Why make the villains sympathetic?

[srebak]

I have to be honest, i'm not sure if i ever fully understood the idea of making villains characters we can relate to. Isn't the antagonist the person we're supposed to be rooting against, the one we want to lose? Why make them sympathetic? Why make us feel sorry for the people trying to kill our hero/heroine?

I ask because i'm in the process of (emphasis on process) writing a fan fiction. In it, there are two main villains (one more major than the other) and one of them is an Evil Twin of the hero. He possesses all of the hero's memories and has nothing but hatred for those who the hero secretly feels betrayed him or let him down. The bigger bad is the one who helped fan the flames of this anger and pointed out reasons why the Evil twin should hate the aforementioned people, mainly because he feels that he and the hero have gone through similar trials and tribulations.

At the moment, i'm slightly at a loss here, because right now, i'm almost leaning towards the main villain wanting to help the hero get through his problems by showing him how he coped with his; making other people suffer. I'm still tossing ideas around, but if i go with the whole "All i want is to help you" thing, then how is this character still truly a villain? I was also hoping to avoid the whole "I tried to recruit you, but you said no, so i'll have to kill you now" thing, as it didn't work for me the last time i saw it on TV

 

[Noma Galway]

For me as a reader, I lose interest if I have no sympathy for the villain, or at least if I see no motivation for what s/he does. For instance, Sauron is continuing the work of his superior, who he served for thousands of years. His superior, Morgoth, became evil because he could not be creative while under the authority of Illuvatar. He wanted to fill the Void with sentient beings. He ruined the Music of the Ainur because he wanted to introduce his own themes into it. As a writer, I sympathize with him. Morgoth. The Evil of all other Evils. Later, what he does is slightly (understatement for emphasis, here, people) over-the-top for why he was evil in the first place. So many people think Morgoth was evil because he was evil, but no one is evil simply for evil's sake. Something has to push the character to it; otherwise you have a flat character.

Granted, as a writer, sometimes I wish my antagonist would just do evil things for the sake of evil, but as I more fully explore her character, elements of her come through. I have recently, in fact, started writing certain scenes from her point of view because I sympathize with her more. My antagonist is becoming a protagonist, and one of my protagonists is becoming an antagonist. This is all happening in-story, of course, and it stresses me out, but it had to happen. The protagonist in question has good reason for becoming an antagonist.

I like having grayer characters because they are more human, to simplify my overlong answer.

 

[Roan Davidson]

I'm still tossing ideas around, but if i go with the whole "All i want is to help you" thing, then how is this character still truly a villain?

For me, the character's actions--not his motives--determine whether he's a hero, a villain, or something in between. Motives are what can make him sympathetic (or not), but at the end of the day, if he's killing or otherwise harming people, he's a villain.

I like villains with motives I can understand and sympathize with, even while I hate his actions. But that's a 'your mileage may vary' thing.

 

[Penpilot]

There's no rule that says you have to make a villain sympathetic. You can make them utterly repulsive. It all depends on the type of story you're trying to tell. If you want your villain to be the moustache twirler, doing evil for the sake of ding evil, have at it. Just make sure they're interesting, because there probably isn't going to be much depth to the character.

As for why a writer would want a sympathetic villain, generally, there's more complexity to the character. It allows the writer to take the character in different directions and explore the road that led them to where they are. If you look at all the awful people through out history, they didn't just wake up one day and decide to evil, and I don't think it's one event that leads them to where they're doing evil things. It's a long and complex road. Each "villain" had people they loved and people who loved them. They were human, not this big black evil machine, which makes their fall even more tragic. Also most thought themselves to be doing good. And if they'd won, they'd probably be remembered that way too. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.


Sympathetic villains allow you to have characters like Darth Vader, Spike from Buffy, Two-Face from Dark Knight, and Khan from Star Trek.

 

[Feo Takahari]

There are a couple factors at work here.

One is how well your heroes can carry the story. By and large, completely unsympathetic villains aren't consistently entertaining--the most they can do is be entertaining at times*. However, they throw your heroes' positive attributes into sharper relief by contrast. If you're certain your protagonists are an interesting lot, go ahead and set them up against total evil--but likable villains can provide a backup plan if your heroes aren't up to snuff.

Another is whether you want to say something meaningful about the villains. I'm a Utilitarian, and the ideas of the villains in Bioshock 2 are pretty strongly linked to Utilitarian rhetoric. If they were all pointlessly evil, I would have stopped playing the game in disgust, because I'm not pointlessly evil. But because I liked most of them, the game made me consider my own ideas--which was, of course, the intention.

I've gone both ways, and had it both ways.

When I wanted to write a story that directly argued against pseudo-Pagan adventure fantasy, I wrote a standard protagonist from one of those stories who happened to be on the opposite side from the actual protagonist. I analyzed what she did and why, and I showed the harm she caused. The story was a failure, but I think she was a success, and some readers even liked her more than the hero.

When I wanted to write a story about how people construct hero narratives around themselves, I just used a villain who was plain evil. He was only there to provide an obstacle, after all--the story was really about the heroes.

When I wanted to write about my issues with the concept of sin, I wanted to go to the extremes of suffering, but knew I couldn't say anything meaningful with a hypocritical villain who was herself irredeemably sinful. So I wrote a villain who had likable and sympathetic traits, did absolutely horrible things, and thought that her acts were the key to reforming herself and getting into Heaven. It was fun to watch at what point people started hating her--one reader was still okay with her after she tortured a prostitute, but got fed up with her after she made misandrist statements.

What kind of story is this, really? Is there a theme you want to express?

* There are completely evil villains who entertain people, but the story usually tries to shift reader sympathy towards them, at least at the beginning. Hannibal Lecter is a standard example--he's a horrible person, but he's also cool and charismatic.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Sympathetic villains allow you to have characters like Darth Vader, Spike from Buffy, Two-Face from Dark Knight, and Khan from Star Trek.

Neva Chonin once wrote an article saying that she wished there was only one Star Wars movie. The second/fifth movie shows that Darth Vader is Luke's father*, meaning that Vader was once a decent person. That means that Luke could potentially become a bad person, and that's not the kind of thing she wants to think about when watching a movie for fun.

It's commonly said that opinions can't be judged, only facts. But in this case, I think Chonin's opinion is bad and she should feel bad. It's one thing to watch movies where you don't have to think deeply, but to avoid even that level of simple thought?

* Don't you dare complain about spoilers.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

You can have any degree of sympathy for your villains, from zero to so grey that it's difficult for the reader to discern who is the hero and who is the villain. Heck, you can even tell a great story where the antagonist is a good person, it's only their opposition to the protagonist that makes them "bad".

Human beings are complex and dynamic creatures. In our reality, we are rarely faced with an absolute evil. The same can be said for the rarity of altruistic good. Therefore, many readers consider morally grey characters more genuine & that leaves them more satisfied. In some ways it also lends more potential to the story. By potential, I mean the larger number of directions characters may take as the story progresses.

A friend of mine grades villains in what he calls "The Halloween Test". He claims that the best villains are the ones kids dress as for Trick-or-Treat & those are overwhelmingly sympathetic villains. I've never thought much past that point on his theory.

In the end though, it really comes down to the type of story you're trying to tell. There's no write or wrong here, it's simply a matter of preference and vision. So, what story do you want to write?

 

[Jabrosky]

I wouldn't say effective villains must always be sympathetic, but they do need some reason for their villainous qualities.

I find that ideology or culturally ingrained prejudices can work wonders for getting otherwise "regular" people to do evil things, especially if those ideologies posit the fundamental inferiority of certain out-groups. These people wouldn't think of themselves as evil though, because they genuinely believe their victims deserve to suffer.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Sympthetic? No. Not in my view. If you'retrying to make a villain sympathetic then you are almost trying to write him as POV character. Trying to get the reader to identify with him. And that's not necessary. Sometimes it's good. And sometimes it can serve to add impact to the story and even flesh out other characters by how they react to the villain. But you don't have to do it by any means.

What you generally do have to do is make your villain understandable. Readers have to be able to understand the villains actions and motivations even if they hate both. The alternative is that you end up with a two dimensional cardboard cut out of a character. To give examples from the superhero world - Lex Luthor (the original version not the one from Smallville) is largely a cut out. Just a bad guy. By contrast the Joker and perhaps even more so Cat Woman from Batman is a much more fleshed out character. They still do bad things but as a reader you understand a bit more about them. That makes them real to the reader.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[stephenspower]

Villains have to be sympathetic because, from a story point of view, at least in sf/f and mystery, they are the protagonist. Yes, heroes are, well, heroes and the people we want to win, but villains drive the story. They have a motivating need (Find the ring in order to take over the world). They create the means to fulfill it (sometimes literally: orcs and Nazgul). And they look for the opportunity to do so (Baggins! Shire!). The hero, by contrast, is the complication in the villains' stories, the fly in the ointment (And then something happened the ring didn't expect). They react to the main action (I will take the ring...); they don't drive it (although I do not know the way). It only seems like their reaction is the main action because the narrative has us view the story from their point of view.

If villains are not sympathetic, if we can't understand why they do what they do and at some level sympathize (Join me, and together, we can rule the galaxy as father and son!), then they are just dumb beasts, heroes are simply hunters, and what fun is that? Reading would be no different than sitting in a blind all day waiting for some deer to come eat the bait you laid out so you can shoot it.

Even when the villains are just dumb beasts, it's important that they be relatable. For instance, in Jaws, King Kong and Jurassic Park, the directors go out of their way to anthropomorphize the creatures (better than the amazing books, in fact, in the cases of Jaws and JP). "Jaws": A shark is a perfect machine. It's really a miracle of nature. And it does just three things. It swims. It eats. And it makes baby sharks. That's it. (But now we know the shark. It's no longer just a boogeyman. And the characters know they're the noon feeding. That Quint seems to be asking for trouble by smashing the radio and pushing the engine harder as the boat floods, only makes us root for the shark.) King Kong: "Twas beauty that killed the beast." Jurassic Park: The velociraptor tapping his toe in thought while looking for the kids in the kitchen. Then, in JP2, as the hunter discovers he's been triangulated, he says, "Clever girl." That we appreciate the velociraptor's cleverness too shows the movie did its job.

But the flat-out best example of a sympathetic villain is Hannibal Lecter is "Silence of the Lambs." How terrifying was Lecter in his cell doing nothing but talking such that when Clarice hands him some papers and he briefly rubs her finger with one of his that the entire theater when I saw it screamed? Several scenes of horrific violence and its aftermath made the audience squirm, but that tiny gesture freaked the audience entirely. It was so intimate. Yet at the end of the movie after Lecter calls Clarice and walks off in his aloha wear to get his revenge on the shrink, who wasn't rooting for him even though we knew what horrible tortures he was about to visit upon the shrink and which not an hour earlier had the audience terrified of Lecter? If this sympathy isn't pulled off, there is neither movie or book. That's why the movie of "Hannibal" was so bad--because it changed the ending of the book in which Lecter seduces Clarice into his lifestyle, Clarice, of course, standing in for us. The movie didn't have the courage to show that an audience can only be terrified by a villain by recognizing a part of the villain inside itself.

 

[srebak]

Let me see if i can get what i'm saying about my fanfic across more clearly -

The main character has had a lot of strife in his young life and some of that stems from the people in his life. So much so, that when his evil twin is conceived through a combination of science and sorcery, the evil streak within this twin has left him feeling nothing but anger and hatred towards those who he feels wronged him (he hates his family for not being there for him and using him, he hates his mentor for not understanding him and he thinks that his friends have begun to desert him). The Bigger Bad, having been the one who conceived this doppelganger in the first place, served as a mentor to this evil twin; he pointed out the reasons why the evil twin's frustrations are justified and claimed that he went through a similar troubled time in his own youth. This is actually why he's interested in the hero, because he sees a kindred spirit, it's led me to started viewing this villain as someone who just wants to help the hero reach their "true potential", which the bigger bad feels he will never achieve under the guidance and influence of the rest of the "good" cast. If this coincides with his own plans, then so be it.

The truth of the matter is, the evil twin's existence in this story is actually just so i can voice how i felt about the way the main character was treated in the actual show. As for the main villain himself, originally, i was going with the whole "He's just using his minions as a means to an end" thing, with him only needing the hero alive for a much grander plan. But after eventually deciding to, more or less, go with the Star Wars and Teen Titans technique of "the villain legitimately wanting to help the hero by converting them", i wanted to give a reason why he wanted to help protagonist, in this case, because he sees a lot of himself in him.

This has started to backfire on me though, because initially, i wanted the main villain to be the most sadistic and cruel foe that the hero ever faced. But if he's trying to help the hero in his own way, how can he be sadistic or cruel. I tried to rectify that by having the villain suggest to the hero that the only way to make his misery stop is to make those responsible for it suffer (which actually what he told the evil twin too), but i just don't know anymore. I also wanted the Bigger bad to be very charismatic and manipulative, with a touch of creepy to him, but now i'm worried that i'm imagining him to be too nice, as i gave him a daughter that he legitimately cares for and a sense of honor that won't allow him to break a promise, none of which is befitting for a villain.

To put it simply, i was originally going for a cruel and sadistic monster who is not only hated for all he's done to the main heroes, but would gladly slaughter thousands just for fun. However, instead, i'm getting a person who genuinely cares for others, including his own child and has a sense of honor, that's not a villain.

What's more, i wanted this character to be someone who makes his minions cringe in fear whenever there in his presence. But i ended up making him someone who respects his henchmen and hardly, if ever raises a finger towards them

Can anyone help me?

 

[Penpilot]

There are examples from history where people compartmentalize. The slaughter and chaos they cause is just part of the job and they leave the job behind when they go home to be family man.

As I see it right now, it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If your villain can slaughter thousands just for fun, then they must be some sort of psychopath. If he has honor, loves his daughter, feels respect towards others, then he probably isn't. Not that I'm any expert on psychopaths.

It sounds like you're drifting toward something more complex, but are fighting to keep your original idea intact. IMHO you have to decide which direction you want to go because you can't go with both. Maybe someone smarter that me can rectify those two things, but I don't see a way to do it, at least not with the information given here.

To put it another way, you can't have a cold heartless bastard who has a heart.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'll use two examples:

The most pointless "villain tries to recruit hero" scene I've ever seen was in Justice League. Gorilla Grodd considers himself a superior being, and he considers Superman a superior being, so he wants to recruit Superman to help dominate humans. Superman is completely uninterested, of course. Overall, the scene simply fails to serve a purpose.

The best "villain tries to recruit hero" scene I've seen is in Speed Grapher. The protagonist likes to kill people, and the villain knows this. All the villain offers him is a steady stream of victims, but the hero actually seems tempted. From this point on, the hero's motives come into question, and he can't be taken as morally superior to the villain.

If your villain is like a hero, that's a good framework to explore how your hero is like a villain. What caused your villain to become evil, and might it happen to your hero? Alternately, what positive quality allows your hero to remain a hero that your villain didn't have? (This could tie in really well to what you're doing with the evil twin.)

P.S. As for the fear that your villain is no longer a villain-not necessarily. If the villain is still motivated to cause harm, his more admirable qualities won't keep him from being an antagonist. (I mentioned Bioshock 2 before--Lamb isn't exactly a bad person, and her intentions are basically good, but she's the antagonist because she's willing to sacrifice someone the protagonist cares about.)

 

[Myth Stalker]

I like villains I can identify with/at least see where they are coming from. I feel like something is missing when I can't (most of the time). I dislike Tom Hiddleston's Loki in the Thor movies (not because of the actor) but because I seriously do not understand any of his motivations during the first movie. I don't feel like his character was written well enough in the movie.

 

[Nihal]

I like sympathetic villains, antiheroes and the whole club. You won't cross the path of many fully evil people, so why the villains should be cardboard-evil when you're putting so much effort into making your heroes believable?


@Myth
I actually like Loki in this first movie. In my opinion at first it was just sibling rivalry, he was envious of his brother and he wanted to mess with him by ruining his big day. It was nothing serious, he's Loki, the trickster. But he discovered some things along the way, he seized the right opportunities, things got serious and he reached the point of no return.

He knew very well what he was doing and how unacceptable it was in his society; he believed "no one understood him" and even if they went ahead and sympathized with him he wanted no one's pity because he's proud and that would be to admit he was "lesser", therefore, agree with the image he believes the others had of him.

 

[srebak]

After putting some thought into the matter, I've decided to do what i wanted to do a while ago; write a profile for the villain i mentioned, his name is Orpheus C. Wraithe by the way.

Profile - Not much is known about Wraithe's past, save only the parts that he himself has revealed. But based on the events of his life that he has mentioned, it can be assumed that he had a very rough childhood, one that left him traumatized all the way to adulthood. This caused him to become slightly unstable at some point, as he began to believe that the only way to truly get over his anger, sadness and/or depression was to make others suffer something even worse, particularly the people responsible for his pain (either by killing them or by making them wish they were dead). Wraithe spent much of his later life leaving a trail of chaos and disorder everywhere he went, but in time, it became less about him wanting to sooth his inner turmoil and more about him just enjoying the pain and suffering of others. Eventually, Wraithe decided to make it his life's goal to find new ways to spread chaos and destruction on a grand scale, just for his amusement, even if it led to the annihilation of humanity and/or the destruction of the Earth itself.

Personality-wise, Wraithe is a very mysterious and enigmatic man; he prefers to lurk in the shadows and manipulate things and people from a distance, instead of advertising who is and what he's after. However, just because he uses Hench-people, that is not to say that he is against doing his own dirty work, in fact, he is actually very proficient in that regard, especially in combat. Wraithe is also shown to be very calculating and patient; he will plan for every scenario, he will wait for as long as it takes until his plans are ready, and even when it looks like his scheme has failed, he will always have a contingency plan waiting in the wings. Despite his sadistic and twisted nature, Wraithe is surprisingly a very calm and collected man; he always speaks with eloquence and intelligence in his voice and he is not so easily angered, this makes it quite easy for him to manipulate and play on other people's emotions. However, because he is so surprisingly calm most of the time, those around him find him to be somewhat unpredictable, as they are rarely, if ever, sure of what he's thinking or planning.

In spite of all of his despicable qualities however, Wraithe does have some good ones as well (good being a relative term). He is always respectful towards his minions and gives them sincere praise and congratulations when proper, though, when all is said and done, he views most of them as expendable. He will also become aggressive towards them if they question his plans in a disrespectful tone and will even resort to torturing and killing them if they fail him too many times. This actually subtly prompts his minions to always be proficient at what they do and to always be respectful to their master. Wraithe is perfectly willing to give his opponents a fighting chance against him, mainly because he believes that by fighting an enemy on a fair playing field, victory will have all the more meaningful. However, if he requires his enemies to be out of the way, if only for a moment, he will resort to trickery if need be. Wraithe has a daughter that he loves dearly, mainly because he wants to prove that he can be a better father than his own, hence his reasons for trying to connect with his own child. Fortunately, his daughter, Christine, is just as sadistic as Wraithe himself, which makes it easy for the two of them to bond.

When Wraithe encounters someone who he feels has potential or could be useful in his plans, he is quick to study them. And, if they live up to his expectations, he will insist that they be kept alive (he would not see them wasted).


What do you think? It's still sort of a work-in-progress.

I initially intended for the character to be one of the most evil villains of all time, but if i add things to make him sympathetic, won't that ruin that image?

Also, in regards to the "Evil Twin" idea, like i said, i wanted a way to voice how i felt about the way the main character was treated. But if i'm basically behind the villain's perspective, how can i make the heroes the ones in the right?

 

[wordwalker]

"Sympathetic" is a tricky word. Is it the right one, those times when it's only taken to the degree of "OK, he has a token motivation" or "I understand him but I don't like him"? Or do you have to go further into real "There but for the grace of God go I" territory?

Some stories like their villains cartoony. (How many serial killers have given us the same nihilistic exchange "Why are you doing this?" "Because I like it.") Some stories want a villain personality that makes real points to contrast with the hero-- and probably a hero who's nudging into antiheroism too.

 

[hots_towel]

there were a lot of long posts he so i apologize if im just reiterating. but inherit evil (evil for evil's sake) is not very well looked upon in modern or matured fiction. if it is meant for children or more of a too the point comic book story, then inherit evil dosent get too much flak.

recently i just started reading "wizards first rule" and im not yet sure how to feel about that antagonist. first off his name is "Darken" (how do you grow up to be anything but an antagonist with a name like than?), but after reading the first chapter with him, he appears to be somewhat of a swell fellow. We'll see how long that lasts though...

 

[Rorick]

"Sympathetic" is a tricky word. Is it the right one, those times when it's only taken to the degree of "OK, he has a token motivation" or "I understand him but I don't like him"? Or do you have to go further into real "There but for the grace of God go I" territory?

I think sympathetic is probably the wrong word. Empathy is probably more correct in my opinion. Sympathy implies you understand and accept the motivations. I think you just have to ensure the reader can understand why an antagonist has taken the actions she has taken, not necessarily agree with them.

I think the concept of an out and out evil-for-evil's-sake character is a bit of an over-used cliché. Not that that's necessarily bad, but I think readers are just more sophisticated than sometimes we believe them to be and deserve more.

One thing I always bear in mind when writing any character, be it a protagonist, antagonist or just supporting, it that no-one thinks they are the bad guy, or at least everyone thinks their actions are justified when they do them. If you can't answer the question "why is this guy doing this?" in a manner that seems convincing, you're going to end up with a 2D character.

So, I guess in summary: empathy, not sympathy and believable motivations are key. That doesn't mean you have to splurge out in a Bond villain style and explain everything. You just need to hand the reader (not necessarily your protagonist) enough information for them to form some kind of empathy.

That's what I think.

 

[Nihal]

It holds some truth, yet I can't agree with the "no one thinks they are the bad guys" premise.

One can think s/he is a bad guy and still keep in the same course of action. Assuming that your villain isn't a sociopath your bad guy will be as able to empathise with other people as you hero is. Your villain will be able to feel in their hearts that something is wrong.

They will be perfectly aware that they're hurting people, they're wreaking havoc and that people will see them as bad guys and that their actions are, indeed, is a bad thing. They're not sociopaths, delusional nor stupid. But that is a necessary evil. The benefits of their actions outweighs that damage, they're entitled to whatever objective they have or anything like that.

Some writers seem to think that to cast a better light on their villains they need to be ignorant of their wrongs in some way. I disagree. I feel the villain is weakened by that simplistic approach. People perfectly aware that they're doing wrongs have a hell of a reason to do so, if done properly this kind of unfettered character can shake a reader. In the end, isn't it way too similar to the hero that will succeed in his quest no matter what?