is it possible to have an antagonist be to strong?

[BronzeOracle]

My understanding of dramatic structure is that an antagonist needs a flaw, one that they do not resolve as the protagonist resolves their flaw, and that in part causes the antagonist's downfall. e.g. Palpatine being overconfident, General Zod bigoted, Sauron consumed with the ring. So you can have a ridiculously powerful antagonist, but they must have a character flaw - and this flaw is linked to the theme of the story itself. So Palpatine's overconfidence is linked to Star Wars' theme of connectedness/trust. Sauron's covetousness is linked to LOTR's theme of love overcoming corruption. General Zod's bigotry is linked to Man of Steel's theme of acceptance. This may well be one of those rules that experienced writers can flaunt, but most of the novels I've read and loved have had antagonists like this.

 

[wordwalker]

A few ways to get around this in a long series -

1. The heroes never become nearly as powerful as the 'dark lord', but win an underdog victory and/or using a one-time plot device and would still be underdogs in a rematch or against a similarly powerful 'dark lord II'... or even dark lord's surviving general

2. The heroes become as powerful as the 'dark lord' but expend their power/are severely weakened defeating him - similar to 'one-time plot device'

3. The heroes do become and stay powerful, but they and initial 'dark lord' were never unique, but just a few among numerous very powerful beings in the world

Another option: one of the heroes becomes the next villain. :devil:

(Or a milder one, someone steals their newly-gained power, manipulates them, etc. Ah well.)

Otherwise, I would agree with Option #1 and with Oracle:

My understanding of dramatic structure is that an antagonist needs a flaw, one that they do not resolve as the protagonist resolves their flaw, and that in part causes the antagonist's downfall. e.g. Palpatine being overconfident, General Zod bigoted, Sauron consumed with the ring. So you can have a ridiculously powerful antagonist, but they must have a character flaw - and this flaw is linked to the theme of the story itself. So Palpatine's overconfidence is linked to Star Wars' theme of connectedness/trust. Sauron's covetousness is linked to LOTR's theme of love overcoming corruption. General Zod's bigotry is linked to Man of Steel's theme of acceptance. This may well be one of those rules that experienced writers can flaunt, but most of the novels I've read and loved have had antagonists like this.

Sure the conflict could be about raw power, and of course the more power one side has the more corners they can cut; it always sets the stage for everything else. But it usually comes down to who can use whatever resources they have and outmaneuver the other (even if it's only uniting the world against the villain; "you're stronger than any of us, but nobody's stronger than all of us"). That makes both practical sense and human sense, and puts the story back in the realm of people dealing with their own issues (and using each other's).

Some stories bobble their climax because the writer stopped using common sense about what's a real, exploitable weakness (of the villain's or the hero's!) and left a blind spot. But many others do it because the writer tried to go for an insightful, human solution and overreached. Still, it shows how much we understand the story ought to come down to this.