>>28225

While it may be a jumping off point, also keep in mind we have a sympathetic, vile villain in place too.

>>28226
Well I would hope that most all of, if not the entire, Rogue's Gallery would be at least partially sympathetic. A villain who is a villain just for the sake of it is very hard to pull off with any sort of strength.

>>28228

Actually, there are five different kinds of villains. It was posted in the other thread, going to track it down and post it.

Copy/past below:
-----------------
There are 5 subclasses of villain.

-The Anti-Villain, which is a villain who does bad things but can be considered an okay person, who may have a moral code, etc. See, Catwoman, some of the Flash's Rogues.

-The Sympathetic Villain, who does villainous things that the reader may or may not agree with, but can understand where they are coming from. See, Mister Freeze, Magneto, Spectacular Spider-Man Electro.

-The Monster, who has no redeeming qualities, no remorse and does such horrible things that the reader is disgusted and, in some cases, even fellow villains are disgusted. See, some incarnations of the Joker, Superboy Prime, Red Skull.

-The Magnificent Bastard, normally a Sympathetic or Monster who transcends their genre by being just ungodly awesome at manipulation and fucking with the hero, to the point where you have to love them. See: Norman Osborne, Loki, Doctor Doom, Lex Luthor.

The Plot Device, usually with little explanation for their motives or understandings. This is the no-man's-land that most want to avoid. They aren't vile enough to warrant being Monsters, they have no background to offer sympathy or their reasons are overreactions or unsympathetic, they aren't in the gray area between hero and villain and they don't manipulate the scene enough to earn the respect. A tell-tale characteristic of these characters is that they are especially powerful, if only to provide the hero with somebody to fight that offers a challenge. See: Metallo, Blockbuster, practically every C-list villain around.
------------------
Copy/Paste ends

Each type works in reality, except the plot device one. A common mistake is trying to make every villain a sympathetic one. You should be able to relate to a sympathetic villain but in the case of Monsters, you shouldn't give them an 'out' by justifying their actions.

Take Norman Osborn. He is a Monster and a Magnificent Bastard. You don't sympathize with him... you don't approve of what he does, but a number of people AGREE with what he did in Dark Reign and Seige when he gave his justifications.

At times, sympathy only weakens a villain. But this villain has to prove they're a monster in order to get by without sympathy, to make the reader interested in them without spoiling their actions with a Freudian excuse.

Man, I went off on a tangent there. Sorry, I like discussing villains.

>>28229
Haha, I really enjoy your enthusiasm! I suppose I agree, but frankly I've never been very interested in, nor do I see people very often fawning over, the monster type. And one of those you presented as -monsters- actually have -very- sympathetic traits. Superboy Prime is a man lost in a universe that does not understand him and that forces him to live as this evil. Though I will agree that both Red Skull and Joker are both monsterish, though I would say the latter is not very engaging, and the former only in the hands of a great writer.

As for the magnificent bastards, they are all at their best when played with a, albeit small, sympathetic side. Especially Doom. Doom isn't some dastardly moustache-twirling foe. He honestly believes that what he is doing is the -right- thing to do. That it is the -good- thing to do. And I would say that most people would agree that you can sympathize with his actions. Norman and Loki are also cases of villains who are at their best when they are played for sympathy. Norman, a man trying to save the world from what he deems an irredeemable threat of super-heroism, and Loki, a son banished from affection.

If you can't relate to a character, it is a bad character, as a general rule of any sort of fiction. If it be a small or large gauge of sympathy is not important, but there has to be that streak, or they are just dumb-fodder, and might as well be clumped in with the "Plot-Device" file.

>>28230
Switch the Joker and Red Skull in that post. Joker being engaging in a great writer's hand, Skull not being, etc.

>>28230

Superboy Prime started out as sympathetic. He lost that when he vaporized a pregnant woman in cold blood.

Loki and Doom started as sympathetic villains who went up to MBs. Norman was a monster who upgraded. You don't sympathize with Norman though, you agree or understand where he is coming from, but that doesn't excuse his actions, nor does it explain the horrid stuff he pulled alongside it (shooting down a passenger airliner just to test Pepper).

Take Spectacular Spider-Man's Green Goblin. You don't sympathize with him in any way. Can you relate to him? I'd say very little, if at all. When you do relate to him, its when he's with Peter, mentoring him. And even then, you don't know if its just a lie.

>>28232
But that is the very definition of sympathy. Sympathy does not mean condoning, it means -understanding-. If you -understand- why a villain is doing something, that is sympathetic. And, I have to be very stickler-ishly on this point, Dr. Doom and Loki -started- as Glorious Bastards and have, in the last few decades, become more and more sympathetic, as has Osbourne. And that makes them -better-. No, you don't like what they do, you don't approve of what they do, but you can understand -why- they do it. The why is important. A monster is not engaging and is a sign of poor writing, unless we are literally talking some mutated monster with no human sentience haha.

>>28233

Doom's always been sympathetic.... dude's shown multiple times since the start that he cares about his people.

>>28235
Granted, but I think the OP has a much stricter meaning of sympathetic, so I was appealing to that. Doom was much more of a dick back in the day, even though he still loved his homeland and its people.

>>28233

That's the definition of Empathy, not Sympathy. You should be able to empathize with a villain, not always sympathize.

>>28237
Sympathy is being able to say "I understand where you are coming from." Empathy is saying "I know exactly how you feel, I'd feel the same."

Common mistake.

>>28236

Most villains were in the range of "Campy Dicks" way back in the early days of comics. Look at Loki/Namor/Luthor

Creeping Mange signing out for the night. Be back sometime tomorrow evening. I really hope I can become a part of this project. I think I could make some really good material on this subject.

"Complete Monsters" are not people you can really identify with. This doesn't make them bad characters in any respect.

What makes a bad "monster" is lack of characterization. A good character will have goals, a backstory (not that people need to know it), an emotional effect on the hero and an actual personality.

Take TDK's Ledger Joker. You don't really sympathize or empathize with him in any respect because for the entire film he's simply blowing stuff up, making up stories for his history and being monstrous on a widespread scale. Was he a bad character? No. Because he was interesting, he challenged the hero, he had a distinct personality, with visible emotions.

The trick with a monster is to make them interesting, to make up for their lack of connection with the reader. If you give them some sort of out, like they were abused, you have to make them cross the line over and over again until they've reached a point where the trauma couldn't possibly be to blame.

Also, there are complete monsters in reality too. Sadists, sociopaths and psychopaths all follow the line in some regard.

>>28276
That's all well and good for reality, but reality doesn't always make a compelling story to share over the evening fire.

And frankly, the reasons you listed are -exactly- the reasons that no one with any clout respected The Dark Knight, no matter how financially successful it became. The Joker was a sock-puppet. A no-account character that was simply there to push the plot of -Batman toeing the line- further. I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for saying that, but I just feel very passionate about my point that monsters are poor writing. I don't care what other characters in this feature do, that's the creators business. But I'm not going to pitch a character that I cannot respect myself.

>>28277

So what about Darkseid?

>>28282
I still wouldn't call him a monster. A monster to me is a senseless tool of violence. Even with someone who is the embodiment of pure evil, like Darksied, you can understand their motives. I think what we are all having here is a problem with communication and vocabulary. We are all saying the same thing, but saying it in ways that makes us argue.

The definition of sympathetic is an understanding of a character's motives. It does not mean agreeing with them, but simply understanding them. Many people confuse Sympathy and Empathy for one another, and that seems to be a large problem in the discussion at hand.

>>28284

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompleteMonster

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/ComicBooks

The definition and examples of a Monster.

>>28287
Yes, because TVTropes has anything to say about quality. I am not saying monsters do not exist, I am saying that they are poor writing.

>>28289

The TVTropes link was basically said:

>The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes him becoming one through Character Development.
>The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story.
>No justification or Freudian Excuse is present, or adequate to explain away the deeds if one exists.
>The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible.
>Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption

It had nothing to do with the quality of the characters, but gave a nice definition. A monster shouldn't invoke feelings of pity, but rather revulsion from the audience.

Ledger Joker had a plan, he had a goal and the audience kinda knew what it was as it unfolded. I'd say you're wrong in the regard that he's poorly written. You don't know the entirety of his plan but you can see the motivation and the ideas behind it.

>>28290

Well then maybe you can tell me his motivation?

Was it to prove that people can be just as bad as him, as he said in the finale of the film? If so he had already proven this multiple times up to the finale of the movie and was continuously losing any sense of direction.

Was it to stir up Batman and get him to toe the line? Batman had already, on many occasions before, shown that he was ready to do whatever it takes to enact his sort of justice, whether or not it meant staying within a lawful or even -good- standing, making the Joker character useless from the onset.

Was it to make a name for himself or gain wealth? The first he had already accomplished by the time the -first- film had ended, and was certainly already legendary among petty-crooks by the time of his appearance at the beginning of the Dark Knight. And money obviously wasn't his goal as he constantly destroyed any that came his way in some absurd and silly attempt at proving a point.

Or was it simply to move the story along? To be a token-comic-relief character, to be the catalyst for Two-Face's rushed appearance, and to play to the fanboys who were eagerly awaiting a new and improved gritty-reboot silver-screen Joker? I'd say that is the most likely.

Look, this is a silly argument, I'm not sure why we are having it. As I already said, I have no qualms about monsters in the comic, but I'm not going to pitch a character that -I- cannot respect. And I only respect characters that have function and motive.

>>28291

Joker was a terrorist who was vying for control of Gotham. His motivation was to inspire mass panic, anarchy and destruction so that he could control the entire city instead of the mob, which he despised due to the fact that they only did it for money.

>>28292
And so he killed a number of high-ranking public officials, forced Batman's hand constantly, and generally made himself an easily assailable, easily captured target, doing nothing in the way of actually gaining control.

Huh. Well.

>>28293
He's insane. Nuff said.
Now back to the notions of Motion!
I think that you could garner more sympathy for Popsicle (yeah...) by making her not understand what's happening to her body. Making her a victim now and then later turning her into an almighty vengeful bitch would really give her character growth some legs.

Mange, perhaps Drip could have more of a primal mindset?

>>28294
((Thankyou for saving me from myself in that inane argument haha))

I think having Drip as a more primal character might detract from the whole "Reaping what you sew" thing I was going for. A big bad beasty who is doomed for life would set Motion's heart back a few steps, having a life-long threat who is a constant, and conniving/sinister, reminder of her mistakes would do more for the character I think.

I'm still somewhat sketchy on the origins and the source for the power.

The actual act of causing such a horrible event would be far too grim in this case. The fact that Motion actually causes a moderate number of horrible deaths would greatly subtract from her.

As well, clinically killing a character and bringing them back, walks the line of 'zombie', which does tread close to the whole magic area of superheroes.

Motion already does have a number of villains she produces by accident or through a vicarious method, such as the fire villain gaining the idea from Motion's actions.

>>28298
You're right, the origin is a bit too grim and sketchy. I'll do a quick re-proposal.

>>28299

The origin I should say would still be up to debate, but I was thinking perhaps instead of Motion causing the fire, it was the Fire-based villain that she inspired instead. Her fall doesn't kill her instantly, it only harms her enough to keep her from being able to crawl away from danger. Once the biological agent takes control of her, her body becomes completely malleable. This causes her mind to be in constant shift, until at some later point where she is able to not only control her mind, but completely stabilize her body and morph it in a more refined manner.

I think villains work best when they reflect the hero to an extent. Motion has to deal with complex gender-role issues, and I assume that while that is not the main theme of the comic, that it will come into play. Drip is, unlike Motion, able to change her body at any moment. She can be anyone at anytime, she can blend into anywhere. She is a chameleon, something that Motion herself would perhaps wish to be.

Scrap the -smell- issue, as it would make it impossible for her to blend into Motion's daily life and try to sabotage her personally. I think that the character itself could have an arc-of-development, beginning as an unsympathetic and bestial monster, but as she learns to control herself, becoming a manipulative and more personal villain.

>>28300

>I think villains work best when they reflect the hero to an extent. Motion has to deal with complex gender-role issues, and I assume that while that is not the main theme of the comic, that it will come into play. Drip is, unlike Motion, able to change her body at any moment. She can be anyone at anytime, she can blend into anywhere. She is a chameleon, something that Motion herself would perhaps wish to be.

I think this is something we want to avoid. Villains don't need to reflect the hero, like Batman's gallery. They don't even need a real theme. What matters is how they interact with the hero and push them, what their encounters say about the hero. Making the villain's theme and focus about their ability to conceal and change shape only draws the sexuality issue up.

Also, how does a biological agent turn somebody into a shapeshifting weapon? If we're having a physics theme, the laws of conservation of energy and mass would have to apply.

And I really think that nobody should find Motion's identity out. I mean, tormenting a hero always bites the villain in the ass. Always. Logically, just divulge the information to the web and newspapers and watch as every rogue in her gallery abuses her friends, home and school.

>>28301
Conservation of mass says that an object always has the same amount of matter inside of it, not how that matter is displaced. That's basic a+b science man. She could stretch herself or condense herself by making herself more or less dense. Easy.

Secondly, I think your attempts to keep everything "Not like this" stinks of reverse-Gary-Stuism. It's admirable to want to try and do your best, but by saying "We can't do this, it's been done before" you are shooting yourself in the foot. Everything has been done before, that's a given. It's how you do it that matters.

Thirdly, I don't see the hostility towards bringing up her sexuality. Great, you don't want to make it the main theme, fine. I understand. But completely ignoring it is silly. It would be the same as having a black character in the middle of a racist gathering and then never once bringing up the fact that he is black. Why is he there? Why is the character black at all?

Fourthly, and finally, heroes have villains find out their identities all the time. It matters on the villain what they do with it. If a certain villain wants -personal- revenge against someone, why would they tell everyone else? And crazy people don't always do sane things.

I never thought I'd have so much to argue about in a comic about a transgender hero haha

>Secondly, I think your attempts to keep everything "Not like this" stinks of reverse-Gary-Stuism. It's admirable to want to try and do your best, but by saying "We can't do this, it's been done before" you are shooting yourself in the foot. Everything has been done before, that's a given. It's how you do it that matters.

I know most has been done before. I also feel like you're pushing the idea for this villain pretty hard in some pretty key areas.

Nobody is being hostile with her sexuality, its going to be handled in her normal life, not superhero one.

And speaking of her normal life, wanting personal revenge is a fine motivation. How does it progress passed that? The villain is defeated and never gives out her personal info? With many, many situations like this, the villain ends up dead and that protects the secret identity.

>>28304
And that would be a fine way to resolve the whole thing, while still having a weight around Motion's neck.

I'm pushing hard because frankly, I'm not sure what we are doing here. I...I don't see anything. It's all confused. Half of the people are saying one thing, half are saying something else, and then I get embroiled in strange arguments about semantics. Look. I drop it, you win. Out. Have fun guys.

>>28305

You got into that argument over semantics, it happens. But pushing hard is not a good thing, considering that you should let others have other cracks at your character.

It feels very much like you're attached to the character idea and that can be a problem. Also, from being on /x/, I'd imagine you want to write about a pseudo zombie/goo monster. Others might not, it might not fit the comic's theme or it might work out great.

I don't see the point in leaving just because somebody challenges your idea.

>>28306
I'm more leaving as in not contributing, just because I don't think I gel very well with the project. I hold no ill will, and am still watching the progression, I just don't think I have any ideas that would be worth putting forth towards this.

And actually, I started out as a writer of more general fiction, and in fact I did a treatment for a novel about a slightly-futuristic world embroiled in war that is visited by a god that isn't aware it is a god. So I'm actually used to more laid-back, goofy work. The /x/ stuff I did was just to blow off steam. But I'm off track.

While your idea was good, there were a few things about it that doesn't necessarily fit with the feel we wanna go for. Her backstory seems especially grim when we're going for a more lighthearted, though serious story. Sorta like Spider-Man or The Flash.

Another is, perhaps, just a nitpick on my part, but how does she gain her powers again? Reviving the dead isn't really something that's possible.

And if any character would find out Motion's identity, they'd have to be a one shot villain, not a core member of the rogues.

>>28330
I guess I can't keep my word about keeping quiet haha.

Actually I had another idea, but it feels...well, it feels like something that would be immediately shot down.

I thought her origin was much less grim in the second version. She doesn't die, just transformed. Maybe in a more grotesque way then the other characters, but certainly not overly horrible.

>>28331

If you have an idea, say it. The worst is it could be shot down. Its not like we all haven't had ideas of our own declined. I'm the editor and some of my ideas were waved away by the group.

>>28342
Well, the idea was for the same character (Yes, I'm stubborn, but only because I like to keep molding an idea until it's right).

Maybe, instead of being a villain, she'd only initially appear as a villain? As a sort of scenario for what I mean, let's say that after she undergoes her transformation she gets inspired by Motion. Not knowing exactly how to get into contact with her, she mock-terrorizes some people to get Motion's attention. You're average "Heroes fighting before speaking" ensues, and after getting tossed around a bit the character reveals that she just wants to be a hero like Motion. It could be a cute oneshot.

Some thing on the ice woman

Heat tends to have an affect on people, usually makes them angry/quick to anger. Being constantly sweltering she would be angry most of the time.

Also imagine her meeting up with the fire guy (perhaps hes trying the obligatory vilan teamup) She would HATE HIM SO MUCH Spraying all the fire around making her hotter and hotter...

Sorry I've been gone a while...

I was just considering a scenario in my head... What if Motion become so badly injured in a fight that she needs to seek out medical attention. Obviously there's the issue with the secret identity so her only option is to go to the same doctor she confiding her gender reassignment process since she already put her trust into the doctor and there's that whole doctor/patient confidentiality.

I know we're the transgender and superhero issues on different sides of the fence, I'm just tossing out a hypothetical

I've also been playing around with some logo options...

>>28396

That's a neat idea, actually. I like it. Gives us a way to address her transition, with the doc being a somewhat important character who actually has a reason to talk with her about it in conjunction with her crime fightin'.

Also, I'm just amused by the idea of her showing up to her doctor for the first time dressed up in her costume, and the doc being like, excuse me, wtf r u doin?

>>28396

Usually the person who does surgeries and even supplies hormones doesn't have a great relationship with the transsexual.

Also, doctors don't have to keep confidentiality when there are laws being broken. They can call the police.

Finally, suffering enough damage to need medical attention would likely need more than stitches. If a medical procedure happens, it gets written down in the patient's file.

>>28460
Batman had a personal surgeon (though he, before and after that surgeon, also used Alfred for the same purpose), and I am sure there are plenty of heroes who got so banged up that they had to see a doctor. Discretion can be used.

>>28461

As a person who's gone through a bit of medical school, I can say this would be a great risk for the doctor in question.

Heroes like Batman and Green Arrow likely have people who have experience with medical training but not licensed doctors. A doctor has to log everything they use, be it drugs, tools, even minor things.

Also, Batman was a bad choice in example. When you have enough money to buy a bat shaped jet, you can buy yourself a private surgeon.

I think confiding in somebody eventually would definitely be needed, a doctor might be a tad strained. I'd say one of her friends would be a more viable choice, somebody to look after her if she's been injured.

On another topic, I've been developing another AI based villain, but one a lot less gimmicky and darker than the chessmasters.

Oh, my AIM buddy list got erased too.

My handle is "thecomiceditor". If you want/need to speak with me about the project, talk to me some time. If you've already spoken to me, do it again so I can re-add you to my list.

>>28532
>>28531
Granted, but you have to accept that she is -going- to get beat up. Bad. So where is she gonna go? A doctor would have to be retarded to not put 2 and 2 together. News Break: Red haired hero gets hole blasted through chest! Oh, and my patient has a hole just like that through -her- chest.

Jus saying

>>28533

The advantage to our hero is that she does have some shielding from damage, unlike so many vigilante style heroes, a bullet won't hurt her.

I'd imagine that the majority of her injuries would be blunt force, bruises, breaks and cuts.

She is going to be beaten up, but not like in Kick Ass, at least not on a regular basis. Especially strong arcs may require her to be severely hurt, but too much gore can be a real turn off to a reader (See: Invincible) or it starts to lack power and impact (See: Kick Ass).

>>28536
Still, it seems naive that whoever ends up treating her won't notice that she is being regularly beaten and bloodied. I'm not saying she needs a personal surgeon, but it just seems like a large loophole in what you are trying to make a more "realistic" comic.

Just had another idea for a villain/arc...

Basic concept is an illegal underground UFC-style fighting circuit/gambling ring run by a washed up fighting champion banned from sanctioned tournaments and stripped of his sponsors due to the revelation that he was illegally enhancing his body with bionic implants. Frustrated by the establishment, he founded this to-the-death alternative out of spite and has even kidnapped several of his former competition (who he feels exposed him to get him out of the way when it was really his coach who felt the implants were slowly killing him) and forced them to compete, never to be seen again...

Eventually the champ learns of Motion and figures that a Metahuman fighting in his ring will really bring in the gambling chips

As for his look, I'm getting the image of Dana White on roids with his enlarged veins looking like circuitboard wires and wearing gladiatorial wear