Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

How to Write the Perfect Villain

HoboForEternity

sunset tequila
Patron
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
9,175
Location
Disco Elysium
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
also other opinion (mine mostly) that hasn't been stated is in videogame context, you don't really need much complex story or motivation. they can be cartoonishly mustache twirling evil but the developer and writer have to make him as competent as they can (like what MCA thinks) and make the player hate and afraid of them as much as possible.

this probably work for videogames exceptionally well because it is interactive, and the tension from the fact that you will have to face and defeat this complete monster some time in the game is already a good interactive storytelling already.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
5,110
"Villains" are one of the many reasons RPGs suck. Think about great novels or movies, how many of them have some super duper powerful person who is just pure evil and acts like it? That is the domain of low budget Chuck Norris movies.

It's ok to have powerful personalities, who might do terrible things, but don't make them out to be cartoonishly evil, give them depth, and don't force the player to be against them, rather show it realistically, with possible options to go with or against them, perhaps both at different times. Witcher 3 was very good at this with characters like Emhyr and Radovid (and terrible with the pain-in-the-arse Wild Hunt bosses).
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
At first when I looked at it I thought those short descriptions are about each developer, they fit very nice, especially Fargo's.



I hate this postmodern bullshit, it goes in pair with SJW propaganda. You want to make a great villain which is a product of his world? Take a look at Bloody Baron, that's how you do it, without making a victim of the torturer. It is obvious that enviroment takes an important role in particular person behaviour, but don't blame society for every human action, god damn paternalistic hipster.

You just saw the term postmodern and got triggered.

Bloody baron is exactly what Sawyer described, a product of his world, even likeable at times despite the fact he has done pretty horrible shit. A rogue who got changed by what he experienced and you can understand that. He might even be a better alternative with a brighter path forward depending on your actions in the game. Same goes with Radovid who could be considered a prime antagonist in that game, compared to Eredin who is one-dimensional. So you basically agree with Sawyer, you are just against the word he used in conjuction with his description.

I personally don't agree the main antoganist needs to be shades of grey as Sawyer described. A game can have a prime villian, who is clearly destructive, while also running several other strong characters who are more antagonistic rivals or obstacles than villians for example. That however depends on the scope and content of the game. One-dimensional cartoonish evil characters are boring either way.
 
Last edited:

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Sarevok

Has changed the world? Yes, he set off a chain of events that led to the iron shortage, the ascendance of the Iron Throne, and the take over of Candlekeep.
Did terrible shit to the player? Sort of, he killed Gorion, the player's guardian, and sent assassins after him, but here we have to assume the player cares about Gorion, a character he barely knows.
Is a product of his world? Yes, he was raised as a merchant lord's son, and discovered his Bhaalspawn blood which led him to his actions.
Is a dark reflection of the hero? Pretty much.
Deserves to win? Maybe? He had a smart plan but couldn't account for the player character surviving despite knowing the threat the player represented throughout the game. Probably should've spent more money on effective assassins.

From the perspective of a storyfag, Sarevok damn well should be a larger-than-life enemy of player character

Their first meeting is in a dark night, when Sarevok kill PC's foster father right in-your-face. And then chase you like a bitch since you are basically level 1 noob.

Fuck yeah, he's antagonist quality. Deserve a Vendetta on his ass.

The deserve to win factor is a bit ambiguous to me. On the one hand he's busy with his plays in Baldur's Gate city proper, so he's unable to pay attention to stuffs outside. On the other hand he should have sent two or three of his leutenants to form a hit squad and strike PC right after ending the iron plague, preferably before PC clear up the way into city. On the third hand that would have meant he weaken his force in the main battlefield which is city proper, so maybe he did what's best available.
 

MasPingon

Arcane
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
1,797
Location
Castle Rock
At first when I looked at it I thought those short descriptions are about each developer, they fit very nice, especially Fargo's.



I hate this postmodern bullshit, it goes in pair with SJW propaganda. You want to make a great villain which is a product of his world? Take a look at Bloody Baron, that's how you do it, without making a victim of the torturer. It is obvious that enviroment takes an important role in particular person behaviour, but don't blame society for every human action, god damn paternalistic hipster.

You just saw the term postmodern and got triggered.

Bloody baron is exactly what Sawyer described, a product of his world, even likeable at times despite the fact he has done pretty horrible shit. A rogue who got changed by what he experienced and you can understand that. He might even be a better alternative with a brighter path forward depending on your actions in the game. Same goes with Radovid who could be considered a prime antagonist in that game, compared to Eredin who is one-dimensional. So you basically agree with Sawyer, you are just against the word he used in conjuction with his description.

el8px1.jpg
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,332
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
Sheltem, Guardian of Terra

His backstory, motivations are played out and revealed over the course of five adventures. You don't even get to kill him in the end, but the party is instrumental in bringing about his destruction. The tragic tale of a misguided mechanism. Puts modern day antagonists to shame.
 

Brancaleone

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
1,004
Location
Norcia
120x150.jpg

Josh Sawyer, Senior Designer, Obsidian
( Pillars of Eternity and Pillars 2 , Fallout: New Vegas )

Because I tend to postmodern thinking, I would also like to make the player understand that even villains are a product of their world.

It's unbelievable how this guy can distill the dullest part of any issue he comes into contact with, and focus exclusively on that. Everyone is a product of his world, big deal. And that same world produces an incredible variety of individuals, some of whom are the complete opposite of one another. Guess what, that's the interesting part, not the obvious fact that villains as well are a product of their world, just like everyone else.

It's like telling me that I have an amazing lot in common with Nietzsche, and that's because we share 99,9% of our DNA (possibly).
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,952
One-dimensional cartoonish evil characters are boring either way.

Kefka was pretty a one dimensional villain and it worked. He wouldn't have been a shadow of himself had they tried to go into his past before he got turned into a Magitech Knight and went mad from the process, showing him being anything but what we saw in FFIII like as a tragic, sympathetic figure. They also didn't shy away from having him escalate his mad villainy from the get go. He is pretty much the same guy from the first moment you see him until the end fight. Had they shied away from that he wouldn't have been anywhere as engaging or entertaining a bad guy.

It also makes me wonder how much of an effective villain he'd have been had he not been in a 16 bit game, not had his dialogue restricted to get the gist across where he'd be rambling with a bunch of flowery wording that was counter to the point of his biting, cynical and nihilistic nature.

Finally "One-dimensional cartoonish evil characters" have to be rare, flooding games with them does dilute a type of character that rarely works, but given the way games are made (and movies) they are far too overused.

Same goes with Radovid who could be considered a prime antagonist in that game,

Pretty fucking stupid they did that to him in the third game (and out of left field at that) after making him the Northern Kingdoms most competent, talented monarch you got a hint from with his actions in the first game.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
120x150.jpg

Josh Sawyer, Senior Designer, Obsidian
( Pillars of Eternity and Pillars 2 , Fallout: New Vegas )

Because I tend to postmodern thinking, I would also like to make the player understand that even villains are a product of their world.

It's unbelievable how this guy can distill the dullest part of any issue he comes into contact with, and focus exclusively on that. Everyone is a product of his world, big deal. And that same world produces an incredible variety of individuals, some of whom are the complete opposite of one another. Guess what, that's the interesting part, not the obvious fact that villains as well are a product of their world, just like everyone else.

It's like telling me that I have an amazing lot in common with Nietzsche, and that's because we share 99,9% of our DNA (possibly).

Well it's taking the opposite of the old "please free us from the evil Overlord who has made everything shit, so that things can become good and noble like they were before" stories.

No post KoTOR/NWN Bioware game antagonist would pass that test.
 

santino27

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
2,679
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
Ah these are translated. No wonder the Fargo and Mccomb ones have parts that make no sense.

I think the most effective way to create a villain that you really want to defeat is to let the player do something negative in the course of the gameplay - or the companions who have the authors that he loves them.

Say what now?

An antagonist should be powerful, smart, and the player character must always be one or two steps ahead.
Given the context, this was clearly meant to say the antagonist should always be one or two steps ahead, not the player character.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,760
Ah these are translated. No wonder the Fargo and Mccomb ones have parts that make no sense.

I think the most effective way to create a villain that you really want to defeat is to let the player do something negative in the course of the gameplay - or the companions who have the authors that he loves them.

Say what now?
A tragic victim of double translation: "Ich glaube, der effektivste Weg, einen Schurken zu erschaffen, den man wirklich besiegen will, ist ihn dem Spieler im Lauf des Gameplay etwas Negatives antun zu lassen - oder den Gefährten, bei denen es die Autoren geschafft haben, dass er sie liebt."
What a sentence. :salute:

I think it's the villain doing something negative, either to the player-character(s) or to the companions, whom the player loves. Possibly. :M
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Just a quick editing pass (;)), with some flaws left and some bad wording added.

He has changed the world
120x150.jpg

Chris Avellone, Narrative Designer
( Pathfinder: Kingmaker , Fallout 2 , Knights of the Old Republic 2 )

Better authors than I have found that a hero is only as good as his opponent - if the antagonist is weak, it also degrades (diminishes?) the hero's triumph. I consciously use the word "antagonist" because a rival is sometimes more exciting than a villain.

A good opponent consists of several parts - he has a strong background story (so that he does not exist exclusively during the game, but has a past that stretches before the beginning of the game), he has already stamped the world put/left his stamp/mark on the world (the player can see in figures and environments in the game world what the villain has done - this is especially effective as a harbinger of how he will change them again when he gets the chance) and, most importantly, the player can play an active role in the fate of the villain (what we tried at Pathfinder: Kingmaker with every villain in each chapter).

If the player does not just experience a fighting or roll-out roleplaying challenge, but can actively intervene in the course of his opponent's plans, this makes him a more important part of the story of the antagonist, thus reinforcing the bond between the two figures.

He is doing something horrible to the player
120x150.jpg

Brian Fargo, Founder of InXile Entertainment
( Wasteland Series, Fallout )

I think the most effective way to create a villain that you really want to defeat is to let the player him do something negative to the player in the course of the gameplay - or to the companions who have the authors that he loves them, where (for whom?) the authors managed that he (the player) loves them. There They must be individuals who are important to the player, not faceless masses.

An interim sequence (cutscene), in which the antagonist rages under (among?) unknown characters, creates no emotional bond. In so many games, you are not even interacting with the enemy until the final, and very often no emotion is associated with it. If Darth Vader were to appear in Star Wars just before the end, the entire effect would be lost.

...

He is a product of his world
120x150.jpg

Josh Sawyer, Senior Designer, Obsidian
( Pillars of Eternity and Pillars 2 , Fallout: New Vegas )

Everyone expects something different from a good villain. Some people prefer their opponents to be brutal, sadistic and incomprehensible. They want the completely strange evil, perhaps because they want to hate the character without any restraint.

But I prefer rogues (villains) who may be an antagonist, but (one) whom the players can understand and perhaps even like them. Because I tend to postmodern thinking, I would also like to make the player understand that even villains are a product of their world.

From the story that the player creates through his fight against the villain, a new world emerges. And this, for its part, will create a new generation of "heroes", "rogues" (villains) and all others around them.
 
Last edited:

Brancaleone

Liturgist
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
1,004
Location
Norcia
120x150.jpg

Josh Sawyer, Senior Designer, Obsidian
( Pillars of Eternity and Pillars 2 , Fallout: New Vegas )

Because I tend to postmodern thinking, I would also like to make the player understand that even villains are a product of their world.

It's unbelievable how this guy can distill the dullest part of any issue he comes into contact with, and focus exclusively on that. Everyone is a product of his world, big deal. And that same world produces an incredible variety of individuals, some of whom are the complete opposite of one another. Guess what, that's the interesting part, not the obvious fact that villains as well are a product of their world, just like everyone else.

It's like telling me that I have an amazing lot in common with Nietzsche, and that's because we share 99,9% of our DNA (possibly).

Well it's taking the opposite of the old "please free us from the evil Overlord who has made everything shit, so that things can become good and noble like they were before" stories.

No post KoTOR/NWN Bioware game antagonist would pass that test.
I see these approaches as the same, rather than opposite: in one case the villain is such because he's evil, no explanation needed, in the other case he's the villain because of historical fantasy determinism, no explanation needed either.

Let's say they are the opposite extremes of the same cheap process of creating a character without evergoing through the inconvenience of having to start your brain.
 
Self-Ejected

CptMace

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,278
Location
Die große Nation
How much do I have to pay them so they ask this very same question to Bethesda and BioWare folks ? I just want good laugh, t'is all.
 

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
How much do I have to pay them so they ask this very same question to Bethesda and BioWare folks ? I just want good laugh, t'is all.

They asked Patrick Weekes, no Bethesda guy though.

Bonus: first comment on the article:

"I don't want to be lectured from the guys (he used a more derogative term) at Obsidian about how to write a good villain, because they don't have the slightest clue about it (at least from the games I know : KOTOR 2, NWN2, FO:NV)."
 
Last edited:

vonAchdorf

Arcane
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
13,465
Patrick Weekes, Lead Writer BioWare

The villains, whom I really like are those, whose motivation the player can understand. If I see that their goals and views make sense, and especially if I understand where our opinions diverge, then I can form a personal relationship with the villain. I can empathize with him, maybe because I could have went to the bad in a similar way. Or I'm angry at him for the fatal mistake, which made him what he is now.

In the Trespasser DLC for DA:I, Viddasala, a Qunari spy, was the villain. We wanted to force the player to think about the question, how the until now beloved Inquisition could appear from the viewpoint of different people. From the player's perspective Viddasala has sabotaged the Inquisition and plans to topple the world's governments and bring the Qunari to power.

But in Viddasala's view, the governments endangered the whole world by not barring magic and her extreme actions were the only way to bring security/safety. In the same way, the Inquisition had to be stopped, because Viddasala (correctly) thought, that it has been compromised by foreign agents.

The players of course took action against Viddasala, but were also frustrated at the same time, because she was often right. A villain, who only evokes one emotion, quickly becomes boring, because players get used to the emotion, like when wading in cold water. A villain with different aspects, which are all true - angry, monstrous, stubborn and even amicable - keeps the player on their toes and stays longer in their memory.
 

Bohrain

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
1,442
Location
norf
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
One-dimensional cartoonish evil characters are boring either way.

There is nothing wrong with one-dimensional characters as long as their existence or actions lead to something interesting.
Any story that has a large amount of side characters by some definition is bound to have some cardboard characters. Props are necessary in order to flesh out the more complex characters.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
One-dimensional cartoonish evil characters are boring either way.

There is nothing wrong with one-dimensional characters as long as their existence or actions lead to something interesting.
Any story that has a large amount of side characters by some definition is bound to have some cardboard characters. Props are necessary in order to flesh out the more complex characters.

The issue again is with scope. If any game has 80+ hours of content sure, you can have one-dimensional characters as a necessary filler or as you said as a prop to accentuate more developed characters. Yet, if the game's grand villian is one-dimensional, unless that character is simply a vehicle for the MC to interact with rest of the game and other characters, it's going to be boring and bland.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
I think the most effective way to create a villain that you really want to defeat is to let the player do something negative in the course of the gameplay - or the companions who have the authors that he loves them.

Say what now?

He probably alluded to the scene of antagonist torture Bastila in Knights of the Old Republic 1. MY WAIFU!
 

Quillon

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
5,214
It would be cool if the villain is reactive. He just doens' t sit there on the evil throne, he sends assassins, thwarts you, maybe even shows to kick your ass before the end.

He should also prepare, get stronger, reinforce his defenses-hire more henchman as time passes while player takes his time picking up flowers and shit. Soft time limit.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom