How do villainous Teams start up?

[Master Yiseeks]

Just as the title says. I'm currently writing a pokemon story (Slightly based off of The Usual Suspects) where the entire story is basically the interrogation of an Admin(secretly boss) of a Vigilante-esque group.

Now, how exactly do you think the teams in canon were formed? Did they post fliers or something?

 

[Beth Pavell]

I think it depends upon the team. For some of them I wouldn't expect the ideology of the team to just pop up from the boss' head, fully formed. Aqua and Magma I imagine probably evolved out the radical side of environmentalist groups. And as for Team Rocket, well, just read up on the history of the Mafia or the Yakusa - they have their roots in gangs and crime rings running back as much as a century.

From what I recall, in the real world a lot of the tightest-knit cults formed around one person taking advantage of what was already a tight-knit group - certain Church groups, for example. It's hard to dominate people in that manner unless you have some sort of social power over them. I imagine that at first the Team pretends to be some kind of social group without very much to with the real aims of the Team. Little by little the members are asked to commit more and more, and those that don't want to are kicked out to leave the true believers

 

[Persephone]

Looking up real world terror organizations could also help, since with the exception of Rocket all syndicates have really been more terror syndicate than mafia. In particular, most do arise from a background of long simmering religious, political, or ethnic tensions that come to a head when one person forms a specific new idea in that tradition of conflict and takes the steps necessary to recruit followers and make a full gameplan. I imagine that's how Magma/Aqua and Plasma would form in particular. Galactic is a little different in almost every way from the other syndicates. That one I could see forming in a cult of personality way, through Cyrus just paying for an army and then indoctrinating them, or as an odd strain of anarchism or fundamentalism if you go the religious or political route. I use some blend of all three when dealing with their origins in my story, insomuch as I go into it.

 

[LuxrayOfTheWild]

It all starts with an ideology and a person who believes they're doing what's right for the world. Often times, said person will take their ideology too far which leads their actions turning out to be villainous rather than benevolent. It could be someone like Giovanni who just wants control of the world really by using Pokemon. It could be someone with good intentions though, like Archie and Maxie who wanted the world to be molded for more aquatic or land based Pokemon. They gain a following probably starting with close friends and people who genuinely support their views before propaganda and such spreads and they gain a mass following.

 

[PiccoloX]

Depends on your medium. In the copy/paste storyline in the Pokemon games villains you have 1 guy leading a bunch of gullible fools with limited personalities, a wealth of money to spend on what appears to be a very narrow line of thinking and yet, in the end, the bad guy shows that they might only be misunderstood.

If your looking for something more realistic the "villains" have an underdog background where they oppose a larger power and are willing to collectively go against this power. Their actions may indeed be villainous, but what makes them villains is that the larger power they oppose is seen by the majority as "good" because this larger power is beneficial to them. Thinking like this will give your villains much more depth than just saying "They're the bad guys, mmmk?"


Being a villain means never saying your sorry because you've done nothing to be sorry for. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[chaos_Leader]

I'm in the process of rereading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and I have to say, it's definitely an excellent source if you want to build the mindset of truly dangerous, threatening villain.

Overall, on the one hand, "The Art of War" highly encourages pragmatism, sensible, thoughtful leadership, not doing stupid things and being prepared. On the other hand, it also encourages absolute ruthlessness, outright deception, and relentless pursuit of the goal by any means necessary. Essentially, the "Warlord" as Sun Tzu calls the person, must be certain in his goals, absolute in his resolve, fair to his men, and most intriguingly: not the least bit squeamish to use otherwise morally questionable means if it is the most efficient and effective way.

I highly recommend the book, regardless of whether or not you're writing a villain, simply because it is a valuable text to know.

 

[diamondpearl876]

I'm in the process of rereading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and I have to say, it's definitely an excellent source if you want to build the mindset of truly dangerous, threatening villain.

Overall, on the one hand, "The Art of War" highly encourages pragmatism, sensible, thoughtful leadership, not doing stupid things and being prepared. On the other hand, it also encourages absolute ruthlessness, outright deception, and relentless pursuit of the goal by any means necessary. Essentially, the "Warlord" as Sun Tzu calls the person, must be certain in his goals, absolute in his resolve, fair to his men, and most intriguingly: not the least bit squeamish to use otherwise morally questionable means if it is the most efficient and effective way.

I highly recommend the book, regardless of whether or not you're writing a villain, simply because it is a valuable text to know.

I previewed the book on Amazon and the first pages seem to give a general list of guidelines/rules for warfare. Does it ever go into specific examples with explanations of the logistics behind those examples, or anything like that?

 

[chaos_Leader]

I previewed the book on Amazon and the first pages seem to give a general list of guidelines/rules for warfare. Does it ever go into specific examples with explanations of the logistics behind those examples, or anything like that?

It does, quite a bit throughout the entire volume. It's not especially long, written with the same directness and efficiency the book encourages, providing only enough of an example to make its point, and not so much as to bore the reader. You can read through the whole thing in a few hours, but I also find it helps to read a section, and give yourself time to think what you can do to apply the what you read in the section to whatever it is you're up to. It really is that kind of book.

I'd also highly recommend a good translation, as a less carefully translated edition will often lose a lot of its meaning. I've read less carefully translated editions before, as well as *cringe* direct translations, and I can tell you that you really, really want a well translated edition. The fact that "The Art of War" has to be translated, and often paraphrased, from archaic Chinese can cause a lot of confusion if it's not handled with care and tact. I know I was baffled and confused by some parts before I got my hands on a good translation. For reference, I personally use the edition from Tutle Publishing company, translated by Steohen Kaufman.

 

[diamondpearl876]

I previewed the book on Amazon and the first pages seem to give a general list of guidelines/rules for warfare. Does it ever go into specific examples with explanations of the logistics behind those examples, or anything like that?

It does, quite a bit throughout the entire volume. It's not especially long, written with the same directness and efficiency the book encourages, providing only enough of an example to make its point, and not so much as to bore the reader. You can read through the whole thing in a few hours, but I also find it helps to read a section, and give yourself time to think what you can do to apply the what you read in the section to whatever it is you're up to. It really is that kind of book.

I'd also highly recommend a good translation, as a less carefully translated edition will often lose a lot of its meaning. I've read less carefully translated editions before, as well as *cringe* direct translations, and I can tell you that you really, really want a well translated edition. The fact that "The Art of War" has to be translated, and often paraphrased, from archaic Chinese can cause a lot of confusion if it's not handled with care and tact. I know I was baffled and confused by some parts before I got my hands on a good translation. For reference, I personally use the edition from Tutle Publishing company, translated by Steohen Kaufman.

Yeah, I got that just from skimming the reviews, lol. Well, thanks. That's certainly helpful, not to mention the fact that it's 99 cents for Kindle.

 

[Persephone]

You can read it for free on the MIT Classics archive, along with a host of other older and influential publications. I use it quite a bit when researching fundamentals of a theory and how someone wanting to get back to the basics, as it were, might play the game.

 

[Flaze]

There a way I can download it without having to buy it? xD

 

[Beth Pavell]

The Art of War? I would have thought you could get the text from Wikisource

In fact: The Art of War (Sun) - Wikisource, the free online library

 

[Flaze]

It's a lot shorter than I thought it'd be.

 

[chaos_Leader]

The Art of War? I would have thought you could get the text from Wikisource

In fact: The Art of War (Sun) - Wikisource, the free online library

Ah, I think I've read this one before actually. It's what I'd consider a direct translation, with the bullet points listed out in place of the archaic Chinese phrases. It gets the information of the text out, but in a very dry read, with little of the nuance extrapolated and few examples given.

While we're on the subject of reading inspiration, another one I'd recommend would be Machiavelli's The Prince. It encourages a similarly (potentially, if need-be) ruthless pragmatism as Sun Tzu, but in a political environment rather than a military one.

 

[NoirGrimoir]

This was said by someone else earlier, but possibly with the exception of Team Rocket, all of the villainous Teams in pokemon are hyper-focused around a singular person with extreme charisma and an idealistic world-view that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve. Aside from team rocket, rather than criminal organizations, the teams are more like cults. People get sucked in and blinded by the ideology and hive/group mindset. They seem to start from one person who has a rather admirable dream but is maybe a bit psycho gathering followers who want to help achieve that dream and along the way things go sour, basically.

This sort of pattern of things beginning with a somewhat positive message also happens in real life, even in the normal sort of crime organization. Most gangs and mafias and mobs started as groups trying to help and protect certain underprivileged communities (the immigrant communities, etc.), but in order to go against the status quo and people in power they felt they had to resort to violence towards their opposition. This in turn attracted violent people until eventually the original message was lost. In the Italian mafia and other similar gangs, the members can appear like saviors or role models to their fellow community members, especially the children: they're rich, people listen to them and do what they say, they seem to be able to do what they want, they might even seem kind, helping out their own people often, etc...so children in the community grow up primed to become a part of the organization because they admire it.

 

[Drakon]

I'd say Team Aqua is a violent offshoot of a marine pokemon protection charity. Perhaps Archie grew disillusioned with the slow progress the group was making and decided that violence might get faster results.

Team Rocket is probably a criminal syndicate that originally started because a businessman might have found backroom and black market deals more lucrative than legitimate business.

 

[Icarus Frond]

I went a religious route with my RP, Accio Pokeball. As the name suggests, AP is a Pokemon-meets-Harry Potter RP.

In the Potterverse, wizards are occasionally born with no magical powers. These unfortunate people are called Squibs. Squibs have long been treated as second class citizens of the wizarding world, causing deep feelings of jealousy and bitterness to fester within the darker parts of the world.

Mythology holds that Giratina was a Pokemon that embodied the negative energy of the universe. Being violent, dark and destructive, Arceus the Almighty banished Giratina into an alternate universe where it would remain forever. Some Squibs saw themselves in Giratina: oppressed, banished, and left to die. Several Squibs began worshipping Giratina as their deity. Eventually, a covert group of Squibs gathered together under the unholy banner of the Renegade Pokemon and the vision that they would become the hands and feet of this God of the Reverse. By Giratina's strength, they would overturn the hierarchy of the wizarding world and trample the status quo underneath their feet.

Because Squibs don't have magic to execute quick fixes for themselves, they have no choice but to solve problems by training and pure skill. Hence, a Squib's Pokemon are far more well trained and vicious than most wizards' Pokemon. Also, because of their attention to detail and intellect, Squibs have discovered an ancient secret that wizardkind has long forgotten: Mega Evolution.

So, the Reversers wait for a time when they can emerge from the shadows.

***

Yep, that's it! Basically, I asked myself these questions: Why would someone want to change the world? What is their psychoemotional reason for doing so?