Are Videogame Villains Becoming Too Woke?

Video game villains are often at the center of heated debates about character development and storytelling. Recently, I came across a post debating whether villains in video games are becoming too "woke." This term was used to criticize the shift from traditional villains, who were often depicted as purely evil, to characters who possess complex, often tragic backstories that explain their motivations. This evolution in character design reflects a broader recognition within the gaming community that people, whether real or fictional, are multifaceted and shaped by their experiences. As gamers have matured, so too has their understanding of narrative complexity. By giving villains richer backstories, developers are not only deepening the game's narrative but also engaging players who seek to understand the motivations behind a character's actions. This shift towards more nuanced storytelling caters to those who appreciate depth in their gaming experience, encouraging players to think critically about what drives someone to villainy.

This nuanced perspective on villainy ties into the larger philosophical debate about the nature of evil. The notion of "pure evil" is compelling and contentious. Some argue vehemently that pure evil does exist, often citing serial killers, sex offenders, and even fictional characters as definitive examples. This highlights humanity's longstanding fascination with understanding why people commit harmful acts. Are these actions the result of inherent malevolence or are they shaped by specific circumstances? Broadly, opinions on this issue fall into two main camps

Many religious traditions, particularly in Christianity, attribute the propensity for evil to original sin—a condition believed to stem from Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, as described in the Book of Genesis. This perspective suggests that humans are inherently flawed or sinful from birth and that these innate tendencies can lead to evil actions unless controlled or redeemed through spiritual means.

In contrast, the scientific approach often looks at physiological, psychological, and environmental factors. Disorders like narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy are studied within the context of brain chemistry, genetics, and social influences. These conditions are characterized by abnormalities in emotional processing, empathy, and decision-making, which can manifest in harmful behavior. Scientists and psychologists attempt to understand these phenomena through research and empirical observation, focusing on how certain brain functions correlate with specific behaviors.

Personally, I hold the view that villainous behaviors and harmful acts stem from the experiences individuals endure rather than inherent evil. This stance contrasts with traditional religious interpretations, which might attribute such behavior to original sin or inherent moral corruption. On the scientific front, explanations often focus on abnormalities in brain chemistry or structure. However, there are notable issues with both of these perspectives.

Religious Perspective Issues: This viewpoint can oversimplify the complexity of human behavior by attributing it solely to moral failings or a sinful nature. It may neglect the impact of environmental factors, personal experiences, and societal influences, which can be crucial in shaping behavior.

While this approach provides valuable insights through the study of biology and psychology, it can sometimes lead to deterministic views where individuals are seen as prisoners of their biological makeup. This perspective might underestimate the role of personal choice and the potential for change and rehabilitation.

My thoughts on the complexity of villainy are significantly influenced by the many video games I've played. These games often feature characters with detailed backstories that reveal the motives behind their actions, suggesting that understanding their histories is key to understanding their choices. This experience has shaped my belief that people are products of their circumstances, not just their nature or biology. In the following sections, I will delve deeper into specific examples from games that illustrate how backstories and character development challenge the notion of inherent evil.

The game series that most challenged my idea of pure evil was The Mass Effect series. Which to me is a perfectly crafted universe that I find myself returning to time and time again. Spoilers ahead. In the first mass effect Saren, the main antagonist in the first Mass Effect game, provides a rich case study for examining how personal experiences and trauma can shape a character's decisions and lead to actions perceived as evil.

Saren Arterius is a Turian Spectre, an elite agent working for the Citadel Council, tasked with maintaining peace and stability in the galaxy. Initially, Saren is portrayed as a ruthless and driven character, willing to achieve his goals by any means necessary. His descent into villainy is not rooted in inherent evil but is driven by a complex mix of personal loss, fear, and a misguided sense of duty.

Saren's actions are heavily influenced by his experiences during the First Contact War between the Turians and Humans, where he developed a deep-seated mistrust of humanity. His brother was killed during these conflicts, adding a personal vendetta to his broader ideological stance. Saren's fear of the potential threat posed by humanity leads him to ally with the Reaper, Sovereign, believing that by aiding this ancient machine intelligence, he can prevent the annihilation of organic life by proving the usefulness of organic species as servants rather than adversaries.

Saren's story challenges the simplistic notion of pure evil. His decisions are shaped by trauma, loss, and a desperate desire to save the galaxy as he understands it. His tragic flaw lies in his methods and the decision to use catastrophic means to achieve what he believes to be a noble end. His alliance with Sovereign and subsequent actions can be seen as a twisted form of utilitarianism, where he aims to save the greatest number of lives at the cost of his morality and ultimately, his humanity.

By examining Saren's backstory and motivations, players are invited to consider the impact of personal history and trauma on decision-making. This example illustrates how video games like Mass Effect offer narratives that encourage players to think deeply about what drives individuals toward actions that are harmful or villainous. Saren is not merely a villain; he is a character shaped by his circumstances, illustrating the nuanced approach to storytelling that challenges players to think beyond black-and-white notions of good and evil.

I will admit when I first played Mass Effect, I had no idea about The First Contact war.  It was backstory hidden in the lore of excellently crafted voice overs in the codex. Up until I understood saren and what he had experienced, I simply saw him as an evil character siding with the repears as a quest and pursuit for some sort of ultimate power.  What if we imagine ourselves in Saren's position? Imagine if your home had been invaded by what you perceived as the newest, most inexperienced species in the galaxy—essentially babies. These newcomers not only challenge your way of life but also pose a direct threat to your people, as evidenced by the tragic loss of your loved ones during these conflicts. How would you react? What measures might you consider justified to protect your home and prevent future tragedies?

There are those who would still say, "I wouldn't do that," which brings me to my main point regarding the concept of pure evil. Many people cling to the idea of pure evil as a way to distance themselves from the capacity for wrongdoing. They resist acknowledging that they, too, could commit terrible, horrible, and vile acts. By defining pure evil as something 'other,' it allows them to view themselves as inherently "good" people—defining good simply as the absence of evil, rather than as a proactive effort to become the best versions of themselves.

This perspective often leads to discomfort when these individuals are confronted with the empathetic understanding of a villain's backstory, such as the suffering Thanos endured as a child. Additional examples include the Joker's descent into madness following a series of tragic personal losses, and Darth Vader's turn to the dark side in a misguided attempt to save his loved ones. Recognizing these characters' painful histories complicates the black-and-white hatred some might feel towards them. Understanding their motivations doesn't justify their actions, but it does provide important context.

This notion helped me make significant progress in dealing with my own obsessive thoughts. Realizing that having thoughts about committing harmful acts—like punching a child in a stroller, poisoning a meal, or driving into a crowded street—doesn't make me an evil person. It is our actions, not our thoughts, that define who we are.

So, how can this nuanced perspective on villainy enhance your gaming experience? Beyond allowing you to engage with richer and more complex narratives, it also shines a light on your own actions as the protagonist and hero. If there is no such thing as pure evil, then the concept of pure good also becomes questionable. While it is possible to define what might be considered "evil," and acknowledge that some acts are particularly heinous—often labeled as "purely evil" to simplify understanding—recognizing the nuances in these actions provides a deeper, more engaging gameplay experience.

This approach challenges you to examine your decisions and their ramifications within the game world more critically. It encourages you to think about the motivations behind your actions and those of others. Are you acting out of a desire for justice, revenge, or something more self-serving? As you navigate these morally complex landscapes, you become more than just a player; you become a participant in a dynamic narrative where the lines between hero and villain can blur, leading to a more immersive and thought-provoking experience. This perspective not only enriches your interaction with the game but also mirrors the complexities of real-world ethics and morality, making the gaming experience infinitely more profound and satisfying.