I have noticed with plenty of media that the twist villain trope often does fail, especially with Disney. I am wiring a fantasy novel (it's one book and three mini books makes make the one book). This villain isn't even the big bad. The Villain: a skeleton warlord (the main race in the story are skeletons and the anti villain book one and the hero of books two and three are also skeletons) who in the past was a congressional politician in a fictional country who became a folk hero in his district thanks to him resigning from congress to join the military He is a military leader with a gambling addiction when he launched a coup after a popular leader (the anti villain from part one) died, he did some very evil things. let me explain Unions were led by his thugs, and those worker unions were used to make labor camps. He held elections for himself that he oversaw. "Recount" here means fight to the death, so he did a lot of those and had a knack to kill and the "best" i must confess i saved for the last he legalized abortion but only as a measure of where if traditional value people get in trouble, Stalinist nkvd esque soldiers are sent to homes to beat pregnant wives. Entrance: When we are first introduced to this character (as well as subsequent scenes with him that tend to be dark) his introduction in the room is always introduced with the pair of dice that he always rolls. When those dice roll, you know there will be something wrong. Motivation: The villain's main motivation is power and to create a society where the state comes first. However, why does he want to kill the protagonist? Ultimately, it is not for power and he even says it when there is the reveal. What he wants, is his question answered. The villain was a top general and close ally to the anti villain from book one (who was the protagonist of book one). The question the villain has is "would he be able to defeat the anti villain in a duel (which is his one of his hobbies)? The closest person he has who could answer such question, is the adopted son of the anti villain, our protagonist for part two and three. The villain is not honorable even on a dueling field. He likes to give his opponents what seems to be the upper hand , only to use his clever tricks on them. Does the villain's question get answered? yes, and the answer is yes. The hero ended up using a trick of his own on the villain which was that his adoptive grandfather threw a sword in the back of the villain and then the hero slices him up with the line "you just lost re-election." however, since the hero had outside help, it is clear that the villain would have won. the reveal: We are revealed the twist that this guy is bad was when the hero was on what seemed to be just a side quest and then when the hero gets captured by natives on an island, the villain is revealed. Were there any hints?: A common problem with twist villains is the lack of hints for the reader or audience. What I did was a little unique. This villain was bad for a chunk of the first part, but he was only bad because the anti villain was bad then. He seemed to be nothing more than a "good soldier who follows orders" he is just a bit violent when he fights because of how long he has been in the army. The only actual hint we get that he will be a villain down the line is we see he has a webbed foot which is a reference to Joseph Stalin's webbed foot. In other words, he is a twist villain in the non-conventional sense. It 100% makes sense that he is bad, it's just readers aren't expecting it because they don't expect much past what is a generic general. How does this villain sound overall and is that the foundation for a solid twist?
