One of my favorite villains is Melkor Morgoth from the Silmarillion. He is powerful, dreadful and truly dangerous. His servant and successor, Marion Sauron, is also a great villain. Both are virtual powers of nature, more akin to sentient disasters than mortals. Yet both are undone by their devotion to evil, and their pursuit of power leaves them weakened and powerless.
the master from dr who (jon simm's master)!!! what a character oh man!! you almost dont want the doctor to win, almost!! and please, who wouldnt have a crush on this guy whether they're male female or alien i mean look at him! i mean looks a bit like a drug addict but isnt that what makes a great villain?? also this scene. HERE COME THE DRUMS
- I always loved Samael, from the Darksiders video games. I like him because he is clearly a villain, but you don't even know why, not as in how he became who he is, but he never really does anything villainous, it is just his status, everyone knows it, but it isn't defined by any of his actions or conversations, I think that is why he stands out so much, to me. - My favorite villain traits or the really calm, charming and smart ones, those who don't rely on violence but aren't afraid to use it, the ones that can confuse the heroes, even have them question themselves, simply by argumentation. - What I dislike are the overly pointless evil villains, the "I don't need a back story or reason to do what I do and that is my motivation and I like boasting about not needing a reason" type. It's a cop-out. You can have a weak villain, fearful villain, violent one, I don't care, just give their actions motivation apart from just "being evil."
I would say Lex Luthor. I don't like villains who are evil for the sake of being evil. I'm looking for good character development and there has to be some kind of trigger that brings a character to become a villain. I prefer stories where I can see the human side of villains too.
Interesting thread. I am surprised by the number of posters that want the villain to have 'back-story' or a 'reason' why he's evil. To me, the fact that he might not have a reason is the most chilling aspect of the villain. I want to really, really hate the villain and rejoice in his demise. I want to dance on his grave. I don't want to understand him, relate to him or feel sorry for him. IMO most of the great villains are mentally unhinged and unpredictable. (Hannibal Lecter/Jack Torrance). As a reader, I don't care how they got there, what their early life was like, or whether they're a chip off the old block. I just want them to die a horrible death (at the end of course.) Am I the only one who feels this way?
That's an interesting take on villains, for sure. When it comes to writing villains, I want to create a character that people can feel could be anyone. In real life, the most villainous of people often portray selfish behaviour yet still try to rationalize their actions, rather than being purely hateful. They believe that they are the protagonist and hero of their own stories -- that's mostly what I look for in a villain. Then again I'm not too difficult either, and sheer unadulterated violent insanity also has its perks.
Who: Juggernaut from Marvel Comics Why: He's the Juggernaut b*tch! Seriously though, I've always been a fan of the strong guy types because I'm not. Juggernaut's also insanely powerful and while not a genius, also not a dumb as a lot of people think. Tired of: One-dimensional villains who are evil for the sake of being evil. A good villain not only has a reason, in his own mind he's not evil. His reasons for doing what he does are all justified... at least him anyway.
You're not the only one. I have enjoyed a lot of stories with villains who simply want to hurt and destroy, for the sheer pleasure of doing harm. Heath Ledger's Joker is a good example -- someone who "just wants to watch the world burn." I totally understand why people like to read about a complex villain with a compelling motivation and backstory, but sometimes you just want an all-out bad guy to hate. No redeeming qualities or nuance whatsoever. Pure evil can be fun.
I agree. Most of the time evil for the sake of evil is boring, however Heath's Joker was a rare exception to the rule. He was just plain evil but it was done brilliantly. RIP Heath.
Because i went on an Avatar The Last Airbender and Legend of Kora binge for the 4th time recently: Favorite villains= zuko (early), azula, Zahir, Iman Least favorite: Ozai, Unalok, Kuvira Reasons: Both Zuko and Azula are conflicted villains. There is a reason why they are like this. There is a pirpose to their evil. Zuko just wanted honor and for his father to recognize him, so he started off doing bad things. Azula had no one. By the end, she was falling apart and literally losing her mind because her father forced her to grow up too soon take on these adult responsibilities. She was literally wanting her mother in the end. Zahir and Iman wanted change and were adament that their ways were the right ways. Zahir wanted balance and freedom. if that meant killing people for the greater good, then he would do it. He kills the queen of the Earth Nation to set its people free from tyranny, but it just made the nation fall apart. Iman wanted equality. He had seen his father do terrible things as a bender. He didnt like how benders were powerful and wanted to take away that power by using his own. It was for the greater good (in his mind). Hypocritical, yes, but it made every character fear him and how many people agreed with his ideologies I did not like Ozai... Who was basically like "imma be Supreme Ruler of the World....because why not?" He doesnt even do anything until near the entire show's end. You fear his kids over him. Unalok was like "imma unlock this evil spirit and become the avatar of chaos.... Because why not?" And, my husband and i debate over Kuvira a lot. She was his favorite villain because he says shes a badass. I didnt like her because her motive wasnt really fleshed out to me. The earth nation was in chaos. Her mentor didnt want to step up so Kuvira says "imma just conquer these towns and cities... To unite them and restore order".... Sounds good and all, but then she develops their worlds version of nuclear weapons..... For what? Why? At this point, she turns into Ozai to me... "Imma rule the world because, why not?" These characters dont make me feel anything. Im left wondering why i should "fear" them. The difference between TLA and TLoK is that TLA fleshed out its villains. Every episode built them up. TLoK had different villains in each season and didn't devote enough time to them in my opinion.
Tai Lung from Kung Fu Panda. That movie more or less taught me everything I really needed to know about writing a good villain. Okay, so Tai Lung... the guy basically thinks he's the hero. Not just the hero of his own story, but The Hero of The Story. Period. He actually views his life as this epic heroic narrative where he is the main character who is destined for greatness because he's just better and more important than everyone else. (Which sort of makes him the direct opposite of Po, come to think of it.) The brilliance here is the Tai Lung's entire backstory reinforces his belief that he's the hero. It even has a traditional three act structure: He's raised from childhood to be the best at kung fu and his proud, loving master assures him that becoming the Dragon Warrior is his destiny. That's the first act. He is then denied that destiny and lashes out in disappointment, ultimately being defeated and locked away for twenty years. That's the second act. The movie starts with his third act, which is when he at long last breaks out of his prison and sets out to challenge his rival for the magic scroll so that he can become the Dragon Warrior, and then everyone will finally show him the respect he feels he deserves. It's not overtly stated, but you can tell how all of this makes perfect sense in his head. The problem is, he's not a hero, in the sense of being a good guy. For as eloquent as he could be, Tai Lung is a selfish, petulant, temperamental thug who goes on violent rampages when he doesn't get what he wants and doesn't appear to feel any remorse for those he hurts in the process. He apparently doesn't see what being a nice person has to do with being a hero - he doesn't equate heroism with virtuous behavior and moral excellence. He seems to have a far more archaic view of it: Thinking that a hero is just a mighty warrior who performs great martial deeds. If anything he seems to think that being the hero means that whatever he decides to do is right by definition. He is really not a sympathetic character. Like, he's not some tragic anti-villain with good intentions, you're not supposed to agree with him even a little bit. But you can totally see where he's coming from, how he came to view the world the way he does in the first place. That was the important lesson Kung Fu Panda taught me: It's totally fine to write a villain who is just a huge sociopathic asshole. He doesn't have to be that complex, and the readers don't need to find him sympathetic. But they should be able to understand his motivations and world-view, even if they don't agree with them. That's sort of the difference between a realistic villain and a cartoonish caricature bad guy who only exists to do bad things for no reason. Whatever villainy your villain performs has to make sense to him, in a way that the readers can pick up on. Oh, and Tai Lung's whole reveal also has one of the best build-ups I have ever seen. The movie spends a considerable chunk of time just hyping the guy up by having characters freak out at the mere suggestion he could break loose, and when we finally see him he's at the bottom of this ludicrous oubliette-style dungeon custom designed to hold only him, surrounded by guards at all times, literally chained to huge boulders preventing him from moving an inch, with acupuncture needles in his back sealing his chi. They treat him as literally the most dangerous person in the world, like he's Magneto from the X-Men or something. And the moment he gets even the slightest chance, he immediately breaks out of there in a matter of minutes. It's amazing. (I am aware that a lot of people prefer Lord Shen from the second movie, but I'm not sure why since pretty much the only things I recall about that guy is that he was voiced by Gary Oldman and hated pandas for some reason. I dunno, maybe I should rewatch Kung Fu Panda 2 in case I missed some important subtext or something.) I have a preference for entertaining, charismatic, larger-than-life villains who don't piss me off too much by being overly underhanded, dishonorable, petty or unnecessarily cruel. They can definitely be terrible people, but they should have some standards and maintain a degree of dignity - I like it when I can still have some respect for the villain. Hm, I guess the idea that villains necessarily have to die or otherwise be "punished" for their actions, as opposed to just stopped and prevented from causing more trouble. A trope that makes me particularly uncomfortable is Redemption Equals Death, where even when a bad guy actually has a change of heart and admits they were in the wrong, they still have to die so that people don't feel they "got off scott free." That just seems a bit vicious and unforgiving to me. It's one thing if the villain dies in battle with the hero, because that's the natural consequence of battles and besides, they were probably trying to destroy the world or something so it had to be done. But I'm honestly not very big on punishment or arbitrary karmic retribution, and certainly not after the threat has already been neutralized.
Oof...let me think...I guess I'd have to say Sarah Kerrigan from Starcraft (NOT Starcraft 2) but that's only because I like her and she happens to be a villain. I don't like her villainy, just her complexity. Uh, I guess for the pure villain factor, it would be Shang Tsung from Mortal Kombat (1995). He's just so perfect and over the time, and yet also quite mannerable. Ursula from the Little Mermaid was fun. Oh, and Admiral Cartwright from Star Trek VI. Now that you make me think about it, I'm not really a villain person. I like them as plot devices or as character studies, but most of what I write hinges on either non-villain stories, or simple villains so that I can spend more time writing about good guys or not quite good but not villain guys. I'm tried of "crazy" villains -- Joker, Harley Quinn, whatever. I want more dignified, personable, and categorized villains. The sort that are devastating to those they dislike, but don't bother people who aren't in their way. Maybe even tip well at restaurants.
