[quote=@Fallenreaper] I usually define evil as point of view, namely what their motivates are and how deep they relate to the outside world. A really good villain to me is someone who's dark actions actually have some good aftermath because it establishes them as sort of a needed evil rather than just evil to be stopped. Which brings that moral aspect into play: do you merely destroy the evil and basically accept their fall will ripple off to hurt innocents that don't deserve the aftermath or allow the evil to continue and risk other innocents to suffer from their actions? Realistically, when you don't actually think of this as a story are pretty harsh choices either way. [/quote] That's why I was sayign that, in hidnsight, thsoe characters were a bit cliche. I mean, the torturer oen was loyal to his king and was more or less concerned with stoppign the rebellion. The oen that was a full blown amd scientist wanted to control his group through the manipulaiton of the figurehead within said group to consolidate power around hismelf. They weren't of the kidn of "needed evil", except the torturer oen sicne he was mroe doign his job out of loyalty, but mroe or less an evil that needs to be stopped. I liek to thign that I've gotten better at this kind of thign over time, but I am nto so sure. As for hte question you presented, it's a rahter itneresting one and -nowadays- I rather like mroe and mroe the "needed evil" kind of characers, btu I do find the purely evil characters fun to play as well (as in, for example, playing a follwoer of Chaos in a 40k RP, and even those can have their nuances despite being, msot of hte time, the evil for the sake of evil kinda characters). But yeah, when you don't think of it as a story, those are pretty harsh choiced either way.