This is a topic I've wanted to cover for some time, and recent other events like the topic about Bun Bun, the return to Timelessness, along with changes in the main characters have encouraged me to do so. In this essay, I would like to discuss the key differences between a Hero, an Antihero, and a Villain, and how it applies to Sluggy Freelance.

Firstly, it is vital that I identify the three categories: Every main character, regardless of setting, style, or intent, fits into one of these categorizations. It might sometimes be challenging to know which, but it is key to the narrative form of writing that each story has it's characters thusly grouped - sometimes in even the most subtle of ways.

The first group are the Heroes, and the defining characteristic that makes someone a hero is that they oppose villains ideologically. Note my emphasis of the last word. What makes a hero a hero is that they see a villain, and face that villain because the villain's ideology is one the hero opposes, and the hero takes up arms to defend the opposite ideology. Inevitibly, the Hero has a good-guy ideology, and supports it in some way against the bad-guy ideology of the villain.

There's a lot of room to move around in that description, but the key fact is the conflict against an ideology seen as - for lack of a better word - worse then the one supported by the hero. To pull an example out of the air, Super Man is a hero not just because he has super powers, but because he resists villains who are trying to inflict their own, oppressive ideologies. In the end, to be a hero, the most important part is to retain the sympathy of the audience - meaning that the audience must feel an emotional attatchment to the character, and through that connection wish to see them do well and succeed (note: It is not necessary for them actually to do so).

Heroes are generally vital to a story, but there is in fact one other class with which they are interchangeable - the Antihero. A story must have at least one of either category to play the main character that opposes the villain.

An Antihero is not in fact the opposite of a hero, as that is a villain. An Antihero is a character in limbo - from a literary perspective, he is not the story's antagonist nor it's source of evil, but the character also doesn't have an ideology that opposes the antagonist's. The Antihero is in it for different reasons, and is generally very morally ambiguous - they might be fighting evil for money, personal vendettas, or some other reason. An antihero might fight heroes, or villains, but they do not commit to either side from a literary sense - this means that they neither choose to be nor act in such a manner that would have them categorized as either side. An Antihero acting heroically might just as easily act unheroically, since the heroism was not motivated by heroic reasons.

In the videogame Darkwatch, the main character (Jerhico Cross) is an Antihero because his motives are completely unknown. The story opens with him inadvertedly releasing a vampire, which immeadietly infects him with vampirism. Since Jerhico is mute, it isn't known just why he hunts the Vampire down - despite secondary characters trying to influence him to do it for good or evil, his own motivation is kept secret. Finally, at the moment of destiny, the player is given a choice to either become a true Vampire or regain his soul - these choices are representative of the Antihero, because once it is made they have committed. Up until that point, however, he did nothing that definetly marked him as one or the other, for although he might have helped or killed people, it was always in some strangely secondary capacity that didn't necessarily define him as an individual.

You see, the thing that makes him an Antihero is the fact that his motives are ambiguous when it comes to good/evil. They might be in it for the money, or for some other reason - a criminal might hunt and kill a far more violent, more twisted criminal, which might make him look like a good guy, but even if he doesn't commit any evil deeds, so long as the only reason he didn't is because he didn't have to, his moral stance is still ambiguos. It stayes that way until something comes that tests them, and forces them to commit. For Jerhico, the test is when he has to make a choice to either take the power of vampirism or reject it, because it is a decision that cannot be avoided for him and it is one that commits him to an ideology.

The most important note of all about antiheroes is that they can evlove - maybe into a hero, or maybe into a villain. This type of evolution, however, doesn't simply happen if they do good acts - in fact, it is easier for an Antihero to become a villain then a good guy. Should the antihero do good acts but just for ambiguous, self-interested reasons (like a mercenary working for money) then he is still an antihero, and could easily go on to doing evil things next, wheras doing evil things - even for a cold, hard business reason - means the character will at the very least require redemption before he can become a hero, and may well be reclassified as a villain (since an innate part of heroism is hunting down and defeating those who do evil, wether they're a practicing villain or not).

Lastly, there are villains, and quite simply a villain is the opposite of a hero. They are the antagonists, they carry the negative ideology that a hero sets itself against. A villain doesn't have to be conscious of their status, nor declare alliegance to villany - only heroes have to do that by deciding to act heroically, as the Antihero has their own reasons and the villain is a form of extreme antiheroism.

There are various subclasses of villains, and to help my points I will draw examples from Sluggy Freelance itself: The satanic kittens are one kind. These kittens are the mindless villain. Their innate instincts and standard modus operandi are predetermined, which at first makes them seem like antiheroes as their reason to be evil is not a conscious commitment, but that is not the case. Antiheroism means being commited to something that might lead to civilian casualties but doesn't care about it. To be committed to something that does inflict civilian casualties and is indeed primarily concerned with it is the core of mindless villany.

Another type of villany is the conscious villain - an example being the demons. They know, aknowledge, and wallow in the evil of their ideology. They believe firmly in the right of the strong to rule and their personal right to do whatever they can to become the strong. They step back, see what they are as a whole, and accept it in all it's foul glory. These are easily identified, since they actually directly choose to commit to villany.

The third type is the decieving villan. It is hard to think of an example from Sluggy, but perhaps Hereti-Corp sees themselves as this. They are the type of villain that can appreciate and understand their whole ideology, choose it, and shape it, but refuse to see the villany in it. They cause pain and suffering, but unlike the first group of villains who don't care that that is part of their regular programming, this group tries to deny it, or to justify it, or to otherwise make it 'all right'. These are the deadliest villains of all, since the cunning ones are very, very good at it, meaning no one knows they are a villain. Bun Bun could perhaps be categorized here, because he has constructed his own ideology that involves inflicting suffering and rule by the strong, but unlike the mindless villain he was not simply given this ideology to follow unquestioningly, nor does he wallow in it and seek to satisfy it at any turn as the second type of villain does, he instead justifies it with qualifiers like "It's okay if they're a telemarketer" or "It's okay if they're in my way." or "I want their holiday." Many fallen Antiheroes end up here, and many more evolve into one of the other two.

So we now have our three character subtypes: The heroes, who support an opposing ideology against the villains. The Antiheroes, who fight the villains not for ideological reasons but for some personal one. The Villains who provide the opposition and support an ideology to be fought by heroes. How do these apply to Sluggy Freelance?

If you'll recall, I did a character list a little while back in a noble but staggeringly difficult effort to catalogue the vast number of players in the drama that is Sluggy Freelance. What occured to me was that the interplay of characters of the different types is not just key to the story of Sluggy Freelance, it is key to the way the story of Sluggy Freelance progresses, and perhaps by studying Pete's use of the three character types we can discover patterns and better understand his writing?

Firstly, are his heroes. Pete's heroes always come in two types: Innocents, and Crusaders. Our heroes are Crusaders. Arminius the Vampire Hunter was a Crusader. The "Arny" who fought the kittens were crusaders. These sorts of heroes Pete uses to actively battle against his villains, they are the ideology warriors. His main characters are of course necessary to the continued survival of the story, but what of his other Crusaders? Generally, he shows them as dead, defeated, or in need of help - like the Goddess was, for example. The reason this is is to show the strength of the villain's ideology and to underline how necessary heroes are to this fight. By showing crusaders defeated in battle or incapable of finishing the task, Pete establishes the need for our main characters to bolster their side of the conflict.

The second type of hero that Pete employs is the Innocent. The point of an innocent - especially in Sluggy Freelance - is to die. Or - not so much in Sluggy Freelance - be saved. Either they are safe, and die, or they are not safe, and are saved. The point is to give the heroes something to fight for, motivate them, and establish their ideologies. If it is because someone died that the character gets involved, then they are a hero. If a character's death is unimportant to that character and does not motivate them, then they are an antihero. Innocents are either saved so we know where the hero stands, or killed so we know where the villain stands. That is, sadly enough, their purpose. That was the purpose of Lucy, from the kitten story, since the Crusader arny men died to establish the need for our heroes, while Lucy died to establish why our heroes should be filling that need - i.e., the death of innocents. The same with Amelia, her death - to me - proved Sam an antihero, since her death didn't motivate him in any way but to preserve himself. Certainly, her staking didn't even elect a reaction.

What we can learn here is that once a character is a confirmed hero by their commitment to an ideological purpose in Sluggy Freelance, then we can then go on to subcategorize them and come up with a theory as to their use. An Innocent hero who appeared content and comfortable at the beginning of the story? It is quite likely this character will die to establish the darkness that is to come. A Crusader type that appears halfway through the story? Cannon fodder to bolster the size of the battle. It is easier to determine their purpose, that way.

Next are Pete's Antiheroes, of which he has few - his plot is notoriously divisive. The best example is Sam, who doesn't really care about committing good or evil (and often inadvertedly committs an atrocious amount of both, he saved the world from a plague then got a young woman killed because he was thirsty). He points to the main use of Antiheroes in Sluggy Freelance, which is recurring characters.

Many extras are probably antiheroes in that they don't matter enough to the plot to be committed either way. However, when a character is an Antihero when there is already an established group of heroes and some villains for them to fight, the Antihero is generally just supplementary, since there is already a conflict between good and evil going on. Oasis is an excellent example as well, for her reasons are her own but those who know how to manipulate them can make her fight for their side.

Generally, if a character is an anti-hero, then they are a plot device that Pete saves to start stories, taking advantage of their mysterious position (Can Sam be trusted? Just what is Oasis? Is the latest problem Shlock's fault?) to help him complicate plots and get his characters into and out of difficult situations. Sluggy Anti-heroes are rare, but should one appear (they can be recognized by being a significant character who is still morally uncommitted, no matter what side they fight on) you can expect them to be useful plot devices that will be filed away and brought back whenever Pete wants to delve into that particular plotline again.

Lastly are Sluggy's villains - and oh, are they numerous. They are only just outnumbered by the Innocent Hero subgroup upon which Pete constantly allows them to feed, so that he may continue commit their alliegance to villany. Every new villain generally needs to commit something evil to prove to their audience that they're definetly a villain and to avoid mixed messages that might cause them to think the villain is an anti-hero (that can play merry hell with the audience expectations).

Sluggy's villains fall neatly into the three categories of villany, although he often favours the consciously evil type of villains, a lot of supernatural stuff, since it fits in well with his sort of 'World of Darkness' approach to settings. New villains can generally be identified by their early signs of villany such as making an example of the Innocent subgroup, or otherwise commiting through association with a confirmed villain. These days, Pete seems to favour reusing old villains more, which suggests that he will introduce less new villains and instead continue to use the older, established foes. Their purpose is to provide a 'kernel' of villany around which a plot can be built

Allow me to elaborate: the Demons of the Dimension of pain are a villain group, highly established as evil and somewhat competent. The actual makeup of the demons with regards to membership is relatively unimportant, as each new set of villains is more an organization to be built around. Horribus is deposed and Mosp is dead, but the Demon kernel still exists and is perhaps even stronger under it's new leadership, and so that plotline is still very much alive. That is also true of the Kittens, which in and of themselves are individually insignificant (They certainly don't have names or anything) but are part of a force that we recognize as dangerous, and a subplot. The vampires - their leadership may change and their forces might fluctuate, but so long as they're fighting the Vampires as a whole, then all the past vampire storylines are tied in by the kernel of this villain group.

In other words, villains are the anchors of subplots, for it is through which group of villains Pete has drummed up that we know what sort of setting and plot to expect.

So as you can see, the three types of characters are quite visible around Sluggy Freelance, and used with proficiency. By thinking about what type of character a character is, we might better understand the motivations behind their interactions, and perhaps that way be able to better understand the story as a whole. There is a veritable goldmine of knowledge to be found by studying the underlying interactions of character types and perhaps why Pete makes characters as he does.

Wow. Just wow.

That was a really impressive analysis. Thank you.

I would also add (from my little corner here) that the audience must be able to sympathise with the anti-hero as 'protagonist'. His (or her) motivations and allegiances might not be clear, but the audience has to care about him and desire his continued survival (which may not necessarily happen). Your anti-hero categorisation appears to me to fit most literary narrative - to use a very few examples, the movie Boondock Saints and Michael Moorcock's Elric character. The characters are morally ambiguous - in Boondock Saints the main characters do indeed go out and kill worse criminals than themselves - but the audience cares about them. If the audience has no interest or engagement with the protagonist, the narrative has no appeal. Question - does wanting the protagonists to die (House of Wax anyone?) count as 'caring' or does the audience have to want continued survival?

I don't think that the audience has to care as much about a villain, but explaining why (particularly at the level of your analysis) is beyond me.

Crap on a crutch, Dolath. You sure can crank these essays out, can't you? I can see how this one was motivated by the BunBun discussion, but it's also good in its own right.
Something that kinda made me balk, though, is your depiction of the antihero. I don't think that Sam counts as an antihero, basically because I have never seen him do anything in which he did not essentially mean well. He's not some sort of Crusader good guy who is valiantly struggling against the curse of the undead (though he has some moments when he comes out fairly noble, such as the gracious way he lets Beth leave for heaven even though he really liked her), he's just a normal, ordinary, girl-crazy, lazy guy who just happens to be a vampire. He's also not terribly smart, and he thinks with his pants. Thus, accidents happen, such as with the girl in the barn (which was almost as much Torg's fault, if you'll remember, as he was drunkenly egging Sam on). Still, however, he still has a good heart, which places him, I think, in the hero category. I think that his apathy comes not from the fact that he doesn't care intrinsically, but that he has developed an emotional defense to his damned status. It's hard, so he develops a screen. He does simply what he has to do to survive without trying to think about it, which, I think, is what a lot of us would do as well. Lady Amelia's death falls under that category.
I think a better candidate for the Antihero section is Mosp. Remember, Mosp selfishly betrayed her own people on the hope that she and her love could escape together. This backfires and she becomes a demon with no source of redemption in sight, so she simply lets the Asps run things. But then during halloween she meets Torg and something comes back out in Mosp: her will to fight. Torg does something nice for her and it reawakens her human side. And later, during TWR, this will to fight comes out, more refined as not just a selfish will for preservation, but as a vague idea that she has to help Torg and then, finally, as a genuine idea that she has to do the right thing. Her redemption depends upon it. It's obvious she's been thinking very hard about it to behind the Asp's backs. And she ends up sabotaging Horribus' invasion and helping Torg escape, and even attempting to kill Horribus. By this she earns redemption, and thus, I believe, acceptance into the Hero category.
Good essay, though, dude. I always enjoy reading what you've done. It keeps my creative juices flowing.

There are some very odd stories, pretty hard to find, where the creator manages to connect the audience to a character who can in no way be called a hero or an antihero. Neither can he quite be considered a villain. The individual can be the most evil, freakish being in the universe with no redeaming traits whatsoever... and the audience can still be drawn in.

A sufficiently disturbing example is 'Johnny the Homicidal Maniac' by Jhonen Vasquez. It is perhaps the darkest, most acid-trippy (and, oddly, deep) comic ever made by the hands of man. The main character, Johnny, is completely insane and during the course of the comic you see him torture and kill many individuals in some truely sadistic ways. The thing is that the entire comic shows things from his twisted, deranged perspective... hallucinations and delusions and all.

Oddly, when you see things from the perspective of this madman... you start caring about him in one way or another. You start to understand his insanity.

Needless to say, you spend the next week rinsing your own brain and trying to get it to work right again.

This is true about Johnny, but I disagree that he can't be considered a villain. Someone like Johnny defenitely fits into the archetype of the villain; whether or not we care about him is really irrelevant to the matter. Vasquez is very talented, and this is evidenced by the fact that he can evoke pathos even in a character who is thoroughly bad.

Referring to Sam/Torg and the girl in the barn remember that:

http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=040208

Of course you could argue that Sam's vampirism mandates upon him to be more careful (and not get drunk) due to how dangerous he could be, but as it turns out he didnt actually kill her - although its possible his actions caused her death to the Vrykolak following him and turning her to make it look like he did it, he cannot really be held responsible for their actions as he had no way of foreseeing it.

Personally I generally find anti-heroes more interesting than heroes as the main protagonists as then the plot will usually encompass core developments of their character. Consider for example how relatively bland Torg was before the DoL arc compared to now (and of course the fallout is still coming). In terms of the DoL vs DoP conflict Torg could be seen to be an anti-hero for a fair portion of it - because they are not willing to help themselves to the extent of commiting violence in self defense (and most of them are willing to give him up to save themselves), he moves to a more anti-heroic viewpoint; while he acts against the demons it is generally in self defense, or to protect those few around him that are on his side.

The decision to make a stand against an ideology (or choose between two opposed ones), the reasons behind the choice, and so on, tend to add so much depth and clarity to characters compared to a more straightforward story where the battle lines are drawn from the start.

Now let's figure out where Dr. Lorna fits into this.

But seriously, nice essay Dolash.

This makes me wonder about the Santa character, and how his classification would deviate from Alien Santa. I'll think about that one for a bit.

Villain. Defenitely. It doesn't matter whether the villain is an epic bad guy bent on the heroes' destruction or just a mean person. She's a thoroughly nasty person with (at least how we've seen) no redeeming qualities.

A few fascinating comments in the replies have caught my eye...

Firstly, with regards to sympathy for Heroes, Antiheroes, and Villains, it is very true that often all that seperates an Antihero from being a Villain is the sympathy of the audience - so long as some action or character trait continues to allow the audience to feel that they favour that character, they can often avoid sinking to Villain level. For the most part, heroes innately carry the sympathy of the audience since they are the ones fighting the villains, and that is generally enough to get the audience to support them. Should a hero do something to lose that sympathy, it would generally have to be as bad as something a villain would do, which would generally mean they would become an Antihero and perhaps begin the slide to total Villain status.

Also, there appears to be dissent over wether Same is in fact an Antihero. The reason that I classified him thusly is because it is no moral authority that drives him, nor does he feel compelled by a conscience. He may have things which - combined - seem like that, but they are not. Things like loyalty to friends, a fun-loving attitude, and his love of the ladies often puts him against villains, since as a side-effect of the villain's actions these things are often jeopardized, inadvertently drawing him into the conflict.

The things that make him different from a hero are subtle, but their implications are great. When Amelia died, his first concern was for himself and how it affected him. When she later died again, he couldn't care less, since his interest in her had faded. Admittedly, you can say that it isn't his fault, or he didn't do it, but the point is not how he caused it but how he reacted to it - remember the Innocent subtype of heroes. They die so we know where other characters stand. Her death was not seen by him as some tragedy that wracked his conscious and left him feeling guilty, nor was it something for him to feel joy over - it was an inconvenience, since deaths do not factor much into his ideology, and as such, he doesn't support a good or an evil ideology, his is just self centered - thus, an Antihero ideology.

What this means, is that unless the right incentives are triggered, Sam doesn't feel intristically motivated to act as a hero would. If a demon army invaded from the dimension of pain, you would not find Sam using his vampiric powers for good, saving people and battling demons - the only way that would happen is the demons invaded right into his path, and the people he saved already had some worth to him. If a character has the ability to help and does not use it, or failed to help and feels no guilt or sense of failure, then helping others is not innately part of their ideology and thus they are an antihero. Like Sam.

It is within Sam's ideology for him to do something we would find despicable and lose sympathy to him over. If he had an accident where he killed the person he was feeding on, he'd shrug it off and just hide the body - as he did with Amelia - since it doesn't matter much to him. That would lose him sympathy, and move him dangerously close to the Mindless Villain category - i.e. he does not consciously choose to commit evil, just his standard mode of operation involves doing evil things. He hasn't yet, though, so he still has our sympathy and thus remains in the Antihero column so long as no circumstance puts him in a position where he would lose it.

I think I'd have to disagree with placing our protagonists in the "Hero / Crusader" category. They're pretty much ordinary people who do what they can to survive the wacky, random situations that come at them. Heck, Riff and Torg even once summoned demons for fun and beer (and it was implied that was not a one-time deal). They rarely do more than is necessary to survive and keep their friends safe. The exception would be Riff, who is almost pathologically obsessed with destroying what he deems evil. He tends to be a bit close-minded: If something ever appears evil to him, it is always evil to him, and he will always hunt it down whenever possible.

I see your point, Dolash, but I'm still not sure that I agree about Sam. Yes, he does bad things sometimes, such as the incident with Amelia, and sometimes his attitudes aren't the best. But I still maintain that this is because of some extenuating circumstances. As I said before, he didn't have a terrible amount of responsibility when he was a normal guy, and this simply spills over into when he's a vampire, (a state in which astronomical amounts of responsibility are needed in day to day events to keep from backsliding horribly.) There is evidence that the other heroes would react somewhat the same way to extreme circumstances. Torg, after setbacks in TWR, decides that it's not worth fighting to defend the DoL anymore. Riff works for HeretiCorp, to the detriment of his friends. And Zoe and Gwynn also, at times, display attitudes that are just not up to snuff in the good category. The point is that everyone does bad things, and so the line between Hero and Antihero can be surprisingly blurry at times.
So... I dunno. It's probably a toss up about Sam. But I still don't feel like he deserves inclusion into the full antihero archetype until he has a lot more development characterizing him more clearly that way.

This sort of discussion can get really interesting. But I think that, layered with the Hero/Antihero/Villain categories, you have the Good Person/Neutral Person/Bad Person categories. Good People have basically good motives- if they had their way, bad stuff wouldn't happen. Maybe they know they can't get their way, but they mean no harm. Neutral People aren't as nice as Good People, but still basically harmless. Their aims can still be met without anyone getting hurt. Then you've got Bad People, whose goals are largely illegitimate, and who cannot achieve their goals without injuring or killing people.

As a rule, the Hero must be a Good Person, or at least a Neutral Person. Likewise, the Antihero. But a Villain can actually be any of the three. Some of the best villains from literature are the ones shown through sympathetic eyes. The ones who are genuinely sorry for the blood on their hands, and dream of the day when they can finally say that they have done what needed to be done for a higher purpose. The ones who you start to like and sympathize with, at the same time that you realize that their actions are just plain wrong, and that their failure to see this is a serious crime.

I think Sam is a sort of low-level Hero (most of his actual motives are antiheroic). But he has a good heart, and most of the bad stuff he does comes about as an accident. He's not really smart enough or contemplative enough to feel guilt or serious philosophical thought, so he just bumbles through life, alternately doing good and evil.

Bun-Bun is the most anti-heroic of antiheroes. He is also an exemplar of the Neutral Person. His goals do not reach out and harm others, except when those others harm him. He has no sense of proportion- and this is why he's not somebody you want around. But all his negative acts are triggered by something. He's not just a ravening engine of destruction like the DoP demons.

Personally, I would put Sam into the heroic category. He may be impulsive and a bit selfish at times, but that describes Riff and Torg too. I think Dolash might be reading a bit too much into Amelia's death. Remember how cavalier Riff and Torg have been about people dying around them - Aylee eating people used to be a running joke. I think most of the Sluggy "heroes" are fairly close to the antihero category. They will act in the face of overwhelming evil, and be loyal to their friends when everything is on the line, but they also plot, squabble, rationalize selfish decisions, act rashly, etc.

The kittens used to be mindless evil, but remember, the last story arc established that they are cunning and actively sought to disrupt the milk that kept their powers subdued - because they wanted to run amok. They might be instinctively evil, but not mindless.

Bun-bun is definitely not neutral. He is a selfish schemer who enjoys provoking and bullying people. He is a villain, but with a few redeeming qualities - which embarass him, so he usually comes up with a selfish rationale on the comparatively rare occasions where he is helpful.

While you're right that "Crusader" seems a bit strong for them, there's no way I'd classify any of the core characters as innocents (with the possible exception of Sasha ). I mean, Sasha never really does anything other than some minor tinkering, so you could theoretically group her along with the innocents. I mean, if she ever comes back I'd be willing to bet it'll be the prime focus of a story...possibly a very small one a la "Something Happened To Zoe", but a story nontheless.

Riff I would put into the Crusader category that Dolash describes. He'd fit in nicely seeing as, like you pointed out, he actively hunts evil.

Torg is....hmmm....is there a kind of negative "mindless villain" parallel? Someone who's just kinda good and heroic when faced with the proper input? He'll fight the good fight, but not easily. I mean, he had to be dragged off to the DOL for TWR, and he never would have willingly gone back for KITTEN II. But once he was there, he was more than willing to see it through (well....if by see it through in KITTEN II we can say "keep fighting till he either survives or dies.")

About the villain "who is genuinely sorry for the blood on his hands, and dreams of the day when he can finally say that he did what needed to be done for a higher purpose": If he knows that what he is doing is wrong, but views it as a lesser of two evils (especially if it really IS the lesser), succeeds in his goals, and subsequently accepts a just punishment for his crimes, what does that make him?

And let's not forget that heroes can be tricked by villains into doing evil things. Does that make them more villainous? Does the villain become more heroic if tricked by the heroes into doing something good?

And what about someone whose motivations are basically good, i.e., protect the innocent and those for whom one cares, see justice done, always be true to one's sworn word, etc., but who is deceived in some way into swearing himself to the service of a villain, thus creating a suituation in which one of his Good traits (keeping his sworn word) require him to obey his master's commands and perform Evil, or at least ambiguous, acts?