It's worth noting that a lot of villains in stories are sort of "othered" most of the time; they exist outside of the status quo, outside of "acceptable" society, and tend to have a lot of minority traits which aren't always recognized by even the authors. Since they're cast as villains, they can be as outrageous as they want to be.
Perhaps the most vivid example is Frank in Rocky Horror -- the satirical/parody elements of the piece work beautifully, but at his root, he's a perfect distillation of everything that threatened the Great American Illusion of the 1950s. He's also far more interesting than any of the "heroes" of the piece, which is touched upon in the musical number "Superheroes" and is kind of a unifying motif for the whole work. The heroes, when their comfortable, unchallenged beliefs are actually challenged, find themselves very changed by the experience.
There are so few works that actually explore this element of the hero/villain dynamic, to any degree. The hero of the piece almost never even momentarily entertains the thought that the villain may have a point or may be right at all, in any way. It's sometimes easier for the story one is trying to tell simply not to explore that, but so often it's just ignored for the sake of ignoring it, because villains have to be bad and thus the status quo must be maintained. This sort of thing is very Victorian England storytelling, and really I feel like it's about time for more people to challenge it; things don't have to always be maintained in a status quo, especially if that status quo is highly dysfunctional.
