What do you think makes a good villian?

[marche45]

Alot of people like villians that are pure evil,which i get because its very gratifying when said villian finally loses.However,i perfer villians that are actually people.Ones that are wrong,but not by much(Like say,magneto.)

So what does the escapist think?

 

[Elfgore]

I'm a big fan of the pure-evil villain that just wants to burn the world. But they really don't make good villains, they just make awesome ones. *cough The Joker *cough

I would have to go with you're choice. I always prefer the villain who wants something good, Magneto and mutant rights is a good example, but go about it the wrong way. I would say that very few people are born truly evil and when narratives show that in their villains it makes them all the better. Most villains turn to darker methods to achieve their goals because they believe all hope is lost and violence is the only way to make people listen. Adds a huge bit of realism to narratives.

 

[marche45]

Probably shouldn't have posted this so late at night

I'm a big fan of the pure-evil villain that just wants to burn the world. But they really don't make good villains, they just make awesome ones. *cough The Joker *cough

This is one of the few times where it works,but its because of he is the antithesis of batman. So i guess it also depends on who the hero is.

 

[Greg White]

While I'm a fan of evil villains, it's when they do retarded stuff just for the sake of being evil(see most comic book villains who'll steal a cart of cakes for no reason) that they turn into a joke.

They either need a motivation of some sort to drive them to evil or else just be completely insane(see Kefka and the Joker) to explain things. A criminal mastermind with billions to his name stealing cakes though? That level of 'lol, evil' is just retarded.

 

[Malbourne]

Villains who have a reason, a legitimate one, to do what they do become easier to identify with, and that's when the audience fears them! Because they see a part of themselves in that villain, the viewers can not only sympathize with their cause but also put themselves in the villain's shoes. These are the villains I think are the most fascinating.

That said, I love villains who just act evil for evil's sake. Even then, they still show how an individual behaves at the extreme fringes of humanity, so they can still be identifiable to a degree. That also said, bad writing of a villain can usually spell death for the audience's interest. If you wanna go for a hammy villain, you might as well go all the way with it. It's obvious when a villain is written as a plot device, and that wasted potential makes me cry a little inside.

 

[Silvanus]

Initially, I was going to say it comes down to motivation, and our ability to sympathise (if not with the methods, at least with the backstory). Two-Face, Shylock (arguably too sympathetic to count), Magneto, Roy Batty (Do Androids Dream/ Blade Runner) are all good examples here.


But then I thought of so many counter-examples (Roose Bolton, Wienis and The Mule from Foundation, Steerpike from Gormenghast, Croup & Vandemar from Neverwhere, Annie Wilkes) that I backtracked.


...In fact, one of my favourite villains cannot even said to have a "motivation" in any human sense: HAL 9000, who may be acting solely from programming and (according to the second book) the AI equivalent of a mental illness. So, now I'm leaning towards it being primarily down to writing rather than shared traits between the characters.

 

[iseko]

a "good" "villain". Strange... (sorry, could not help myself)

OT: You've got three types for me
1) He just wants to see the world burn. Because... well just because (dze joker)
2) The instance where good is a point of view. The villain wants to commit genocide because his wife and children were raped and killed on vacation (for example). The villain wants righteous revenge. Eventhough he is wrong you can understand him
3) This one is harder to defend but... I like it when the villain knows that he is doing evil for his own benefit. I don't know if you've seen "house of cards" by any chance. Frank underwood (played by kevin spacey) pretty much knows he is doing evil things. He does them for the sake of power and personal benefit. He is the protagonist but also the villain in a way. You can't justify what he is doing but still... Good fucking show.

All three of the described villains can fall flat on their face offcourse. It all depends on context and the actor. But those three can be very entertaining for me (if done right).

 

[Shymer]

I think many of the same features I look for in a protagonist, I look for in an antagonist. They should be interesting, perhaps astereotypical. The must have some kind of objective, which they pursue against all opposition. The hero must oppose the enemy and actually present some kind of challenge, which the enemy must raise the stakes to overcome. The enemy ought to be fallible, even if they appear infallible to begin with.

HAL9000 is a good case. Astereotypical at the time, implacable and ubiquitous and in total control - seemingly perfect enemy with a strong objective that has raised the stakes to life-and-death. Compare with Ash in Alien. Or the Alien themselves.

I prefer intelligent adversaries who collaborate, take feedback and innovate, rather than monomaniacal bad-guys who have anger-management issues and don't listen to good advice.

 

[Ubiquitous Duck]

Probably shouldn't have posted this so late at night

I'm a big fan of the pure-evil villain that just wants to burn the world. But they really don't make good villains, they just make awesome ones. *cough The Joker *cough

This is one of the few times where it works,but its because of he is the antithesis of batman. So i guess it also depends on who the hero is.

If he is clinically insane, can you really call him 'pure-evil' or is he a personality formed from an unknown past? Maybe once he was normal, but I'm pretty sure DC have always left his early years as more of a grey area and not approached it.

I don't think he is as cut and dry as just 'pure-evil'.

OT: Pure-evil tends to suggest that there wasn't really a lot of character development and is more of the enemy in simple action films, to give an easy enemy and, as you said, a joyous outcome upon their defeat.

That's the way I see it more often, is that if you don't go into detail, then they can much easier be seen as evil. This would naturally mean a less fleshed out story and, normally, a less interesting one, consequentially.

 

[Queen Michael]

Being the Riddler. That's what makes a good villain, and while the Riddler pulls it off, few others do.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I like villains based on their entertainment value alone, sure you have all the balanced villains who were good to start with and went off the rails somewhere down the road. Then you have BlazBlue's Hazama. AKA the best villain ever created.

Honestly, a Japanese version of The Joker as many people like to call him doesn't do him justice. He lives to troll people and I mean that literally, he outright ceases to exist if people stop hating his fucking guts. It helps that he really enjoys doing it too.

 

[blue heartless]

A good villain should be awe inspiring to the effect that when push comes to shove s/he must absolutely believe that s/he is 100% the hero. I always have a soft spot for men and women who climb to powerful stages in their lives simply to stem the horrible feeling of inadequacy and lonesomeness that is so obviously eating away at their humanity.

 

[Mangod]

The most compelling villains, at least as far as I'm concerned, have a few things in common:

1) They have a clear and obvious motivation for what they are doing; be it revenge, greed, hubris or simple psychosis, they all have a clear reason for what they do.

2) They are intelligent; as has been mentioned above, Lex Luthor stealing 40 cakes just because is not compelling unless you're supposedly writing a comedy. And if that's the case, then the villain can be as petty, stupid and prone to exaggerate every slight against him to ridiculous heights (They said my coat looked silly?! They shall pay for this transgression!) But in a serious piece, the villain should only commit crimes if they actively benefit him. And trust me, those cakes would be a lot cheeper if he'd just bought them.
* Addendum: The villain is not above helping the hero if doing so should prove beneficial enough to outweigh any backlash from his fellow criminals. Especially if his own involvement can be kept secret, or else construed as having been involuntery.

3) They are a legit threat to the hero in some fashion. The villain might be stronger than the hero, forcing our protagonist to rely on brains rather than brawn to carry the day. The villain might be much smarter, putting the hero in a situation where he has to think outside the box or call for aid because the villain has taken precautions against anything the hero would logically do.

4) The villain, even if he is intelligent, still suffers from some fatal flaw: unbridled hubris; insatiable greed; consuming rage. The villain has some form of major flaw that the hero can generally tap to overcome him in some way.
* Addendum: A villain who recognizes his own flaws and seeks to overcome them in some way is made all the more compelling because he's shown to be both selfaware and smart enough to recognize his own shortcomings.

5) The villain is not just a villain; he has a life outside of defeating the hero. Maybe he even hangs out with the other villains on poker night (BtAS: Almost Got 'Im) when he's not busy running an imports shop to sell both legit and stolen goods in between hiring mercenaries to take out a rival, or commit a heist, or publicly sabotage the mayors chances of getting re-elected.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I prefer villains who at least have a motivation for what they're doing. Oh, and I prefer my villains to be not stupidly-overpowered and always winning.

 

[Weaver]

To me the best villains believe what they're doing is good, or at least that the ends justify the means. Nox from Wakfu or Ozymandias from Watchmen personify these types of villains in my eyes.

 

[theboombody]

Knowing your evil plan is wrong to yourself and others, knowing it will harm you and condemn you, and knowing you have no chance of success, but still doing your best to carry it out. Also knowing that you'd be much happier doing something else, but still not giving up your evil plans for your own pleasure.

To sum up, causing the misery of others must be your sole purpose, more than your own success, image, or pleasure. That's what I was like when I was promoting G-rated Shock Value.

 

[Nathaniel Grey]

Pure Evil all the way. I put the two types of villains you named into two categories:

Pure Evil and Righteous Evil are two different animals. A great comparison is Joker and Magneto respectfully. Joker enjoys causing chaos, pandemonium, and loss of human life. His thoughts aren't necessarily rational to anyone but himself and he is fine with that. Joker does not care whether is actions are considered just or unjust as long as he himself is satisfied. We the reader/viewer are NOT supposed to sympathize with Joker. This is why we rarely see stories that pertain to the Joker's origin (When we do, we rarely care). Joker can not be reformed simply because he savors doing what he does to such an unsurmountable degree. Which makes him such a great character since his personality type is so unusual. Magneto believes that what he is doing is RIGHT. This is the key difference between Pure evil and Righteous Evil. The observer is allowed to sympathize with the villain and decide for himself whether he agrees with his/her actions. So in a way it is up to the observer to decide whether the "villain" is really the villain at all. This, for me at least, leads to problems because the line between good and bad becomes very blurry here. Characters hop from one side of the fence to the other constantly (Naruto's: Pain/Obito). Also good guys can become the bad guys in order to further a good cause(Watchmen: Ozymandias/ Code Geass: Lelouch). I like my bad guys to be pick a side. Do what your gonna do but don't be wishy washy.

 

[senordesol]

A 'good' villain, eh?

Intelligent without being too arrogant.: The most tedious villains are those who think they know (or somehow magically know) everything. You know the ones: where the heroes have obviously thwarted them at every turn and yet 'everything is going according to plan'. Think the bad guy from Skyfall. In order for his plan to work, so many things he had no control over had to go right and yet -down to the second- everything worked out for him. You think he'd just pick the Lotto numbers if he could see the future so clearly.

Dangerous but in a grounded fashion.: The Emperor didn't lightsaber battle Luke in RotJ as well he shouldn't have as it would've ruined his mystique. What made the Emperor so cool and intimidating was that his command of the Force was so complete that he didn't *need* a lightsaber. It was genuinely shocking (NPI) when he started blasting Luke with lightning because (at the time) we had no notion he could do that; but it still made perfect sense within the context of his character. It is tiresome to see villains who are both criminal masterminds and Kung-Fu masters; but some element of danger -particularly unexpected ones- are welcome.

A clear goal: Mystery for mystery's sake is boring. While it's okay to have a villain's goals be unclear until the very end when his masterstroke is revealed (i.e.: Ozymandias), just having him be all "wooo, you'll never guess what I'm planning" is stupid. Either make his goal (and plan to execute that goal) clean and clear, or sprinkle the plot with hints toward the end goal that we can try to piece together before the climax.

An ability to adapt to changing realities: "Hey, Liam Neeson keeps killing all of our goons, what should we do?" "Throw more goons at him, you fool!" One of the best scenes in Aliens is when the Xenomorphs out-think the turret gambit. The Xenos had no way of knowing that the guns were almost out of ammo (even if they are capable of grasping such a concept) but they DID figure out that tossing bodies in front of the guns wasn't working. Instead, they found a way into the vents and literally got the drop on our heroes.

An relatable point : We don't have to agree with the villain's goals, but we should at least understand why he wants them. "Because I'm just sooo evil" is tough to make relatable. Zuko, from The Last Airbender, is a fantastic relatable villain as his singular goal is all-consuming for him to the point where it emotionally destroys him.