Chapter Text
🐢: Okay, I’ll start by saying that I have seen many comments trying to whitewash or portray Bowser as a not-so-evil villain, but I have a point of view based on the actions and attitudes he has shown in canon. To begin, I present Bowser as what he truly is and not as what many want to see, nor to depict him like that just to create mediocre, forced, and incoherent fan service. Because portraying him as a "good villain" is a mistake and a disrespect to what has been established and to the character in general, and this also applies to his troops and inner circle. They are the same, and here I will present my opinion, even though I know perfectly well that many will disagree because they have had a quite different, even ignorant, perspective of Bowser, but I also know that many others will agree with me.
But can you imagine the huge number of people on TikTok, Reddit, and Twitter who whitewash and justify or try to make Bowser appear as a good and soft villain? Literally many ignorants, since after all, TikTok, Reddit, and Twitter are where all the fallacies, ignorance, toxicity, cringe, and nonsense come from. They are the sites with the most garbage content. Not even YouTube is safe from that and the rest.
🐢: I respect the characterization of Bowser established in Mario, and the examples I have presented reflect that view based on concrete lore facts. Bowser is not a cartoon villain with simple physical comedy or a soft figure disguised as evil; he is a ruthless conqueror whose actions go far beyond mere rivalry with Mario.
Those who try to whitewash Bowser or reduce him to a nice guy overlook a superficial reading of the character that ignores or minimizes his darkest actions.
It’s not enough to point out that he "saves the world" at times to justify or cleanse his record of manipulation, betrayal, cruelty, and abuse.
There are many examples: from attacking babies, manipulating his son, allying with genocidal figures like Antasma, to causing massive destruction and showing a repeated pattern of selfishness and denial of the common good.
This logic of "Bowser isn’t so bad because he helps save the world" is a weak argument that does not apply equally.
For example, Eggman also cooperated with Sonic in Heroes or Frontiers to face bigger threats Because he even saved Sonic once and also saved Tails in Lost World (https://youtu.be/oEHushf_uGk?si=T6z9kQBwS0OM310Y). but no one whitewashes or justifies Eggman as a benevolent face of the ecosystem; he even shows love and care for his daughter.
They work together out of convenience and to protect their own interests, not out of altruism.
Therefore, if the criterion is that helping against common threats cleans a villain’s record, it should apply equally to both characters, and no one argues that.
Another frequent point is the misuse of the "respect" Bowser supposedly has for Mario.
This mutual respect between powerful enemies does not equate to kindness or a moral change.
Respect is understandable in terms of rivalry, strategy, and recognition of a strong adversary, just like in the case of Eggman and Sonic—Eggman respects and admires Sonic as a strong enemy.
The public perception of Bowser has been distorted by his colorful appearance, comedic tones, and moments of clumsiness that act as a narrative disguise to soften his image in popular culture. This has led to fallacies and erroneous justifications of his personality, presenting him as a "likeable villain" or "cute," when in reality those elements do not redefine the essence of his actions and character.
It is crucial to separate those superficial aspects to understand the true depth and role he fulfills as the antagonist in the franchise.
Saying that Bowser "would not do" certain actions like attacking or manipulating children is disrespectful to the story already established in the games and official material, where it is clearly shown that he does participate in such conduct.
Ignoring or denying these facts to improve his image not only distorts the character but also overlooks Bowser’s essence as a villain with dark and ruthless traits.
Recognizing these actions is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the analysis about his true nature because otherwise, we would all live in a world where villains are said to be right and misunderstood.
One important and recurring criticism is that many fans and players tend to overlook or minimize Bowser’s cruel and ruthless actions because they don’t perceive him as an especially threatening villain.
That perception is owed to several superficial factors, but they should not be used to downplay his role or the seriousness of his acts.
Bowser has a colorful, cartoonish, and often even likeable appearance, with traits that may seem less intimidating or dangerous compared to darker or more terrifying villains from other franchises.
This visual image, combined with his frequent showing of a clumsy, goofy, comic, or inept side in various games, makes many see him more as a "funny" or "good-natured" antagonist who deserves a chance rather than a truly evil villain.
That comedic villain nature has become a recurring device used to lighten his character and relieve dramatic tension.
The problem is that many people confuse that device for a signal that Bowser "isn’t so bad" or even that "he wouldn’t do very bad things," ignoring the dark and serious background shown in the lore.
If a villain with a more serious, imposing appearance and a more threatening attitude who did those same actions were presented, he would probably be judged as a ruthless villain.
However, because of the familiarity and lightness the character has, many people minimize his acts, justify his motivations, or even unjustly whitewash him.
🐢: This discrepancy between the "friendly" image and Bowser’s true history leads to many fallacies and misunderstandings about his real character. It is important to note that appearance or narrative style does not define a character’s evilness or goodness. The evaluation must be based on his actions, decisions, and motivations established in canon, not on whether he is "comic" in certain scenes.
The lack of perceived threat in Bowser due to his comedic tone is a superficial and wrong excuse many people use to justify or minimize his dark and abusive acts. He is not misunderstood in the slightest, nor is he the villain of a badly told or tragic story; that is a total fallacy. He was never meant to be thought of as a victim or a soft and friendly villain. Even from his birth and origins, he was evil, abusive, toxic, and extremely spoiled.
The character must be stripped of those embellishments and faced in his true nature, which despite appearances, is an antagonist with a history of cruelty and manipulation that should not be taken lightly or softened without basis.
Now onto my next point:
Denying or minimizing Bowser’s cruel actions is a disrespect to the character and his story.
It is fundamental to understand that Bowser, within the Mario universe, is a villain who has repeatedly shown to have a ruthless, manipulative, and selfish character. He shows no remorse for his actions.
Denying that he attacks babies in Yoshi’s Island or manipulates children such as Bowser Jr. in Sunshine by lying to him that his mother is Princess Peach not only ignores explicit facts from the lore but also misrepresents his essence.
Claiming Bowser "would never do that" is a fallacy, pure ignorance, and disrespect that denigrates the official foundation established in numerous games and related materials.
Recognizing these actions is not hating the character: it is maintaining the integrity of the analysis and respecting the villain as he was conceived. Although I don’t empathize with Bowser, I respect what has been established with him.
Saying Bowser "isn’t so bad" or that "he’s just a dumb, comic villain" is a dangerous and simplistic mistake.
The image of Bowser as a clumsy, charismatic, comic being arises from a combination of narrative devices: his colorful appearance, his comic clumsiness, and certain humorous moments.
However, reducing him to a good-natured or unthreatening villain because of this ignores the core of his actions, which is consistent in almost all games because, well, Bowser is not that threatening but that doesn’t cover anything at all.
Such superficial traits neither cover nor justify behaviors like invading kingdoms with children present, manipulating his loved ones (because he loves his son but that doesn’t justify it), destroying dream worlds, or associating with genocidal figures like Antasma—the latter of whom affirms Bowser is as evil as he is too, and that’s why Antasma allies with Bowser—or constantly putting his troops and army in mortal danger through his actions without caring since he is more focused on his selfish ends.
The image of Bowser as a comic and sometimes clumsy villain is used in the franchise to relieve tension and make Mario suitable for all audiences, but it does not redeem his evil record nor minimize the seriousness of his acts. The use of comedy DOES NOT redefine his essence, it only camouflages it for certain audiences or situations.
Comedy and clumsiness are characterization elements that soften public perception but do not redefine Bowser’s true dark nature.
Limiting Bowser’s definition only to a few games, or just the RPGs, is a mistake that distorts his complete personality. I do not limit myself only to an RPG like Super Mario RPG or Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story because I seek to consider everything to define him.
The character is built from all official releases and media, including main games, RPGs, spin-offs, and the movie. Both official and canon sources. As in the movie where the creators allow Bowser to behave that way, and it is an equally abusive version of Bowser as the one established; I also take it into account as it is very close and coherent to the story, games, and more in the Mario universe and a rather important work that contributes to the narrative, and also being a direct work of the company that remains slightly faithful (although not fully) but does show faithfulness to the established material, not a crossover with many inconsistencies where I can only take very few things into account as it is too incongruent or a secondary product.
It can be taken into account, yes, but that does not automatically make it canon, okay? But it is valid to consider and it is important to respect that and not make it automatically canon, but yes it is valid to take it into account as it is quite faithful to what is established. Although elements from non-canon products can be taken, it must be done critically; not everything official is necessarily canonical or relevant to understanding the character, so it is preferable and better to rely on canon and draw better conclusions from there and not follow non-canon even if official, though it is valid to consider it. But I remind you that canonical material carries the most weight and importance over any derived, secondary, and official non-canon material, which must be interpreted critically and not automatically taken as the character’s essence unless the product is quite faithful and coherent and can be considered a bit more flexibly, but not too much, and not ignorantly say that it is canon and his essence because it is not. It is much better to take official canon and what is established into account.
Ignoring any aspect in which Bowser shows his darker side is cherry-picking that does not reflect a deep understanding.
For example, although some RPGs show his circumstantial collaboration or moments of complexity, they should not be used to whitewash or contradict the obvious facts in other titles where Bowser is ruthless and abusive.
The justification that Bowser "saves the world" sometimes does not make him a hero nor reduces his evilness. Also, "he cares for his people and loves his son," "he’s a father after all," are not valid arguments because there are villains who are also parents and none of that reduces their evil or cruel and ruthless character even slightly; that does not justify anything at all. That as an argument to minimize his evilness is invalid. Many villains have family roles or emotional bonds, but none of that diminishes their cruel, ruthless, and selfish nature. Therefore, those aspects do not justify his acts nor should they be used to whitewash his characterization as an antagonist. It’s like saying that because I am a father (and I send my son on high-risk missions) and care about my people (and put them in constant mortal danger and act abusively toward them) and help save the world (obliged and for my selfish interests, not for the common good or genuine altruism), I have the right to try to kill a mother (Rosalina), destroy other worlds, want to erase my innocent enemies’ existence, kidnap and attack innocent babies with families, and conquer kingdoms and abuse women.
Arguing that Bowser can’t be that bad because he helps defeat greater threats is a fallacy that can also apply to other villains like Dr. Eggman. Eggman has collaborated with Sonic to face common dangers, but no one uses that to call him a “good guy” or justify his crimes.
🐢: I can assume that the fact that, like Eggman, he is much more threatening and has more ambitious goals, is also less flat as a character, is a better villain, and also shows cruel facets without his comedic behavior overshadowing them. He also hasn’t cried over his allies or become very sentimental, and in other official media is shown as an extremely vile and cruel villain. I suppose that’s why almost no one defends Eggman or tries to portray him as less cruel or claims his evilness is exaggerated, which is a fallacy.
Both Bowser and Eggman act out of convenience or self-interest, not out of genuine altruism or goodness.
Accepting that logic for Bowser but not for Eggman is inconsistent and selective. Because both Eggman and Bowser have done the same actions and have been shown very equal in terms of evilness.
Although I don’t see anyone defending Eggman or saying he’s not as evil as I show him, and even among Eggman fans there are some who whitewash him when that is wrong and disrespectful, though I’ve never come across any, but I think there might be people who whitewash Eggman, or maybe not, but I see that possibility. But regarding Bowser, he has far more whitewashing than Eggman. Bowser is a huge victim of villain whitewashing and Eggman is portrayed as much more evil, even though both have equally terrible evilness and actions in canon. But as we know, Eggman is shown as much more threatening—and he is—and eventually it is Bowser who gets painted much softer than the doctor, which is very wrong and a mistake and disrespectful to Bowser and what he has represented over the years, and the same applies to the Doctor.
Also, the mutual respect between Bowser and Mario does not imply kindness or moral change.
Many use the "respect" Bowser shows toward Mario to try to whitewash his character.
It is important to emphasize that respect in a rivalry does not equal friendship or benevolence, but recognition of the adversary’s capability or strength. The same is seen in the relationship between Eggman and Sonic.
This respect does not diminish Bowser’s cruelty, violence, or ambitions for power, as he has tried to eliminate or even erase Mario and Luigi from existence in multiple games.
Attacking Bowser only based on what is seen in one game or in an incomplete version is a mistake and disrespectful to the character. And as I say, forcing him to act differently is wrong and also disrespects what is already established and would change public perception.
Many fans defend Bowser based only on, for example, an RPG where he is shown with "less malevolent" shades or comedic to sentimental moments that some games present.
This ignores the complete picture where Bowser is represented as a villain with a dark and recurring history of violence, manipulation, and abuse of power.
Interpreting a single game or medium or a few games where very selective and specific things are taken ignoring everything else cannot invalidate centuries of accumulated lore across all titles. Respecting Bowser means accepting complexity and contradictions, not just looking at what pleases or softens his image. Because if you only look at what pleases you, you come off as ignorant since you must take everything into account.
Common fallacies about Bowser: "he wouldn’t attack children," "he’s a likeable villain," "he’s just a bad actor forced by the story," "he’s not really a monster," "he’s a bad guy, but that doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy."
These phrases unjustly reduce and idealize the character and are disrespectful.
Bowser has attacked babies, conquered kingdoms, shown abuse toward women, been abusive to his own allies, and associated with genocidal villains. Also, attacking, kidnapping, having an evil and selfish goal, or wanting to destroy a baby is an extremely cruel and vile act. From any point of view, these actions are highly evil, immoral, and cruel.
He is not a "likeable villain" nor "dumb" Or an "idiot" or an imbecile doing evil things for childish whims, because Bowser is very, very intelligent and is fully aware of their every action and activity; those characterizations come from intermittent portrayals that seek to balance or lighten the narrative without erasing the truth of his cruelty.
Considering Bowser only as a friendly antagonist because he saves the world denies coherence with his personal motivations for power, dominance, and destruction.
Nothing justifies Bowser’s selfish, abusive, and destructive actions.
There is no excuse to cleanse or justify his record of manipulation, desire for conquest, family abuse, indifference towards innocents, or destruction of entire kingdoms. Not even the fact that in Super Paper Mario he is called the hero of prophecy justifies it because that doesn’t either xdxdxdddd.
Arguing that he is a good villain and not so evil just because of his comedic behavior or colorful, cartoonish appearance is a limited way of seeing him and does not erase that, outside that small circle, he acts with severe cruelty and evil.
It is fundamental to understand that Bowser’s essence does NOT lie in his fun and childlike appearance or in how often he loses, but in the consistent sum of his actions and motivations across the franchise. It is crucial to distinguish between the use of comedy or "friendly" visual design and the real nature of the villain. Just because a character is funny does not mean he stops being terrible in his acts if the narrative sets it so.
The villain deserves respect from the integrity of his character, not from a sugarcoated or convenient vision.
Also, if you ask whether Bowser has committed betrayals, take Antasma as an example, who trusted him. The clearest example that Bowser is also a traitor is Bowser betraying Antasma, another villain like him, to keep the Dream Stone, the castle, and Princess Peach. In the Japanese dialogue, this is mentioned: ワガハイを 利用していた つもりだろうが・・・ 利用していたのは ワガハイの方だ！ and following that: この城もピーチ姫も そしてドリームストーンも… ぜ～んぶワガハイのものだ！ 他の誰にも渡すものか！ which translated is: "You probably thought you were using me... But the one being used was me! This castle too, Princess Peach too, and the Dream Stone as well... it’s all mine! I won’t give it to anyone else!" This makes us explicitly understand that Bowser is not stupid and has a traitorous, manipulative, opportunistic, and exploitative mentality, although I clarify that Antasma did fully trust Bowser’s help, which adds weight to that betrayal, and it also explicitly clarifies that Bowser doesn’t know how to share and doesn’t like teamwork, although, as I said, on those occasions he works in a team because he is forced to, not because he likes it. And the case of Antasma is a clear example that Bowser stabs in the back and takes advantage of any opportunity to keep everything for himself, showing even more selfishness, making clear that Bowser is far from innocent, clumsy, and dumb; on the contrary, he is a very calculating villain. From my point of view, Antasma did trust Bowser and was willing to share, which is why he felt confused by that betrayal. The dialogue may be in Japanese, but in my language Spanish Bowser explicitly says he doesn’t know how to work in a team and says similar things about betrayal, and you can see how Antasma feels confused because it is perfectly evident he did trust Bowser. And even if some say Antasma was using him, that does not lessen the weight of Bowser’s traitorous actions and intentions. Beneath his comedic and clumsy appearance and actions, there is a cold and calculating mentality. Regarding teamwork, there are only a few exceptions like with Kamek and his troops, that is, only his inner circle, but outside of that, he doesn’t do that—only with his army, which he appreciates greatly.
Also, what makes me think that Antasma trusted and supported Bowser and saw him as an ally is this mention by Dreambert where it says: 裏切られるとはな… あわれだな アックーム！ which translated is: "To be betrayed... how hurts, Antasma (Akumu)." This makes me understand that possibly Antasma did trust Bowser and wanted him as an ally, and even when they met, he saw him as his equal seeing his great evil and power, so he wanted to ally with him to share great evil and power as shown in the game where Antasma grants much knowledge and power to Bowser, fully trusting him and sharing everything of the Dream Stone and more. The term "あわれだな" (aware da na) is used to express pity, compassion, or sympathy toward someone in an unfortunate or sad situation. Therefore, yes, the phrase implies Dreambert feels some compassion or a little pity for Akumu, or rather Antasma, because of the betrayal he has suffered. Also, similar things are said in English, but well, I work with what I can and put my effort into researching better and not just settle for superficial translations or interpretations.
In conclusion, defending or whitewashing Bowser based on superficial aspects, only on certain games or his likeable appearance,
Bowser is a dark villain from a critical point of view, although from a somewhat ignorant, fan service, dumb, immature, and childish perspective he is a friendly villain, but that doesn’t take away that he has horrible actions that must be recognized to truly understand him.
Ignoring or denying these facts is not only disrespectful to his essence but distorts the narrative that the franchise itself has established over the years.
It is disrespectful to what has been established with Bowser to assume or attribute characteristics, actions, or intentions to him that are not justified or shown in the least in his official development.
When unfounded assumptions about his personality or behavior are made, what is already established about the character is minimized and he is stripped of his clearly defined role as a villain within the Mario universe.
This not only distorts the narrative the franchise itself has built but weakens the internal coherence of the lore and the respectful perception of the antagonist.
🐢: Recognizing and respecting what is established means accepting his acts and motivations as presented in the games, movies, and other official media, without trying to whitewash, soften, or ignore his true nature because that is disrespectful to Bowser. Anyone with a perspective that takes everything into account would see that as “not knowing the character at all,” although I don’t consider that and prefer to give arguments like I showed in a comment in chapter 2.
Observe or better said, read my comment:
1: On Yoshi Island. He traveled through time to try to eliminate Baby Mario and also attacked his child self or well, he attacked another baby who is Baby Bowser. And he doesn’t just attack any babies. No, he attacks babies who have parents waiting for them at home, and he still goes and attacks them. Bowser is attacking defenseless babies, who still can’t protect themselves or understand the danger. Bowser’s goal is purely selfish: he seeks to eliminate any threat to his future reign regardless of collateral damage to get the power of said babies. The mere fact that he attacks babies is serious enough and gives me enough to define Bowser and all his supposedly “good” actions — because he does it out of obligation, not because he’s good or a hero or for the common good, and for those facts it leaves all those supposed “good” actions in the twentieth plane.
2: He tried to kill Rosalina, who is the mother of the Lumas. And interestingly, he caused a disaster that made the Lumas sacrifice themselves.
3: In the movie, his abusive personality was shown much better, even locking his own Goombas in cages, mistreating Kamek, burning a Koopa, and other things like almost burning Peach alive just because she rejected him, and threatening to kill Luigi and nearly burn alive everyone he captured. But as we know, many defend Bowser and try to justify him as a clumsy and funny villain, but that clearly overshadows Bowser’s horrible actions. They portray him as funny to prevent his terrible and selfish actions from coming to light.
4: Invading the kingdom and destroying things, most likely with children there. The comedic and clumsy approach many games give Bowser helps soften his image to the public to the point that they’d rather live in ignorance and think Bowser isn’t as bad as he seems, but that is a complete mistake and doesn’t erase the fact that, in his story, he has committed very serious acts, especially against the most defenseless and innocent, and those who try to help purely out of selfishness.
5: He is a cruel and ruthless tyrant who always seeks power and to destroy Mario, and it was so, so deep that he even wanted to erase him from existence in Dream Team with his brother and even in Peach’s face. You heard it, you saw it clearly: it’s not just about destroying or stopping them, he immediately wanted to erase them.
6: He always sends his son, sons, and army on extremely dangerous missions or to face Mario, knowing that you’re sending your son to a fight — even though he’s not a child, more like a pre-adolescent as evil as his father and also very spoiled, bratty, immature, arrogant, hateful, and abusive — yet he still sends him to face someone who will clearly defend himself and hurt him. If that isn’t child abuse and neglect, then I don’t know what is. I’m fully aware he loves his son and would do anything for him and his army, but that doesn’t justify it, and in the Mario universe, he’s not a good father in the slightest; the example of a good father goes to Toadsworth who really cares for Peach and even travels to another timeline to protect her. Meanwhile, because of Bowser’s actions: Jr. was indirectly swallowed by that sun in Galaxy, and even at the end of Bowser Fury, Bowser and Jr. are shown as ungrateful to Mario, which gives us an idea of the values Jr. learns, always showing himself as equally evil, toxic, repugnant, and ungrateful as his father. Whatever Bowser tells him, he does and imitates because he admires him and because he’s his father, and his father lets Jr. do whatever he wants, causing problems, being abusive even with his own allies, and being a villain like his father. Also, in Sunshine, Bowser manipulated Jr. to think Peach was his mother. Now imagine if he’s capable of deceiving his own son to think Peach is his mom just out of selfishness.
7: And speaking of the Yoshis, if you knew about them, you’d know perfectly well that Bowser locked the Yoshis in eggs.
8: He transformed everyone in a kingdom into inanimate objects, probably including children.
9: He’s a scoundrel, a villain and monster who always seeks power and control, and if he has to manipulate someone to do it, he will. He’s ungrateful too — when Mario helps him, later we see him trying to destroy Mario.
10: He allied with genocidal beings like Antasma. Listen well: genocidal. And you look at Bowser like, “But the kids and people 😭😭😭😭.” Nah, I saw it like: “What if we erase Mario and his brother from existence and force Princess Peach to watch Luigi and Mario get erased by the Dream Stone 🗿.” I’m signing up for that, Bwhahaha! Fun fact: Alongside Koopa Kid, he destroys worlds with people, destroying dreams and turning them into his own in Mario Party 5. Most likely there are kids there, haha. Ciao!
11: If he weren’t evil, why would Kamek always call him something evil? They always referenced his great evil. You can even interpret it as Bowser being offended when they say he’s not so evil — that’s why he has Kamek to reaffirm his wickedness. And as you said, when there’s an external threat, Bowser usually destroys it and feels hatred seeing someone get in his way, which further justifies his hatred toward his enemies and those who try to conquer his kingdom or harm his army, and he destroys them if they do.
12: If you played the games, you’d notice those details that are so easy to see. And why would Bowser show mercy to his enemy’s daughter? If you know he only cares exclusively about his army and he’s capable of destroying or manipulating anyone in his way purely out of selfishness to gain more power, you’d know Bowser is smart, evil, and selfish enough to take advantage of any opportunity handed to him on a silver platter. Because his goal, as shown to us, is also to conquer and gain more power that’s why he tried to consume Rosalina.
13: His role as a villain is already established, and saving the world is more because he’s forced to than doing it for good... So that’s wrong, because Bowser doesn’t want the world destroyed where would he go to rule and impose his rules? Even in the Mario & Luigi Dream Team RPG, it explicitly says he’s going to conquer the world. Haha, ciao!
14: Look, friend, if you only consider the RPGs, then clearly you’re wrong because you have to consider everything, not just the RPGs... Like, just because in one RPG Bowser planted a flower, that’s enough excuse to call him good and kind who cares about the world? Meanwhile, in another game we see him invading kingdoms, being very abusive and toxic to everyone around him, and trying to destroy Mario. Saying Bowser isn’t so bad is wrong because he’s quite evil and cruel. Funny how even in RPGs, you see him being abusive to his troops and trying to destroy anyone in his way. Friend, in the vast majority of the games, if not all, Bowser always shows himself as the villain. Don’t just stick to the RPGs because they close off and don’t explore; they prefer to stay there, calling me ignorant and somehow assuming I haven’t played or seen RPGs. But you don’t even give examples from the other games in the franchise where Bowser is always the abusive, destructive, cruel, and ruthless villain. Well, I consider all of them important, not just RPGs.
15: Like you said, only his family, army, and allies matter to him because he only cares about his army; the rest of the people, or better said, the whole world, he doesn’t care at all. He even cried in Super Mario RPG when he lost his army, which well justifies his hatred towards Eggman’s old allies, or anyone outside his circle because he’s Bowser. Bowser doesn’t save people or care about the innocent or enemies. Ah, and by your logic, since Eggman helped save the world in Frontiers and Sonic Heroes, that already makes him a good guy, knowing they team up because there’s a greater threat, not because they’re good... Yeah, tell me more jokes. Ciao!
16: Both Eggman and Bowser are equally evil, and that’s fine because that’s their role. Saying they are good or not so evil is wrong because it’s a direct disrespect to their personalities, since they only show kindness to their own circles... sometimes xd.
17: Believe me, those aren’t the only evil acts of Bowser because there are many more acts that justify the furious tyrant who constantly seeks power out of selfishness and domination with a highly abusive and toxic personality, just like everyone in his circle. And don’t come with me saying Bowser wouldn’t hurt a woman, because in Paper Mario 64, Bowser’s troops treat Princess Peach like trash and Bowser couldn’t care less. In the entries where we can play as Peach, Bowser attacks her equally. And if you wonder what Peach does while captured in Paper Mario 64, that question is answered, and she doesn’t even seem to care if Peach gets hurt because of him or someone else and she is not even the only woman that Bowser or its troops mistreats; there we also have Toadette and Daisy.
18: This can close the debate: https://youtu.be/McLQUs497ho?si=w0nuxjb-9IJNCiJk
19: As I said, liking a character and respecting their powers and abilities is completely different. So, if I love Guts more but also say Goku defeats him with his abilities, would that, according to your logic, be disrespecting Guts as a character too? It doesn’t make sense, friend, these are totally different things.
🐢: As I was saying, no one gave me or justified that with arguments. When I argued and showed examples of what they claim Bowser wouldn’t do, and I presented my argument, I didn’t see them refute what I did. There, I show many games and other topics as well as official media. I did not limit myself to just the Dream Team game, I also included other RPGs and more than one game.
I know my tone is sometimes sarcastic and I always try to avoid direct attacks on users, but there I show what I have from my perspective, taking into account everything official, canon, and already established, and I respect that.
And by the way, there is also the fact that he shows abuse toward women, because Bowser is also one of those who show a lot of abuse and toxicity against women:
With Princess Peach
Bowser repeatedly kidnaps her in numerous games without any justification other than his goal of control and power, sending his children (or Jr., who goes willingly) or troops who treat her like an object, or going himself. All these clearly or possibly even are facts that they harm Peach or damage her in some way and treat her like an object, and that includes Peach’s subjects.
In Paper Mario 64 and other games, Bowser’s minions treat Peach like an object, and Bowser shows indifference to her welfare.
In other titles where you can control Peach, Bowser attacks her just the same and also does not care at all about her well-being. Not even Baby Peach is safe.
Peach is usually in constant danger because of him, whether directly or indirectly, due to his fault.
With Rosalina:
Bowser tries to assassinate her, and in the process causes a disaster that forces the Lumas to sacrifice themselves. She is the mother of the Lumas and a character with clear peaceful and just intentions.
His attack is presented as part of Bowser’s ambition and desire for power, with no consideration for the consequences or Rosalina’s innocence.
With Toadette and Daisy:
In games where you can play as Daisy or Toadette, Bowser and his troops attack indiscriminately, showing an aggressive attitude toward innocent women.
And his most feminist act: In Super Mario 3D World, Bowser kidnaps the Sprixie Princesses and invades their kingdom, which triggers Mario and his friends’ mission to rescue them.
These actions reinforce that Bowser does not discriminate in his violence and that his abusive character extends to several female figures in the Mario universe. Possibly even Pauline is involved, though I don’t have confirmation; Bowser’s troops may have done something during the Odyssey events maybe psychological damage by endangering her entire city.
The combination of these attitudes—kidnappings, explicit harassment, abuse, unprovoked attacks on important women in the universe—evidences a pattern of abuse and cruelty toward female characters that must not be minimized or ignored.
This aspect is an integral part of Bowser’s ruthless character as a villain and contributes to his narrative within the Mario world.
This is also a key point in Bowser’s characterization: when his kingdom, himself, or his troops are in danger, Bowser shows no mercy or clemency toward threats, but acts with brutal and relentless efficiency to destroy his enemies. I have never seen him hire or even deign to help Fawful’s troops, like the Treevils or the Fawfulcopter, nothing like that because they were threats to him and his kingdom. Even in Partners in Time it is confirmed that his behavior as a child was always selfish, evil, toxic, and abusive, kidnapping an innocent baby younger than him, Baby Peach, and attacking two other innocent babies younger than him, Baby Mario and Baby Luigi, attacking the Toads and Kinopio too. Don’t come at me saying he was a child and didn’t know what he was doing because he knew perfectly what he was doing and even teamed up with his adult self to cause trouble.
His priority is always to maintain and expand his power, no matter the cost, which reaffirms him as a cruel and determined villain, even if sometimes he temporarily cooperates for convenience to protect his kingdom, as in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story, where, even after defeating Dark Bowser, an extremely angry Bowser went looking for trouble with Luigi and Mario and threatened to kidnap Peach again... Bowser does not help anyone out of kindness; he is not compassionate to anyone, does not pity anyone, and would never help anybody unless forced to, or because it suits him, or because there is a much greater threat. He helps no one but his own.
This behavior underlines that any “positive” act by Bowser is usually motivated by selfish and strategic interests, not kindness or altruism.
What makes me seriously think that saying Eggman’s army joined Bowser is a total fallacy is that Bowser and his army would have destroyed them And I wouldn't have accepted anybody and they would all have done the same and destroyed them without thinking. But I do this because I want you to see reality, no matter how forced it is. That’s why I also plan to create another route on this and show the constant abuse of Bowser’s troops toward what remains of Eggman’s army. And don’t believe that gigantic fallacy that Bowser dislikes the idea of seeing a child without a father, or that he helps children or feels pity; that’s total nonsense because Bowser has shown the opposite. I have seen him attack children on more than one occasion, not only the examples I showed here in the text. For example, Star Kid, Twink, was a victim of Bowser in Paper Mario ( https://youtu.be/Nm0ipeDoVFU?si=n4sFF1swDBgJV5h8 around 2:00 minutes it is shown perfectly, if you want to watch), and I have more examples. The one who really dislikes that idea is poor Yoshi, who risked his life to help Baby Mario return to his parents. Even Mario himself dislikes that idea and helped Jr., and at the end of Fury, Bowser and Jr. are both shown as ungrateful, repugnant, and toxic. People are mixing Yoshi’s intentions and adding them to Bowser—complete ignorance. Yoshi is a good and clear example of that. How the hell could we forget good Yoshi? He is one of the most important.
Don't believe that stupidity that the Koopas treat outsiders or strangers well; quite the opposite, they all treat them like complete trash.
And Bowser or anyone in the Koopa Kingdom would never help Sage revive the Doctor Much less would they accept it or treat it with respect or anything like that because that is just nonsense for fan service like in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games And Sage and the other robots would never be accepted, nor would they treat them with respect, on the contrary, they would destroy them or attack them or treat them like total garbage, or give them a chance or anything, since the relationship between Bowser and Eggman is totally unnatural, as both have committed betrayals. There is no dynamic between Bowser and Eggman because their personalities, goals, and behaviors would clash immediately; there is no real dynamic, and it is forced and incoherent garbage. It’s practically impossible for them to form an alliance or cooperate. What this does is distort the public’s perception of the characters and their true behaviors and stories, making people treat it as real when it is deeply forced and terrible trash whether you like it or not. This is better shown by the fact that villains wouldn’t get along, as in Smash Bros. where Ganon, who supposedly is from the same franchise and thus should get along with Bowser, does not. There Ganon attacks Bowser, which is a clear example and was right and faithful to Ganon attacking Bowser. Villains always act in their own interests; even Bowser says he goes solo and follows no one’s orders. From a narrative point of view, fan service or forced alliances can break internal coherence. A villain usually acts in their own interests without strong loyalties, with only a few exceptions. I take this Smash Bros. example as quite faithful to what is established, although there are also inconsistencies with the characters and such in the game. Though not canon and mostly fan service for entertainment, I take only a little from that example and others but cannot consider it canon.
The Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games series is very fan service-heavy and also the most incoherent and forced. For example, characters are like normal people participating in games: Shadow never tries to destroy Eggman or Sonic tries to stop Eggman; instead, they prefer to play tennis. Eggman does not seek to conquer or destroy Sonic; he prefers figure skating. Bowser doesn’t seek to destroy Mario or kidnap Peach; he prefers swimming. Metal Sonic, who is programmed to destroy Sonic, does none of that and prefers horseback riding. The clearest example is a cinematic where Rouge is teamed up with Eggman Nega and Dry Bowser, even though Rouge is theoretically an enemy and they should be enemies among themselves (https://youtu.be/PlYmpRvAoh4?si=Up11oszEidegr2Jb) ... That is incoherent, forced, and fan service. The only natural and coherent thing would be Mario and some friends also being friends with Sonic and some of his friends. That makes more sense. It’s okay to like and enjoy the game as I do but you have to keep in mind that some relationships, team-ups, or friendships are unlikely, incoherent, forced, and impossible, and they completely ignore many things. After all, these games focus more on enjoyment and fan service than coherence, stories, and established lore, and they don’t stay very faithful to what’s established, only in a few things, changing too many things. That’s why I take only a few things into account from them because of the many inconsistencies that don’t add much to the narrative since they are more for entertainment and are not canon either.
Fan service refers to pleasing fans with elements, but forced or excessive use damages the integrity of the work and can distort the authentic perception and essence of characters, making the narrative superficial or inconsistent. Works like Super Sonic X Universe or Sonichu are clear examples where everything is distorted and they do everything I’m telling you, as well as fanfics of Dragon Ball, Boku no Hero, Naruto, Pokémon, and others. By adding elements irrelevant to the main story, fan service diverts attention and causes the narrative to lose cohesion and depth. This happens when pleasing superficial followers is prioritized over building logical development faithful to the universe of the work. And don’t even think to use Wreck-It Ralph to justify Bowser being a villain forced by story because that would only make someone ignorant. Abuse of fan service can make content repetitive, predictable, or empty, as it is based on satisfying specific desires instead of offering something better. But even so, it damages narrative coherence and trivializes characters’ stories.
What happens with Ganon and Bowser in Smash was good because they didn’t force fan service with united villains. If you want to see a villains’ relationship that makes at least some sense, there are Bowser and the Rabbids; there, at least it makes some sense because their goals, personalities, and objectives don’t clash. Forced relationships to create fan service are bad, and I recognize that because they lack meaning and narrative; they make the characters look unnatural. For example, we have Tails crying in the Archie comics because Sonic stole his girlfriend... Xd. There you can see my example that even if something is official, it can be badly done, and the authors and writers should recognize when what they make is bad and forced and creates terrible fan service. But let it be clear that sometimes it’s okay if it makes sense or has some coherence. When authors make something non-canon, they have more flexibility with stories, personalities, details, and more, but that doesn’t mean we can change that. We can be flexible, yes, but we have to respect canonical and original material, and not put incoherences in personalities, stories, details, and such. We must respect that to not change everyone’s perception because doing that is too wrong and we would end up like trash fanfiction of Naruto, Super Sonic X Universe, Sonichu, Boku No Hero, My Immortal and other garbage. We, the consumers and analysts, must remain faithful to the spirit and narrative logic of canon, differentiating entertainment and flexibility from unjustified and disrespectful rewriting.
🐢: By the way, I can also assume that because his army is shown as equally cartoonish and clumsy, people also portray them as soft, but that is a total mistake, a complete fallacy, because as I said, they are just as ruthless and abusive; they support, follow, and respect Bowser’s conduct and orders and show abusiveness in the process. Don’t think any of the previously mentioned Bowser actions are not bad. Even Kamek demonstrates this by kidnapping babies and messing up—like kidnapping Luigi, haha, poor Luigi is always stuck in extreme danger like Yoshi. Also, Kamek and the troops kidnap many babies and attack throughout the game to take the power those babies possess for their selfish ends, with Bowser involved. I correct myself: it was not just one baby; many innocent babies were involved. Also, although Bowser values his army, that does not justify the physical and verbal abuse they suffer, such as Bowser ordering lethal missions to his army and probably punishing and mistreating his minions if they fail or calling them “bunch of useless” for not stopping Mario and his brother, as shown in the RPG Mario Paper Jam. He shows little genuine care for their lives, except when losses directly affect his power and he cries like in Legend of the Seven Stars. So, despite his selfish aims, he does seem to appreciate his army, even though his direct or indirect actions keep his army in constant danger and he does not seem to care much about their lives, only about his selfish goals. And note, even though he cries, it does not justify anything at all, in the slightest. His army is equally abusive, evil, and selfish toward everyone.
Okay, I still have many more evil acts Bowser has done, but I’ll post these because they are the clearest and justify everything. He has done many more actions that reinforce the idea and explain why Bowser is no angel or anything like that.
I am not demonizing Bowser, but showing the character as he has been established throughout the Mario universe.
I also want to apologize to a guy in the comments of chapter 2. I know my tone is sometimes provocative or sarcastic, but I apologize in advance. I will ignore that you called me a clown or fake fan or said I don’t know anything about Mario, but still, I apologize for saying some things that didn’t add anything, and I prefer to keep a more respectful tone, even though I like to use sarcasm. I know perfectly that, like you, there are different points of view, which I took into account before creating this because I knew many would say Bowser is not like this.
But I do not think that at all, since kidnapping, attacking, putting babies in danger, or being involved in clearly abusive and evil selfish actions involving innocent babies is something that definitively marks Bowser as a cruel villain. It’s known with much more certainty what he is capable of doing for power and domination. Any reading that tries to whitewash, soften, or portray him as a soft and good villain loses a lot actually loses total validity in light of that fact. Also, I say everything that came after that terrible Death Battle was total trash. I follow what is established, and what is established is that Bowser hits his son with hammers like a great father would.
https://tenor.com/es-US/view/bowser-hammer-bowser-jr-sayonara-bwahaha-gif-15580181116868442392
And by the way, Mario is no simp or pushover; go to the final notes, I talk about that there... Now with all that said and maybe I’ll update it again because I want to clarify more things and more; I don’t like getting unjustified hate or being treated badly just because of this work, but I apologize if I offended anyone. Still, I take it and thank you very much for your support or at least for visiting the fic ☺️ Ciao!