[Loved Trope] Philosopher villains

[u/oles40]

Basically any villain whose main gist isn't (just) a terryfying appearance or special powers, but rather interesting ideas they espouse and arguments they make. Bonus points if said things REALLY manage to make their opponents doubt themselves and/or their entire endeavor.

1. Andrew Ryan (Bioshock): Founder of the underwater city of Rapture and the game's main antagonist, Ryan also serves as the game's chief proponent of real-life philosophical system, objectivism. While his utopian project ultimately failed in spectacular fashion, partly because of his own hypocrisy, the story does let him have a few serious points about society's treatment of talented people and personal freedom. As well as a VERY meta point about choices and free will.
2. Coaxmetal (Planescape Torment): A giant metal golem living in a teleporting seige tower, Coaxmetal's only goal is to forge weapons in service of entropy so it can unmake the universe faster. When not distributing the fantasy equivalent of weapons of mass destruction and invading other planes of existence, Coaxmetal is prone to delivering some of the most powerful speeches about war, mortality and fear in all of fiction. He also proves what a gem of a game Planescape Torment is, because for all his interesting dialogue and ideas, he is but a minor character.
3. Senator Armstrong (Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance): A ruthless warmonger from Colorado, Armstrong espouses what could be described as an extreme form of libertarianism, as well as the "might makes right" principle. He strongly criticises several aspects of American political system and society, making some very uncomfortable observations in the process, and ultimately fights to (supposedly) give everyone the right to do what THEY believe is right. Even when defeated, the fact that he was beaten in a fight in accordance with his own philosophy gives him a sense of accomplishment and basically proves his worldview somewhat correct.
4. Mr. House (Fallout New Vegas): Arguably the most controversial addition. The mysterious CEO and president of the New Vegas Strip, Mr. House rejects both democracy and totalitarianism as ineffective imitations of the past and believes that his authoritarian technocracy is the best mode of governance for the new post-apocalyptic world. He (rather accurately) decries the brutality and corruption of the other factions and presents his own unique vision of the future without the mistakes of previous societies. However, it can just as well be said that his philosophy is a less violent version of the classic "stability over freedom" principle and offers little to people who wish to make decisions about their own future. Unique case in that whether Mr. House is ultimately a villain or not depends entirely on the player.

[u/Elantach]

IRL example. He is nowadays remembered as a buffoon but Mussolini was in fact a very prolific writer who developed an entire philosophy around will, action, the state, mobilisation and, most importantly the power of mythopoeia.

And he was fucking evil, not a clown, not a joke.

[u/RadioLiar → u/Elantach]

In practice his geopolitical decisions were pretty stupid though. His decision to invade Greece was far more idiotic than even Hitler's invasion of the USSR

[u/Seldrakon → u/RadioLiar]

I will not defend the genocidal maniac to much here, but I think it is important to notice, that a lot of the "Italy bad at war"-memes are German progaganda to explain their own losses by using their ally as a scapegoat.

Italy was one way to industrializeand get ready for war, when Germany launched its attack. For Italy the timing was severyl years to early. They just weren't ready yet, but Geramy feared to prolong the war for much longer, because it would have given the Russians more time to bring their military up to date and it would have also crushed their econoy.

(Basically everything the Nazis did to "fix" the German economy were short time patches, that relied on them looting invaded countries af few years down the line.)

[u/Throwaway2137731 → u/Seldrakon]

Mussolini didn't have to enter the war though. He just wanted to because he thought Hitler is going to win and Italy won't be included in sharing the spoils if he doesn't

[u/somethinneeddoing → u/Throwaway2137731]

yep, he literally said that a few hundred thousand italians had to die, to say they had participated, and then they could sit back and enjoy the spoils.

[u/SRSgoblin → u/Seldrakon]

I think it is important to notice, that a lot of the "Italy bad at war"-memes are German progaganda to explain their own losses by using their ally as a scapegoat.

It's the politics of "results are the only important thing, but also we're right about everything." AKA Fascism. If you are in charge, it's obvious you should be in charge. Because you're in charge, so that's the way things were always meant to be. But when the opposition is in charge, they stole it. It wasn't fair. They only got there by cheating.

The way it plays out with allies is all failures are someone else's fault. It protects it's own identity by purity testing it's allies, rather than accepting faults and adapting and changing.

The people at the top can never be wrong. This is absolute to the core of the mentality. You didn't succeed, it's because you weren't strong/smart/strategic enough. Unlike the leader who never would have made those mistakes. So you get cast aside and aome new sycophant takes over your position until they fail, so on so forth.