I need a. hole lot more of this trope

Probably because the actions of someone dragging the world down with them is done by someone who has nothing left to lose, and thus is causing reckless destruction or causing more problems for the protagonist than otherwise preferred. Because Villains usually are "I'm hurting people because I am hurt." rather than an edgy desire to see pain and cause suffering, the goals are more realistic and there's hardly ever a reason to cause unnecessary suffering.

Though it's probably done by a woman because of the older biases where a man is reasonable and rational while women are emotional and irrational. This bias being represented in various tropes in history, not to mention actual beliefs, medical journals, and community practices; despite being laughable now, were accepted as fact historically with echos of it in tradition.

Following this character, would make them a hero, in their own right. Even antiheroes with a spotlight, despite being flawed or less than good, are still succeeding with an audience cheering them on. Following someone else and their story would make this person an antagonist. Even in cases of unreliable narration or the actually being in the wrong here you'd have a hero and a villain, assigned these roles by an audience, based on who's focused more and sympathized with more. If you had a woman attempting to take down a mining company because the company contracted her house to be destroyed and husband killed, she'd be the protagonist like John Wick is the protagonist regardless of the destruction he causes, it's worth it to him.. But if you were following a defense contractor or investigator tailing this woman, she'd be an antagonist even if it's brought up that you're the bad guy and from your perspective she's a loose end. The person who's seeing more loss, and the conflict caused that makes it hard to resolve problems in a peaceful manner, defines who is the real villain.

/r/CuratedTumblr Thread Parent Link - i.redd.it