How to Write Without Villains

[Phin Scardaw]

For a number of years I've been writing fantasy novels in which I refuse to have villains as the driving force of the plot.

Don't get me wrong - I greatly enjoy stories in which characters must struggle against dark forces, such as LotR or the Matrix - but only when these are done well. When you get into this kind of story, you know what you're in for: the Chosen One goes up against the Dark Lord and despite staggering odds win in the end, saving the world. Powerful archetypes used, and if used effectively can make for good story-telling.

But there's not a lot of likelihood that characters in any other type of fantasy story are going to come up against really powerful human villains. This is not to say that there isn't villainy present, but I see it more as taking the form of deceitful politicians, or manipulative clergymen. This is far more human and when one understands that real villainy is an expression of human weakness, it's hard to envision bad guys that aren't just cliche card-board cut-outs. I can see pride, in a sorcerer, leading to disaster a lot more easily than I can imagine someone who's genuinely bent on world domination.

So what are some good techniques for writing fantasy stories in which the characters are driven to fulfil quests that don't involve a Final Confrontation? How do you generate the feeling in your readers of climactic satisfaction at the end of your tale without a big fight? Is it possible to write a compelling tale in which the heroes don't have to fight even once?

[Saigonnus]

Imagine if you will an organization that is rumored to be led by a secretive and mighty warrior without equal. Anyone who faces him are never seen or heard from again and when it gets to the point of actually facing him, the heroes find nothing but a well organized group that used the "warrior without equal" as a ruse. Maybe thier goal is kind of mundane, like becoming the most powerful guild in the area or to conscript the best warriors to their cause by making up the ultimate challenge for any arrogant warrior.

It is somewhat anti-climatic unless you have the heroes take out the group that created the ruse in some grand fashion... like expose their secret to the whole kingdom.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

This is far more human and when one understands that real villainy is an expression of human weakness, it's hard to envision bad guys that aren't just cliche card-board cut-outs. I can see pride, in a sorcerer, leading to disaster a lot more easily than I can imagine someone who's genuinely bent on world domination.

It's certainly more "realistic," but that doesn't mean stories with evil overlords are inherently weaker. The most broadly popular speculative fiction stories tend to have evil overlords as their antagonists, rather than prideful mortals. I think our culture is richer for having both sorts of stories.

In practice, whether or not a story's villain is realistic or cartoonish is only a tiny fraction as important as the craft with which the story is created.

Is it possible to write a compelling tale in which the heroes don't have to fight even once?

If you mean without having to get in a physical confrontation, then yeah, it's obviously possible: romantic comedies leap to mind. Political scenarios as well; the big climactic showdown in The Ides of March is two guys talking in a kitchen for ten minutes.

If you mean without having to engage in any kind of conflict whatsoever, then... no. The essence of storytelling is conflict. Without conflict, nobody cares.

[TWErvin2]

As was stated by Benjamin Clayborne, conflict is an important element to keep readers interested. The conflect doesn't have to be against evil. A conflict could be for a youth to survive the winter, alone and isolated. There is conflict or a struggle against the elements and nature. There are some literary stories and novels that may exist without conflict, but for fantasy, someting has to happen, something has to be at stake, there must be some sort of goal striven for.

Seek a story out there that's similar to what you're trying to accomplish with yours, Phin Scardaw. See how that author pulled it off, kept you interested in the storyline and characters. It should give ideas and techniques to help move forward on the story you're trying to write.

[Devor]

Don't get me wrong - I greatly enjoy stories in which characters must struggle against dark forces, such as LotR or the Matrix - but only when these are done well.

. . .

I can see pride, in a sorcerer, leading to disaster a lot more easily than I can imagine someone who's genuinely bent on world domination.

You don't need a vastly evil character to write fantasy, but I don't think such characters are unbelievable at all. I've known a lot of messed up people, and it's not hard for me to imagine some of the people I know - or even myself, in the right circumstances - taking a deal with the devil, so to speak. When you combine even real people with fantasy pressures, I really think you can genuinely create characters far outside the "range" that real-world experiences normally produce.

There's a lot I wouldn't read even if it is done well, so to me, those criteria still bode well for Darklords.

So what are some good techniques for writing fantasy stories in which the characters are driven to fulfil quests that don't involve a Final Confrontation? How do you generate the feeling in your readers of climactic satisfaction at the end of your tale without a big fight? Is it possible to write a compelling tale in which the heroes don't have to fight even once?

I'm currently breaking my trend of late and writing a short story that doesn't involve fighting. (Well, almost doesn't, a spot of magic interrupts a punch at one point early on.) It isn't so hard. The climax is about self-realization, followed by a wind-down where he does the right thing, which happens to mean telling a lie. It's an old formula but I think I'm giving it enough twist to make it work.

[Ghost]

For a number of years I've been writing fantasy novels in which I refuse to have villains as the driving force of the plot.

[...] But there's not a lot of likelihood that characters in any other type of fantasy story are going to come up against really powerful human villains. This is not to say that there isn't villainy present, but I see it more as taking the form of deceitful politicians, or manipulative clergymen. This is far more human and when one understands that real villainy is an expression of human weakness, it's hard to envision bad guys that aren't just cliche card-board cut-outs. I can see pride, in a sorcerer, leading to disaster a lot more easily than I can imagine someone who's genuinely bent on world domination.

I can relate. My characters' problems tend to be either of their own making or things they have no hope of controling. I'm more likely to write a character conflicted about whether or not to "fight the system" when they have no hope of beating the system. It fits me better than having my MC solve all his societies ills. My concepts are usually about relatively small conflicts. The protagonists family or social group is in trouble, but not in a way that affects the fate of an entire kingdom or the world. I know a lot of people need to write something epic and I feel odd that my conflicts are so localized, but my focus is different. The stakes have to be high for the character, but not every story has to have a conflict that affects the entire globe.

Dark Lords and Evil Overlords don't appeal to me. When I read about them, the rest of the novel or series has to make up for it in a big way. When I write villains, I prefer them to be regular people at odds with the protagonist and/or people who have complex reasons for doing what they do. They become boogeymen if they don't have those complexities.

I didn't take your post to mean that you have no conflict at all, just no big physical fights at the climax. Because so many fantasy writers have combat as central to the plot, they can conflate physical combat and conflict in the narrative. Those two things aren't one and the same. They can be the same in some novels, but usually there's more to it than that.

So what are some good techniques for writing fantasy stories in which the characters are driven to fulfil quests that don't involve a Final Confrontation? How do you generate the feeling in your readers of climactic satisfaction at the end of your tale without a big fight? Is it possible to write a compelling tale in which the heroes don't have to fight even once?

It's helpful for me to have a Big Revelation at the climax. I suppose that's because I take some of my cues from horror fiction. Other times the character gets further entangled in a bad situation, and it seems like there's no way out. They either give in or make a final stand through their words or actions. If they give in, it can be to utter failure or maybe they let the chips fall where they may so the character can rebuild afterward. They can also use their wits to circumvent the whole thing to trap the villain or come out on top another way. There are many ways to do it without resorting to sword fights and grappling at the edge of a cliff.

It's possible to have a tale where the heroes employ methods of facing the conflict that don't involve violent physical confrontations. Not every hero needs to dropkick his enemies into oblivion.

[Phin Scardaw]

It is somewhat anti-climatic unless you have the heroes take out the group that created the ruse in some grand fashion... like expose their secret to the whole kingdom.

I'd be far more inclined, if I were writing along these lines, to have things lead to the discovery of a secret society, like the Freemasons, in which the protagonist, once he'd perceived the ruse, could move even deeper into arcane learning to uncover something important, such as a new energy source, or a spiritual truth that liberates his oppressed people living in a faraway province.

I like what Ouroboros writes, about keeping the conflicts local and personal. This means that the readers probably have an easier time relating to the characters. It's fun to read about adventurers, but the situations they find themselves in are not often ones we can relate to at all. And I think that's what bothers me most about villains: they are created without much thought as to how a reader can relate to them. Of course, some Overlords aren't even human, but a human villain for me would have to be fully developed in a story so that I could understand how he came to be such a devious person. Like when Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen in Tim Burton's latest movie stands on a balcony over her moat filled with severed heads, and wonders aloud if it's better to be loved or feared. Her need for adoration drives her to be villainous. This is what I meant by weakness. I did not mean to say that bringing such characters into a story would weaken it.

Essentially, if anyone steals, lies, destroys or hurts another person, they have to have a very good reason to do it (but it will always be an expression of weakness if they act maliciously). Their motivation should be clear (not necessarily to them) in some way to the reader, and believable. And wouldn't such a person not feel remorse, or some kind of internal struggle? I don't know many people - even really messed up people - who wouldn't feel bad, if only in feeling self-loathing at some level, should they hurt or murder someone.

I think I really like stories in which there are rivals that can act both nobly and ignobly in the contest. Just recently I watched Christopher Nolan's adaptation of The Prestige again, and I really like how you start off by siding emotionally with Hugh Jackman's character, because he's grieving, etc - but in the end you realize that he's the fouler of the two, simply because he let his need for vengeance twist him into something monstrous and tragic - while Christian Bale's character, who does awful things which lead to suicides and drownings, finds himself doing the right thing by rescuing his daughter. It's like the two lookalikes in A Tale of Two Cities - you don't realize until the very end who the hero of the story really is: the despicable one.

I'd love to write a story in which a villain earns redemption. Someone who wreaks havoc, then labours to clean up the mess. That's good ground for conflict and much character development!

[Elder the Dwarf]

It's possible to have a tale where the heroes employ methods of facing the conflict that don't involve violent physical confrontations. Not every hero needs to dropkick his enemies into oblivion.

But its soooo much fun .

[Ghost]

Yeah, I almost put "even if it's supercool." It depends on what kind of story you want to tell, really.

[Anders Ämting]

Villains are completely optional. Writing without using antagonists is where it gets really trickly.

The antagonist is the character whose goals and ambitions make up an obstacle for the goals and ambitions of the protagonist. That is not to say the antagonist is evil or villainous, or even that the antagonist and the protagonists are enemies.

Pehaps they are competing for something, having nothing personal against each other yet both wanting to win? Or perhaps they are friends and companions, and the antagonist is just trying to talk the protagonist out of whatever it is he or she is trying to do, thinking it's a bad idea? Or maybe the antagonist is an authority figure - a mentor or even a diety - who is testing the protagonist's worth?

These are all valid conflicts, yet without any actual "villain" that needs to be violently defeated.

Me? I like villains! A good villain is always a whole lot of fun, and even if they have sensible motivations I try to make them just bit larger then life, give them some flair for drama, have them laugh maniacly once in a while. It's all in good fun, anyway. I'm not trying to win the Nobel Prize in Literature or anything.

I like what Ouroboros writes, about keeping the conflicts local and personal. This means that the readers probably have an easier time relating to the characters. It's fun to read about adventurers, but the situations they find themselves in are not often ones we can relate to at all. And I think that's what bothers me most about villains: they are created without much thought as to how a reader can relate to them. Of course, some Overlords aren't even human, but a human villain for me would have to be fully developed in a story so that I could understand how he came to be such a devious person. Like when Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen in Tim Burton's latest movie stands on a balcony over her moat filled with severed heads, and wonders aloud if it's better to be loved or feared. Her need for adoration drives her to be villainous. This is what I meant by weakness. I did not mean to say that bringing such characters into a story would weaken it.

Essentially, if anyone steals, lies, destroys or hurts another person, they have to have a very good reason to do it (but it will always be an expression of weakness if they act maliciously). Their motivation should be clear (not necessarily to them) in some way to the reader, and believable.

You know, I think one of my favourite villains of all time is actually Tai Lung from the first Kung Fu Panda movie.

The reason I like him is that on one hand, he's a pretty classic villain. He's elequent, intelligent, hilariously arrogant and completely remorseless. If you stand in his way he will straight up run you over no matter who you are. I love how the whole start of the movie is just building him up as this unstoppable beast way before we even see him in person - how he's this rampaging maniac they had to lock at the bottom of a heavily guarded prison built exclusively for him. When people hear he's coming, they all pack up their stuff and literally run for their lives, all from this one dude. He's like a natural disaster: Something you can't fight or reason with, only try to avoid.

...But on the other hand, Tai Lung's entire motivation is that he thinks he's the hero. And not just the hero of his own story; no, he thinks he's the hero period. And the brilliant thing is, you can actually look at his story in a three act structure: The first act is him growing up, learning kung fu, bonding with Shifu and generally being awesome. The second act is when he is denied the Dragon Scroll and gets sent to prison after failing to steal it anyway. The third act is most of the actual movie, starting when he breaks out of jail. That's his triumphant return; his great heroic comeback!

As far as Tai Lung is concerned, he's the protagonist, everyone that gets in his way are the antagonists, and the Dragon Warrior is the final boss. He literally thinks Po is the main villain, which just proves that he regards his life as if it were some kind of adventure story. Everything Tai Lung does, he does out of the indominable conviction that he is right and that once he becomes the true Dragon Warrior, everyone will finally realize that he's the good guy.

And that's just an awesome way of writing a villain.

And wouldn't such a person not feel remorse, or some kind of internal struggle? I don't know many people - even really messed up people - who wouldn't feel bad, if only in feeling self-loathing at some level, should they hurt or murder someone.

Well, that's debatable. Different people don't have the same moral standards when it comes to violence, and this is true for heroes, villains and anyone in between. Depending on your principles, code or philosophy, acts of violence that are unacceptable to other people may be acceptable to you in the right circumstances.

Though, I think I'll save that discussion for another thread.