4 Iconic Video Game Characters Who Would Be Villains If Their Stories Were Told Honestly

by

Video games often make us support characters who do morally questionable things, sometimes without us even noticing. Because we see the story through their eyes, we tend to support their difficult choices and accept their reasons for acting as they do, believing they’re doing what’s right. We celebrate them as heroes because we experience the story from their perspective, feeling their wins and losses. But if you really think about it, and step back to look at things objectively, many of gaming’s most popular main characters wouldn’t seem so heroic at all. From the perspective of other people in the game, many of them would actually be considered villains.

That’s what makes this subject so interesting. The most compelling video game characters are intricate, frequently concealing their troubled sides with a facade of optimism. Consider if their stories were recounted by different people – not their friends or partners, but those impacted by their deeds. Whether they were heroes who inadvertently led to humanity’s downfall or adventurers who decimated entire civilizations, these four characters could easily be seen as villains if their actions were presented truthfully and without favoritism. It’s a matter of perspective – who tells the story truly shapes how we see these figures. Further exploration of this idea reveals fascinating insights into character motivations.

Joel Miller (The Last of Us)

As a huge fan of The Last of Us, I think Joel Miller is such a fascinating character because whether you see him as a hero really depends on how you look at things. The game does a brilliant job of showing you what he’s been through and letting you feel his pain after losing so much. You really understand his need to protect Ellie, who basically becomes his daughter in a world that’s totally gone to pieces. But when you step back and look at everything he *does*… it gets complicated. His journey across the country isn’t just about survival; he leaves a lot of people dead. And it’s not always just the infected; it’s other humans, people just trying to make it. Sure, some of it is self-defense, but honestly, a lot of those deaths seem to come from Joel acting purely on what *he* wants, which, ultimately, is what leads to his end in the second game.

At the conclusion of the story, Joel commits a horrific act, killing many people and destroying humanity’s only potential cure. The Fireflies, though flawed, represented our last chance, but Joel prioritized his own happiness over the survival of everyone else. While his reasons are understandable from his point of view, they stem from selfishness and fear. He makes a decision affecting all of humankind without their input, and even deceives Ellie, the person he claims to be protecting, about what truly happened. If the story were told from the Fireflies’ perspective, Joel wouldn’t be seen as a father figure; he’d be remembered as the man who destroyed the world twice: first with violence, and then with his emotional choices.

Geralt of Rivia (The Witcher series)

Geralt of Rivia presents a fascinating point for consideration due to his consistently impartial perspective. He often seems like the perfect example of a stoic hero. He battles monsters to safeguard people and lives by a strict personal code that he tries not to violate. However, that same code sometimes lets him rationalize actions others would find unforgivable. While claiming to remain neutral in a world consumed by political strife, his actions inevitably impact events. Entire kingdoms flourish and collapse around him, and his claimed neutrality is arguably a way to sidestep responsibility for his considerable power. Geralt’s choices, regardless of intent, frequently determine the destinies of others, even as he convinces himself he’s uninvolved in their lives.

Essentially, if you look past the heroic image, Geralt is a professional killer – a mercenary who determines a life’s value based on payment and agreements. The creatures he defeats are frequently intelligent and even understandable, but they are killed simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether his actions are just or murder depends solely on how much gold his client offers and his own personal feelings. He presents himself as being above typical human cruelty, yet his profession actively spreads it. If you see things from the perspective of these so-called monsters, Geralt appears less like a hero and more like an executioner who maintains a polished image of honor. Witchers and money are always connected, which is why Geralt of Riva, Witcher for Hire, rightfully ends up on this list.

Commander Shepard (Mass Effect series)

Commander Shepard’s story often appears to be about human unity and heroism. However, if you examine the details, a much more destructive picture emerges. Shepard’s actions result in the destruction of planets, the extinction of species, and the manipulation of cultures to fit a human-focused perspective. While already problematic, the situation becomes even more complex upon closer inspection. Even when striving to be a paragon, Shepard makes choices that would typically be considered war crimes. They achieve peace through strong-arming and build alliances through intimidation, essentially using diplomacy as a tool for control rather than genuine connection.

Imagine if the story of Mass Effect was told from the perspective of the Reapers, or even the aliens Commander Shepard claimed to rescue-the tale would be drastically different. Shepard achieves their goals through force or convincing others, resulting in many deaths. They make life-or-death decisions, frequently with incomplete information, personal feelings, or simply because of their Spectre status. Every accomplishment comes with unintended consequences, and every win is founded on loss, yet it’s often excused because of who Shepard is. The galaxy’s supposed hero is also a master manipulator, a warrior who brings the stars together under a single set of beliefs-not because others agree, but because no one can challenge them. From another point of view, Shepard wouldn’t be a hero at all, but a ruler who won the war by changing the past to fit their own narrative. That’s just typical human behavior.

Lara Croft (Tomb Raider series)

For decades, Lara Croft has been praised as the quintessential adventurer – a brave explorer who reveals the secrets of the past. However, there’s a troubling side to her story. While her journeys often start with finding something new, they frequently result in damage and loss. She violates the sanctity of ancient tombs, takes valuable objects, and even kills those who are trying to protect them, all supposedly for the sake of study and staying alive. Lara’s so-called heroism is based on the outdated and harmful idea that ancient civilizations are there for outsiders to take from or figure out. Her actions, despite being presented as thrilling adventures, actually echo the destructive behavior of historical explorers who used the excuse of ‘progress’ to justify stealing and violence.

If you see her story from the viewpoint of the people whose temples she breaks into, everything changes. She often appears as an unwelcome intruder, forcefully taking items from holy places. Even if Lara’s violence is a response to danger, it doesn’t excuse the fact that she’s trespassing. What she calls survival skills frequently cause conflicts to begin with. She might justify her actions by claiming she’s working for a greater purpose or saving history, but ultimately, she seems less like an explorer and more like a looter, changing the past to make herself look good. In most of the cultures she says she’s protecting, she actually comes across as the antagonist. Her actions paint her as a villain to those she claims to help. Consider the impact of her choices.

What do you think? Leave a comment below and join the conversation now in the ComicBook Forum!

Read More

2025-10-05 04:41