• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Worst Fantasy Villains

Somet that come to mind:

Xerxes from 300 - quite strange, a bit whiney.

Prince Humperdinck from Princess Bride - granted this is for comic relief. Still a punk though.

Theon Greyjoy from Game of Thrones and Clash of Kings - glad he died; poor him, daddy didn't love him enough.

Sherrif of Nottingham in most version of the tale - Best whiney moments in Robin Hood Men in Tights

Generic Clich - The overlord with no weakness (save something silly like a magic toenail or something) who ends up getting killed by a weak hero because every time he had the hero in his clutches during the rest of the narrative, he let him go for any number of stupid reasons.

Captain Hook in HOOK - well acted.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
It's probably a good idea to put spoiler alerts for some of these characters?

I can't think of a specific example, but the worst villains to me are always the over-powered, hate everything type. They have no depth. I can't think of an example now, but the stereotype exists for a reason, I just haven't read any books with "dark overlords." I guess that's a good thing I haven't read them?
 

Ravana

Istar
Saruman. Should have been a brilliant, menacing figure (doubly so since he ought to have been acting, in his own view, with the best of intentions)--but what we got was a petty, selfish catspaw who went about his business with all the subtlety of a brick. And then he gets offed by a simple knife in the back by his sniveling sidekick: this was supposed to be the mightiest and wisest wizard in the world? If there's one flaw in Tolkien, it's that most of his "evil" characters are just too one-dimensional. The good ones can be ambiguous, but the bad guys might as well all be wearing black hats.
 

Aegle

Minstrel
Emperor from Goodkind's series. Useless and redundant. lol XD

He was just a big brute, that really held his position far too long, whereas an ideal villain such as 'Darken Rahl'(whom I'm quite enamored by), should have been the final adversary.
 
Last edited:

Xanados

Maester
Saruman. Should have been a brilliant, menacing figure (doubly so since he ought to have been acting, in his own view, with the best of intentions)--but what we got was a petty, selfish catspaw who went about his business with all the subtlety of a brick. And then he gets offed by a simple knife in the back by his sniveling sidekick: this was supposed to be the mightiest and wisest wizard in the world? If there's one flaw in Tolkien, it's that most of his "evil" characters are just too one-dimensional. The good ones can be ambiguous, but the bad guys might as well all be wearing black hats.
Actually, I think it's a good thing that, by the end, Saruman isn't actually a powerful figure. It shows that he is weak without Sauron and in the end he is betrayed. Follow evil and you'll get screwed over at the end of the day, basically. I don't think it's complex at all but it works.
 

pskelding

Troubadour
All villains in the Star Wars Prequel trilogy were lame... every one.

The unmemorable ones are so unmemorable I can't remember them, so either they are good for that reason or bad!
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
They almost screwed up Darth Vader with this re-release on Bluray. He screams "Nooooo!" at the final climatic moment. Geez.
 

Ravana

Istar
Actually, I think it's a good thing that, by the end, Saruman isn't actually a powerful figure. It shows that he is weak without Sauron and in the end he is betrayed. Follow evil and you'll get screwed over at the end of the day, basically. I don't think it's complex at all but it works.

The problem I have with that is that he was a powerful figure--the head of Gandalf's "order"--well before he started following Sauron. He impressed people like Elrond and Galadriel. I don't see why he ought to lose that simply because he became evil. At the beginning of the story, he could imprison Gandalf; by the time we actually encounter him in the book, he can't even manage parlor tricks. (Even Radagast the Aftertho--uh, "Brown"--could at least talk to birds....) I've mentioned in the past that Tolkien's magic tends to be largely low-key--we never see Gandalf do all that much, for instance--but the only thing we see Saruman do is talk down to people (literally and figuratively)... and Goebbels got farther with that without any magic on his side. I mean, seriously: his plan to take over the world revolved around cross-breeding orcs and humans? What kind of "wise" (that is, "intelligent") wizard is going to trust his fate to orcs?
 

myrddin173

Maester
While technically Saruman was the head of the Istari it was Gandalf who was actually the "greatest." He just didn't want to come to Middle-earth, so Saruman claimed the leader position. Cirdan recognized this when they arrived in the Grey Havens which is why he gave his Ring to Gandalf not Saruman. Galadriel also knew this because she wanted Gandalf to be the head of the White Council but again he refused. Also I think Saruman's greatest power was always his voice, Gandalf warns Theodan and Co about it when they visit Isengard.

To answer the question though I would have to say DomDaniel from Angie Sage's Septimus heap series. He always seemed a bit buffoonish while all of the characters are scared of him.
 

Ravana

Istar
Oh, his "greatest" power is definitely his voice--about which Gandalf shouldn't have need to warn those accompanying him when they went to Isengard; they ought to have acquired plenty of caution in that respect by then. But like I said: propagandists and professional advertisers accomplish more than Saruman did, without the benefit of magic.

I'm just wondering what his second greatest power was... tiddlywinks?

He may not be "worst," on most people's lists, but he's certainly "most disappointing" on mine. Could have been so much more....
 

Sinitar

Minstrel
Galbatorix from Eragon. Being a villains means staying in a castle while others fear your name. That's the worst kind of villain I can think about.
 
Any villain that goes around kicking puppies and stealing candy from children just to show how 'evil' they truly are. The most common form of this I see is neverending minion abuse. What minion would stick around for that? If you have followers, there has to be something about you that's admirable/loveable, or there was at one point.

I also don't go for the motivated by insanity thing, unless it's well done and there's more to it than that. It's too easy.
 

Whitefur

Dreamer
Can I make a generalization? I have a strong dislike for boring villains. They're that kind of villains whose motives are evil in the way of pure evil, like "I'm doing this to destroy that thing because I want to, not because it does any kind of good to me). They're the villains who never bother to mask their simple personalities behind a more complex facade, and they're the ones who are way too stuck up. Was someone close to me killed by some guy/guys? I'll take revenge on them.
Is someone resisting my rule, which I consider to be perfect? I'm going to crush them, no matter what that implies.
Do I have something against that character, who always pisses me off? I'm going to kill him, but you know, I'll take my time with it, even if I have all the power I need to take him down before he has the chance to begin his epic quest because that's how I roll.
 

Johnny Cosmo

Inkling
I also don't go for the motivated by insanity thing, unless it's well done and there's more to it than that. It's too easy.

I agree completely. It's easy, boring, and a load of nonsense. It's always selective insanity. When villains are insane they seem to retain their mental capabilities, as well as their ability to function and to think clearly. The only thing they seem to lose is morality, and they're always power hungry. Why?
 

Digital_Fey

Troubadour
Agree with Sinitar. Admittedly, if you want to be a long-lived villain then you probably *should* stay in a castle while others fear your name, but it doesn't help the story :p

To generalize: my least favorite villains are the ones who never die. They fall into a pit of boiling lava at the end of book one, and come book six they're still hanging around, in their tenth reincarnation now, getting more emo and less scary all the time. Also, the ones who became evil because of some vaguely mentioned past trauma - as if that actually gives them any moral complexity.
 

Ravana

Istar
I agree completely. It's easy, boring, and a load of nonsense. It's always selective insanity. When villains are insane they seem to retain their mental capabilities, as well as their ability to function and to think clearly. The only thing they seem to lose is morality, and they're always power hungry. Why?

Which means they aren't actually "insane"--and that the author doesn't understand insanity, he's just using the word as an excuse to be lazy. I agree: don't say your villain is "insane" unless he really is, and you're prepared to demonstrate it. Same with Digital_Fey's "vague trauma": even if it isn't vague, but precisely and painfully detailed, it's still not an excuse for becoming a villain. For every person who's gone bad because he didn't get a pony for his fifth birthday, there are thousands of (largely) normal people who worked through it and went on to non-villainous lives. So, basically, using this as a device should be a way to indicate how pathetic an individual your villain is, not how (much less why) evil.

The ones who never die irk me as well--at least the ones who never die when they ought to have died. The ones who simply escape, thanks to some well-conceived contingency plan, are fine. The "mysterious death" of comic books (i.e. no corpse) always bothers me (I know why it initially came about... doesn't mean it has to see continued use), and I see little reason for it to have any place in prose writing. Though I must add that one of the problems the WildStorm comic titles have is that the protagonists almost always, quite rationally, kill their opponents--and a lack of repeat villains does detract somewhat from what one comes to expect from comic-book storylines. (Not to mention making the writer's job much more difficult.)

The reason the villains (insane or otherwise) are all power-hungry and immoral is probably the same as the reason heroes are all strong-willed and perseverant: those are the ones you hear about. The rest never do anything worth telling stories about... or, at best, they're good for one story, as exemplars of abject failure in their field. :p I mean, seriously: imagine an antagonist who is always chivalrous and charitable, and who doesn't give a damn who's running things? Ooh... there's an exciting challenge for a hero to overcome.

Though, actually, that, plus the word "challenge," gives me an idea.... :D

***

Edit: Challenge up!
 
Last edited:
Top