>>26656136I would disagree as far s actually quality goes, where I think OP was spot-on.
I agree that the definitions were flimsy as was described by
>>26654242 and that you're more technically correct if you abide by them, though.
My list from best to worst'd go Lysandre (because if the pokemon world does abide by the logic of pokemon being unwilling slaves whenever we're not looking, he's both morally in the right and a complete monster simultaneously, which was interesting) Cyrus (Just because he was intimidating as fuck), Groundnigger/Seafaggot (cool charecters, but their motevations seemed pretty retarded. I mean, not enough sea in Hoenn? Really?), Giovani, and Ghestis, with N not making it since he was basically a hero antagonist being manipulated by Ghestis, and Ghestis being at the bottom because his personality can pretty much literally be described as "evil boss", whereas at least Giovanni saw the errors of his ways and had the thing with silver in HGSS, which makes him dismally better.
I think the real problem with idealistic Pokemon antagonist like Cyrus, N, Archie/Maxwell, and Lysandre, though, is that the Pokemon World is, at least from what we see in-game, fucking perfect (no wars, serious crimes, etc) and that despite all the rambling they give about pokemon not being happy, all the pokemon we see seem totally fine with just about fucking everything. If they want to tell us that the world is fucked, the game should show us the fucked up nooks and crannies of the world first.
