Hannibal Lecter vs John Doe?

wow, intriguing. well, lecter was kinda one note, and he wasn't seeking to punish people or make a statement. he killed and ate people b/c it was his fetish and an environment thing (gotta read hannibal rising). now john doe, is cunning and inventive. lecter is just vicious. it's a toss up. i would go lecter b/c he is a bit more intellectual and although doe is cunning, lecter would see it a mile away.

Hannibal Lecter

Hannibal Lecter of course

why because hes smarter

yup

Hannibal Lecter of course ... he's very intelligent.

Hannibal Lecter.

He is a classic character who has stood the test of time and will continue to do so. He is charming, cool, calm, collected and massively intelligent. he doesn't need brute force but can provide it if necessary.

John Doe

have to say Hannibal Lecter. he was more intelligent and sneaky about what he did. He would probably poison John Doe and eat him.

Hannibal! He's a stealthy lil' sh*t! Do you remember how he got out of his new prison in Silence of the Lambs? He killed the guard, cut his face off and put it on and dumped the body. Then he proceeded to act as the dying guard who got attacked until he was in the ambulence. Then he killed everyone in there and hijacked the thing. I don't think anyone could do him in!

Sidenote to Sonja B: I did read Hannibal Rising, and if I recall correctly he kills and eats those he finds rude! He isn't a senseless killer. He still has his morals. They don't have to do with right and wrong, but rather with courtesy and social graces. He even gets pissy with Clarice because she says "thanks" rather than "thank you."

Great question.

I love both "villans". Each have their own set of personal "morals and standards".

Who would win? my cash is with Hannibal. He does not want fame by his doing, he is motivated by something far more deep. Therefore, my choice is Hannibal.

I like Hannibal. He has a really creepy side!