I actually agree with practically everything you said here. Killing the villain (especially if there is romance with the hero involved) is so overdone that I always come to expect it. You already know the ending at the very beginning.
That’s why I like it when games give Dark Endings and not just Bad and Happy. Dark Endings are usually the ones where MC chooses a darker path, whatever that may mean for the story in question, and in result gets an ending that has both good and bad consequences. The good tends to be more selfish, and the bad more in terms of the world or the other characters.
Example partaking the topic of this thread: if MC decides to join the villain’s side. Maybe keeping their morals intact (“I know this is wrong, but my love for them matters more”) or maybe becoming rather villanous themselves. This is not a bad nor a happy ending, by classic standards, but something in between. MC gets their ending with the villain at the expense of something/someone else.
I also agree with your point that IF is the easiest way to make this work. In a linear story, the author has to choose one way of doing things, explore that particular way and that’s it. IF allows for experimentation, and it’s a bit of a shame to have it reduced to what linear storytelling can do.
However, authors are, at the end of the day, authors. This is both a game and a story. Their story. And if they don’t like or don’t feel comfortable exploring certain themes or outcomes, I understand.
I get it. I have tropes or topics that—while perhaps not inherently bad—I am just personally tired of and very much avoid. Especially in IFs, I don’t think there are many scenarios where a game would have to end with the villain dying in all ends. But I still hold on to my belief that MC changing for the RO villain or the RO villain changing for the MC are equally “bad”. **Or, not bad, but hard to do well.
Thankfully there are many middle grounds between super happy unrealistic ends with two characters from incompatible views or worlds coming together without any issues, and someone, or everyone, dying.
I honestly don’t think anyone would have such malicious intentions, well, not many anyway
One thing I have realized by going from reader to “writer” is that the idea of the characters is so rigid that I can’t easily change some scene or character to fit the scene in a way that might be optimal or satisfying for the reader. While I know I enjoy a happy ending or an RO who always puts the MC first, or the MC not being “punished” by the consequences of their actions, I… I find myself unable to do it.
It’s honestly a little silly. But it feels like breaking the internal logic, in the same way writing that the sky is neon purple feels wrong.
—So what I meant with that is that I don’t think authors mean to punish you or players like you (tho I could be wrong, of course), but that they couldn’t see a way to go around their game’s world logic and give more players a satisfying end.
It’s tricky, really.
One idea I had to get around this problem–for ends anyway–but possible usable in all games is to have an ending that is non-canon. An easter egg type ending that might require particular choices and actions, that makes it clear that we are departing from the game canon or logic in some way and where anything could happen. That could leave the door open for sequels or game/story logic issues, as that end had not promised the same things as a canon ending.
I find this interesting—If one listens to this thread, I think you’re definitely right. What about realistic redemption? The type that takes a long time, takes sacrifice, and does not depend on romance?
I can like those too! But I often feel like (especially in games with rigid MC personalities) that it requires the MC to very suddenly change, and I’m not sure how to fix that—except to add a lot of extra content where the MC is always allowed to go against the plot (if the villain RO is an antagonist)—which would be hard to do. (Hard in the same way that DnD games often require players to play characters who will accompany the party and actually do “adventuring”, and how IFs need to follow a plot as they are not infinite.) The only game I’ve seen do that well is Kotor, and that was because of the character’s very special circumstances.
isnt that then the MC changing for the villain RO?
Agreed!
Also very important for everyone involved! The game part for the author, and the story part for the reader
This is okay no issues here. But, again it depends on the type of villain,antagonist and/or character. Like I said some characters shouldn’t be redeemed at all. We all know that one guy from Fullmetal Alchemist(you know who I am talking about and if you don’t well…) he shouldn’t be redeemed no matter what sacrifice he makes or goes through. So it comes down to what the characters actions are and their motives. So the short answer is yes realistic long term redemption can work and does work more often than not, but it will depend on if that character deserves to be redeemed. Oh also the character has to have a solid reason to be redeemed, something has to really rattle their beliefs and ideals. So no talk no jutsu, please.
I’ve only done one playthrough, but I actually really like the Wren romance in A Pirate’s Pleasure (yes I played a game with a genderlocked female MC, no this is not something I do often). I was playing as a highly compassionate MC. But, I never at any point tried to change Wren. I loved him just as he was. But he changed anyway and became less evil, because of what he himself saw in the MC. (And my MC also changed a bit and became slightly more evil; it is possible for both people to change each other.)
It doesn’t have to be like that. It can be the MC learning new information that allows the player to decide if their morality and beliefs could change enough to align them closer to the villain RO. Is this not a selling point of choice-based games in general? That you can choose how the MC responds to events in the story and affect the outcome of their fate?
To compare with villain ROs being redeemed : there is a fundamental difference in someone becoming jaded and losing faith in their previously held morals (a ‘dark’ ending) and someone deciding that they were wrong and trying to be a better person (a redemption ending). I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other, though as far as the latter is concerned, “deciding to be better because someone was nice and kind to them and became special in their heart” is very overdone and kind of harmful. As long as it’s not done in that specific “A was so good to B that it melted B’s heart and B decided to change their ways to make A happy,” I think redemptions can be done well.
See, what I like about MC+Wren is that most of that is what happens (or happened for me, anyway; I’m sure it varies by MC personality) – but not the very last part, “to make A happy.” Wren didn’t change to make the MC happy. Wren changed because he realized he was happier that way.
my two cents to this topic is that a villain romance or even just enemies to lovers romance couldn’t really be considered a “romance” unless their relationship with each other influences their actions or their views to some degree - it doesn’t have to be a “redemption” or “corruption”, even just simple things like the villain learning that sometimes a little kindness can lead to longer lasting loyalty or the hero learning that sometimes you need to be a little cruel to achieve a result that works for the greater good - just little things that changes or warps their way of thinking slightly to show the subconscious influences on each other. or something twisted like the villain learning to manipulate better having experienced love are all
my other addition re: endings is personally aside from a “dark” route/ending that is romantic, i honestly wouldn’t mind a “they decide to perish together/fall to hell together” type of ending because that would still be “happy” in a way in death and not as if the villain dies and the hero lives. may i also suggest the otome game way of the “merry bad end” where the ending is happy for the couple but not necessarily happy for everyone else in the world? because those are also fun
What makes a good villain romance, in your opinion?
Drama, tension, knowing you shouldn’t but you do have feelings, sense of guilt, and I adore when the villain is mean and evil to all other characters but flirts openly with the hero. Trying to convert the hero to evilness.
Should they be redeemed?
Not necessary. Ot’s one way to go, but i also like when it’s the hero who become “tainted”.
Middle ground is also good, but the villain should maintain the villain feeling. Redemption but you don’t really know if you can trust them 100%.
How bad is too bad?
For me there is no too bad. I think fiction is made to expand in every way.
Personally I find reference to real evil a bit uncomfortable (WWII for example as a European is a sensitive topic) but I would still play the game.
How do we write them without romanticising toxic relationships (and is that even possible)?
I don’t know if i find this necessary. Showing the negative aspects of a toxic relationship is enough for me, but I find it safe to explore in a what if world. I am very happy in my wonderful relationship in real life, let em angst and suffer and hook up with a very evil, very sexy man in fiction
These are just my humble opinions. Love your game btw cannot wait for its release.
First, this topic is a godsend. I have been struggling with the villain(s) in my current project for nearly a year. That and the general terror of trying to figure out how to use the choice script are why I am stuck lol.
I am a huge fan of villain romance options, and I will admit to a slight pull towards the negative aspects of romancing a villain, mainly cause of my own past and not knowing anything else. But there is something I don’t think anyone has mentioned, so far the topic has been focusing on the villain as the negative aspect of the relationship and the mc as the opposite side of the coin. Granted I get that because reading…playing? Im still unclear on which term I should use lol. Because reading these you are looking at it from the mc pov, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to lock it into that specific dynamic.
Take the whole subject of a toxic relationship. Everyone see’s a villain and assumes that they are the negative influence in a V/H relationship, but that’s not necessarily true. Say the villain falls for their nemesis, for whatever reason, they are strong, clever, hot, whatever, but the hero refuses to be with them well they are “evil” even if they return the feelings and begin trying to turn the villain to “good” even if it goes against the villains history, personality, or whatever motivates them. Thus the villain starts down the whole redemption arc right?
Well that entire premise is in itself toxic a.f. It’s the hero literally being a villain and negative influence in the relationship because they are saying “You either do this and be exactly what I want you to be or you don’t get what you want”
I feel people usually only look at a relationship with a villain as being toxic from the MC point of view and not enough look at it from the Villains pov.
It’s definitely not. “I won’t date you because you’re a bad person” is not toxic, it’s the hero not getting involved in a bad relationship and legitimising villainy.
Nobody’s obligated to reciprocate attraction, and that notion needs to be stabbed in the face.
Forcing someone to change just so you will be with them IS toxic, regardless of if that person is a villain or not. It’s just as easy to say “I love you, but you’re evil so I can’t be with you”. I’m not saying that anyone is obliged to reciprocate the attraction, I’m saying that if it’s mutual but one party is saying “Change or I’m not being with you” in an attempt to force the other to be what they want is a negative regardless of if it’s coming from the Villain or the Hero.
I can’t even begin to tackle this idea that “I won’t date you because you’re a bad person” is toxic, because it’s so beyond the realm of anything that I have no idea where to begin. “I won’t date you because you kick puppies and eat babies” isn’t toxic, it’s drawing a line about kicking puppies and eating babies.
I get what you’re trying to say, I think. You’re trying to say that for some villains, trying to force them to change a core belief or be robbed of affection is still an example of toxic behavior in real life.
But the problem is that this isn’t exactly something you can compare to real life. Me telling someone they have to vote for my preferred choice in the Democratic primary or else I’ll dump them is a shitty, horrible thing to do. But me telling someone that they need to stop trying to to commit mass murder or else I’ll dump them is not toxicity, it’s common sense. I mean, common sense is ideally not dating the mass murderer in the first place, but you know what I mean
Not dating someone because they’re committing a serious moral wrong is a really valid thing to do. And it’s also a very common conflict in a villain/hero romance. But maybe you’d prefer to see more villain romances where the hero looks the other way? I haven’t seen many villain romances that do that
So as someone who personally hates redemption arcs and the whole “fixed by the power of love” trope, I agree with THIS BIT ONLY. It usually makes very little sense for the villain to throw away something they’ve likely worked on for years, have put blood (their own and that of others), sweat and tears into, and likely have a rock solid motivation for, all for the sake of someone they’ve known for maybe 6 months at best.
Now personally, I’m not a fan of villain romances in general either, but even if I were, I’d strongly disagree with this bit:
Sure that’s true if it’s something like, “hey I know you’re really into DND but I find that embarrassing, so you need to change and stop being such a DND nerd or I’m not gonna be with you”. That’s absolutely not true if it’s something along the lines of “I’m attracted to you but I’m also aware of the fact that you’re an awful person who’s murdered innocents and wants to burn down the world, so unless that changes, I’m not interested”.
Because see, one of those things is a harmless interest that someone has (dnd). The other is a choice that actively causes harm to people (villainy). Saying “I’m not into you because you murder people, and I won’t be into you if you continue to do so” is a perfectly valid, and, in my mind, somewhat rational reaction to realizing there’s some mutual attraction between you and a villain.
That being said, I don’t get how people find villains attractive even after they’ve lost their edge and are no longer villains, because, like, that person still literally killed innocents (this is usually the example I use for villains). But again, villain romances just aren’t for me, so it might be that.
Basically the long and short of it is, there’s nothing toxic about telling someone to stop murdering people or you won’t be with them, because that’s a turn off to you.
The best parts of villain - hero interaction and, possibly, romance for me are equality, equal approach to each part of the couple, tug of war and genuine conflict of interests. The symphony of characters working as a duo, common points of view contrasted by wildly different goals and ambitions.
Let’s take my favorite example of a arc villain, Conrad Marburg from Alpha Protocol. The dynamics between him and Thorton, the MC, can wary in quite a different manner, from genuine animosity to respect, but they’re still working towards different goals. Conrad serves Henry Leland, a CEO of military corporation Halbech that wants to spark a new bout of cold war to profit off from and the Rome arc, which he’s a main villain of, deals with yet another way to start it. Relationship between him and Thorton don’t quite affect his goals, but it gives an opportunity to oppose him and, if Conrad hates the MC, kill him during the museum attack.
The arc is finished whether he dies or lives - he gets away after the attack after he fights MC, but him surviving opens up an additional ally and a new way to play through the final level, Alpha Protocol’s base. Since the whole thing is mainly just an arm of Halbech, Conrad comes to understanding that serving a man that uses his past as a deniable asset isn’t to his best interests and joins Thorton. Or, well, he can be killed once again through the knowledge MC gained of both him and the journalist that can die during the Rome attack - and it means that his heel-face turn is far harder than it looks.
I bring up Marburg because he’s still the example of a decent heel-face turn that keeps the villain’s original identity. He’s still a professional, he still is a ruthless man with a black op past and he still holds his principles close to his heart - only by finding common points, acquiring enough knowledge of him or by causing enough friction for him to not hold back anymore can the player character affect him or cause him to abandon his principles and give in to the hate.
Principles are a very strong thing. Real hard to break - and I feel some villain romance redemption arcs fail because they don’t account for these principles, they brush them under the rug.
I think the appeal of a villain romance can be the forbidden love angle. The “I shouldn’t care about them, but I can’t help but be drawn to this person.” The angst that can accompany that can be compelling. Additionally, there can be an air of tragedy around it: “if only things were different,” “if only we had met under different circumstances,” “maybe in another life we could have been lovers.” So much angst to enjoy!
As to the redemption arc question, I think the frustratingly ambiguous answer is it depends. I think it is heavily influenced by what bad things the villain has done. Has the villain literally killed the MC’s family? Okay, big yikes, seems like we are going to need to do a lot of legwork to make it believable that the MC falls in love with them. That might involve a redemption arc, or the two are forced together in some way, or they just have such amazing chemistry together, etc. etc. I think though that this is where the angst/“I shouldn’t like them” angle that people like comes in. A redemption arc would take that away, which is probably why people aren’t always the biggest fans of them. That and the fact that redemption arcs can feel really out of place or half-assed. Tone and genre matter a lot here too.
In regards to the toxicity question, other commenters have already pointed out that just because someone is a “villain” doesn’t mean they’d be a bad romantic partner. As a related example, I once watched a show with an Evil Crown Prince who was power-hungry, greedy, and cruel. But he had a sister he genuinely loved and was very sweet with. He wasn’t faking it, he wasn’t trying to manipulate her; he really cared about her. But that love didn’t outweigh all the terrible things he did. Here’s the tragedy again: if only he was as kind and loving to others as he was with his sister. I hope that’s a helpful example to demonstrate how a villain character can be capable of having loving relationships while also committing horrible acts.
Wow that was long, but it was fun to write. Hope this has given you some food for thought!
Mutual attraction is consistent with trying to change someone–including through ultimatums.
I agree that “I won’t date you until you change your personality/what fundamentally matters to you” is an inherently dodgy thing to say. With a murderer or bigot, you should just stop at “I won’t date you.”
