Dottore is an overrated villain.
Recently there was that poll on YouTube where they voted on who was the best written Nod-Krai character, and a lot of the comments were calling Rerir and Dottore peak villains. There was also a Reddit post here previously saying "If you hate Dottore, he's a good villain". While I agree with the Rerir aspect, it might be controversial, but I don't think Dottore was a particularly good villain.
First, both of them are strong *antagonists*, as they provide a real tangible threat to the protagonists and the protagonists undergo a journey to overcome them. They both have pros and cons; Dottore's his powers, goals, and urgency are inconsistent or weaker than Rerir's, but he is more powerful and endures for longer as an antagonist.
However, Rerir serves far better in the villain aspect. Villains are defined by being evil, but the evil-ness always has to serve a purpose. In my eyes, there are 3 main purposes to fictional evil: internal, external, and thematic. They have to convey one of these in a strong way.
Rerir, obviously takes the internal aspect. He has a relatable backstory that, while not sympathetic, is understandable and has a clear purpose and motive to his evil that fits with his story. If you compare this to the strongest villains like Thanos from the MCU or D-16 from the criminally underrated Transformers One, Rerir is equally as well-developed.
Dottore, on the other hand, is pure evil, which is fine. It's a common myth that all villains need to be sympathetic or have a backstory, because they can serve other purposes. They can either represent a foil to the protagonists that reveal a deeper aspect about *them*, or they act as a representation of a real-world issue. Dottore does neither of these particularly well. If we compare them to the strongest "pure evil" villains like Jack Horner from Puss in Boots 2, Voldemort from Harry Potter, and Joker from The Dark Knight, there's a clear difference. Jack Horner reflects the thematic "do you need more?" aspect of Puss in Boots. Its an antithesis to his resolution that Puss chooses: to live his life to the fullest and cherish what he has, whereas Jack Horner was literally born into a rich family with a thriving business set for life, yet his greed is never satisfied. The Joker is an embodiment of chaos and the natural evils of human nature, while Batman only exists to bring order to the chaos, and obviously everyone knows what happens in the boat scene. In the new Nod-Krai quest (or any of the previous quests), he doesn't exhibit any of these. His conversation with the traveler doesn't challenge or reveal anything new from her (I picked Lumine). They discuss truth vs bliss and corruption of power, but there is no development. The traveler opposes his stance from the beginning, and there is no internal struggle or deliberation that makes her reconsider her stance or any of her views. Ok, maybe he doesn't act as a foil to the main character, but to one of the other characters, like Sandrone? Again, no. You might claim that Sandrone's resolution in trusting others is a foil to Dottore, but it can't just be a dichotomy, the development must be pushed *by* the villain for the villain to be meaningful. Although Sandrone does change from her rough exterior, her ability to care for and trust characters like Columbina have already been established and explored, completely untethered to Dottore. And while you could argue that the impending threat of Dottore incites her to trust characters like the traveler when Hat Guy proposes to use his core to perform the calculations, it again is not really relevant to Dottore's nature. Does his mad scientist and arrogant persona compel her to trust others instead, or is it the simple threat drive her by pure necessity? Maybe you can claim that she chooses to do the opposite of what Dottore would do, but its not explored at all.
Finally, the real-world thematic aspect. While some pure evil villains like Homelander and Jack Horner (again) are representative of corporate greed and villains like Dr Henry Wu from Jurassic Park/World and Doctor Otto Octavius from Spider-man 2 represent how science can go to far. While you could claim that Dottore might represent these things, these criticisms cannot be so far removed from reality. Although fumbled in many ways, Dr Wu is a direct parallel of the ethics of genetics science and how corporations and their need for money corrupt science. Dottore is just generic "human experimentation", "ascension to godhood", etc. Even if you take a character like Bondrev from Made in Abyss, the thematic aspect of "progress at any cost" is far more similar to reality than Dottore's science for the sake of his own greed.
Overall, I don't think Dottore deserves his reputation as a good villain. He is a high-stakes antagonist with little depth to his evil and a flat character.
If anyone has counterexamples or other thoughts, I'd love to hear them. If you want me to explain some other examples more, feel free to ask as well.
First, both of them are strong *antagonists*, as they provide a real tangible threat to the protagonists and the protagonists undergo a journey to overcome them. They both have pros and cons; Dottore's his powers, goals, and urgency are inconsistent or weaker than Rerir's, but he is more powerful and endures for longer as an antagonist.
However, Rerir serves far better in the villain aspect. Villains are defined by being evil, but the evil-ness always has to serve a purpose. In my eyes, there are 3 main purposes to fictional evil: internal, external, and thematic. They have to convey one of these in a strong way.
Rerir, obviously takes the internal aspect. He has a relatable backstory that, while not sympathetic, is understandable and has a clear purpose and motive to his evil that fits with his story. If you compare this to the strongest villains like Thanos from the MCU or D-16 from the criminally underrated Transformers One, Rerir is equally as well-developed.
Dottore, on the other hand, is pure evil, which is fine. It's a common myth that all villains need to be sympathetic or have a backstory, because they can serve other purposes. They can either represent a foil to the protagonists that reveal a deeper aspect about *them*, or they act as a representation of a real-world issue. Dottore does neither of these particularly well. If we compare them to the strongest "pure evil" villains like Jack Horner from Puss in Boots 2, Voldemort from Harry Potter, and Joker from The Dark Knight, there's a clear difference. Jack Horner reflects the thematic "do you need more?" aspect of Puss in Boots. Its an antithesis to his resolution that Puss chooses: to live his life to the fullest and cherish what he has, whereas Jack Horner was literally born into a rich family with a thriving business set for life, yet his greed is never satisfied. The Joker is an embodiment of chaos and the natural evils of human nature, while Batman only exists to bring order to the chaos, and obviously everyone knows what happens in the boat scene. In the new Nod-Krai quest (or any of the previous quests), he doesn't exhibit any of these. His conversation with the traveler doesn't challenge or reveal anything new from her (I picked Lumine). They discuss truth vs bliss and corruption of power, but there is no development. The traveler opposes his stance from the beginning, and there is no internal struggle or deliberation that makes her reconsider her stance or any of her views. Ok, maybe he doesn't act as a foil to the main character, but to one of the other characters, like Sandrone? Again, no. You might claim that Sandrone's resolution in trusting others is a foil to Dottore, but it can't just be a dichotomy, the development must be pushed *by* the villain for the villain to be meaningful. Although Sandrone does change from her rough exterior, her ability to care for and trust characters like Columbina have already been established and explored, completely untethered to Dottore. And while you could argue that the impending threat of Dottore incites her to trust characters like the traveler when Hat Guy proposes to use his core to perform the calculations, it again is not really relevant to Dottore's nature. Does his mad scientist and arrogant persona compel her to trust others instead, or is it the simple threat drive her by pure necessity? Maybe you can claim that she chooses to do the opposite of what Dottore would do, but its not explored at all.
Finally, the real-world thematic aspect. While some pure evil villains like Homelander and Jack Horner (again) are representative of corporate greed and villains like Dr Henry Wu from Jurassic Park/World and Doctor Otto Octavius from Spider-man 2 represent how science can go to far. While you could claim that Dottore might represent these things, these criticisms cannot be so far removed from reality. Although fumbled in many ways, Dr Wu is a direct parallel of the ethics of genetics science and how corporations and their need for money corrupt science. Dottore is just generic "human experimentation", "ascension to godhood", etc. Even if you take a character like Bondrev from Made in Abyss, the thematic aspect of "progress at any cost" is far more similar to reality than Dottore's science for the sake of his own greed.
Overall, I don't think Dottore deserves his reputation as a good villain. He is a high-stakes antagonist with little depth to his evil and a flat character.
If anyone has counterexamples or other thoughts, I'd love to hear them. If you want me to explain some other examples more, feel free to ask as well.
Commentaires
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. [Il Dottore is the main villain of the game.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Genshin_Impact/s/SLDhvhh0hB) His original self is still out there, and I like the old brain in a jar hooked up to a machine idea, but we will see.
Not only collei's backstory and character in the game is in line with the manga but Varka literally referenced Crepus' death cuz of Dottore which is ONLY in the manga as far as I remember
All the actual actions and backstory shown in the manga IS just canon, the only thing that can be a question are little details around them like the whole thing with Murata (which did end up actually being canon) or small detail like when Kaeya arrived specifically after Crepus' death
All the zandik lore comes directly from the game. All the stuff about being an outcast, about him experimenting on people to "raise humanity to God's level", it's all from the game or can be found it in it AS WELL as the manga
I'll just say, you're right on some counts, and I agree that he's definitely better than most Genshin characters, but still levels lower than the best fictional villains and Hoyo can do better. Having goals isn't enough for a great character, they have to either have to interact with other characters in meaningful ways.
Also most of the Sumeru stuff isn't even from the main quest, its from character dialogue options, artefact set descriptions, and written notes you find through exploration. That still supports my point that the main story is lacking and requires external information that most people won't read to pick up the slack.
I guess one example of modern stuff I can bring is marvel movies to some degree (early ones show it better), where you can watch a specific one in isolation and enjoy it, but you're much more likely to have more fun if you watch other ones too
majority of lore related stuff in AQ serves more as fan service to those who read it than actually important to AQ. the only exception recently would be Narzissenkreuz stuff related to the formula, and even then, Hoyo specifically brought up important notes in the AQ itself, you don't really need the experience of the whole questline to understand the bits used in the AQ. And otherwise, it really only came up as fan service reference. Any time it DID become important, it was quite well discussed.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Dottore backstory will be delved into more if Hoyo decides to focus on him more (as he was mainly an antagonist for columbina and co to overcome this far, but it's clear his story is not done)
Like he is genuinely among the most generic evil scientist trope of a character. And that's fine but it certainly ain't deep.
And the only person in his corner died when he was young.
He never grows as a character despite his coping about development, bitches when things don't go his way. His deranged onscreen shenanigans have always contradicted his nothingburger lore scraps about being multifaceted, his dialogue is always rambling projection, smug taunting, clumsy sophistry or lore trivia that lore readers already know. He always loses even when he "wins" and he proves Thoth the fuckin liar *right*. I already tolerated his boring application of clones in Sumeru (really? A lame boat trick? Then they all die offscreen? Lmfao), now I know there is nothing truly interesting about him.
Bro tried to take over the political equivalent of Genshin Alaska and failed, pissing off his own boss and being the first Fatui Harbinger to be declared an official traitor, congrats.
He also looks like a greasy ikemen with a fruity sidecut and has an equally greasy predatory personality that somehow attracts peculiar tastes.
Now his fan meme legacy is desperately comparing himself as a wannabe side ho for the MC.
Zandy is a disappointment, and will remain so even when he comes back to burn Irminsul, in the manner of a losing nerd in a card game shop flipping the competition table out of spite and frustration.
Edit: fucking coward deleted his comment.
Maybe check out other stories than video games. Books are a great invention.
First, the mad-scientist is possibly an even more overused trope, going back centuries with Dr Victor Frankenstein from Frankenstein, Dr Moreau from The Island of Doctor Moreau, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, or Herbert West from Reanimator. All of these are actually developed characters who's evil provides values. Frankenstein is about whether evil is natural or caused by circumstance and a duty as a creator. Dr Moreau is even more similar to Dottore, being banished for doing cruel experimentation on others but it explores the nature of humanity and ethics. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde discuss the duality of man and how societal pressure can force people to be good. Dottore is just the trope without any of the good writing behind it, something that you would recognize if you read any books.
Second, in contrast to Dottore, Rerir actually develops the trope. The sacrifice the world for love is often a trope for the protagonists side, and how they the right answer is to choose the world instead. In the end, its usually resolved with both sides surviving for a nice happy ending. In contrast, not only does Rerir explore it from an antagonist's direction as a person who has already made the wrong choice, he's actually a developed character beyond the trope. His personality isn't simply the his grab for power for love, his backstory explores the nature of love, lies, and trust while also developing the Khaenri'ah government, cultural persecution, the Crimson Moon, Moon Marrow powers, and the moon's reflection. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills and pay attention to the story before trying to attention-seek.
Finally, an absolute proof, you don't know what an anti-hero is. An anti-hero is someone like Deadpool. A protagonist that isn't heroic. They still drive the plot while lacking virtues like idealism, courage, etc. Many war movies depict anti-heroes because they still are the main plot-driver but discuss disillusionment and how ambiguous morality is and the lack of ideals. Calling Rerir an anti-hero is unequivocally incorrect, and disliking an antagonist with a sympathetic motive is basically saying you like one-note cartoon villains with shit writing.
Also, you're arguing about literacy with a high-schooler who got a 5 on AP Lit, AP Lang, 760 on the SAT English section, co-wrote the script for their school play, and literally wrote about Genshin's story in an analysis essay.
Video games are an avenue for storytelling just like books. In fact, the quest is basically just a visual novel, and discrediting video games is absurdly narrow-minded.
Good for you for getting your high school grades? Literature is literally the easiest subject in all of school. I literally got A+s in both of my college lit classes without even trying. My final research paper was about Eminem’s song “Stan” 😂. It’s easy to write. It’s easy to read.
So read about his story or watch a YouTube vid on it. He’s not near as shallow of a character as you say.
Fact: his brutal experiments on children were to try and find a cure to a deadly disease. Collei may have been tortured by him but without him she’d be dead. He cured that deadly disease. So ultimately he saved many people.
Also the grades are irrelevant to you. I'm simply disputing his claim that I don't read. Also, news flash, different schools have different difficulties. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. (Also if you find literature so easy, maybe you could explain any narrative development Dottore had instead of shifting responsibility.)
Fact: he did not cure eleazar, the erasure of greater lord rukkedevata and forbidden knowledge cured eleazar. his torturous human experiments may have temporarily halted the effects in someone like Collei, but also there are quite a few of our scientific discoveries that have resulted from extremely unethical practices, and the people who conduct them have repeatedly been condemned, like The Tuskegee Study or Unit 731. If you compare this to historical figures who did horrific experiments that amounted to nothing, like the Nazi's Josef Mengele, Dottore is a much more apt parallel.