
Comparing Anne McCaffery's villains with Lois McMaster Bujold's, Bujold's are far more human, with a better range of human failings. McCaffrey's seem, these days, to be uniformly vile and all who encounter them had damn well better hate them, because they are so vile.
Bujold's... well... Just as in real life, perhaps you might not notice that they are quite that bad, on first glance. Their brands of evil are born out of a desire to do their own right thing, in some cases. An adherence to principle. The desire to do right, even after they've lost touch with reality.
The only Bujold villains that measure up to the later McCaffrey standard of vile would be Prince Serg and Vorrutyer, the evil sex criminals. No redeeming values, there; no hope for them. The only decent thing to do for them is kill them, which happens as a midpoint to the book, not the conclusion. Still, a mindwarper like Vorrutyer is more interesting than your garden variety evil pedophile/slaver.
To be fair, I must cite the Oldtimers. Now, there were some good villains. They'd started out doing What Was Right, and the culture clash, not inherent evil of their own, turned out to be their undoing. After a while, they became a decent threat and rundown and yucky, but it was a nice character evolution. I liked it.
Menolly's parents were also good as far as ethical antagonists go. Sure, they made their daughter's life hell. But they did it in accordance with what they believed to be right, rather than doing it just for the sake of being evil. There are only so many times you can tell the story of someone evil being redeemed to good, though it's an old (and often lovely) story. It's far more interesting to get two mutually antagonistic parties, both on the side of good, talking to each other...
Character evolution good. Evil characters just for the sake of being utterly vile and evil ... no thanks. I can get that on the news if I want it.