Making Villains Similar to the Most Popular Ones

[phalangie]

This is just me, but I like to make my villains either 'goodish', or not have full control over their actions. For example, one of my villains just wants to allow his people to come out into the world and be treated as equals, one manipulates people, starts a war,causes suffering, ect. for a good cause, and later achives his aims and has many of the heroes essentialy join him in guarding his happy new world. Another one, though, is 'adjusted' to be stronger, smarter, and live much longer, and wants to 'adjust' humanity so they will all be as happy as him, but he also hates the hero for the pain he was unintentionally put through, and the computer that 'adjusted' him warps that so that his plan would eventually just be genocide.

Yeah, I'm too sympathetic to my villans.

 

[psgels]

Some small notes to Sephiroth7734:
1. If you want to change the thread title, report it. It's so much faster than just waiting for a mod to notice it. Try also not to double-post in the future.

2. I think you misunderstood the intentions of the people who commented. They're actually offering some valuable constructive critizism. You don't have to bite back at them at every possible moment.

To everyone else: critizism is fine, but try to keep it within the lines of trolling, okay?

 

[KhaoticErase]

This is just me, but I like to make my villains either 'goodish', or not have full control over their actions. For example, one of my villains just wants to allow his people to come out into the world and be treated as equals, one manipulates people, starts a war,causes suffering, ect. for a good cause, and later achives his aims and has many of the heroes essentialy join him in guarding his happy new world. Another one, though, is 'adjusted' to be stronger, smarter, and live much longer, and wants to 'adjust' humanity so they will all be as happy as him, but he also hates the hero for the pain he was unintentionally put through, and the computer that 'adjusted' him warps that so that his plan would eventually just be genocide.

Yeah, I'm too sympathetic to my villans.

Those are very interesting sounding villains. And don't worry, it's good to be sympathetic with them. You have their reasons, goals, actions, and history. All you need now is to make your players sympathize with them, too.


@psgels: I did. I contacted SephirothSpawn, like, immediately after I wrote that (took him a while though, but he's obviously busy). And I don't recall double-posting, and even if I did, is this not my topic?

@LightAnd Magic:
1. Sephiroth is just one of the 30-something villains this tut is based on. HERE's the list of NON-FF Villains I took into account when creating this tut:

Dr. Doom (Fantastic 4)
Ramirez (Skies of Arcadia)
Scar (FullMetal Alchemist)
Walter Sullivan (Silent Hill 4)
Seda, Gaspard, and Sirus (Dark Cloud)
Mojo Jojo (Powerpuff Girls)
Mathias (Castlevania)
Specter (Ape Escape)
Xelpherpolis (Ephemeral Fantasia)
Psycho Mantis (Metal Gear Solid)
King of Sorrow (Klonoa 2)
Vergil (Devil May Cry)
Magus (Chrono Trigger)
Ilpalazzo (Excel Saga)

2. Go look at the characters in my Project Thread. Two of them, Arxus and Yoryue, are without doubt non-pretty boys, but I still like 'em. The Aestheticism topic exists for the sole reason that more people like cute/handsome/beautiful villains.

3. Sephiroth IS over 25, he's 30. And have you SEEN his muscles? 15-year-old bod my foot!

 

[Diedrupo]

Are you trying to define a villain as anyone with seemingly "bad" intentions? Because Magus and Ilpalazzo are not actual villains. (Magus even joins your party if you play CT correctly and Ilpalazzo is the main character's boss. How would that make him a bad guy?)

 

[KhaoticErase]

Are you trying to define a villain as anyone with seemingly "bad" intentions? Because Magus and Ilpalazzo are not actual villains. (Magus even joins your party if you play CT correctly and Ilpalazzo is the main character's boss. How would that make him a bad guy?)

It DOESN'T. That's the whole point! Villains aren't actually bad guys! They're just seen that way because they do bad things! Well-written villains like the ones listed above are self-proclaimed heroes.

Didja read the tut?

 

[Nouc]

Children children. Please lets do play nicely shall we? :yes: regardless of how someone writes a guide it is simply that "A guide" you do not have to follow it if you do not wish to. Some will read it still for more pointers and that last little something they needed for "their" ultimate villain. If you don't like how it is written or that it was written at all, I demand an answer too one thing... WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HEAR READING IT?! Same goes to you Andy. It's clear you have something against seph for some reason or another, did his ill use of bishis really upset you that badly? If so, someone has an inferiority complex.

It DOESN'T. That's the whole point! Villains aren't actually bad guys! They're just seen that way because they do bad things! Well-written villains like the ones listed above are self-proclaimed heroes.

People looks at villains as a whole and then bomb on you for showing the more deeper side too them? Hell, I thought I was ignorant. Watching Naruto and playing FF7 is all fine and dandy and you might think "wow so bad ass, true evil!" but then you wouldn't have seen the stuff about Zabuza and Sephiroth at least not enough... A lot of villains have ARE Badass over beefed and pure hatred/evil omfg creamed my pants type mobs you would find on about 9 out of 10 titles on the store shelf, thus; you take what is there (immapwnuded villain) too the often looked over (Kratos is muh dadeh? but works for yggdrasill? ToS) blend them together, and you have a hit.. crying freeman anyone? But alas I can't say Chaotic ultimate evil villains don't have their part in games otherwise they would not have created so many fan boys/girls more of half i'm sure are here on this very topic dissing this guys guide.


Personally I'd say don't let these people get to ya, your guide has helped a lot more here according too the positive response than not. Personally I'm aiming for a more subtle villain in my story, but your guide has still given me a few pointers I will undoubtedly use. Thanks.:D

 

[Diedrupo]

It DOESN'T. That's the whole point! Villains aren't actually bad guys! They're just seen that way because they do bad things! Well-written villains like the ones listed above are self-proclaimed heroes.

Didja read the tut?

Of course I read it, don't be condescending.

However I strongly contest the idea that a protagonist can be a villain. Villains are reserved mainly for characters who are antagonists throughout either the entire story or most of it or a significant arc. Ilpallazo is a "good guy" protagonist from the start and his evil intentions are meant to be humorous given the context of Excel Saga.

If you just pidgeonhole every character with bad/evil intentions into villain archtypes, then you are looking at the world in a black and white manner and not the grey that you are preaching. You should focus solely on antagonists and exclude any and all protagonists.

I realize that there are a lot of stories and novels out there where the main character is in fact, evil (American Psycho comes to mind), however this in no way makes them villains. If anything, it makes the good guys out to get them the villains as they are antagonists going against our protagonist.

I would recommend that you read some books written by established writers or college professors on character types or villains than try to come up with an article on your own.

 

[LightAndMagic]

...Mojo Jojo... seriously? I hope you took him into consideration on how to NOT write a villian. I also wouldn't call Magus a villian either.

 

[Brandonn]

Good information all around. I thank the guide maker for taking the time to put together something for the COMMUNITY.

But I must add that I'm very disappointed at how some people are acting. RMXP has always felt like a little family or what not - for all us game making fanatics (enthusiasts? )

Sorry - what I'm tring to say probly sounds very cheesy/dorky but... I always just assumed the majority of us were here to support each other. And someone thats obviously typing while their pissed, saying "Fuck the Fucking Fuckey-Fuck Foo-Fuck", totaly staining the topic - and it dosen't matter? Post your own opinions - YES! That's how we can improve each other. That's what makes us RMXP.org, and not one of those wannabe fourms! Let's support each other in postive ways.

We already have 1 new member that's afraid to post a tutorial now...

I want to end this post, however, to say again, I liked the information from BOTH sides. All the information together makes a more complete guide. I'm not sure how you could expect one person to get it perfect.

 

[KhaoticErase]

@Diedrupo: You and I, having both seen the series, know very well that Ilpalazzo is not a bad guy because he wants to make the world a better place. However, trying to take over the world and assigning assassinations would still make him a villain, no matter how pure his intentions are.

@LightAnd Magic: What's wrong with Mojo Jojo? He has a heartfelt past, reasons, goals, etc. All he wants is revenge on the Powerpuff Girls because they replaced him in Prof. Utonium's heart. I, as well as his other fans, feel sorry for him, and that's what makes him a compelling villain.

 

[4StarGeneral]

Well, it's obvious that some people will not understand how some of these are villains. Seeing as the normal "villain" stereotype being vile, superhuman, and heartless, and all, is what people think about first...

That, and some people don't read the previous posts...

Nice guide you have going seph. It's very complex and you have a great understanding of a true, more realisitic villain.

 

[Andy6000]

Ugh, I ignore this topic and come back out of boredom to find personal attacks against me? Let me explain my hostile criticism... Look at the first couple pages, how the criticism starts. It's for the most part nice (though my colleagues didn't exactly sugar-coat their overall criticism), honest criticism. Take a look at TCOFA's to be precise. And how he[author] REACTED is what caused the hostility: the condescension, the confusion of terms (because quite honestly, bishie by my definition is so totally different than seph's definition, which was better explained to me through PM), and the pretty much complete unwillingness to change.

Now, was it okay for me (and whoever else that I don't remember) to be quite so mean? No probably not, but hey, look at the area I moderate. I am not a nice person. But my criticism is honest. I liked this guide a lot less to begin with because it was completely condescending. "Ultimate Villain Guide", totally implying that this was the correct way to make a villain. And it is correct! But it is one of the correct ways to make a villain, but phrased so that there was only one. It's better now! Reading a little bit fills you in, he didn't really mean it to be the 'end all' guide to villainy and angry intentions!

It's still not to my liking, simply because every villain does not need the most... deep of reasons for whatever he does, he doesn't need to be his own hero, and I still disagree with the appearance section and strongly believe it should be revised to include more... Like how Dr. Doom or Mojo Jojo would fall into it. You don't even see Dr. Doom's face, he's an evil tin-can, and Mojo Jojo is a monkey.

Also as I've stated through PMs before, Vergil is not a good villain! He's cool, he's badass, I personally like him, but he has no real motivation or reasoning. He's just an asshole, and needs power for no particular reason. I mean, if he were presented better, you could say he might have an inferiority complex to Sparda or something, but that's a complete assumption, and Devil May Cry 3 is not the style of game to really even go into that sort of thing. But it's also not really a very DEEP game in terms of the characters (fun as Arkham is).

Also to throw something weird out there, in some story I was writing, the villain was the main character. Well, a bit hard to explain, but he's a schizo detective basically, unknowingly killing the victims he's trying to investigate. This personality split is brought about by the abrupt loss of his religious beliefs and failure to actually deal with it. I tell you this because it doesn't fit into the guide at all, illustrating a bit that I'd enjoy having the guide be a bit more broad in scope. Update the thing! Eventually it could be good, a well-rounded resource for all the kiddies to play with.

EDIT: This is me trying to be nice btw

 

[KhaoticErase]

Thank you, Andy6000. (not sarcasm)

Basically, this tutorial was based on the extremely popular villains, but only the villains that are actually tagged as antagonists, or the "hero's" adversary, unlike Andy's very interesting-sounding character.

When I have the time, I may go through the whole thing, and update it like crazy. New, clearer examples, explanations, everything!

Although I must say, I still disagree with changing Purity to Empathy. Empathy is in Chapter 10, and Purity, in my opinion is how everyone is. Anyone who ISN'T insane with some mental disease, is doing the bad things they do for a good cause.

The teenage shooters? Naive, not their fault. Adolf Hitler? Raised improperly. Bin Laden? Hates America about as much as everyone else who doesn't blatantly believe America is the "perfect" country.

Ask any English or Writing teacher. Ask "Some weird guy on the internet said that absolutely everything in a story has to have a reason", and I guarantee they'll agree.

P.S. I was writing this calmly, not angrily.

 

[LightAndMagic]

Ask any English or Writing teacher. Ask "Some weird guy on the internet said that absolutely everything in a story has to have a reason", and I guarantee they'll agree.

This isn't what people are arguing with you about, it's your incorrect definitions, and rigid guidelines, that people see flaws in.

It's your belief that every villian has to be good-looking. Maybe this isn't what you meant, but in appearances, it's the only thing you say, as if every villian has to be naturally attractive. Which I can't disagree more with, I fail to see how an outward appearance truly makes a villian. Any one person, despite their physical attractiveness, or lack thereof, clothing etc etc. is capable of comitting evil and selfish deeds that harm others. So why be so limited in your repetoire of creating a character?

It's your wrong use of the word purity. You say villians have to be "pure-of-heart" which is an incredibly incorrect use of the term. Once again, Disney Princesses are Pure of Heart. It implies an inherent goodness, the absolute refusal to comitt evil and selfish deeds, and a villian can not be a villian without doing these things.

I can already see your argument to this "But they see what they're doing as good!" Yes, but they must also know that it will ultimately harm some people, and that is not something a pure of heart person would. Just change the damn term.

It's your belief that every character HAS TO have a traumatic background/difficult childhood etc. in order to be interesting. Which is also something I have to disagree with. More often that not, the traumatic background is done for almost every villian, and it becomes so overdone and tiring, I just don't fully care. Compelling villians don't necessarily need their whole life story to be known in order to capture the audience, and in many cases they don't. As adults, people are still influenced, and events in our childhood don't necessary reflect who we become. I mean think of the horror stories of when people come into work and shoot up the building, did they all have a bad childhood? Possibly. But I doubt it. Stress and tension finally made them snap.

You've written these things as if a necessity, or incredibly important in creating an interesting villians, and I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Isn't it perfectly plausible for a villian to have a great childhood and still end up becoming a serial killer? Isn't it perfectly plausible for a fat, middle-aged, haggard woman to become a malicious bitch?

 

[lunarea]

Ask any English or Writing teacher. Ask "Some weird guy on the internet said that absolutely everything in a story has to have a reason", and I guarantee they'll agree.

But we're talking about characters, not story. People don't always need a clear reason as to why they do things. They don't always have logical explanations for their actions, nor are they always aware why they do certain things. Furthermore, sometimes the explanations that are given for their actions apply to them only, and not the world at large.

For example, say there are a hundred of children who live through a horrifying and abusive childhood (sadly). One of them becomes a serial killer. Is it right to say that he became a serial killer because of the abuse he suffered? Sure, you can say that, but only if you consider the abuse a contributing factor. You can't say that the abuse is the cause of the serial killing because there are 99 other kids that went through the same thing and didn't end up as serial killers.

If finding a cause for any action or deviation from normal human behavior was so simple, we wouldn't need psychology or therapy. We'd just be able to prevent things from happening in the first place. But as it stands, we can only attempt to understand and justify people's actions.

As humans, we want a cause-effect explanation for actions. However, there isn't a single theory that provides us with a clearcut, black&white explanation. We've only began to scratch the surface of human motivation or inner thought and how these translate into behavior. The only thing we know for sure is that humans are complex.

If you have a basic understanding of psychology (which, in my opinion, every serious writer should have), you'd know that events in people's past - tragic or not - are just a contributing factor in their behavior. You'd also know that with all the theories we have, we can only explain and predict the reactions of another person with a certain degree of success. And lastly, you'd know that sometimes a person just can't find a clear cause for their motivations/actions.

I'm not suggesting that you should throw out any history you have on your villain, as character history adds depth. However, you are allowed to approach a villain from a vantage point other than they're just an "essentially good person that's misguided in their actions". You can add complexity to your villain and almost play with your audience's emotions/thoughts. All the while, you can have some of their actions be nothing more than a result of the villain being a crazy evil genius.

Though this may not be your favorite type of villain, it's important to acknowledge that it still has a place in fiction and game creation.

 

[The Cry of Fallen Angels]

All of the following is aimed at Sephiroth7734, the authors of the quotes are not adressed.

Although I must say, I still disagree with changing Purity to Empathy. Empathy is in Chapter 10, and Purity, in my opinion is how everyone is. Anyone who ISN'T insane with some mental disease, is doing the bad things they do for a good cause.

The teenage shooters? Naive, not their fault. Adolf Hitler? Raised improperly. Bin Laden? Hates America about as much as everyone else who doesn't blatantly believe America is the "perfect" country.

Ask any English or Writing teacher. Ask "Some weird guy on the internet said that absolutely everything in a story has to have a reason", and I guarantee they'll agree.

Not everyone is pure. People rob to satify their greed. Greed can't be put a "justice-label" on eh?

I'm no English teacher, but I guarentee they won't agree. Not everything has a reason, not in a story, not in the fucking world. The simplest example ever; the young kid of the neighboors that keeps asking you "Why?". On every single answer you give a "why" will follow. I can guarentee you'll run out of answers.

For example, say there are a hundred of children who live through a horrifying and abusive childhood (sadly). One of them becomes a serial killer. Is it right to say that he became a serial killer because of the abuse he suffered? Sure, you can say that, but only if you consider the abuse a contributing factor. You can't say that the abuse is the cause of the serial killing because there are 99 other kids that went through the same thing and didn't end up as serial killers.

Some people who have horrible childhoods will not know another way to raise childeren then the way they were raised and thus do it that way. Some will have rebeled so badly they would commit suicide if they would ever even think of raising their own kids like that.

There's a balance between nature and nurture in a child's process of growing up. Nature is defined by your genes. Nurture is how you were raised and the events that "shaped" you. This "shaping" has a different effect on different people. People with the same raising but different natures will turn put different. As will people with identical natures differ because they had a different life. Thus there are never 2 identical persons.

You've written these things as if a necessity, or incredibly important in creating an interesting villians, and I disagree with them wholeheartedly. Isn't it perfectly plausible for a villian to have a great childhood and still end up becoming a serial killer? Isn't it perfectly plausible for a fat, middle-aged, haggard woman to become a malicious bitch?

Exactly. Some people have GREAT child hoods, no parents that beat the crap out of them and/or bullies who do so. But then they end up as criminals anyway. There are many different reasons, some don't even remember their reasons. I think someone should go and meet more people, talk to them, emphatise with them, etc. Rather then getting the information off the interwebz.

Oh, and you do show a terrible lot of disrespect for Andy, talking as if you're looking down on him. Yet, to me, his arguments make a lot more sense. Not saying he couldn't have put it more delicately, however, I seriously detest someone who acts as if he/she is a better person than someone else, there are few exceptions to the rule, but especially without a good back-up you have no right to do so.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Oh, and you do show a terrible lot of disrespect for Andy, talking as if you're looking down on him. Yet, to me, his arguments make a lot more sense. Not saying he couldn't have put it more delicately, however, I seriously detest someone who acts as if he/she is a better person than someone else, there are few exceptions to the rule, but especially without a good back-up you have no right to do so.

Like you? I'm not looking down on you. All of you are looking down on me. You're all telling me how to change my tutorial to fit realistic villains. Hate to tell you this, but realistic villains aren't magic. Realistic villains can't swing 100-ft. swords and fly.

But fictional villains can. You can't make a real villain with this tutorial unless you're Dr. Frankenstein. I thought we were all here to make games. FICTIONAL games. But not everyone is an expert game maker, so they count on these tuts to help them.

With the knowledge that everyone here is a game maker, I logically assumed everyone here was also a game player. Therefore, I based this villain tut on gamedom's most popular villains (hence the new title). No matter how many suggestions you people offer, they can't be worked into the tut unless you know a really popular game villain that fits those traits. And as long as there exists super-popular villains with the traits listed in the tut, then they're staying.

You all say that it's not a good idea to include the most popular villains because it's your strange opinion that any villain who has millions of fans is a bad villain. Last time I checked, that was absurd logic.

 

[Rye]

So ummm. Sephiroth, if I don't have to make realistic villains in my games, why do I have to make them all have a reason? I mean, they're more realistic if they have a little reason doing what they are doing, but if I can throw realism out the window completely, I can have my villain destroy cities for no reason. Thanks! Brings a load of my shoulders that I don't have to make them realistic just because it's a silly game.

[/sarcasm]

 

[KhaoticErase]

You're welcome.

Yes, if it's a silly game, it should have a silly villain. While serious games should have serious villains, with reasons.

Maybe I should add that to the tut?

 

[Reives]

She might've meant to emphasize the "game" part rather than the "silly", by the way. Directing at your point of the game being "fictional and not reality", and how you sort of contradicted yourself in a way.