What's the deal with Villains in Stories?

Stories are an integral part of the human experience. It's how we express our ideologies and opinions. As well as simply being good entertainment. Throughout the centuries, we've learned a crucial fact about story-telling, and that's they cannot exist without some kind of conflict. And what better way to start a conflict than having a Dark Lord threaten to take over the world. A phrase that gets thrown around in the writing community somewhat frequently is, "A Hero is only as good as their Villain." But what does that mean? Well allow me to attempt to explain, What's the deal with Villains in Stories.

Huh? Why am I talking about villains? Because there's a LOT of subjectivity regarding what makes a "good" villain. What even IS a villain? In the most blunt terminology, a villain is a Big Bad Evil Guy (B.B.E.G. for short) who exists to serve as a living obstacle for the hero of the story to overcome. There is a bit more nuance than that, but when most people hear villain, they usually default to "antagonist." There's actually a fair amount of wiggle room as to what kind of villain you can use for your story, and some villain archetypes only really work in specific genres. Let's use the Dark Lord archetype as an example.

The Dark Lord archetype is admittedly one of my personal favorite villainous archetypes. These guys make no pretense out of whether or not they are evil, and if they don't look evil, they do something early on that establishes their wickedness and cruelty. Common characteristics of this archetype include but do not limit to; Wearing predominantly black outfits (usually armor), having entire armies under their command, and having already conquered a good chunk of the story's world. Depending on how dire you want the situation to be, the story can start with the Dark Lord straight up winning and conquering the entire world, with the hero's having to set it free again. They have basically no overlap with Plot Twist Villains, and if there IS a plot twist involving a Dark Lord, it's one that retroactively changes the perception of an openly evil character, rather than whether or not a character IS evil to begin with (think the "Luke, I am your Father!" scene from The Empire Strikes Back). Dark Lords are usually irredeemably evil, though there are exceptions to this rule. Darth Vader from Star Wars is by all definitions, a Dark Lord (or, at the very least, the enforcer of one). Yet he was redeemed by his son, Luke Skywalker. Another thing to consider about Dark Lords is that they are supposed to be not only threatening, but dangerously competent. Sauron spent centuries building up soldiers and war machines and spread madness and distrust amongst Men, and his mere presence was enough to make almost all of the Elves collectively go "NOPE!" and head back home to Valinor. The only reason he lost the war was because he was blindsided by a pair of hobbits destroying the One Ring, and he had no way of anticipating that. Additionally this genre works best in fantasy-adventure stories, because it can be really difficult to justify the existence of a Dark Lord in a modern or realistic setting. This is not to say all good villains are Dark Lords, and if written poorly, can come across as a weak, one-note baddie with a generic goal.

Another archetype that can be really hit or miss is the Madman/Trickster. Not as large-scale as the Dark Lord, and usually having a lot of swagger and moxie juxtaposed with their heinous misdeeds. When this archetype is done well, you have a love-to-hate villain who on paper has no redeeming qualities, but their over-the-top personality makes them enjoyable and fun to watch. When done poorly, you have a villain who comes across as a lamer version of The Joker. But what is the Madman? In contrast to the Dark Lord, who usually has a grand plan of conquering the world or the equivalent thereof, the Madman doesn't have a goal nearly as ambitious. They just exist to cause trouble, and to torment one specific character (usually the hero). This archetype is usually more comedic in nature, such as Bill Cipher or Dr. Eggman (especially the version in the 2020 film). Really, the only "gritty" Madman that works well is Joker... More specifically the version from The Dark Knight. There have been plenty of discussion on why Heath Ledger is the best Joker. But the reason Ledger!Joker works is The Dark Knight is actually just a really thorough character study of Batman's personal code of honor clashing against a man who defies literally everything Batman has ever believed in, cleverly disguised as an action-drama movie. That's not to say the Joker is the only "good" example of this archetype. Bill Cipher from Gravity Falls is another good Madman who only wants to spread madness and mayhem wherever he goes. The important thing about the Madman is that he doesn't have a motivation or a reason to do the things they do. They just dance over the line of morality and laugh at your for believing that morals apply to the insane. Most writers will say that all good villains have sympathetic origins and understandable motivations, but with enough hard work, you can make a villain of this archetype be successful. It's just really, REALLY hard to pull off, and very few stories work with this archetype.

Then there's the Force of Nature villains. You can't really call these guys villainous, since nine times out of ten they're animals just following their instincts. Villains of this archetype tend to be animalistic, and may not even have a concept of good and evil. They only get involved in the plot because their self-preservation puts the hero (and their companions) in danger. Examples include the Xenomorph from Alien and, depending on who's writing the story, Godzilla. I say that because Godzilla's characterization can be all over the place. In one movie he's the guardian of Earth, driving back the monsters that come from the stars. Other times he's a walking disaster that serves as a very thinly veiled allegory for the dangers of nuclear warfare. AND OTHER TIMES, He's an Eldritch Abomination who is suffering through intense body horror. Speaking of which...

A type of villain that shows up frequently in horror fiction specifically, is the Eldritch Abomination. Examples including Cthulhu, Pennywise the Clown, pretty much any monster from the Dark Souls trilogy (plus Bloodborne, which is technically a part of that series), and Marx from Kirby. Actually, now that I think about it, pretty much every Kirby villain, with the sole exceptions being King Dedede and Meta Knight, can be considered Eldritch Abominations. But the point of this archetype is that these guys are creepiness personified. Common characteristics include the ability to break the laws of reality on a dime, the ability to cripple the sanity of any who oppose them, and being almost impossible to destroy. This archetype works well in horror, especially since Eldritch Abominations are an anthropomorphic representation of the primal fears, such as the fear of the unknown or the fear of death. Not to say that you can't have Eldritch Abominations outside of horror. Kirby is about as family-friendly, harmless, and cuddly as they come, but it doesn't stop that series from having you battle against at least one Eldritch Abomination.

Spoilers for Frozen, incoming. Also Hans sucks as a villain.

And now to talk about Plot Twist Villains. These villains appear nice and friendly at first, then are revealed later on to be amoral scum-bags. Note that having a Plot Twist concerning an aspect of the villain DOES NOT make them a Twist villain. The Twist villain is largely defined by the fact that the audience doesn't know the allegiance of the character in question until the Big Reveal. Now don't get me wrong, when done well, they can be a really interesting villain. But when done poorly *cough cough* Hans from Frozen *cough cough* it can drag the entire story down. But what makes a good Plot Twist villain? First you got to know what a good Plot Twist is. A good Plot Twist is a surprise that causes the audience to rethink what they know of the story, given the information provided so far. It is meant to enrich the story while surprising the audience. It is NOT to do the exact opposite of what you were setting up so you can feel superior for "outsmarting" the audience. This distinction is important, because several writers *cough cough* Rian Johnson *cough cough* make the mistake of subverting expectations to shock the audience, without thinking about the long-term implications of these "fake" Plot Twists. And if a story feels like it would be more compelling WITHOUT the Plot Twist, then the writers have failed in writing a good Plot Twist. Seriously. Frozen provides us with a villain that shows exactly how NOT to do a plot twist villain. Barely any foreshadowing, clearly being done for shock value rather than to expand the story, and really poorly timed. Seriously, all Hans had to do is NOT GLOAT ABOUT ASSASSINATING ELSA TO THE ONE PERSON THAT COULD FOIL HIS PLANS, and he would have won. Heck, all he really had to do to take over Arendelle was let one of the knights kill Elsa, then Anna would have no choice but to ascend the throne, accelerating Hans' original plan to marry into the throne. Instead, he actively stops them from shooting Elsa, partly to convince the audience that he really is Mr. Nice Guy(tm) which makes the whole "Hans was evil all along" thing feel even more forced and contrived than it already was. And keep in mind, the movie really didn't need Hans to tell the story it wanted. Had Hans been Mr. Actual Nice Guy(tm) with no strings attached, Anna would still realize her feelings for Hans aren't genuine, and still needed to be saved by an act of sisterly, familial love. The conflict between Anna and Elsa was more than enough to carry the plot. It didn't need a hate-sink to orchestrate a climax.

So how exactly do you make a good Plot Twist villain? Well, there are a few ways you can pull this off. First, the plot twist in question needs to expand upon the story, not detract from it. Then you need to make sure that while the twist is surprisingly initially, that it makes sense in retrospect given the information that the audience has been provided. And thirdly, the moment the reveal happens needs to make sense in the story. (so no "Aha, I was the Big Bad Evil Guy all along! Aren't you SURPRISED!?" moments) So is there a Plot Twist villain that does these things correctly? Yes! Mr. Waternoose, the main antagonist of Monsters Inc. is an example of how to do the Plot Twist villain perfectly. Spoilers for Monsters Inc. for the five people on the planet that never watched that film (go watch it, it's one of Pixar's best films!). First of all, was the Plot Twist worth it in the story? Yes. Up until the reveal, we the audience has been led to believe that Randall (a villain in and of himself) was sabotaging the Scare Floor to win a petty competition between the "scary" monsters. Given how easily dispatched Randall was, the movie would have a rather anticlimactic ending if he was the final threat. But the reveal that Waternoose was collaborating with Randall to create a more efficient but highly unethical energy source turns the story from one about getting a lost kid back home and one about the ethics of industry. Secondly, the twist makes sense in retrospect. Waternoose loves his company, and his employees, and he will not risk getting shut down due to a stagnating economy. His line of "doing anything to keep the business running" cleverly foreshadows just how desperate and amoral he can be. And thirdly, he knew what he was doing was questionable at best, and genuinely covered his tracks as best he could. Waternoose basically had no choice but to reveal his true nature because had Sully and Mike reported Randall's scream extractor, the authorities could easily trace it back to Waternoose, getting the whole company shut down. Him dumping Mike and Sully to the Himalayas was done out of necessity, and Waternoose himself laments having to do such a thing and would have avoided it if he could. It's also why he doesn't kill either of them. He may be desperate, but he's not a psychopath. He's just a company CEO trying to keep his failing business afloat.

One type of villain that admittedly bothers me for how cliche it is, is the Governmental Villain. Usually a General, or other high-ranking military. These guys can't really be called evil (with some exception) and are just people doing their job. It just happens that doing their job requires antagonizing the hero. It works, kind of. But this is the kind of villain that comes across as very forgettable, because everything they do is just what our government would do in a similar situation. Also, I know this doesn't really apply to foreign stories (especially in Japan) but why does every American block-buster try to make the government out to be amoral hacks? It sure would be nice to have a protagonist in an American block-buster film being on the SUPPORTIVE side of the law for once. But my point is, Villains who just exist to give the government a face come across as generic and forgettable, and we need to stop making the government itself into a villain. Now, a corrupt individual working for the government is okay. Judge Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame was a genocidal despot who used his status as a man of the Catholic Church to get away with his misdeeds without consequence. The story makes a point about how the Catholic Church itself is not evil or corrupt, it's just one person abusing the power and perceived infallibility of being Head of Church for selfish benefit.

The last major villain archetype that shows up in popular culture is the Mechanical villain. Mechanical villains are exclusively in sci-fi stories, for obvious reasons. Usually being a form of artificial intelligence that grew beyond its original purpose, or a well-meaning robot that massively misunderstood its directive. Examples from here include HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, Sky-Net from Terminator, VIKI from I, Robot. GLaDOS is an interesting take on the concept of the Mechanical Villain. She is (spoilers for Portal) the consciousness of Caroline, Cave Johnson's assistant. She's not really an artificial intelligence, but a shell housing an actual human person driven mad by a combination of isolation and the "machine" part of her being designed to continue a series of experiments "For Science!" even after the end of the world.

Some important things to note about villains. Their main role in a story is to actively challenge the hero(es), and as such villains need to have a goal that directly clashes with the hero's goals. Basically, when writing a villain, make sure he has a reason to care about what the other person is doing, and then have them try to stop them. Because villains that barely acknowledge the hero at all don't really push the plot forward. It's the entire reason why the phrase "Villains act, Heroes react" exists. Villain does something, hero tries to stop it. Which goes back to making the villain competent. You can also have the villain have a personal connection to the hero, to give them the motivation to actually antagonize the hero. Like maybe they were a massive fan of a famous superhero, then became disillusioned when the hero failed to live up to their expectations and vowed to become a better superhero for the fame and glory and thus completely miss the point of what a superhero is even supposed to be (which is exactly what happens in The Incredibles).

A perfect example of the difference between a competent and incompetent villain can be found in Star VS the Forces of Evil. For the bulk of season 1 all Star (the heroine of that show) had to worry about is practicing magic and trying to learn how humanity works (Star's an alien, by the way). Ludo, the main villain is hilariously incompetent and winds up defeating himself just as frequently as Star does. Then Toffee the silky-voiced crocodile man shows up, completely one ups Ludo at everything, destroys Star's magic wand, and starts a season-and-a-half long gambit to destroy his enemies and get revenge on Star's Mother (who chopped off his finger). He accomplishes all of this within the span of four episodes. It took Ludo two whole seasons for him to even develop a plan more complicated than, "throw all my minions at Star and hope I win." Also, just my honest opinion, but the show's quality in general spiked when it started introducing competent villains like Toffee.

Incompetent villains are not an inherently bad thing, however. It's just that they only really work in stories meant for younger audiences (or comedies), such as Skeletor from He-Man or Team Rocket from Pokemon. The reason for that is because kids like watching cool awesome people overshadow lame villains, then kind of wish they get a "cool" villain as they get older. Of course, the reason incompetent villains can work in comedies is just that. The villain's lack of skill or talent can be used for a joke or three. Dr. Doofenschmirtz for example is a mad scientist who wants to take over the Tri-State Area (he gave up on taking over the world, it's too hard) whose devices almost always backfire in the most comical way imaginable.

Now I see some people say that good villains need sympathetic motivations or origins. I disagree with this, somewhat. I do feel a good villain needs to have some drive more complex than "evil for evil's sake" (even the Joker had a goal; prove that all it takes for a good man to become a cold-blooded killer is One Bad Day). However, sympathy for the villain is a double-edged sword. When done well, it makes what the villain does understandable. But the important thing to remember about a villain is that their role in the story is provide the final challenge and threat to the heroes (or their home, or loved ones, etc). But unless you're writing a tragedy, the villain basically has no choice but to be defeated by the hero. The last thing you want is for your audience to relate more strongly to the villain than the hero. The villain may have a point about something (Thanos wants to stop overpopulation). But the point is, they must always be in the wrong (Thanos "solves" overpopulation by killing one half of all life in the universe). Because if your villain is too sympathetic, the audience will want to root for the villain instead of the hero. Thanos is a villain that strikes a nice balance between being sympathetic enough to where we as the audience understand his goals, but he is evil enough for us to recognize that Thanos is ultimately in the wrong because his methods to solve the problem is unethical easily avoided. Seriously, the Infinity Stones turn you into a god. Thanos could easily have just doubled the resources of the universe, or quietly lowered the fertility rate of the more abundant creatures. The reason he went with large-scale culling was because Thanos cares more about proving (partly to himself) that his culling solution would save a world that already fell, rather than try to find a non-violent way to manage the exponentially growing population of the still living worlds.

And now for something unusual. Characters who aren't really villainous and can be either protagonists or antagonists depending on the perspective of the story. These characters are mostly found in video games, since the interactive component of a video game makes it easier to do stories with multiple perspectives. Not to say there aren't books out there that also have multiple (and conflicting) perspectives, because those books certainly exist. But anyway, these characters are sympathetic, likable, and charming. But all it takes is a perspective flip and these likable, charming, and sympathetic characters now are on the opposing side of the conflict. Stories of this nature tend to blur the lines of morality. How far can a person go before they become the very monster they swore to protect their people from? What line do they cross that causes the audience to question whether this character they've been following is truly as good as they initially appear? Edelgarde from Fire Emblem Three Houses is a perfect example. On her campaign, she's a virtuous freedom fighter overthrowing a corrupt church and replacing it with a government system that's more just and ethical. But on Dimitri's campaign she's a violent war criminal responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, most of whom didn't do anything wrong and just happened to get caught in the crossfire. And Claude's campaign reveals the church to really be just as corrupt as Edelgarde claims. Claude just doesn't really do anything about it, because of his adamantly neutral stance in the war.

On the subject of debatable neutrality, Hero vs Hero conflicts! Sometimes called Good Vs Good, these stories have two characters who are both undeniably good people on opposing sides. In the best case scenario this is because of the two factions being so rooted in their idea of what it means to be "good" that they come to blows when that idea is challenged. Which is what happens in Captain America: Civil War. If you're writing this kind of conflict, keep in mind that Good Vs Good conflicts only work if both sides are good, but have different ideas on what "good" is. You do NOT want to turn one of your main characters into an unlikable jerk to justify the conflict between two undeniably good people. Batman V Superman manages to go above and beyond and make BOTH of its leads unlikable jerks because Zack Snyder clearly doesn't know the difference between moral ambiguity and being dark and edgy. Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place for darkness and intensity. Just don't make the whole story so dark and gloomy that it turns away your audience. 

One more thing to consider when writing villains. Keep in mind the tone and consistency of the story as a whole. If you're writing a fantasy adventure about a lovable underdog taking down the invincible baddie, write accordingly. If you're writing a comedy and you're villain is supposed to be ridiculous and over-the-top, let them be. But if you're writing a story, with multiple perspectives, banking on moral ambiguity, DO NOT MAKE YOUR VILLAIN A GENERIC MUSTACHE-TWIRLING MANIAC. (rant incoming) I am not the first to poke fun of Fire Emblem Fates' story, but for those not in the know, that game is split up into three campaigns, and King Garon (pictured above) is part of the reason why that game's story is considered mediocre at best. I can understand making him into an irredeemable tyrant if you go with the Birthright campaign, since you're actively opposing him in that campaign. But he is still an irredeemable tyrant when you join him in the Conquest campaign and gives no other reason you should follow him other than "hE's yOuR sUrRoGaTe fAtHeR!" What makes it worse is that Corrin (the hero of Fates) doesn't even try to pull a Star Scream on him and overthrow the Kingdom of Nohr. S/He does literally nothing to stop Garon's rampage, until Azura literally points out how he isn't even a human being. Which happens long after you've gone through 3/4 of the campaign! And to make all of this worse, his biological children would often fondly reminisce on the good things Garon did, and insist that Garon is actually a great man once you get to know him... But we see no trace of this once great man they speak so highly of. At all. Not even in flashbacks! Do know how helpful it would have been if they had a flashback showing Garon in his prime as he descends into madness? That would have improved his character tenfold.

So you got your villain, gave them a motive that's better than "evil because the story needs a bad guy" and have them be a competent threat. So how does the hero defeat them? The punishment the villain receives at the end should be proportionate to their misdeeds, without breaking the central theme or message of the story. Asriel Dreemurr from UNDERTALE was a prince driven mad by his death in a past life, and slowly forgot how to feel love or compassion. Asriel is defeated not through brute force, but because you, the player, helped Asriel remember how to love and be loved. Asriel's punishment is a self-inflicted one. He knows everything he did was wrong, and no amount of repentance will change what he did. So he puts himself into exile, while the rest of the cast escape from the Underground and reintegrate into society. He doesn't die, or get banished, since the central theme of UNDERTALE is that of choice. By choosing to show kindness to Asriel, Asriel is able to reflect on his own choices and see the error of his ways. Having Asriel die or face a punishment outside of his control would've broken the central theme of the story, since the entire point of UNDERTALE is that the choices we make will affect us for the rest of our lives. Had UNDERTALE been about say, revenge or justice, Asriel probably would have been killed (again).

And it is important for the villain the face a fitting punishment for their misdeeds. Darkstalker from the Wings of Fire novel series was a fantastic villain. He had a sympathetic origin and motive, but was just evil enough for the reader to identify that he's a misguided extremist at best. He initially acted nice and friendly, but the reveal that Darkstalker was villainous all along felt natural because there was a lot of foreshadowing and tension about if he really is benevolent. For context, Darkstalker is the Dragon-World's equivalent of the Boogeyman, being a mythical monster to scare kids into obedience. Those myths didn't come from nothing. Additionally, while most of the cast falls for his charms, Qibli, Turtle, and Glory all suspect that he's hiding something. And Darkstalker is a living foil to the central theme of the story. Wings of Fire is about dragons helping other dragons move on from past grudges and accept each other regardless of differences. Darkstalker is a dragon who still clings to the past and refuses to accept the Icewing dragons, since he feels that they made him into the monster he is (his abusive father was an Icewing). 

But there is one thing that drags down Darkstalker, and that's how he is defeated and punished. After amassing an army of buffed up Nightwing Dragons, he tries to hunt the Icewings to extinction. In the ensuing chaos, he tries to strike a deal with Qibli, which he refuses. Upon hearing the decades of excuses and scapegoating Darkstalker created to justify his actions, Qibli tears them all apart in minutes. It all comes to a head when Qibli uses a device created to gauge the morality of a dragon on Darkstalker. The gauge shows Darkstalker, to his face, just how far from grace he fell, and it's here he (for the first time in the whole series) feels genuine guilt over his crimes. Now, this sounds like a great way to defeat a villain. But here's where I take issue. While Darkstalker is having his breakdown over the revelation that yes, killing other dragons is indeed bad, Moonwatcher (with some help from Kinkajou) tricks Darkstalker into eating a magic strawberry, turning him into a baby and giving him a second chance at life. Honestly, I feel like Darkstalker having the breakdown was enough. The whole "getting reborn again" thing feels a little overkill to me, on top of accidentally breaking the message that using magic to alter a dragon's mind and body is terrible and horrific. I understand that all of the heroes of Wings of Fire are pacifists by nature, and try to avoid loss of life when possible. But honestly, I feel like imprisoning him again, this time with countermeasures to make sure he stays put, would've been the best way to defeat Darkstalker. The heroes don't kill anybody and the threat of Darkstalker reigniting a race war is stopped, all while preserving most of the themes of the story.

So for a recap, make your villain have a reason to antagonize the hero that goes beyond "evil because the plot says so", make them competent with a understandable goal for serious stories, but wacky and over-the-top for more lighthearted stories. DON'T make your villain a mustache-twirling maniac if you want a story with moral ambiguity. Make sure their defeat and punishment is proportionate to their crimes and cathartic for the audience. And most importantly, make sure the archetype of the villain works well with the genre you're writing in.

And that's about all I have to say on the subject of villains in stories. This is probably my strangest post idea yet, as it is neither a review nor is it a comedic joke post. But I've been wanting to do literary analysis on things that show up across multiple stories for a while now (not helped by becoming an aspiring novel writer in my free time), so I hope you enjoy the ramblings of some nerd on the Internet.