Based on these ideas, there are several accounts of how sapient beings should relate to one another and to power. Some hold that sapient beings should never make use of coercion but only persuasion. Some hold that coercion is necessary, especially for children, because that's how embodied sapient beings learn - they learn how to engage in persuasion only after coercive training. Some hold that coercion is useful not only for education but also for preserving the commitments of a community to what they have previously been persuaded to accept, with law and legal penalties. Some hold that coercion is enough and that there's no need for persuasion. Some hold that all persuasion is deception and moreover that there really is nothing special about persuasion as compared to coercion. If we believe that both coercion and persuasion have appropriate uses among sapient beings, then further questions arise concerning who is responsible for determining when the use of coercion is appropriate and which commitments of a community ought to be preserved through coercion.
I think the reason that many powerful characters appear villainous is because we more readily identify coercion as power, rather than persuasion. Let's look at an example. Who is more powerful: a tyrant whose subjects obey him for fear of the punishment he will inflict upon them if they resist or a prophet who opposes the tyrant, dies a martyr, yet inspires generations afterwards to resist tyranny? Most will think the tyrant at first; only on reflection might one appreciate the power of the prophet and martyr.
Furthermore, coercion is easier to pull off - anyone with strength or weapons or servants can make use of it. Persuasion is difficult - it requires knowledge of one's audience and the ability to teach them something new. Again, these forms of power are intermixed - a tyrant must persuade his closest servants to follow him, so that together he and they might coerce a larger population.
11-Feb-2017 23:13:10