Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

So recently I have been reading some books from DC's Villains Month, for the most part I was entertained to see DC's baddies take the reigns and do their thing, but then I came across the books staring Aquaman's rogues: Ocean Master and Black Manta.

While reading these issues, I have discovered that these two did what they did for a purpose: Black Manta is out to destroy Aquaman's life in order to avenge his father, who died by Aquaman's hand, and Ocean Master had invaded the surface world in order to defend his people and the city of Atlantis. What I liked about these books is that they gave me a new perspective on villains I previously thought were evil for the sake of evil, but after learning their motivations, I saw that they didn't see themselves as evil.

Which brings up this next topic: Do villains need to be evil to be considered "good?" By using "Good", I mean the connection the villain is trying to pass along to the audience; Do we want him to succeed in his mission or do we want him to fall at the hero's feet?

Star Wars is a good example of whether you fit in either the hero or the villain archetype. Some villains that I personally wanted to see get what was coming to them was Jabba the Hutt and The Emperor. They both knew what they were doing was evil, they purposefully make a living based on the suffering of others in order to get what they want. The same principle applies to three more power hungry villains in popular culture: Lex Luthor, Norman Osborn (Green Goblin), and Megatron. They dream of conquest and domination of their own worlds and will step over anybody to get what they want. But for the most part we are relieved to see that there will always be heroes to stand up to these would be tyrants.

But what about the villain who doesn't see himself as "Evil?" What if he sees himself as the "Hero?" Let's take a look at some villains who don't see themselves as the bad guy, and why they shouldn't think otherwise.

Ocean Master: The half-brother of Aquaman, Ocean Master invaded the surface world during the event known as Throne of Atlantis. Before he set his army loose upon the cities, he had retaliated because a destroyer had accidentally launched a ballistic missile into the sea. This nearly destroyed Atlantis, and Ocean Master did not want the risk of surface dwellers invading the city he loves. After breaking out of prison, and even during his stay, Ocean Master began to see that not all surface dwellers were savages, even though he still thinks himself above them. His thoughts radically changed when he saved the life of a woman before returning to the ocean, and before leaving, is having second thoughts about returning.

Khan: This is the version of Into Darkness. A super soldier bred for war, Khan is a vicious warrior and a brilliant tactician. His master plan involves revenge against the man who sought to use him, but his ultimate goal is to rescue his crew, who are trapped in weapons systems. Near the end, when the Enterprise is under attack, Khan is willing to help Kirk, if the safety of his own crew is guaranteed.

Ozymandias:

In the end, it truly is the villains' personal ideologies and motivations that set the apart form the heroes. But it is these motivations that determine whether we want to see them succeed and live happy, or to witness their defeat at the hands of the morally just heroes.

I know we are all nerds here and it's an old book, but those are some massive spoilers in the Ozymandias section of your post.

In most cases i think a good villian should be able to stand on their own as a protagonist. Walter White from Breaking Bad springs to mind. However in The Walking Dead comic, (not the television series) the Governor is a terrific villain that is a completely unrelatable, monstrous human being. This works well because the series had been dealing with so many moral ambiguities, that the contrast of such stark evil was much more effective than someone with somewhat honorable intentions ( TWD television show...)
Similarly, a character that embodies an ideal contrary to the protagonist, like Nolan's Joker, or any character in an Ayn Rand novel makes for a good villain because it highlights the attributes of the hero that we are supposed to respect.

i had put the Nolan Joker in a different category in a previous post (falling outside Good vs Evil and more in the ideal of chaos or disorder). The reference to The Killing Joke was meant more as an example that Joker tries to make Commissioner Gordon into a villain through a series of tragic events because in the continuity of The Killing Joke, the Joker has a tragic back story that turned him from being a young engineer with a family into a criminal monster.

Great villains are down right evil, love what they do, look awesome, feel like an actual threat, and do not always have to have some sympathetic background story. Some villains are great because they are evil just for the sake of being evil. They all do not need an origin story or a reason to do what they do.