it, and who simply thought humans were inferior. Once again, he was simply fun, and his sheer insanity stole the movie for me, despite his relatively small amount of screen time.
Now if I want a deep villain, I go to the recent IDW comics version of Megatron. I've yet to read his origin story miniseries, but I hear it makes him out as an antihero leading an oppressed people, who just uses malicious means to achieve his end. Regardless, by the "present day" portion of the comics, which I HAVE read, he's a cool, logical leader, who still sees himself as leading his people out of oppression, only he uses drastic means to achieve this end. A telling scene for me was when he chides Starscream's group in the first miniseries for going against him, saying that they're supposed to be better than fighting amongst themselves. Of course, he then beats the hell out of them. And in the next miniseries, he's shown to be more than willing to drop his conflict and unite with the good guys to drop a larger threat, without even hesitating. He even meets with Optimus Prime to discuss their planet's future after that. Of course, later on, he gets juiced on the token super-power MacGuffin, and reverts to the typical megalomaniacal caricature, but the fact that he has reason to (infinite power and whatnot) and the fact that Optimus Prime literally calls him out on the personality change in a brilliant bit of dialogue really did it for me. That's the kind of complexity I like. I haven't read past Escalation, so I'm a bit behind, and I don't know if they'll continue the cartoonish personality change, or if he'll revert to his old mindset now that he's un-juiced (I really hope so).
Yeah, what bugs me is that Megatron, the original, had the potential to be a very deep and intelligent villain. In the opening scenes of the original comic, they explain that he considered the Cybertronian race declining because of millenia of peaceful content stagnation. He saw that the Cybertronians had an instinct for war which was being dulled and lost by this prolonged peace (and according to The War Within, he also found archaeological evidence for this). He wanted to shake things up, to get society back on track. That's why he created the Decepticons and the arena games, forged them into a fighting force and eventually started the war. And technically, since later in the series we find out that Cybertron was created by Primus to evolve a race of warriors to defeat Unicron, it seems Megatron was right. If Unicron had found and attacked Cybertron during the golden age, before the rise of the Autobots and Decepticons, he would have destroyed them without breaking a sweat.
But of course, the comics dropped that line fairly quickly and turned Megatron into the boring insane psychopathic megalomaniac we all know.
It's always amusing when the "Light is not evil" arguments start up.
Anyways, one type of villain I always like is the smooth, manipulative type, like Angelus could be in Buffy. Evil just because that's the easiest way to what they want, and using anyone and everyone to get there. Slick and cool sociopaths.
Yeah, what bugs me is that Megatron, the original, had the potential to be a very deep and intelligent villain. In the opening scenes of the original comic, they explain that he considered the Cybertronian race declining because of millenia of peaceful content stagnation. He saw that the Cybertronians had an instinct for war which was being dulled and lost by this prolonged peace (and according to The War Within, he also found archaeological evidence for this). He wanted to shake things up, to get society back on track. That's why he created the Decepticons and the arena games, forged them into a fighting force and eventually started the war. And technically, since later in the series we find out that Cybertron was created by Primus to evolve a race of warriors to defeat Unicron, it seems Megatron was right. If Unicron had found and attacked Cybertron during the golden age, before the rise of the Autobots and Decepticons, he would have destroyed them without breaking a sweat.
But of course, the comics dropped that line fairly quickly and turned Megatron into the boring insane psychopathic megalomaniac we all know.
Yeah, that's basically happening in the new comics too, but it's permissible because a) He didn't become a megalomaniac until the Escalation arc, and before that had a good, detailed, logical reason for existing b) he had a reason to change characterization (Ultra Energon messing with his head) and c) other characters openly acknowledged his character change. It was a very well-written transition, I think.
I don't know about this "never attacked another ship except in self defense" bit. I seem to recall that they were the aggressors when the Enterprise encountered them. Didn't they rip out a chunk of the ship for investigation? And then beam a small boarding party onto the deck?
IIRC it was the other way around; first they beamed a boarding party, then they cut off part of the ship. But that's irrelevant. The important point is that they weren't attacking the Enterprise, they were studying it. The drones they beamed on-board only downloaded a copy of the Enterprise's database. They didn't break anything or hurt anyone, not even after Worf killed one of them. As for cutting off part of the ship, once again they didn't mean it as an attack, but as a scientific study. They only cut off the part they needed to study and left the rest of the ship intact. In both cases this is similar to something Starfleet would do when encountering a new ship - beaming out a search party and beaming in samples to study - except taken to a much more utilitarian extreme.
The Borg would have taken the saucer section if they hadn't had bigger fish to fry - ie, Earth. You're right in that they didn't destroy it out of any sense of vengeance or anything. I wouldn't say they "spared" them; that connotes a sense of mercy. The Borg are utterly merciless and utterly pragmatic; the only reason they didn't wreck the saucer is because it wasn't a threat and never could be. If it actually posed a threat they would have destroyed it immediately before taking off. It's been a while, but did the saucer actually do anything effective? If so, then the only reason it survived was narrative necessity.
The saucer section was part of the attack on the Borg cube; it notably fired an anti-matter spray to cover up the shuttle with Worf and Data. And sparing them wasn't because they were in a hurry to get to Earth; the battle was over, they needed only one second to fire the final shot and destroy the saucer section.
The pragmatic argument can go both ways IMO: on the one hand the saucer section is no longer a thread so you can spare for now, but on the other hand it has been shown to be a thread before and will most likely be a threat again in the future after it's repaired and reunited with the rest of the ship, so it would make sense to destroy it now. They went with the former. That IMO shows that given a choice, they will go with the option of least violence. That can be seen as a form of mercy.
As for Locutus, I completely disagree that they made him to facilitate assimilation for the humans; they did it to facilitate assimilation for themselves. They gained access to military, technological, and cartographical information from an important leader of their enemy. But your take is ultimately similar to mine, maybe: I think the reason they created a named entity wasn't to make it easier for humans, it was to try to make a more convincing argument to the humans, by means of an entity they could more effectively relate to. The grotesqueness of that is really great. But it was all just for increased efficiency and functionality for themselves. They don't care how the humans take assimilation, they just care how quickly and effectively assimilation can be performed.
The Borg already had most of that information from the Federation database they took from the Enterprise a year prior in "Q Who?". At best, Picard gave them an update, which they could have just as easily obtained by redownloading the Enterprise database, and a human perspective on the data, which they probably already had from the humans they had already assimilated. I don't think they gained much information, if any, from assimilating Picard.
But I guess we agree that Locutus' primary function was to facilitate assimilation.
But the statement I bolded seems self-contradictory. Yes, ultimately they care about assimilating the Federation in the fastest and most efficient way. And that optimal way is achieved by convincing humans to accept it and see the benefit of it, rather than fight it. Which is why they created Locutus as an ambassador, to, as you say, make a more convincing argument in favour of assimilation. Hence, they do care how humans take assimilation.
Now consider the sub-optimal assimilation technique: going to Earth without Locutus and starting to assimilate people, then go outwards. Clearly it would work, and there's nothing we could to do stop it. It would be almost as fast and efficient for the Borg; the Federation on the other hand would waste a massive amount of resources and lives fighting back with no success, like they did at Wolf 359. Picking the optimal way - from the Borg's point of view - benefits the Federation a lot more than it benefits the Borg. Yet they picked that way; IMO, not for the marginal benefit to themselves, but because they really thought they were helping us.
I think the villain who is merely a victim of circumstance is a tired concept (could have been a hero under different circumstances) it definitely works for the Magnetos and the Dr. Dooms of the [comic] world, but it's not as interesting to me as other types of antagonism.
Some of the best antagonists are the ones who aren't terribly complex at all, and whose real human motivations coupled with a believable amorality makes for a good bad guy (think Hans Grueber from Die Hard or Annie Wilkes from Misery). If you push either of those qualities too hard though you wind up with a villain who is simple to the point of being boring (someone said Sauron, I kind of agree) or depraved to the point of being comical rather than scary (Perfect example is Freddy Krueger).
The best villains are either heroes from another perspective (even a warped one), or are unstoppable and/or incomprehensible forces of nature.
Watchmen was great for the former, The Joker or The Borg are good examples of the latter, I think.
The Borg (TNG-era, before all that Voyager crap) were unstoppable, but they were not incomprehensible. In fact, they made perfect sense. Like Locutus said in "Best of Both Worlds", they seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" by assimilating them. By a lot of metrics, the Borg society is better than ours: no crime, no poverty, no social injustice or inequality. They realise that and want to improve us to their level, by force if necessary. It's the "we're doing this for your own good" mentality taken to the extreme.
Moreover, the Borg's methods are not evil. They never attacked another ship except in self-defence when they were attacked. And they only destroy ships when they have to: when the Enterprise saucer section was a defenceless and harmless "sitting duck" at the end of a battle with a Borg cube, the Borg spared them. And they created Locutus to "facilitate assimilation" of the Federation, even though they did not need to because there was nothing the Federation could do to stop assimilation. They created Locutus because they thought it would help us accept assimilation, not because they needed it.
I don't know about this "never attacked another ship except in self defense" bit. I seem to recall that they were the aggressors when the Enterprise encountered them. Didn't they rip out a chunk of the ship for investigation? And then beam a small boarding party onto the deck?
The Borg would have taken the saucer section if they hadn't had bigger fish to fry - ie, Earth. You're right in that they didn't destroy it out of any sense of vengeance or anything. I wouldn't say they "spared" them; that connotes a sense of mercy. The Borg are utterly merciless and utterly pragmatic; the only reason they didn't wreck the saucer is because it wasn't a threat and never could be. If it actually posed a threat they would have destroyed it immediately before taking off. It's been a while, but did the saucer actually do anything effective? If so, then the only reason it survived was narrative necessity.
As for Locutus, I completely disagree that they made him to facilitate assimilation for the humans; they did it to facilitate assimilation for themselves. They gained access to military, technological, and cartographical information from an important leader of their enemy. But your take is ultimately similar to mine, maybe: I think the reason they created a named entity wasn't to make it easier for humans, it was to try to make a more convincing argument to the humans, by means of an entity they could more effectively relate to. The grotesqueness of that is really great. But it was all just for increased efficiency and functionality for themselves. They don't care how the humans take assimilation, they just care how quickly and effectively assimilation can be performed.
The Borg are a great piece of speculative sci fi, I must say.
Who the fuck said the Borg weren't ever the aggressors? Man, did you even watch Star Trek? What do you think happened to the El Aurans? They were pacifists and were wiped out more efficiently than freaking Alderan.
Perhaps "bad" is the wrong word to use - a compelling antagonist. In recent years I tend find myself often hoping that somehow the bad guy of a piece will get to put his plan into action, just because I want to see what it was and what they would do afterwards.
Basically what I'm wondering is, what sorts of opposing forces are interesting to watch? What are some examples of villains or antagonists who actually had interesting ideologies, or at least didn't make the reason the "good guys" should win so obvious?
As an assassin who leads an empty life without any emotions, his ideology was that the reason he was the best fighter (that he knew) was because he had given up on other kinds of pursuits like feelings and friendship and hobbies and instead developed his fighting talents.
So when he faces Drizzt he sees someone who is equal to him in fighting skills and still has the time and mental energy to develop friendships and care for others. This is the reason behind his strong rivalry with Drizzt; to admit that they're equal would admit that Artemis wasted his life, so he tries over and over to prove that he's the better fighter.
For this reason, Entreri is one of the best developed antagonists in the fantasy universe, in my opinion.
Whatever happens to Entreri? Doesn't he eventually realize he can never beat Drizzt because of that +2 dexterity racial bonus and just give up on being a master assassin?
Skimmed the thread and didn't see this answered so...
Entreri's storyline isn't finished. He has apparently made peace with the fact that Drizzt is either better or at least equal to him in fighting skill although it's left open with Entreri unsure as to his place in the world at the end of the book. He has also developed a wary friendship with Jarlaxle (as much as either of them are capable of friendship anyways).
Unless another book has come out that I missed Jarlaxle and Entreri are currently wandering the area between the Snowflake Mountains and the coast with Jarlaxle pretending to be Drizzt so that they don't have to bothered with murdering every town they stop in.
The best villains are either heroes from another perspective (even a warped one), or are unstoppable and/or incomprehensible forces of nature.
Watchmen was great for the former, The Joker or The Borg are good examples of the latter, I think.
The Borg (TNG-era, before all that Voyager crap) were unstoppable, but they were not incomprehensible. In fact, they made perfect sense. Like Locutus said in "Best of Both Worlds", they seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" by assimilating them. By a lot of metrics, the Borg society is better than ours: no crime, no poverty, no social injustice or inequality. They realise that and want to improve us to their level, by force if necessary. It's the "we're doing this for your own good" mentality taken to the extreme.
Moreover, the Borg's methods are not evil. They never attacked another ship except in self-defence when they were attacked. And they only destroy ships when they have to: when the Enterprise saucer section was a defenceless and harmless "sitting duck" at the end of a battle with a Borg cube, the Borg spared them. And they created Locutus to "facilitate assimilation" of the Federation, even though they did not need to because there was nothing the Federation could do to stop assimilation. They created Locutus because they thought it would help us accept assimilation, not because they needed it.
I don't know about this "never attacked another ship except in self defense" bit. I seem to recall that they were the aggressors when the Enterprise encountered them. Didn't they rip out a chunk of the ship for investigation? And then beam a small boarding party onto the deck?
The Borg would have taken the saucer section if they hadn't had bigger fish to fry - ie, Earth. You're right in that they didn't destroy it out of any sense of vengeance or anything. I wouldn't say they "spared" them; that connotes a sense of mercy. The Borg are utterly merciless and utterly pragmatic; the only reason they didn't wreck the saucer is because it wasn't a threat and never could be. If it actually posed a threat they would have destroyed it immediately before taking off. It's been a while, but did the saucer actually do anything effective? If so, then the only reason it survived was narrative necessity.
As for Locutus, I completely disagree that they made him to facilitate assimilation for the humans; they did it to facilitate assimilation for themselves. They gained access to military, technological, and cartographical information from an important leader of their enemy. But your take is ultimately similar to mine, maybe: I think the reason they created a named entity wasn't to make it easier for humans, it was to try to make a more convincing argument to the humans, by means of an entity they could more effectively relate to. The grotesqueness of that is really great. But it was all just for increased efficiency and functionality for themselves. They don't care how the humans take assimilation, they just care how quickly and effectively assimilation can be performed.
The Borg are a great piece of speculative sci fi, I must say.
Who the fuck said the Borg weren't ever the aggressors? Man, did you even watch Star Trek? What do you think happened to the El Aurans? They were pacifists and were wiped out more efficiently than freaking Alderan.
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
So if I cut down a 2,000 year old redwood and build a deck out of it, I haven't destroyed a beautiful work of natures creation, I've just assimilated it into my summer home.
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
In this context it is essentially the same thing.
No. Wiping out means killing. Massive genocide. That's something you do out of evilness.
The Borg assimilate. They integrate the species into the Collective, thus improving the quality of life (by certain metrics) for that species. They believe they are helping out other species.
No one ever commits genocide thinking they are helping out the people they kill. They don't want to help the people they kill, they want to get rid of them and help themselves. That's a big difference.
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
In this context it is essentially the same thing.
No. Wiping out means killing. Massive genocide. That's something you do out of evilness.
The Borg assimilate. They integrate the species into the Collective, thus improving the quality of life (by certain metrics) for that species. They believe they are helping out other species.
No one ever commits genocide thinking they are helping out the people they kill. They don't want to help the people they kill, they want to get rid of them and help themselves. That's a big difference.
Oh well as long as you think you're helping it's not evil...
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
In this context it is essentially the same thing.
No. Wiping out means killing. Massive genocide. That's something you do out of evilness.
The Borg assimilate. They integrate the species into the Collective, thus improving the quality of life (by certain metrics) for that species. They believe they are helping out other species.
No one ever commits genocide thinking they are helping out the people they kill. They don't want to help the people they kill, they want to get rid of them and help themselves. That's a big difference.
The culture and history of the species is gone, they exist as raw materials, that is why I said they were essentially the same and not exactly the same. The species might as well not exist after they are assimilated.
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
So if I cut down a 2,000 year old redwood and build a deck out of it, I haven't destroyed a beautiful work of natures creation, I've just assimilated it into my summer home.
:^:
You killed that redwood. You cannot honestly think it's living a better life as a deck, because it's not living at all.
People who are assimilated are still alive. That's the difference.
A more apt comparison would be if you found a 2,000 year old redwood and genetically-modified it to turn its leaves black to improve photosynthesis, then graphed a solar panel on it to improve light absorption, and dug out the roots and replanted them in a nutriment-rich liquid.
The culture and history of the species is gone, they exist as raw materials, that is why I said they were essentially the same and not exactly the same. The species might as well not exist after they are assimilated.
Well the culture continues to exist in the Borg database, but I see your point, they're no longer a living culture and society. It is a cultural genocide. But on the other hand, the culture was inferior to the Borg's by certain metrics, and the individuals assimilated are better off as Borg (by the same metrics).
So I guess the argument is, is it better to respect an inferior culture that causes suffering for its members, or to help the members but thereby destroy the culture?
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
So if I cut down a 2,000 year old redwood and build a deck out of it, I haven't destroyed a beautiful work of natures creation, I've just assimilated it into my summer home.
:^:
You killed that redwood. You cannot honestly think it's living a better life as a deck, because it's not living at all.
People who are assimilated are still alive. That's the difference.
A more apt comparison would be if you found a 2,000 year old redwood and genetically-modified it to turn its leaves black to improve photosynthesis, then graphed a solar panel on it to improve light absorption, and dug out the roots and replanted them in a nutriment-rich liquid.
Terry Schiavo was still alive. Also, your redwood analogy is much farther from what the Borg do to a culture than mine is. The Borg do not have internal distinction, so by definition they destroy any culture they assimilate, same as they destroy the free-will and the individuality of the people who make up the culture. The fact that it exists in their database is completely irrelevant.
A better analogy for what the Borg do in terms of human history would be attacking a country, murdering every politician, intellectual, artist and writer and enslaving everyone else while carefully cataloging the knowledge of that culture, while forbidding the slaves from partaking in any of their cultural practices upon pain of death.
There's all sorts of words to describe that kind of phenomena, and none of them are positive.
The culture and history of the species is gone, they exist as raw materials, that is why I said they were essentially the same and not exactly the same. The species might as well not exist after they are assimilated.
Well the culture continues to exist in the Borg database, but I see your point, they're no longer a living culture and society. It is a cultural genocide. But on the other hand, the culture was inferior to the Borg's by certain metrics, and the individuals assimilated are better off as Borg (by the same metrics).
So I guess the argument is, is it better to respect an inferior culture that causes suffering for its members, or to help the members but thereby destroy the culture?
You seem to hang an awful lot of your argument on this "by certain metrics" bullshit. I could easily Godwin your argument all to fuck, but I think I'll just settle for pointing out how deeply flawed your argument is if you must couch it in pure relativism.
You seem to hang an awful lot of your argument on this "by certain metrics" bullshit. I could easily Godwin your argument all to fuck, but I think I'll just settle for pointing out how deeply flawed your argument is if you must couch it in pure relativism.
Look jeepguy, Locutus himself said the Borg only seek to "improve the quality of life for all species". I'm not making this argument up, it's what the Borg believe. You might be happier with genocidal cyborgs who kill everything they see, and that's good for you, but that's not the Borg from Star Trek.
You seem to hang an awful lot of your argument on this "by certain metrics" bullshit. I could easily Godwin your argument all to fuck, but I think I'll just settle for pointing out how deeply flawed your argument is if you must couch it in pure relativism.
Look jeepguy, Locutus himself said the Borg only seek to "improve the quality of life for all species". I'm not making this argument up, it's what the Borg believe. You might be happier with genocidal cyborgs who kill everything they see, and that's good for you, but that's not the Borg from Star Trek.
Yes, the Borg say a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that "incapable of deception" isn't one of their qualities. I don't know how you can fail so hard to understand that thinking you are improving the quality of life for someone does not allow you to do things to them against their will, physically and mentally violate them, and be morally neutral because of intent.
Yes, the Borg say a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that "incapable of deception" isn't one of their qualities. I don't know how you can fail so hard to understand that thinking you are improving the quality of life for someone does not allow you to do things to them against their will, physically and mentally violate them, and be morally neutral because of intent.
Either you're baiting me, or you're a sociopath.
I did not say they were morally neutral! I never even talked about morality at all, except for one comment where I said they were not evil and which I retracted in the very next post because I did not want to argue about morality.
I said that:
1) Assimilation is not the same as murder, and assimilation of an entire civilisation is not the same as genocide, though it is cultural genocide.
2) The Borg do not see themselves as aggressive conquerors but as benevolent beings who seek to improve the quality of life of all beings. I did not specify that this vision is not shared by the people being assimilated, because we were talking about the Borg's POV and because duuuuuuh.
3) Quality of life in the Collective is indeed improved by some metrics, such as no crime, no poverty, no social injustices and inequalities. Once again I did not mention that there are other metrics that are worse, such as no personal freedoms whatsoever, because clearly the Borg don't consider that to be as important as social perfection.
4) In TNG, the Borg are never the aggressors, in that they never attack or kill someone except in self-defence. That is not counting assimilation as an act of aggression, as per point #2.
None of this is an argument about the morality of assimilation.
EDIT: And I don't know what you mean with the bolded double-negative. Once again, focusing only on TNG and ignoring the crapfest that is Voyager, we have never seen the Borg lie, deceive, or really be anything but clear and straightforward about their plans and intentions.
It depends on whether you think evilness depends on intent or action. Did Hitler genuinely think he was doing good for the world? Does it matter if he did? The thing is, as has been suggested, there are multiple conflicting moral frameworks. So while Hilter may (or may not) have thought his genocide was in the spirit of goodness, we judge him by our moral framework and by ours he is evil.
So should people be empathized with and judged by their own moral framework, or should we judge them by ours?
EDIT: And I don't know what you mean with the bolded double-negative. Once again, focusing only on TNG and ignoring the crapfest that is Voyager, we have never seen the Borg lie, deceive, or really be anything but clear and straightforward about their plans and intentions.
Uhm, we must have watched a very different version of First Contact then.
It depends on whether you think evilness depends on intent or action. Did Hitler genuinely think he was doing good for the world? Does it matter if he did? The thing is, as has been suggested, there are multiple conflicting moral frameworks. So while Hilter may (or may not) have thought his genocide was in the spirit of goodness, we judge him by our moral framework and by ours he is evil.
So should people be empathized with and judged by their own moral framework, or should we judge them by ours?
I discard the notion that there is absolutely no moral objectivity whatsoever on primarily religious grounds. I know this is annoying to some people, but I am safely within a huge majority of humans in this matter.
It depends on whether you think evilness depends on intent or action. Did Hitler genuinely think he was doing good for the world? Does it matter if he did? The thing is, as has been suggested, there are multiple conflicting moral frameworks. So while Hilter may (or may not) have thought his genocide was in the spirit of goodness, we judge him by our moral framework and by ours he is evil.
So should people be empathized with and judged by their own moral framework, or should we judge them by ours?
I discard the notion that there is absolutely no moral objectivity whatsoever on primarily religious grounds. I know this is annoying to some people, but I am safely within a huge majority of humans in this matter.
Okay, and what moral framework is the correct moral framework?
It depends on whether you think evilness depends on intent or action. Did Hitler genuinely think he was doing good for the world? Does it matter if he did? The thing is, as has been suggested, there are multiple conflicting moral frameworks. So while Hilter may (or may not) have thought his genocide was in the spirit of goodness, we judge him by our moral framework and by ours he is evil.
So should people be empathized with and judged by their own moral framework, or should we judge them by ours?
I discard the notion that there is absolutely no moral objectivity whatsoever on primarily religious grounds. I know this is annoying to some people, but I am safely within a huge majority of humans in this matter.
Okay, and what moral framework is the correct moral framework?
Certain moral axioms cut across so many completely different cultures that it's safe to assume that while no particular moral framework may be the perfect one, that objective good and evil exist. I will say that any moral framework which denies out of hand the potential validity of alternate views (especially cultural views in other cultures) is in the wrong (at least in that regard).
-edit-
We're kinda off-topic though. I can't believe no one wanted to talk about Hans Grueber or Annie Wilkes. o_O
I mean, I know there are a lot of religious folk, but I don't know any religious person that can give me a clear and comprehensive idea of what they think God's morality is. The Ten Commandments (for instance) isn't exactly comprehensive. And I'm not sure what good an objective moral framework (or any moral framework) is without the ability to either know or calculate the moral value of an action and in a timely manner.
EDIT: And I don't know what you mean with the bolded double-negative. Once again, focusing only on TNG and ignoring the crapfest that is Voyager, we have never seen the Borg lie, deceive, or really be anything but clear and straightforward about their plans and intentions.
Uhm, we must have watched a very different version of First Contact then.
God I hated everything in that movie that dealt with the Borg Queen. The only good parts were the ones with Zephram Cochrane. And the incoherences! Suddenly there was a Queen on the Cube that attacked Earth? Data went from "obsolete artificial life-form" to the only adequate partner for the Borg Queen? Gwaaa!
Anyway, even though the Borg's plan was contrived (we can't defeat them with one ship here, so let's [strike]send more than one[/strike] travel into the past and rewrite history to our advantage) and stupid (why didn't they go into the past in the Delta Quadrant then go to Earth with no Federation to get in the way, rather than the other way around?), it still didn't use any form of deception.
Posts
Yeah, The Borg (TNG) was the unstoppable example, The Joker was incomprehensible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "methods were not evil" though. They were a reasonable villain, is all.
What I meant to say is that they are not cruel or mean, and are not looking to hurt anyone. They do not use violence unless they absolutely have to.
Sure. I don't count those as necessary factors for villains.
Sometimes, you're feeling deep, and you want someone complex, a misguided antihero, someone with logic, someone who was good but became intoxicated.
Other times, you just want an evil bastard who's just cruel and mean for no reason, it depends on the mood.
The various Megatrons across the Transformers continuities pretty much hit both ends of this spectrum. One of my favorite simple ones was the Beast Wars-era iteration of Megatron. He had no sympathetic side, he was just an evil jerk who wanted power, and did it with sarcasm and humor to match the cruelty. He wasn't deep, he was just a FUN villain.
Same goes with the new movie version. He wasn't deep at all, he was just a crazy scenery-chewing berserker who wanted power and was willing to bust anyone up to get it, and who simply thought humans were inferior. Once again, he was simply fun, and his sheer insanity stole the movie for me, despite his relatively small amount of screen time.
Now if I want a deep villain, I go to the recent IDW comics version of Megatron. I've yet to read his origin story miniseries, but I hear it makes him out as an antihero leading an oppressed people, who just uses malicious means to achieve his end. Regardless, by the "present day" portion of the comics, which I HAVE read, he's a cool, logical leader, who still sees himself as leading his people out of oppression, only he uses drastic means to achieve this end. A telling scene for me was when he chides Starscream's group in the first miniseries for going against him, saying that they're supposed to be better than fighting amongst themselves. Of course, he then beats the hell out of them. And in the next miniseries, he's shown to be more than willing to drop his conflict and unite with the good guys to drop a larger threat, without even hesitating. He even meets with Optimus Prime to discuss their planet's future after that. Of course, later on, he gets juiced on the token super-power MacGuffin, and reverts to the typical megalomaniacal caricature, but the fact that he has reason to (infinite power and whatnot) and the fact that Optimus Prime literally calls him out on the personality change in a brilliant bit of dialogue really did it for me. That's the kind of complexity I like. I haven't read past Escalation, so I'm a bit behind, and I don't know if they'll continue the cartoonish personality change, or if he'll revert to his old mindset now that he's un-juiced (I really hope so).
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I don't know about this "never attacked another ship except in self defense" bit. I seem to recall that they were the aggressors when the Enterprise encountered them. Didn't they rip out a chunk of the ship for investigation? And then beam a small boarding party onto the deck?
The Borg would have taken the saucer section if they hadn't had bigger fish to fry - ie, Earth. You're right in that they didn't destroy it out of any sense of vengeance or anything. I wouldn't say they "spared" them; that connotes a sense of mercy. The Borg are utterly merciless and utterly pragmatic; the only reason they didn't wreck the saucer is because it wasn't a threat and never could be. If it actually posed a threat they would have destroyed it immediately before taking off. It's been a while, but did the saucer actually do anything effective? If so, then the only reason it survived was narrative necessity.
As for Locutus, I completely disagree that they made him to facilitate assimilation for the humans; they did it to facilitate assimilation for themselves. They gained access to military, technological, and cartographical information from an important leader of their enemy. But your take is ultimately similar to mine, maybe: I think the reason they created a named entity wasn't to make it easier for humans, it was to try to make a more convincing argument to the humans, by means of an entity they could more effectively relate to. The grotesqueness of that is really great. But it was all just for increased efficiency and functionality for themselves. They don't care how the humans take assimilation, they just care how quickly and effectively assimilation can be performed.
The Borg are a great piece of speculative sci fi, I must say.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
But of course, the comics dropped that line fairly quickly and turned Megatron into the boring insane psychopathic megalomaniac we all know.
Anyways, one type of villain I always like is the smooth, manipulative type, like Angelus could be in Buffy. Evil just because that's the easiest way to what they want, and using anyone and everyone to get there. Slick and cool sociopaths.
As I've been on a Deadwood kick lately, I nominate:
Francis Wolcott
George Hearst
And, of course,
Al Swearengen. Or would he be the anti-hero?
The saucer section was part of the attack on the Borg cube; it notably fired an anti-matter spray to cover up the shuttle with Worf and Data. And sparing them wasn't because they were in a hurry to get to Earth; the battle was over, they needed only one second to fire the final shot and destroy the saucer section.
The pragmatic argument can go both ways IMO: on the one hand the saucer section is no longer a thread so you can spare for now, but on the other hand it has been shown to be a thread before and will most likely be a threat again in the future after it's repaired and reunited with the rest of the ship, so it would make sense to destroy it now. They went with the former. That IMO shows that given a choice, they will go with the option of least violence. That can be seen as a form of mercy.
The Borg already had most of that information from the Federation database they took from the Enterprise a year prior in "Q Who?". At best, Picard gave them an update, which they could have just as easily obtained by redownloading the Enterprise database, and a human perspective on the data, which they probably already had from the humans they had already assimilated. I don't think they gained much information, if any, from assimilating Picard.
But I guess we agree that Locutus' primary function was to facilitate assimilation.
But the statement I bolded seems self-contradictory. Yes, ultimately they care about assimilating the Federation in the fastest and most efficient way. And that optimal way is achieved by convincing humans to accept it and see the benefit of it, rather than fight it. Which is why they created Locutus as an ambassador, to, as you say, make a more convincing argument in favour of assimilation. Hence, they do care how humans take assimilation.
Now consider the sub-optimal assimilation technique: going to Earth without Locutus and starting to assimilate people, then go outwards. Clearly it would work, and there's nothing we could to do stop it. It would be almost as fast and efficient for the Borg; the Federation on the other hand would waste a massive amount of resources and lives fighting back with no success, like they did at Wolf 359. Picking the optimal way - from the Borg's point of view - benefits the Federation a lot more than it benefits the Borg. Yet they picked that way; IMO, not for the marginal benefit to themselves, but because they really thought they were helping us.
Clearly, I agree
Oh how I wish Voyager hadn't ruined them. By the end of that series a newborn kitten with a ball of string could have taken on the Collective and won.
Some of the best antagonists are the ones who aren't terribly complex at all, and whose real human motivations coupled with a believable amorality makes for a good bad guy (think Hans Grueber from Die Hard or Annie Wilkes from Misery). If you push either of those qualities too hard though you wind up with a villain who is simple to the point of being boring (someone said Sauron, I kind of agree) or depraved to the point of being comical rather than scary (Perfect example is Freddy Krueger).
Who the fuck said the Borg weren't ever the aggressors? Man, did you even watch Star Trek? What do you think happened to the El Aurans? They were pacifists and were wiped out more efficiently than freaking Alderan.
Skimmed the thread and didn't see this answered so...
Unless another book has come out that I missed Jarlaxle and Entreri are currently wandering the area between the Snowflake Mountains and the coast with Jarlaxle pretending to be Drizzt so that they don't have to bothered with murdering every town they stop in.
Richy is a Borg apologist.
@Quid: the El Aurans weren't wiped out, they were assimilated. The Borg don't wipe out species.
In this context it is essentially the same thing.
So if I cut down a 2,000 year old redwood and build a deck out of it, I haven't destroyed a beautiful work of natures creation, I've just assimilated it into my summer home.
:^:
The Borg assimilate. They integrate the species into the Collective, thus improving the quality of life (by certain metrics) for that species. They believe they are helping out other species.
No one ever commits genocide thinking they are helping out the people they kill. They don't want to help the people they kill, they want to get rid of them and help themselves. That's a big difference.
Oh well as long as you think you're helping it's not evil...
The culture and history of the species is gone, they exist as raw materials, that is why I said they were essentially the same and not exactly the same. The species might as well not exist after they are assimilated.
People who are assimilated are still alive. That's the difference.
A more apt comparison would be if you found a 2,000 year old redwood and genetically-modified it to turn its leaves black to improve photosynthesis, then graphed a solar panel on it to improve light absorption, and dug out the roots and replanted them in a nutriment-rich liquid.
So I guess the argument is, is it better to respect an inferior culture that causes suffering for its members, or to help the members but thereby destroy the culture?
Terry Schiavo was still alive. Also, your redwood analogy is much farther from what the Borg do to a culture than mine is. The Borg do not have internal distinction, so by definition they destroy any culture they assimilate, same as they destroy the free-will and the individuality of the people who make up the culture. The fact that it exists in their database is completely irrelevant.
A better analogy for what the Borg do in terms of human history would be attacking a country, murdering every politician, intellectual, artist and writer and enslaving everyone else while carefully cataloging the knowledge of that culture, while forbidding the slaves from partaking in any of their cultural practices upon pain of death.
There's all sorts of words to describe that kind of phenomena, and none of them are positive.
You seem to hang an awful lot of your argument on this "by certain metrics" bullshit. I could easily Godwin your argument all to fuck, but I think I'll just settle for pointing out how deeply flawed your argument is if you must couch it in pure relativism.
Yes, the Borg say a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that "incapable of deception" isn't one of their qualities. I don't know how you can fail so hard to understand that thinking you are improving the quality of life for someone does not allow you to do things to them against their will, physically and mentally violate them, and be morally neutral because of intent.
Either you're baiting me, or you're a sociopath.
I said that:
1) Assimilation is not the same as murder, and assimilation of an entire civilisation is not the same as genocide, though it is cultural genocide.
2) The Borg do not see themselves as aggressive conquerors but as benevolent beings who seek to improve the quality of life of all beings. I did not specify that this vision is not shared by the people being assimilated, because we were talking about the Borg's POV and because duuuuuuh.
3) Quality of life in the Collective is indeed improved by some metrics, such as no crime, no poverty, no social injustices and inequalities. Once again I did not mention that there are other metrics that are worse, such as no personal freedoms whatsoever, because clearly the Borg don't consider that to be as important as social perfection.
4) In TNG, the Borg are never the aggressors, in that they never attack or kill someone except in self-defence. That is not counting assimilation as an act of aggression, as per point #2.
None of this is an argument about the morality of assimilation.
EDIT: And I don't know what you mean with the bolded double-negative. Once again, focusing only on TNG and ignoring the crapfest that is Voyager, we have never seen the Borg lie, deceive, or really be anything but clear and straightforward about their plans and intentions.
So should people be empathized with and judged by their own moral framework, or should we judge them by ours?
Uhm, we must have watched a very different version of First Contact then.
I discard the notion that there is absolutely no moral objectivity whatsoever on primarily religious grounds. I know this is annoying to some people, but I am safely within a huge majority of humans in this matter.
Okay, and what moral framework is the correct moral framework?
Certain moral axioms cut across so many completely different cultures that it's safe to assume that while no particular moral framework may be the perfect one, that objective good and evil exist. I will say that any moral framework which denies out of hand the potential validity of alternate views (especially cultural views in other cultures) is in the wrong (at least in that regard).
-edit-
We're kinda off-topic though. I can't believe no one wanted to talk about Hans Grueber or Annie Wilkes. o_O
Anyway, even though the Borg's plan was contrived (we can't defeat them with one ship here, so let's [strike]send more than one[/strike] travel into the past and rewrite history to our advantage) and stupid (why didn't they go into the past in the Delta Quadrant then go to Earth with no Federation to get in the way, rather than the other way around?), it still didn't use any form of deception.