What do you think makes a good villain?

[Lord Sovereign]

And/or antagonist, I might add.

For me, it is power. Not so much in overwhelming, god like power, but power that is proportionate to the story. The villain should have power, if not direct power over the protagonist, and exert it competently and consistently. Through this their influence is made known to the audience and builds up their threat value whilst giving a very real obstacle for the protagonist to overcome. Even in boring real life, someone with power who knows how to wield it is a very dangerous person and the same principle applies to fiction.

TL;DR, there can be no threat without power and its thoughtful exertion.

 

[bintananth]

I think a good villian should have a good reason for why they are the villian. If the bad guy is the bad guy just because there has to be a bad guy then the story isn't interesting.

Take Richard III from the Shakespeare play of the same name. He is the younger brother of King Edward IV and tells you exactly why he's going to do what he does and what he's going to do during the opening monologue.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I like three kinds of villains/antagonists:

• A villain who feels truly threatening, the perfect setup for an underdog story. Is usually the big bad. He may or may not be physically powerful, but that isn't what makes him scary. He's scary because of how many people follow him. He leads a powerful empire and tries to manipulate and demoralize the hero, by tempting him or blackmailing him. This villain usually has popular support of the people, and it's very intimidating when he weaponizes that support by framing the heroes as villains, like our hero has the whole world against him. Ie, Chancellor Osborne from the Trails of Cold Steel games, the Emperor from the Star Wars original trilogy, and Rustal Ellion from Gundam Iron-Blooded Orphans.
• An anti-hero/villain who feels like he's doing his own thing, like he has his own agenda that will clash with the hero or the big bad. The camera/narrative regularly shows us their PoV and it's exciting seeing how they throw a wrench into the story. Usually does not start out as the big bad but sometimes kills him off and takes over as the final villain. Ie, Char Aznable from Mobile Suit Gundam, Zenos from Final Fantasy XIV (my favorite part of the Shadowbringers patch story was seeing what Zenos was going to do next).
• I also like straight up anti-villains, like Colonel Richard from Trails in the Sky, people who are very friendly to our heroes, try to be a good guy, and are trying to save the world. This guy you want to win. Unfortunately, from what I've seen this is difficult to write because this character, despite being very likeable, he is designated as an antagonist for our heroes to fight anyway, and it's hard trying to justify why our heroes should be fighting this guy at all and leads to a narrative disconnect.
• I suppose I also appreciate good hate-sinks, who exist only to aggravate the audience and look forward to their demise. Iok from Gundam-Iron Blooded Orphans, Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter, etc.

 

[Bear Ribs]

"Villain" is way too broad a category for me to feel comfortable laying many rules down, a good Saturday Morning Cartoon villain is going to be markedly different from a political drama villain. Doctor Impossible is a great villain and Darth Vader is a great villain even though they have virtually nothing in common.

The most important thing with any character, but especially a villain since they drive the plot, is to avoid the 8 deadly words*. The villain needs to be a character we care about, to fear them, to loath them, or even to see that they have a point somewhere. As bintananth said, the villain should make sense, if it doesn't I won't care. The villain needs to fit the theme of the story, which usually means some connection to the protagonist. The villain generally needs to be active and able to get the ball rolling since most stories rely on the protagonist reacting to moves made by the antagonist. But the only part that's really indispensable is that the villain needs to make me care somehow.


*I don't care about any of these characters.

 

[bintananth]

The villain needs to be a character we care about, to fear them, to loath them, or even to see that they have a point somewhere. As bintananth said, the villain should make sense, if it doesn't I won't care. The villain needs to fit the theme of the story, which usually means some connection to the protagonist.

One of my favorite Shakespeare plays is Twelfth Night, or What You Will. It's his silliest and most lighthearted play. The closest thing to a villain its got is Malvolio. He's a pompus ass who thinks everyone else is acting like a fool and gets called out for it in a very satisfying way because he's ruining the fun.

 

[bullethead]

Honestly, when it comes to pure villains, the ones I find myself liking lately are the ones who're super into doing big evil. One of the highlights of Star Trek: Discovery was this rando-black Terran Empire dude who was super into the big evil they were doing, so he stood out and caught your attention.

A villain (or antagonist) who loves what they do is always more interesting than a dour asshole who's doing it because *reasons that are boring or uncompelling*.

I do have a soft spot for classy antagonists who're professional about how they do things, mostly because they tend to be fairly pragmatic and can sometimes wind up being in alliances of convenience with the protagonist.

 

[ParadiseLost]

*I don't care about any of these characters.

Even then, if the only person I care about is the villain, that usually means they've made a bad villain, because they've failed to convince me that the villain is evil or doing bad things that should be stopped.

And if there's nothing the villain is doing that is bad and needs to be stopped, then they aren't really fulfilling their role as the villain.

Take Dusan Nemec: the main villain, and easily my favorite character in Watch_Dogs 2.

Somehow, ubisoft managed to make a billionaire hipster CTO (Chief Technology Officer) who likes turtle necks and man buns the most relatable character in their video game.

They managed to make their billionaire hipster villain the most relatable character. Just let that sink in for a second.

He's also a terrible villain because he practically feels like a non-threat to the main cast, in no small part because despite being a billionaire with many politicians under his thumb, the ability to control the NYSE, most of Silicon Valley under his thumb, being able to manipulate the FBI, and having a huge private security force on call, he essentially is always softballing the protagonist.... Which almost makes sense since he says he's actually a fan of the main protagonist, Marcus Holloway.

Dusan Nemec is also a pragmatist who actually makes some really good points about how the vast majority of people genuinely just don't care enough about privacy, and about how the sort of things Blume is doing is practically inevitable within the context of the current culture... and his points are then completely ignored for the rest of the game so that the protagonists can sit on an undeserved moral soapbox considering they're international terrorists, thieves, and likely each have a non-negligible body count.

And that's why villains where "I don't care about any of these characters" are often bad even when you do care about the villain and not the protagonist: if you don't care about the protagonist, even if you like the villain, it will be very hard for them to effect you in any way.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Here's another one of my thoughts on what makes a great villain: dignity in the face of death. An antagonist who accepts death honourably is automatically worthy of respect no matter how awful they were in life. It's one of the reasons Saren was such a badass villain in Mass Effect 1, if you made him come to his senses.

 

[Navarro]

Most of all, your villain should be impressive. You can have a largely evil bad guy if you don't want your work to be morally complex, but said bad guy has to be intimidating with a strong presence unless you're writing a comedy.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

One thing I've noted with at least the wider audience's views on villains, is that the ones with codes of honour get a great deal of respect. For example, Davy Jones of Pirates of the Caribbean is a literally heartless sadist but once he gives his word, he doesn't go back on it. And there's nothing really hidden between the lines, he's upfront about what his deals mean.

 

[Simonbob]

I was thinking about this, and something popped into my mind.

One of best aspects of a good villain is the interactions between them and other people. Think Die Hard.


Hans Gruber feels like a person. Not a good one, but a strong, smart one. You never feel like he's boring. Great interactions, all around.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Consistency and presence.

Gina McKee for example utterly dominated every single scene she was part of in that tacky Borgias show. The Historical Caterina Sforza was probably one of the more psychopathic fuckers in Renaissance Italy, but McKee played the character as this cruel, charismatic, intellectual menace who could run game on Machiavelli and Alexander the Sixth and it took the Superpower of the era to bring her down in the end.

Sauron is another great example as is Feanor. These were two giants who played at the game of Gods and more than held their own and the hubris of one quite literally doomed the universe to entropy and Armageddon and the other gave a creator God the finger and walked away maimed but smug as fuck having won.

Even in defeat, he spits defiance at the alliance of men even as Eru hurls his ass into the void.

Doctor Doom is unforgettable as is General Chang.

I was gonna say Scorpius but honestly he isn't an antagonist and honestly? The dude was absolutely vindicated in the end. It took the threat of blowing up a Galaxy to get the Scarrens to back off.

Weyoun was great as well. The man who led a war against a Messiah and living legends and men who stared down Gods greater than the Founders or the Prophets (Fuck the ST EU's nonsense about the stupid ass Wormhole aliens being above the Q) and was winning until that stupid Rock Thot female changeling took over the war effort.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Even then, if the only person I care about is the villain, that usually means they've made a bad villain, because they've failed to convince me that the villain is evil or doing bad things that should be stopped.

And if there's nothing the villain is doing that is bad and needs to be stopped, then they aren't really fulfilling their role as the villain.

Take Dusan Nemec: the main villain, and easily my favorite character in Watch_Dogs 2.

Somehow, ubisoft managed to make a billionaire hipster CTO (Chief Technology Officer) who likes turtle necks and man buns the most relatable character in their video game.

They managed to make their billionaire hipster villain the most relatable character. Just let that sink in for a second.

He's also a terrible villain because he practically feels like a non-threat to the main cast, in no small part because despite being a billionaire with many politicians under his thumb, the ability to control the NYSE, most of Silicon Valley under his thumb, being able to manipulate the FBI, and having a huge private security force on call, he essentially is always softballing the protagonist.... Which almost makes sense since he says he's actually a fan of the main protagonist, Marcus Holloway.

Dusan Nemec is also a pragmatist who actually makes some really good points about how the vast majority of people genuinely just don't care enough about privacy, and about how the sort of things Blume is doing is practically inevitable within the context of the current culture... and his points are then completely ignored for the rest of the game so that the protagonists can sit on an undeserved moral soapbox considering they're international terrorists, thieves, and likely each have a non-negligible body count.

And that's why villains where "I don't care about any of these characters" are often bad even when you do care about the villain and not the protagonist: if you don't care about the protagonist, even if you like the villain, it will be very hard for them to effect you in any way.

So I guess darth vader is the exception to the rule.

 

[ParadiseLost]

So I guess darth vader is the exception to the rule.

Eh... From a moral perspective, Vader is a villain, but he's not much of a villain from a writing perspective, just an antagonist.

Indeed, Orson Scott Card once said that in his opinion, Vader is the protagonist of the original Star Wars trilogy - Luke is just the hero and viewpoint character.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@Bear Ribs

I said those eight words after 1 episode of Breaking Bad. I never went back to it.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

As for what makes a great villain...
Competence: skilled enough to make the protagonist struggle to succeed
Character: must be interesting enough to grab attention even if you don't sympathize with them (Hans Gruber)
Intent: not like the Joker. I've never liked him as a villain simply because crazy feels like a force of nature and just a way to make the protagonist struggle. Willful and reasoned choices for why the antagonist is doing whatever they are doing.

 

[VicSage]

Charisma. He can kill a millions of people, but if your villain lacks charisma, then he's basically just a brick wall to overcome. There's no rush of hate for the villain, no twisted admiration, no begrudging sympathy, or even just a burning need to stop the villain. "Oh, I'm generic nazi villain 28, you can tell I'm bad because I have Nazi in my name" has no heart, no soul. But the twisted madman who spent months hounding the hero for a petty slight you grow to love, or even love to hate.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It heavily depends on various factors including genre, writing skill, among others. What is a good villain in one isn't in another.

For example, Xanatos was a great villain in Disney's Gargoyles because he's charismatic, calculating, and always has an escape plan.

Thrawn is a breath of fresh air because he didn't get his position via nepotism but with skill and understanding his opponents better than they know themselves.

Yellow 13 is a great villain because he's a fellow aviator and he's a soldier about it (and him essentially being The Red Baron with the serials filed off helped him a bit).

Strum from Advance Wars was a good villain because he learned from his mistakes in the previous game. The Joker in his various incarnations tends to be a good villain because they mix a combination of insanity and cold, calculating, horrifying intelligence.

Hell, even Battalion Wars's Kaiser Vlad -despite being very one-dimensional- is a decent villain because he not only uses brute strength but also manipulation to get what he wants, while he also understands that some things can't be controlled.

 

[Laskar]

What does the villain want, why does he want it, and how does he accomplish it?
Basic stuff, true, but you have to start with the basics. I've seen too many villains fall apart because the writer had a bunch of cool scenes in mind, and the villain exists just to string them together and give the hero a cool fight. Or they try to mysterybox it, and create an agenda or a plan that the audience can't see coming... and the audience can't see it coming because it makes no sense when you put it all together.

Plot the story out from the villain's perspective. You'll find twists and story ideas that you will never have thought of otherwise. And if the audience can guess the mystery that you're setting up... oh, well. Surprise is overrated. Cliches are what you should fear.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

You know, what with all the things we've discussed, I think Lord Voldemort's failure to live up to most of that makes him a little...underwhelming. As one of the most famous fantasy villains of all time, Tom Riddle is not far off from a case study in sub par villain writing, what with his psychopathic man babying and inability to defeat a bunch of teenagers, whilst in the end dying to a legal argument.