# Depicting Evil



## Black Dragon (Sep 15, 2011)

When writing characters, it's always better to show than tell.  What are some ways to demonstrate that a character is truly, diabolically evil without falling into the realm of cliche?

Any fresh ideas?

Also, what are some of the best examples of an author doing this from published novels and stories?


----------



## sashamerideth (Sep 15, 2011)

i think the,best way is by showing tje bad person doing bad things, though I don't like writing the completely evil character, maybe a truly evil minion, but not primary villain.

A lot of what I have been reading lately does not have a bad guy, just people trying to make it in a world that doesn't care if they live or die.


----------



## Bass_Thunder37 (Sep 15, 2011)

Well, I demonstrate it quite outright, with a hideously obvious display of his evil.

Michael bashed in the gate with his sword's pommel. And that's when he saw something he wished he hadnt. King Kassidus stood atop a pile of burning corpses. But they weren't being burnt by normal fire. This fire had sparks of green in it's midst. Obviously an enchantment. The effect being, the bodies were alive, feeling the pain of burning to death, missing skin and chunks of muscle as the inferno blazed through them. Yet the Warlock-King was unfazed by the embers. He scooped up a handful, and it began to dance on his fingertips. 
"This is the price they chose to pay," Kassidus hissed with a snakelike tongue,
"When they made a protest. It's not protected by our law. Wait, is it? I don't care, but aren't these corpses just horrifically gruesome?" Ronin's mouth was gaping at this sight.
"Do-do you get off on this scary crap?" He and Victor calmly high-fived.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Sep 15, 2011)

To avoid cliche, I believe showing the villain as someone who does not see his actions in the same manner as everyone else.  I'll take the joker from the newer batman movie.  Unlike the normal portrayals of the joker, this one was insane.  All the actions lacked the normal motivations like greed or lust for power or control, just chaos for the sake of chaos.  For me, villains are the easiest characters to create.  The come to life in no time bringing along an entire psychological disaster with them.  They don't have an evil laugh, and they do things based on a different moral standard than most people have.  Killing another person for pleasure only works if the villain is enjoying it like most people enjoy some form of normal event.  There isn't a "oh, look at me, I'm so evil I'm going to kill someone."  More likely "Look at his eyes.  They go so wide as he comes to understand that his life is over.  It is a shame that death is so short."  

Most evil does not see themselves as the evil, but as the way things should be.  

Examples in fiction:  Jennifer Roberson did a shape changer series in which the antagonist was another group of people which were mages, and fit the idea of evil.  They saw anyone not part of themselves as lesser, and to be treated in any manner they chose.  They took great pleasure in killing and torturing the 'good guys", which were the shape changer race.  They were evil, but never in a cliche manner.

Witch World by Andre Norton, had a race that came from another dimension, of which had been destroyed by themselves.  They killed without emotion, and took over peoples minds so they could use them as mindless soldiers.  Their differences in manner and the coldness they had in regards to everyone made it easy to tell they were evil.

There are a lot more, but overall, most evil doesn't think of themselves as evil.  Their actions are usually justified to their own mind and other people should think as they do.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 15, 2011)

Just put up a challenge, inspired by this and the "Worst Villain" thread. Check it out.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Sep 15, 2011)

Michael Moorcock's Elric Series depicts evil pretty well, especially Stormbringer (the sword that devours souls of its victims). There are examples cruelty and such that does it pretty well.

A few thoughts about depicting evil:

Actions and motivations, even indifference and deciet can help depict evil. I think attempting it in one fell swoop is a mistake.

Another technique is to use a foil character, one that is used enhance or better depict a character through contrast.

Example: Cinderella is demonstrated to be caring, lovely, graceful, etc. But inclusion of her nasty stepsisters serves to highlight Cinderella's positive qualities.

The same can be accomplished with evil.  For example, a character could be nasty and cruel, until it's learned that the character is actually an underling of someone that is even worse--and gives the underling second thoughts about what's being done.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 15, 2011)

In response to the question: I actually don't use "villains" much; I prefer my "evil" to be situational. For instance, there's abundant "evil" in a war setting, even if no single individual is villainous _per se_. Or conflict might involve equally "good" individuals: think Achilles and Hector, Odysseus and Aeneas in the Trojan War--the tragedy is that they are bound by circumstance to oppose one another, when under different conditions they'd probably be best friends.

When I do use a villain, I generally demonstrate the evil in almost casual, offhand ways. A military leader who is presented as a respectable officer might, after politely interviewing a captive, might conclude by saying "Damn shame I can't spare someone to escort you to our POW facilities" and slit the captive's throat. The decision even might seem perfectly rational under the circumstances... but it's _not_ something a "good" person would do--and the "evil" part is that he does it without remorse, hesitation, or even consideration of possible alternatives; he might not even remember it later, in terms of having done it to a specific person, so little does the act effect him. An alchemist (natural philosopher, "scientist") might not concern himself about where his experimental ingredients come from--nor have it register that he's recently used more left thumbs of babies than could reasonably be expected to arise from natural infant mortality and graverobbing. A "hero" would try to interrupt the summoning of an Elder God by rescuing the virgin from the altar... but the ceremony could be foiled equally, and probably more easily, by shooting the sacrifice from a distance before she was placed there, or at least before the ritual reached the correct point. (I can think of plenty of reasons why the chief celebrant might not make as good a target, should anybody raised that objection... the simplest would have to do with the angle of the shot.) Preventing the god from manifesting: good. Method: not so much.

One of the most "evil" people in history I can think of was the source of a popular saying: Simon de Montfort, leader of crusades against the Albigensians in southern France. When the army he led captured the city of Beziers, he was asked by his men how they were to sort out the heretics they were seeking from the rest of the populace. His reply: "Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens"--"Kill them all, God will recognize his own." And they did: the entire population of 20,000, a great many of them seeking sanctuary in the cathedral his troops torched. I'm sure we've all heard, probably at some point jokingly used the modern equivalent: "...let God sort them out." I stopped using it when I learned its origin. 

That's the "evil" for me: not the psychotic or megalomaniac--though they have their places--but the casual expedient, committed almost as an afterthought.


----------



## mythique890 (Sep 16, 2011)

For me, the villain is the most difficult character to write.  To write a good character, I have to be able to get into their head, and I find evil villain heads uncomfortable.

I was asking for advice about this the other day on another forum and someone said something that struck me, which was basically, "Everyone is the hero of their own story, even, or maybe especially, the villain."  Good villains don't do what they're doing because it's 'evil,' they do it because they think it's right and/or justified for them to behave in that way.

But as far as pure evil, I actually like the villains in the "Peter and the Starcatchers" series by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson.  In the fourth book (Peter and the Sword of Mercy) there are two characters who are evil pretty much because they get their kicks by causing pain, but they don't go around doing it all the time.  That's scary to me because it happens in real life.  It's very young fantasy, but they're still good.  To be honest, the original reason I checked them out is because they're read by Jim Dale (audiobooks: they are how I keep my house clean without going crazy).  He is the best reader ever.


----------



## Ravana (Sep 16, 2011)

Hee hee. I'm comfortable with "uncomfortable." (Usually: there is one RPG character I've been forbidden to ever play again, because of what he was doing to me....) 

I might modify the "everyone is the hero" notion slightly: I'd say that more often villains are the heroes of their own stories than heroes are. The person who questions what he's doing is far more likely to turn out heroic, on the usual construal, than the person who acts in confidence of his rightness. Even then, I'd say that's far from universal... there's no reason a villain can't believe what he's doing is "wrong," but do it anyway, for whatever rationalization or apparent justification he can adduce. History is replete with examples. (For one: Simon de Montfort's monarch purported to hate what Montfort was doing--but did nothing to stop him, and was quite happy to accept his share of the spoils of Montfort's conquests. Does that make him "evil"? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does that make him a "villain"? Probably... certainly in the eyes of some it does. For another--and at the risk of unfairly terminating this thread before it runs its natural course: a certain European nation experienced a form of collective insanity within living memory which, while it may not have made most of the individual inhabitants "evil," unquestionably made the whole a "villain" for much of the rest of the world, for quite some time. Actually, I can think of _more_ than one that fits this description, if the "living memory" qualification is massaged only slightly....)


----------



## Amanita (Sep 16, 2011)

Depicting evil? Surely not an easy task as many books failing at it show.

I believe (and the results of some psychological experiments agree with me) that most if not all humans have a potential for evil within them. Under the right (or maybe wrong) circumstances it shows and perfectly ordinary people turn into monsters.
As strange as it sounds, I also think that the insane serial killer who thinks of torturing children to death as an art makes people less uncomfortable than being made aware of this does. And making people uncomfortable is what evil in fantasy should do. 

Therefore I like villains with backstories that make sense but don’t read as if the author tried to justify his villain’s behaviouer. Too much ambition or too strong a desire for revenge  are good ways of doing this. So is any form of fanatism.
Especially in the fanatism case the author needs to show a bit of empathy for his character. „This is just some insane follower of the religion of evil“ doesn’t work. Other people in the story can view him that well but the author should show a bit more depth. The other extreme isn’t good either, though.  Something like: „Yes, he’s killing those people but he’s doing it because they’re destroying the environment and therefore it’s okay.“
The readers must understand that these people need to be stopped but he shouldn’t forget that they’re human. 
Balancing this is the author’s task and a difficult. Someone on this forum, I think it was you, Ravana, has written an excellent post on such villains. 
That’s how intriguing evil works for many, but it is rare in fantasy works. 

Another interesting reason for doing „evil“ is tampering with powers the person can’t control. This can happen for various reasons such as ambition, curiosity or impatience and many more. Any of it can turn out very interesting. 
This is an approach, fantasy gives plenty of possibilites for and it’s more common as well, I think.
My villains usually tend to be a combination of the two. 

I’m still trying to improve my skills in depicting them realistically, sometimes using traits of my own that might be turned to „evil“ in certain circumstances as well. 
I’m also trying to find out as much as possible about real life war criminals, torturers etc. The wars in former Yugoslawia and other conflicts of our time are my main source for this but I’m looking further back in history as well. 
It can be really shocking to read what some quite respected historical people have written about women, other ethnic groups, or their current enemy in some war. Sometimes it’s acutally hard not to get offended while doing this though, but your last post, I didn’t find offensive at all, Ravana. Did I ever come across as that sensitive, or was this sentence directed at the forums in general?



> For another--and at the risk of unfairly terminating this thread before it runs its natural course...



Edit: The really common way of showing that characters are evil by introducing them doing something evil, doesn't work too well for me. The thing that stuck in my head from Bass Thunder's example was the fact the flames had green sparks in them. I've been wondering if there had some barium or copper-salts been used in the enchantement.  
The death of fictional people doesn't touch me much at all, as long as the author hasn't given me any reasons why I should care about these people before. 
Therefore another common cliche, the one where the villain has killed the hero's parents, works much better for me. (If done well of course.)


----------



## Ravana (Sep 16, 2011)

Amanita said:


> I’m also trying to find out as much as possible about real life war criminals, torturers etc. The wars in former Yugoslawia and other conflicts of our time are my main source for this but I’m looking further back in history as well.



This isn't exactly all that far back into history, but you might find it informative: the complete transcripts of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials.

Avalon Project - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal

Better still, for your purposes, might be the links across the top of the page: a collection of documents in, as they put it, "Law, History and Diplomacy," going all the way back to 4000 BCE. (It's a bit sparse in the 1400-1599 periods, for some reason; most of the other periods are positively loaded.) Yale has put some real effort into this site; it's well worth it for anyone interested in any of these topics. Some of which will undoubtedly creep into anybody's writing, at some point. 



> Sometimes it’s acutally hard not to get offended while doing this though, but your last post, I didn’t find offensive at all, Ravana. Did I ever come across as that sensitive, or was this sentence directed at the forums in general?



There's a standard saying on internet forums that whenever someone brings up the Nazi regime, the thread is over--the idea being that at that point, whatever comparison is being made has descended into unjustifiable hyperbole. Which is usually true: in this case, though, it's actually topic-appropriate. But that was why the "risk of unfairly terminating this thread" comment.


----------



## Guy (Sep 17, 2011)

As far as researching evil goes, some good sources are _The Banality of Evil_ by Philip Zimbardo, pretty much anything by FBI profiler John Douglas and stories about what is currently going on in places like the Congo and Sierra Leone.

In my stories I tend to explore the theme of what separates the hero from the villain. My conclusion is not much. Both my heros and villains possess great power. Both stuggle to control it. The hero succeeds (barely) and the villain fails. His failure is ultimately due to his refusal to honestly assess himself and he instead immerses himself in rationalizations and justifications. It is my theory that most human evil is the result of self-deception.


----------



## Matty Lee (Sep 21, 2011)

Evil needs to be meaningful Making your villian a racist, or a rapist on the side is cheap. What is the purpose of your portraying evil? What do you think evil is? Don't necessarily show people something obvious. Everyone knows killing babies is wrong (although the people who do it and the reasons for it can be surprising) but show them an evil that they need to see, one that sneaks up on them. Your story should tell us something about evil: Why people fall into it, why they stay there, what does it feel like to be there? We should get a 360 degree view of this thing called evil.


----------



## CicadaGrrl (Sep 21, 2011)

Depends on my books, but in general, evil wants something.  What makes them evil are what they are willing to do to get that.  Are they willing to kill?  Extinguish races?  What?  Occassionally, Evil characters are like the Joker--Chaos.  Loki.  The trickster.  It doesn't matter why.  Maybe it is just interesting.

However, in general, the evil has an an agenda.  The evil acts follow that agenda.  The agenda is usually against the good guys' agenda.  Violence--whether by the head evil or by minions, should reflect the agenda.  For instance, my book, Rebirth, was just published by platteriverpress.  The villain, Annie, had a child die of cancer on her.  She became obsessed with raising and using an ancient celt to save her daughter.  But the celt got away.  Annie isn't lying down on this one, so she uses her magic to track down the celt and the characters who have taken her in.  Annie has a bit of a terminator style of getting what she wants.


----------



## UnionJane (Sep 25, 2011)

For an excellent and thorough discussion of villain tropes, I recommend looking to _Writing the Paranormal Novel._ The way the discussion is staged makes you consider villains as characters, how they work in a story, and how to put a fresh face on them.


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 30, 2011)

Ravana said:


> One of the most "evil" people in history I can think of was the source of a popular saying: Simon de Montfort, leader of crusades against the Albigensians in southern France. When the army he led captured the city of Beziers, he was asked by his men how they were to sort out the heretics they were seeking from the rest of the populace. His reply: "Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens"--"Kill them all, God will recognize his own." And they did: the entire population of 20,000, a great many of them seeking sanctuary in the cathedral his troops torched. I'm sure we've all heard, probably at some point jokingly used the modern equivalent: "...let God sort them out." I stopped using it when I learned its origin.
> .



That phrase is a common military comment, I knew it had an origin, now I know where. I actually thought it from the English crusades. 
It is easier to kill all then to sort out the bad. But the price in doing so is so the souls of the ones that do it.
War creates evil, no man that considers taking anothers life in the name of duty ever views life the same.

If you want to see evil, watch the national news daily. Evil will rear its ugly head somewhere in it.  Are we more evil then any time in history? Or is it we cover more of the evil with our world news?

Ultimate evil should be very limited just as ultimate good.  There is rarely black and white, the black is not perfectly black, nor the white completely unstained.  The antagonist must be in the mix somewhere, sometimes even both sides fighting for good, just a different view of good.


----------



## DameiThiessen (Oct 9, 2011)

Most traditional ideas of evil in fantasy tend to fall in the "Overlord" or "Henchman" category, and depicting them usually goes along the lines of showing them mercilessly killing or torturing some poor innocent villager or something. Personally, I don't believe that pure evil exists and I prefer the term "antagonist" more than "villain". Too often you see young writers using evil as a replacement for motivation, and the antagonists really don't have much more of a reason for doing what they do other than they're the bad guy and that's what they do. But I digress.

Some popular techniques to depict a character as evil are:
A) Not showing them often, keeping them in the darker corners of the story where people are afraid to go. This works especially well when coupled with
B) Making their influence known through surroundings (an evil king you never see directly, but you see evidence of his evil in the land he rules) or characters (henchmen, law enforcers, possessed persons, etc.). Think of "The Exorcist", how the demon was never seen directly, only through Regan. What it was doing to this poor little girl can only be described as evil. 
C) Personify a sin or a belief, or many. Pick something like greed, or lust, or gluttony, and show us the pain it causes other characters in the story and why it is evil. This can also become their motivation, adding some sense to the character other than "He just likes killing hundreds of people for fun because that's just what he does and he has millions of followers because they're just like that too and they're scared of him 'cause he's evil."

It is unrealistic, lazy writing to say a character is JUST evil and that's JUST the way they are. There has to be some rhyme or reason to it or else the reader isn't engaged enough in your story, as there is no hook to keep them reading.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 22, 2011)

If any of you read Gemmel, I think he does a great job in almost all of his novels.  From the way he portrays power-hungry Agamemnon in his Trojan War series to Alexander in the Lion of Macedon/Dark Prince (although Dark Prince was not one of my favorites) and especially the villains in the Drenai series.  Love all of the Drenai books.


----------



## Zak (Oct 29, 2011)

To avoid cliche, you must not just clothe your villain in black, have him/her kill innocent people that simply brought a bad message, and give him/her an evil laugh. You must give him different moral standards.

You must take time when developing your antagonist, because without them, there is no story. Also, to avoid cliche, maybe you could make it unclear on who the real villain is? Possibly your protagonist is actually making the wrong moves? Is the villain really doing something evil, or something to support man(or otherwise)kind?


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 3, 2011)

Evil is comely. Evil is often functional. It tends to be subtle, and generally falls under the guise of wayward altruism. Hitler wasn't trying to be a monster. He sold himself as a visionary and a protector, a man of the people. He lauded a brighter, more fruitful future for mankind. More often than not, people tend to run toward true evil, praising it with every step until they see its true face, and then in cowardice continue toward it.


----------



## Terra Arkay (Nov 3, 2011)

I always have trouble creating an evil character, I haven't even truly created an evil character for my story but I have got thoughts stirring in my head. If you want he/she/it to be a truly diabolical, pure evil character then I have one tip for you: avoid humor.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Nov 4, 2011)

Terra Arkay said:


> I always have trouble creating an evil character, I haven't even truly created an evil character for my story but I have got thoughts stirring in my head. If you want he/she/it to be a truly diabolical, pure evil character then I have one tip for you: avoid humor.



Why?  The joker in the newer batman flick did a pretty decent job of being evil, and thought it was quite hilarious.  Why can't evil laugh, joke, or even kid around?  So thy might be laughing at a village burning, or at the screams of a mother as her child is killed, if the person is evil they can still have all the traits normal people have, but their perspective of it will be vastly skewed.  Evil does not have to be dark and gloomy, just lacking in the normal set of morals most of us believe.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 4, 2011)

Moral values and even a biological sense of right and wrong aren't things that have to come into play either.
Take this example.
Our villain is killing babies who have birthmarks on their left leg. He has killed hundreds of babies in a single year. Evil?
Plot twist.
 Well lets say he was visited by god or angel(in the story he really was), who told him/her that a child with a birthmark on their left leg would bring about the end of our species. The only way to purge the demon was to torture the infant to death.
Our hero is inadvertently acting to bring about the end of human beings, and in the process crosses some major lines. So, who is actually evil. The baby killer trying to stop the end of humanity, or the well intentioned hero fighting to stop him or her. 

Evil is relative, and again I say, so much evil is done by people who believe they are doing good. Even the argument of more harm than good defining people and actions as evil is difficult to apply. Morals are relative. Empathy is conditional. Right and wrong are so often a matter of perspective.

Remember there are people in this world who say two men holding hands is evil enough to punished with death. By that standard love and affection are conditionally evil. In the above example torturing babies to death could be construed as good.

Personally I use these standards for most evil.
Selfish. 
Uncaring. 
Absolute.
Mathematically more harm than good.
Taking pleasure in causing harm or pain.
Has a cascading impact that is harmful for more people than it is helpful to.

There is also the part where for Milena good and evil have been split into things that are inherently wrong in their own right, and things that are wrong because they contradict established but arbitrary laws and values.


----------



## writeshiek33 (Nov 4, 2011)

yes evil is relative it all depends how you approach it for instance one of my ideas has two protagonist who by nature you think are evil but they do what they do to secure the kingdom and solve a problem


----------



## Devor (Nov 4, 2011)

Voldemort.  Pure evil, and while there is a lengthy and believable backstory, it still amounts to he's evil, and it just escalates with each passing event.  Yet, without Voldemort - this almost cliche supervillain - we couldn't have Snape.  Or the other death eaters who each walk some version of that line of evil and twisted ambiguity that we instinctively look for in our evil characters.  Voldemort's seemingly complete lack of humanity is even more telling when you consider Rowling's distinct efforts to give every good guy a flaw - there can be total evil, but not total good?  Not in reality, but in a fantastical setting, I think that's a compelling source of conflict on the occasion that it might be done well.


----------



## Karoly (Nov 7, 2011)

As social creatures, humans naturally think of selflessness as good and selfishness as evil, a detriment to the group. At the most elemental level, evil people only think of themselves.

They think that they are smarter or stronger than everyone else so they should be respected and revered. No matter what their lot is, they always think to themselves "I deserve more".

Their sense of justice is how things relate to them. Have they been wronged by another? Have they suffered indignation at the hands of one beneath them? Has their authority been challenged? etc.

Their friends are those who respect or worship them and feed their ego, or those whom they can exploit. They take rejection and insults very personally, and never tolerate anyone who wounds their pride or looks down on them.

Even their ideals are related to themselves: they want more power, they want more people to recognize their greatness and they hate those who reject them or who aren't like themselves. They cherry-pick whatever ideologies suit their needs and find it offensive when someone challenges their ideals or has ideals that differ from their own. (IE. I worship the Sun-God therefore everyone should worship the Sun-God, kill all the Moon-Priests.... I am the king how dare the lords vote against me, I'll them all for that.... It my right as the conqueror to chastise these serfs for resisting my invasion, I will flay them alive and leave them as an example to others).

Of course, to themselves, they're not selfish hateful people, but are highly motivated and justified in their actions and have the willpower and skills to see their goals, whereas most other people are simply too incompetent to be as [vicious] as them.

However, most people aren't completely evil in real life (except maybe the insane, who have a different perception of the world altogether), and most people have at least some morals they stick to (or claim to stick to) and some redeeming features.

P.S. Other evil qualities usually stem from this. IE sadistic glee comes from an adrenaline rush as the inflictor enjoys the perceived superiority he has over his victim. He may be an outcast and shunned by most of society, but at that moment, he is the one in control.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 7, 2011)

> They think that they are smarter or stronger than everyone else so they should be respected and revered. No matter what their lot is, they always think to themselves "I deserve more".



This is actually an evolutionary adaptation. Creatures that constantly crave MORE MORE MORE and go try to get it, outcompete those that don't. As a result, we end up with a planet full of lifeforms that are constantly trying to get as many resources as they can.


----------



## Liu Xaun (Nov 13, 2011)

My major antagonists usually want to further mankind or their own positions, with little care to how civilized the path may be, much like many of our world's historical dictators (Mao, Stalin, etc.). I would by no means call an actual person "evil", but simply disagreeing would make them antagonistic.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 15, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> This is actually an evolutionary adaptation. Creatures that constantly crave MORE MORE MORE and go try to get it, outcompete those that don't. As a result, we end up with a planet full of lifeforms that are constantly trying to get as many resources as they can.



That's one take on it. However, single celled organisms evolve into multi celled organisms. 
A lone individuals may be stronger than any other individual, but it unlikely to be able to compete with a pack or other co-operative. This is how gangs, armies and societies in general operate. This strength, this unity is how police and other institutions can exert tremendous control over individuals.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 15, 2011)

Right. Cooperation can be a helpful adaptation, but individuals still tend to display the MORE MORE MORE behavior even in the absence of cooperation. Cooperation, of course, implies tribalism -- you cooperate only with others of your type -- so two individuals might compete with each other just because they're a tiny bit different.

You can look at it not on the level of individuals wanting MORE MORE MORE at the expense of other individuals, but rather of tribes/packs wanting MORE MORE MORE at the expense of other tribes/packs.


----------



## mirrorrorrim (Nov 19, 2011)

In my opinion, the most enduring villain is that one that makes things personal. In real life, it's easy to hear about the suffering and deaths of people thousands of miles away. It's much harder to have to live through a personal loss of happiness deliberately inflicted by another person. I feel this idea is doubly true for fantasy writing, because the reader doesn't start with the same attachment to the inhabitants of your fictional world that most of us possess toward the human race.

There are so many ways to do this, but I feel the simplest, and often most effective, is to have the villain kill someone the reader cares about. 

I think it's important to note here that, while there is usually a large degree of overlap between the people the main character and the reader care about, the two groups are not automatically the same. 

For example, most main characters are close to at least one of their parents (or, if the main character is an orphan, to the memory of his or her parent). At the same time, parents seldom have an active role in the hero's quest. It is tempting to have the main villain kill one or both of the hero's parents in order to demonstrate just how diabolically evil your bad guy really is without worrying about how such an event might mess up your narrative progression. 

Naturally, of course, the hero is devastated by this. Much more rarely, though, will this affect the reader in the same way. There usually just hasn't been enough time spent with the parents in the story for the reader to grow attached to them, especially if (as is usually the case) this terrible event happens in one of the first few chapters of the book.

I feel, if you're going to have your villain kill someone, it needs to happen after the reader has grown attached to the person being killed. As a result of this, I feel most of the best villains don't reach their full stature of evil until the story is at least midway through. Before then, it's just too hard for them to do something the reader will really care about.

That's just my opinion, though.

Some of the easiest and most recognizable examples of this are in the world of comic books. Most hero's arch villains have, at one time or another, either killed or otherwise permanently impacted a long-running character that had been close to the hero.

*spoilers (well, kind of)* The Green Goblin killed Spider-Man's girlfriend Gwen Stacy. The Joker killed Batman's sidekick Robin, handicapped Batgirl, changed Harvey Dent into Two Face, and, in the film version, killed Bruce Wayne's childhood friend Rachel Dawes. Doomsday killed Superman himself.

You can have the most clever, sadistic or brutal character imagineable, but until they actually _do_ something, the reader just won't see them as a threat.

At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## Merc (Nov 20, 2011)

I like to build on imagery, and as a huge Batman fan, the idea of the Joker has usually been my base visualization of evil.  A man who has no concern for the damage he causes, the destruction he orchestrates, or the chaos ensued in his name.  Not a villain of honor, or purpose, but rather that of disguised intelligence in a way that sickens the reader.  And mortify's the characters good side, bad side, the indifferent, and pulls in those who try to avoid the problem further than they could have configured nightmare's of having.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 21, 2011)

mirrorrorrim said:


> In my opinion, the most enduring villain is that one that makes things personal. In real life, it's easy to hear about the suffering and deaths of people thousands of miles away. It's much harder to have to live through a personal loss of happiness deliberately inflicted by another person. I feel this idea is doubly true for fantasy writing, because the reader doesn't start with the same attachment to the inhabitants of your fictional world that most of us possess toward the human race.
> 
> There are so many ways to do this, but I feel the simplest, and often most effective, is to have the villain kill someone the reader cares about.
> 
> ...



I agree with damn near every point. Word! I shall do that odd reputation thingy.
I am also going to invite you to write a paper on the LSP about writing villains.


----------



## mirrorrorrim (Nov 21, 2011)

Laughing_Seraphim said:


> I agree with damn near every point. Word! I shall do that odd reputation thingy.
> I am also going to invite you to write a paper on the LSP about writing villains.



Thank you! I'm not quite sure what LSP is, though... 

  

I googled it and came up with Louisiana State Police.

That can't be it, unless... Are you asking me to write an article on criminal profiling? 





Merc said:


> I like to build on imagery, and as a huge Batman fan, the idea of the Joker has usually been my base visualization of evil.  A man who has no concern for the damage he causes, the destruction he orchestrates, or the chaos ensued in his name.  Not a villain of honor, or purpose, but rather that of disguised intelligence in a way that sickens the reader.  And mortify's the characters good side, bad side, the indifferent, and pulls in those who try to avoid the problem further than they could have configured nightmare's of having.


I think one of the things that makes the Joker so terrifying is that absence of purpose. I think most people find senseless acts of violence very scary--I know I do. The idea that someone might hurt others for no reason at all makes me feel a lot less safe, because it's not really something I can completely plan for or prevent.

Actually, this whole conversation has me a little worried...

*goes and locks the door*


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 22, 2011)

Apparently nothing happened on the first try. It's the laughing seraphim pressworks.
It is still in its infancy, and I don't know how it will fare in the long term. If the Mythic scribes is the conversational side of a coin, LSP is the terse side of the same coin.

And you could I suppose do something on criminal profiling, but if I were to actually ask you to write a paper, I'd ask you to create a well thought out paper like "On the depiction of evil for fiction writers" or such.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 23, 2011)

I watched a documentary of Nazi collaborators last night. True inspiration in terms of what Evil looks like. Vidkun Quisling seems to have been at least as evil as hitler himself, just not as forthright in admitting it.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Nov 23, 2011)

I like my evil sprinkled with fake kindness and quirky clothing. A quirky name is good too.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 23, 2011)

You see, this is exactly why I say Voldemort should have had a top hat, especially given his lack of nose.


----------



## Reaver (Nov 23, 2011)

In my opinion, there are varying degrees of evil. To me it runs the gamut between intentionally harmful to truly diabolical. Then again, like Laughing_Seraphim pointed out, it's all a matter of perspective. To me, a truly evil character knows exactly what he/she/it is doing and to whom, is fully aware of the immediate/long-term outcomes and doesn't care what anyone (or anything) thinks.


----------



## Ghost (Nov 23, 2011)

Ravana said:


> The person who questions what he's doing is far more likely to turn out heroic, on the usual construal, than the person who acts in confidence of his rightness.



I think this is important. When I think of someone evil, the first image that comes to mind is someone arrogant. They're righteous, they think they're smarter than everyone else, or they simply don't give a damn about anyone else because no one else matters.

One thing that might help is to know whether this character is motivated by acts or by goals. Serial killers are motivated by the moment. When the opportunity comes up, they kill. The acts they dreamed of doing, while they're at work or having dinner with their families, are suddenly open to them. In the right frame of mind and with the right trigger or preparation, they pounce. Dictators and people who head organizations are usually more calculating. The things they do all lead to the end goal. Maybe they lose track of that and revel in the power they have over other people, but I see them as having a Big Idea about how the world should be.

I think either type likes playing God. Their victims are pawns in the game they control. In their eyes, the victims matter less than the victimizer. They're not as human. (Anybody read/hear about telling a rapist or captor details about your life? Supposedly, making them see you as human makes them uncomfortable with hurting you.) It helps me to know if my evil character has a grand plan or if he enjoys the cruelty. Maybe he has a grand plan and suffering is a fun bonus.

Whatever you do to show how bad your bad guy is, I think it's important to show him getting something out of it. He can't go around raping villagers, beheading monks, and impaling babies just because it sounds evil. Maybe he gets some pleasure out of what he does (sadists), he's taking his personal suffering out on the world (serial killers who were molested or neglected as children), he likes inspiring fear and feeling important, he's just doing his job, or he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't do it (people under a hierarchy or under pressure from a society). Maybe it's a combination of those or none of those. There should be a reason for it or else it's just a caricature of evil. I think it all goes along with character development, which is a big part of taking it away from cliche.


----------



## Reaver (Nov 23, 2011)

*What is evil?*

I have a question for all my fellow writers out there: Which kind of evil is scarier: The Sociopath (one who doesn't or can't differentiate between good and evil/ right and wrong) or The Psychopath (one who knows the difference, but doesn't care)? I'm very interested to hear what you guys think. Thanks!


----------



## sashamerideth (Nov 24, 2011)

I think it would be the psychopath for me.  They seem more grounded and would have the ability to orchestrate cunning schemes and plots, revelling in their own mania.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 25, 2011)

The differences clinically and otherwise aren't as well defined, black and white as one might imagine. In terms of potential to impact however, I would be more leery of a psychopath as one commonly (but not universally)accepted difference is that sociopaths are socially inept and would be instantly noticeable. The psychopath, on the other hand, is likely an individual one could spend time with, imagines them to be of robust character and so forth. The great guy or gal, the one everyone loves, the winner, the popular person. In this case though, Mr./Mrs. Wonderful will sodomize your cat, rape your husband and skin you alive to get his or her car re-upholstered. The entire time you're watching the dowdy lad with poor hygiene who is too socially inept to even say hello, and is unlikely to ever interact with you at all.


----------



## Telcontar (Nov 25, 2011)

I believe you have those reversed. The sociopath is usually the harder to spot of the two, whereas the psychopath is prone to violent outbursts and extreme behavior.

You are right in that they are ill-defined. I think that they are usually thought of lately as slight distinctions of the same underlying disorder, if I recall convos with my brother (a doctor) correctly. Either way, I agree with your overall point - the scarier one is the one who can blend in. 

A pop-culture example is the show Dexter, whose titular character (at first) is presented as a sociopath but manages to fool everyone into thinking he is a more or less normal.


----------



## Matty Lee (Nov 26, 2011)

Neither the Socio nor Psychopath however they defined are particularly useful villains to me. Neither of these people has any tragedy about them, no sympathetic pathos, no admirable qualities. Evil isn't sociopathic. Evil is every single one of man's good traits turned upon itself. Evil is the inversion, not negation, of humanity. The Grand Inquisitor, gives us an evil character opposed to Christ who is the inversion of humanity. Man's desire to alleviate suffering, one of his most human, and most good traits, is turned against his desire for the true, pure, good, beautiful. 

A villain need not be sympathetic of course, but he must have virtues, and those virtues must be turned in against themselves.


----------



## Laughing_Seraphim (Nov 27, 2011)

Telcontar said:


> I believe you have those reversed. The sociopath is usually the harder to spot of the two, whereas the psychopath is prone to violent outbursts and extreme behavior.
> 
> You are right in that they are ill-defined. I think that they are usually thought of lately as slight distinctions of the same underlying disorder, if I recall convos with my brother (a doctor) correctly. Either way, I agree with your overall point - the scarier one is the one who can blend in.
> 
> A pop-culture example is the show Dexter, whose titular character (at first) is presented as a sociopath but manages to fool everyone into thinking he is a more or less normal.



In spite of the fact that I have nearly 6 years of education on the matter under my belt, I am going to go ahead and quote, then link to a fairly decent internet article on the subject.


> The last main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is in the presentation. The psychopath is callous, yet charming. He or she will con and manipulate others with charisma and intimidation and can effectively mimic feelings to present as “normal” to society. The psychopath is organized in their criminal thinking and behavior, and can maintain good emotional and physical control, displaying little to no emotional or autonomic arousal, even under situations that most would find threatening or horrifying.  The psychopath is keenly aware that what he or she is doing is wrong, but does not care.
> 
> Conversely, the sociopath is less organized in his or her demeanor; he or she might be nervous, easily agitated, and quick to display anger. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences. Compared to the psychopath, the sociopath will not be able to move through society committing callous crimes as easily, as they can form attachments and often have “normal temperaments.” The sociopath will lie, manipulate and hurt others, just as the psychopath would, but will often avoid doing so to the select few people they care about, and will likely feel guilty should they end up hurting someone they care about.



This is taken from, here , and is about as solid as you're going to get without actually taking abnormal psych, development,  adjustment, diagnostics, applied for DSM, neuro-pysch and the rest of the pathology tree.


----------



## Reaver (Nov 28, 2011)

All of these points of view are very insightful and have helped me greatly. I guess I never truly appreciated how complex "evil" really is.  I've always thought of it in terms of absolutes-- black or white, right or wrong, yes or no...Now I see that it's all about varying degrees. Thanks to everyone who commented!


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2011)

Reaver:

The points made above are all very good, and I think reflect the state of 'evil' in the real world.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that in a Fantasy world, you certainly can have black and white, good and evil, as absolutes. Fantasy has quite a tradition of it, in fact. The fantasy world is your own, and just because we don't see evil presenting itself in that fashion in the real world does not mean you can't do so in your own fantasy world. I do think it has to be handled with skill, so that you don't end up with something that reads like a parody, or that you don't have caricatures where you do not want them, but if you want to employ a more absolute view of good and evil you should feel free to do so.


----------



## Devor (Nov 28, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> The points made above are all very good, and I think reflect the state of 'evil' in the real world.



I don't think we've quite come close to capturing the complexities of evil in the real world.  On the one hand, most comments have focused on the extremes - psychopaths, sociopaths, nazis.  On the other, people have talked about "evils" which are only evil from one perspective but are just desperate from another.  But nobody's really flushed out the sort of real evils which might have a story behind them.

For instance, a person's first murder might be justified under some moral contrivances which a person has established for themselves.  But once performed, I think it could be seen as breaking something of a barrier.  I think that's partly why, for instance, you see sociopaths and psychopaths killing animals when they're younger and working up to murder as they get older.  They might have a proclivity for it, but I think the same can happen, to a perhaps lesser extent, even when no such proclivity exists.  One kill opens a door for the next.  Some of us may have experienced a similar pattern, for instance, with lying - in our minds certain people may deserve to be lied to, and why should I admit to the blame if it could as easily have been an accident?  Eventually, if it happens often enough without the person changing course, those justifications might become broader, until most observers would say they're no longer remotely valid.  They had some mugger come to my middle school once and talk about this sort of pattern.

Then I think one slightly evil pattern can lead into another one.  Following up with lying and murder, a person might find themselves in a situation where they have to do something corrupt to protect a lie.  I've seen stories where that sort of pattern builds up into murder, and I personally find that both believable and realistic.

Such people aren't born as evil psychopaths or tricked by an evil Nazi group think into becoming evil.  Their lives, their stories, just take an unfortunate turn where evil slips into some of their choices and builds, and maybe the people around them and the happenstances of their lives help to build it still further, bit by gloomy bit.  In my mind, that's the most believable and relatable and tragic type of villain.  The person that is in many ways a victim of their own actions, but still has to be stopped.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2011)

No, we haven't come close to address the complexities of real-world "evil," or even how and when that term should be applied. But I think the posts above that point out the complexities involved, and that there is very little that is black and white, are reflective of the state of things in the real world. In fantasy worlds, on the other hand, absolutes may be a real and integral part of the fantasy world.

I think you are right, Devor, in that one often sees a progression of evils, some of which may at first seem minor, or maybe even innocent, and then are expanded upon over time until you reach the point of truly egregious conduct. I do think that provides for a believable and more complex villain in any work, be it Fantasy or not. And, as you note, it renders the villain more relatable. While we would not find ourselves drawn to such extremes, there is something instinctively relatable about the the pattern. We recognize it and see the underlying humanity in it, and that makes for a good villain.

But in a Fantasy world I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of someone or something as an embodiment of evil, without rationale or this progressive pattern. I'm not opposed to the idea of a "race" (for lack of a better term) that embodies such things. In a Fantasy world, you can employ such things, and whether they exist in reality doesn't matter. I do think, however, that a writer going down that path should tread carefully, because there are pitfalls along the way (cliche, parody, and the like). It ca be done.

Personally, I like the "villains" who turn out to not be quite as villainous as initially portrayed. Antagonists who are at odds with the protagonist, and may initially appear to be evil, but as the reader learns more it becomes clear that the antagonist in the story is really pursuing separate goals, maybe even for noble purposes in some sense, and is not really "evil." In some cases, maybe the protagonist is little better, if at all.


----------



## Devor (Nov 28, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> But in a Fantasy world I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of someone or something as an embodiment of evil, without rationale or this progressive pattern.



I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting your main points.  It was just your one line which got me thinking so I quoted it.  I have no problems with and often enjoy the pure evil tropes we see in many fantasy works.  I think it's one of the elements which helps to set the genre apart on a thematic level.  It's something which is believable here and not in other works of literature.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2011)

Devor said:


> I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting your main points.  It was just your one line which got me thinking so I quoted it.  I have no problems with and often enjoy the pure evil tropes we see in many fantasy works.  I think it's one of the elements which helps to set the genre apart on a thematic level.  It's something which is believable here and not in other works of literature.



Yeah, I knew what you meant. Was just expanding 

I think you are right - purely evil elements in Fantasy can be used as plot devices or thematic elements and this allows the fantasy work to address certain aspects of morality, or the nature of good and evil, in a way that is difficult to do in a work that takes place in the real world. In such a fantasy work, you've basically established controlled parameters of the morality of that particular world, and you can the operate within those parameters without having to consider the vagaries of gray areas between good and evil in your story. I think it also provides for many readers a welcome departure from the real world, where things are not black and white. It seems to me that many are drawn, perhaps on an emotional level, to works where there are clear good guys to root for and bad guys to root against.


----------



## Reaver (Nov 28, 2011)

Good advice, Steerpike.  I'll definitely do my best to keep the evil characters in my stories from becoming caricatures and avoid any type of parody.


----------



## Masronyx (Nov 28, 2011)

How to do it without being cliche? 

Hmm... truthfully, I've always had some trouble with evil characters.  The problem is not creating them, but keeping them 'real' so to speak.  What made them that way?  Are they truly insane? What drives this person to do this?  Corrupted powers, personal anguish, madness derived from a tragic even that happened in the past?  My problem is wanting to know what drives this person or these people to be 'evil', or why is this character(s) the antagonist?  Greed? Insanity? Revenge?  Or is it because they live in their own world and the protagonist either wittingly or unwittingly destroys that fragile world?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Nov 28, 2011)

Masronyx said:


> How to do it without being cliche?


Back in my twennies, I looked for any excuse to play with a video camera. One of those excuses was my dad buying a building with a conveyor belt in it. He had no use for the belt, so it had to go. A perfect opportunity to make a movie about an evil man who lures unsuspecting victims into his conveyor belt, only to come out the other side as... A HAMBURGER!

One victim's dying word was "why?" That was the villain's opportunity to reveal his motive:
_"Because I hate the human race!"_

Ah... being evil just for the sake of being evil! It doesn't get any more cliched than that!



Masronyx said:


> *without* being cliche?


Oh... oh! O-O-O-OH!

Well... the NON-cliched villain has motives that are somewhat understandable, even though they obviously carry their actions way too far. Read about any war, and you'll find all kinds of motives for all kinds of atrocities.

I actually liked the villain's motive in _Watchmen._ He tried to justify his actions, as if he were doing the world a favor. I wasn't sold by his speech for a nanosecond, but... had to give him props for originality.

The villain in _Dragon Tears_ (by Dean Koontz) had a rather bizarre reason for being the way he was:


Spoiler: a strange, but original motive



His mother was a fully functional hermaphrodite. As a result of fathering HER own children, she had mutant kids. The most powerful was her son who had, um... additional male parts and a missing male part. So, stronger urges, but no way to satisfy those urges: that was his motive.

The fact the he was a muscular behemoth who could stop time just made it that much easier for him to lash out at the rest of the world.


----------



## Erica (Nov 28, 2011)

I'm an animal lover, so any scene that involves killing an animal for no good reason gets its point across.

Once scene I still remember from reading the _Once and Future King_ was a scene where Morgan La Fay was performing some magical ritual that involved killing a poor cat in a grisly way and being completely vapid and unconcerned about it.

I also remember a scene in one of Fritz Leiber's books where a villain was reminiscing with his old nanny about all the animals he had tortured as a child. The senseless and unrepentant killing of animals (especially when reveling in it) is always a good hook for making someone look evil. 

Of course, 'good' characters sometimes kill animals (and humans) in stories and may perform kinds of 'bad' acts, so it's the manner of the act, the reasons for doing it and his/her attitude about it that makes the difference. There's a scene in the _Curse of Chalion_ where the protagonist performs a dark ritual that he feels terrible about, even though it's the only way to achieve his purpose, which is essentially noble.

I think that you can also elaborate this over to other evil acts. Rape, murder, child abuse, consorting with demons, jilting a lover etc. etc. can all be portrayed in ways that make it clear that it's a decent person doing a bad thing (or even something that is not regarded as bad in the context of the character's situation or culture) versus a blatantly evil act performed by an evil person.

Then there is differentiating the different kinds of evil that are out there. Is it the act of someone who is prone to a certain kind of 'pragmatic' evil versus the act of someone who is sadistic but passionate versus the unfeeling act of a truly sociopathic person (someone who cannot form genuine bonds and for whom the feelings of others are not real). Was the evil person always evil or did he or she start out okay and end up becoming more and more pragmatic, obsessed with revenge, bitter or whatever due to the circumstances in his/her life?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2011)

I think those are good points, Erica. Also, I think when it comes to making judgments regarding 'reasons' a character might have, it is a good idea to put the character into the context of the larger world and not necessarily to impose 21st century, real-world values on the character. Just by way of example, a character living in a harsh world at a cro-magnon level of technology (basically a nomadic, hunter/gatherer existence) might not think twice about killing an animal for any reason or for no reason at all, without being evil or bad. As you create the rules of your fantasy world and your fantasy society, that will dictate in large part whether such things are good, bad, or neither. There is a lot of room to play around within the moral strictures of the world.


----------

