I'd argue power can be an end by itself. A character could simply pursue it for ego or the ability to bend others to their will without being able to say no.
IMO this trope of moral grey area for antagonists is overdone lately. Some stories are made worse for the sake of the villain having a sympathetic backstory. I think it's fine to just let your bad guys be bad guys sometimes.
With a character like Seymour though, I can see some people expecting a machiavellian 5D chess reason for being the way he is... so fair enough. He certainly talks a big game. Personally I don't mind him pursuing power for the sake of power.
It also doesn't have to lead to morally grey antagonists. Just because group X shat on the antagonist from a great height when they were growing up, doesn't justify whatever terrible things that the antagonist does to them when the roles are reversed. You can understand someone's motivations and still think they are a massive piece of shit.
I do agree that Seymour is looking less and less likely to be the master chess player, but who knows?
Last edited: