What makes a good villain in your book of villainy?

[Gold Vanguard]

What makes a good antagonist in your book? I say for one...

1.Reason:Every villain has a reason for there actions. And when they do it should be justified. If a bad guy is going to rule the world or destroy something then they need a reason to do so. If there evil just because they can then thats......well I have no problem with this but it makes the villain less realistic and gives little character development(Most of the time.). But a villain can still be badass without reason.(EX: Ganondorf from the Legend of Zelda series.)

2.Sympathy:" Oh no, the bad guy caused world hunger,killed alot of people,and kicked a puppy!!" "No worriers the heroes have save the day and defeated the bad guy!!" But in the end even with all the bad things they done, you sorta feel sorry for them. All they ever wanted was attention since there parents never loved them. You get the point, if you can feel sympathy for them even with all that they done then the writers did something right.(EX:Sephiorth from FF7,Gigas from Earthbound,Lyon from FE8.)

3.Likeable villan: Ok this guy is a douche but at the same time I respect him for his actions and such he's a nice douche, but he's still a douche.If you still like them no matter what they do or how low they go then thats a good thing(Sorta...kinda...maybe(EX: Hades from Kid Icarus uprising.)

Your thoughts. Also 3 may or may not be associated with 2.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Gold Knight

[PKL]

They must be:

1. FURIOUS!

2. OUTRAGED!!

3. SICK WITH ANGER!!!

that is all.

[Rewjeo]

I want to care when something happens to them. Maybe I'm sad when they die because of their tragic circumstances or maybe I just really, really want them to die because they're a sadistic psychopath, but as long as I care, that's good in my book. The more I care, the better.

[Ciarre]

I definitely agree with your first point. A good reason not only helps the plot, but also helps the reader/player/watcher see why they're doing this, why they're opposing the protagonist, etc.

1. If actually completely evil: Genre savvy. Lethal. Gets shit done. Is actually capable of killing off/seriously maiming the heroes. I like villains that can actually do things with competence, whether they want to or not. Also, I like charismatic and honorable villains. Not like doing stupid things in the name of honor, but they have some sort of moral code regardless. Even completely evil people don't have to go around killing everything.

2. Sympathetic villains are nice and those types of characters tend to be my favorites. They might oppose the protagonist, but their morals aren't evil and tend to be similar to the protagonists' own motivations and all. They're usually tragic characters and it divides you on who to really "root" for. I like character development and change in these types of characters, because if they're really sympathetic, then they have lots of room for change. (for the better or worse)

Edited July 25, 2012 by CR-S01

[cyron]

is totally evil no remorse no mercy etc.

a reason/backstory

make inteligent decisions, is competent, charismatic

Edited July 26, 2012 by Cyron

[StevehWonder]

Makes me question the actions of the protagonist and ensures that there is no clear line drawn between good and evil

[Celice]

I've I can have empathy for the person, I'd consider it a good villain. But any fun character is fine for me, too.

[tenkiforecast]

It depends on what type of villain is desired by the writers. In which case, let's take a look at what can be done by citing examples, both good and bad.

THERE BE SPOILERS ABOUND

1. Black and White Morality.

Examples: Final Fantasy VI, Fire Emblem 4 Gen 2

In this style, the game is relatively simple. You have a clear villain and a clear hero with distinct moral separations. In this type of story, the villain is generally the "curb-stomping Kittens" type. My favorite example of this is Kefka from Final Fantasy VI. Kefka is a completely amoral psychopath with no remorse or conscience. He brainwashes and enslaves a young girl, has her kill off about 50 of his own soldiers, sets Figaro Castle on fire, poisons the river that feeds Doma, kills his emperor, slays the gods, becomes god, smites cities across the world 'cause he can, and rants about life and emotions being a joke. Kefka is also dressed up like an insane clown. Why is Kefka so effective as a villain? Not only does he have quirks (demanding his soldiers to scrub out his boots or spouting non-sequiturs before World of Ruin), but he accomplishes his goals with absolutely no mercy. He doesn't have a reason except more power, and astonishingly he works as a character because he lacks a reason. Kefka is pretty similar to the Comic Book version of the Joker in that sense--no real purpose, just doing whatever he desires.

As a poor example, I would cite the second half of FE4. It's accepted by almost everyone on this board that the second generation of FE4 has a weak story. This is both because of boring heroes and boring major villains. Note, Ishtar and Alvis are not counted in this analysis, as they are more anti-villains (that is to say, have shades of gray and hints of remorse) in this part of the story. No, the villains here are Manfroy and Julius/Yurius. Manfroy's goal is obvious, and he works as a villain. He abducts Diadora, he leads a hidden cult and plays Alvis, Leptor, Langobolt, and their descendants as puppets in his hand. What about Loptous himself, Yurius? ... Nothing. We know nothing about him, only that he's evil, orders child sacrifice, and hates Narga. Evidently he is in a relationship with Ishtar, but as FE4 presents it, I always read it as one-sided and Yurius was playing her as his pawn. He just shows up, "Hi I'm Loptous's incarnation, remember him? He was a bad man, so I'm a bad man." Even boring heroes can be saved by an interesting or entertaining villain--see Exdeath and Gilgamesh from Final Fantasy V, but in the second gen, there is just nothing there. It hurts even more because the most interesting villain at this point, Manfroy, shows up to abduct Julia/Yuria at Ch. 10 and has some dialogue in the Final Chapter. Nothing else. It takes the urgency out of it... especially because it shifts to Thracia for Chapter 8/9, and make it more interesting because Trabant also works as a pseudo-antihero.

2. Gray and Gray Morality

Examples: Metal Gear Solid 3, Final Fantasy XII

Gray and Gray morality is hard to pull off well. Primarily because people want to play as the hero, they want to play as the "good guy" most of the time. Part of this type of game is that the hero is not ideal, and neither is the villain. Citing FE4 again, Alvis, Ishtar, and Trabant would fall under this veil of "gray" villains. They have emotions, they have regrets, and their actions are taken to fulfill their desires. Even if their actions lead them to do horrific acts of violence or betrayal.

One of the best depictions of this is Metal Gear Solid 3, centering around The Boss. Volgin, no, he's a curb-stomp kittens type of villain. The Boss is much more of a personal villain and threat to Snake than Volgin. As a result, her defection to the USSR at the beginning, the constant struggle Snake has dealing with her (even with The Boss just toying with Snake), and the revelation of her past make her as interesting a character as anyone in the franchise. Furthermore, her actions were carried out on the orders of the US government. She does not want to carry them out, but does so anyway. Snake has been manipulated the entire time into killing his mentor. The Boss works as a very sympathetic villain because of her motivations.

Contrast this with FFXII. What is Vayne even trying to do? He kills his father, becomes the new Emperor, overthrows the elected Senate, is partially responsible for the destruction of Nabudis, so he can break Ivalice away from the meddling Occuria. ... This could have been done without patricide and destroying an elected office. He cares for Larsa--okay, but just caring for your younger brother doesn't excuse his crimes, even if it is to 'save' Ivalice. FFXII has many, many writing fumbles, and Vayne is one of them. Unless you look into his actions, his motivations are extremely unclear. It does not help that it ties into the shoehorned in Occuria plot, taking what could have been an interesting idea of a country trying to regain independence into something that is suddenly on a gigantic scale. It feels awkward, it feels forced, and it feels like the writers had to throw *something* into Vayne's character to make him more sympathetic.

Another type that can be pulled off well (and how to derail the villains completely in one case...)

The Cosmic Horror Villains, or just Eldritch abominations.

One of the series that *always* has these types of villains is the Shin Megami Tensei franchise. The final boss is always some sort of Cosmic Horror, Eldritch abomination, or a physical manifestation of a God. SMT and the Persona series range across every type of mythology. Four examples are Nyx (Greek Mythos) in Persona 3, Izanami (Japanese Mythos) in Persona 4, Lucifer in SMT: Nocturne, and Yahweh in SMT2. These types of villains (yes, the Judeo-Christian God is the villain in SMT2) have their own morality or their own reason for existing. Nyx is formed as the manifestation of Humanity's destructive instincts, and can only be beaten by being sealed away. Izanami acts out of spite towards Izanagi, following Japanese Mythos and the events of Persona 4 are her way of giving her former husband the middle finger. Lucifer in SMT Nocturne is preparing a disgustingly-powerful new Demon to lead the fight against God, and Yahweh in SMT 2 is end humanity except for a select few because they were disobedient. All of the SMT games use the 'non-human' aspect of these characters brilliantly because they do not ACT human. This is the key with this type of character--they are not human, they (mostly, Nyx is weird) consider themselves above other intelligent life, and treat them as disposable pawns.

How do you completely mess this up? ... I introduce you to Bioware and Mass Effect 3's gigantic mess of an ending, and the Reapers.

What did the Mass Effect series do right up until that point with the Reapers? They were something beyond normal comprehension. They were absurdly powerful, they had abilities far beyond anything constructed by contemporary intelligent life, and treated all forms of life as beneath them. This includes synthetic life (the Geth are seen as a nuisance). The Reapers do not explain their goals or reasons because they feel no need or desire. Their abilities do make them akin to the Cthulhu mythos than any other sort of cosmic horror story. How do you screw this up?

By making them subservient to something, weaker, a pawn in something else's plan, or by trivializing them. Of *all* the things wrong with Mass Effect 3's ending, making the reapers pawns in something else's game was the most offensive. These creatures that are pretty damn close to Lovecraftian horror are now...tools. ... That's how this is screwed up royally.

Edited July 25, 2012 by tenkiforecast

[Loki Laufeyson]

I like my villains charismatic. Hes gotta be able to win people over to his diabolical cause. Hes gotta make me think about siding with him when im reading/watching/playing/etc a story.

Hes gotta be awesome. Like, competent and able. Sitting around on a chair going "hey you go do this...im too busy sitting here" is annoying and a bad villain. I wanna see him in action.

If he is just made to be an unsympathetic nasty customer, give him a sense of humor.

Character development. Having a villain change his perspective (and maybe do his conquering for a different reason than originally planned) makes for an interesting character as a whole.

Has a weakness. Im not really talking about "kryptonite" style weaknesses but more like an Achilles' Heel in terms of personality and emotion.

[Sunwoo]

I like villains who are not just straight-up evil just for the sake of being evil. I don't believe that anyone is ever born evil, and that nature affects the way we turn out. While I definitely don't think that a poor upbringing is an excuse for being a villain and spreading death and destruction, it makes the character seem more "human".

I thought Ashera in FE10 was an interesting villain because she was different. She wasn't an evil deity who did stuff just because she was evil. Heck, she was worshipped by the people of Tellius. Her viewpoint is interesting because she is half of Tellius' creator goddess and she did make a pact with the three heroes. But she also abandoned her world for almost 800 years, so therefore isn't it technically "not her world"? I guess I don't like simple "right or wrong" villains, but complex ones who really make you think.

[Shotguner159]

They actually pose a threat, an don't get weaker and less competent as time passes.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Shotguner159

[Emeraldfox]

Well, gee, Iunno. I'll just list a few villians I felt something with/for.

Dio Brando - In the first part of the Jojo Manga. He made me angry, mad and just plain annoyed. He made Johnathan's life awful by doing various things, no spoilers gosh. I was happy when he died. But then he came back and died again. I was just as happy.

Souther - Fist of the North Star/Hokuto no Ken. Well, I felt bad for the main villians. But I felt really bad for Souther, but he was cool enough to be my favorite antagonist/villian. No spoilers

Bowser - Super Mario Bros. He does the same thing over and over again and he doesn't mind at all. He's sometimes silly, but he's also serious.

Gosh iunno. Whatever qualities those three have are what makes me like, or hate, a villian/antagonist.

[Gold Vanguard]

Well, gee, Iunno. I'll just list a few villians I felt something with/for.

Dio Brando - In the first part of the Jojo Manga. He made me angry, mad and just plain annoyed. He made Johnathan's life awful by doing various things, no spoilers gosh. I was happy when he died. But then he came back and died again. I was just as happy.

Souther - Fist of the North Star/Hokuto no Ken. Well, I felt bad for the main villians. But I felt really bad for Souther, but he was cool enough to be my favorite antagonist/villian. No spoilers

Bowser - Super Mario Bros. He does the same thing over and over again and he doesn't mind at all. He's sometimes silly, but he's also serious.

Gosh iunno. Whatever qualities those three have are what makes me like, or hate, a villian/antagonist.

Di Brando: Viillian that you hate and is glad when they die.

Souther: Gosh I love that do...um anyways Sympathy like character.

Bowser: A villian that seems the most human. Even if he fails he won't give up and will not stop until he reaches it.

[tenkiforecast]

Di Brando: Viillian that you hate and is glad when they die.

Souther: Gosh I love that do...um anyways Sympathy like character.

Bowser: A villian that seems the most human. Even if he fails he won't give up and will not stop until he reaches it.

I kind of feel sad whenever any incarnation of Dio Brando dies because... they are just so much fun to read. I'm sorry, Dio is one of the most enjoyable things about Jojo's Bizarre Adventure because he is so completely psychotic but also extremely charismatic. This charisma and psychosis is matched only by his Genre Savvy-ness. Seeing a villain know what they are doing and how to mess with the protagonist is so much fun to watch.

See Chapter... 92 of Steel Ball Run for some of the glories of Dio Brando with "The World" Attacks that can pierce through any material until they hit flesh? Use fangirls as shields. ... Dio is so much fun.

[I don't play for turns]

Three villain's work for me, strangely being nothing alike.

1. The sadistic psychopath who has clearly gone insane and is very powerful. The most ambitious son-of-a-gun you've ever met. Completely evil, cares about nothing, but usually started off either normal/good and somehow got corrupted (Lyon in Eirika's story, Hardin in FE12) or started off always a bit malevolent and were just driven to evil (Gharnef) The exception to this rule is Hitler

2. The honorable villain, loyal to the cause, somewhat justified actions, just has one world-view that's off, or serves the wrong master, or something like that. Usually charismatic or stoic, whichever one they prefer. (Black Knight) They usually have a reason for actions.

3. This last one is sort of a combination of the first two. Usually emotionless, wronged into questioning what is good and what is bad, lacks human emotions, stuff like that. Still evil, but not without purpose. (Nergal, Ashera, Zephiel)

Edited July 26, 2012 by I don't play for turns

[Phoenix Wright]

I enjoy two kinds of villains:

1. Those that are traditional; static characters who are simply cartoonish in their evil actions. I think this kind of villain is for humorous effects (advisor Yzma in Emperor's New Groove, as a now-obscure example).

2. Fully fleshed-out villains; round characters that are villains for a reason (Prince Zuko before the last few episodes in The Last Airbender).

[Zanarkin]

I really like the type of villains who control everything from the shadows, and everybody thinks its somebody else's doing until the end were everyone finds out that the bad guy was somebody everybody thought was failry harmless. An example would be the villain in FE10.

I also like the type of crazy villain such as the joker and Kefka. Plus the villain that wasn't really a villain and wanted to do something good, just he never told anyone. Like Weiss.

Edited July 26, 2012 by SlayerX

[Phoenix Wright]

I really like the type of villains who control everything from the shadows, and everybody thinks its somebody else's doing until the end were everyone finds out that the bad guy was somebody everybody thought was failry harmless. An example would be the villain in FE10.

I also like the type of crazy villain such as the joker and Kefka. Plus the villain that wasn't really a villain and wanted to do something good, just he never told anyone. Like Weiss.

Ashera? I believe her motives became quite clear to everyone in that game...she didn't try to hide herself at all haha.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

Three things?

1. Be a character. A character has motives, and logic behind their actions that should hopefully push them towards their motive. Being bad with no personal motivation/no logic behind their actions is lame.

2. None of this consistently super-competent/incompetent business. Villains exist as an opposite of the heroes. A super-competent/incompetent hero is no fun to read, and I feel villains should follow the same rules.

3. I don't like villains who are made to look much better/worse than the average good guy, unless there's a damn good story reason for it. Yes, GBA FE, I'm looking at you and your generic bandit bosses.

One of my favorite villains is Kuja, because. . .

He has his own agenda, and doesn't let things like his former master get in his way. However, he's not mindlessly evil; he keeps his hands off of Hilda, for one. His actions are explained through his past (doesn't meant they're excusable, but it's more than "because rawr"). Sometimes, things go right, like the destruction of Alexander. Othertimes, they go awry, like his capture of the party at the Desert Palace. He's the best-looking dude in the game, IMO, but he's not miles better-looking that Zidane. In the end, he gets his way. Twice.

[Ein]

Kuja is the best looking dude in FF9?

Sure............?

Hell if I know. Some antagonists can be good, others can be bad. Just depends how they are presented in whatever they appear because sometimes it's just stupid due to bad writing/story/presentation. Or something. So yeah. Writing decent antagonists kinda depends on the entirety of the material that makes them as such.

[Parrhesia]

2.Sympathy:

3.Likeable villan:

While I agree these are both important to a degree, please don't make it so that they're actually more sympathetic characters than your protagonists...

[Ein]

While I agree these are both important to a degree, please don't make it so that they're actually more sympathetic characters than your protagonists...

Unless that's what the writer(s) are going for.

And I think they did that in Metal Gear Solid 3. I think...

Edited July 26, 2012 by Ein Silver Rose

[Parrhesia]

Well yeah, I guess. But if you do it accidentally, that's just sloppy and usually fatal to the reader having any real engagement to the story.

[Zanarkin]

Ashera? I believe her motives became quite clear to everyone in that game...she didn't try to hide herself at all haha.

I meant Sephiran... I didn't feel like putting spoilers for that eventhough by this point everybody knows.

[PK Gaming]

They need to have lots of charisma, devilishly intelligent, powerful, manipulative and truly evil. Megatron from beast wars (don't laugh) is the ideal villain for me. He's always in control of the situation, is the smartest character in the series (Tarantulus is a genius yes, but some of his actions are downright stupid) and is ruthlessly powerful. Charisma makes him interesting (instead of being a dull boring villain) and he'll even crack a joke or smile in specific circumstances.