On Villains (Part One)

 For my first little rant, I'll use the subject of villains. It's an easy enough subject, villains are all too often abused, misused, and poorly characterized in storytelling. Let's start with what I think is probably the worst offense...



I. The First Goal of Writing Villains: Opposition

Villains often seem to have a problem with characterization. While (Thankfully) the "I am a villain because I am evil." cardboard cutout is rare outside of children's stories and bad fantasy novels, villains often suffer from the weakest characterization in stories. This is not a good thing. While it is certainly tempting to spend the least amount of time on the character who is not the protagonist or the hero, it is important to pay attention to the villain's character. Normally, after all, the villain is the second most important character in a story, it is the conflict between the hero and the villain that drives the story. If the villain is poorly characterized, the hero's victory over him (Or defeat by him, depending on the story) lacks any sort of push. Even if it was a struggle, at the end of the day, the hero just defeated a cardboard cutout.

It's easier to explain this with a few examples from modern media. Let's go with something like the first Assassin's Creed game. The first game displays good villain characterization, whatever the quality of the other elements of the story. I'll stray away from commenting on the terribly characterized second game.

In the first game, the game shows what it takes to make a good villain with each of it's assassination targets. The first goal is to turn your audience against them, or else they're not a villain in their eyes. This is usually the easiest part, the one that few storytellers seem to mess up on. A common method is to show them doing something unsympathetic. It is important to not overdo this, lest they come off as cartoonishly evil instead of as a serious threat. In the first Assassin's Creed game, to continue with my example, this is done with Garnier De Naplouse, the Knight Hospitallier, by having him order his crusader goons to break a patient's legs so he can't run away.

The first goal is comparatively easily. Violence against the innocent or at least those who don't deserve it, unnecessarily harsh punishment or rule, or a callous attitude to the loss of human life all work, though that is by no means an exhaustive list. It is important, however, to have something of that nature happen. If you fail to successfully pull off this first goal, then you fall into the trap of having the villain the villain for no other reason than the hero opposes him. This either means that your villain is poorly characterized, and you run into the aforementioned problem of having his actions carry little weight, or his status as a villain is called into question. Your readers will start to question whose side they should be on, particularly if your hero has shades of gray. Now, if this is what you're going for, by all means, do so. There's nothing wrong with a story with just protagonists and antagonists instead of heroes and villains, but don't try to sell a villain as evil simply because the hero opposes him.

II. The Second Goal of Writing Villains: Motive

The second goal in villain characterization is to give him motive, to turn him from a one-dimensional villain into a more human figure. This is where some stories run into trouble. Oftentimes a simplistic motive, such as power or revenge, is chosen. There is nothing wrong with these motives when done well. If the villain is out for power, have him actually be out for power. Have him fight and conquer, cheat and backstab, but don't use it as a catch-all excuse. Being out for power does not automatically mean heartless mass-murderer, keep the villain's goals in mind at all times.

Don't have him catapult children for shits and giggles, random wanton cruelty is not his motivation. If you must have him catapult children (Quick way to #1), explain why, and have him reflect on the decision. Perhaps the children are from a town he's sieging and he wants to speed up their surrender. Perhaps he views it as a necessary evil, or perhaps he's simply become callous to the kind of suffering that effective methods of intimidation often create. Perhaps he views the children as a possible (Future) threat to his rule, and thus just as guilty as the soldiers defending the town, though that reasoning would likely sap even more sympathy from him. Maybe he even views actually catapulting the children as going too far, as crossing his own personal line for cruelty and violence. Villains are characters, they too have limits, or at least should have.

Returning to my original example, in the first Assassin's Creed with the Knight Hospitallier assassination, Garnier explains his motivations quite well. He believed that his experiments on the helpless patients is helping them in the long run, he believed that his patients were better off than they were when he took them. He was, first and foremost, a doctor, a healer, a man who believed in helping those under his care. Whether or not he actually did help them, or whether his methods were necessary is another story entirely, of course, but the presence of benevolent motives and cruel but in-character actions allow the character to be understood and sympathetic while still being unsavory enough to turn the audience against him.


To be continued