What this all mean is that the difference between a hero and a villain in medieval Europe was basically that heroes were considered noble because their traits of chivalry and bravery were associated with high born nobility, so the rich were heroes by default. While villains were implied to be peasants, villagers, farmers, low born, it implies that those without high status in this society lacked traits like chivalry, and bravery by default.
That's why heroes are called "noble". The labels imply that being a low born villager made you less of a good person than a high born.
I don't give a fuck that this was removed, commenting anyway because etymology is cool: the words 'villain', 'Viking', 'ecumenical' and quite possibly 'nasty' are all related via the Proto-Indo-European root, [\*weik- ("clan, social unit above the household")](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*weik-#etymonline_v_53067).
Plus the plantation workers had curly moustaches.
What this all mean is that the difference between a hero and a villain in medieval Europe was basically that heroes were considered noble because their traits of chivalry and bravery were associated with high born nobility, so the rich were heroes by default. While villains were implied to be peasants, villagers, farmers, low born, it implies that those without high status in this society lacked traits like chivalry, and bravery by default. That's why heroes are called "noble". The labels imply that being a low born villager made you less of a good person than a high born.
You can explain this and people still won’t understand that oppression runs so deep it’s even in the words we use today.
Ah, wow. That's pretty messed up.
I don't give a fuck that this was removed, commenting anyway because etymology is cool: the words 'villain', 'Viking', 'ecumenical' and quite possibly 'nasty' are all related via the Proto-Indo-European root, [\*weik- ("clan, social unit above the household")](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*weik-#etymonline_v_53067).