[Zygomaticus]

Hey all,

We've often talked about elements that make a good hero (I think), but I was curious if we could now talk about (I don't remember this having been talked about before) the elements, features and characteristics that make a good villain.

I've always considered the villain (if not a physical living thing, at least a metaphorical presence) to be as important to a story as the hero. (I use "hero" loosely. What I really mean is "main character".) He/She/It is what stands in the way of the hero's ultimate goal and to put it bluntly, a walk-in-the-park story is rarely good.

So, I was wondering if you kind ladies and gentlemen, could share with me (I have some greater purpose here), what you feel are the elements, features, and characteristics that makes a good villain, bad guy, antihero, however you put it. Long answer, short answer, no answer ( ), they're all welcome.

[Zygomaticus]

Allow me to start.

*I noticed I've been saying (and will keep saying) "good" villain a lot. You know what I *really* mean, right? Good.

I've always felt that a good villain is one who causes not just the hero to be worried, uncertain, or afraid, but also the audience that should be rooting for that hero. Striking fear is often done in numerous ways: make the bad guy big, make him smart, make him powerful (an example of this would be Darth Vader. Who isn't afraid of him?). This is just another way of saying, make the hero the underdog in the grand scheme of things. If the hero is less powerful than the bad guy, you've already got something to worry about.

Another important characteristic, I feel, is the presence of a relatable opposing purpose. World domination, death to all, and destruction of everything are all too common, and somewhat abstract. If the audience has some reason to understand the bad guy's purpose, if there's a concrete reason behind the bad guy's purpose, it makes him so much more interesting, effective. Less pure evil (assuming pure evil is not always the goal while making a bad guy).

To be abrupt, I'll end now. I'll add more soon. Please share me with your thoughts

[Kingzjester]

A greatest villain is the moral relativist whose organization's hierarchy is highly horizontal. He does things to reach his goals, he doesn't propagate the status quo. He is not in any way good or bad, just relativistic. Much like Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber in Die Hard. I like that kind of villain because I can relate to him. The stereotypical good guy-bad guy story immediately becomes a tragedy born of latter's hubris.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

* The talent to wear a mantle of normality - he would be one of those you least suspect because he reminds you too much of everyone else.

* Recognition of others' strengths and weaknesses - manipulation of people's physical and psyhological attributes, often to the point of acknowledging to them their blindspots while at the same time undermining them. Building a bond of trust with the intent of betrayal.

* Ability to adapt - knowing his immediate environment in relation to his goals. Allowing for shifting logistics.

* Deceptiveness - fabrication of his own weaknesses to communicate to his intended victims that he is incapable of atrocious acts. Establishing a front of goodness and frailty.

* Logic in intelligence - his plan of action allows for multiple paths and unexpected consequences so that he can always have something to fall back on and still accomplish his mission. Dependence on the character of his victim, room for last minute changes, creative paths.

Hmmm, makes me wanna go back and read Machiavelli's The Prince again.

[Zygomaticus]

Thank you for your thoughtful answers, gentlemen. And thanks, Kingz, for the movie recommendation. I think I'll watch Die Hard next, then. I'm surprised I never saw it before...but I do agree, Alan Rickman's characters often ooze that which you describe him of having, if I understand you correctly.

And Intrepid, correct me if I'm wrong (or tell me if I'm oversimplifying what you said), but what you are saying is that he ought to be a formidable opponent, right? Nothing wrong with what you said, you put it perfectly. I'm just confirming, because it makes summarizical sense when I put it that way. Your description would cross out many of the big, bumbling, muscle-man bad guys out there, and I would agree if you said that they aren't always the greatest of bad guys. But wouldn't you agree if I said that often the opposite of characteristics like deception and normality make a good antagonist. Darth Vader, for example. Wouldn't you agree that he has other stuff going for him that makes him an effective villain?

[Kingzjester]

Iago is Trep's villain.

[mag]

I think there are a number of ways to make a good villain. The key thing is that something about the villain has to motivate the hero to carry on. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this.

Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII is one of the greatest villains of all time. He makes a great villain because he's a character you just love to hate. He makes you want to kill him. That's pretty much what keeps you going after the first disc.

Pyramid Head from Silent Hill 2 was another great villain. But rather than the hatred inspired by Sephiroth, Pyramid Head made you afraid. He's probably one of the scariest video game monsters ever devised. He's kind of mysterious too, which adds to the sense of fear surrounding him. They never come out and say exactly what he is.

Also, like you mentioned, the villain's goals are important. With really great villains you can follow their reasoning, and sometimes you can almost go along with it. The best example of this I can think of at the moment is Bester from the TV show Babylon 5. He has very real motivations for what he does, and when he explains it, even though you still know he's evil, you can see where he's coming from.

Of course, it's also important that the villain be capable enough to put up a fight. It can't be too easy for the hero to beat the villain, otherwise there is no point to the story. A lot of the time the villain represents the hero's Shadow, that part of the hero's personality that he or she is unwilling to face. So the villain forces the hero into a confrontation with that part of his or her personality, and the hero learns something about his/herself by fighting the villain.

mag

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Kode

And Intrepid, correct me if I'm wrong (or tell me if I'm oversimplifying what you said), but what you are saying is that he ought to be a formidable opponent, right? Nothing wrong with what you said, you put it perfectly. I'm just confirming, because it makes summarizical sense when I put it that way. Your description would cross out many of the big, bumbling, muscle-man bad guys out there, and I would agree if you said that they aren't always the greatest of bad guys. But wouldn't you agree if I said that often the opposite of characteristics like deception and normality make a good antagonist. Darth Vader, for example. Wouldn't you agree that he has other stuff going for him that makes him an effective villain?

What I had listed for you is my own personal, um....requirements of what would constitute a good villain (as per your question). But that doesn't necessarily mean those should be the only characteristics. It depends on what you're after. In my case, I find subtlety more interesting, intriguing, and ...... sexier. My Dr. Hannibal Lecter, Uncle Charlie, and Catherine in contrast to Kingz's Hans Gruber, who is also a formidable villain, just in other ways.

Darth Vader's an interesting example of villain complexity. In and of himself, he was good, ultimately. But he had been corrupted by the dark side, efficaciously transforming his 'goodness' into a weakness, his 'Achilles heel'. And it was what the good guy, our hero Luke Sky-twink, aimed for and successfully struck, thereby not only beating Vader but also giving him his redemption.

[Moron Lite]

For now, let me just say the LeChuck was a MUCH better villain in the first two Monkey Islands than in the last two.

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

For now, let me just say the LeChuck was a MUCH better villain in the first two Monkey Islands than in the last two.

Well, that's it. This thread has spun out of control. Somebody move it to the Adventure Forums.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Well, that's it. This thread has spun out of control. Somebody move it to the Adventure Forums.

Hurray! More posts for everybody!

[remixor]

One thing Tim mentioned at his GDC lecture was that the villian should be justifiable from a certain point of view (Kingz essentially touched on this). If you want to create a better bad guy, their motivations, however demented, should make sense. You (as the player, not necessarily as the character) should be able to understand where they're coming from, even if you don't agree with it.

[LeChimp]

An evil laugh always helps make a better villain.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Or knowing which vintage of Chianti complements a fine dinner.

[Moron Lite]

Originally Posted by Kode

(I have some greater purpose here)

What is it? Can I play the villain?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Can I play the damsel-in-this-dress?

[Moron Lite]

Less frivolously, now:

I guess I'd have to say that the stuff that makes a great villain for me are largely the same things that I think make a great hero. That is, character. Not sure how to describe it any better than that.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

Less frivolously...

What, you don't like this dress?

[Moron Lite]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What, you don't like this dress?

Honey, you're a mess.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Dammit, I knew I should have shopped at Barneys New York instead of Walmart.