Sympathetic villains

[Ireth]

One thing I've found really interesting and fun is taking my antagonists, who are viewed at first to be evil (or at the very least misguided), and turning them into sympathetic characters, whether by exploring their backstories or having them play "good guy" roles in future events. This has worked for a number of antagonists:

1- Caradoc and Eoran: half-Fae brothers, introduced when they kidnapped Vincent, the man partly responsible for their father's death, in order to lure out Vincent's wife, who was REALLY responsible. Made sympathetic when they realized their father was a drug-addled sex offender at the time of his death, and not the decent man they had known him as; they released their hostage and paid compensation. They have since returned to the story as good guys on a few occasions, helping out the very family they once antagonized.

2- Conall: a vampire, introduced as an insane, murderous sex offender in one continuity, who was quickly killed off. Made sympathetic when I explored his backstory in an extensive RP, and realized what a decent man he had been prior to becoming a vampire and mistakenly turning his second wife into one as well, whereupon grief drove him crazy. He has since shown up in a couple different continuities as a good guy, mostly due to time travel. He's arguably had the most character development, with reactions to him starting with "Grrr, I hate that bastard!" at his introduction, to "Awww, I wanna hug him!" during his backstory. The reader who had those reactions said that Conall was one of only two despicable villains she had gone from loathing utterly to feeling sorry for. I can't recall who the other one is, as he isn't mine.

3- Cadell: a Fae, introduced when he kidnapped and tortured Vincent (the same man Caradoc and Eoran had previously kidnapped, incidentally) whose magic went awry and destroyed another Fae's memories and turned him mortal. Made sympathetic when, after learning of an imminent threat to both Fae and mortals, he was the one who suggested they form a truce for safety's sake, and became the emissary of the Fae Queen. He was later kidnapped and tortured himself by the aforesaid threat, and repented fully of his misdeeds, apologizing to his own victim.

4- Loegaire: a (former) Fae, introduced when he kidnapped Vincent's daughter Ariel, out of a misguided sense of love and the desire to have a child, since he was cursed to be sterile. Made sympathetic when he revokes his claim on Ariel and lets her go back to her family, and later on returns to help said family win a battle against the Fae (long before the truce). He is also the one who was turned mortal by a spell gone wrong, and aided in rescuing Vincent from Cadell; when Cadell was kidnapped, he joined the party that went to rescue him.

I have yet to employ this technique with Fiachra, the villain of Winter's Queen; I really have no idea how exploring his backstory would turn out, since he was born into a pretty antagonistic family, if his father is any example, and shows little redemptive quality throughout the story. Could be interesting. ^^

Have any of you tried things like this with your villains? How did that turn out?

 

[Gurkhal]

I haven't come as far in my writing to attempt something like this but I love symphatic villains and in general grey characters (note that I separate between grey, as in both good and bad, and black, as in all bad, characters). Your villains sounds very interesting and I will keep this in mind for the future.

I do however have some ideas for symphatic villains that I would like to try out, and in particular a very sympathic main villain for a story.

 

[Shockley]

While I think characters of all moral shades have their place, I like my villains to be, well, villainous. Nuances are fine, understanding why the character is that way is fine, but I've always preferred the villains who make you want to punch them in the face.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

The villain can be seen as the protagonist from their own point of view. If you can reverse the viewpoint of your story so (for lack of more succinct words) good becomes bad and bad becomes good - and have the story still work, then you have a solid story.

If your villain is just evil for the sake of evil and doesn't actually benefit from succeeding (you end the world...then what?), then you should probably re-think your villain's point of view.

In my own stories, I don't think of any character as the hero or the villain. Well, I do, for viewpoint sake, but when developing their motivations, I try to see them as people, the way people are in real life. They make their decisions based on their own situation, context, etc. I think of the story like a map. You typically see a map from one angle, but you can turn the map any way you wish and it is still the same map of the same area. Nothing has changed except your viewpoint. That's what I strive for with my characters, hero and villain. They see the world from their own angle and act upon that viewpoint. Hopefully, this makes them feel more real than a generic Dark Lord who's bad for the sake of being bad.

 

[Akahige]

I love sympathetic villains, though I think it rather interesting that the term "villain" does not refer to something inherent in their being, but rather the eventual outcome of their choices and circumstances. This implies however that a person can make different choices or feel regret for choices made, even if they don't necessarily act on that regret. I think that's where the sympathy comes in, because we can all identify with aspects of ourselves which cry out for restoration. To our peril and to the deepening of our corruption we may ignore this, but our better instincts still long for that redemption and so too do we long for it in others as a symbol of hope that such a thing might be possible.

 

[MadMadys]

My favorite kind of villain is the one you almost agree with. Usually they tend to be a "the ends justify the means" character that, just being human beings, we sort of agree with that even if we don't want to. Sure, they may kill millions, reshape part of the world, and screw a lot of people over in the process but their goal is saving the world. Same as any hero but they got there by doing "what needed to be done". In that way, while the reader will still in the end root for the hero, it keeps the villain out of the cartoony "I'm a bad guy cause I'm bad" category.

 

[TWErvin2]

A sympathetic 'enemy' has been explored some in my novels.

In the first novel (Flank Hawk), followers of the sea goddess, loosely allied with the Necromancer King, are blocking the main character from crossing the ocean to further the his mission against the Necromancer King. Those serving the sea goddess happen to be mermaids, mermen, dolphins and a sea serpent. Violence ensues and many beautiful mermaids die in not so pretty ways, as do friends and allies of the main character. That scene has gotten reactions from readers, in addition to the main character within the context of the story. The novel's themes include loyalty and sacrifice. But in a way, not only the main chracter's, but even those efforts of his enemies.

The second novel, Blood Sword, the healing goddess and her army (and allies) move against the king and kingdom the main character serves. The main character is questioned by a close companion whether it truly it matters which rules. There is complexity in the motivations of both sides, and maybe there isn't a clear cut good guy vs. bad guy as there was in the first novel, which focused on the struggle against the Necromancer King, who was clearly an evil aggressor with not so nice intentions for those he might conquer.

 

[WyrdMystic]

In my main work - my antagonist switches to protaganist throughout my story arc. Really he's always been the protaganist, but the viewpoint is filtered through other characters that perceive him as evil, because they percieve themselves to be good. In reality neither are good or evil as both sides of the opposing goals can be perceived as good or bad and the ultimate choice to be made is morally ambiguous.

Whether or not it turns out okay.....time will tell.

 

[SeverinR]

It would seem like the problem would be, conflicting heros, rather then a hero vs villain.

The world hating villain is but one type of villain.

 

[Shockley]

I want to come back to what I said earlier and make a point, as I think some people tend to miss this:

You can have a sympathetic villain who has completely unrealistic goals (such as ruling the world) and an unsympathetic villain that has entirely realistic, naturalistic goals (such as exploiting the fur trade the next town over). Some of the arguments here seem to be equating sympathetic with realistic, which I don't think is accurate.

I think the slimy, hateful, entirely unsympathetic villain has a lot of power to it, especially as modern literature embraces the idea of 'gray versus gray' a little more every day.

 

[WyrdMystic]

I want to come back to what I said earlier and make a point, as I think some people tend to miss this:

You can have a sympathetic villain who has completely unrealistic goals (such as ruling the world) and an unsympathetic villain that has entirely realistic, naturalistic goals (such as exploiting the fur trade the next town over). Some of the arguments here seem to be equating sympathetic with realistic, which I don't think is accurate.

I think the slimy, hateful, entirely unsympathetic villain has a lot of power to it, especially as modern literature embraces the idea of 'gray versus gray' a little more every day.

The villian you want to live and the villian you want to die.

I think that morality gets mixed in with villiany as well - they are two separate things and you can have any mix of either. The difference between what they are doing and who they are/why they are doing it.

 

[Shockley]

The villian you want to live and the villian you want to die.

I think that morality gets mixed in with villiany as well - they are two separate things and you can have any mix of either. The difference between what they are doing and who they are/why they are doing it.

Correct.

A great example of this would be in Harry Potter - Voldemort has a completely ridiculous goal (relatively, in a world of wizards) and you want him to fail, but he has a background that makes where he's coming from understandable. Malfoy is almost completely unsympathetic, but you don't want terrible things to happen to him. Snape, on the other hand, is the real sympathetic villain but, at the same time, you want awful things to happen to him and it's hard to agree with anything he does after the fifth book.

 

[Ireth]

Correct.

A great example of this would be in Harry Potter - Voldemort has a completely ridiculous goal (relatively, in a world of wizards) and you want him to fail, but he has a background that makes where he's coming from understandable. Malfoy is almost completely unsympathetic, but you don't want terrible things to happen to him. Snape, on the other hand, is the real sympathetic villain but, at the same time, you want awful things to happen to him and it's hard to agree with anything he does after the fifth book.

Except, y'know, the whole thing where he helps Dumbledore after he's cursed, as we see in book 7: first by making potions for him and then by mercy-killing him to spare Malfoy having to do it. He only did things for Voldemort to earn his trust so he could betray him.

 

[Griffin]

I have had a soft spot of villains for as long as I can remember. And it is not just because I have sociopathic tendencies. I see villains as the result of the dark side of humanity. Darkness slumbers in every man's heart. Villains are the individuals who succumbed to that darkness. Some can still be saved. Others have decayed and are unsalvageable.

Take, for example, Darth Vader. With the lose of his mother, he opened the door for the darkness. He joined the dark side because he wanted power to protect the ones he loved. Then, with the death of his wife [and children], he felt as if he lost everything. He dedicated his life to the Empire. However, when he finds out that his children still live, the darkness was slowly slipping away. In the end, it was not the Force or goodness that saved the day/galaxy. It was a father's love.

I think that's why Darth Vader is considered to be the number one villain (last time I checked, he was.) Not because he's powerful or evil. It is because that despite all the evils he committed, there was still good in him. He was able to protect the ones he loved, not with the dark side, but with the love in his heart. [I apologize for the cheesiness. I couldn't phrase it in any other way.]

 

[Mindfire]

I prefer to think of villains as people who made bad choices. They can be smooth, charismatic, powerful, intimidating, and even human. But at the end of the day, they're someone who for whatever reason, be it noble intentions, fanatical devotion, or simple selfish gain, made evil choices and ultimately deserves whatever retribution they get.

 

[Shockley]

Except, y'know, the whole thing where he helps Dumbledore after he's cursed, as we see in book 7: first by making potions for him and then by mercy-killing him to spare Malfoy having to do it. He only did things for Voldemort to earn his trust so he could betray him.

I'm well aware of that - for me, personally, he was still beyond being fully redeemable in the last book even with all of my sympathy (unlike Malfoy, whom I had no sympathy for and was, with a correct decision by Rowling, redeemed).

 

[Ireth]

I'm well aware of that - for me, personally, he was still beyond being fully redeemable in the last book even with all of my sympathy (unlike Malfoy, whom I had no sympathy for and was, with a correct decision by Rowling, redeemed).

Fair point.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'm unusually respectful of the concept of neutrality (the mercenary who's paid to attack an innocent village can instead be paid to defend it), so I often give a non-judgmental description of characters who, say, Brandon Sanderson would consider horrendously evil. They may still be antagonists, mind you, but only because they're in the protagonists' way. (And even truly horrible people may only be horrible by circumstance--plenty of camp guards in the Holocaust were once just like the average reader, and pretending otherwise is giving the reader rather too much reassurance.)

 

[Shockley]

You had me with mercenaries until you started going into the death camp guards. You are aware that the vast majority of camp guards were members of the SS, and the core of the camp guards were Death's Head unit members?

If you were guarding a Nazi concentration camp, you were at least fist deep into the party apparatus.

 

[Feo Takahari]

You had me with mercenaries until you started going into the death camp guards. You are aware that the vast majority of camp guards were members of the SS, and the core of the camp guards were Death's Head unit members?

If you were guarding a Nazi concentration camp, you were at least fist deep into the party apparatus.

I'm not saying they weren't. I'm simply saying that, as best as can be determined from accounts of the camps, they talked, acted, and to a certain degree thought like any other group of men carrying out a gruesome task they perceived as necessary. True, they were horrendously sadistic, but that's a common trait in men who've killed large numbers of other men, whether or not their actions are just from a historical perspective. The reason we can say they acted wrongly is that we're not wrapped in propaganda like they were.

(Of course, I'm speaking generally--in any group that does awful things, some members do them not because they believe in the cause, but simply because they themselves are awful.)

Edit: I'm not saying it was wrong to fight the Nazis, mind you. What needs to be done needs to be done, regardless of the innocence or guilt of those involved. (The fact that the Nazis might have said the same should inspire caution, but not inaction--after all, few causes are as destructive as theirs was.)

Edit to the edit: Let's draw this away from the Nazis, since they were unique in several respects, and instead look at slavery in America. It wasn't that large numbers of people saw it as okay to do horrible things to their fellow man--it was that large numbers of people didn't see slaves as their fellows. Plenty of churches supported slavery, and they upheld Christian morality in all other respects