What it means to be a Hero/Villain

[Catcocomics]

For those who are unaware, the roles of hero and villain have intrigued me for quite some time (kind of on and off through out my life, sort of like a wave... and I guess now is one of the crests to said wave).

I create this for the purpose of philosophical discussion on the roles of hero and villain, as both roles have much to teach us, and much understanding can be gained by those who are open to it.

I simply start us off today with:

A true hero must not only protect/save the people from the villain, but also protect/save the villain from the people...

Interpret it as you will, and any comments on the subject are very much appreciated.

 

[Amorix]

I don't think the hero is obligated to save the villain from jack shit. Maybe it's because I read too many YouTube comments- the YouTube comments section being the land of "I am above consequence of any kind and anyone who says different is a PC SJW Feminazi"- but I think if you do something shitty, you should be left to the mercy of the people you hurt.

 

[Catcocomics]

but I think if you do something shitty, you should be left to the mercy of the people you hurt.

When that mentality is perpetuated, a karmic cycle is formed, and the same mistake is repeated until any of the people involved does something to discontinue the cycle.
While it may feel gratifying (to some extent) to "get even" with someone who has wronged you, you will only end up fueling their desire to do the same thing back (though likely in a different form) should you retaliate.
On top of this, sparing those who have wronged you can teach both you and the person(s) you spare the benefits of compassion, and this can even lead to a villain becoming an anti-hero, and later, even a hero (or a "regular person" if they feel like retiring).

Of course, there is always the risk that the person you are trying to spare sees your act of kindness as weakness, in which they will try to exploit it, attempt to injure/kill you, and make their get away.
This is primarily caused for one of two major factors:

Spoiler

1. the villain in question is simply too far gone down the negative path to be retrievable with your current power, in which case, you may have to subdue them a few more times before they get tired of the repetition, or you may in fact have to kill them if they are without a doubt hopeless of recovery through any other means. Please note that killing should be done as swiftly and painlessly as possible, and only used as an absolute last resort.
It is important for heroes to never give up in their journey, especially when it comes to saving the villain.

2. you may have forgotten to subdue the villain, in which they see your "sparing attempt" as a moment of stupidity.
Unless a villain has only just started down the negative path, they will be unlikely to change by words alone, and you may have to exhaust their powers in order to get their attention.
Seriously, trying to get someone who is currently hellbent on world domination is like talking to a titanium-fortified fortress wall with mounted laser turrets on it.

It should also be noted that nothing is concrete in the real world; though I say that a hero should act in a certain manner when dealing with villains and other people, that doesn't necessarily mean it is required or that it is always going to happen that way, but rather, when I say a true hero should do or not do a certain action, they should do or not do said certain action in order for the best outcome to occur.

If you really want to hurt someone because they hurt you or your friend, then you can. Just understand that you may have a bad time because of it.

 

[Duffie]

I've personally never been a fan of the comic book superhero... But, the villains of the story always intrigued me.

Every villain has their reasoning for what they do, whether it's justified by themselves through past experiences, or by seeing themselves doing an act of justice through any means necessary... But, that goes into an Anti-Hero route, depending on your perspective.

And, honestly... The interpretation of Hero and Villain is very much a matter of perspective, as I see it. For instance, when pointing something out in the comments section of YouTube, while you may not watch what you say and may have offended someone along the way, making them see you as a villain... You, yourself, could believe yourself to, put it simply, a hero, attempting to add some critique.

If you go back to the topic of comic book superheros, the clear definitive difference is typically "the act of defending the greater good," or the protection of the general populace... But, what's to say a villain isn't doing the same, from their own perspectives?

I can never see myself being a villain... But, I can't really see myself being a hero, either.

 

[☃Dr. Bob]

The most nonexistent of happenings would be the hero saving the villain.

In the end it usually goes down that the villain is put in their place not only once if stopped, but twice if the hero doesn't understand justice. Regardless if the villain is a villain or twistingly enough the true surviving Reba of the story, if the hero tries to "set things right", then bad decisions would be made for the fate of what this said villain would have to go through.

Unless the hero is someone who actually tries to connect with people or gives others a chance or chances throughout their time of action, there isn't a way for the hero to give sound final judgement to the villain. This hero would need to be incredibly relating to their enemy and would have to think up a suitable way to approach them.

If the villain doesn't like to be touched from any angle, then they can only save themselves, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the hero should end them for being evil. Some people are corrupted beyond making trades, they are dangerous, yes, but not always at fault. A suitable action would be to ignore the villain if they keep acting up, rather than telling them to shove off. If the villain becomes harmful, then action must be taken to ensure that no one gets hurt.
That's where things get hard, but a better sense of who you're dealing with as a hero takes place. You may very well need to get them to leave or to destroy them at that point, but only because they are a true danger.

It's a sad fate to be declared the villain, but in most situations, no matter what a person sets out to do, it is the people around them who decide whether they are the villain or the hero. So with that said, if this "villain" never wanted to be "evil" in the first place, all it may need to patch the situation up is to have the hero listen to what this villain so desperately was trying to share verbally, and then seek out the way to fix it.

 

[Catcocomics]

The point of having hero and villain roles to begin with is very ancient; in this stage of spiritual development, it is essential to have a villain, or else the people instantly have peace and prosperity, lead multitudes of uneventful lives, and learn very little from any of it.
The Villains' endgame is to serve a healthy variety of complications to life that the heroes and the people both must overcome through learning.
The villains also learn many of the lessons that come with being cut off from everyone, demolishing everything you care about, and other things that mundane life simply can't provide.
The Heroes' endgame is essentially to let everyone rest and make life simple and enjoyable again, comparable to how we need night so that day doesn't burn everything up, yet we need day so that nothing stagnates and dies from an overall lack of energy and excitement.

I will also point out right now that the concept of justice is relative to each individual's perception of the world.
Justice overall is highly malleable to the point of being painfully easy to corrupt (almost like it was designed to be corrupted), and it most commonly falls back onto the basis of "an eye for an eye".
Much akin to the karmic system that has ensnared hundreds of thousands on this world (see karmic wheel), justice ultimately disposes of the lessons taught by hero and villain, only to replace them with some form of highly unequally equated back lash to the offender (which in and of itself, can be motive for one to become a villain, or rarely a hero) in the name of "making life fair".

If you're a stickler for making as many aspects of life as "equal and fair" as possible, just read Harrison Bergeron and you'll see why that's a bad idea.
Don't get this confused with having rules and guidelines, because you do want to have boundaries of some sort to make life have meaning, what I simply mean is that true equality in all aspects of life cannot co-exist with variety.

Now, saving, too, is a relative term, highly dependent on the context of the current situation. Take Harry Potter: Half Blood Prince for example
(spoilers if you haven't read or seen Half Blood Prince AND Deathly Hallows)

Spoiler

When Severus Snape kills Albus Dumbledore, Snape is effectively saving Dumbledore.
Though Harry Potter initially assumed pretty much the worst from that moment, it was later revealed through Snape's memories that Dumbledore had put on the ring horcrux, which cursed him with an excessively slow and painful death. When Dumbledore showed the effects of the curse to Snape, it was revealed that there was pretty much no counter to the curse.
There fore, when Snape killed Dumbledore, Snape put a swift end to Dumbledore's agony.

Another example I can give (and doesn't need spoiler warnings) is when someone is simply filled with so much negativity that they might as well not even be in there anymore, the best action could be to release them and their negativity, ending their turmoil, and giving them a chance to start a happier life (if they need one).
Of course, there are some times when "saving" would be protecting an individual or group from harm or negativity, such as a villain giving a legitimate attempt at turning good (this would be a good case of hero saving villain, esp if people are vengeful and hero is highly understanding and compassionate).

 

[☃Dr. Bob]

I wasn't really putting so many aspects on the subject out there, I was mostly just focusing on the saving the villain part, as it interests me the most.

To step away from that for a second, people will still fight with evils that pertain to their own views, even if those evils are not human. Sickness has always been too common, and living in and of itself is considered a horrible curse by many, especially for people with terrible living conditions. People will always have villains in their lives, and no one I can think of personally would want to save something along the lines of arthritis or cancer. It isn't exactly exciting for most people to hear "Diabetes is attacking the Eiffel tower by slowly ruining its life in a painful way!". I was discussing the human aspect though, so hopefully you'll understand I was talking about a society-based good and evil. But, as a side-note, I really don't want some random guy going out and killing people just to spice things up. I've had enough spice from my own pains, thank you.

Also, justice is, yes, as you put it, applied to set systems by people. And many justice systems are very unfair, but only in accordance to that of other justice systems. If some other worldly being who has somehow never met other life, and had no personal system of right and wrong were to try and make sense of the set-ups we have here on Earth, they would probably actually not understand at all. This being up in space who has not had previous contact with life wouldn't have any idea what any of our systems are, being that of a human society, an iguana's needs to live, or how to open a coconut. This incredibly far-off example only shows to prove your point, justice and morals only pertain to groups of collected beings with knowledge on subjects. However, being in a society with specific morals, shared and unshared, I do know that people have their ways of living (and sometimes dying) and getting where they need to go.
So good and evil is seen as different depending on who you ask, but in the same sense of life that we live, it would be pretty hard for us to have this conversation right now if both of our present cultures revolved so heavily on hatred and murder. The fact that we're discussing something without plotting to kill each other does show a sort of courtesy in a way. In fact, I don't think we would be in this same community right now if we didn't have a similar sense of hobby.

To continue a bit on that, some groups of people with their own morals do/don't clash with each other. Some people kill others for their own society's justice, other people want them to stop doing it, not only for their own sake, but for even the opposing group's. This kindness from one side could be completely alien to the other, and seen as complete evil, however, this is usually the result of tactical brainwashing of a culture, but not always, so I'm going to stop there on the subject.

On the topic of equality, yes, I know of Harrison Bergeron. Personally, in my own morals, relatable or foreign to that of others, I prefer that things are as equal as they can be in opportunity so people can live how they want. People don't have to live the same way if they live with the same rules, as you did say, however in Harrison Bergeron, a way of equality was pushed as a rule, because that's just how society was set up there. That was what was right, equality as a rule. I personally didn't even see their equality as real equality, maybe it was how the book presented itself to me, or maybe it was just how I think, but that was not fair, even set up to try and be fair. I would like people to live fair lives, but only fair enough so that they do not suffer from unfair living circumstances and have equal opportunity to stay alive (which I hope to one day have better control over). Beyond that and the rules, people should be able to set out and do what they want in life, especially because of how fragile we all are.

By the way, I did partially go over the good and evil perception thing at the end of my post. Things can happen in many ways, and vice versa situations can't be taken away as a factor.

 

[Catcocomics]

The fact that we're discussing something without plotting to kill each other does show a sort of courtesy in a way.

That's a shame.
To me, not plotting to kill another is simply a natural respect of life, unless I have the full and honest consent of the person I'm going to kill.
But even going here on the fullest extent of how best to decide whether or not one should take a life is taking a dive from kiddy pool to deep ocean depths. It's really interesting just how complicated even the simplest of concepts can be.

I personally didn't even see their equality as real equality, maybe it was how the book presented itself to me, or maybe it was just how I think, but that was not fair, even set up to try and be fair.

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous how most of their "balancing" is based around what each of the characters do (I.E. when the ballerina who is too badly nerfed to even stand steadily has to take over the news reporter's job because he just can't talk on a mic without failing horribly). I also noted that the way that everyone was made "equal" was pretty feeble, all things considered; the only thing really holding anyone down is that they're all pretty much just sheep, too afraid to simply leave their bindings in the bin (because they realistically could do that without too much hassle if they all just had the courage).

I would like people to live fair lives, but only fair enough so that they do not suffer from unfair living circumstances and have equal opportunity to stay alive (which I hope to one day have better control over). Beyond that and the rules, people should be able to set out and do what they want in life, especially because of how fragile we all are.

I would agree here, if it weren't for spiritual development. I very strongly understand wanting to have a level playing field, but as with the purpose of having heroes and villains, there too is much to learn from having an imbalance of powers and talents.
Still, it is nice being able to prosper regardless of where your field(s) of expertise lie.

 

[☃Dr. Bob]

Here's a current villainous threat looming over our heads: nuclear war. If it hasn't mixed things up in life for the many nations yet, try to think about how it may after someone decides to finally let a strike hit. It's happened before and it can unfortunately happen again. I am worried of this evil, myself.

 

[Catcocomics]

Our government is overly eager to press that big red button of mass genocide, to the point that they would have launched nukes years before now... if they were allowed to.
Fortunately for pretty much everyone everywhere, there are far greater forces at play who have disallowed the usage of nukes, and Russia is even equipped with a "new", special technology that disables war equipment without harming people.

Even then, if the threat of nuclear war truly was real, I wouldn't let that stop me from being a highly compassionate being.
Perhaps it comes with the inability to fear death.
You do know that the villain's strongest tool is always fear, and the hero's strongest tool is always love, do you not?

The one thing separating a strong hero from a true hero is that a true hero does not fear in the face of the villain, while a strong hero does fear, but tries to bolster their own self with courage.
Yes, courage does have a certain potency, but one must first have fear in order to have courage.

Think of it like this: courage equates to a powerful regeneration effect that constantly heals its wielder.
If a strong enough fear hits said person, the courage will prove pointless, for the battle will have already ended.
With love/compassion, you can ignore the effects of fear almost entirely, as though compassion were a powerful shield.

There's also the part where courage can sometimes lead to recklessness, which may send one (or many) out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Not to say that you should shun courage and stick purely with love and compassion (though love and compassion are very amazingly powerful), but be mindful of which strengths do what in your favor.
And if ever your love and compassion are too little to deal with a particularly powerful fear, don't forget your courage.

 

[☃Dr. Bob]

I've learned that fear and sickness can beat a person down no matter how many times they heal from their intense suffering. I've also learned that there is no end to the variety of pains that exist. It doesn't always matter if someone has the courage to survive, sometimes they will just get crushed to death slower if that's the case.

 

[Scrable]

Hero and Villain?

It translates to Good and Evil and because I view good as something not existent, because if a person wants to do actively a good thing. They do it because they will benefit from it. How? For example, helping a poor man, will make you feel better and think that you are responsible.

Meanwhile Evil... This is more complicated, since there is indeed the bad and the worse. But there is no worst. And evil is the absolute bad. But continuing the thought in the first part, there is nothing like an "absolute good", neither is there an "absolute good". There are always motives behind it on how a person can benefit from this action. Everyone does something because everyone will benefit in some way from this action, if it goes as planned.

So the concept of "Hero and Villain", "Good and Evil" is not applicable to reality in my opinion.


Maybe I went to far off this. Reread what you meant. Well if we take the concept of "Good and Evil" as a theoretically real thing, the Good has to save the Evil in the extreme case. If one's value is being a "hero", one has to act according to it. But these roles are far too extreme to be applied anywhere but fiction.

 

[Zelz]

Ooohh, I like this.
Very interesting question actually. It seems kinda obvious until you really think about it. Often, villains do what they tend to think is "good" for them, so in their eyes, they're a hero. However, heroes to villains look bad, which makes them the villain.

It really does narrow down to your own personal experience. There's not really an official hero or villain role as such, it's interpreted however you like. If you agree with one side, you view them as the heroes, whilst those disagreeing view the same people as the villains.

As for movie hero/villains, same applies but it depends on how the story is told through the direction of the movie. The majority of times, it focuses on the heroes, therefore making them look heroic, but to the "villains" of the story, the heroes are the villains. Typically, the "heroes" are just the ones who protect the peace. But that leaves you thinking the original question all over again of "what makes a hero, a hero?" because what is considered peace? To some it is a lot different to others.

Oh and as for the hero saving the villain. I don't think he'd intentionally save him, nor kill him. If he was in danger, I don't think a "hero" would save a bad guy. If either role truly existed, that is.

It's 6am, my brain hurts

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Someone's probably already said this but I don't think we can globally define 'hero' or 'villain'. What makes someone good or bad differs to different people. Some may argue that people who follow their true selves and do what they believe they should is what makes them a hero, others say those who sacrifice self for the many are the hero. In movies usually the villains are the guys killing people but who's to say killing isn't actually a heroic act - what if when we die we move onto a different place where we learn that the goal of life was death, and murderers are seen as saintly for rescuing us from life? Not saying I see killing as good but I don't think we can ever say for sure what an actual hero/villain is, it's just what it just means to us personally. I personally don't think a hero has to save the villain - just do what they think is right, instead of always opting for what's the easy route which benefits them the most.

Another question could be, do you think people are trying their best? Do you think people are good?

Someone could be lazy but do you think they're confined within their own laziness and that they're actually doing their absolute best to work hard, they just can't because they're inherently lazy? Do you think people who you would class as villains are actually only doing what they think is right? If someone's selfish, are they a bad person or are they just trying to deal as best as they can with the trait of selfishness that they can't shake off? Some people might argue that everyone's a hero.

 

[Catcocomics]

I've learned that fear and sickness can beat a person down no matter how many times they heal from their intense suffering. I've also learned that there is no end to the variety of pains that exist. It doesn't always matter if someone has the courage to survive, sometimes they will just get crushed to death slower if that's the case.

There are many different reasons why this can be; the healing could be fake healing (I.E. some quack's "miracle medicine" that only gives more problems), or the opposition could be stronger. If it's a matter of disease, then it's virtually self-inflicted and you need to find something that makes you happy before you die (if you even do die) slowly and painfully from wallowing in what ever bad stuff it is you're wallowing in.
Ultimately though, if love and fear are closely or equally matched in this version of the cosmos, then love will win by simple preference. However, the planet we're on now is kind of a partial living nightmare, so unless you have half the world supporting you (or unless you are a really advanced spirit), it might be a long shot.

Also, if it's sickness you're talking about, traditional Chinese medicine states that the immune system is like an army of soldiers, and its performance is dependent on how much chi you can give it. The more chi you have, the more efficient your immune system becomes at defeating invaders.
This pretty much goes with what I said about not wallowing in your pain if you want to get rid of disease, since you can generate more chi by putting your mind in a happy and energetic place, as well as by abandoning foods riddled with harmful materials.
This also indicates that I have a massive amount of chi, since I haven't actually fallen sick in about seven years (with exception of pollen-based allergies).

Hero and Villain?

It translates to Good and Evil and because I view good as something not existent, because if a person wants to do actively a good thing. They do it because they will benefit from it. How? For example, helping a poor man, will make you feel better and think that you are responsible.

Meanwhile Evil... This is more complicated, since there is indeed the bad and the worse. But there is no worst. And evil is the absolute bad. But continuing the thought in the first part, there is nothing like an "absolute good", neither is there an "absolute good". There are always motives behind it on how a person can benefit from this action. Everyone does something because everyone will benefit in some way from this action, if it goes as planned.

So the concept of "Hero and Villain", "Good and Evil" is not applicable to reality in my opinion.

Firstly, my definition of "Hero" and "Villain" pertains to the role of causing problems (villain) and solving problems (hero) for/with a population, which very well allows a hero to be evil and a villain to be good.

As far as good and evil, hero and villain not being "applicable to reality" goes, I think you'll find that we'd probably not be alive right now if everyone was purely a logic-based entity.
If you've never heard of the "Lucifer Experiment", these experiments are performed by entire civilizations who are curious to see if they can thrive without love, compassion, or even emotion (or in other words, a world truly void of "good"). Non of these civilizations have made it past nuclear warfare, because once they get nukes, their days are numbered before one selfish individual presses that big red button you're never supposed to press if you know what's good for you and everyone else on the planet you inhabit.

Additionally, if you really feel that this world is absent of "good", or love, then you simply aren't looking in the right places for it.
millions of people around the world do in fact toss the poor man a little bit of money, or hold the door open for people with no other motive than maybe to make others happy, and even if they are rewarded for it, they very well could have been doing these kinds of things for completely unrelated reasons.
To believe that there is no "good and evil", or heroes and villains, is to fall for one of the big traps the main villains of this world have laid down for everyone. There is so very much more to the world than merely gaining and surviving.

Very interesting question actually. It seems kinda obvious until you really think about it. Often, villains do what they tend to think is "good" for them, so in their eyes, they're a hero. However, heroes to villains look bad, which makes them the villain.

It really does narrow down to your own personal experience. There's not really an official hero or villain role as such, it's interpreted however you like. If you agree with one side, you view them as the heroes, whilst those disagreeing view the same people as the villains.

This is putting heroes and villains into an "Us VS Them" scenario, which is only truly applicable to war.
It is vital to understand that heroes and villains are two parts to the same role, and not two separate roles.

There are indeed some villains who believe that they are the hero, and that of course the hero must be the villain, but this isn't even the most common of cases.
Take Dame Dedtime from Yo-kai Watch 2, for example, or Dr. Evil from Austin Powers; not only are they pretty much boniffied villains, but they revel in being villains to the point of purposely making a villain theme song ("dun dun duuuuuuunnnn") in the case of Dame Dedtime, or... just kinda posing...?

Anyways, various villains are villains for a large variety of reasons, and same goes for heroes, and when it comes to the more advanced play, heroes tend to completely drop the "Us VS Them" mentality in preference to saving everyone, villain included.

And to simply explain the "Us VS Them" mentality, think of how Splatoon multiplayer is pretty much displayed at the end of each round: your team is always the "good guys" and your opponents' team is always the "bad guys".
To elaborate; each side believes that THEY are the heroes and that their opponents are the villains, which in turn, makes BOTH sides the hero and the villain, but then if you really look at it, neither side is the hero and neither side is the villain, but instead, both sides are merely just people in a power struggle, and almost every example of a war on this planet has shown exactly that: people, reduced to pawns, in a power struggle.

Someone's probably already said this but I don't think we can globally define 'hero' or 'villain'. What makes someone good or bad differs to different people. Some may argue that people who follow their true selves and do what they believe they should is what makes them a hero, others say those who sacrifice self for the many are the hero. In movies usually the villains are the guys killing people but who's to say killing isn't actually a heroic act - what if when we die we move onto a different place where we learn that the goal of life was death, and murderers are seen as saintly for rescuing us from life? Not saying I see killing as good but I don't think we can ever say for sure what an actual hero/villain is, it's just what it just means to us personally. I personally don't think a hero has to save the villain - just do what they think is right, instead of always opting for what's the easy route which benefits them the most.

This is a pretty basic view of the way the cosmos as a whole works, where in the grand scheme of things, nothing really matters, nothing is truly "official", everything is just matter, energy, little bits of information interacting with other little bits of information.
If this were truly the case, I wouldn't even be on this planet.
Yes, different people like different things, and some people may have beliefs that are a detriment to their spiritual progression.
However, the role of hero and villain are very vital to this reality, and go beyond the multitude of definitions for "good and evil".

The role of hero and villain come as a means of preventing people from instantly having a perfect harmony from which they would learn nothing at all.
As I've stated before, the villain simply serves to create a large variety of problems that people have to deal with, things that will shape our morality, make us decide what the "right thing to do" is.
Ultimately, we're supposed to start learning how to be compassionate, how to love, and in a later reality, learn love to its fullest so that we may learn wisdom to its fullest without immediately destroying everyone by usage of said wisdom (and particularly villainous spirits have to somehow flip over to being compassionate spirits when they get from the love lessons to the wisdom lessons, or else be recycled and start anew in spiritual development. We can't have the role of hero and villain on all stages of development, because not only do we not need to have it on all stages, but it would be rather harmful on certain stages).

I have also stated that the hero is supposed to clear up a number of the problems that the villains create (under the same principle as to why you need summer vacation and such to compensate for the madness of school).
I have not, however, stated the morals that every hero is capable of, merely what the best example hero would have.
I really cannot state the morals every hero or villain is capable of, beyond that literally anyone can be a hero, villain, anti-hero, or some other form of regular person at any given time.
This in turn means that everyone has been a hero and/or will be a hero at some point, if they aren't currently a hero at present.
The same is true for being a villain, anti-hero, and any other archetype/role.

As far as laziness goes, there are a few people who are inherently lazy, but most people are only "lazy" because the government on our planet has made a variety of arguably vital lifestyles virtually unlivable.
However, there are other reasons for laziness, such as taking a break from the madness of life (I.E. choosing to be someone's pet and spend your life being pampered), or for one particularly interesting reason: saving up energy for a highly climatic event that might happen within your lifetime (hmm, that seems oddly specific...).

Of course, for those who are literally lazy because of a trait, then they probably have some sort of a lesson they need to learn, by overcoming their laziness.

I think the most important thing is being able to spot what kind of scenario you are living in so that you can react appropriately to what is happening around you.
Just because you are lazy doesn't immediately mean that you have to overcome that laziness and spend your energy doing stuff, but it also doesn't mean that you have to wait and build up energy for some kind of final-boss-prologue event (damn, very very specific today). Watch for signs, build a logical conclusion, and act on it. If you feel the situation calls for inaction, then do some inaction.

 

[Deleted member 4601]

I think that it's rather straightforward to define comprehensively what heroes and villain are, but this comes with two assumptions:

• All humans (and by extension conscious, civilized beings) aim to fulfill their personal interests (selfishness).
• Heroism is subjective, and hence to define heroes and villains a third party (the judge) is required.

This simplifies the problem a lot. Heroes are those whose personal interests align with the judge, while villains are those whose personal interests conflict with the judge. While personal interests are not aligned in a binary system with respect to the judge, nor is heroism. But the main takeaway here is that all humans are selfish, and that's okay. Then again, unconditional love is a thing that completely contradicts what I'm doing here.

 

[Cheeseman21]

A hero votes for Trump

 

[Catcocomics]

This simplifies the problem a lot. Heroes are those whose personal interests align with the judge, while villains are those whose personal interests conflict with the judge. While personal interests are not aligned in a binary system with respect to the judge, nor is heroism.

In a lower level, conformist/survivalist scenario, then such is true; but then we would be treating "hero" and "villain" as labels thrown onto individuals who deviate from the herd to either benefit or oppose the shepherd's designs.
For the actual roles of hero and villain, the primary basis is that villains invoke chaos through means of fear and heroes quell chaos through means of love and compassion. This is why the most advanced of those on the hero side of the role would seek to save those on the villain side of the role.

But the main takeaway here is that all humans are selfish, and that's okay.

If this is truly the case, then I must not be human.

Then again, unconditional love is a thing that completely contradicts what I'm doing here.

And in this, very reasonably more real case, I could be human...

A hero votes for Trump

I imagine a fair few must have, though I cannot count myself among them, since even if the registration form I had filled out had been counted, I would only have tried to write in Mr Sanders anyway.



I would also like to see ideas people have on anti-heroes.