The Cry of Fallen Angels
Member
Number 2, no fucking question about that.
Making Villains Similar to the Most Popular Ones
- Thread starter KhaoticErase
- Start date
KhaoticErase
Member
Oooooookaaaaaaaay...
Could you please explain exactly what's wrong with 1 and 3? All of them get an accurate message across.
Could you please explain exactly what's wrong with 1 and 3? All of them get an accurate message across.
1. Guide to Making Emotionally-Appealing Villains.
2. Guide to Making Villains Similar to the Most Popular Ones.
3. Guide to Making Villains with Personal Depth.
The problem with 1 and 3 is the same problem with the original title. It's far too presumptive and all-encompassing. What makes a villain "emotionally appealing" is almost completely in the eye of the beholder, and would certainly require a discussion of antagonists beyond the realm of FF and a few other games/anime. "Personal Depth" is just asking for trouble, given the opinions of some about the characterization in the FF series. Trust me, you don't want to go there. I'd work with 2 for a while and see what you can come up with.
2. Guide to Making Villains Similar to the Most Popular Ones.
3. Guide to Making Villains with Personal Depth.
The problem with 1 and 3 is the same problem with the original title. It's far too presumptive and all-encompassing. What makes a villain "emotionally appealing" is almost completely in the eye of the beholder, and would certainly require a discussion of antagonists beyond the realm of FF and a few other games/anime. "Personal Depth" is just asking for trouble, given the opinions of some about the characterization in the FF series. Trust me, you don't want to go there. I'd work with 2 for a while and see what you can come up with.
KhaoticErase
Member
You realize, of course, that the only reason you all think this is based mostly on FF villains is because I used a lot of them for my examples. I wasn't actually intending to include examples at all in the first place, but my English teacher said that doing so would provide evidence to the reader. so I chose FF villains since most people on this website know who they are.
Now, if this was a site where people talked about, say, superheroes a lot, I would use supervillains for most of my examples. Would you want to read a tutorial filled with villain examples you've never heard of?
I could just as easily left every example out entirely, then no one would even BRING UP Final Fantasy.
But anyway... Yes, I will now change the title. Volrath, could you change the main title that appears in the forum?
Now, if this was a site where people talked about, say, superheroes a lot, I would use supervillains for most of my examples. Would you want to read a tutorial filled with villain examples you've never heard of?
I could just as easily left every example out entirely, then no one would even BRING UP Final Fantasy.
But anyway... Yes, I will now change the title. Volrath, could you change the main title that appears in the forum?
The Cry of Fallen Angels
Member
For one, I do not find the, as Andy put it so nicely, villain trapped in the body of a fifteen-year old girl, kind of character, emotionally appaeling. Sephiroth does not appael to me at all.
For three, if this is the way to make antagonists have personal depth, all of mine are pretty damn shallow. The tutorial covers much more than just "personality", mention goals and weapons of choice for example. Same with the first really.
For three, if this is the way to make antagonists have personal depth, all of mine are pretty damn shallow. The tutorial covers much more than just "personality", mention goals and weapons of choice for example. Same with the first really.
I guess I was expecting something different. I find that there's a difference between a villain and an antagonist. A villain is evil and deliberately commits acts of evil, whereas an antagonist is just someone who hinders the progress of the protagonist. As such, a true villain can't be "misguided" or "pure of heart" (though I'm not entirely sure what that means). Villains know that they're doing something wrong, but they just don't care. A good example would be a killer with psychopathic tendencies. They know on an intellectual level that society sees hurting and killing people as bad, but they're so devoid of empathy that they can't understand why this is the case. They believe themselves superior to others and above the laws and morality dictated by the society - usually because the society is nothing more than a mentality of a mindless herd of sheep. Their crimes are approached with calculation and rationality - so they're almost emotionless until they experience the euphoria associated with their fetish and crime.
An antagonist, on the other hand, can have various reasons for their actions. They can be tricked, have a skewed/altered perception, act out of intense emotion, or act under orders. The antagonist will feel remorse or confusion. A great example is a soldier who is ordered by the King to completely destroy a village and everyone within it. The soldier may do so because they are following the law (i.e. King's desires above everything else), and they may feel remorse and guilt about it.
I've noticed a tendency in quite a few games to take away the villain and replace them with an antagonist. I guess game creators want people to associate with "the bad guy" on a certain level and almost forgive their crimes. While this is fine, I don't think this needs to become the mould for every "bad guy" in every game. It's okay to have bad guys who are just evil and who the audience can't identify with. Heck, it can make for some powerful feelings and make that vengeance against them even sweeter.
Your tutorial is fine at building antagonists, but I would've liked some theory on villains. And yes, I realise that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but I'm an old-fashioned writer who associates villains with evil. I think you've put a lot of focus on creating the kind of antagonist you prefer, but you shouldn't advise people against going in a different direction. If portrayed correctly, a true villain can have just as much depth as an antagonist that the audience identifies with (be it their tragic past or whatever).
Just my 2 cents.
An antagonist, on the other hand, can have various reasons for their actions. They can be tricked, have a skewed/altered perception, act out of intense emotion, or act under orders. The antagonist will feel remorse or confusion. A great example is a soldier who is ordered by the King to completely destroy a village and everyone within it. The soldier may do so because they are following the law (i.e. King's desires above everything else), and they may feel remorse and guilt about it.
I've noticed a tendency in quite a few games to take away the villain and replace them with an antagonist. I guess game creators want people to associate with "the bad guy" on a certain level and almost forgive their crimes. While this is fine, I don't think this needs to become the mould for every "bad guy" in every game. It's okay to have bad guys who are just evil and who the audience can't identify with. Heck, it can make for some powerful feelings and make that vengeance against them even sweeter.
Your tutorial is fine at building antagonists, but I would've liked some theory on villains. And yes, I realise that the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but I'm an old-fashioned writer who associates villains with evil. I think you've put a lot of focus on creating the kind of antagonist you prefer, but you shouldn't advise people against going in a different direction. If portrayed correctly, a true villain can have just as much depth as an antagonist that the audience identifies with (be it their tragic past or whatever).
Just my 2 cents.
KhaoticErase
Member
You've made more sense than everyone else has, I'll give you that. But the purpose of the tutorial is to tell people that villains/antagonists AREN'T really evil. Are real-life villains, like house-robbers, truly evil? EVERYONE sees them that way, just like they do with fictional villains. But I'm sure they had their reasons, like needing to take care of kids or something.
In my opinion, villains that are evil just because the writer wanted them to be are poorly written. If they don't have a darned good reason (conscious of what it is or not), they shouldn't be doing ANYTHING wrong. If nothing was wrong with their lives, they wouldn't be attempting to improve it so drastically.
Poorly-written "evil" villains probably sound like "A":
A: "How about we invade worlds and kidnap princesses and stuff?!"
B: "What has THAT got to do anything??!!"
A: "Duh... I dunno... All badguys do that, I guess..."
In my opinion, villains that are evil just because the writer wanted them to be are poorly written. If they don't have a darned good reason (conscious of what it is or not), they shouldn't be doing ANYTHING wrong. If nothing was wrong with their lives, they wouldn't be attempting to improve it so drastically.
Poorly-written "evil" villains probably sound like "A":
A: "How about we invade worlds and kidnap princesses and stuff?!"
B: "What has THAT got to do anything??!!"
A: "Duh... I dunno... All badguys do that, I guess..."
The Cry of Fallen Angels
Member
So when someone else starts about "antagonist vs. villain" people do listen?
Also, you claim that "irl villains" have their reasons. I don't really emphatize with the kids who steal because they want to be in the "cool group". People do NOT always have reasons. Sometimes people do things for the adrenaline rush, because they're addicted, etc. Everyone romantises everything. The world ain't full of beautifull people and intentions.
It doesn't automatically mean pure evil villains are good characters by default, they're harder to make properly and have less potential than the antagonist. What I see here is concluding things too fast.
Also, you claim that "irl villains" have their reasons. I don't really emphatize with the kids who steal because they want to be in the "cool group". People do NOT always have reasons. Sometimes people do things for the adrenaline rush, because they're addicted, etc. Everyone romantises everything. The world ain't full of beautifull people and intentions.
It doesn't automatically mean pure evil villains are good characters by default, they're harder to make properly and have less potential than the antagonist. What I see here is concluding things too fast.
Take a look at dictionary.com and you will find that the very definition of villain is one of an evil character who commits evil deeds deliberately. This is completely different from an antagonist, who can be a good person that is commiting an evil deed (be it because they're forced, tricked or because their perception is altered). The terms villain and antagonist aren't interchangeable. What makes a character a villain as opposed to just another antagonist is the very fact that they're evil. They're not misguided or misunderstood or following a differen't moral code.
Also, a common criminal is not a villain. Something as small as stealing can fall into the gray boundaries of morality. A villain is someone who clearly steps out of all boundaries of morality and commits atrocities. If you do want a real life example of a villain, use Hitler.
I'm not suggesting that you should completely avoid a back story and a possible explanation for deviation from morality. However, you can have a great villain without presenting them in a way that the audience needs to empathize. You don't have to make them more human. A monster can stay a monster. You are allowed to make your audience hate the villain, be angry with the villain and end up feeling great justice in defeating them.
This approach isn't for everyone. Not everyone likes true villains or can portray them effectively. However, their presence and use should be acknowledged. You may personally not like this, but by using a blanket statement that "villains aren't truly evil", you're denying the portion of characters (whether fictional or not) that are portrayed that way. And some of them are portrayed extremely well.
Also, a common criminal is not a villain. Something as small as stealing can fall into the gray boundaries of morality. A villain is someone who clearly steps out of all boundaries of morality and commits atrocities. If you do want a real life example of a villain, use Hitler.
I'm not suggesting that you should completely avoid a back story and a possible explanation for deviation from morality. However, you can have a great villain without presenting them in a way that the audience needs to empathize. You don't have to make them more human. A monster can stay a monster. You are allowed to make your audience hate the villain, be angry with the villain and end up feeling great justice in defeating them.
This approach isn't for everyone. Not everyone likes true villains or can portray them effectively. However, their presence and use should be acknowledged. You may personally not like this, but by using a blanket statement that "villains aren't truly evil", you're denying the portion of characters (whether fictional or not) that are portrayed that way. And some of them are portrayed extremely well.
The Cry of Fallen Angels
Member
As for antagonist versus villain, I know that, I put up arguments regarding that, usually to be waved away by the majority of people who doesn't look beyond their own statements. I see but little "No you're right's". Admittingly I'm stubborn myself, but I've given 'em away to people such as Ixis.
Villain doesn't equal to a common criminal, it is rarely used exactly like the dictionary describes it. Maybe from a "non-English/American" PoV, but I doubt that when someone uses the word villain they're saying "you're absofucking evil". Besides, don't we all know that "good and evil are only relative"?
My statement; Above all an antagonist is a character, is overread I tell you. Which practically means that an antagonists should go through the same steps of creation as a protoganist. I don't like set lines for certain characters "types", I don't like putting a label on people (when I say "you've been labeled" it's poking fun at) to classify them as a "type of person" either. I'm a freestyler.
[/topichijack]
Villain doesn't equal to a common criminal, it is rarely used exactly like the dictionary describes it. Maybe from a "non-English/American" PoV, but I doubt that when someone uses the word villain they're saying "you're absofucking evil". Besides, don't we all know that "good and evil are only relative"?
My statement; Above all an antagonist is a character, is overread I tell you. Which practically means that an antagonists should go through the same steps of creation as a protoganist. I don't like set lines for certain characters "types", I don't like putting a label on people (when I say "you've been labeled" it's poking fun at) to classify them as a "type of person" either. I'm a freestyler.
[/topichijack]
xmrmckenziex
Member
Ah but we cannot forget that just because antagonist versus villian brings up differences (a villian performs evil deeds knowingly) that villians STILL have reasons for doing what they do. Lets take perhaps the most immoral, hated man in the history of the modern world - Hitler. The man had issues in his past that caused him to do what he did (but by no means makes it right just fuel to his "villian fire"); namely, his rejection from art school. Theres no doubt that it altered his perception and magnified some of his hatrid.
But thats real life, I dont believe Human Beings are generally born evil BUT this is video games we are talking about. Bad guys can be made inherently bad without a back story and still be done well. (NOTE - this can only be done but really really good story tellers IMO). Using Final Fantasy for example, (sorry its all that I can think of right now) what about Kefka? That man was just pure hatrid and villianry, and not much of a reason was given. But hell Squaresoft pulled him off pretty well.
I dont know where Im going with this , just my viewpoint.
But thats real life, I dont believe Human Beings are generally born evil BUT this is video games we are talking about. Bad guys can be made inherently bad without a back story and still be done well. (NOTE - this can only be done but really really good story tellers IMO). Using Final Fantasy for example, (sorry its all that I can think of right now) what about Kefka? That man was just pure hatrid and villianry, and not much of a reason was given. But hell Squaresoft pulled him off pretty well.
I dont know where Im going with this , just my viewpoint.
KhaoticErase
Member
xmrmckenziex;260829 said:
Actually...:D
According to Square, Kefka was raised to be a Magitek Knight, like Celes, but was the first one to receive this initiation, and was therefore favorited by Gestahl, even though he was physically and intellectually weak. The other soldiers, like Leo, were jealous because of this, and hated Kefka, because thank to Gestahl spoiling him, Kefka grew cocky. Kefka then decided he would need to find a way to prove we has worthy of Gestahl.
See? the want for Recognition. That's actually in the tut. If I was Kefka, and I was hated by all because someone liked me better than them, I'd probably do something to make them respect me as well.
But about the villains who need the adrenaline rush thing. ALSO in the tut. The topic called "Power-Crazy". Right there; didn't forget it.
I like games like GTA, and when I kill 100 people by driving on the sidewalk, of course I feel good. Everyone has a bit of darkness in themselves. Characters that are labeled villain/antagonist however, just have more.
It's like what Cry of Fallen Angels said (and also what I vaguely said in the tutorial, toward the end). Villains, Heroes, Protagonists, Antagonists, ALL are characters. But like real people, their personalities should be more complex than anyone could ever understand (I don't even understand some of my characters myself; it's like I'm still "getting to know them"). But regardless, any English/Creative Writing teacher will tell you the same thing i continously mentioned in the tut:
"Everything must have a reason".
God I'm fucking done with this fucking topic. You think that only final fantasy villains have the fucking emotional depth to be evil beyond the point of 'being evil for being evil' when I mention characters like Magneto. Oh yes, he's obviously evil just for the sake of being evil, not to free his race from tyranny and oppression (as he views it) oh no. He's just there because the author couldn't think of a reasonable antagonist to the X-Men.
It's pretty fucking obvious you're not going to change anything unless the criticism is lathered in fucking butter, so I'm not even going to try any more. I'll just leave one last tip: that way you described Kefka? Pretty shitty incentive for ALL of the things he ended up doing. I may be a little shallow on Final Fantasy VI since it's been a while, but that seems terrible.
EDIT: Yaaaay JRPGs and Anime!
It's pretty fucking obvious you're not going to change anything unless the criticism is lathered in fucking butter, so I'm not even going to try any more. I'll just leave one last tip: that way you described Kefka? Pretty shitty incentive for ALL of the things he ended up doing. I may be a little shallow on Final Fantasy VI since it's been a while, but that seems terrible.
EDIT: Yaaaay JRPGs and Anime!
KhaoticErase
Member
WOW. You don't pay attention! How 'bout I just take out EVERY example so you all stop insisting this was based solely on FF villains.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I FREAKING EXPLAIN IT?
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I FREAKING EXPLAIN IT?
According to Square, where? Was that in the game? I seem to just have the opinion that Kefka was just evil (I still liked him, he's a clown!) with nothing to make him evil. Was his past mentioned in the game? If not, then you can't back him up. We shouldn't need explaining for villains/antagonists from outside sources telling us that Villain/Antagonist A is this way because of Situation A. If companies do that, then it just seems like maybe they made it up on the spot when someone asked them.
Even a villain has a reason for what he is doing, but when the reason doesn't justify the act within the boundaries of common sense, that is when they have passed the threshold into villainy.
I am pretty sure the Kefka backstory comes from the manual, either the original or the PSX version manual. But I have read it before, and I rarely look at outside sources.
I am pretty sure the Kefka backstory comes from the manual, either the original or the PSX version manual. But I have read it before, and I rarely look at outside sources.
LightAndMagic
Member
Sorry to jump the bandwagon, but I gotta say I can't help but agree with Andy6000. It just seems to me like this "tutorial" doesn't offer much insight except on how to create a stereotypical villian. Which, can work in certain stories, however I'd prefer not to.
For starters:
Purity: You're using pure of heart in the completely wrong context. Pure of heart implies they could do no wrong, and are the most gentile creatures. Example: Princess Peach of Mario, or the Disney Princesses. They are pure of heart. A villian can not be pure of heart, as that would imply they are incapable of comitting terrible acts. I think what you mean is empathy. As Cry of Fallen Angels said. You want people to be able to reason with them.
And then your background category is total bullshit. Traumatizing backgrounds are so overdone. Seriously, I can't help but feel most of the time it doesn't provide an excuse. Maybe I'm just cruel, but when some villian goes on a tangent about how his mom was raped and his dog died and then a truck ruined his village, I just find it tiresome.
Example time. One of my favourite villians is Darla from the show Angel. What's her past? She was a prostitute that got syphillis before being turned into a vampire. Not traumatizing at all. And I still find her an amazingly written character.
Not everyone need to have been horribly traumatized in their past in order to become the assholes they are today.
And I'm not even going to dwelve into your Aestheticism category cause it's total bullshit. You know what one of my favourite games of all time is? Suikoden. Wanna know why? Cause half the cast was ugly, including villains! (Well, one of the reasons) Why should the evil baddie be some pretty boy who's 25 at max. Judging from his muscular structure, he certainly isn't physically strong. Most of the time, judging by their age, they lack the time to become adept at weapon skill and/or magic. SOOOO WHY!? If you're going to have an all powerful magician, why not make him old, I mean he would have need a lot of time to learn and study magic. For example, Voldemort. Most stupid fanartists draw him like a young 25 year old man. Yet, he is at least over 60 years old. I think that gives him the time to have actually gained knowledge on magic.
You go ahead and make your stereotypically pretty villians. I'll try something different.
I can't help but feel that the whole first section was based off of Sephiroth, as all your advice fits him to a 't.' I personally find Sephiroth to be one of the lamest villians of all time.
As for your personalities, I think it would be incredibly dull if villians could only have seven different types.
This doesn't even seem like a tutorial to me, and rather more of a glossary.
For starters:
Purity: You're using pure of heart in the completely wrong context. Pure of heart implies they could do no wrong, and are the most gentile creatures. Example: Princess Peach of Mario, or the Disney Princesses. They are pure of heart. A villian can not be pure of heart, as that would imply they are incapable of comitting terrible acts. I think what you mean is empathy. As Cry of Fallen Angels said. You want people to be able to reason with them.
And then your background category is total bullshit. Traumatizing backgrounds are so overdone. Seriously, I can't help but feel most of the time it doesn't provide an excuse. Maybe I'm just cruel, but when some villian goes on a tangent about how his mom was raped and his dog died and then a truck ruined his village, I just find it tiresome.
Example time. One of my favourite villians is Darla from the show Angel. What's her past? She was a prostitute that got syphillis before being turned into a vampire. Not traumatizing at all. And I still find her an amazingly written character.
Not everyone need to have been horribly traumatized in their past in order to become the assholes they are today.
And I'm not even going to dwelve into your Aestheticism category cause it's total bullshit. You know what one of my favourite games of all time is? Suikoden. Wanna know why? Cause half the cast was ugly, including villains! (Well, one of the reasons) Why should the evil baddie be some pretty boy who's 25 at max. Judging from his muscular structure, he certainly isn't physically strong. Most of the time, judging by their age, they lack the time to become adept at weapon skill and/or magic. SOOOO WHY!? If you're going to have an all powerful magician, why not make him old, I mean he would have need a lot of time to learn and study magic. For example, Voldemort. Most stupid fanartists draw him like a young 25 year old man. Yet, he is at least over 60 years old. I think that gives him the time to have actually gained knowledge on magic.
You go ahead and make your stereotypically pretty villians. I'll try something different.
I can't help but feel that the whole first section was based off of Sephiroth, as all your advice fits him to a 't.' I personally find Sephiroth to be one of the lamest villians of all time.
As for your personalities, I think it would be incredibly dull if villians could only have seven different types.
This doesn't even seem like a tutorial to me, and rather more of a glossary.
First off before I get flamed - I just wanted yall to know all the combined information here is great (both sides included).
That aside - its quite dishearting to see so many people just attack attack attack a project. The very first response was good - giving some slight recommendations. If you all think the tutorial is SO bad don't use it - better yet write your own (if you havent already, I havent looked). I think such extreme reaction over so many small views often inspire people to not contribute at all. I know I wont post a tutorial soon.
Anyway - in the end, its the designers decision how, who, what they base their heros and vill's on.
Take care and thanks for posting.
- Can
That aside - its quite dishearting to see so many people just attack attack attack a project. The very first response was good - giving some slight recommendations. If you all think the tutorial is SO bad don't use it - better yet write your own (if you havent already, I havent looked). I think such extreme reaction over so many small views often inspire people to not contribute at all. I know I wont post a tutorial soon.
Anyway - in the end, its the designers decision how, who, what they base their heros and vill's on.
Take care and thanks for posting.
- Can
@ candrid:
I think it needs to be noted that certain people aren't turned off by this tutorial because they dislike Sephiroth7734 or because they think the information is completely useless. Instead, the criticism is based entirely on the approach that Sephiroth7734 took in writing it.
The information is presented in such a way that it implies that deviation from it makes for a bad villain. Add to it the fact that the tutorial is named "ultimate", and you have people pointing out that maybe some things were overlooked. In other words, most people are saying that it's possible to have a great villain without following the steps outlined in the tutorial.
Making a villain is a really complex process. Not only do you have to develop them as a character, but you have to make a million decisions about portraying them effectively. Do you include a tragic past and make the player feel sad when they kill the villain? Or do you just focus on the villain's actions and have the player glad that they killed them? Does the villain get in there and do the evil acts themselves, or do they have henchmen do it for them? Should their appearance be ugly and obviously evil, or should they look almost angelic so the player is completely shocked when they find out that villain is behind a great scheme? Should the villain descend into some kind of madness or be completely rational through the story and simply justify their evil? {insert a ton of other questions here}
There are so many things that need to be considered and so many great villain examples that it's difficult to have a complete guide to villains. At best, you can get away with a guide to a specific kind of villain (such as a common villain to jRPGs or a common villain to western comic books), but even so there might be people who disagree with you.
Personally, I'd love to write a tutorial on building villains. But I'm also aware that I wouldn't be able to present complete information (both due to time constraints and the sheer amount of available information). So, at best, I'd be able to offer an opinion piece on building a certain kind of villain (much like Volrath wrote about secondary characters).
This is not to say that I think people are incapable of writing a tutorial on building villains, but rather that my personal approach wouldn't work. I'd want to include all the possible information I can and I'm aware that it would come out completely jumbled and ineffective as a teaching tool. I mean, it would look something like: "Your villain should look different, but doesn't have to because sometimes villains look evil so you recognize them and at other times they appear good, so the player is shocked when they turn out evil." Honestly, that does nothing but confuse a person and they're better off reading a better guide to character development and basic theory of personality and various mental disorders.
I think it needs to be noted that certain people aren't turned off by this tutorial because they dislike Sephiroth7734 or because they think the information is completely useless. Instead, the criticism is based entirely on the approach that Sephiroth7734 took in writing it.
The information is presented in such a way that it implies that deviation from it makes for a bad villain. Add to it the fact that the tutorial is named "ultimate", and you have people pointing out that maybe some things were overlooked. In other words, most people are saying that it's possible to have a great villain without following the steps outlined in the tutorial.
Making a villain is a really complex process. Not only do you have to develop them as a character, but you have to make a million decisions about portraying them effectively. Do you include a tragic past and make the player feel sad when they kill the villain? Or do you just focus on the villain's actions and have the player glad that they killed them? Does the villain get in there and do the evil acts themselves, or do they have henchmen do it for them? Should their appearance be ugly and obviously evil, or should they look almost angelic so the player is completely shocked when they find out that villain is behind a great scheme? Should the villain descend into some kind of madness or be completely rational through the story and simply justify their evil? {insert a ton of other questions here}
There are so many things that need to be considered and so many great villain examples that it's difficult to have a complete guide to villains. At best, you can get away with a guide to a specific kind of villain (such as a common villain to jRPGs or a common villain to western comic books), but even so there might be people who disagree with you.
Personally, I'd love to write a tutorial on building villains. But I'm also aware that I wouldn't be able to present complete information (both due to time constraints and the sheer amount of available information). So, at best, I'd be able to offer an opinion piece on building a certain kind of villain (much like Volrath wrote about secondary characters).
This is not to say that I think people are incapable of writing a tutorial on building villains, but rather that my personal approach wouldn't work. I'd want to include all the possible information I can and I'm aware that it would come out completely jumbled and ineffective as a teaching tool. I mean, it would look something like: "Your villain should look different, but doesn't have to because sometimes villains look evil so you recognize them and at other times they appear good, so the player is shocked when they turn out evil." Honestly, that does nothing but confuse a person and they're better off reading a better guide to character development and basic theory of personality and various mental disorders.