Romancing villains and how to write them

[Hayden_Winter]

@malinryden

People have reasons to do bad shit, and the important thing is knowing what those reasons are, and how much (if any) of that you should let the reader find out. A villain is just someone with a different moral code from the protagonist, and a useful catch-all term for things going against the general moral codes of the day. It’s fluid and depends on reasons as much as acts. To quote Megadeth: Kill a man, you’re a murder. Kill many, you’re a conqueror. Kill them all, you’re a god.

Villains are people too. And I think, to write them we as authors must be willing to commit to their villainy. We need to, at least on some level, understand why they are doing these things. No, even more, why do they think they need to do these things.

Agree with everything, but this in particular.

[WTFISJULIASOINGNOW]

Well I mean there certainly is a type of people the “mainstream” sees as attractive. Simetrical faces, tall (if dudes), curves (if women) etc. but i agree with you honeslty i also don’t see the appeal of conventionally attractive people and yur for sure right that there is lots of variations that can apply to peoples tastes

[UltraZ]

As a player who loves romance villains and rivals,this is definitely one of my favorite topics.
I think they usually have a complicated background, such as something happened when they were children, being frustrated,…or psychosis…(OH i love unreasonable sorry)
There are a lot of stories where the villains been redeemed at last, but actually I don’t really like this kind. I like they stick to their evil parts.
Maybe it’s better MC can choose save them or not, maybe MC is a villain too hahah.

[Hayden_Winter]

@Doriana-Gray

Interesting–so there has never been a redemption you found believable/good or is it the “badness” of the villain that is the main draw?

Actually - I can think of one!

That would be my own in Fallen Hero. It’s not a redemption arc in the classic sense however; I’m more the kinda guy who wants to be stopped by getting killed (SBH - suicide by hero).

That was the plan, at least. Then stupid Herald showed up, and knowing stupid Herald, he will probably push things more towards the classic arc I was trying to avoid (because it would require me to keep living).

Edit
RE: Humanizing villains

I’ve thought about this some more, and I’m revising my position: This only works for them, if they ARE at least somewhat humanoid. There isn’t a clear line that can be drawn and it’s highly subjective anyway, but two cases that would be borderline to me would be Manerkol and, as an example not related to CGs, Sephiroth (FFVII). Both could / do benefit off humanizing aspects. They are still human enough to pull them off, they give them depth.

But if what you have is clearly a demon or more monsteresque entity, like the literal cosmic horror in The Passenger for example, or - one of the most disturbing, evil things in video game history - Earthbound’s Giygas, then the fascination lies in their unspeakableness, how foreign they feel to us, and how there is not an ounce of morality to appeal to, no reason to call upon when dealing with them.

Some villains start out as still somewhat humanoid but cross that line at one point into “monster” territory (whether literally or metaphorically), and I feel then it’s best to treat them accordingly (see above), or else you risk undermining everything that makes them now interesting, or even worse, you utilize that godawful “appeal to the last bit of humanity in them” trope.

I’m more talking in general here, more with regards to writing villains than romancing them, though I am entirely aware there is a 100% chance of Giygas porn somewhere out there.

[Doriana-Gray]

@Hayden_Winter

Drawing the attention of a villain, piquing their interest, makes me feel chosen in a way no cheap prophecy can. There’s this cruel, highly intelligent, incredibly hot dude, who walks over corpses, is on his way to ruling the world, who could have and take anyone, but stops and gets a boner for me OF ALL PEOPLE? Why, thank you!

haha, this does make sense when put in those terms

@Hayden_Winter

I know some prefer that and see villains as “good protectors” when they’re on your side.

Yeah, this is the more typical one I have seen, the whole “I would burn the whole world, but not you” type of villain–got to say that I think I personally prefer that than being genuinely terrified of the RO as you propose, but, different strokes for different folks
Tho I do think a villain is more interesting if they are not completely enfeebled by simply being an RO in the proximity of the MC.

@Hayden_Winter

And I appreciate having an outlet for that in fiction that can’t harm me in real life.

I like that explanation, thank you for explaining. That makes sense, and I think I might have underrated this about villain/darker/different romances

@Hayden_Winter

It would feel like being punished for my aforementioned kink.

I do get that, but a villain is a villain for a reason–they are usually an antagonist, and it would be equally strange for the MC to suddenly change from their course as it would for the Villain, no?
But this is a part I’m still thinking about a lot, I’m a little… unsure about it.

@hellblazest

This was an absolutely excellent video!! Thank you so much–I even started watching the next part in the video series I do feel I learnt quite a lot from it, about both the topic but also writing I like how it framed the main issue with the toxicity of 50 shades of grey being it not being aware of itself and what it portrayed–not that it contains what it contains
That… makes me feel freer to write a darker character without second-guessing it so much

[Hayden_Winter]

@Doriana-Gray

I do get that, but a villain is a villain for a reason–they are usually an antagonist, and it would be equally strange for the MC to suddenly change from their course as it would for the Villain, no?

Yes, but our reasons aren’t the same.
And there’s just not many stories for folks like me, but …basically the entirety of fiction for those who share your stance on it. Okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but it really is mostly fanfics doing God’s work here. Canon tends to kill my LIs (either literally or metaphorically by redemption), fanfics bring them back to life and allow me to live out the fantasies the canon denied me. And those fics are insanely popular, there is a market for that.
There are stories that prove that it is possible to tell a complex story around that, that goes beyond good vs. evil, and TSSW and Evertree Saga would be examples of that (for CGs). Or outside of CGs, take Will’s and Hannibal’s relationship.

Edit: A villain doesn’t even necessarily have to be the antagonist to the MC / protagonist, they could just as well be the villain to the society the protagonist lives in, as an example.

[Doriana-Gray]

@Hayden_Winter

A villain doesn’t even necessarily have to be the antagonist to the MC / protagonist, they could just as well be the villain to the society the protagonist lives in, as an example.

Agreed, very much so! But if they are, then I think the MC or the villain (who is also an antagonist) both have equal validity in keeping their course–tho I do see the appeal in both having the MC join the villain, or the villain join the MC, though it could easily feel cheap if not built up properly or done right?

@Hayden_Winter

basically the entirety of fiction for those who share your stance on it.

I don’t personally think I am pro “Villains must die”, I just don’t think that one is preferable in the “MC or Villain changing for their loved one” idea

I don’t know if this is making sense either

[Hayden_Winter]

@Doriana-Gray

I don’t personally think I am pro “Villains must die”, I just don’t think that one is preferable in the “MC or Villain changing for their loved one” idea

I don’t know if this is making sense either

Ah, ok, gotcha!

But neither has to change, though? It can be like dog person and cat person being a couple… kinda… sorta… But you get the idea. Being on opposite sites make the whole thing even hotter.

[Doriana-Gray]

@Hayden_Winter

But neither has to change, though? It can be like dog person and cat person being a couple… kinda… sorta… But you get the idea. Being on opposite sites make the whole thing even hotter.

Yes—definitely! But if the stakes are very high and both characters have opposing goals (and morals and determination that would allow them to resort to killing in defence of their side), then one of them dying is, possible, a logical flow of events, I think.
I can see why most games/books/movies would in that scenario choose to kill the MC rather than the Villain/antagonist because audiences seem to (generally) prefer the MC winning.

But this whole discussion started with this:

@Hayden_Winter

It would feel like being punished for my aforementioned kink.

about killing off the villain RO—

In my example above, would the Villain being killed not make sense? —(Or not having a happy ending). Would it still feel like the above quote?

[Hayden_Winter]

No. I get what you mean, but I’m tired beyond words of the villain getting killed in a big showdown. I am so very tired of it that I stopped watching mainstream / Hollywood movies a long time ago, because of it. It feels so cheap, so predictable, so absolutely, mind numbingly boring.

With this:

@Doriana-Gray

But if the stakes are very high and both characters have opposing goals (and morals and determination that would allow them to resort to killing in defence of their side), then one of them dying is, possible, a logical flow of events, I think.

being taken into consideration, it IS indeed a logical flow of events, there I agree with you, but it is one that is overdone. I get why most are happy with it, I get how it must feel satisfying, but to me it feels disappointing on a personal level, moralizing on another personal level (That’s what you get for having those fantasies!) and from a creative perspective, like - sorry - bankruptcy.

And my issue is, I am having trouble coming up with alternatives, because there are so many, depending on the particular story, and what might work in one as a possible solution, might not be possible in another.

But CGs - and this is the most important part -, more than any other medium maybe, have the option to make both sides happy. Those who are looking for the traditional happy ending, and those who are looking for something else. So why is this opportunity so rarely used? Why include a villain RO, if you (not YOU, I mean the general “you”) don’t offer a happy ending? Just to make those readers who choose this path miserable, because you couldn’t come up with an ending that would both make sense and be satisfying to readers like me? To moralize us, who chose this path on purpose, because we didn’t care much for the standard morale? That does feel patronizing, and like a punishment.

Again, I don’t mean YOU here, I am basically thinking out loud.

[Dahariel]

@Doriana-Gray

should they be redeemed

No, just no. Redemption arcs can kill a character or an entire group depending on how your villains interact and how many of them you have. Also people like villains because they are villains they are in in a moral grey area or flat out crossed the line ages ago, redeeming them for the sake of romance removes that element and will turn most people off. It can also harm a story great example of this is Obito in Naruto…if you know you know . Point is some characters just shouldn’t be redeemed be that for their actions or the fact that their personality is what appeals to your audience.

[Kirlett]

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.

[geldar]

@Hayden_Winter

though I am entirely aware there is a 100% chance of Giygas porn somewhere out there.

There is, but mostly in his form that looks exactly like a malnourished Mewtwo. So, fairly humanoid.

[Doriana-Gray]

@Hayden_Winter

No. I get what you mean, but I’m tired beyond words of the villain getting killed in a big showdown. I am so very tired of it that I stopped watching mainstream / Hollywood movies a long time ago, because of it.

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.

@Hayden_Winter

Just to make those readers who choose this path miserable, because you couldn’t come up with an ending that would both make sense and be satisfying to readers like me? To moralize us, who chose this path on purpose, because we didn’t care much for the standard morale? That does feel patronizing, and like a punishment.

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.

@Dahariel

redeeming them for the sake of romance removes that element and will turn most people off

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?

@Kirlett

Dark Endings are usually the ones where MC chooses a darker path,

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.

@Kirlett

(“I know this is wrong, but my love for them matters more”)

isnt that then the MC changing for the villain RO?

@Kirlett

IF allows for experimentation, and it’s a bit of a shame to have it reduced to what linear storytelling can do.

Agreed!

@Kirlett

This is both a game and a story.

Also very important for everyone involved! The game part for the author, and the story part for the reader

[Dahariel]

@Doriana-Gray

What about realistic redemption? The type that takes a long time, takes sacrifice, and does not depend on romance?

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.

[geldar]

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.)

[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