I think about tropes all the time and other such things that can be repetitively occurrent in unrelated areas. The manner and form in which these present themselves is more important than tropes themselves to me.
A brief look into my reasoning is in order. I am not among people who decry the use or over-use of tropes in any given medium. Some even go as far as stating what tropes need to die giving subjective reasons like being outdated or being discriminatory or being offensive. I had the same mind myself recovering tales and I would have wide reaching shock and awe in my stories just for that reason but it was never true or resonant with my past, present and possible future self so I became of the mind that one has to work with what they have in any given situation.
The trope i am referring to in very uncertain terms in which an evil character is introduced who has both an absolute and a qualified agenda. Qualified agendas include revenge,retribution and justice where the target is specific and illusive, absolute agendas include wanting to destroy the world or a country where the collateral damage is not an obstacle but a necessary result of dealings. The idea that a person is aware completely of the full ramifications of an absolute vendetta is beyond my understanding, most people do not understand what a million pounds is without relating it to another thing that has smaller countable units. It is a stretch to think that they would understand what it means to destroy a city fully and be okay with it. Nevertheless, qualified agendas are easy to understand or distantly empathise with as a result of the range of destruction being somewhat contained.
A wise person once said about superheroes that seem to be timeless that the stories are about relatable people in fantastical scenarios. I think that is the truth in other forms of writing, it is harder to believe that someone would want to destroy a country than to avenge a loved one’s death. The truth is that things as large as conquests and genocides can be in retrospect and in experience, they have been built off the back of simpler things than holding the whole world responsible for the evil wrought upon one’s life. The Sokoto Jihad may have taken place if Uthman DanFodio was allowed to preach in the city and two movies worth of people may not have died if kidnappers let Liam Neeson’s daughter go.
In essence, I am saying that evil is a hard sell on its own merits but simple things are easy to latch onto and the explanation for the full evil could be a result of the original evil wrought by the doers of wrong.