The Art of Antagonization: What makes a good Villain?

[Pepperjack]

As the title of this thread implies, the topic for discussion is what people believe makes for a satisfying Antagonist for their story. While we all likely have our own perceptions and beliefs of what a villain can do or say to make a scene more effective and impactful, I'd like to hear from the writers on the site in general about what you all believe creates a satisfying atmosphere for a few different things.

Firstly, how do you feel an Antagonist should be introduced or revealed? Should the protagonist(s) have some idea of who or what they are confronting before they ever meet their antagonist? Should the antagonists introduction be an example of 'show don't tell' or somewhere in-between?

Second, what do you feel makes for satisfying and impactful escalation of tension and stakes? In an age of movies and books where the easiest way to assure someone is going to die in a story is to make them the parent and/or mentor of the protagonist, what do you think an effective antagonist can do to stoke the emotions of their protagonist? What are creative and/or unique ways you could see an effective antagonist driving the story?

Lastly, what do you see as a fitting end to your ideal antagonist? Is death their only fate? Would a change of heart be a fitting ending to a long, psychology war of exchanged words and ideology?

Please discuss below! I can't wait to see what you think!

Tagging the folks that inspired this idea below...

@east

@Inkybus

@skyfetcher

@Cylian997

 

[Dirty Fingers]

I like characters and plots that are complex and multi faceted so often my character is a combination of protagonist and antagonist as I try and make them sympathetic even if they are doing something that isn't very nice. I like the idea that the character is being pushed in some way to do the things they are doing, for example a man who is generally "nice"but perhaps has just lost his job, feels hopeless so he robs a bank. Then he hears police sirens, panics so grabs a young woman as hostage. It's not like he is crazy or evil, he has just been pushed to make bad decisions.

I prefer that the opposing character is in the dark or surprised (as in example above) about what is happening. Often my characters are coveting their true selves or true intentions. They sell themselves in a way that the protagonist just believes them.

I love Stockholm syndrome if it is a situation like I described above. Where the protagonist starts to sympathize and even take part in evil deeds themselves. Slow burn corruption is also interesting where the protagonist starts doing things they wouldn't normally do or does something extreme because they believe it is more genuine than what it really is. I have many plot ideas around this idea, one was a Snuff movie concept where a doe eyed actress agrees to do un-simulated sex scenes for what she thinks is an art film but it is all in the end just an excuse to make porn and a violent film where she will end up dead.

Fitting ends? Depends, sometimes death or sometimes their "victim" surpassing them in some way, for the situation to grow beyond what they had planned and now it is out of their control. For the roles to shift perhaps.

 

[east]

First off I don't like the word villain, I like antagonist. this is something that comes up in English classes (suprise former english teacher gets to lecture everyone on a topic he's taught in class) An antagonist doesn't have to be evil they merely have to be in the way of the protagonist. Their morality or actions don't even have to come from a place of evil. For an example FEDRA in last of us, have established law in their small portion of the world by killing anyone who leaves or tries to enter the quarantine area, but their actions are not necesserally based in evil they are trying to prevent infected from coming and going into the last secured area in the known world. The fireflies would kill a little girl to make a cure for an epidemic that would in turn allow the world to move on. You stop them because their goals hinder your goal of protecting Ellie, but they themselves are not strictly in the wrong.

This ties into what I think every single character from the most cartoon sunday villain to the most gritty realistic murderer needs. They need to think that they are the protagonist that they are the hero. In one flew over the cuckoos nest, the protagonist Mcmurphy is a sane man who plead insanity to doing a lot of bad things cause he thought that he would just walk out after he was declared fixed by the doctors. He makes friends, and slowly starts to liven things up, the antagonist sees a new in-patient making her life harder, and reversing much of the progress she has made in making her hospital strict and orderly. A sanitary mechanical place where the criminally insane could in theory recover. Mcmurphy isn't a good person, he committed battery and statutory rape, nurse ratchet isn't a strictly evil person she genuinely believes that her methods will result in people recovering and healing, but the two can not co-exist so a conflict brews. Since the story is from Mcmurphy's perception the antagonist is ms ratchet, but you could just as easily rewrite the book about how an inpatient destroys the mental health of all the others around him, disturbing this woman from doing her job, and throwing a party in an insane asylum and assaulting orderlies.

On the more sunday cartoon villain side, we have Scar from lion king who genuinely believes that he would be better to rule than his younger stronger brother. Simba is the protagonist because we see how Scar orphans him in a bid for power. Scar has less redeeming qualities he throws off the eco system, but a lot of people can see that he ran a banner of equality as he united the lions and the hyena's and then over ate all of the worlds natural resources.

So to have a good antagonist you need to have someone who is simply stopping the other from getting what another person wants. Their introduction should start the conflict, which can be anything from 'this is my girlfriend you can't have her.' to "I pushed your son out of a window because my sister told me too." and a myriad of other reasons that things could happen. Their motive simply needs to reflect the motive of the protagonist and have it be so that as long as they have that motive neither can get what they want. Neither protagonist or antagonist should be comfortable in the same room as the other person once the goal is clearly stated and both have opposing views.

As for the end of the antagonist well that depends on the crime they have committed. There is a concept called the moral event horizon, acts so evil or malicious that once crossed that person can no longer be considered for redemption, and death becomes their inevitable fate. I personally ascribe to this theory, in my stories you will find no redemption for rapists, and murderers. These characters have to die at some point.

A lot of people parrot that redemption arks are good, and so they try to redeem people who have crossed the M.E.H. don't do this. A person can spend their entire life regretting a choice they made and it would never equal the suffering that was caused in those selfish acts. But for characters who don't do that kind of thing, who don't cross the line, all it takes is a shift in perspective a change in goals, and suddenly your greatest enemy can be your best friend. All it takes is for someone to change their mind or realize that they needed to get something else.

This is how you get momentary alliances, as two enemies team up to take down a third. Aang needs to take down the firelord, the firelords son zuko needs to regain his honor by defeating the avatar. Zuko learns that Honor is not given, but taken, and seeks to defeat his father so he can act with dignity and restore a nation after a war, you haven't shifted the goals of the protagonist but you have shifted the antagonist to suddenly end up on his side. If you do go down the road of a redemption ark, always remember that your characters should be wary of someone who has attacked them before. It his human nature to be mistrustful of someone who has already shown ill intentions, it can take a life time to build trust and a five minute act of selfishness can rip it apart forever.

 

[RedRose]

I love a good villain. Meaning, human(e??), realistic, with a background, and not mustacchio twirling with a Nazi armband. In fact they're interesting also as the main character, or the MC's love interest. It isn't easy finding a GOOD villain movie or book, and even less RP. They shouldn't be THAT bad that I am disgusted by them constantly though lol.

 

[Egoiste!]

I think you need to be more specific. There are so many different types of villains. Some a perfect fit for one story type that would be absurd in another. Not a very involved take I suppose but if you asked what makes a good villain in a particular context based on the genre and tone of the story I know I could say many things about the sort of villains I appreciate. It's not so much about their qualities, which could honestly be awful if taken out of context, but why and how those qualities work in the context of the story they serve as the villain for.

 

[Pepperjack]

I think you need to be more specific. There are so many different types of villains. Some a perfect fit for one story type that would be absurd in another. Not a very involved take I suppose but if you asked what makes a good villain in a particular context based on the genre and tone of the story I know I could say many things about the sort of villains I appreciate. It's not so much about their qualities, which could honestly be awful if taken out of context, but why and how those qualities work in the context of the story they serve as the villain for.

Heya! So the prompts and questions I asked were intentionally vague to leave things open for folks to give their interpretation of what 'works' for them as far as an antagonist goes. What things they think are satisfying for a complete conclusion to a story. Rather than a 'what works well in X context' as some folks just don't write certain genres of stories. If you love Noire-type crime drama and a more cerebral antagonist then your answer is obviously going to vary quite a bit from someone who just wants a Sauron-type antagonist, for instance.

 

[Egoiste!]

I understand, but I like many villains across many genres. To use your examples Kasper Gutman or the Black Stone and Sauron or Darth Vader all work brilliantly in their respective crime dramas and high-fantasy epics. I like them all. But they're all wildly different. I couldn't talk about what makes a good villain for me in a way that encompasses all the various vilains I like without resorting to banal generalities, i.e they're a credible threat to the hero, or something along those lines. What makes them good - to me at least - is mostly only applicable within the context of the story they inhabit.

 

[Pepperjack]

I understand, but I like many villains across many genres. To use your examples Kasper Gutman or the Black Stone and Sauron or Darth Vader all work brilliantly in their respective crime dramas and high-fantasy epics. I like them all. But they're all wildly different. I couldn't talk about what makes a good villain for me in a way that encompasses all the various vilains I like without resorting to banal generalities, i.e they're a credible threat to the hero, or something along those lines. What makes them good - to me at least - is mostly only applicable within the context of the story they inhabit.

That's perfectly valid. Not trying to dictate how shallow or deep you go into the topic. You could write detailed synopses on why you think each of them work, do bullet points, or anything in-between. No pressure. Just say what works for you. ^_^