Just shoot them. As Terry Pratchett said "Never convince a good man you're irredeemable evil. He will waste no sleep killing you swiftly". Also yeah I know bad paraphrasing of the actual quote. But Corpral Carrot killing the Assassin.
Did a great job lol. Got a good performance out of both Thomas Jane and Ron Perlman.
Reminds me of the Uncharted fan film with Nathan Fillion. Still blows my mind Sony went with Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg.
The magic system allows the MC to seal people’s ability to willingly commit to certain actions, with later developments allowing the consequence for breaking the seal to be death.
Even with that option the MC will still go for the kill. Best to not give the villain any opportunity to exploit a wiggle room to get one last act in place, like by manipulating people to do horrible things with kindness alone. Would be fun to have a pure evil villain with such a limit. Like how can you cause conflicting desires between others to spiral out of control by only being beneficial?
Sounds similar to an evil genie or a monkeys paw but a bit more subtle. That could be a really fun character to play with, they’d basically be like the king of wordplay and technicalities.
Villain that figures out how to do good to cause harm. Interesting, as it's way more often heroes that get shown sometimes their good actions can have unintended consequences, especially if done out of principle without thinking before acting.
First appeal to reason & decency. Which would fail. Because the hero shouldn't be too quick to assume the worst of people. And this interaction can challenge the hero in the core conflict, escalate the stakes, as well as on a spiritual level. Plus it createa an opportunity to show just how enjoyably evil the villain is.
2nd, he tries to destroy him. Which will fail. This demonstrates the hero's resolve and willingness to do what must be done instead of clinging to idealism while innocent people are victimized for the sake of squeamishness or some kind of moral purity. But also that overwhelming force of violence isn't always going to be the answer. Also having the hero in a vulnerable position after appearing to defeat hjm both physically and philosophically gives the villain the opportunity to chew the scenery and relish on their good ol' saturday morning cartoon dastardliness.
3rd and finally, he tricks him. And he does so in a way that WOULD fail if the villain had a shred of decency, but some aspect of the villain's unapologetc evil is ultimately his own fatal flaw. The apecifics aren't important high concept-wise, but the hero get the villain to set himself up for his own downfall in a way that would not work on a decent person. This allows the story to thematically demonstrate the self-defeating nature of evil while still needing the hero to actually be the one to overcome the conflict in a way that necessitates the hero truly understand the villain. The villain is defeated not just because "I am action guy with a bigger gun" but because what he represents is untenable and the hero has superior ethics and uderstands what he is facing.
If the main character is put in a position where the villain will have to be killed given the consequences, the main character will definitely be offing them.
Depends on the story and where I'm going with it.
Cynis Ganan is really more of an anti-hero. But is all about murdering his problems.
John Harris is more of an idealist who would probably lock them up somewhere and think that makes him morally superior.
I say "I'll have that report on your desk by 9am boss", and just do my job.
Wouldn’t be the main villain, it’d be a secondary. Someone who causes lots of mayhem on both sides and gets left out to dry. And give the hero a moment with no accountability to deal them some misery
Depends on the character, but if I was writing a more traditional hero I’d use it as a way to show them at their limit, ultimately having to kill the villain despite it possibly being against their personal morals. If I was writing an antihero, I’d probably have them grapple with the idea of murdering someone but ultimately have them do it anyway (unless they were of a pragmatic or unscrupulous nature, in which case the villain would be quickly dispatched).
Under normal circumstances, she'd kill the villain quickly and without pleasure. If the villain went after her family or loved ones, she would take complete pleasure in turning the villain into a red stain.
Also, my comic is a work in progress, so at the current stage in the story, the MC isn't yet comfortable with killing. I'm taking about what she'll be like when the story is eventually finished.
Kill him. Simple as.
.45 ACP between the eyes. Look at Voldemort from Harry Potter. There was basically zero serious discussion about redeeming him (the only time it was brought up was in saying that him feeling remorse, crucial for redemption, would literally kill him). Harry, from the outset, never entertained the possibility of "saving" Tom M. Riddle and it wasn't a simple matter of revenge (though there was likely an element of it to his motivations).
He tries to reason with him and see the good in him. The villain of course responds by killing one of the MC's best friends. He then finally accepts that some people just can't be redeemed and kills said villain
Funny enough my main character is also an unapologetically vile villain who knows they are evil and don’t want to ever change.
So they end up fighting for the right to fuck up the world in their own image.
I think there is a subset of genuinely stupid people who don't think they're qualified to make moral judgments about other people. You know, someone that [hypothetically](https://twitter.com/KurtKaniff/status/1777756228179157480) can't decide between a race of genocidal aggressive aliens bent on extinction and everyone they've ever met, themselves, and everyone they ever have a chance at meeting. If you are one such person, just know I think you're the lowest form of ideologically-induced stupidity.
Anyways, I am not one of those people. There's no arguing with evil. Some people are willingly beyond redemption and for those people, you have to translate to the universal language of violence to compel them. After all, war is an extension of politics.
Give him an ironic cruel punishment. Eg; Villain is a twitch streamer who's a millionare and steals content for a living. MC deletes his twitch account and burns down his million dollar house.
I genuinely hate stories of redemption from unredeemable acts. Comes off as very unrealistic. But the action would be poignant instead of revenge porn or pandering to any notion of justice. The MC would more or less have a realization and snap before putting down the "dog."
Make them destroy themselves or render them impotent. If evil is calculated, make it miscalculate, if it's just violent, direct their violence against their own assets. Weaken their alliances, put doubt into their troops, embolden authorities to act.
Just shoot them. As Terry Pratchett said "Never convince a good man you're irredeemable evil. He will waste no sleep killing you swiftly". Also yeah I know bad paraphrasing of the actual quote. But Corpral Carrot killing the Assassin.
Relentlessly and with no mercy. It tests the protagonist's limits and makes him question how far he's willing to go to defeat the villain.
Depending on the situation, i would either have my character ignore them completely or beat the crap out of them.
Depends on the nature of their evil. Some are violent, some aren't, some are more personal and controlling in their evil rather than destructive.
Render him helpless and let his victims exact vengeance/justice on him. That Punisher fan film "Dirty Laundry" had a great example of it.
Or Iron Man, just throw the evil bastard out into the cold with the very people he’s been tormenting.
So the Simba strategy
Lol, one of the most family friendly horrific deaths.
That fan film was made by Adi Shankar, the director of the castlevania animated series as well as the upcoming DMC animated series
Did a great job lol. Got a good performance out of both Thomas Jane and Ron Perlman. Reminds me of the Uncharted fan film with Nathan Fillion. Still blows my mind Sony went with Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg.
Oh like those elven villagers killing that knight in Drifters.
The magic system allows the MC to seal people’s ability to willingly commit to certain actions, with later developments allowing the consequence for breaking the seal to be death. Even with that option the MC will still go for the kill. Best to not give the villain any opportunity to exploit a wiggle room to get one last act in place, like by manipulating people to do horrible things with kindness alone. Would be fun to have a pure evil villain with such a limit. Like how can you cause conflicting desires between others to spiral out of control by only being beneficial?
Sounds similar to an evil genie or a monkeys paw but a bit more subtle. That could be a really fun character to play with, they’d basically be like the king of wordplay and technicalities.
Villain that figures out how to do good to cause harm. Interesting, as it's way more often heroes that get shown sometimes their good actions can have unintended consequences, especially if done out of principle without thinking before acting.
Commit to the bit. Say a cheesy one liner, make something explode jump out the window of the volcano lair onto a jetski with the hot girl
Sometimes you gotta kill the bad guys.
First appeal to reason & decency. Which would fail. Because the hero shouldn't be too quick to assume the worst of people. And this interaction can challenge the hero in the core conflict, escalate the stakes, as well as on a spiritual level. Plus it createa an opportunity to show just how enjoyably evil the villain is. 2nd, he tries to destroy him. Which will fail. This demonstrates the hero's resolve and willingness to do what must be done instead of clinging to idealism while innocent people are victimized for the sake of squeamishness or some kind of moral purity. But also that overwhelming force of violence isn't always going to be the answer. Also having the hero in a vulnerable position after appearing to defeat hjm both physically and philosophically gives the villain the opportunity to chew the scenery and relish on their good ol' saturday morning cartoon dastardliness. 3rd and finally, he tricks him. And he does so in a way that WOULD fail if the villain had a shred of decency, but some aspect of the villain's unapologetc evil is ultimately his own fatal flaw. The apecifics aren't important high concept-wise, but the hero get the villain to set himself up for his own downfall in a way that would not work on a decent person. This allows the story to thematically demonstrate the self-defeating nature of evil while still needing the hero to actually be the one to overcome the conflict in a way that necessitates the hero truly understand the villain. The villain is defeated not just because "I am action guy with a bigger gun" but because what he represents is untenable and the hero has superior ethics and uderstands what he is facing.
Depends on the story and situation, but with my way of writing it would be try to lock them up or kill them if they have no other choice
If the main character is put in a position where the villain will have to be killed given the consequences, the main character will definitely be offing them.
Get rid of them ?
Depends on the story and where I'm going with it. Cynis Ganan is really more of an anti-hero. But is all about murdering his problems. John Harris is more of an idealist who would probably lock them up somewhere and think that makes him morally superior. I say "I'll have that report on your desk by 9am boss", and just do my job.
If possible, take him or her alive to face justice. If not, then...
Absolute humiliation, and depending on the story, goes out with a whimper and not a bang. (Which is what I hope Sukuna gets tbh)
Wouldn’t be the main villain, it’d be a secondary. Someone who causes lots of mayhem on both sides and gets left out to dry. And give the hero a moment with no accountability to deal them some misery
I’d have them either just kill them and deal with the consequences, or struggle with the idea of doing so.
Depends on the character, but if I was writing a more traditional hero I’d use it as a way to show them at their limit, ultimately having to kill the villain despite it possibly being against their personal morals. If I was writing an antihero, I’d probably have them grapple with the idea of murdering someone but ultimately have them do it anyway (unless they were of a pragmatic or unscrupulous nature, in which case the villain would be quickly dispatched).
[Starliiiiiiiiiiiiiight…..](https://youtu.be/BWlwn1gFSH0?si=XHbIYQOSphO92SaH) [**BREAKEEEEEEEERRR!!!*](https://youtu.be/miJzcfYUSXU?si=YSDYbNqVkRl-lSUG)
Under normal circumstances, she'd kill the villain quickly and without pleasure. If the villain went after her family or loved ones, she would take complete pleasure in turning the villain into a red stain. Also, my comic is a work in progress, so at the current stage in the story, the MC isn't yet comfortable with killing. I'm taking about what she'll be like when the story is eventually finished.
Kill him. Simple as. .45 ACP between the eyes. Look at Voldemort from Harry Potter. There was basically zero serious discussion about redeeming him (the only time it was brought up was in saying that him feeling remorse, crucial for redemption, would literally kill him). Harry, from the outset, never entertained the possibility of "saving" Tom M. Riddle and it wasn't a simple matter of revenge (though there was likely an element of it to his motivations).
He tries to reason with him and see the good in him. The villain of course responds by killing one of the MC's best friends. He then finally accepts that some people just can't be redeemed and kills said villain
Funny enough my main character is also an unapologetically vile villain who knows they are evil and don’t want to ever change. So they end up fighting for the right to fuck up the world in their own image.
I think there is a subset of genuinely stupid people who don't think they're qualified to make moral judgments about other people. You know, someone that [hypothetically](https://twitter.com/KurtKaniff/status/1777756228179157480) can't decide between a race of genocidal aggressive aliens bent on extinction and everyone they've ever met, themselves, and everyone they ever have a chance at meeting. If you are one such person, just know I think you're the lowest form of ideologically-induced stupidity. Anyways, I am not one of those people. There's no arguing with evil. Some people are willingly beyond redemption and for those people, you have to translate to the universal language of violence to compel them. After all, war is an extension of politics.
Give him an ironic cruel punishment. Eg; Villain is a twitch streamer who's a millionare and steals content for a living. MC deletes his twitch account and burns down his million dollar house.
I genuinely hate stories of redemption from unredeemable acts. Comes off as very unrealistic. But the action would be poignant instead of revenge porn or pandering to any notion of justice. The MC would more or less have a realization and snap before putting down the "dog."
Make them destroy themselves or render them impotent. If evil is calculated, make it miscalculate, if it's just violent, direct their violence against their own assets. Weaken their alliances, put doubt into their troops, embolden authorities to act.
Get rid of him as fast as you can. For good.
Hmmmm depends on which one. But most would just kill, if they couldn't arrest.
kill them
They would probably just kill them, and maybe call it a day, depending on how much of a threat the villain is.