AroAce Villains - Can Being Bad Be Good Representation?

 

Image description: SPOILER ALERT! Morgana Pendragon in the BBC series Merlin. Morgana is an interesting character with an extremely interesting story. What does she tell us about villains and how to portray them? Keep reading to find out.

If there’s one constant on my blog, it’s that I’m always talking about aspec representation, and how we need more depictions of non-sexual/non-romantic characters. However, in the quest for representation of any kind, there comes an essential question: can villains be good representation despite being bad people? This is a fundamentally difficult question for a number of reasons, and also an unfortunate one. In theory, when representing any group of people – whether that may be a minority race, gender, or sexuality – it’s a good thing to portray various types of characters to represent the diverse spectrum of people within that group. And while that is in general almost always a good idea, the idea of including “bad people” as part of that representation becomes challenging.

Naturally, any group will have “bad people” in it – those who hurt or manipulate others, those who are selfish, greedy, or violent, those who are just generally not “good”. But when it comes to groups that already have very little representation to begin with, having a villainous character as representation can sometimes do more harm than good. When it comes to aspec representation, portraying villains as non-sexual or non-romantic can sometimes reinforce many of the negative tropes and stereotypes I often discuss on this blog. Because aspec people are often seen in both media and real life as cold, emotionless, broken individuals, the notion of non-sexual and non-romantic villains can make it seem like aspec identities are alarming oddities that need to be fixed, or that people who lead non-sexual or non-romantic lives are automatically unhappy and doing damage to themselves and others.

But is it ever possible to portray aspec or aspec-adjacent villains in a good way? What about villains that are not portrayed as evil specifically because they’re non-sexual or non-romantic, but for some other reason? The notion of whether or not aspec villains are good representation is one that many aspec people have different opinions on; I myself tend to come down on the side of finding aspec villains bad representation, but believe there are pros and cons to either side that keep me from fully committing to that stance. That’s why today I want to explore both the good and bad elements of portraying aspec villains. In this post, I’ll be examining what aspec tendencies are sometimes given to villainous characters and why, as well as how they’re used, and what I think could constitute better ways of writing non-sexual and/or non-romantic villains in future.

Spoiler warning! 

Critical Role (various in campaign 2)

Merlin ("The Drawing of the Dark" and various)

Dragon Age: Inquisition (various)

Content warning: Discussions of Discrimination Against Mental Illness

-----------------------------

Why Aspec Villains Can Be Bad

A lot of villains in media aren’t depicted as either inherently sexual or non-sexual, nor are they portrayed as either inherently romantic or non-romantic, whether in the current plot or their backstories. However, there are also a lot of villains that are depicted with sexuality as a large driving force in their character building, their backstory, or their motivations. Depending on how this is done, it’s not necessarily a problem. However, more often than not, media portrays villains in such a way that a minority identity is made to seem “harmfully other.” If you’ve ever heard the term “queer-coded villains,” you might be familiar with this phenomenon in how it relates to various other sexualities and gender identities, often portraying these villains as inherently bad or degenerate specifically because of their identity, implied or otherwise.

I feel this happens to aspec characters as well. Many times on the blog, I’ve discussed instances where characters are portrayed as inherently childish, boring, cold, unpleasant, socially awkward, etc. specifically because of their non-sexual and/or non-romantic natures (think of characters who are portrayed as obnoxious like Sheldon Cooper or portrayed as “rude” like Seven of Nine). The same principle applies when villains are portrayed as unemotional, cold-hearted, and unredeemable simply because they lack sex or romance. For more on why this is such a problem, I highly recommend checking out the TV Tropes page for the trope of this exact name: “Villainous Aromantic Asexual” (as always, scroll with caution, some of these examples are a bit disturbing). Their description of the trope summarizes the issue well – “Media that features characters with psychopathic traits often try to play up their inhuman nature as much as possible. Many decide a good way to hammer the point home is to have the character reject all forms of sexuality. It’s considered the norm for humans to feel sexual (or at least romantic) attraction, so ‘something must be fundamentally wrong when someone rejects such basic instincts.’”

This quote also alludes to another issue with the way aspec villains are usually portrayed, in that the non-sexual and/or non-romantic nature of these characters are either presented as defects or as choices, both of which are erroneous assumptions about aspec identities that carry with them harmful real-world implications. In the case of the former, both the quote and my own analysis make it clear why this is a problem: because these types of portrayals make aspec identities seem like a mental or emotional failing, one that paints a person as unfit to live in “normal” society unless they are resocialized, corrected, or otherwise fixed. Not only is this offense from a health standpoint – implying that mental illness is a dangerous failing – but from an aspec lens it carries with it the implication that living a non-sexual and/or non-romantic lifestyle is wrong and even a bit alarming. It seems to say that such a state is undesirable to both the person living it and to other people/society at large, making it all right to want to save an aspec person from themselves and stop them from being the way they are.

In the case of the latter, I’ve talked at length about why asexuality, aromanticism, and their related identities are not choices, but how media often mistakenly believes they are. When these identities are portrayed as choices – and especially as villainous ones – it makes it okay to assume they are invalid decisions that, again, must be corrected for the sake of doing what is right or good. It is perfectly valid for someone to realize they are aspec after something like a trauma or an otherwise upsetting experience; but to assume that a trauma will automatically make someone asexual or aromantic, and that being such will also mean they are unemotional or cruel, is both based on and contributes to aphobic stereotypes, as well as mental illness stigmas. It seems to assume that anyone who “chooses” a life without sex or romance must be fundamentally lacking emotion, sometimes to the point of being sociopathic or even psychopathic, which is an extremely problematic portrayal for all the reasons discussed so far.

But not all aspec or aspec-adjacent villains have to be that obvious, over-the-top, or extreme. Even a villain who is not portrayed as a psychopath, but simply as a cold, distant, or amoral individual who deserves a comeuppance can be problematic under certain circumstances. In general, I think it’s easy to fall into the pattern of a non-sexual and/or non-romantic villain due to the age-old narrative design of heroes, their love interests, and the unattached villains that oppose them. Now, in some cases, those unattached villains aren’t aspec at all; instead, they can be intensely sexual and predatory. But this raises another question – why do such extreme options exist for the portrayal of villains? Why does it seem like the only options for how villains are portrayed is either an intense and violent form of sexuality or a warped and twisted sense of asexuality/aromanticism? I think that question is more detailed than I myself have the ability to unpack, especially in the course of one blog post, but I think this complicated question does show us the parameters of where good portrayal of villains can begin, as well as what to avoid.

Non-Sexual and Non-Romantic Villains That Work

As is often the case when covering topics on this blog, it’s tough for me to give you exact examples of aspec villains that work well. Because aspec representation in media is severely limited, I can’t give you many examples of aspec characters in general, let alone villains. This is part of the reason why I feel making villainous characters aspec is such a tricky subject – since our representation is already so small, we’re still at the point where having some of that representation be villainous may send the wrong message. Ideally, it would be excellent to get to a place where aspec villains can be portrayed freely and where it can be shown that their identities are just one part of them, not the thing that has made them a villain in the first place. But to get to that place, I believe we need to have more aspec representation of other types of characters first.

A good example of how that could work and what a good aspec villain looks like canonically comes in the form of Essek Thelyss from Critical Role, whom I have mentioned in previous posts. Critical Role, a webseries featuring well-known voice actors playing Dungeons and Dragons, introduced Essek during the show’s second campaign (season) as a minor non-player character, made and controlled by dungeon master Matt Mercer. At the time, Essek was intended to be a villainous character, a minor antagonist for the players to deal with as they made their way through his homeland and interacted with him. Although Essek does not stay a villainous character for long, due to the party’s kindness, friendship, and acceptance, his story lends itself to this discussion for a couple of reasons.

Image description: Essek Thelyss, as portrayed in the animated opening of campaign two of Critical Role

For a start, Matt confirmed later in the campaign that Essek is demisexual/demiromantic, and although this does not really feature until later, I believe you can see shades of it earlier in his story, including during the time when he is still supposed to be a villainous character. However, Matt handles these moments with the type of respect that allows Essek to side-step many of the tropes we often see with aspec villains. For instance, although Essek is initially a rather cold and emotionless individual, not only is that somewhat emblematic of other characters of his race (dark elves, or drow) that are shown throughout the story, but it also makes a great deal of sense given Essek’s profession as a sort of spy. Later, it’s also revealed that this “cold” nature isn’t a defect of Essek’s that needs to be corrected in order for him to be accepted by regular society, but rather is a product of being different from everyone else in his society and holding different beliefs, thus leading to him being ostracized and feeling apathetic towards the world around him as a result.

The reason why the “cold” trope is so problematic for aspec characters is because it implies that being aspec is the reason why someone is cold or emotionless, or at least that these two things go hand-in-hand. It also implies that being cold/emotionless – and, by extension, being aspec – is a bad thing, a thing outside the norm that needs to be corrected, and paints everyone else as being the solution, not the problem. When characters are portrayed as cold because society has rejected them, I think this can, if done well, be an interesting reversal of this trope, as I believe Essek shows us. Furthermore, Essek’s eventual reformation does not come at the expense of his demisexual/demiromantic nature, as is so often the case. Rather, as the story goes on and Essek becomes more involved with the questing party and thus becomes more of a hero, his identity is allowed to blossom even more. Rather than have his identity be erased when he becomes a “good guy”, his identity is accepted, and that is part of why he turns good, I believe. Although Essek does eventually find romance, it is not the romance that brings him to the good side, but rather friendship, and the belief that the party has in him. This is a rare and beautiful thing for characters of any kind, but especially aspec ones, and especially aspec villains.

Additionally, Essek is not the only aspec character in the second campaign of Critical Role. Player character Caduceus Clay (played by Taliesin Jaffe) is a confirmed aromantic asexual, and is played with the intention of him being seen as such. Not only is he one of our main characters, but he is moral, kind-hearted, and brave, which proves to us that Essek’s aspec nature does not automatically equate aspec-ness with villainy. Both characters are unique and come from different circumstances and backgrounds, but they are both portrayed as valid, which is extremely important. It shows that neither aspec heroes nor villains need to change the aspec part of themselves, and Essek especially proves that aspec villains can become heroes while still maintaining their core identity.

My next example’s story is the opposite of Essek’s, as they are a character who starts as a hero but then becomes a villain, but there are still some interesting parallels and lessons to be explored with this next villain. Previously, in a post where I discussed some miscellaneous headcanons for potential aspec characters, I mentioned the character of Morgana from the BBC series Merlin. The show, as you can probably guess from the title, is an Arthurian Legend retelling, but what makes this particular telling unique is that the show was meant to be more family-friendly, and also starts the characters off a bit younger so we could follow their journey as they eventually become the famous characters of legend. As you can probably also guess from her name, Morgana is this retelling’s version of Morgan le Fey.

Image description: Morgana in BBC's Merlin before she turns to evil

Portrayals of Morgan le Fey differ significantly from tale to tale, with some painting her as a good and helpful character, and others portraying her as a villain or as a “good guy turned bad guy,” especially in more contemporary adaptations of the legend. Some also portray her as more chaste of a character (usually when she’s good) or as a lustful temptress when she’s evil. Many of these portrayals seem to be contradictory to one another, even within the same stories, so instead, I will focus on Merlin’s portrayal of the character, which paints her as a villain in some unique and non-sexual ways. As a family-friendly retelling, obviously the legends are significantly altered to remove the sexualized nature of the characters and Morgana as the Morgan le Fey stand-in is no exception to this; but the way the show portrays her turn to evil is nevertheless interesting for its non-sexual and non-romantic natures enough that I’d like to explore it as an example.

Morgana is first introduced to us in the show as Arthur Pendragon’s foster sister, a young woman of great compassion, strong moral conviction, and who is unafraid to speak her mind, even if that means questioning her foster father Uther. Thus, we can see that Morgana does not fit the archetype of a “cold and unfeeling” villain right from the start. Additionally, I think it’s noteworthy that Morgana never has a romance at all throughout the course of the series, nor even a hint of one, when romance is a common enough plot point for many of the characters around her. Part of this could be because she was the show’s eventual endgame antagonist, but there are indeed villainous characters for whom romance is not only included, but is a part of their eventual villainy, such as the character of Mordred. Therefore, the fact that the show deliberately makes the choice to not have Morgana’s villainous turn be due to romance reasons seems very noteworthy to me.

Rather, Morgana’s transformation from hero to villain happens slowly over the seasons, and rather than any type of romantic betrayal or loss of a lover, we see that the main thing that drives Morgana to villainy is feeling betrayed by those around her, as well as losing family and friends along the way. Ultimately, much like Essek, it’s the thing that makes Morgana different and thus ostracized that makes her a villain, but this isn't specifically tied to the fact that she’s non-romantic. This type of turn is not always easy to pull off, but Morgana and Essek serve as examples of how it’s possible to have non-romantic and/or non-sexual villains who are outcasts for some reason that leads to them being villains without playing into aphobic stereotypes. Rather than have these character be aspec and thus cold/alone and thus evil, we can imagine that these characters were or are accepted for their aspec natures, but aren’t accepted for other reasons. It allows them to be relatable to aspec people and people of all kinds without relying too heavily on harmful tropes.

Writing Better Villains – Aspec or Otherwise

The tips above are just some of many ways that I believe writers can write better villains, and can perhaps even use those villains for good aspec representation. In characters like Essek and Morgana, we see examples of characters who do not turn evil for anything related to romance, but whose villainous motives come from society, injustice, betrayal, or pain. In them, we also see examples of villains who are allowed to be non-sexual and/or non-romantic without it being used as a key example of their villainy, which also leads to other important questions for writers to ask, such as why characters become villains in the first place and how these villainous characters or their deeds are portrayed. There are a lot of different ways to define villainy, and everyone’s definition of “good” and “bad” might have slight variations, so it can be extremely useful to ask why a character turned to evil, why they are seen as a villain, and what they do that sets them apart from the people that society considers “good.”

For examples of characters who are maybe not aspec or aspec-adjacent, but whose main stories are nevertheless free of sex or romance without falling into the trope of psychopathic aspec villains, a few villains in the video game Dragon Age: Inquisition come to mind. There are several intriguing villains across the Dragon Age series and in Inquisition especially, but for the sake of this example, I’d like to focus on the characters of Samson and Calpernia. Although Calpernia is portrayed to have a love interest in the Dragon Age comic Magekiller, her main story, especially in-game, is devoid of this plotline to the point where most players probably don’t even realize she ever had a love interest. Meanwhile, Samson offers us a character whose story never once mentions any type of relationship at all, except for a strong friendship, which acts as the beginning of his journey.

The only unfortunate thing about these two villains is that you can’t experience both of them in the same playthrough of the game; rather, depending on a very important early game choice about what faction to ally with, you will either face down Samson or Calpernia, not both. Although their stories and circumstances are very different, both characters essentially serve the same function – as the potential lieutenant to the game’s main villain Corypheus and a potential showdown for the player later in the story. However, the mechanics of how you interact with these characters couldn’t be more different. Samson is a minor character from the previous Dragon Age game, a man whose good intentions have repeatedly gone awry and whose life has been full of hardships and bitter disappointments until Corypheus gives him a chance to be a general of a new army. Calpernia is a character new to the franchise, one of the oppressed and disenfranchised in a country full of such people, whose goal is to restore the country she loves and whose allegiance to Corypheus is based on her belief that he can bring about growth, change, and greatness to this once mighty nation by raising up the marginalized, as he did for her.

Both of these characters have extremely compelling stories. In Calpernia’s case, we learn that, despite her intense and sometimes brutal ways, she genuinely cares about the oppressed. If she is the player’s antagonist, you can see moments where she purchases and frees slaves and mercilessly deals with anyone who treats them poorly. Any of these people who choose to join her cause are treated with respect and friendship, and eventually when the player faces her, Calpernia is shown to actually be quite reasonable precisely because she not blinded by power or influence, but simply wants to make her country into something better. In Samson’s case, we see a man full of fascinating contradictions. As the leader of an army full of corrupted, hopeless soldiers, we see someone who has allowed terrible things to happen, someone who is described by other characters as a “monster.” But we also see someone who thinks of himself as a caretaker and, in an odd way, we can almost understand why he would inspire loyalty and can almost feel a level of pity for him when he fails to protect his people.

In general, part of what makes Samson and Calpernia great characters is the fact that they show us examples of the “how” and the “why” questions I mentioned earlier. We can see very clearly that these are villains who do bad things, but we also see the complex layers to who they are, why the world made them this way, and how they are portrayed. Rather than one-note or shallow portrayals of psychopathic villainy, we see the ways both characters rise and fall, succeed and fail, and, in some cases, where they draw the line. They prove that these things are possible without making their motivation a sexual or romantic relationship and that villains don’t have to automatically be depraved.

Image description: Calpernia (left) and Samson (right) from Dragon Age: Inquisition

It’s a simple storytelling truth that a story needs protagonists and antagonists. Sometimes those things can be one in the same, sometimes those things can be dramatically flipped, but at the end of the day, someone is always going to be a villain in someone else’s story. Not only are villains essential, but they have the potential to be some of the most fun and engaging characters in a work of fiction. But a lot of that depends entirely on how they are portrayed. Of course, if done well, there is nothing wrong with having villainous characters whose motivation or backstory involve having, fighting for, or losing someone they care about. That person can even be a love interest (again, provided it’s done well, as male villains losing female love interests can sometimes veer off into very trope-riddled territory). On the opposite side of that coin, a villain absolutely can be shown to not have sex or romance as part of their story, as is true of the examples I’ve discussed here. But when these non-sexual/non-romantic tendencies are portrayed as part of what makes them evil, this is where we run into problems.

All in all, I believe there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not aspec villains are good representation. Rather, I believe the answer is something more like “they can be.” Villains serve as essential a function to storytelling as heroes do, and just like heroes, they can be written in ways that either do something interesting or do something problematic. And thus, just like heroes, they should be looked at with the same careful consideration and the same end goal of avoiding troublesome stereotypes. I’d love to see more stories where aspec heroes and aspec villains can exist side-by-side, or where aspec villains can becomes heroes without losing their aspec identities. Until that day, I hope we can have better representation for non-sexual and non-romantic characters in general so that the disappointing tropes we often see don’t end up becoming my own aspec supervillain origin story (insert evil laughter here).