Romancing villains and how to write them

[snowgoose]

@Doriana-Gray

isnt that then the MC changing for the villain RO?

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.

[geldar]

@snowgoose

“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.

[Havenstone]

@snowgoose

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

I’m curious: how is “the MC’s morality and beliefs change” different from “the MC changes” for purposes of this topic?

[Infel]

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

[Talaya]

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.

[Kitty_Gaige]

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.

Did any of that make sense??

[JBento]

@Kitty_Gaige

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”

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.

[Kitty_Gaige]

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.

[geldar]

That… doesn’t happen? Like, ever? What? How is that mutual to begin with?

[JBento]

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.

[RedRoses]

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

[augustus27]

@Kitty_Gaige

begin trying to turn the villain to “good” even if it goes against the villains history, personality, or whatever motivates them

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:

@Kitty_Gaige

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.

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.

[vera]

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.

[DelightfulDahlia]

Yay what a fun topic!

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!

[Havenstone]

@geldar

How is that mutual to begin with?

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.”

[Mango_Pirate]

I think it’s important to separate villain from antagonist in this discussion.
Antagonist: a character who opposes the main character. And adversary, a rival.
Villain: a character who performs evil actions or has evil intentions

An antagonist romance? Easy - stop fighting (or don’t) and start kissing (of course it’s not that easy in practice). Whatever the antagonist has a questionable morality or the MC is irrelevant, they’re always on opposing sides until they aren’t if that’s what the author wants (I wouldn’t mind playing an MC who’s in the wrong, that sounds like an interesting premise).

But you’ll notice that Villain and the MC don’t have to be on opposing sides at all. All Villain needs to be is to be a bit of scumbag in the eyes of the player or the MC.
In the end, it’s the player who should control the MC so whatever the villain is actually a villain or not depends also if you write them to be a straight case of murdering puppies and huffing god crack or if you write them to be more ambiguous.

Ambiguous villains can be redeemable, but that doesn’t always mean they should be - it’s a matter of well, how bad can you make them so switching sides is not bizarre and still retain them as villains?
A villain who is likable might get away with much more in the eyes of the audience than a villain who’s perfectly salvageable - maybe you’d rather have that kind of villain. Redemption is not the only way, but it’s perfectly valid to write a redemption arc.

Anyway, it’s a matter of balancing those moral scales and remembering that it won’t satisfy everybody (and after all some people would like to play villains as well).

[Kirlett]

@Mango_Pirate

and remembering that it won’t satisfy everybody

I think this is the most important lesson of all. There is no “right” way to write a villain, a romance or a villain romance. People will always find things to complain about, and things to love. In this particular topic there’s lots of dissent. At the end of the day, you can collect different opinions, and choose the ones that resonate with what you want to write/read. But they’re opinions, not the Bible. Use them for research and food for thought, but don’t obssess with them. It’s impossible to add and not add everything people consider the “right/wrong” way.

Don’t be scared, no matter what you choose. I think the worst case scenario would be disappointing yourself because you have forced a narrative to please others, but disliking it yourself.

[Snowflower]

It depends on the type of villain–are they a misguided person that made a few bad/uninformed choices or was backed into a corner? Or are they someone who revels in their own cruelty and malice, always picking the most-harm option despite having alternatives?

The former absolutely can be redeemed and have an ultimately healthy relationship with a PC that isn’t villainous themselves (it’s IF, a lot of games have an evil route). You see it a lot in non-IF media as well, but it requires the villain to be portrayed as misguided rather than evil even at the start.

In my opinion, the latter should either be locked from romance/friendship or remain villainous even though they like the protagonist. While evil can have loved ones, it does not make evil good; while they would sacrifice their life for the protagonist (if romanced or befriended), they would still clap and cheer at the deaths of the protagonists’ allies (assuming said allies are the villain’s opposition). A happy ending for this relationship (romantic or otherwise) should be impossible unless the protagonist is equally cruel and evil.

[Hayden_Winter]

I’m sorry for the late reply, but I had been banned and always wanted to come back to this:

@Doriana-Gray

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”.

Yes. From an objective, outsider’s standpoint, or even the author’s perspective, you might be - or even are - correct. But subjectively speaking as a reader, one is exciting to me (the prospect of being “corrupted” and seduced by the villain, and pulled over to their side), while the other is… boring. It’s not only a difference, it’s night and day. I like playing MCs that are tempted and seduced, and I hate the opposite, which to me would be the villain being “fixed” - redeemed.

@Doriana-Gray

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.

Please don’t make the common mistake of thinking everyone here who hasn’t published or is working on a choice game, must be a reader only. I, too, consider myself a writer first and foremost. This isn’t directed at you in particular and I’m not trying to antagonize you, but I’ve seen this a lot: Users using phrases like this or similar (“as a writer, I…”) and assuming just because one’s English isn’t perfect or they haven’t scripted a choice game themself, that they’re readers only and don’t understand what it means to be a writer and the challenges it can pose.
Maybe you didn’t mean it like that, but it can easily come across this way.

[Kirlett]

She never made that assumption. Doriana was simply explaining how her perspective changed when she started writing, how she feels that her characters are one way and that they cannot bend to suit any and all scenarios. She’s trying to express the challenges it poses to her, not assuming that other people are or aren’t writers. In fact, she’s not a English native speaker either and this is her first CoG, so, yeah, she’s not the type to make assumptions about others.

And there is a difference between a writer and an IF writer. Knowing the struggles of one kind doesn’t mean you understand fully the struggles of the other until you’re in their shoes. Again, Doriana never said a word about this, she merely explained her experience with her work.