# Making interesting villains



## AdrianBraysy (Nov 13, 2018)

In his book 'The Anatomy of Story', Truby writes the following:

"The key to good moral dialogue by the opponent is not to set him up as a straw man, an opponent who appears formidable but is really hollow. Never give your opponent an obviously weak argument. Give him the best, most compelling argument you can. Make sure he is right about some things. But also make sure there is a fatal flaw in his logic."

I have been thinking about this a lot, and it seems true. One thing that is difficult for many people, is that having ones worldview questioned can create genuine discomfort. Truly seeing the opponents side, is something even the best debaters can have a problem with at times.

I think there are two ways of making your villain believable.

First, make their side to the story compelling. In Crime and Punishment, Raskilnikov takes a very long time to argue with himself about the murder, before going through with it. In the manga Death Note, Light wants to rid the world of crime, something we can all apreciate as a motivation on some level.

The second way seems to be to make your villain relatable and understandable as a person. Instead of having a villain who for no reason goes "haha, I shall destroy the world now!", have them perhaps grow up in an environment, where all they see is injustice and corruption. In that world, there is not much room for good.

Thoughts on this? Have you ever struggled with making villains that feel real?


----------



## moderan (Nov 14, 2018)

There's no such thing as a villain in my things. There are only degrees of moral turpentine. People might pine for their lost innocence, but it isn't coming back.
I like best antagonists that think that they are on moral high ground (or are), or who have a justified cause. Much more grounds for complexity than standard black-and-white morality.


----------



## Smoppet (Nov 14, 2018)

The main villain in my manuscript is a libertine. Though he comes across as charming when with the protagonist (he dementedly loves her), I wrote him so that the reader would be shocked at what lengths he goes to satisfy his manias. From feedback several beta readers gave me, this made my manuscript a page-turner. I'm glad :'D I put a lot of love into crafting crazy characters. 

Sent from my SM-S120VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Hill.T.Manner (Nov 14, 2018)

When I write a villain I try to make sure there's enough back story to explain why he/she/it is the way they are. Otherwise, it comes across like you've just written in a hollow character who's only lot in life is to eventually be defeated. If you attach a level of humanity to them it makes it that much more liberating when they're finally defeated.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 14, 2018)

The villain should be defined by the premise, so once you have thought of a premise, the villain should be defined from there, as far as motive goes, but then maybe you need to add on how he/she changes as the story's execution goes along, if they change at all.


----------



## Tatami_Matt (Nov 14, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> "The key to good moral dialogue by the opponent is not to set him up as a straw man, an opponent who appears formidable but is really hollow. Never give your opponent an obviously weak argument. Give him the best, most compelling argument you can. Make sure he is right about some things. But also make sure there is a fatal flaw in his logic."



I think that's an excellent rule, but I'd argue it's best to even go one step further and make sure there _isnt _a fatal flaw in his logic. Rather than straw manning the villain, I think the goal should be to "steel man" him: to have his argument so solid and logical that it almost can't be contended with. In that scenario, the protagonist has a _real _fight on their hands.

I think the best villains are those who do have the logical high-ground, and sometimes the moral one, but are motivated not by the desire to do something right, but by their own twisted pathologies. Since Light from Death Note was mentioned, I'll use him as an example. In the first episode, and for the first few chapters, Light seems to be genuinely killing criminals out of an ideal to make the world a better place. I think most people would argue that, logically, that's a good move. Maybe morally, although I'd bet anyone who said it's morally correct wouldn't be so willing to pull the trigger themselves. But as the series goes on, we find out his _real motivation _is this deep-seeded God-Complex he has--his own inflated ego and undeserved sense of self importance. He's not righteous, and he isn't justice--he's a stupid little kid trying to make everything the way he wants it, and he's masking that truth behind the moral ideology of trying to make the world a better place. Same with Lelouche from Code Geass: he masks his own ego and need for revenge behind giving his sister a better world to live in. Now, both of those characters are the protagonists of their own stories, but nobody would argue they couldn't just as easily be villains. 

Conversely, Thanos in the most recent Avenger's movie is the opposite of this. He's got a plan that he thinks is the _only way _to ensure the survival of the universe, and he's convinced himself that he's right. However, he doesn't take any pleasure in the idea of murdering half the universe. He struggles with moral choices, clearly, throughout the film, and it's only because he's utterly brainwashed himself into thinking that his way is right that he's even a villain at all. It's why a lot of people raved about him as the antagonist--his point was, while maybe not entirely sympathetic, at least coldly and calculatingly logical--and it was an _unarguable _logic: half the universe gone, twice the resources for everyone. Murder half the people now, ensure a universe for the unborn people of the future. It makes sense--it's just abysmally morally incorrect.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 14, 2018)

You mean you typed all that out, mentioned Marvel movies... and ended with Thanos?

No mention at all of Erik Killmonger, Baron Zemo, or _ALL_ of the _Avengers from Captain America: Civil war_, at all?

Amateur. :razz: :devilish: :lol:




G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 14, 2018)

To me a villain either needs to intimidate me, or amuse me.
If I read the story and feel like I could kick that guy's ass then he wasn't a very good villain (unless he's a fun villain like Dennis Hopper in Waterworld.)

My last villain was a narcissist with a comb-over. Guess where I got my inspiration from.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 14, 2018)

I go the other way, I make my heroes far from perfect, not to the extent that they become villains.

You could go to the classics, Woman in White has a great villain, an aristocratic foreigner, the perfect qualification, or like Moriaty, always shadowy, in the background. That saves you having to do any description at all, just variations on 'mysterious'


----------



## Sir-KP (Nov 14, 2018)

Well, yeah, I agree. It's all about moral for me.

IMO a villain's moral doesn't always have to have a positive reason within its major flaws. They instead can be an obvious d*ckhead that their only purpose is to fulfill their own stomach, although of course the whole thing still has to be rational, such as what sparked the motive, what/who influenced them, how they can act like this, etc.

I mean, I have clear examples all over the domestic news  So, yeah... 

Anyway, I leave interesting or not to the readers. One of my friends is the type who likes that simple 'I'm bad cuz I'm bad' villain.


----------



## The Mutilator (Nov 15, 2018)

The great thing I've noticed about writing villains is that you can make them as complex or shallow as you want and still find ways to make them interesting, or at least entertaining. For example, the villain in a story I've written is a fanatical Catholic priest who becomes a vampire. Oh, and he keeps a cult of children that he fathered from many incestuous unions. So he's pretty nasty, but I'll admit he's one note as far as characters go. 

Point is, you don't always have to write shakespearian level villains, sometimes having a disgusting monster for it's own sake can work too from time to time.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 16, 2018)

Tatami_Matt said:


> I think that's an excellent rule, but I'd argue it's best to even go one step further and make sure there _isnt _a fatal flaw in his logic. Rather than straw manning the villain, I think the goal should be to "steel man" him: to have his argument so solid and logical that it almost can't be contended with. In that scenario, the protagonist has a _real _fight on their hands.



I completely agree.

The best antagonists (at least to me) are the ones with rock-solid arguments. The ones where you have a hard time deciding who you want to root for.

It doesn't always have to be black and white, villain versus hero. You can also have morally gray characters locked in opposition with each other, each with their own compelling motivations. :encouragement:


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Nov 16, 2018)

I'm kind of torn on this. I think "bad for the sake of bad" villains are a lot of fun, to read and to write. But it is true that villains who honestly believe they are right are much _scarier. _I guess it depends on what kind of story you're writing.


----------



## Someguyorwhateverwhocares (Nov 24, 2018)

My current 'villain' is literally doing his best to make the world a better place in the time he has, and since he's in a medieval fantasy world, has to kill people, usurp rulers and conquer lands in order to do so.

My protag is the one who brought him into the world, and becomes his enemy because he only sees the short term results of the 'villains' actions without understanding the reasoning or even caring to find out.

There is no good or bad, only circumstance and desire.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 24, 2018)

Villains, like all characters, are constructed for the reader much more by how other characters see them than by how they are described as an individual. You can give anyone a biography of your villain, but for them to come to life in the story as 'the villain', they have to matter to much more than just themselves.

To make my villains feel more fleshed out, more 'three-dimensional', I try to give multiplem perspectives on their villainy through multiple different characters, some major and some minor. I try to keep them as a regular point of discussion - a villain forgotten by the characters is a villain that the reader will forget too.

Most of all, I try to craft my villains in tandem with crafting my heroes, because they are linked by the narrative dynamic they partake in: the hero must want something, the villain must be some sort of obstacle they have to get past. The relationship between the hero and the villain is the most important thing to make 'real' for the reader, so I try to prioritize that above all other relationships when I'm working out what's going on in my stories.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 25, 2018)

Isn't the villains moral argument defined by the story's premise though?  It sounds like people are talking about their villains as if, they have already created some of the story already and haven't gotten around to the villain's moral argument yet.  But wouldn't the villain's moral argument be the first thing in the story you come up with?

For example, a while ago, I came up with a story premise about using time travel to make money.  So there's the villains motive right there, in the very idea for a story I thought up.

So I feel that the idea for the very premise of the story would normally be the moral argument, and not something you come up with later on, as some may think.  Unless I am wrong of course?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 25, 2018)

Has anybody else tried writing with the villain as the main protagonist (I won't call him the 'hero', but you see what I mean) ?  The only version I can think of in mainstream fiction is 'Lord of the Flies', or possibly 'The true history of the Kelly Gang'. I have a short story where the 'hero' works with the Mafia and commits a fairly gruesome murder, hanging the body up in the shower and slicing him up into small pieces for disposal, but he does it to get the girl he loves and to save his friend's mother. I don't see why villains shouldn't have reasonable motives, most people are not bad through and through any more than they are complete angels. As they see it they are doing what they have to to get by, so maybe a convincing or interesting villain is simply a convincing or interesting human being.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 25, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> Has anybody else tried writing with the villain as the main protagonist (I won't call him the 'hero', but you see what I mean) ?



Not for a whole book, I don't want to write or read that. But for a short story, yes, to explore those people. At the extreme, I have a horribly disgusting short about a man starting to molest his girlfriend's daughter while the girlfriend ignores what he's doing. So he's a horrible person, but he's a complicated character, and I try to make him 10-20% sympathetic.



> I'm trapped by my anger and lust. A woman I can use however I want. A maturing teenager with smooth skin who lets me touch her. How can I leave that? They imprison me here in their web of temptations and deception.



That's still disgusting, at least to me, but it's not drooling evilness.


----------



## Winston (Nov 25, 2018)

My "ideal" villain is strong physically and / or mentally.  And not morally weak, but "differently abled", so to speak.
I actually think the perfect villain was played by Neil Patrick Harris in "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog."  You don't have to get overly complex for the bad guy to be... er, good.  
Giving the villain just enough flaws (as well as the hero) makes for interesting stories.  
Unless you're re-writing the script for "Godzilla vs. Bambi".  Simplicity works well in short, very short stories.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 26, 2018)

If you wanna write some complex villains, then watch NARCOs  on Netflix.
The newest season focuses on Mexico.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 27, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> Thoughts on this? Have you ever struggled with making villains that feel real?



I got better at writing "villains" once I stopped thinking of them as such.

Instead, I think of them as characters with their own motivations—they simply happen to be in conflict with the protagonist. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong or "bad"—just an opposing force. :encouragement:


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 27, 2018)

Well said Kyle.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 27, 2018)

The antagonists in my piece aren't really villains, per se, so much as they are, well... politicians. *shrug*

...or at least that's what I modeled them on.



G.D.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 27, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> The antagonists in my piece aren't really villains, per se, so much as they are, well... politicians. *shrug*
> 
> ...or at least that's what I modeled them on.
> 
> ...



I don't understand, can you explain the difference?


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 27, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I don't understand, can you explain the difference?



Not in any meaningful way, no. 

I can tell you that when they start learning how to possess people... take over their bodies for their own purposes, that they choose those in Washington D.C. to start with, because they figure no one will notice any significant difference in their behavior.



G.D.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 27, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I got better at writing "villains" once I stopped thinking of them as such.
> 
> Instead, I think of them as characters with their own motivations—they simply happen to be in conflict with the protagonist. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong or "bad"—just an opposing force. :encouragement:



The sweet little old lady next door, who just happens to be physic,  her tea leaves this morning told her that you are a bad person.  You have not done anything bad yet, but you are going to, they will be terrible, and innocent people will die because of you.   She has decided that she has lived her life and has to do something, she is willing to sacrifice her life to eliminate you.   She invites you over for tea and cookies.  


Often one man's villain is another man's hero. 

There is no such thing as a bad guy, just ask one.   I have found that someone who does anything wrong can always justify why it is right.  I have yet to meet a man or woman who said, "I am a piece of shit, what I did was wrong."  

There is always a reason, always a justification for poor behavior. 

Sure the tea tastes a little like almonds, but she is such a sweet little old lady.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 28, 2018)

Plasticweld said:


> ...Sure the tea tastes a little like almonds, but she is such a sweet little old lady.




Arsenic and an old face?




G.D.

* I should add that I'm aware that it's cyanide that smells/tastes like almonds, and arsenic, when heated, like garlic. However, I didn't wanna ruin the rather twisted reference by being 100% accurate.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 28, 2018)

Plasticweld said:


> The sweet little old lady next door, who just happens to be physic,  her tea leaves this morning told her that you are a bad person.  You have not done anything bad yet, but you are going to, they will be terrible, and innocent people will die because of you.   She has decided that she has lived her life and has to do something, she is willing to sacrifice her life to eliminate you.   She invites you over for tea and cookies.
> 
> 
> Often one man's villain is another man's hero.
> ...



This is so true, right down to the shop lifter who tells you 'The shop's profits are too high', or the person in the speeding car who 'Was in a hurry' or thinks 'Speed limits are for bad drivers' and right up to the government leader who told us 'Abolishing slavery would impoverish the slave owners, or 'Getting rid of homosexuals and gypsies will improve the human race'. 
I always remember the young man who said "All the worst things people did to me as a kid, they told me it was for my own good'.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 28, 2018)

I've heard some whoppers. Leroy Despain used to complain about how cops violated his rights searching his car without PC.
"Mister Despain, you had a dead woman in your trunk."
"So, it wasn't right the way they did it!"

Actual conversation. He died of old age on death row in Florence.
He was also a model prisoner.


----------



## Newman (Nov 28, 2018)

It's the same as creating any interesting character, there's a solid belief behind them...

There's also a difference between an antagonist and a villain...


----------



## DocWrote (Dec 6, 2018)

In my opinion,* narcissists make the best villains.
*
This is because they are so self-absorbed and absolutely in love with themselves that it is very easy for them to commit a crime without an ounce of remorse. Most people with narcissistic tendencies have a *traumatic childhood that robs them off confidence and self-esteem.*

This lack of self-esteem forces them to push themselves hard to compensate that lands them in the dramatic opposite end of the spectrum - *the one with **high** degree of **self love**.*

These people show some very uncanny traits and characteristics and as a writer who wants to concoct stories with a believable villain, you should be aware of this list.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 6, 2018)

DocWrote said:


> In my opinion,* narcissists make the best villains.
> *
> This is because they are so self-absorbed and absolutely in love with themselves that it is very easy for them to commit a crime without an ounce of remorse. Most people with narcissistic tendencies have a *traumatic childhood that robs them off confidence and self-esteem.*
> 
> ...



What you are describing is more akin to psychopathy, which is related to NPD, but its not quite true that narcissists don't feel remorse or find it easy to commit crimes. Many do have morality and very few are criminals.

Most narcissists dont have a "have a traumatic childhood that robs them off confidence and self-esteem." Often it's actually the opposite - they come from high-achieving, empowering environments in which they are given too much confidence/self-esteem. The problem is that it manifests in materialistic ways that place more emphasis on competitive achievement than emotional development. 

But you're not necessarily wrong - narcissism is a broad spectrum. Additionally I feel psychopathy is pretty well-represented already in fiction, as is the typical "self-love" type of narcissism, which does not mean the OP should avoid having their villain be like that, however they may want to look at different angles than the old "dead inside" trope.

A really fantastic (and short!) video is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uJs0iGQN0M Dr. Ramani is a fantastic academic psychologist on this subject and explains four very different forms of narcissism, all of which could potentially be explored to craft compelling villains.


----------



## CyberWar (Dec 6, 2018)

Personally I think it's realism that makes a great villain. A well-written villain doesn't do evil things just so that he can twirl his proverbial mustache and cackle sinisterly about the misery he has caused. Instead, a villainous character should have a personality and motivations that the readers can associate with, or even sympathize with to a degree - one that could be better described as antagonist rather than villain.

A good example would be Inspector Javert from V. Hugo's _Les Miserables_, an antagonist who causes suffering by only doing his job, his only real flaw being obsessive punctuality. Even what one could describe as a properly-evil character does not necessarily have to be a demonic embodiment of absolute evil - for example, commandant Amon Goeth from _Schindler's List_. What makes Goeth a great villain is precisely his regular guy aspect, the one you see when he is not busy tormenting his prisoners and realize that there is more to him than just a sadistic tyrant corrupted by power.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 6, 2018)

CyberWar said:


> Personally I think it's realism that makes a great villain. A well-written villain doesn't do evil things just so that he can twirl his proverbial mustache and cackle sinisterly about the misery he has caused. Instead, a villainous character should have a personality and motivations that the readers can associate with, or even sympathize with to a degree - one that could be better described as antagonist rather than villain.
> 
> A good example would be Inspector Javert from V. Hugo's _Les Miserables_, an antagonist who causes suffering by only doing his job, his only real flaw being obsessive punctuality. Even what one could describe as a properly-evil character does not necessarily have to be a demonic embodiment of absolute evil - for example, commandant Amon Goeth from _Schindler's List_. What makes Goeth a great villain is precisely his regular guy aspect, the one you see when he is not busy tormenting his prisoners and realize that there is more to him than just a sadistic tyrant corrupted by power.



Amon Goeth really isn't a good example of how to create an effective antagonist for a novel, as Goeth is an actual historic figure. His 'regular guy aspect' wasn't a creation in a writer's mind. Spielberg had the luxury of researching documented evidence of Goeth's behavior and history. While an author could, and perhaps should, pattern their antagonist on the backgrounds and behaviors of real people, saying that Amon Goeth is an example of that is not accurate since he was, in fact, a real person not a fictional construct.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 6, 2018)

Goeth was not a regular guy- not in the movie, either. He shot a kid because he didn't get a stain out ( I don't know if that was real). No, Schindler was more the regular guy. Unless of course you think regular guys are homicidal sociopaths. 
So I think anger issues are a good trait. Anger is a great little instant motivator for horrible acts. It's also good for pre-meditated horrible acts. You did this to me, and I am therefor angry, so I am going to do this- very logical and easy for your reader to follow. 

Your racist guy there- that's a little more difficult to get, maybe. Like what's his motivation? How does he come to the conclusion that he needs to do whatever it is he does? Hitler had this whole manifesto- Jews as the enemy- the whatevers of Zion type stuff. I suppose he must've been personally hurt at one time? I don't know. Yer Ferdinand and Isabela had land grabbing as a motivator. Burn a Jew, get their land, which makes perfect sense. And then they had the religious justification aspect which absolved them, in the public. Which is similar to the angry guy- you made me mad, so that's why I did it. Those seem to be explanations for others that the perps can use to say to them (others)that it's okay what they did, but I don't think they need those for themselves- they would have done it anyway.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Dec 6, 2018)

CyberWar;2195040
A good example would be Inspector Javert from V. Hugo's [I said:
			
		

> Les Miserables[/I], an antagonist who causes suffering by only doing his job, his only real flaw being obsessive punctuality.



This is also a good example of a villain that creates good moral dialogue. I would say that Javert's greatest flaw is his belief that "once a criminal, always a criminal" - his inability to understand the grace of God and the capacity for change. He's the perfect villain for the story because his convictions are in direct opposition to the protagonist's.


----------



## CyberWar (Dec 6, 2018)

Kevin said:


> Goeth was not a regular guy- not in the movie, either. He shot a kid because he didn't get a stain out ( I don't know if that was real). No, Schindler was more the regular guy. Unless of course you think regular guys are homicidal sociopaths.
> So I think anger issues are a good trait. Anger is a great little instant motivator for horrible acts. It's also good for pre-meditated horrible acts. You did this to me, and I am therefor angry, so I am going to do this- very logical and easy for your reader to follow.
> 
> Your racist guy there- that's a little more difficult to get, maybe. Like what's his motivation? How does he come to the conclusion that he needs to do whatever it is he does? Hitler had this whole manifesto- Jews as the enemy- the whatevers of Zion type stuff. I suppose he must've been personally hurt at one time? I don't know. Yer Ferdinand and Isabela had land grabbing as a motivator. Burn a Jew, get their land, which makes perfect sense. And then they had the religious justification aspect which absolved them, in the public. Which is similar to the angry guy- you made me mad, so that's why I did it. Those seem to be explanations for others that the perps can use to say to them (others)that it's okay what they did, but I don't think they need those for themselves- they would have done it anyway.



There's a homicidal sociopath in every one of us - it's just that most of us never encounter the right circumstances to bring that sociopath out. The banality of evil is that Goeth and countless other men like him throughout history were in fact thoroughly ordinary men (for most part, at least), one could even say - boringly so. All it really takes to turn an ordinary guy into a sadistic killer is to give him power over another human being and reassure him that he will not be held accountable for anything he does to his charge.

Which I think is another great way to write a villain - to explore an ordinary man's gradual slide into corruption.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 6, 2018)

CyberWar said:


> There's a homicidal sociopath in every one of us - it's just that most of us never encounter the right circumstances to bring that sociopath out. The banality of evil is that Goeth and countless other men like him throughout history were in fact thoroughly ordinary men (for most part, at least), one could even say - boringly so. All it really takes to turn an ordinary guy into a sadistic killer is to give him power over another human being and reassure him that he will not be held accountable for anything he does to his charge.
> 
> Which I think is another great way to write a villain - to explore an ordinary man's gradual slide into corruption.



The thing is Goeth isn’t a good example of that because by all accounts he was never an “ordinary man” but an ideologue who joined the Nazis as a teenager long before they were in power and was almost certainly an anti Semite, radical and psychopath from the start.

If you want an example of a historical character who went from ordinary to villainous over a period of time due to corrupting influences, I think better examples would be somebody like Che Guevara. A man with unquestionably virtuous intent who nevertheless became involved or complicit in plenty of death and corruption in the name of what he saw as the greater good. There’s a genuine complexity to that sort of villain.


----------



## CyberWar (Dec 7, 2018)

I don't think Goeth was a true psychopath. With a few exceptions, most Nazis were ordinary men who had families they loved, men who would read their children bedtime stories and kiss their wives goodbye in the morning before going to work - to visit unspeakable atrocities upon other human beings. Perhaps I am mistaken about Amon Goeth in particular, but he certainly strikes me as this corrupted regular guy - a patriot and sincere believer in his cause who was gradually led from playing with the devil's toys to wielding his sword. The way that aspect is portrayed in _Schindler's List_ is what I find so great about that film - in fact, so much so that to me it is the deliciously-evil commandant rather than Oskar Schindler who turns the whole movie from just another depressing Holocaust sob-story into a masterpiece.

Perhaps Che Guevara would be a better real-world example of a well-meaning person gradually corrupted to villainy, but then again, his story is fundamentally not at all different from that of most Nazis. Extremism of all forms always finds fertile soil wherever there's despair, anger and privation, and all that was to be found in spades both in Weimar Republic and rural Latin America.


----------

