Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-25926288-20170805235523/@comment-25375217-20170806011059

I think it's their similarities that make them so polarizing. People are less likely to have disagreements over things that are completely different -- there's no reason to have an argument about how the sky is blue as opposed to the grass being green. That's not an argument. Similarly, you can't argue whether or not Hook's sins are as bad as Belle's good deeds.

People have a natural tendency to debate, which usually becomes arguing -- my best, and admittedly uninformed, explanation is that it's a combination of their natural desire to learn (hence seeking out opposing opinions) and their natural desire to defend something they care about. Out of everything on this show, the easiest thing to debate is which of the three redeemed villains are the "worst", especially since these three characters are usually the fan-favorites (Hook and Regina more so than Rumple; Rumple is usually only dragged into the debate by people who like Hook and Regina equally to have something to compare them against). Evil is more likely to be measured (such as the gag in the "arson, murder, jaywalking" trope) than good (people don't often consider one good deed to be "better" than the other; a good deed is just a good deed), too, making the argument of "who's eviler" even more attractive than the argument of "who's more heroic".