56 Votes in Poll
I kinda new Percival was a keeper but wow, if trying to feed a child to crocodiles is not passing the bassline standard, I don't know what is..
I have heard this argument before and I don't understand why so many people think Dr. Facilier is one of the least evil PEs out there. I haven't watched the film but his page states he was willing to offer the souls of all the people from New Orleans to his "friends". That's pretty bad especially for a Disney animated film.
He is probably not as dark in terms of portrayal as Lotso but that doesn't mean he is less evil.
Eh, for a while I thought the same before taking into account that not only is it unclear as to what Facilier implies by wayward souls (although this could simply denote disdain towards the common folk à la Frollo, seeing as the demons are shown to be quite indiscriminate in their harvest as per the vision thereof that Facilier conjures up in his palm), but most of all, he was acting out of desperation to save his own skin and pretty much had no other choice if he wanted to avoid presumable eternal torture—cowardly desperation, certainly, but desperation nevertheless. I think quite a number of people—including those who wouldn’t have been considered evil or even sociopathic prior—would have taken a similar option since, well, the threat of unending torment isn’t quite equivalent to something more mundane and inevitable like the threat of death.
Now, I’m a firm believer that casually discarding the lives of others with sheer indifference towards them (even if you have something to gain out of it) per se would purely logically be more depraved than deliberately targeting them out of prejudice, hatred, fanaticism, or even simple sadistic impulse, but there are a few more layers to the ethics of the former when your primary motivation to do so is to avoid (again, presumably) a literal eternity of suffering; the reason I would say someone like Commander Rourke is worse than Facilier is that the former throws away the lives of others solely for superfluous profit when he already would’ve filled his pockets for his discoveries alone, in his case effectively committing an indirect, impersonal genocide (of an ancient, lost civilization at that) in cold blood and out of nothing but greed—knowingly also dooming infants and their mothers. I sort of doubt that he would have any qualms with sending them to Hell for it like Facilier, either, being a nearly textbook psychopath and all.
While what Facilier does is still pretty bad, absurdly selfish, and worthy of the category, I think it’s the only real reason he counts in addition to the fact that we just don’t know if he would do the same for much pettier reasons such as that of Rourke.
I Hope Percival C McLeach does not get Removed as he Definitely Passes the Required Heinous Standards to be such as he is Aware the Animals he Kills are Sapient and Innocent as was willing to Hurt a Child
The removal was cancelled I believe so he'll probably not getting one and...
Why we competing McLeach to Kerrigan again?
This is part of my series of competing Pure Evil villains whose crimes are not that bad (compared to other Pure Evil villains at least) against Inconsistently Heinous villains who commit extremely heinous crimes.
I also made a poll of who is more evil between Lotso and Thanos.
I don't get it, not sure why that's needed to be a thing though.
McLeach would definitely not be PE if he was in StarCraft.
To check how many people agree that villains who are extremely sympathetic are always less evil than PE villains no matter the crimes they commit.
I still don't think that's needed personally. And honestly, I'm actually no longer fond of these "Who's more Evil" polls ngl, a lot of them don't make sense to me and some seems like repeats to me.
What do you think?