Firstly, no need for that tone. Discussions are to be had in a civil manner; repeatedly failing to conduct yourself in the proper way may eventually result in a block.
To answer your question: It’s not as simple as that, but yes, I do. Using that logic, any villain or character has done anything bad would be a terrible character in general. Such an evaluation method does not account for villains with good personalities (such as Micah, imo), good interactions, good character development and so on. Micah’s character is very interesting to me: his mysterious past yet great experience, his excellent prowess with firearms, his interactions with others and relationship with Arthur and Dutch, his Darwinistic philosophy, and various other things. Micah is undeniably evil, but this doesn’t stop him from being a good, interesting and well-written character.
In comparison, Sadie seems much more shallow to me. She doesn’t have a philosophy, her pursuit of O’Driscolls is justified but uninteresting (not to mention the fact that she usually puts others in danger while doing so and usually screams with cringeworthy and unnecessary rage); she does not seem “badass” to me, just vindictive. Her past is relatively shallow, her interactions with other characters are not very interesting (meanwhile Micah has some hilarious ones - especially with the female characters), she’s also entitled and arrogant, in addition to contradicting the game’s motto of revenge being a fool’s game.
So yes, Micah may be a villain, but he’s a much better character from my point of view.
