- Edited
Ahh, we disagree… you know what that means! Now we can have a civilized discussion about this while respecting each other’s opinions.
It’s true that anything can be written well, but I find these villains to usually be generic with not a lot of thought put into them. I much prefer villains who I understand their logic even if I don’t agree with it. Sounds like your “they need to live being evil” is getting very close what I would call a logical reason for their actions.
If they just want to see the world burn, and the author tells us why, boom! The villain can now be interesting. He was bullied so he wants to be powerful and take control of other people through force—okay this is logical even though I will never be sympathetic towards it or in agreement.
An example of what I like is all of the villains in Batman. Usually a Batman villain personifies a philosophy that Batman doesn’t agree with. Batman has to beat them and keep in moral code intact to preserve his idea of justice.
The joker seems evil for evils sake, but he wants to prove that heros are hypocritical and spread anarchy. Sometimes he tried to do things so evil that Batman kills him because Batman believes killing is wrong. Therefore, if Batman kills the Joker the joker wins. Other villains listed below off the top of my head:
Scarecrow = controlling people through fear (Batman uses fear to save people and set them free)
Penguin = Greed and money over people (Batman is a billionaire that uses his fortune to fight crime)
Bane = controlling people through force/power
Etc.
Yes. Just one example of the many types of “puppy kicking villains.” If there is no good reason behind the villains actions, then the whole story suffers.