Limits on Villain motivation

[goldhawk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a villain is someone whose "evil" actions or motives oppose our hero. Is "villain" synonymous with "antagonist"? Because a character whose actions could be perceived as relatable or heroic yet still serve to hinder the protagonist could be an antagonist yet not a villain (or at least that's what I've gathered).

Of course, that isn't to say that every villain would be our 100% evil dark lord, but I figured that a villain is someone who causes trouble or harm, or who has bad intentions. In terms of "villainous" motivations, I guess I could see how that could be limiting. But as for an antagonist's motivations, the possibilities are endless.

A villain is someone who harms others. A hero is someone who makes a sacrifice to help others.

A protagonist is the main doer in a story. An antagonist opposes the protagonist.

A protagonist can be a hero or a villain. An antagonist can be a hero or a villain. Both can be heroes. Both can be villains.

As far as good and evil goes: remember what is good for the lion is evil for the sheep.

 

[WooHooMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a villain is someone whose "evil" actions or motives oppose our hero. Is "villain" synonymous with "antagonist"?

As far as I can tell, we're talking about villains not antagonists. The two aren't synonymous but they often coincide.

 

[Miskatonic]

I'm a little confused as to what this thread is about. Are you saying that the actions a character can do that is considered "villainous" is too limiting? Like there's not enough variety in "villainous" behavior?

Or are you saying that there is a preset list of possible motives that a villain can have? If that's what you're saying, then I disagree.

Talking about the end game. I shouldn't have used motivations, bad word choice.

 

[Spider]

As far as I can tell, we're talking about villains not antagonists. The two aren't synonymous but they often coincide.

Alright. So if a villain is someone who harms others, or who has the intent of doing damage or causing trouble, then wouldn’t the archetype of the character be a limit on his or her motivations? Not saying that there’s a preset list of motives for the villain, but it seems like the motives would have to be of a particular nature. (Maybe I’m looking at this from the wrong angle.)

I guess what I’m asking is when we draw a line between a villain and any other antagonist, could that line be limiting to the character's motivations?

Edit: I suppose the same question applies to the end game. Even if it doesn't, I'm still curious ^^

 

[WooHooMan]

Alright. So if a villain is someone who harms others, or who has the intent of doing damage or causing trouble, then wouldn’t the archetype of the character be a limit on his or her motivations? Not saying that there’s a preset list of motives for the villain, but it seems like the motives would have to be of a particular nature.

In my experience, there are many reasons why and how you could cause harm to others. Really, I think the only limits would be circumstance and the character's nature, and neither of those variables would be "limiting" as far as I could tell.

I mean there are limits but there's a lot of room to work in original motivations within those limits. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Penpilot]

I'm still not clear on the question, but I'll give it a go.

Hero and Villain love the Prince. The Prince loves the Hero. Villain tells the Prince a lie about the Hero that causes the Prince and Hero to break up. How many different lies can the Villain have told?

What else could the Villain have done to to break them up? Get the Hero to take up a 20 year long quest that will separate them then hide all the letters the Hero sends back. OR Wait 5 years and then tell the Prince the Hero is probably not coming back and declare their love for the Prince and try to win them over.

The ways to go about this are in my mind pretty limitless, bound only by the imagination.

 

[thedarknessrising]

The villain in my story is a dwarf military leader that just wants more living area for his people, sort of like Hitler, but without the genocide. He's doing what he can to give his people more land, but has to declare war on the people of that land to do so.

 

[Saigonnus]

The villain in my story is a dwarf military leader that just wants more living area for his people, sort of like Hitler, but without the genocide.

Let me guess... He uses a maul or big hammer and happens to be a captain named Krunch. *snicker*

Seriously, the motivations a villain has is near limitless, but is generally dictated by their environment, upbringing and how their life unfolded. I tend to despise villains who are "evil for the sake of being evil" types, without some underlying reason.

Landgrab seems a good enough reason to make war on your neighbors, it has been a human motivation for millenia. How it is done is what will ultimately make it interesting or not. If the dwarves have been oppressed for decades, sent to live in the most inhospitable places like the native Americans or Jews during WWII, then i would actually side with him emotionally, it will come down to methods that make him a villain or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gurkhal]

Are we pretty limited on the main motivations for why a villain chooses their path? Revenge, world domination, just wants to make people suffer, zealot wanting to create a utopia that is really a nightmare, in the service of an evil power with aforementioned motivations, etc.

If you've managed to come up with an original or less common motivation for a villain to choose that path then please share it.

Here's my main villain for the story I'm working towards, and right now I'm in the plot construction part.

Note that all names are placeholders at this moment as nothing has been finalized. Also note that "Herr" is the in-world, and Swedish, equivalent to the English "Sir".

His name is Herr Tygar Eskilsson and is a knight and brother of Herr Tyrgood Eskilsson and the two who are sons of the late Herr Eskil Gormsson. Tygar is motivated by being running things to the best of his abilities as well as breaking free from his brother's shadow. When he succeds his brother to a castle he feels that to become his own man he must make a break with his brother's friends and favorites and that means ignoring a promise his brother made in regards to a knighthood to the protagonist, and putting a halt to the protagonist's career in the household guard.

Its no more villainous than so. Possibly petty but not more. Also note that Tyrgard hasn't made any promise himself to the protagonist.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

You want strange? In The Lady's Man my villain was a ghost (more or less) that didn't even know it was dead and his total goal was to kill those that had harmed him in life - not for revenge but because the pain of those things was all that it could remember of its life (except that it wasn't even it's life!)

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Saigonnus]

My principal villain doesn't exist. He did at one point, but after he died his principal followers realized that he was the only thing holding his people together, so have created an elaborate (magical) hoax to convince them he still lives.

Their goal is survival, they need more breeding stock since the creatures natural male-female ratio is 3:1. They do this by raiding villages and towns and carting away the female population for their "transformation" into one of the creatures. (The are a created race to begin with.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WooHooMan]

Oh, wait, I forgot to mention my villains' "original" motivations.
I got two stories going right now that have clear-cut villains...

Villain 1 is motivated by a desire to prove that destiny exists. And also he has a messiah complex but that's hardly original.

Villain 2 is motivated by xenocentrism. He has a romanticized view of a foreign culture and is obsessed with the stereotypes that he has created. He also has a low opinion of modern people who belong to that culture, believing that they have "lost their way" or are too westernized.