How to write better bad guys

[Luiglin]

As others have said villains have to have a reason beyond just being perceived as evil... unless they are true psychopaths.

Some of the best villains have the simplest of reasons to do what they do.

For example, Lord Foul in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant just wants to escape his imprisonment. The fact that involves the destruction of the entire world, an evil act, is immaterial. To him it's a means to a end.

 

[MemoryTale]

That's an interesting question. Get the reader to sympathize with both sides. This could be somewhat confusing, but what you could play with would be making the reader feel that, yes, the bag guy really must still die, but it's a crying shame he got so messed up he couldn't have actually been a force of good and peace. Because that happens too.

Absolutely - I read a manga called Akame ga Kill that did this very well. You had a team of "good guys" (how good they were depends on how far you wish to stretch the definition) and they were developed as characters by showing them in their downtime, getting to know their character quirks, their loves and why they did what they did. And then you had a team of "bad guys" (apart from their leader, once again the term is stretched to breaking point), and they were given the exact same treatment. The result was a story that is absolutely emotionally brutal to read.

 

[DelActivisto]

Interesting responses. You're an interesting and also polite lot, I appreciate that!

I'm curious as to why people think sociopaths / psychopaths are evil. By definition, sociopaths are unable to feel emotions as much as normal people. Sometimes they may feel no emotions. But a key aspect of being human is emotions. It's part of how we interpret the world, and clearly emotions somehow evolved in order to help us better exist in the world. Empathy causes us to take care of each other, for instance, promoting the continuation of the species. And if we are not empathetic and even sympathetic, we don't have any reason to take care of people - which could certainly cause population to drop off in fairly obvious ways.

Yet I don't think that necessarily the case of sociopaths. An estimated 1-5% of the general population is sociopathic. Are they predisposed to be "evil?" I think that case could certainly be made. Emotional people can be evil, too. Hitler (to use an exceedingly abused example) for instance was emotional - sometimes too emotional, but he was also screwed up from an incredibly abusive father.

For my part, I know I'll be trying to craft as complex an evil person as I can muster. I'll also be toying with a "rebound effect;" where the actions of the antagonist cause the protagonist to consider venues of action he would normally consider unethical ("evil"), and maybe the protagonist will cause the antagonist to change somewhat as well. I want to tell a good story, but I also want the readers to be asking questions on their own - questions that I can't answer, and that maybe no one can.

 

[The Big Peat]

Well evil begins when you treat people as things, as Granny Weatherwax would tell you, so it fits that people look at those whose lack of empathy make it extra easy to see others as things have a propensity to evil. Now there's a good book about villainy and evil.

I feel like I'd be echoing what other people have said for the most part, but one thing that I'm not sure has been said is "Villains are still characters". If you make the villain a better character, you've made them a better villain. You don't have to necessarily get too exotic or creative for that to happen.

 

[EJDeBrun]

I wouldn't brand all villains as "evil" any more than I would brand all heroes as "good". The heroes are just the people the reader is rooting for and then villain is who they are fighting. Essentially, they are simply two sides of the same coin to create the "conflict" needed in the story.

I think a good lesson in this is Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That's a story where assumptions are turned upside it there ever was one.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Of course, a main antagonist is almost always necessary one way or another, a hate-sink of sorts, to better direct the reader's animosity.

@Jo Zebedee, I'm curious on your thoughts as to what the inclusion of your villain modified/added to the conflict (if there's a spoiler-free answer)?

I think because he was close in age to the protagonist it made him a more personal threat. But, also, he existed in the position of having power but not yet any of the inhibitions we learn about use of it.

Re sociopaths etc - I don't think I said they were evil, more that didn't neccesarily have the same motivations as other villains. So not more evil - although their actions may be, or not, depending on your story - but from a different motivation base that may make them harder for readers to empathise with.

 

[Parson]

Not being much of a writer I don't have much to add in terms of craft. But I do have a few thoughts on "good" and "evil." Good and evil exist in a book in the belief system which it relates too. If the book makes "family" the chief and over-riding desire, than anything that builds the feelings of "family" are good and everything that breaks the "family" apart is evil. ---- This means that both the protagonist and the antagonist can be operating for the ultimate good but working in ways that are diametrically opposed. It also means that if this is well done it might be very hard to discern who is ultimately the one to idealize and who is teaching a cautionary tale.

On top of this you are dealing with what people believe to be acceptable and unacceptable. Personally, I find it very hard to root for a character who is always putting others down or calling them names, no matter how much of a hero they are supposed to be. On the other hand and I realize rather contradictory, I often find it easy to hate the "sin" and love the "sinner."

 

[The Big Peat]

Not that contradictory to me.

Parson - in your example, would an action still be good if it built the feeling of family, but at ruinous cost for others?

 

[Cathbad]

If the book makes "family" the chief and over-riding desire, than anything that builds the feelings of "family" are good and everything that breaks the "family" apart is evil. ---- This means that both the protagonist and the antagonist can be operating for the ultimate good but working in ways that are diametrically opposed. It also means that if this is well done it might be very hard to discern who is ultimately the one to idealize and who is teaching a cautionary tale.

Ooooh! I like this!

 

[Cathbad]

Parson - in your example, would an action still be good if it built the feeling of family, but at ruinous cost for others?

I'm not Parson (smile), but in my personal belief system, "family" extends to the whole community.

 

[Parson]

Parson - in your example, would an action still be good if it built the feeling of family, but at ruinous cost for others?

In the context of the story the answer would be yes, at least in the mind of the one building the "family." But from the reader's point of view the means of building "family" might be the key to which was the antagonist and which the protagonist.

I'm not Parson (smile), but in my personal belief system, "family" extends to the whole community.

And I am not Cathbad (smile, back), but my personal belief system agrees with yours. I see "family" as the whole human race. I read a lot Military S.F. and there the villains are often aliens bent on the destruction of the human race. Which may be why it appeals to me so much.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I agree re family communities. I saw 3 young people 12-19 yrs old being unpleasant to people on the street on Tuesday evening. When I intervened to stop it, one of the things I said to the boys was 'these people are part of you. Whatever you're doing to them, you do to yourself. Imagine that man you're abusing was your dad and you three were someone else, how'd you feel?'

It lead into a really nice dialogue about what family is - although they struggled with blame, they got the point and everyone ended up happy.

The sad thing is the older people probably left thinking about bad kids, whereas the youngers 'got it'.

So your 'evil' character might be more authentic if he or she had absent parents, or carer etc because kids are susceptible to reprogramming in a way that adults are not - in the absence of psychosis or trauma, that is - so there's even more complexity to be mined!!

pH

 

[The Big Peat]

In the context of the story the answer would be yes, at least in the mind of the one building the "family." But from the reader's point of view the means of building "family" might be the key to which was the antagonist and which the protagonist.


And I am not Cathbad (smile, back), but my personal belief system agrees with yours. I see "family" as the whole human race. I read a lot Military S.F. and there the villains are often aliens bent on the destruction of the human race. Which may be why it appeals to me so much.

This I find very true.

I have to say that for me, good and evil shouldn't lie in an assessment of how something affects the individual's own needs and values, but how it affects everything. Obviously a lot of people come up with their own excuses about why in their particular case they are good rather than evil, and showing evil convincingly often rests on that. But I don't think that good and evil should lie solely in their own subjective opinions. I don't think we'd be able to talk about good and evil if that's all there was to it, if there never was some concrete sense of "To do this is evil, no matter why you do it".

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on Mil SF where the human race are the aggressors?

A final note - some villains do know they're evil even in the most subjective sense; that they are transgressing their 'family's' taboos and working against their family's good. Sometimes they are transgressing their own taboos or even being forced to work against their own good to survive. I think these villains are as worthy of exploration as the tyrant who is convinced they work for the Greater Good and that The Ends Justify The Means - if not more so.

And so too are the guys who are just straight up heroic nice guys who just happen to be on the wrong side compared to the protagonist. Nothing wrong with a good tragedy from time to time.

 

[Parson]

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on Mil SF where the human race are the aggressors?

If you mean aggressors in terms of genocide without trying to retaliate for the other's attempt, I am racking my brain trying to remember such a plot. I am relatively sure I've read such, but no particular story comes to mind. There are many where some of the humans are advocating/doing that while another faction tries to find a less drastic way. If you mean simply overly aggressive in their tactics, I've read numerous books like this and in general I can say that there are sometimes when the choice is "us or them" I find myself siding with "us" but struggling to find some other possible option. A classic other option is shared in "The Mote in God's Eye." If the human side was just being evil (intelligent life being sacred in my personal view), I believe I would side with the aliens.

 

[Cathbad]

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on Mil SF where the human race are the aggressors?

I can think of far more (relatively realistic) scenarios where humans are the aggressors than another race.

But no worries - they'll make up some very good reasons/excuses!

 

[DelActivisto]

I read a lot Military S.F. and there the villains are often aliens bent on the destruction of the human race. Which may be why it appeals to me so much.

That is interesting, but a different type of story would also be equally plausible and enjoyable to read - one where the humans invade and try to erase the inhabitant alien species.

 

[Parson]

That is interesting, but a different type of story would also be equally plausible and enjoyable to read - one where the humans invade and try to erase the inhabitant alien species.

I would certainly agree that such a book would be plausible. But I'm not sure I would read such a book if I knew before I started. I like to think and reflect about the noble ideals that humanity has sought to grab onto from time to time. This is one of the reasons that I usually stir clear of post-apocalyptic stories. They might be just as or (shudder) more likely than the other kind, but I see one of obligations of one generation to the next is the lifting up of all that might be if we will only follow the pattern for light and progress, often at substantial personal cost, instead of striving for short term gains and personal gratification. It is almost always the former, rather than the latter who will be seen as the ones who have lived in the best way possible. Some years ago I compared Mother Teresa to Madonna in a sermon, and I said was was a celebrity and the other lived a great life. No one had to guess which one was which.

 

[DelActivisto]

I would certainly agree that such a book would be plausible. But I'm not sure I would read such a book if I knew before I started. I like to think and reflect about the noble ideals that humanity has sought to grab onto from time to time. This is one of the reasons that I usually stir clear of post-apocalyptic stories. They might be just as or (shudder) more likely than the other kind, but I see one of obligations of one generation to the next is the lifting up of all that might be if we will only follow the pattern for light and progress, often at substantial personal cost, instead of striving for short term gains and personal gratification. It is almost always the former, rather than the latter who will be seen as the ones who have lived in the best way possible. Some years ago I compared Mother Teresa to Madonna in a sermon, and I said was was a celebrity and the other lived a great life. No one had to guess which one was which.

Indeed. Post-apocalypctic books assume we've failed, quite essentially, as a species. But there's usually a redeeming quality. We'll build from the ashes, do better the next time, blah blah. Then there's the disaster-averted novels where the world gets saved through some last-ditch efforts.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think we've advanced to anywhere near the level of Star Trek ethical integrity to not try and colonize another inhabited planet if we found it. The Colonial Era isn't too far behind us...

 

[Parson]

But to be perfectly honest, I don't think we've advanced to anywhere near the level of Star Trek ethical integrity to not try and colonize another inhabited planet if we found it. The Colonial Era isn't too far behind us...

Sigh! This is so true. But I believe that we could get there if we would submit to our better natures.

 

[Ihe]

Ah, but for that we would have to be inherently good. And viruses do what viruses must to survive and expand. As individuals some of us might be good, but as a species we will doom ourselves. It's no surprise that people act differently among the masses than they do by themselves. When one looks at the big picture, human nature is irredeemable, IMO. Agent Smith's argument holds true for me, and will hold true as long as there isn't some sort of singularity that radically changes the game and the way we think. Just one bad apple can spoil the bunch, and sadly we will never be able to get rid of all bad apples, ergo, the bunch is destined to be spoiled, sooner or later. Dark, I know.