Category talk:Villains

Question on who gets the Category:Villains?
I suspect there is some sort of system at work, but I have to ask anyway: who gets and who doesn't get the Category:Villains? I see that many are in the subcategory in which saga they appeared in, which is fine. But I was wondering if the villains of the particular subactegories also warrants the Category:Villains?--Uncanny Ultrabeast 21:28, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I once raised this in regards to pirates in general. But I had it the other way round noting "good" rather then "villianary". Their all criminals and classified as "evil" to the WG and all, that is about all you can say. So every pirate is really a villian. One-Winged Hawk 21:42, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was less about piracy and more if different villainous characters should get the Villains category. As an example Rob Lucci who is under the subcategory CP9 Saga villains but not Category:Villains. My question is this: should he also be in the Villains category and the subcategory or only in the subcategory? Altough I know there is an ongoing debate on sub- and main categories, and while this somewhat touches upon the subject, this question has less to do with that and more to do with my desire to know how to use the cateogries properly.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 22:07, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like the whole category to go... But thats me. If someone like Croc can suddenly turn around, he was a villian but hardly would be now. Buggy even less. One-Winged Hawk 22:19, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'm starting to hate this category because there is just this broad spectrum of gray. I mean there are just these characters that are diffcult to lable despite being neutral or antagonistic. For example the Admirals. While Akainu despite being a guy who is just doing his job (even though he goes above and beyond the call of duty) could be safely called a villain. There is a totally different question when it comes to his colleagues, who are antagonistic towards the main characters but are they villains for that reason? And don't get me started about Crocdile. Somehow I can't imagine him doing anything from the goodness of his heart while I can imagine him doing acts that might resemble charity but are ultimately motivated by spite. Case in point: Crocodile helping Luffy get away not because he particularly cares about his wellbeing but he gets to deny Akainu succeding in his mission.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 22:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it will depend on what will be the issue on Forum:Index/Site Problems/Categories vote. To me it is one of the case where it does not matter since the category is the concatenation of the sub ones

Otherwise is it ok to put the Marines or Impel Down guards in the category Villains Kdom 22:54, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think only certain members should be marked with the Category:Villains, for example Akainu. While I did put Aokiji in the subcategory Whitebeard War Saga Villains (where he belongs as he is an antagonist) I think he does not belong in the Category:Villains for obvious reasons. Thats my point that the category should mark characters who can be considered evil while the subcategories show where they were antagonistic--Uncanny Ultrabeast 23:02, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Considering the terms being applied, it maybe indeed not right to place certain saga or even arc villains together within the main category of villains. Characters like Buggy, Crocodile, and even Franky himself have been villains for certain parts of the story but certainly not at others thereafter. Characters like Akainu and Blackbeard however have been outright villains from the start.

Maybe let's consider this:


 * A character that is identified as a villain, is placed within both the category villains and the sub categories by saga.
 * Ex. Rob Lucci is identified as a villain for his sadistic nature and for him and his agents deceiving the Galley-La company.
 * If the character shows that he is not a villain in parts that are after when they were antagonists, they are placed in the former villain category but still categorized in the subcategories in which they are villains.
 * Ex. Hatchan is introduced as a villain but shows actions that are not outright antagonistic to a point of being repentive.
 * For morally gray characters like Aokiji and Smoker, they can be excluded in any villain category altogether unless they display some really villainous or antagonistic actions.
 * For characters that were allies at some point in time but later turn into antagonists later in the story, it maybe best to list them only in the subcategory in which they are villains. This is unless they show actions that are completely villainous and antagonistic regardless of the part of the story.
 * Ex. Law and a number of Luffy's rivals maybe helping Luffy now but it's kinda certain that they are gonna clash at one another in future.

Mugiwara Franky 02:10, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Imagine if Oda had kept the Peacemaine and Morgania terms... The grey would be a grey of different tone. I think he must have relaised himself the problem he might create. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 02:15, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oda's Peacemaine and Morgania terms would have helped things out in a simpler story, however based on what he's created, simple labels like bad guys and good guys for most characters aren't easy to choose.Mugiwara Franky

My problem is actually not the pirates themselves, because we already have them in the Category: Pirates. Some pirates may be more villainous than others but they are all categorized as pirates. The real difficulty (I think) is labeling the antagonists such as the Marines and all WG employees (simply because the work for the WG) as villains. Speaking of antagonists, Smoker has been a complete opponent of the Straw Hats from the very get go (with certain exceptions) but that does not make him a morally grey character just becuse he has opposed them.

Your (Mugiwara Franky) suggestion is something I would agree on and something I had already in mind of doing (guess I was just asking for permission). The reason I asked the question in the first place was because I noticed that certain characters were labled only as saga villains instead of villains despite they definitely fit under both descriptions. But I thnk there is a problem in labeling every villain by saga simply because there are these small arcs between the sagas (Everthing from Arabasta forward, the East Blue saga does not count because it is nothing but small arcs) that has really very little to do with the larger saga (e.g. Drum arc, Foxy arc, Thriller Bark). Also could somebody change the Skypiea Saga Villains correctly and should not the Baroque Works saga be instead Arabasta Saga Villains because then it could better include such villains which have nothing to do with Baroque Works (like Wapol and his ilk).

I definitely think that if anything needs work in this category it is the subcategories. If there ever comes a situation when the Villain sub categories get changed (and I'm not suggesting that it should be done right now on the spot) I would suggest to use a much more neutral term like antagonist for example: ________ Saga Antagonists and lable the villain category on characters which fit its description.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 11:37, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure how the villains got started being categorized by Saga per say. The categorization by Saga can be a bit broad since you have instances like with Franky which just lasted less than an arc, Hancock, or even Perona. For a saga categorization, it's probably best to categorize the characters based on their overall performance (I'm not sure of the word to be used here) throughout a particular saga.


 * For the Baroque Works Saga, it's somewhat a bit understandable that it would include Wapol and his men abit as the Baroque Works Saga covered Drum as well. Arabasta Saga sounds slightly like it's only limiting itself to the villains and events that happened in Arabasta. Arabasta's a major element within the saga definitely, but the whole saga kinda revolved more around the Straw Hats' conflict with the criminal organization.Mugiwara Franky 12:13, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that the Saga part of the villains/antagonists sub categories is much easier than say a more precise Arc villains. While I wouldn't mind an ___ Arc Villains/Antagonists sub category it would definitly have the drawback of just too many categories and as such I think the Saga Villians is the way to go, especially if you consider that there will be more arcs/sagas before One Piece is over. Oh, and thanks for changing it to Skypiean Saga. :)--Uncanny Ultrabeast 13:56, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like this category either. According to definitoins, a villain is an evil character. This category includes all antagonists of the strawhats. It ignores their morality and it's a bit difficult to categorize ones who switched allegiance. I would propose to replace it with a category:Antagonists or delete it completely. El Chupacabra 17:04, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually have no problems with the villains category in itself since there are obviously evil characters in One Piece. My problem however is with the subcategories. If I would propose a change it would be to keep the category:villians but change the sub categories to _____ Saga Antagonists. I would put all who oppose (for whatever reason) the main characters in the apropriate ___ Saga Antagonists sub category, while also including the villains category and applying it on those characters who fit the description of being evil/cruel/etc. Part of my recent editing spree concerning the categories is meant to reflect this.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 18:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cruel and evil is not exactly the same. Besides, we lack enough information for a characterisation of many of the people in this category, for example Blackbeard's new recruits. I agree that if Oda had kept the Morgania/Peace Main sytem, things would be easier. However, the problem is that there are quite few characters who are absolutely evil or purely good. The majority of character can't be really put in a simple good/evil sheme. A system of alignemnts would be more appropriate. However it would be fanon, and therefore not fit for this wikia. El Chupacabra 14:48, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Oda no D&D alignments, please! D:

But seriously folks, I sort of see where you're coming from with this, but I think it is not the main point when it comes to villains. It is not important if they are pure evil or just sort of evil. It would be same if the category:swordsmen would be unusable simply because some characters prefer katanas and others just sabers, it is what they do (use bladed weapons) that makes them swordsmen not what kind of blade they use or even how good they are at it. That same logic applies to villains as well, if they do something that is villainous they are villains. Then it is the articles job to give description to what kind of villians the characters are. The actions of the characters should speak for themselves, I mean it would not matter if Sengoku's goat is the most evil being in existance, but if it does nothing to show that it is, then it is not a villain.

Personally I'm glad Oda did not use the distinction Peace Main/Morgania, because it does not have the same impact to say that character is evil and another character is not, as it is to actually see the actions that make them either good or evil. To repeat myself the reason I'm championing the idea of having both the villains and antagonists in categories and sub categories because it gives a quick way to describe what kind of characters they are, as opposed to simply having one or the other. I've already mentioned why I find it misleading to just have the villain categories and subcategories, but even antagonists have problems of their own. For example if we would have just antagonists then one could categories characters like Smoker and Crocodile on the same level, which I feel looses an important distinction that the villains category provides. Continuing that train of thought the categories would go something like this -> Smoker: Antagonist (and only antagonist) while Crocodile: Antagonist & Villain, just to show a quick way to immediately grasp the difference between the two.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 22:05, March 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Villains could be a sub-category of an eventual antagonist main one. That would help remove some characters which are not really Villains from this category. Concerning characters who change side, there is the Former Villains for that so there is no need to suppress them from the main category. Also if the cateogry name is unclear, one can write a more precise definition on the page to explain better what article it takes into account. Kdom 13:18, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay regardless if the antagonists or the villains are the main category or not, only that both should be included. It's actually not a bad idea to start with antagonists as the main category and work yourself down to villains (even though I originally would have proposed it the other way around). Furtherhmore I find the categories to be quite clear and would not put any defintions on them. Simply having characters with either the antagonist or the villain category already tells what kind of character they are. I guess my discussion with El is more a question of which character belongs where.--Uncanny Ultrabeast 13:42, March 21, 2010 (UTC)