Discussions Is Grievous really a villain?

I read his backstory to the end, and my view on this character has shifted considerably from what I initially thought, and made me reminisce a bit more on Palpatine's philosophy of how there is no such thing as good or evil, and that neither Sith nor Jedi can claim they are either. It makes me wonder why or how the Jedi could've possibly sided with the Huk when they were the true catalysts of the conflict between the Kaleesh, and were feigning weakness to frame the reformed Kaleesh under Grievous that were about to win the war. After that the Republic sanctioned the Kaleesh and left them to starve to death, and the Huk began to do the same horrible things they did before. He is manipulated by the IGBC, and was accordingly betrayed later and left to die. When reconstructed, his brain was tampered with to increase his loyalty to the Separatists and Dooku, ensuring he was their slave.

His entire life after becoming Grievous was pointless and nothing more than as a disposable tool for Dooku and Sidious, as evident by Dooku's plan to frame and kill him after feigning defeat to Anakin on the Invisible Hand, and of how Sidious would get Anakin to kill him if he did survive Utapu due to his significant role in the Separatists, and how the Kaleesh were hunted down later for the same reason.

While its true he did horrible things under his allegiance to the Sith, I can't really see him as evil anymore, and quite miserable instead. What do you think?

 

Of course he was a villain. He was the greatest villain in the entire Star Wars universe in my opinion.

 

He's not truly evil. He believes the Republic is evil and corrupt, and that the Separatist's cause is a noble one. I consider Grievous to be a victim of the Sith Lords' manipulation and treachery. Due to the conflict between the Huk and the Republic, he is subjectively right to hate the Republic.

 

Considering his backstory, I've never considered him a villian. The Jedi, representing the Republic, were responsible for the deaths of millions of his people. That is more than enough reason for him to go to war against them.

 

I do consider him a villain. But I thought he was a bit wimpy though in ROTS and he could've been used more.

 

Very short answer? Yes. That is what The Flanneled One made him to be.

 

I very much liked Grievous, but I think they should not have created him. He was just another villain in the PT.
Maybe they could have kept Jango Fett alive a little bit longer. Even Nute Gunray could have taken over Grievous' role.
Do not get me wrong! I would not let Gunray fight, but his bodyguards could.

I don't believe in evil or good. People just do whatever seems right to them at the moment.
We all are heavily influenced by our education as well as by the situations we live through.
Everybody does something for a reason (although not always the right reason).
People can become corrupted by power or be manipulated by their mentors.
Apart from that, I also think everybody has the ability to change.

 

He was a tool, much the same way Darth Maul was. Neither was suitable for much more than being a highly trained, loyal killer. Whether he was really evil before his mind was tinkered with, he took great pleasure in the deaths of those he killed after, and he did in fact end as a villain.

 

Indeed. In RoTS, from the perspective of the citizens of the Republic:

Grievous is a monster.

The Separatist Supreme Commander is an abomination of nature, a fusion of flesh and droid—and his droid parts have more compassion than what remains of his alien flesh. This half-living creature is a slaughterer of billions. Whole planets have burned at his command. He is the evil genius of the Confederacy. The architect of their victories.

The author of their atrocities.

 

I don't think he is. Killing thousands of innocents is not the definition of villain in the SW saga. Due to the actions of the Jedi thousands of Kaleesh died. They kill a lot of people, innocent or not... Yet, they are considered heroes. It's quite subjective, really.

 

Yeah, I mean everyone thought that Kyp Durron was a hero after destroying Carida. And people were so proud when Vader destroyed the Jedi Temple and Alderaan. And people really loved Corran Horn after the battle of Ithor. *If* the jedi are considered heroes, and that is a HUGE if, it is in spite of these actions, and certainly not because of them. Someone who takes delight in the deaths of innocent people at his own hands is a villain. That's not really up for debate in most serious arguments.

 

He's a villain, but villains are allowed to have dimension. In the movie i find him ridiculously underdeveloped and pretty pointless, but with the EU in mind he is a really tragic proto-vader. Just trying to protect what he loves, he turns to genocide and soon loses most of himself, both physically and motive-wise.

 

True! I agree. Grievous started out as a character with a noble goal, but his anger and his hate blinded him eventually.

 

The same can be said about Vader, Ventress and a lot of villains from SW or the EU.

 

Do I consider him to be a villain? No, not from his point of view and the reasons for his actions. Beyond that he would be counted as one by the definition of the word as he's one of the "bad guys" of the story. Do I consider him to be evil? Yes.

 

I never read his backstory, even so I have a lot of sympathy for Grevious, based on his portrayal in TCW and ROTS, miserable and constantly annoyed by Count Dooku and the Nemonians above him and battle droids below him. I doubt he chose his cybernetics willingly, his insistence in TCW seems to be a case of protesting too much. Even so, he's a villain. He kills Jedi and steals their lightsabers, in the same way Jango Fett is a villain.

 

I'm curious, and don't really know the answer. How many atrocities did Grievous actually take part in? I guess the Huk would count as one, but that was a reaction to the genocide of his own people by the Huk.

Off the top of my head I can think of a lot of military campaigns that Grievous took part in, but no flat out war crimes really spring to mind. What am I forgetting?

 

Nothing, pretty sure that quote's specifically talking about the actions he took during the Clone War.

 

The bombardment of the city-planet Humbarine might count. I think the Clone Wars comics might mention others.

That's how I interpreted it, at least.

 

This

 

He's definitely a villain. He spends most of the ROTS novel killing his own Neimoidian henchmen. Killing henchman is the #1 sign of a good villain, so obviously Grievous is evil.

Seriously, though, he's a bad guy. He just...is.

 

I think so. Remember that, for every act he did that was good in the eyes of the Kaleesh, I'm certain the Republic would call it needlessly brutal. At the end of the day, The Kaleesh are still a war loving race that worships gods of slaughter and magic. They're savages in the purest way, and Grievous is the greatest of them all.

One man's hero is another man's monster.

 

Absolutely!

I think when purely watching the movies (without looking at the EU), almost everyone has more sympathy for Jango than for Grievous.
That is mainly because of couple of reasons:
-) Jango was human
-) Jango had a son
-) Grievous had an evil voice
-) ...

 

Jango is a completely different case to Grievous. After some thought and thanks to the comments of some members, I've recapacitated and decided that Grievous is indeed a villain, but just as Vader, he wasn't always one.

On the other hand, Jango does hunt for money, but as seen in the game "Bounty Hunter", he doesn't enjoy killing his bounties. He prefers them alive always, if possible. If the Republic had offered Jango loads of money and he signed up with them instead of against them, would you still consider him a villain? The purpose would be exactly the same.