Ah, villains, what fun they are to write, I find...*

The thing about writing a compelling, convincing antagonist is that is it's really no different from writing a compelling, convincing protagonist; what you need is a personality ideas, flaws and details and so forth to add depth and humanise them, and a goal. The only real difference between a protagonist and an antagonist is their overall goal, really; whereas a protagonist will generally have a goal that is noble or at least largely sympathetic (how sympathetic this goal gets rather more questionable with anti-heroes, but I'll be covering that later), an antagonistic figure will have goals that, even they aren't downright evil, are generally self-centred, ignoble or are good ones that are worked towards in a destructively misguided manner.

These goals can come about in the same sort of ways that protagonist's goals can come about; through a personality flaw, through circumstances such as a goal for revenge, an even greater threat they feel they must stop/control/maintain at any cost, something like. For your villain and their goals to be realistic, so too must the means that brings these goals about; one of my favourite villains, Satan from Milton's Paradise Lost (who is both one of the greatest successes and greatest failures as an antagonistic character in literature), has his goal of overthrowing God and seizing control of Heaven through a mixture of pride (a typically heroic quality, especially one of Classical/Homeric heroes) and greed (a typically villainous motive; note the mix here). An antagonist character should not simply be, as Olen pointed out, an all-black, moustache-twirling, baby-eating complete monster, as they're no more interesting than a hero who is a shining, flawless paragon of virtue.**

In short, your antagonist must be like your protagonist in order to succeed; while they may be evil, they must also be flawed and human. They must be relatable; they must be like us, so that we can feel at least some modicum of sympathy for them in the knowledge that they, are at the end of the day, human*** just as we are, and also allows us the moral lesson of remembering that it could be us ordering the burning of villages from the top of a little Onyx Oubliette of Terror of our own.

Naturally, don't go too far and make them too relateable; the audience must get a sense of pathos and triumph when the villain is defeated or otherwise you have failed in your task of writing a villain. And, of course, keep in mind that a flawed, relatable, human villain must, have a hero who is equally, if not more, flawed, relatable and human in order to make sure we're rooting for the right character; this is, in a sense, why Satan is actually a great failure as an antogonistic character, he has more flaws and, meaning that we can relate to him much more easily than Milton's designated protagonist characters, who Milton sets up as shining, flawless paragons of virtue and thus end up being much less interesting than the Fallen Angel who was ambitious, proud, stupid and human enough to do something like pick a fight with God over what essentially amounted to latent daddy issues. In comparison, Milton intends it to be that the people we root for should be Adam and Eve, who are generally rather bland, and God, who always seems rather smug. Even when Satan slowly changes to a character who becomes increasingly petty, bitter and spiteful as the poem poem progresses, he remains the most interesting and compelling individual there simply because he is the most human in his nature. He does what a good number of human beings would do in his pursuit of revenge to sooth a wounded pride, losing control and perspective as things get more personal for him in a manner that is atypical of most members of the human race****.



Anyway, realise I went off on one somewhat there, but in essence my advice can be narrowed down to this: make you villain human, make them flawed, and that in turn is what makes them compelling. On the othe rhand, remove all humanity and have yourself a malevolent Lovecraftian entity that is completely incomprehensible and inhuman and is thus bloody terrifying as we simply cannot comprehend it. The only problem with that is that your protagonists usually end up dead.*****


*Hello everyone. Sorry, internet's been down lately and I've borrowed a dongle for a bit to write this, as I'm all over this sort of stuff, but I can't hang around. To everyone whose stories and stuff I've been reading, I'll get over to them in a bit once my internet is finished doing a dodo impression. Honest, guvnor.
**Case in point: Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter books, who, despite being a bigoted, manipulative murderous, self-centred coward with an Oedipus Complex large enough to make Freud weep tears of joy, is much more liked by the Potter fanbase than Harry himself, simply because he's presented as more flawed and complex than the series' hero.
***Or at least similar to human beings in basic mindset. Even if they have tentacles and eat rocks, give them soemthing that we can relate to.
****Even if we wouldn't like to admit it; Satan admitting it is part of what makes him a villain, along with his ability to so successfully manipulate and seduce his audience of fellow fallen angels. This ability to manipulate is what makes him such successful villain; not only does he managed to mould the sympathies of other characters, but also manages to mould the sympathies of a good chunk of the audience into rooting for him, the ultimate incarnation of evilm as opposed to God, the Omnibenevolent being who created the world and everything in it. Y'know, the nice guy. Who's also rather smug.
*****If they're lucky...
Oh, and if you write that sort of antagonist, make sure that the protagonist is a raving loony. The eyes! THE EYES!!

A good evil character (you know what I mean) is one whose intentions are good, but whose methods don't achieve the lofty goals he set out for. A dictator who overthrows a truly evil regime, but finds he's inherited a corrupt system he can't fix, so he goes with the flow. He chooses stability for his realm over freedom for its people, institutes a command economy because he can't trust the crooks who want "free enterprise" so they can cheat everyone. All because he's the only honest man in a corrupt system, and can make the trains run on time that way.

He'll resist attempts to overthrow him, because he quite reasonably knows that any successor will just face the same insoluble difficulties, and nobody could possibly do any better. The people don't deserve any better anyway, they're corrupt all the way down to the slave classes. The devil you know, and all that.

Well, Spartacus was more of a war situation. Even the producers said the "heroes" are more Anti-hero than anything. Some of the main characters we grew to love commited acts that most people would consider "evil", like Crixus stabbing a pregnant woman in the stomach. A woman, who was responsible for many deaths in the series. Though his noble acts outweighted that particular moment. I don't mind if the "boo-hiss baddie" comes off as the winner in the end.


Once I get internet connection(hopefully this week), I can read these stories for a feel of what people like in characters. They seem popular already.

Boba Fett is a favorite of mine. He isn't the total baddie, but people considered him to be after he was paid to chase a bunch of rebel terrorists(who were the protagonists in the films) by Darth Vader, a man considered a villain in the Star Wars movies. Sure, Boba was a Bounty Hunter, but hey, it's a job. Seeing your father get beheaded by a Jedi isn't something good. What was he suppose to do early on, raise a family? He even said something along the lines of "Seeing your dad get decapitated doesn't equip you to be a family man".

Since others mentioned Star Wars, I guess I can point out I understand somewhat of the tragic hero scenario. But I love the irony within the irony in Star Wars. Ironception, I say. Here we have a dark mystic who has the power to save others from death, but eventually could not save himself. He played part in creating a younger boy who was famous poster boy in the Clone Wars for his combat prowess and heroic escapades who became known as "The Hero with no fear." But the very burden in his life that led to his rise or downfall was fear. His wife, who's devotion in life was to serve and protect the Republic, was the very reason it collapsed. Her existence was the key reason to Darth Vader's actions in the third film. And in the end, he commited all these acts; child butchery, mercilessly slaughtering terrorists, destroying the religious zealots known as the Jedi...all to learn a power that was suppose to save his wife from death, yet because he was under the influence of that power, he was the one who killed her. That's beautifully poetic in a sad, tragic way.

But enough ramblings.


Ah, but vampires and werewolves have potential. I won't talk about Twilight, because that came much later after there was established folklore and stories regarding these preternatural creatures. Vampires and werewolves make for excellent anti-heroes because they are not in the normal rules and structures of "morality". Since they aren't totally human, we can expect them to be human. With them, we can create stories about how a character copes with such condition. Such as Trey Dog's Blood on the Moon, per se.

We can ask questions such as; Is it evil to know you can potentialy harm someone with this intense hunger and not seek a cure? Is it evil to want to keep this condition for the sake of the benefits it offers? And are werewolves or vampires truly evil for wanting to make a person their snack? Lore in Elder Scrolls have it that they must feed and kill to survive, so it is almost the same as saying leopards and man-eating animals are evil for killing a man to survive. Of course, as you said, these things do not interest you as much. Each of us are entitled to our own opinions , and I am speaking of my own here. I guess most people in western society follow moral guidelines already established. We understand that there is "good" and "evil" in the world, yet some would find these things subjective. Not to begin a philosphical argument here.

The reason I asked was because I often wondered how many people could truly relate to a baby-devouring person or a ruthless trigger-slinging warrior? Not that many. And because readers cannot relate to these characters, the story is rendered a failure because it failed to capture the mind of its readers. At least, that's what I personally think. But on the subject of Daedra, however, its understandable. Since Daedra are superior deities and beings, they are what they represent. Physical manifestations of acts us humans would consider "bad". Such as destruction, corruption, murder, deceit, manipulation and etc.


Basically what I mentioned earlier on, so your comment further reinforced my thoughts. And that's pretty much what everyone else said. Thanks. It was quite a mouth-full of what you wrote here.

But I sort of understand what you mean. I will once again mention Darth Vader as a possible anti-hero and not only a tragic hero. I guess we can argue that he had his flaws such as pride and an inflated ego and not abiding by the tenets of his Order. And he did things we can understand, but at the same time, raise an eyebrow to. Such as the moment his mother was tortured and murdered by a group of savages. He responded to her passing with hate, thus flirting with the darker nature of passion and proceeding to justify(avenging) his mother's death in his own accord. Yet some people argued that it was not right, because as a Jedi, he is to learn peace and etc. And he slaughtered women and children in the act as well, though they were no more than animals. The act is sort of grey, in my opinion. Or later when he betrayed his own friends for the sake of saving one person. That was considered evil, yet if you are a Star Wars nerd like me, you would understand that he not only did it for her, but in his own concept of order and stability. To free the galaxy of what he considered tyrants.

I guess my question was answered. Make the "good guys" seem like "villains", and the "villains" seem noble As SubRosa said.

Oh my....

I am now kicking myself for PMing you earlier and not reading this before I began writing.

I need help coming up with a word!

Specifically, it's for an original fiction project of mine, set on a world with species on it other than humans. I want a word to collectively refer to those species that aren't humans, and so far I've managed to settle on the term 'xenoforms' but I'm worried that a) that makes people think of aliens when the species all evolved on and are local to the same planet and I think China Miévelle uses that term in his Bas-Lag series as well.

Does anybody have any suggestions I might be able to use?

Yautja! Yautja!

I think you've misunderstood; I've got names for the species (Akriit, Q'Relli and Vespic), but I don't actually have a word to refer to them as a whole. Let me stick it in some context, that should make it clearer.



See, in that segment, I want a word other than 'xenoform', but I can't think of one.

Just slap on E.T or alien life form. But you want a name that can that is the same synonym with alien but is a new word in and of itself to describe all of them.

Let me try to come up with something, and I'll be back.

This post has been edited by Darkness Eternal: Apr 14 2013, 09:57 PM

Yeah, the thing about using 'alien' is that it implies they come from a different planet, when they all evolved on the same one. For my theoretical sci-fi/space opera magnum opus I've 'extress' to refer to aliens (bastardisation of 'extraterrestrial') but seeing as a Q'relli is just as native to this planet as a human is that doesn't work so well.

Do some word play. Maybe with the word native? A different language, then change a few letters, add something. BAM. New words.

I quite like that idea. I might try 'gentilic' or something like that as a play on 'gentile', which fits the sort of thing I'm going for quite well. Cheers Liz!

Um, my thinking is that if they're all (however their species arrived in the way back when) from the same planet...You wouldn't necessarily use a word for a different collective, would you?...Any more than you'd use collective for a cat, dog, American, blue whale on Earth, would you?...They're just different inhabitant species...

Like Khajiit...Or Argonians...Or vampires...

Yes?...No?...Ummm...

And yes, I understand what you're asking...It's just that ^ is what my brain spat out at me... ...


EDIT...My brain also spat the word Alts at me...Possibly from Alternatives...I dunno...*Shrug*...

This post has been edited by McBadgere: Apr 14 2013, 10:20 PM

Well the term I'm looking for is almost exactly the same as the terms cat, dog, American in its employment. Basically, it's a term that means 'other sentient beings of this planet who are not of my species'. Sort of like how we'd use 'animal' to broadly encompass fish and mammals and reptiles and insects or so forth, but instead referring to sentient beings.

Yeah...Got it...

Fair dues... ...

I'll work on it... ...

It's what I would do!

In that sentence why don’t you just call him Q’relli? Sort of, “Have a bagel,” said the New Yorker instead of said the non-Britishperson.

Also if you use familiar words like foreigner you can imply cultural things as well as labeling the species as a non-human sentient (which can probably already be inferred by speech and blue scales). Or something like Other with a capital O to signify serious apartness.

Maybe a wordplay on Other Sentients. Hmm.


Edit: Ooo, I like McB’s “alts.” I’m sure there would be slang terms (and slurs) even if the formal word was quite dry and specific.

This post has been edited by Grits: Apr 14 2013, 10:29 PM

Thing about using 'foreigner' is that it's problematic in worldbuilding as 'foreigner' in the case of the world the story is set in encompasses humans from other nations as well as non-humans. And using Q'Relli again in the next sentence is word repetition, which is just bad.

Plus it's a term that's commonly employed throughout the story's world, and there's a bit of later dialogue where a character says "You know what it can be like dealing with gentilics*" and then later on still an announcer uses the line "Roll up, roll up! Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, humans and gentilics, prepare to be astounded by Thinkston Technomantic Industries latest incredible invention, the wireless portable telephone!" 'Other sentients' sounds like it's been inserted into the language recently, when in fact it's supposed to feel like something that grew with the language as it developed on account of these people always being there. Hence why I'm having so much trouble finding a word that feels right.

*Gentilics is my placeholder word, which I'm reasonably happy with

If the other races are intelligent, I suggest just using the term sentients. It is a pretty generic term that most readers ought to be able to understand it without any extra explanations.

In the old game Earthdawn all intelligent races were known as Namegivers. The rationale being that only intelligent beings had the power to give names to things. You might use that, or a variation such as Reasoners, Thinkers, Deliberators, etc...

Shadowrun used the term Metahumans for all non-humans. You might go with that too.

You know- I rather like "ALTS" as well- because it could fit easily into the (U.S. anyway) tendency to throw acronyms at everything.

Alternate
Living
Things-
Sentient

Again, the tricky thing with using 'sentient' is that that's a classification that includes humans as well as none-humans. Something like Thinkers or Deliberators is a maybe, but again has the issue of including humans in its definition, and also leaves the rather tricky issue of linguistics that the vast majority of one of the species, Vespic, aren't actually sentient. The problem I have is that we simply don't have an equivalent term in English as we've never needed one, so making one up that fits naturally is something I'm finding pretty tricky.

And Metahumans works fine for Shadowrun seeing as the elves and dwarves and trolls and so forth were all subspecies of Homo Sapiens, but that doesn't really work for this world; the closest evolutionary relatives humans have in it are the askriit, and even the the common ancestry dates all the way back to the Synapsid clade before the askriit diverged off into their own Regurgitata/Ragna-Korocht class (the name varies on whether you ask a human biologist or an askriit one) while us humans evolved from the Mammalia class.

I suspect that I'm probably overthinking things (in fact, considering that I'm even going so far as to work out evolutionary ancestry and animal kingdoms for the species, I'm almost definitely overthinking things) and getting overly concerned over a pretty minor term by this point, and it might be best to go with 'gentilics' which I'm reasonably happy with.

This post has been edited by Colonel Mustard: Apr 15 2013, 01:16 PM