What makes a good villain?

[The One Called X]

This is something I only recently started to think about, since creating my own role-play.


I, myself, have never liked villains who are either too inexplicable, or overexplained. Some things have to just be inherent to a villain, and some things are the result of their backstory and environment. In short, I like my villains to be characters, not devices to create drama for the hero(es).


For example, the main antagonist I've created for this RP is a genuinely nice guy. He likes people, he cares about his friends, and he wants to make the world a better place. He could probably have been a hero if he just cared enough about people to not kill them horribly when they interfere with his plans; and if said plans did not involve doing the HND with his twin sister and then offing her when she's less than receptive to the idea.


So. What are your favorite types of villains to read and write about?

 

[Grey]

It just happens I covered this under the Antagonist tab in SYWTW.





I don't have a broad preference, personally. I think almost any villainous archetype can work, so I like them on an individual basis.


Ant-Man spoiler below.

Spoiler

Cross, from the recent Ant-Man film, turned out quite well despite the troubled production. Believable motive, affable personality, flawed. Shame they had to handwave the villainous part with 'Pym Particles make you crazy', but in the circumstances it was an efficient and acceptable way to explain his leap from daddy issues to patricidal revenge.

 

[The One Called X]

Hmmm, quite true. I guess I'm pretty similar- I tend to judge villains on a very individual basis- but I'm kinda trying to find the common thread throughout the various archetypes that makes them likable for myself and others.


Also, omgwaffles that is an awesome tutorial. S'stuff like that that reminds me why I love this site so much.

 

[Archie]

"“You may dispense with the pleasantries, commander. I am here to put you back on schedule”" - Darth Vader


"Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I’m not a schemer." - Joker


People like complex heros but simple villains, cause villains are bad so you need a line to empathize with them, and you can only relate to the ones which are this bad emotion or that one. Vader is the embodiment of obedience and Joker of chaos. Good villains aren't people but ideas.


That said their backgrounds are really complex, and at some point they're all heroes. Before Joker was abused and before Vader turned to the sith they were good people.


Heroes are complex in the making because they're still being made, and there's character development. I see villains as having already been made. So when so many people make villains who have tough backgrounds, they've got the right instinct. The goal is to make them as simple as possible through them simplifying their complicated lives, humans on one hand but on the other hand not really people. This is called the "banality of evil" and it's a pretty thoroughly worked on concept. Great villains are always sure of themselves because they've worked it all down to a simple idea, but great heroes have doubts.

 

[The One Called X]

@Archie That's a pretty interesting point you make. However, in that framework, where would the anti-villain or villain protagonist fit in?

 

[Archie]

@Archie[/URL] That's a pretty interesting point you make. However, in that framework, where would the anti-villain or villain protagonist fit in?

Hmmm good question, we can extrapolate


Hero: Tries to be good, has twists and turns and doubts, but is certain of his/her desire to help


Villain: Banal and cares only about 1 thing, absolutely sure of himself and that one thing


Anti-hero: Banal and cares only about one thing, but in the end strives towards good and has twists, turns, and doubts, and is certain of his/her desire to help


Anti-villain: Complex and tries to be good but ultimately only cares about one thing after thinking it through


I see anti-heroes and villains as people not really God's or the devil's yet that end up in the camp they're less likely to be in.


Some examples:


Fiction:


Hero: Luke Skywalker - wants to help, gets knocked around a lot, but never loses faith in good and continues until he makes it


Anti-hero: Holden Caulfield - really wants the world to be simple and doesn't care about his family except Phoebe, then realizes as he gets knocked around that it can't be that simple. Goes through treatment and accepts the help from the "phony" adults he's hated all his life, foreshadowing that he's going to live a better life after


Anti-villain: Stannis Baratheon - tries to be a good king and uphold the truth but gets knocked around by defeat after defeat. Eventually caves in and embodies entitlement - claiming what's yours no matter how many people will die


Villain: Vader, see above


RL:


Hero: Wilson - genuinely believed in his principles to end war forever, got rejected so much by Europeans but kept trying


Anti-hero: Tito - Soviet agent for a bit and cared only about becoming important from his low birth. Saw the tragedy of world war 2 and ethnic groups killing eachother, then firmly believed in the good through the vision of a country where all people could get along. Beat Germany by convincing the people of this vision, then became the "benevolent dictator" and made his paradise. Still had problems and ethnic revolts, but never lost faith in his idea of a paradise


Anti-villain: Nixon - loved his family, was hardworking, and deeply loved his wife. But no matter how high he rose, the elites and upper class kept sneering at him for his low birth. Originally, he only wanted to protect his family and fight for the common man. Eventually, he bent over and even though he had doubts, pursued achievement at all costs to get the respect of the rich. Used all those underhanded tactics to win a big landslide (that he didn't need since he only needed 50% to win) and would eventually be his downfall


Villain: Milosevic - Troubled youth, lost his parents to suicide and only wanted power so nobody would abandon him again, then pursued power for his own end. Deceived Serbs into thinking he was defending them, was a master manipulator, and held onto power at all costs.

 

[RedTimbre]

I love villains you end up rooting for. The one's you want to win: unfortunately this, more often than not, is due to shitty writing on the hero's part. I've begun to suspect that there's something more palatable about creating a believable villain than there is about making a likable hero.


Heroes always seem so contrived. They harbor some inner fantasy of being a martyr - even if their humble beginnings are laced with fear and doubt - and the very nature of their existence is rife with predictability. Basically, every story with a villain and a hero can be summed up by:


"Good guy beats bad guy /scene."


There seems to an epidemic of hollow, unlikable heroes in most genres. They are constantly growing, but it's only because they somehow always manage to be just as good as they need to be for the story to continue. The only thing I really like about R.R. Martin is how he isn't afraid to kill off a main character, and how - for the most part - the main "hero" is left a mystery for so long. I like a villain who can crush the lives of multiple "heroes" because that's what makes him a villain.


The guy ringing you up at 7/11 could be a jerk who kicks his dog and harbors thoughts of mass genocide: but, he's not your villain simply through the virtue of the fact that he poses no real threat. Villains who are constantly foiled and never have their plans come to fruition are just boring. They should be power houses capable of doing more damage than the amount of "good" a hero can do.


I want a staggering intellect and a thorough assault on pragmatism that makes you stop and think, "oh shit, maybe he has a point." Because human beings are all ugly animals at their core. We cannot sustain our own existence without taking the life of something else - be it plant or animal. We have very basic needs: shelter, food, and reproduction. The villain is the man whose own imagination and will to twist the fabric of our existence into something else cannot be suppressed. A hero is just a tool used to maintain the status quo.


Heroes are boring: it takes a villain to bring a story into existence in the first place.

 

[Sunchance]

I think villains need a good motivation - something that makes sense, rather than just "I'm evil because I'm evil!" I'm very tired of seeing villains who are evil just for the sake of having an antagonist - I think it's important to make a relatable villain, or at least one that makes sense.

 

[Cross]

To me, a villain is someone skilled, he probably has a personal connection to the protagonist, and all his actions make sense in context so that readers can guess at his motivations.


It's important that the villain is in some way superior, mentally or physically, to the protagonist. Or both. The best villains are highly skilled and able to get by even after their plans are foiled. They excel at something the main character isn't as talented at. Brains over brawn. Emotional manipulation. Super powers. He's a master of something.


Personally, I like villains who have some twisted connection to the hero. The Darth Vader to the hero's Luke Skywalker. Bring me your disillusioned best friends, your jerkass older brothers, your ex-girlfriends, shitty dads, ect. I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.


Lastly is the motivation. Whether the villain is an asshat trying to rescue the world in his own twisted way, or a jerkwad only in it for the money is a huge deal. The more realistic the better. A villain doesn't have to be evil, he just does morally wrong things.

 

[RedTimbre]

[QUOTE="Cross_Rhodes]he just does morally wrong things.

[/QUOTE]
This is a point of contention if you don't accept divine command theory, since it's a pile of garbage to begin with.

 

[Grey]

While I agree that moral absolutism is largely nonsense, I imagine Rhodes meant to encompass ethical compromise in that statement - since few people make the distinction.

 

[Cross]

Yup, thanks for translating Grey. A moral grey area is more interesting to me than black and white absolutes. Sometimes all choices are equally complicated. It just depends on the POV.

 

[AlexSilverX]

To me, a good villain needs to believe - to some capacity - that what he's doing is good or, failing that, fun. It can be something as silly as "The world would be boring without a bit of chaos" for an 'agent of chaos' type or "I'll show you all just how evil the real world is" in an 'antichrist' type, but they have to have a motivation that sticks, drives, and is - even in their own twisted view - justified.


A villain who does it "for the evulz" is just a tryhard when the cards fall down and a villain who's not driven is... well, dull.


But that's my opinion and I'm sure even I could think of examples that contradict this if I thought hard enough.


The bare minimum for a "good" villain however is this; they have to have an established personality, they need a motivation, and they need to - this is the most important part, though the other two cannot be ignored either - ACTUALLY POSE A THREAT TO THE HEROES.

 

[kou]

I love playing villains mainly because they are so flexible and a bit more intriguing, I happen to believe that you don't have to necessarily be a villain to be a villain.


Bear with me.


Often the most harmful thing is protecting someone by harming them, it is a common theme we see in media or books that exploit this affectionate nature of someone to the extent that they'll do anything to protect the one they love..including causing harm to others to maintain that security. Most would say that this obsessive behavior could eventually worsen the situation and playing a character whom happens to have darker motivations or reasons can possibly spring from them once being the good guy. A villain doesn't have to dress like you'd expect, they don't have to sit in darkened rooms and plot their revenge, and they certainly don't have to have a troubled past. A villain could be anyone to be honest if we were to loosen our perspective, I am sure it was possibly stated but a character who has conflicted morals can often be the basis for a possible bad guy. I think the most intriguing villains are the people who seem like they're the most respectful mainly due to their unpredictability, if this person is unnervingly calm then it can be hard to tell whether they're just humoring a certain person or they are merely mindful of their manners.


Don't get me wrong, the destructive characters bring a lot of dynamic to the roleplay but it is always the quiet ones which really seem to get under your skin. I don't actually bring the question of sanity into a villain seeing as everyone has different views on it, insanity can breed knowledge at times and I find that it is comforting to create a self-aware villain who knows what they are and what they're doing. An oblivious baddie can be worse but God is it pleasing to use the ones who know what the hell they're doing. I always end up cheering for the villain rather than the hero because heroes are a bit...chaotic as well. They want peace however they destroy to get it, maiming and injuring those who would appear to be a threat and reducing many to nothing in their superiority complex. At least we know that a villain is able to encase this idea and say "fuck it, I'll destroy anything because I want to and not because I'm doing it for mankind's benefit." I suppose this is merely my take on it but the point is, anyone can be a villain and it depends on how you take that and twist it to your will.

 

[Idea]

An antagonist is someone who is against the protagonist`s goals. Therefore a good antagonist is someone who is against the protagonist`s goals in an interestin yet believable way.


Of course, in rp, everyone and no one is the protagonist. For that reason, a good villan in an rp would be one whose goal are against the general moral compass and ideals in a both interesting and believable way. There has to be a direct clash in the way of thinking that leads into acts that would normally seem wrong make sense to the villan.


"A good villan thinks he`s the hero of his own story"-Howard Tayler, in the "Writing Excuses" podcast


This is what makes believable: No matter what, nobody does anything thy think of as "wrong". A good villan will always consider he/she is doing the right thing, even if there are some minor doubts. In other circumstances, your villan would have been the hero.


A good villan will also not be reduced to comic relief, and is as much of a character as any other. In fact, more than other characters, he will have to carve h way into a reader`s heart, and that can be done through proactivity (being active in the story, always working to achieve his goals even if he fails), through sympathy (tragic backstories, general good behavior and intentions, etc...) or competence (being a really cool person, with tons of skill or amazing powers)


So, to summarize, a good villan:


*Has a way of thinking that clashes with the general school of thought


*Always thinks he/she is doing the right thing


*Is proactive, sympathetic and/or competent


Now, the villans I like to rp, are those whose motives are associated with philosophical matters and those who have gone crazy. Those with philosophical matters as a motivation are always hanging onto questions that can`t be answered conclusively. Even if there is a mistake in how they see things, it`s gonna be hard to dismiss their conclusions, which leads to leaving one wondering if what they are doing is really that wrong. To leave someone who is predisposed to side against on the edge of joining you is definitely sign of a good villan motivation, which can play out in many ways.


As for crazy villans, it`s more of a matter of personaly preference than the first motive. Crazy villans are chaotic, unpredictable and have the "ultimate" justification for essentially whatever I have them do: they`re crazy. I also to picture it in my head, particularly fight scenes and such, which I find very entertaining with this kinds of villans *evil grin*

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

Is making a villain really that much different than making a hero? Just like the hero, they have goals, aspirations, hopes, dreams. The only thing that sets them apart is that their actions and ideals are morally reprehensible. Villains don't fit into a "civilized" society unless they are actually able to manipulate the entire society into viewing morally reprehensible acts as acceptable, or if they live and uphold the values of a society with degraded values, e.g. O’Brien in 1984.


Villains require effort and development just like any other character. I don't think they have to be likeable, or sympathetic (though often they are). They just have to be interesting. And the way to make them interesting is to give them depth.


For example, the success of Heath Ledger's Joker had a lot to do with him personally developing the character and gaining an understanding of the character's nuances. He actually kept a journal where he would write the Joker's thoughts and spent hours practicing the villain's speech and mannerisms.


There's no instant formula to make the perfect villain. Writing is work, and writing a good villain takes practice.