The Anatomy Of Evil: What Makes a Good Villain?
I’ve been watching some of my old Stargate: SG1 episodes during the last week, and (as often happens) some of the commentary (in the season 9 extras) sparked an interesting question.
The discussion was about the relative merits of Apophis, Baal, and Anubis as villains. This in turn connected in my head with a discussion that I had with my co-GM in our Pulp campaign about a villain created for a future plotline.
Power Level
Obviously, a great villain is not one that can be easily defeated by the PCs. But how far in the other direction should villains go – and what is best? My first superhero campaign featured a villain who was so powerful that initially, the PCs could not stand in his way. As they gained in experience, and hatched plots and plans to even the scales a little, they reached the point where they could baulk him occasionally, and even score the occasional minor victory. As they became greater threates to him, so he began to actively target them and their interferance, and the clashes between the two forces became more personal. Ultimately, they did not defeat him; they found a way in which both could have what they wanted, and began a process that ultimately left him a great character within the campaign mythology, but no longer a great villain.
Nevertheless, in comparison to many of the villains that followed, he was a far better villain than most. The players actually cared about their character’s interactions with him.
Those other villains were a mixed bag – some more powerful, some less – but none of them really captured the player’s hearts as an antagonist to the same extent as the original villain.
I can only conclude from this that power level is, in general, irrelevant to the question of whether or not a foe is a Great villain. So long as the Villain is strong enough to pose a threat, to achieve the objective that he is working toward – in other words, so long as he is credible – power level has nothing more to do with the question.
Variety of Interaction
One of the hallmarks of that first villain was there were a number of modes of interaction with the PCs. He could threaten one week and be a reluctant ally the week after. The same is true of most of the really great villains from comics – Magneto and Doctor Doom. The Flash and Batman both had great rogues’ galleries – in comparison, most of Superman’s were a little lame (at least until the revision of Lex Luthor in the late 80s/early 90s).
They weren’t one-note songs, they had some element that imbued them with a greater variety of ways in which they could interact with the team.
And yet, for every example that I can point to, I can also point to a counter-example in which the results were just… insipid. And as yet, I havn’t quite been able to put my finger on what caused that difference – hence this rumination.
Black Heartedness
I can also point to a number of villains who were (comparatively speaking) one-trick ponies and yet were great villains, in the process undermining everything that I wrote in the previous section. Ultron, for example, or Dracula, or Dormammu, or C. Montgomery Burns. They all have that ‘something extra’ that elevates them above being a mere enemy.
So perhaps it is better to suggest that a Great Villain always has ‘something extra’ that can be a depth of character, or can be an intensity of Malevolence (Ultron, Darth Vader) or Nobility (Dormammu) or Style (Count Dracula), or unstoppability (any Terminator) or even intellectual fascination (The Borg); and that the villain never does anything to interfere with that “something extra”, or if he does, that it does not become canonic to that character. Deathstroke the Terminator was great when he was using Terra to infiltrate the New Teen Titans, but was slowly watered down over subsequent appearances in the comic until he became ho-hum.
The Obsessed & The Cool
But that’s not enough. If it were, obsessed villains would automatically win “greatest villain” surveys all the time. And they don’t; some of the “obsessed villains” that have appeared here and there over the years have been truly cringe-inducing. The flaw in this line of reasoning is that making a villain obsessed has the consequence of holding that villains’ Greatness hostage to The Cause. It’s not even about how much the audiance in question – the players and GM – agree or disagree with The Cause, it’s more a function of how much the cause interferes with the Villain’s Coolness.
Depth Of Personality
So it’s all well and good to give your villains depth of personality, but that’s not enough to make a great villain. You can make Gods of your villains in comparison with the PCs, or make them of roughly equal power – but neither will guarantee a great villain.
The key word, in many ways, was used in the last sentance of the previous section. Some villains are Cool and do nothing to interfere with that Coolness. Avoid that mistake, and you can do just about anything with them – make them antiheros or give them complex psychological profiles or sympathetic urges or whatever.
A verification: The Floronic Man
This is a character from DC Comics who started off being an obsessed lunatic who transforms himself into a plant. Although competantly drawn, the concept should be enough to make you cringe.
And then he was used in a key role during a turning point in The Swamp Thing, in The Anatomy Lesson (issue #21) in such a way that he became really, seriously, cool. Not especially creepy, not especially obsessed, not especially deranged – more like the Hannibal Lector of Plants – icy cold and calm, completely unfeeling.
In the next issue of Swamp Thing, the character’s obsessions began to get in the way of the coolness. He became a featured character in the year’s Mega-epic, Millennium, in which he went way beyond the cringeworthiness that he started with and became dull and tiresome and boring – rather like Millennium itself, really – and every appearance since has simply watered down the Cool.
From Humdrum to Ascendance to Abysmal and beyond. That’s some career.
Evolution
I’m not entirely sure I’ve actually managed to contribute anything much to this subject, despite my best efforts and intentions. The best that I have managed is to define a great villain as a character with some indescribable “X-factor” – that can be different from one villain to another – with which he never interferes. Tricky to do if you are never sure what it is that you aren’t supposed to be messing with!
The fear and uncertainty that the last point engenders can lead you to keep the character monotone and unchanging – and that’s a big mistake. Another common characteristic of great villains is that they are always Fresh in some way – they change and evolve, they just don’t mess with the X-factor.
Ullar-Omega – a recent example
I’ve written before about the big finish of the most recent Superhero Campaign, in “A Grand Conclusion: Thinking About A Big Finish”. At the heart of that scenario was a revelation concerning the nature of the villain around which the entire campaign had been centred (even when it didn’t seem to be). This character started off as a Superman ripoff – the last member of his race, whose home galaxy had been destroyed by his father to prevent his people being corrupted and destroyed (elements of Sauron here) by a race of Moral Invaders who had a weapon that induced depression in others. This was all known by the players (and their characters) from the beginning of the campaign; they also knew that in their native timeline, the character had become a self-sacrificing and idealistic, humanistic, hero; while in this alternate timeline, he had arrived on Earth a decade later and had become an obsessed, ruthless, subversive, villain. Along the way, they discovered his motives and worldview; there were occasions when he was the villain of the peice, and occasions on which he was a (semi-)trusted ally. He even became the Godfather of the daughter of one of the PCs, a child which he helped deliver.
In the course of the final scenario, the players learned that neither incarnation of the character had been left untouched by the Depression Ray of his race’s enemies, and were driven by Survivor’s Guilt as a result – people who searched for a cause important enough for them to sacrifice their life in achieving, and then achieving it (if necessary at the cost of that life). This unified the two characters into different sides of the coin and put the entire campaign – which had the submerged theme throughout of “Obsession” – into context. And it suddenly revealed to the players the X-factor that had made the character Cool – the fact that (in his own mind) he was behaving heroically, sacrificing himself in a vain effort of achieving an ideal that could never exist in the real world. It was this Pathos of Superman-Gone-Wrong that had lain at the heart of the character concept from his very first appearance, and which had made the character Cool enough to be the central figure around which the entire campaign had been woven. Everything that the character had done – both good and bad – was consistant with this new perception of the character – it explained everything.
So how did I come to “get it right” with this character? Well, I had a couple of advantages; I already knew (from appearances of the Heroic version) that the character was Cool, and I already had the central concept at the heart of his personality. When I started thinking about events and revelations that occured in the previous campaign, and realised how the character would have reacted to them without the occurance of some key events that had transfigured his goals in his previous incarnation, the entire concept and theme of the new campaign became aparrant. As a result, I had figured out what made the character “Cool”, and that it would enable him to be a Great Villain just as easily as it would a Great Hero.
I already knew what made him cool, and so was able to ensure that I never messed with that. Outside of that one restriction, I was able to do anything I wanted with the character, and the players could take the campaign anywhere they wanted it to go. Ultimately, there would be a conclusion of some sort, one way or the other, when all the above would come out; but the ingredients weren’t even concieved of when the campaign started.
A practical approach
It’s a sure bet – at some point in a campaign, you’ll create a character to oppose the PCs, and the Players will react to that character more positively than usual. You will have created a potentially Great villain.
Watch For The Signs
So the first requirement of a practical approach is to make sure that you can recognise the signs when this occurs. Things to watch out for are the players talking about the villain during breaks, speculating about the villain, etc. Another clue is to observe the intensity of the interaction between the players (in the guise of their charactes) and the Villain – it will definitely lift a notch. Side-conversations will be less prevalent, with the players paying more attention, and having more fun than usual. The final sign will be that you find it easier than usual to step into character, and it will be fun for you to roleplay.
Identify The Cool
Here’s the trickiest bit – identifying what it is about the character that has produced this reaction. It might be a gimmick, or a circumstance, or a tone, or a piece of characterisation, or a concept, or any one of a dozen other things. The most practical approach is to list everything that it might be; it will usually be something that can be described in just a few words.
Then try imagining the character in a variety of modes of interaction that work with the character as he was. One by one, try varying each item on your list; if you lose that ease of roleplay and that sense of enjoyment, circle that item on the list; otherwise, cross it out.
Anything that is circled is potentially the X-factor for that character, something not to interfere with, something to be reinforced if possible (without going too far and taking it over the top unless that’s part of the charm). Anything that is crossed off is fair game – at least at this point.
Next, find ways to involve the character a second time in the campaign, taking care not to make any lasting changes, and using them in a slightly different way to their first appearance. Bring them back from the dead somehow if you have to! If the players still react the same way, you havn’t messed with the magic; if the character falls flat, then go back to where the character was before you made that last change for their next appearance, and make sure that the area you changed is marked “do not disturb” in the future.
After a while, either by talking with the players or by putting yourself in their shoes, you will figure out what the X-factor is. And then you’re set!
- The Anatomy Of Evil: What Makes a Good Villain?
- Making a Great Villain Part 1 of 3 – The Mastermind
- Making a Great Villain Part 2 of 3 – The Combat Monster
- Making a Great Villain Part 3 of 3 – the Character Villain
- The Scariest Villain
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
In my opinion the X-Factor of a great villain is something you mention yourself. Make sure that their goals are always intertwined with the players. It doesn’t always have to be opposite or equal, as long as they are somehow related it creates both conflict and a bond (for good or ill) with the Villain.
I also had to find this out by trial and error, until I realised the unifying cause between the successful and unsuccessful villains.
Oh yeah! Just creating a goal specifically (He’s going to destroy the world! Stop him!) to get them involved doesn’t usually work, best to introduce it gradually into the goals the players already have.
Jonathan Delahaye recently posted..General Discussions • Re- Delicious gaming news!
September 2nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
@Jonathon: At one point I had that very suggestion in the article as my conclusion – though perhaps not phrased as succinctly. But then I realised that some of my examples of great villains did not have that entwining that you mention, and had to hurredly revise the last two thirds of the article. I now realise that perhaps I didn’t quite salvage everything that I could have from the material that had to be rewritten, because it’s true that in most cases, what you are suggesting is a componant of the makeup of a great villain. But there can be X-factors beyond it. The example that actually forced the revision away from that conclusion was the original Villain of the first superhero campaign (which I described in the piece) – he started off as just another would-be world conqueror and the PCs were nobodies to him, and yet he grew to become a great villain and then great recurring character. So, while entwined goals might make an X-factor more accessable, or give the players a more direct conduit to buy into the villain, I don’t think that’s the X-factor. It might be something that makes you less likely to meddle with the magic, though. Thanks for the input!
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:47 am
Great article, now I know how to better go about figuring out why players seem to always like the 1-shot villains I make up off the top of my head for a session in which they went an unexpected route more than the planned ones!
For me anyway, an x-factor that the villain must have is you must be able to sympathize with him in some way. It is not enough that the villain just be multi-dimensional, there has to be SOMETHING about the villain that either you (as PC or player) grudgingly agree with, or at least feel sorry for them, though this information should be hidden from the players at first.
Say you got an iron-fisted emperor out conquering every nation in sight. The PC’s will eventually grow to hate him after he sets them back multiple times, but will eventually learn his true goals. If he is doing this just because he is power hungry and a bad dude in general, does not make for a very good or memorable villain. However, if he is doing this in an attempt to unify the world against a great threat that is approaching from beyond to give humanity a chance of survival, and has realized that diplomacy is either useless or way too slow, then it should at least give the PC’s pause. His goals may be the same as theirs and they just don’t agree on the methods, or they could have been on opposite sides and no matter what they ultimately choose, the PC’s would be left wondering if they were on the right side.
Or sometimes they could just be plain villains, but have a good and sympathetic reason for it. I made a villain once who was actually one of the world’s greatest heroes in the campaign history. She saved the world almost single-handedly in the past, but in the process her mind was shattered. She basically became the epitome of Chaotic Evil, and nothing was predictable when she was inserted into the equation. Having seen her do some truly horrible things and having been royally thrashed by her, the PC’s grew to hate her immensely, and with good reason. Their outlook suddenly did a 180 when they learned that she became the monster she now was to save the lives of everyone in the world. I could have sworn I saw some wattery eyes when they finally killed her, and she regained her sanity long enough to thank them for her freedom.
September 3rd, 2010 at 8:23 am
@Robert: There was a time when I would have agreed with you 100%, Robert, but these days I can only do so about 50%. The part that you have not really covered here are the villains that the players love to hate; there is no need for them to have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. In fact, sometimes such redeeming qualities can weaken the villain; Darth Vader was arguably more menacing before “Luke, I am your father” entered the popular lexicon.
Another example from my most recent superhero campaign is a character named Torquemada, who was a religious zealot inspired by an early episode of Babylon-5. He found a way to give himself paranormal abilities powered by the destruction of the morally impure – but set the standard so high that only he could ever meet it. Having destroyed his entire species, he then began travelling from world to world, judging each, and finding them immoral and impure – so he would wipe them out, too, and move on. This was a character that no-one could sympathise with, who used cruelty and torture to extract confessions from ‘the impure’ – but he still made a great villain, and one that will recur at least once in the next campaign.
I could also argue that a villain who seemed sympathetic and even honourable initially, but who was eventually revealed to be utterly and irredeemably evil and playing on the PC’s sympathies might also make a particularly satisfying villain for the PCs to oppose thereafter.
That’s the problem with every possible definition of the X-factor that I have been able to come up with – there’s always an exception that is equally compelling. So, I’m still searching for a universal definition – but the value of the practical approach that I’ve outlined at least means that I can make best use of an archetype when I find one!
September 3rd, 2010 at 9:20 am
At the moment I’m running a short Hellas Campaign (setting is a mash of Greek Mythology and Star Wars). Character creation involves an intensive back story generation.
In the process I’ve developed a series of villains “Isiris the Atlantean” and “Bydeles, Prince of Zoran” both came out of character generation… but the “Machina of Thebes” were just a setting feature the characters managed to cross badly, and “Eagle-Eyed Agler, the Consul of Argos” was a rival who was just slightly more organized than the PCs.
I’ve never seen characters get so attached to story elements… but I think it helped that they started with two ultra-villains (whom they know are pulling strings in the background, but haven’t yet appeared in the campaign), which they have all attached themselves to through character creation: they are all looking forward to their character’s personal moment of revelation.
So, I think in future, I may just ask Players to help me develop antagonists at character creation: work done for me, right there.
Richard.
September 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
@Richard: I’ve seen this approach work, and I’ve seen some colossal trainwrecks. But then again, I’ve seen the same results from any other approach adopted to villain creation, and this might just give you an edge. I think it helps when the villain evolves organically from the character creation process rather than simply being tacked on because the character needed a villain in their background.
The other problems that can arise from this approach are (1) a dimunation of surprise – when the players helped create it, they know exactly what to expect; and (2) feeling let down if the GM’s interpretation of the villain doesn’t live up to the hype and buildup that’s in their heads.
The solution to the first problem is for the GM to take what the players come up with as nothing more than a starting point, and to incorporate some twist or spin on the villain of their own. The solution to the second is more problematic, and all relates to how well the villain connects with the GM. Arguably, by abdicating the responsibility for villain creation, you would increase the risk of failure in this respect. So is the approach an improvement? On balance, I think it’s six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-the-other.
September 4th, 2010 at 11:01 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JohnnFour, RPG Bloggers Network. RPG Bloggers Network said: The Anatomy Of Evil: What Makes a Good Villain? from Campaign Mastery http://goo.gl/fb/MGJQP #RPG […]
June 17th, 2014 at 12:36 am
[…] The Anatomy Of Evil: What Makes a Good Villain? […]
March 28th, 2017 at 3:36 am
[…] The Anatomy Of Evil: What Makes a Good Villain? […]