Who would you classify a villain in TOS?

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Had a lengthy post to make last night, only made the mistake of using an iPad. Goodbye post.

For me a villain is someone who regardless of background and upbringing, and indeed motivation, is bad for the sake of being bad, and relishes his or her actions. And when the end comes, they refuse to capitulate, or explore other options, often choosing to die rather than yield their villainy, and their actions seem stupid to the rational observer. I mean Nero travelling back in time and and not warning Romulus of the oncoming Galactic Supernova. Dumb!

I agree Redjac is villainy incarnate. But Khan... All we knew about him was from fragmentary historical records from the Eugenics wars, potentially just hearsay. His actions after being revived may have defined him as a villain, but it could also define him as a man dealing with the future with the values of his own. His actions could have been that of a committed Jack Bauer fan, using expediency to achieve his goals. What stops him being a villain in my eyes is that in the end, he accepted defeat and exile with good grace. But the movie, yeah, villain!

Lenore Karidian too, was blinded by her love for her father, which had a few too many Shakespearean connotations for my comfort. But there must have been a point early on, when she learned who her father was, and she decided to kill to keep his secret, it may even have been in her teenage years.

But people like Anan Seven, the Klingons and the Romulans may all have been shaped by their backgrounds, the Computerised War, martial societies, but all showed some prospect that they could change.

I guess I don't see villains as adversaries, or antagonists, but rather single note characters who in the silent era would have been tying damsels to railroad tracks, twirling their moustaches.

 

[Trekkin]

I found Khan kind-of interesting because ENT etc implies that most of his flaws were literally codified in his genes. Even if he wants to better himself, he can't. Even if it was by accident, he was made dangerously violent and ambitious.

On one hand, it's almost sad because he's a victim of his own creators (not that he would see it that way). On the other it bugs me for the same reason - it removes his culpability for his own actions and the bad choices that were a big part of his character. The literary parallels from Space Seed and TWOK don't work if he never had the ability to do anything else.

Not that ENT was consistent about it, for eg. Malik's girlfriend. It's something I'd like to see ignored, honestly.

Even if he's ineffective and not what you'd call 'evil', Mudd fits the 'villain' moniker. Every action he takes is rooted in selfishness and he's not exactly worried about harming people. I'd agree that Redjac is probably the best fit for a 'mwahaha for the evulz' villain, and probably has the largest body count. Assuming the planet killer really was a purposefully deployed doomsday machine, then add the dicks who unleashed it to my personal list. They committed genocide against unknown amounts of species, purely out of impotent spite.

 

[Timo]

For me a villain is someone who regardless of background and upbringing, and indeed motivation, is bad for the sake of being bad, and relishes his or her actions.

That needs some sort of a definition of "bad", though - Kirk certainly relishes his actions, as he believes he is doing the right thing even when gunning down opponents left and right and leaving civilizations in ruins.

In most contexts, we can claim that "bad" is definable through the consensus of the society: the villain is a loner who is stepping out of the line. But in Trek, the weight of the society behind the villain may equal or far exceed the weight of the society behind the hero - a fact we easily forget because most of the characters and extras we get to see are clearly on the hero side, i.e. English-speaking humans.

And when the end comes, they refuse to capitulate, or explore other options, often choosing to die rather than yield their villainy, and their actions seem stupid to the rational observer.

The serial hero is separated from the villain already by the fact that no end can come to him! When did Kirk meekly capitulate, yield, or consider options other than continuing to pursue his original agenda? Only "Errand of Mercy" comes to mind, and there the writer took care to show the supposed villain of the story be Kirk's exact mirror image (that is, identical, not opposite!) in dealing with the defeat.

But Khan...

Well, the villain couldn't be made too villainous or else Kirk would look bad showing leniency. The outcome of the episode thus already dictated a shades-of-muddy-brown adversary - and writing back from that outcome, one could and would insert more murkiness, down to making Kirk an avid Khan fan.

But people like Anan Seven, the Klingons and the Romulans may all have been shaped by their backgrounds, the Computerised War, martial societies, but all showed some prospect that they could change.

Whereas Kirk did not - so the test of reversing the roles isn't flattering to this definition of true villainy.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

I'd agree that Redjac is probably the best fit for a 'mwahaha for the evulz' villain, and probably has the largest body count.

But if Redjac killed merely in order to sustain itself (Spock seems to agree that this would be a valid concept, also exhibiting no moral distinction between this and the way Drella sustains itself through love), then the "mwahaha" bit would be nothing but biology: the means by which Redjac extracts its sustenance from its victims. It being polite and apologetic to its victims would lead to it starving to death.

Assuming the planet killer really was a purposefully deployed doomsday machine, then add the dicks who unleashed it to my personal list. They committed genocide against unknown amounts of species, purely out of impotent spite.

Umm, the heroes assume the DDM is a doomsday device, which means it's intended to hurt the killers of the maker species from beyond the grave. They thus further assume it getting loose and killing others is an accident, going against maker intent. The makers probably couldn't be faulted much for building a doomsday device.

But the heroes may well be completely wrong. The DDM could be a berserker instead, deliberately designed to kill everybody (at least everybody who isn't maker); its painstakingly thorough actions suggest this, while a true doomsday machine would show strategic targeting sense. Now that would be a crime against, umm, all life at the very least. (Although it would also be a perfectly valid survival strategy for suitably selfish species.)

There are further possibilities, such as the DDM being a harmless terraformer turned harmful. We shouldn't jump to conclusions just because somebody or something kills - after all, death happens a lot, and accidents (even of the prolonged sort) are common, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekkin]

My issues with the DM even being able to be deployed probably errs too far into politics for me to be comfortable bringing up. So I'll drop it.

When I thought of Redjac, the Crystalline Entity and it's 'Galactus' motive did come to mind. But isn't there actually a moment where Redjac really does give out an evil cackle? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Timo]

It definitely does, for example through the speakers of the ship's computer. But as said, it couldn't be expected to act otherwise. It doesn't just kill for sustenance - it terrorizes for sustenance! Screaming and cackling both feature big time in that.

Is the Crystalline Entity a villain? It shows even less "intent" or "intellect" than the DDM, even though Lore wholly delusionally thinks he is communicating with it and making himself understood.

OTOH, is Lore a villain? The "he was built to be like that" argument shouldn't carry weight as Soong claims villainy wasn't his explicit intent. But who knows what the mad scientist really was up to. He was both paranoid and reclusive, feeling wronged by his peers, and might well have created the ultimate misanthropic machine just out of spite - only to be interrupted and having to flee, after which he perfected the ultimate lovebot instead.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As for Lore, I'd definitely count him as a villain. Sure, he was an android, but he was still a sentient being and could make his own choices. Soong did not program him to commit evil acts - Lore freely chose to do so (and what's more, Lore ENJOYED it).

I suppose Kodos would be a villain as well, but at least he had the good sense to regret what he'd done and try to make up for it.

 

[Trekkin]

It definitely does, for example through the speakers of the ship's computer. But as said, it couldn't be expected to act otherwise. It doesn't just kill for sustenance - it terrorizes for sustenance! Screaming and cackling both feature big time in that.

Is the Crystalline Entity a villain? It shows even less "intent" or "intellect" than the DDM, even though Lore wholly delusionally thinks he is communicating with it and making himself understood.

OTOH, is Lore a villain? The "he was built to be like that" argument shouldn't carry weight as Soong claims villainy wasn't his explicit intent. But who knows what the mad scientist really was up to. He was both paranoid and reclusive, feeling wronged by his peers, and might well have created the ultimate misanthropic machine just out of spite - only to be interrupted and having to flee, after which he perfected the ultimate lovebot instead.

Timo Saloniemi

Oh, I wasn't calling the Entity 'evil'. Just pointing out that the idea of Redjac being inherently harmful because of its 'alieness' crossed my mind.

We never found out much about Redjac. Kirk and co hoped it would starve to death out in space, but if that was enough to kill it then how did it travel between planets? According to the lore, it was on earth well before first contact. Without retconning our first visiting aliens again, it's not like it could have hitched a ride.

 

[DonIago]

I wouldn't call the Crystalline Entity evil; we simply don't know enough about it.

Lore could probably be considered insane, and Soong seemed to feel that Lore could be "repaired". As he's subject to his programming I don't know that it's appropriate to call him evil either. Did his programming suggest he should be good and he willfully disregarded it, or did his (defective?) programming lead him to the dark side?

I suppose it could be argued that Redjac is terrorizing people to survive and doesn't necessarily enjoy doing so, but the only time we see the entity in action I would tend toward concluding that it does enjoy what it's doing. It certainly never suggests otherwise, whereas the CE appeared open to communication and Lore may have lacked the capability to change his stripes.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

Charlie X could rank also, since his casual and careless disfigurement of the Enterprise crew (and the destruction of the Antares) with half-hearted apologies are pretty evil too, at least to his victims. We're supposed to feel sorry for him because he's an adolescent and doesn't know any better, but that doesn't excuse what he did or make up for the people he's killed.

Indeed. I've always seen Trelane from "The Squire of Gothos" as a variant of Charlie X. Both characters perpetuate acts of deviltry without the slightest compunction, and both are sufficiently ungovernable as to necessitate parentis ex machina endings for their respective episodes. I know many people are fond of Q, who is a clear successor to Trelane, but I've never cared for bullies.

 

[Wingsley]

That needs some sort of a definition of "bad", though

Agreed.

What is "evil", other than "live" spelled backwards?

 

[LadyT'Anna]

What criteria for villainy are we using here anyway?

1) Willing to kill our heroes and others for an explicated goal we can't agree with?
2) The same, even when we can sort of sympathize with the stated goal?
3) Willing to kill for no reason whatsoever?
4) Being selfish?
5) Being mentally ill (by our standards at least)?

Some here actually seem to regard some of the above as mitigating factors... And few of the forms of villainy hold up to the test of "what if it were our heroes doing it to the villains instead?". Kirk and his crew kill in cold blood often enough, often after first provoking a fight. And even when they don't kill, they intimidate, blackmail and violate, although the plot statistics are split between them doing that for ideological reasons and for self-survival.

Isn't villain simply synonymous with adversary anyway? I've yet to see the word used in some other fashion...

Timo Saloniemi

This is interesting.

It can be argued that Kirk & Co. aren't evil themselves because even though they do things that might well be construed as evil (murdering other sentient beings, for a start), they're doing so in an attempt to carry out their mission--a mission that Starfleet Command orders them to complete. And Starfleet Command is operating, or at least trying to operate, on principles that are deemed to be humanitarian or at least morally neutral. The ryetalin has to be secured by force or a plague will infect an entire planet. The weaponry has to be given to the villagers or the Klingons will slaughter them wholesale.

In other words, in a combat situation within Trek, the ends tend to justify the means. They don't always, but they do most of the time, and seasoned line officers are cognizant of the difference. Think of Chekov's behavior in "Day of the Dove," in which he crosses the line from detached combatant to irrationally aggrieved civilian (incredibly, he forgets that he never had a brother!), and his superiors recognize when that happens and pull him away. (FWIW, I fear that conflicts of this kind are endemic to any nation-state with a military; "Day of the Dove" simply offers a particularly good illustration of them.)

But while killing and other decidedly evil acts might be at least partially justified between combatants engaged in battle, they aren't defensible in other scenarios. Rape and genocide are never acceptable, whether in combat or outside it. Likewise, murdering for the sake of murdering is also not acceptable. I believe that both awareness and remorse figure into whether an action can be considered evil. If someone commits a murder and is immediately remorseful, I'd be inclined to treat the offender much more leniently than I would one who showed no remorse, whether said person were mentally ill or not.

Regarding selfishness, I'm not sure it's inherently evil; rather, I believe that assessment to be a matter of degree. It might be selfish to take the last cookie from a jar and not offer to share it with one's sister, but I'd hardly call that action evil. Murdering said sister for the cookie would be an entirely different story.

 

[MANT!]

Harcourt Fenton Mudd...right down to the mustache... This was a man that reveled in his criminal lifestyle, having absolutely NO remorse for the things that he did..he would have sold children to the zoo for meat if the price was right..

 

[A beaker full of death]

Mudd was a rogue, not a villain.

 

[MANT!]

Mudd was a rogue only because he didn't have the resources...his intent was never honorable..and what do you think he would have done with the "Big E" had he been able to take it with his androids?.. I don't think he'd use it to help orphans and widows..

 

[Trekkin]

I reserved my judgement on Trelane because I have no idea how old he was meant to be. Most really little kids can be quiet sociopathic, and seperate 'right and wrong' by 'what consequences will there be for me if I do this.' They usually grow out of it when they start comprehending morality a little more, but it's why they tend to do shit like purposefully torment bugs. Of course, there's also EU comics where he's a complete dick even as an adult- so YMMV.


Teens are a little different. Charlie pretty clearly knew he was doing the wrong thing, but kept it up because he either didn't care or his temper was too difficult to control. Where Trelane tended to just react to things, Charlie was more methodical. Destroying the ship that dropped him off was just cold.

 

[Timo]

We never found out much about Redjac. Kirk and co hoped it would starve to death out in space, but if that was enough to kill it then how did it travel between planets? According to the lore, it was on earth well before first contact. Without retconning our first visiting aliens again, it's not like it could have hitched a ride.

I don't know about "contact", but it would make eminent sense for interstellar criminal fugitives to flee to backward planets such as pre-2060s Earth. And it doesn't make much sense to think that Earth would not have been visited by aliens annually at the very least - we know aliens and interstellar travel exist, so what would have stopped such visits from happening?

Rape and genocide are never acceptable, whether in combat or outside it.

This is an interesting nuance, as "genocide" is just a matter of numbers. To briefly jump outside TOS, if the Dominion after their almost-inevitable great victory at Alpha wanted to make sure and slaughtered all humans, but for no lack of trying failed to liquidate the Bringloidi/Mariposan colonists as well, would this be genocide? If a band of pirates killed all the Bringloidi/Mariposans in order to secure their new base of operations, but never touched the rest of mankind, would this be genocide? TOS is full of seeming single-individual genuses, many of which Kirk kills in their one-entity entirety. Was that genocide?

And how does stopping to worry about genuses make slaughter more acceptable?

Technically, war is always murder and all soldiers guilty of either murder, attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder. But just as technically, mankind has seen advantage to turning a blind eye to this rather major deviation from social norms. Kirk even agreeing to wear the uniform is no doubt villainy according to some of the players we see in TOS. But if we narrow down our point of view to that of Kirk, our task of defining villainy become almost trivially simple.

Teens are a little different. Charlie..

...Counts as a teen? He may have lived through the necessary years, but not in a context that would have turned him into a teen socially. That he nevertheless became a pretty good approximation of one may be skin-deep illusion, in the episode frequently revealing the two-year-old within.

We generally don't execute babies even for murder, partly because we feel there's great potential for development to the better, potential a more mature individual would no longer possess. Partly we fail to dish out egalitarian punishment simply because babies pose so little threat, though. Charlie would be very different no matter what his biological age!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Trekkin]

I didn't say the 'rape and genocide' thing.

As for Charlie, I guess it depends what his unseen upbringing was like. He does seem to have been able to socialise and had some education (he can communicate well enough), but we don't really know. We know the people raising him had some reasonably close approximation of human morality at least.

I just realised he had a lot in common with Q Jnr...who we know really was only a few years old from the human perspective.

 

[Drone]

I wouldn't want to forget Balok in his original incarnation. Extremely menacing and unyielding, but aside from being strangely stationary, pretty much turned out to be all talk and no action.

In a slightly different vein, I think Melakon would be a worthy candidate.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Charlie was left alone for pretty much his entire life, wasn't he? There were no other survivors of the crash, and the Thasians didn't talk to him.