I haven’t written any CS games but I have been involved in some small novels so I hope that qualifies me to comment about this.
- My typical villains usually have goals that are pretty much the opposite of the MC’s. A more interesting route I enjoy is when the goals actually align in a general sense (e.g. bringing peace on the world),
but the method is vastly different (e.g. extreme examples, but MC setting up just laws to and whatnot to curb chaos while the villain brutally slaughters everyone they think disturbs the peace).
Ofc I think this would likely be harder to manage in a CS game since I find stories that provide the option of a more ‘unethical’ MC being more interesting. (Just my opinion!). I could go more in detail about the first 2 points here but I just woke up and I’m still half asleep x_x.
-
I don’t think I’m as equipped to give a fulfilling and accurate answer for the third question so I hope other commenters here can help fill that gap.
-
Typically I think it’s only appropriate to include more than 1 villain when:
A) The second, third, etc. don’t detract from the first, overarching one. I want my readers to be able to relate with the bad guy, I want them to understand their POV, motivations, and sometimes be scared/sympathetic towards them. It’s a little harder to accomplish this if I have to dedicate more time and pages to flesh out additional villains. Of course the main overarching one should have underlings and whatnot, but those generally should be for strengthening the villains impact on the story (e.g. a formerly loyal henchmen ditching the cause after one too many bad deeds showing the main bads descent into madness or something). This leads into my second point on the last question.
B) When the additional villains strengthen the impact of the first on the plot and readers. I think an example can help flesh out this point better than a more conventional explanation.
Tying this back to the ‘extreme’ examples I included earlier, perhaps a new uber powerful chaotic force is introduced into the plot, and the MC + primary villain temporarily set aside their differences to confront the new threat. This would continue to demonstrate that their general goals do align, but the method of execution differs by a ton.
All of this is just my opinion of course, I’m not a big name writer like Stephen King, more of a hobbyist so I’d love to read anyone’s input if y’all share different views. Again, still half asleep so I might have worded some parts poorly!
Edit: Also I have no idea how to format comments here so apologies about the wacky paragraphs
4 Likes
I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 28 stories(including about 6 ttrpg campaigns) in various states of completion. And what I can firmly state about my formula that seems to work for those who I have allowed to read my work/those who play at my table is, I write down an ideal, goal or characteristic that I find aligns to the basic concept of evil. Then, I take that detail and find its opposition in another aspect of the character to flip my own preconceived notions. Rinse. Repeat. Makes for very fascinating antagonists, I find.
Example: one of my BBEGs in my D&D world, Suspho’Thoth(or Zuss as my older brother has taken to calling him) a lich, an immortal, once a great king and grand mage, believes that the world must be subjugated to his will and will not stop until he sees that future. In contrast he greatly values all living creatures and has never personally harmed another living thing in his entire life/unlife. A man who started as a cross between Skeletor from He-Man and Apocalypse from X-Men in my brain, has through the years become only more complex even though his goal remains ultimately simple. Only my first D&D party has ever met him, and only briefly. Few survived the encounter with the things that he creates in the wake of his footsteps. He would say, in his gentle, granite like voice. “Destroyer? I have only ever created. Unlike the real blaspheme and destruction of reality that is your gods and their petty attitudes and wavoring fancies. Embrace me. Be cherished for eternity. Or let choas sing the only tune it knows. Entropy. Decay. And I will grieve you then, as I have the untold dead across the millenia.”
5 Likes
The villains I wrote or mostly for P&P RPG campaigns like D&D or Shadowrun so I can only help partially but I will try.
First depending on the campaign and what role should he be. Should he be the typical egoist that goes for his selfish needs because his mentality and/or the world teach him you can only look out for yourself or should he be a revenger that got so much shit on, that he decides to stop any restrictions.
The world we are mostly depend how exactly he fit in.
Second this I got teached through Persona 5 and WH40K Black Crusade. The important question is the drive. So what does he want and why does he want it? Flat personality villains are mostly maniacs and while those may work as true Khorne fanatics, those get boring soon. Especially important is the point of creativity. Not as a writer but as a villain. While this whas said by the Hero Goblin Slayer it is still valid, that creativity is the greatest weapon someone could possess. Villains worth their salt will likely need much creativity because either they are in concurrence with other villains so only the smartest and attendive villains reach it to the top cause there are hundreds of others that want their place or they are on their own fighting with limited recources agains a legion of heroes. Though in high fantasy settings you could easily write a borring villain that whas just a poor stupid man withoutout foresight but suddenly got godly powers as a joke and now he just have a terror regime where he scares children and kick puppies because he can but in the end he will still remain a joke because there is no more depth behind it. More about this in the last point.
The best point is not letting the lines blur but making clear that there is no good and evil but egoist and community thoughts. Like in earlier SMT games where you have the choice between a safe world with rules and peace but ruled by a tyrant or a chaotic world with freedom and uncertainty ruled by those that currently have the power for it. Because in the end everyone want to live and most people want to live a wealthy live so it is better to have instead interests clash each other. How to better represent that this I can give this as an example on a choice how to do a mission in Shadowrun Hong Kong.
You know that the target you need to kidnap likes to go the theater and an exclusive club.
You could kidnap him in the parking lot of the theather where are no civilians but the target will be heavily guarded.
You could infiltrate the theater where security is light but it could come to collaterals
You could go for the club where security is not the best too but the speciality is that you could not really scout ahead so there may be surprises.
Of course you would automaticly think that the parking lot is the good choice. But what if one or more of your friends die because the security whas to strong. What if the target escapes because you could not get just in time to the target through the guards and are now in deep shit? And all of this problems are now because you rated the lives of some strangers higher then those near toward you.
The last point about the multiple villains, this best if you plan either a multi faction story or a story with underlings and a big bad boss. Let’s look at the joke again. He works the best if he is only a sub villain created by some bored evil god that really get his fun, when he gives the miserable people power to change the world but in the end they just stay as miserable but this time on the opressor side.
So now you have to go agains the god because for getting your free or peaceful life you need to stop this god so no more assholes will be created that get to the power. The multiple villain angle could be even combined with the multiple motivation point. Like saying you life in warring state with multiple tyrants leading war and your group are part of people that want do the Nobunaga and unify the land so there is peace again. But during this fight the found a secret group that want to have this state to continue because from their historic teaching peace makes weak and for them it is better if all of them stay strong because of their divivde et impera conspiracy. Why they need to be strong is another question. Maybe they learned that the longer the peace last the more demanding people get and this will lead to big chaos where people in the end have to suffer great because of this culture and knowledge degrade. So they rather want people only suffer constantly a little but so constantly improving then having constantly surge and degrade with no real progress.
Or there whas (demonic) invasion and so that the land will be able to continue existing they rather want a constant warring state where once the invasion is happening the people will be ready.
I would say multiple by once it get political and only one guy when it is something personal.
So those are my experiences. I hope I could help.
3 Likes
