The Psychology of Evil: Comparing notes on what makes a good antagonist

I don't write villains, really. Anything I've written with a villain has sucked, so I stopped. I like much more general forms of antagonist, such as circumstance or whatever. In one of my stories there's a guy who seems like the villain but once you reach roughly the 2/3rds mark you begin to see that he's actually one of the most selfless characters who's basically made everything good happen, even while being a smug, self-congratulating a-hole... So really the antagonist is his personality, while he himself is the protagonist. But then, a lot of my plots are deeply based in a character's emotional well-being, and I know pretty well that anyone can knock that off balance.

I have a lot of people express surprise/alarm at the total lack of conflict in some of my stories... He he he. I hope I'm pulling it off as well as I think I am.

 

But why does an antagonist have to be evil? Not everyone I don't get on with an want to slap is evil they just get on my nerves. That creates conflict.

I went back and read mine lol and the evil characters are really plot devices nothing more. My antagonist is different in every chapter - one minute he is mad at his brother, then he doesn't like the Abbot, the housekeeper is in one. His beloved Uncle Tom or his bestfriend in another. They are not evil and they are all people he loves just he is a hot head and at that moment they are getting on his nerves.

 

Doesn't have to be, but people do like exploring characters they consider radically different to themselves, or poking at bits of their own psyche in a safe way. Or there's someone they hate who they can only safely get at in fiction so they get overblown. Or, as you say, are just a plot device that lets a much more interesting plot go on somewhere else, with the evil peep just some sort of vague end goal around all the character building and story telling.

Evil's interesting and sells, and if it's pulled off right it creates some of the most iconic characters.. Many things people sometimes end up liking the villains better than the other characters and idolise them instead, because if a MC is just a blank sheet of "put yourself here" then no wonder if the villain is a much better developed character. Then you get a culture of fascination with villain-types, and a historically forever trend of both real life villains and big villains in storytelling, and it's just assumed the villain will be a crazy evil nut.

 

I agree.

Think actually how evil and real the character is depends on the antagonist and what they need. For me the antagonist comes out of what the protagonist needs for the character.

I am having to bring out the evil characters more in my second book because the main antagonist is less of a hot head, they are needed to provide conflict. In the first book my antagonist doesn't need help to find conflict lol It is fun writing one of my characters she is so deliciously evil.

 

That is a good point.

I write mostly fantasy and science fiction, where the antagonists usually end up being evil sorcerers, malevolent dragons, invading aliens or some vampire that just woke up from a thousand year sleep, with a stiff neck, bad back and a serious chip on his shoulder.

I've not given much thought to other lines of writing, such as romance where a love triangle's antagonists isn't necessarily evil, but just another person competing for the main character's affections, or the competitive race car driver who has sports rivals or even the goofy boob who causes the antics the straight man has to contend with in a comedy piece.

In retrospect, all of these are just as valid as the sinister "Evil" villain.

 

My story is fantasy so I do have the evil Morgan Le Fey type character and a mysterious evil sea bird. But neither of them are the main source of my protagonists conflicts.

For Example:

This is the first few lines of my book - in this scene the antagonist is his Dad. His Dad is a bit weak and has depressive incidents but he is not evil. My next chapter his school teacher and sister are his antagonists. I don't actually have a main one.

EDIT: My second story does have an evil antagonist but at the end of the book she is not seeming so evil. I need her because I have a different protagonist and he is less inclined to shout argue and punch everything in sight.

My point is the antagonist is as evil as the protagonist needs them to be.

 

I would still want to know why/how he became a sociopath, because there is always a history associated with it. May be childhood traumas or something.

I agree. To think that antagonist have to evil will be total misconception.

Or in other words, evilness of an antagonist depends on the perspective or the POV.

 

That or the personality of the protagonist - some protagonists will find conflict and story in relatively minor situations. Others need more to find the same level of conflict and story.

My first MC is complex but not complicated. He is rebellious but not dark. He doesn't need a deep dark antagonist, as he wears his heart on his shoulder.

My second MC is a deeper character he has more levels, more trauma and more depth to who his. He also has a much darker side than my first MC. He needs darker more complicated protagonists to get the same level of conflict and story.

 

Getting back to the core of this thread, the original post, about what is evil, a friend of mine once noted that evil might not be the fact a character arrived at a horrific solution, but how rapidly that person did and the fact that he or she discounted other potential solutions. Even fantastically caring people might do a desperation measure, evil is how readily and rapidly it's accepted.

 

The antagonist as stated is ultimately any opposing or competing force with the protagonist. You can't really define it to be within certain parameters, as most people here have more or less already stated.

Good or Evil?
An antagonist could be a fellow good guy, just competing against the protagonist just as easily as it could be the evil villain trying to destroy the city.

Deep or Shallow?
In some cases, like short stories or a kid's shows, the antagonists don't always need depth as long as the story is entertaining. In content aimed at an audience with more of a desire for thought-provocation, then depth certainly is more required. This doesn't necessarily mean all adults want thought-provocation, so even more mature content can have a shallow antagonist if it's simple entertainment. It can be anything, depending on the content.

Mystery or Blatant?
An antagonist could also be unknown until the end of a plot or be known right from the start. It once again depends on the story and target audience. Sometimes a mysterious unknown antagonist where all that is seen is the affects of his/her actions works better in like a mystery story where in a action movie, the antagonist could be the murderer of the protagonist's family, so you might know immediately. Or in some cases, perhaps the antagonist and protagonist are playing a game of cat and mouse, so while both roles are known, neither can take initiative until certain conditions have been met. Or in another scenario, the person the protagonist was with has secretly been the antagonist.

My antagonists:
I've written two novel length stories before where it was pretty fantasy oriented, so the main bad guy was known and popped in from time to time along with the bad guy's underlings. The protagonist and his allies learned more about the "final boss" and his origins, giving him a bit of depth, but I was still (and I still am in my opinion, though a lot better than I was) pretty much a novice.

The second novel was a sequel to the first, so the new antagonist actually answers some free floating questions left about the first one, and nicely wraps up everything for the reoccurring characters and new protagonist.

My current work in progress is a mystery novel where the antagonist won't be known until the end (because otherwise it wouldn't work very well as a mystery novel), but the protagonist, while investigating, is going to be discovering and learning all sorts of things about the antagonist, what type of person the antagonist is. This is also going in unison with romance storyline going on between the protagonist and the love interest that will ultimately play a vital role in the primary plot.

What I like best in antagonists:
I would say, the antagonists that I remember the best are usually the antagonists that aren't painted good or evil, have a good amount of depth (even if the origin isn't known, if I can empathize with the antagonist, I'm content), and normally they don't directly try to oppose the protagonist because he/she is the protagonist, but it's more like:
Protagonist wants Goal A
Antagonist wants Goal B
Only one goal can be reached, so it creates a sorted of angled conflict, not really at a personal grudge level where they hate one another, but an unavoidable kind of conflict that forces them against one another.

 

Heinlein, I tried to give you rep points, but it wouldn't let me because I gave your other post rep points too recently. Great post, though.

I honestly advise that you be careful with the whole "no antagonist is a 100% bad guy" thing. Yes, it's true that no one is 100% good or bad, and everyone has their own flaws and redeeming qualities.

But sometimes, I think, the plot calls for it. What if you need a villain to be a sociopathic killer? Or someone who captures/imprisons/tortures the protag? Etc?

Yes, I realize that even the types above are still human and still wouldn't be walking around like Darth Vader all the time.

I'm just saying -- getting too rutted in the "must not be black or white" mindset might make you feel like you HAVE to make a character sympathizable, when they really aren't supposed to be and when doing so isn't natural for you or for the story.

Write the villain how you want him/her to come across, and how he/she needs to be for the purpose of the story, whether it takes more of a B&W angle or a shades of gray angle.

Also, as I said in my earlier post, this will also be affected by your mindset as a writer. Whether or not the villain embodies something you get heated up about emotionally will affect how you write him/her.

 

@Mallory: Thanks! Although I didn't mean to imply that these characters can't be wholly evil or close to it.

A sociopath doesn't have any reason to care about others. If I wrote a sociopath character, I'd keep that in mind, and whenever he / she came to a "mercy or violence" moment I'd have fun writing disturbingly efficient violence. But the sociopath can have all kinds of reasons for getting involved in the first place, from regarding it as a job to using it as a way to get past an obstacle (say, the hero has prevented the sociopath from getting a promotion).

Good and evil are useful terms which come into play when we talk about a society's morals. A good Aztec would help hold a prisoner down during a sacrifice so the Sun could rise again. A good Iranian Muslim in 1850 might beat his wife for burning a meal. A good Spanish Christian in 1475 would turn over hungry Jewish children to be killed or converted.

I happen to think that evil and good are also somewhat absolute. Not that everyone at all times will think about morality the way I do, but that if they did it would lead to greater stability, peace and happiness overall. Which is as good a definition as any.

My own characters tend to be average people in their mindset. But now and then I'll write an evil guy -- someone blinded by ambition. Or who enjoys cruelty and power. Or who doesn't see many people as "people," rather than tools.

Mallory is completely correct that there are times when you, as a writer, really should not try to make a character sympathetic. Yes, the world is complicated. Yes, both protags and antags will have virtues and flaws. But now and then there are people who are simply bad. Who are neutral at best and frequently evil. People who are petty, cruel, deceitful, treacherous, opportunistic.

I've met them. I don't often write them. I don't understand them, on a fundamental level, because what it means to me to be a person involves complex ideas like respect and principles and introspection and mutually positive social interaction.

But sometimes, only a scumbag fits the bill. So you write them. And when you need to write a true scumbag, resist the urge to make them morally gray. You can do that later with your sympathetic villains, your complex villains, your neutral characters who have some reason not to help the hero right away.

 

I'm not quite sure yet or that it really matters in the story because he isn't a main character. He's tormenting one of them though. So I will just see as I write.

 

It hasn't been mentioned yet but often the best villains are people the protagonist trusted but then were betrayed by.

Trust and betrayal are hugely evocative because they strike fear into all of us about who in our lives may be deceiving us or have the capacity to.

 

The antagonist isn't necessarily a person. The antagonist is any force working against the protagonist. Also, the antagonist doesn't have to be evil. The protagonist is the main character of the story. What works against your pro. is your ant.

Example:
In my story, Cerise, the main character is a murderer. He tries to murder a girl, but fails. She finds him to let him kill her. The antagonist is the detective that tries to keep Cerise from her killer, so that she won't aid him in her own murder. The story is of a murderer, not the detective. The detective is the force working against my main character.

And as for my earlier statement, that your antagonist doesn't necessarily have to be a person -

Example:
Fantasia. A child travels across the vast lands of Fantasia in hopes of finding a way to stop the Nasty. The Nasty isn't a person, but it's what's working against the child, who's racing against the Nasty's rapid pace.

I'll give better examples if needed. :3 Thank you.

 

Thanks!

Another approach on this:

Think of the antag the way the protag would. Even if the antag has his or her good flaws, the protag wouldn't see them. If a protag is being confronted, flawed, assaulted, threatened, etc, is he/she going to see the sympatheic human side of the antag and consider him/her as a multifaceted human being? No, the protag would not.

I mean, of course there are things about the antag that you as the Author may want to know. But to reveal all this knowledge in your writing? In many times, not the best idea, not if you want the readers to sympathize with the protag. Readers can deduct the antag's dilemma on their own.

 

It's relatively common that a story switches viewpoints between the "good" and the "bad" main characters. For example, for the first half of the story we may follow a criminal as he's planning a murder, and trying to outsmart the good guy, an investigator. Then, for the second half, we follow the investigator trying to solve the crime and catch the murderer.

In the first half, where the bad guy is the protagonist, something funny happens. Even if the reader retains their moral sense, and finds the bad guy unsympathetic, they will still feel suspense when the bad guy is close to getting caught, and relief when he gets away. The reader empathises with the bad guy, even though they may not sympathise with him. That's why using an "evil" protagonist may work just as well as a "good" one.

 

A sociopath who torments the MC, I don't think he is that minor a char as you think, even though his appearance in the story may be brief.

Also, I think every char should be develop, however minor they are in the grand scheme of things. That way the readers will feel that the char is integral part of the story and not there just for the convenience of the plot (even if your aim of including the char is just that, for the convenience of your plot).

If the protagonist was hit by a car accidentally so that he will be admitted in a hospital and meet the love of his life who works in the hospital as a nurse, then we don't want to know who was driving the car. But if the protagonist was hit deliberately, I would certainly want to know by whom and why was he hit.

I am not telling you to give his whole life history, but a small paragraph or may be even a cleverly inserted sentence or two will do.

 

The title of this thread is about the psychology of evil (in the case of a villain); the original post asks what makes a good antagonist. Although most villains are antagonists (to the heroes at least), not all antagonists are villains.

Here are two ways I approached the topic in superhero RPG adventures I've written.

My first published adventure, Enter the Gene Pool, introduces Simone Redleaf, a sociologist with a checkered academic career. (The character was largely inspired by Dr. Fredric Wertham, who argued that reading comic books led to juvenile delinquency.) Redleaf initially comes across as the chief antagonist because she intellectually challenges what the heroes are doing. But Redleaf is not out to get the heroes on a personal level, does not commit any crimes, and does not side with anyone who does commit crimes. Is she a villain? No. Is she an antagonist? Yes.

My second adventure (due out later this year), introduces a super-villain with a tragic origin story. Here's the abridged version of the backstory: A group of scientists take part in an unauthorized endeavor. When one them (apparently) dies, the others cover their tracks, and say that the their colleague acted alone. At this point, the scientists involved in the cover-up are knowingly villainous. Yet the left-for-dead scientist is a sympathetic character who rises up as the central villain in the story because the exaggerated level of revenge he ensues as a result of betrayal.

 

Okay, I skipped reading a fair amount of posts on this thread. But to me, "true evil" is the betrayal of trust. It's the earth-shaking revelation that leaves you absolutely stunned and trying to interpret life from a new paradigm.

 

Thank GOD someone has created this thread. I've been wanting to discuss this particular topic with people for a while now before I found this forum. I've tried it elsewhere, but people just don't seem to understand the intricacies of WHY a particular character is the antagonist. It just appears to be enough for them to have an evil character that wants to destroy the world for no good reason.

WHY tends to be the critical part.

So many stories rely solely on the antagonist being pure evil, a psychopath, crazy, or a megalomaniac. It just turns into one big cliché and can ruin the story as it is totally unbelievable. I feel that authors sometimes fall back on these uninspired and overdone reasons just so they can quickly get a bad guy for their protagonist to face without worrying how they are perceived. Other times, they have their antagonist so well thought out in their own mind that they forget that they need to translate it into their writing with at least some sort of indicator so the reader can understand their motivation.

I'm personally having a struggle of my own with my antagonist. A dash of good and a heaping handful of arrogance, over-seasoned with a destructive and somewhat parasitic evil force. It becomes quite difficult to stay away from the clichés while writing about a force that just wants to consume everything in its path. Unfortunately, when we have to ask WHY, we sometimes spend far too long trying to find the answer that we forget the rest of it.

Or at least I do, anyway.


Does anyone else have trouble finding the WHY when trying to create originality amongst the clichés?

 

I've only skimmed through the previous pages but wanted to say a few things (that may or may not have been already said).

Good and evil are not absolute and are in fact completely relative to society. Today, I would imagine almost everyone on the planet believe that ritualistic human sacrifice is evil. But if you go back in time a few thousand years you'll see that human sacrifice was a pretty standard affair among certain cultures.

Take a look back over history and investigate the motivations of everyone you consider to have been evil. Hitler for example wasn't laughing in a lair about his schemes, everything he did, he did (according to his own point of view) for a logical reason. I'm sure the same is true for Charles Manson, suicide bombers, etc: these people don't consider themselves to be evil.

Truly captivating characters act from motivation or logic and believe themselves to be in the right.


I'm still working out the details of my characters as I write my story but so far I have a number of characters all acting with or against other characters to some degree out of necessity or convenience. Instead of drawing a line in the dirt and placing my characters on one of the two sides, I guess I could say I've placed my characters in and around a triangle. I'm not sure how everything is going to play out in the end but so far it is allow for an interesting story.

 

Human sacrifice, in the context of sacrificing criminals convicted of capitol crimes upon the altar of justice, is evil?

Interesting concept

I think most intelligent people agree that if you are abitrarily harming others, its evil regardless of your beliefs. In the case of the Nazis, I seriously doubt anything short of raw insanity would justify their actions. The various documentaries I've seen, revealed their atrocities to extend beyond genocide, into the ghoulish fetishes of "Jew-skin" lamp shades and wallets and one incident of shrunken "Jew heads" being used as dinner table decorations for an SS officer.

I find it hard to find such evidence indicative of anything other than reveling in one's own evilness, in a case that clearly illustrates absolute power corrupting absolutely.

This, of course, contrasts greatly with the religious zealot who believes he is doing his god's will by slaying others. As you pointed out, such persons see themselves as righteous.

However I do agree with you that most villains don't spend their time laughing in their lairs about their schemes. Such behavior is reserved for comic book villains.

 

I beg to differ. If this was the case, there would be a lot of walking clichés in our history. You wouldn`t be able to convince a survivor of the Holocaust that Hitler wasn`t evil, that we shouldn`t give Himmler such a hard time.
Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things, but when you get to the root of it, they are either good or bad.
Good vs Evil:

Spoiler

Saying that nothing is really truly evil is like saying that starvation is okay because people lose weight. Just because starvation results in weight loss, doesn`t mean it is anything other than bad.

Someone also mentioned something about good and bad being relative to society. Let`s say that our whole society was anorexic. We all believed that it is normal to starve oneself. Now, even though we all believe it to be good, would it be good?

I find that the last person you should trust is someone who is human. Our lives are driven by a mix of emotion, knowledge, and false knowledge. Are we really to be trusted? Could the answers we have always be the true ones?

Absolutes:

Spoiler

I believe there are absolutes. There are no grey areas. Either you say "hello", or you don't. Either you touch the book, or you don't. Sometimes it's a little harder to see. Do you open the book all the way? Just a little? Just a millimeter? Do you open it to page 1? Page 53? That is the place where so many of us believe the grey area resides.

If there was a grey area, it would look something like this. Are you touching the book a little bit? Or a lot? The problem with this is that it is impossible. You can't touch the book a little or a lot, since in both cases, you would still be touching the book! There is no difference. The only time there would be a difference is when we start assigning values to "a little" or "a lot".

Why the "Clichés" in stories?:

Spoiler

The reason why so many stories show bad guys as being incapable of doing good is because the only thing revelent to the story is the things they do wrong. You don't see the good stuff they might do once in a while, since it obviously doesn't affect their actions all that much. When we read World War II stories, do we hear what good things Hitler did? Of course not! Because (sadly) anything good he did didn't effect the outcome of the war.

So just because Boris loves his wife very much, and donates to his local SPCA doesn't mean it's going to change the fact that he plans to torture your MC. On the contrary, it just seems like a cheap ploy to get the reader to sympathize with the character. "Awww, don't kill poor Boris, his wife would be heart broken, nevermind the fact that he was responsible for the genocide of millions of people."

So make your bad guy as evil as you want. There are a lot of people through out history who would be great inspiration. Whether you want a little bad, or completed evil, there is someone who has done it. All I ask is that you keep it real and relevent.

 

Heh. I think the public's opinion would change if chanting and ceremonial knives and hot pokers were to replace gas chambers and lethal injections.

Oh without a doubt - I agree completely. But our views are both heavily influenced by today's culture. Who knows what the world will be like in a 1000 years.