Bad Guys

[MacPhoenix]

To all writers; amateur - pros. How does one nightmare up the, "The being who would be Emperor" in one's own little yarn?

P.S . This is a beginner's outreach for guidance. Go easy.

P.P.S. First blog/forum as well.

[hallowedthings]

Care to expand a bit?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the being who would be emperor. Do you mean it in a general sense (something that's going to rise and rule) or are you referring to a specific trope? (Googled it but couldn't find anything) xD

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

One way is to make them absolutely and utterly convinced that they are right and working for a good end.

Another is to make them alien enough that they can sincerely believe something utterly appalling and regard your heroes being more conventionally heroic as an appalling thing in turn.

Example off the top of my head; think of fish, laying thousands of eggs and relying on statistics to have enough survive to the next generation.  Imagine fish becoming sentient, and getting technology enough to have communities and drive off predators and so on.  If they're to survive without population explosion and starvation, they'll have to take over culling the vast majority of their offspring themselves.  So you end up with your fish emperor absolutely unshakable in a belief that they know to their core is right, that it's your moral duty to kill most of your children.  Humans who have relatively few children and take care of them will seem utterly vile, disgusting and depraved to that fish emperor.

[MacPhoenix]

I was just using the emperor reference
to point out the creation of a great villain for a story.

[MacPhoenix]

Thank you neurovore for your reply that was helpful.
I didn't really know where to start off even creating a villain.
All I brought forth was just an antithesis to my hero, but that does not
give a villain his/her/its black soul. 

[Paynesgrey]

That alone becomes a matter of taste or style.  A villain with a black soul is simple enough... Profound Narcisisstic Personality Disorder + Unrestricted Power, and you've got Joe Stalin or any of a number of other historical monsters for models.  And a truely loathsome villain has a great deal of story potential, if that's what you really have your heart set on.

But as Neuro pointed out, a villain who thinks they're serving a greater good has a great deal more potential in terms of engaging the reader.  They're more difficult to pull off, but usually more rewarding.  Fidelus from the Codex Alera books is a fine example.  Vic Mackee from the Shield... you alternately want to buy him a beer, and give him two shots behind the ear when he turns around and does something bastardly. 

A villain who's downright likable created a greater emotional impact when they do something that's shitty, but in character.  You can up the reader's emotional investment in his decisions... "Please don't do that, please, please, OH YOU BASTARD!"

A weak-willed antagonist is another possibility.  Londo Mollari from Babylon 5... You could really sympathize with him, get to like him even... so when he would choose selfishly despite his conscience, it had a greater impact on the viewer than "a bastard being a bastard" because he wasn't just screwing people over, he was throwing away his own potential. 

[OZ]

A good way to create your villain is to try to create the story (for yourself, it doesn't have to be the story you want to publish) from the villain's point of view. Why are they the way they are? Are they crazy? Did horrific things happen to them as a child? Did they want to do right but were overcome by rage, despair, jealousy, etc. Were they (as Neuro said so well) raised in ways that we would find monstrous but to them are normal (for humans this is sometimes found in the idea of complete entitlement by those of wealth or nobility. It can also be found by those that feel that the rules only apply to those of wealth or nobility.) Do they have a goal that is simply different from that of the protagonist? The idea of the good of the many vs the good of the few (for example) can be spun from either side to create a story where both sides are striving for what they believe is right.
  If your villiain has no story, no reason for his or her actions, then they just become a two dimensional caricature. Realizing that the villain has a perspective beyond serving as a foil for the hero often opens the story up and helps it move forward.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

That alone becomes a matter of taste or style.  A villain with a black soul is simple enough... Profound Narcisisstic Personality Disorder + Unrestricted Power, and you've got Joe Stalin or any of a number of other historical monsters for models.

One thing worth noting, that I think a lot of writers recoil from on first consideration for fear of it looking like a shallow moustache-twirling caricature and then don't go back to later on, is that real-world narcissists quite often don't identify as the heroes of their own lives from their own perspectives, but consciously choose to be villains to demonstrate their perceived superiority over everyone else; I've known a couple in passing (ye shall know them by their trail of devastated relatives, former romantic partners and friends many of whom had been beguiled into thinking they were the specific person who could make a positive difference) and that's a mindset I can totally see lasting for a villain with capacity to do harm at a larger scale.

That's not the only defined personality disorder that makes for a good villain, though.  The DSM is a very useful research resource.  For example, in Homestuck (potential spoilers for characters introduced in Act 5 which you might not want if you have not read Homestuck but plan to)

(click to show/hide)

Vriska is a perfect depiction of borderline personality disorder, and does some terrible things but in ways such that that fandom has ongoing massive arguments over whether she is actually ultimately villainous or sympathetic, which is an impressive accomplishment for a writer; Eridan is a textbook-perfect depiction of what clinical sociopaths are actually like, whereas post-freakout Gamzee is a very nice parody of movie-cliche psychopaths playing up how that's not like either of the above.

A villain who's downright likable created a greater emotional impact when they do something that's shitty, but in character.

Agreed, consistency and coherency of character is everything; villains and heroes alike work better if they have flaws that fit with their virtues and virtues that fit with their flaws.

A weak-willed antagonist is another possibility.  Londo Mollari from Babylon 5... You could really sympathize with him, get to like him even... so when he would choose selfishly despite his conscience, it had a greater impact on the viewer than "a bastard being a bastard" because he wasn't just screwing people over, he was throwing away his own potential.

Londo's arc over the whole series is a wonderful example of carefully controlling audience sympathy across a range of different degrees of sympathetic, and all the more impressive considering how many extra-textual factors forced JMS to adapt his story into a shape that wasn't the original plan.

[Ulfgeir]

And if you have villains who are doing things just to be villains (and they know that they are the villains), then make sure they are right bastards, and ham it up.  A good example would be Mr Croup & Mr Vandermar from Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere.

Depending on the setting, certain types of indivuduals will be more suited to be villains. For example in a cyberpunk-setting, you would expect people to be like a caricature of Donald Trump or the Borgias (amoral, greedy, powerful). But also remember, that who the villain is depends on your viewpoint. So in the same setting you might have agitators working as terrorists that threaten the utopia vs the greedy members of the illuminati that runs the world... Make sure they are consistant though.

/Ulfgeir

[The Deposed King]

---snip---

Londo's arc over the whole series is a wonderful example of carefully controlling audience sympathy across a range of different degrees of sympathetic, and all the more impressive considering how many extra-textual factors forced JMS to adapt his story into a shape that wasn't the original plan.

I think Londo is one of those characters who's will power, sympathetic nature (or not) and motivations could be argued over for at least a half hour.

I mean at heart he was a patriot of the Centauri Republic with a 'dream' of his people returning to their former place in galactic society.  He wanted to view himself as a 'good' person, especially in the beginning.  But two factors were always in the way.  His patriotism for the Centauri Republic and the modus operandi of the Centauri Republic which was crawl over the corpses of your internal enemies to get to the top.

So when the rubber hit the road and it was, Do what he knew was the Right Thing or Do the Right Thing (at the time) for the Centauri Republic and his position within said Republic.  Or do the Right Thing or Help Maintain his Position or even advance it within the Centauri Republic...

On the other hand he was willing to Sacrifice just about anyone and anything including a massive betrayal of the Shadows (which no one else in their right mind was willing to contemplate because they'd wind up dead) he didn't even blink.

He was in short a Patriot and like many or even most Patriot Fighters the lengths to which he was willing to go...

The rest of the time he was a typical politician or diplomat, do the best he could and claim as much credit as possible.  Or do what was right and keep anyone from knowing because it would hurt his credentials.  But whenever it came down to helping others or the Centauri Republic he kicked everyone else to the curb.



The Deposed King

[MacPhoenix]

Agreed, consistency and coherency of character is everything; villains and heroes alike work better if they have flaws that fit with their virtues and virtues that fit with their flaws.

I  think I see what you mean. Correct me if I have missed it. For example, Artemis Entreri from R. A. Salvatore's novels never had real relationships in any meaningful way so he becomes self reliable. However, he beholds other's relationships as weakness to be exploited.


This is great people keep it coming   

[Paynesgrey]

I really need to do a proper rewatch of B-5.  A fine example of layered story-telling.  Subtle themes and arcs, running along withing and below the surface.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

And if you have villains who are doing things just to be villains (and they know that they are the villains), then make sure they are right bastards, and ham it up.  A good example would be Mr Croup & Mr Vandermar from Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere.

I think they're a bit too self-aware and moustache-twirling to work, actually.  Real right bastards who know they are and glory in it come out more like, oh, Subby and Goss in China Mieville's Kraken.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I  think I see what you mean. Correct me if I have missed it. For example, Artemis Entreri from R. A. Salvatore's novels never had real relationships in any meaningful way so he becomes self reliable. However, he beholds other's relationships as weakness to be exploited.

I don't know the book in question but that description sounds like a good example of what i had in mind.

[MacPhoenix]

So you all would say the real issue with villains is not so much originality as there ability to affect the audience's emotions?