How important is it for the hero and villain to have a connection?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. The "I am you father" twist was actually pretty brilliant, not because it was surprising or clever but because it was the perfect way of making Luke conflicted about his goals and identity, thus promoting character growth. Plus, it has a sort of thematic symmetry that is actually very neat.

One of the main themes of the original trilogy was, basically, "learning who you are" or "discovering your origins." You know, because it's a Coming of Age story. Luke thinks he's just a farmer but dreams of adventure, then finds out he's the son of a hero. He has to leave his backwater planet and learn how to be a Jedi. Essentially he needs to form a whole new identity, and he's okay with that because Tatooine was boring as hell anyway and the Empire needs to be opposed. He even gets a personal nemesis in Vader. In short, Luke is given a grander purpose, and by pursuing it he can become the person he believes he's supposed to be. It's all very neat and straightforward.

Which is why Vader's reveal fits the theme perfectly: Once again, Luke is told something about his origins, only this time it's something he really doesn't want to hear. It's a dark echo of what he went through in the first movie and it severely messes with his sense of purpose and his perception of who he is. Because growing up and discovering who you are isn't necessarily going to be a smooth ride: You may need to face some pretty harsh truths as well.

Then the third movie builds on this by having Luke's main goal literally be symmetrically opposed to Vader's: They both want the other to turn over to their side. This works because Luke now has a reason to fear he may carry the same potential for darkness within him, but by the same reasoning he also holds a firm belief that his dad can't be inherently evil. Basically, the conflict represents Luke's decision to define who he is on his own rather than being defined by who his father is. It's about proving to Vader that, actually, I can just decide to be a good person and so can you. Which is a bit more sublime than: "Imma stab this evil dude with my laser sword because he's bad."

I mean, I do agree that this sort of thing is sometimes unnecessary and forced into the story for the sake of mere sentimentality, don't get me wrong. But you have to take into consideration what the story is actually trying to say with it all. I just think there's a difference between "ruining" the hero's personal journey and taking that journey into an interesting new direction that forces the hero to reevaluate himself - thus becoming a wiser, stronger person - all while keeping it thematically consistent.

I dunno, maybe I'm just a natural contrarian but I wouldn't say I have to do that.

That is sorta what I'm going for here.

They're not even that different in terms of basic ideology, it's just that the good guys are capable of empathy and care about other people, whereas the bad guy treats everyone else in the world as disposable video game NPCs.

I get what you're saying, but what if that's the desired effect?

I mean, if my intention is to have the heroes simply think of this guy as: "That asshole who tried to kill us and steal our magic gear just to make himself more powerful", then isn't it appropriate to keep the reader's understanding of his motivations on the same level?

 

Are you sure about that, though? You're kinda making it sound like a dichotomy: That writing a shallow villain automatically makes the story a mindless popcorn action romp - that he has to have deep characterization and complex ideological conflict with the hero in order for the story itself to be deep and thought-provoking.

I agree it often helps, sure, but I just sorta think storytelling is a lot more versatile than that. There should be other ways to get the same result, say by prioritizing other aspects of the narrative or finding alternative strategies to get the message across.

 

I don't think it is necessary at all. Heroes and villains clash based on goals, trying to inject some connection just seems a little.... contrived? Yes, if there is a connection it makes for some emo-angst, that someone they know/is tied to them is acting in such a way that hurt(s) them. But, if there is no connection, there still is the conflict and by not having the excess baggage of the personal connection to deal with, the writer can focus on the actual conflict.

 

Yeah, not sure where villains needing to have a personal connection to the hero comes from. Smaug does not. Sauron certainly does not. But I mean, you can spin "personally" to mean "Sauron has a personal connection in that he forged the ring which then fell into Bilbo's hands and was passed to Frodo". However, I assume personal connection means being family or having been good friends in the past or something, such as Star Wars.

Is Saving Private Ryan a bad film because of a lack of personal connection with 99% of the nameless soldiers that are killed? I think you can tell an equally good story either way. The important part is to have good conflict, which usually comes from having opposing goals and beliefs between protagonist and antagonist.

 

I just gave an example, two opposite approaches, and two opposite ideas and implementations.
I am not saying that only with a deep villain can deep stories be told. A deep villain is only needed for deep stories that focus on the conflict between hero and villain.
But here a man was already writing examples, where there were deep stories, but with a focus on other things. Thanks to this, they dealt with fairly simple villains.
Again the question. What is the main focus of the story?

 

Well... not quite. I suppose my interpretation was more along the lines of the colloquial phrase "it's personal." You know, in the sense that it's not just a matter of conflicting goals and values.

"I am you father" is an example of this, but so is: "I want to defeat you because you killed my father." To Luke, Vader was never just some powerful, high ranking Imperial officer, even though that would have been enough reason for them to fight.

Right, it's just... you used part of your rather specific argument against Selbbin as a reply to my question. You'll have to forgive me for making assumptions.

Hmm... Power, I suppose. Specifically the idea that power itself is a neutral thing, the moral aspects being determined by the wielder. Again, the main difference between this villain and the heroes is that the latter care for others, while the former does not. The villain only wants power for his own sake, which is why he isn't especially important in the large scheme of things no matter how powerful he happens to be.

It's intended to be a superhero story by way of a fantasy setting, and as such puts a lot of emphasis on how individuals think power should be wielded. There will be other villains, of course, who have less selfish goals. The one I'm referring to here is meant to illustrate the futility and immaturity of gaining power simply for the sake of being powerful. Because of this I thought it appropriate he would prove to be a mostly pointless character.

 

The villain...
Yes, the desire for power is a selfish desire, like many others. The desire to live, the desire to love and be loved, the desire to be free.
Who decided that selfishness was bad? Who decided it was bad to have strength? If a person was weak all his life ... If everyone decided his fate instead of him ... The world is cruel, he beats the weak until they cant rise, and they decide that this is enough for them.

Imagine a weak whipping child who is bullied by everyone, everyone insults him and throws off their work on him. He's weak. They behave this way because they know that no one will intercede for him. That there will be no punishment. He is used to the world, he is afraid to fall asleep every day, because he knows what a nightmare awaits him tomorrow.

Now imagine as this, the child is receiving strength. Nobody else makes fun of him, nobody throws off their work on him. Everyone around began to respect him and take into account his opinion. For this child, strength became associated with everything good in his life. This child is now afraid not the next day, he is afraid of the possibility that one day he may lose his strength. Returning everything to the old track. The strength came suddenly, just as suddenly it can go away.

Now he will do everything he can to become stronger. Just not to return to his old self.
____Hero_________________________________________________________
Doesn't helping others have its origin in selfishness? Pride? Ambition? Greed? Wanting to be better than others? Looking down on others? Desire for fame?
Are you really driven by a sense of righteousness, or are you just playing a role that you see on in comics and movies?

The real world is not a comic book. The real world is not divided into good and evil, black and white. In the real world, all are different shades of gray. How are you going to define in it who are good and who are bad? Or will you just continue to selfishly play what you've been taught without thinking about the consequences? What for? For what? For the glory? For the reward? Or do you just live by illusion and try to make them come true?

You need evil to have someone to fight ... You need to call someone a villain to call yourself a hero. If there is no villain, you can either find him or, in extreme cases, create ...

"I've seen your kind, time and time again.
Every fleeing man must be caught. Every secret must be unearthed.
Such is the conceit of the self-proclaimed seeker of truth.
But in the end, you lack the stomach.
For the agony you'll bring upon yourself."

Sir Vilhelm - Dark Souls 3

"I know that honor begins with responsibility. Taking responsibility for your actions. You just rush from conflict to conflict, destroying everything that gets in your way, considering yourself a supporter of justice, while not taking responsibility and leaving only ruins behind you."

One of the inquisitor after his death(ghost). Divinity Original Sin 2 (I could not find a quote, so from memory)

 

Dracula and Van Helsing: no prior connection
Thanos and the Avengers: no prior connection
Napoleon and Wellington: no prior connection
Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty: no prior connection
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal: no prior connection

Personal history really doesn't matter. So long as the villain and hero are working against one another, they'll eventually form some kind of bond, even if only one of mutual hatred, or respect.

But everyone else has mentioned this.