Sympathetic villains

[Ireth]

As the author of this thread, I think we should keep this focused on fictional characters rather than real people. Though I'm sure there is some inevitable overlap, this isn't meant to foster discussion about real-world history or the like.

 

[Shockley]

I will, of course, stop the discussion at your request, though I do want to say one last thing on it:

I'll agree with you in general that the Confederates are easier to portray as sympathetic villains, and I think that's a fairer example. I just tend to get aggressive on the death camp guards because people tend to use those lines, 'Oh, they didn't really support the Holocaust' or 'They were just as much the victims as the Jews' or 'They didn't know what was going on' or 'They were just guards' etc. because, in reality, they were drawn from the most aggressive, fanatical and violent wings of the Nazi party.

And that's my last diversion.

 

[Sparkie]

To me, the most sympathetic villans I read are the ones who genuinely believe they're 'doing what they have to do.' They have convictions and they stand for them. While their ideals and motivations may differ from my own (and cause them to do dastardly deeds,) I respect that they're doing what they think is right even if it's totally wrong.

 

[Nihilium 7th]

I love villains that you can sympathize with, I personally think that they usually have more depth to them when they are written well, I wish I knew how to write one though. Every time try the character comes out as a cliche and boring.

 

[shangrila]

I've done something similar, yeah.

My main villain Casimir Un Garvel (alias The Red Scarf) is the grandson of a usurped king. He's started a rebellion in order to reclaim his family's kingdom and honour, which has led to deaths of thousands of innocents. He's made a deal with a god for power, allied himself with blood mages under the command of a foreign, hostile nation and, towards the end of the story, willingly allows his sister to be executed to make his enemies think he's become irrational with hate. Not exactly sympathetic from this point.

In reality he's just a man trying to do what he believes is right. Initially his motivation was less than noble, being merely to reclaim what was once his family's, but as he's seen the corruption of the current regime he truly believes that it needs to be toppled. He takes more and more drastic actions simply because he has no other choice; overthrowing an empire is harder than it seems. However, all of it weighs heavily on him. His deal with the god is one he's unsure of, as he realises it makes him a pawn more or less. He detests the blood mages and especially hates the amount of lives his forces must take to provide them with the blood for their spells but, seeing as they're his only true advantage, he has no choice. His sister's death is partly out of spite, since she left him because she disagreed with his methods, but in the end it ultimately is what breaks him.

The other thing I kind of like about him is his stubbornness when it comes to his methods. He doesn't like them, he knows they're wrong, but when questioned on them he's adamant that what he's doing is right, that it's necessary and the more he's questioned, the stronger his resolve ends up being. I really thought that was a human trait and one I didn't actually plan, it just came through in the writing.

 

[wordwalker]

I like villains that are led to their villainy as the story unfolds.

Yes, we tend to think of antagonists as settled into a certain attitude, each with their own mix of good intentions, lost optimism, ruthlessness, and "gone too far to stop now." And that's realistic enough; most problem people we meet have already become that way.

But a story gives a chance to explain why things happen. We know about the hero's journey, but if the main villains are all already villains when the story starts, isn't part of the tale already over? While, if we could follow one character working his way to the right choices while another slips away from them before our eyes...

 

[Mindfire]

I like villains that are led to their villainy as the story unfolds.

Yes, we tend to think of antagonists as settled into a certain attitude, each with their own mix of good intentions, lost optimism, ruthlessness, and "gone too far to stop now." And that's realistic enough; most problem people we meet have already become that way.

But a story gives a chance to explain why things happen. We know about the hero's journey, but if the main villains are all already villains when the story starts, isn't part of the tale already over? While, if we could follow one character working his way to the right choices while another slips away from them before our eyes...

Yeah, I suppose you could do that. But then you don't really have a protagonist and an antagonist, you have two protagonists and one of them is just making bad choices. So really, you end up not having a villain at all because the character hasn't become the villain yet. And what's more, villains are most intimidating and powerful and therefore interesting after their backstory has already taken place, even if we don't know what that story is. Look at the Joker from the Dark Knight. Would finding out who he is and seeing his descent into madness make the character more engaging or create a more meaningful story? Not really. And similarly, while I do love (most of) the Star Wars prequel material, with Genndy Tartakovsky's Clone Wars ranking among my top 5 Star Wars things ever, Darth Vader was more intimidating before the prequels Return of the Jedi. Sure, he's still one of the greatest villains of all time and exploring his past has made interesting stories, but I still think Vader would have been a better villain overall if we had never seen Anakin Skywalker.