Help with Villain Motivations

[Mindfire]

So as it stands, my WIP's endgame has 3 real villains: Sitara, a diabolical and savage cult leader, Sikeda, the corrupt spiritual leader of my MC's native tribe, and Malak, the corrupt chieftain of my MC's native tribe. Sitara is a rather simple character and I've got her pretty much figured out. It's the other two that I'm having trouble with.

Sikeda is actually Sitara's mother, a fact that she keeps a secret for obvious reasons. This serves as her main motivation to oppose Reuben (my MC), because she knows he has been chosen to wipe out the entire Wiktan cult, her daughter included. While she doesn't approve of her daughter's actions, she doesn't want to see her die because of the vain hope that maybe one day the evil, child-stealing, human-sacrificing psychopathic monster will go away and her sweet little girl will come back. Her character is meant to be tragic, but not exactly sympathetic. She's secretly aiding her daughter and allowing her to occasionally kidnap children. In return, the Wiktan greatly limit these kidnappings and make no overt raids or attacks against the tribe. As punishment for her treachery, she is cursed with an ironic death, namely watching her daughter be killed before she herself is killed by the Wiktan.

Malak is the weakest of the three at this point, because I'm not sure what he does or why. He's kind of a villain by default because he occupies the position that is Reuben's birthright and won't relinquish it because Reuben was born and raised outside the tribe because of backstory reasons involving his parents. He also knows about Sikeda's deal with her daughter and is blackmailing her... somehow... for some reason. I know he has to be involved in the conspiracy, I'm just not sure what he gains from it. Neither Sitara nor Sikeda really have anything he might want or need. And I can't seem to think of anything particularly villainous he could do besides just be mean to my main character, but that wouldn't justify his climactic execution that I have planned for the conclusion. Making him a clueless, but well-intentioned and noble person who simply abdicates to Reuben at the end of the story would be kind of an anti-climax. Does anyone have a solution to the problem of Malak's missing motivation?

One solution I had thought of was to make Malak a puppet for Sikeda, who is using him to further her own goals, namely protecting her daughter. This change to the story would also make Sikeda into Reuben's aunt, who resents him and her father because of the tribe's law that forbids female children from inheriting the throne and instead passes it to the male next of kin. This gives her another motivation: keeping the power that she feels she was unfairly denied but has now been able to seize indirectly through manipulation. But this makes her into a much darker character than previously. Not a bad thing necessarily, but I'm concerned that it may cause her ironic death to have a bit less force to it. This route also gives Malak more relevance and makes him a more active villain, but it also makes him something of a pathetic lackey, which may not entirely justify having him executed. He was accessory to the kidnapping and murder of children, which definitely warrants harsh punishment, but since we never see him do anything bad directly and all of his crimes boil down to being a patsy and neglecting his duty, the reader might not "feel right" about having him coldly executed.

Thoughts?

 

[Mindfire]

And idea I just thought of that makes Malak more than a lackey is that he might have (somehow) found out about Sikeda's daughter and used that knowledge to blackmail her into helping him take the throne despite not being the nearest of kin. Or maybe instead of blackmail, she approached him and he seized the opportunity, which means he knows about Sikeda's treachery but simply doesn't care. This makes him a more active usurper and a sociopath.

 

[GeekDavid]

And idea I just thought of that makes Malak more than a lackey is that he might have (somehow) found out about Sikeda's daughter and used that knowledge to blackmail her into helping him take the throne despite not being the nearest of kin. Or maybe instead of blackmail, she approached him and he seized the opportunity, which means he knows about Sikeda's treachery but simply doesn't care. This makes him a more active usurper and a sociopath.

That would work if his deeper motivation is simply for power, pure and simple. He wants the power to lord it over everyone else, to tell them what to do, and so on.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Sounds to me like they made a deal. Malik wants power. Being the chief of the tribe isn't enough. He wants something more. Immortality? Strength of Gods? Knowledge of ancients? Something that will send his rivals running etc? And at the same time he's reliant on mummy just to maintain his rule. So he uses her to cement his position and keeps quiet about daughter dearest to make sure mummy keeps him in power and works on getting him whatever else it is he's hunting for.

Mummy looks after daughter partly out of love and responsibility, but also hides the worst of her mistakes because her own position as religious head would be threatened by having an openly heretical daughter. Imagine if the Pope had a satanist son! This gives her problems because she at once has to acknowledge that her daughter is not true to the faith but can't have her labelled as a heretic. She's in a bad place and her daughter is manipulating that for her own ends. At the same time maybe there's some guilt there too as mummy feels responsible for whatever has gone wrong with her daughter.

Now to add to the mix the chief and the daughter hate each other. The chief knows she's dangerous, threatens her mother which in turn threatens his position and ambitions. The daughter hates the chief because he's a leacher? Uses her mummy? Wants to throw her in a dungeon secretely? Stymies her own ambition?

Hope that helps.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ThinkerX]

Malak is the weakest of the three at this point, because I'm not sure what he does or why. He's kind of a villain by default because he occupies the position that is Reuben's birthright and won't relinquish it because Reuben was born and raised outside the tribe because of backstory reasons involving his parents. He also knows about Sikeda's deal with her daughter and is blackmailing her... somehow... for some reason. I know he has to be involved in the conspiracy, I'm just not sure what he gains from it. Neither Sitara nor Sikeda really have anything he might want or need. And I can't seem to think of anything particularly villainous he could do besides just be mean to my main character, but that wouldn't justify his climactic execution that I have planned for the conclusion. Making him a clueless, but well-intentioned and noble person who simply abdicates to Reuben at the end of the story would be kind of an anti-climax. Does anyone have a solution to the problem of Malak's missing motivation?

Villian to some, hero to others.

Reminds me a bit of Guy Du Bas Tyra in the first set of Feists 'Rift-War' series:

a man who put the stability of the kingdom above *everything*, knowing he was likely to be condemned for less than ethical acts.

Thats how I'd write your Villian, anyhow: he genuinely see's the nation as being on the brink of collapse, in his eyes your MC is not up to the task, so he *has* to step in and maintain order because the alternative is anarchy. If that means cutting deals with murderous cultists, then so be it: thats part of the price that must be paid. If it is relevant or possible to work it into the plot at this point, I'd suggest having him hail from an area near a large ruined city, and raised on the tales of the events that led to the collapse of that city.

 

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

Malak's motivation could be power. It's a very common motivation that isn't restricted to the evil of heart. Opportunity makes the thief is a proverb that also applies to power. Good people who suddenly find themselves in a good position to usurp power are often seduced to treason. They might think they're better suited for the throne, that they might be a better ruler. They might have very noble intentions to wrestle power from the de jure rulers. Machiavellian intentions for instance, where the Greater Good is used as an excuse for unethical actions.

Something to add more punch to Malak's execution would be to make him sympathetic right before the execution. Fable III was a bad game with a bad story line but one part of the story was very strong. When you captured your brother, who had usurped the throne, you were given the option to execute him. Before you make your choice, the game offers you insight into his motives. Turns out he knew of an invasion coming (which you will fight in the second part of the game, which is the weakest part) and everything he did (industrialisation and child labour, conquest and oppression) was to strengthen the country to withstand the incoming invasion (of evil zombie-spirit things). This made the choice to execute him or not a lot more powerful. In the end, I had him shot by firing squad but I felt really bad about it for quite a while. Because I sympathized with him and because, as it turned out, he wasn't quite the monster I thought he was. After taking the crown I was in a similar position, and I realized that many of the decisions he had made were quite rational.

If you add an outside threat you can do the same. Or maybe he usurped power to abolish a bad tradition (but needs to consolidate his power first before he attacks convention). If your MC supports that tradition, it makes him a bit less sympathetic, but deeper and more human. We're not perfect.

As for Sikeda using him, that could be a two way thing. Malak thinks he's using Sikeda by blackmailing her, but at the same time, Sikeda is using him to protect her daughter. Both of them think they have the upper hand but because neither has (and they both try to manoeuvre into a more powerful position) the MC can defeat them. If they had combined their might via an alliance, or if one of them had managed to get the upper hand, there wouldn't have been any divide in their forces. But because both of them have strong motivations, and the idea that they need to be in control to reach their goals, they are fighting each other as much as your MC.

Another possibility is the corruption of power. Malak takes power with noble intentions but is then corrupted by power and becomes more totalitarian and oppressive. He might see himself as the good guy (because he still thinks he has noble intentions) but meanwhile he's on the slippery slope to madness.

Malak would want to control Sideka because she is a major force in tribe politics (the religious head) and because through her, he might control the cult. He could then use the cult as a military force to oppress or he could use them in his propaganda (You need me, I'm a strong leader and you'll need one to defeat the cult that's taking all your babies!). He could also try and use Sideka to get to the cult so he can take it out (so people think he's a good ruler, or perhaps this is his motivation all along). This makes him a bit more sympathetic (some of his goals might be similar to your MCs) but he uses more aggressive and oppressive measures.

Just some ideas to make all of this more tragic, connected and interesting.

 

[Malik]

Never trust a guy named Malak. Or any phonetic variation thereof. That way lies pain and madness.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

How can you say that?! Fable III is a brilliant game - and between the gnomes and the chickens, damnably funny!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Deleted member 2173]

I think it may have been said elsewhere here, and perhaps better than how I will say it, but to find the villain's motivation, make him the hero of his own story. Give the villain a personal reason to want what he wants, something that the reader can identify with. Some times the best villains are the ones doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

If it were me, I would go for the gut - Sitara. She hasn't always been a nutcase. She was young, once. Isn't that what Sikeda is holding out for? Maybe she wasn't the only one who loved her, once, even only briefly? And maybe Malak has a child by Sitara and a legacy to protect? Maybe he's hiding this this child to protect it, or maybe not? And here comes your hero, out to destroy everything he's so desperately worked to protect! What a bastard!

Villains are the heroes of their own stories.

 

[skip.knox]

Mindfire, why do you have three villains? That seems like too many, and maybe that's why you're having trouble. As others have said, the villain is the hero of his own story. Which would mean you need *three* stories for them. Are all three stories necessary in order to tell your main story?

 

[Mindfire]

Mindfire, why do you have three villains? That seems like too many, and maybe that's why you're having trouble. As others have said, the villain is the hero of his own story. Which would mean you need *three* stories for them. Are all three stories necessary in order to tell your main story?

Do you see any that seem unneeded?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Do you see any that seem unneeded?

I'd say you've answered your own question - Malak. You say you don't know what he does, other than act as a place holder for the hero to usurp. Either come up with a plot line for him, or ditch him.

 

[Mindfire]

I'd say you've answered your own question - Malak. You say you don't know what he does, other than act as a place holder for the hero to usurp. Either come up with a plot line for him, or ditch him.

Well I can't just get rid of him, otherwise there's really no obstacle between Reuben and the throne and the story ends like 6 chapters early.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

What about Sitara maintaining him as a puppet ruler? That would give a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" fell to the story, as well as give Malak his own motivations.

 

[skip.knox]

IMO, a story needs only one villain. There can be more, but it's like handling multiple protagonists--there should be a good reason for it.

I'm trying to judge from the summary, which is probably not fair to the story, but *as presented* this is what I see. There are three bad guys: Sitara, a diabolical and savage cult leader, Sikeda, the corrupt spiritual leader, and Malak, the corrupt chieftain. That's a lot of savagery and corruption. Why are these people like this? But the real tell-tale, to my eyes, is that the same adjective is applied to Sikeda and Malak.

You could consider making Malak virtuous. He could be simple-minded, deceived by the evil forces around him. Or he could be ineffective, trying to battle savagery and corruption. In either case, though, he holds to his position as rightfully his and isn't going to yield it to Reuben. Family pride and all that. His death at the end would be tragic because if he'd only wised up, much suffering could be avoided. That way, Malak could become a good guy who through stubbornness or stupidity causes bad things to happen.

Or, how about making Malak Sikeda's brother? Then he could be acting out of family loyalty without himself being wicked.

Again, as others have said, try telling their story first. All as backstory, of course. In fact, you could sketch it out with Reuben out of the picture. How would it have gone if Sikeda got her way? If Malak got his way? If Sitara got hers? What if, in each of the scenarios, Malak was a good guy or a non-entity? Same for Sikeda or Sitara? At some point you'll find yourself saying, well I can't throw that person out or I don't have a story at all. That's the rock. That's the real villain. Everything else can be wibbly-wobbly, but that one can't change. Then, add Reuben back into the mix and see how that miserable wretch fouls up all their wonderful plans.

I'm rambling a bit, so it's time to stop. Hope you found food for thought, or at least a snack.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Our stories usually have more than one villain. After all, everyone needs friends/cohorts.

 

[Mindfire]

Our stories usually have more than one villain. After all, everyone needs friends/cohorts.

Too true. The story I'm writing won't work with only one villain. In fact, by the time we get to the point where these three villains are introduced there have already been two others before then. Well, sort of. One of them was just there to aid the inciting incident and gets killed off at about the quarter mark of the story. The other was basically a cameo. He doesn't become important until later. As in, sequels later. But I see there might be some benefit in clarifying the relationship and character of these three.

Making Malak somewhat virtuous is an interesting possibility, but I couldn't make him just a good guy who's inept or mistaken (because I want to kill him at the end, which wouldn't be justified if he was truly well-intentioned), there'd have to be some malice involved.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Making Malak somewhat virtuous is an interesting possibility, but I couldn't make him just a good guy who's inept or mistaken (because I want to kill him at the end, which wouldn't be justified if he was truly well-intentioned), there'd have to be some malice involved.

[UTILITARIAN]
If you ever catch yourself wondering "This character isn't hatable enough. What can I do to make readers despise him?", it's worth experimenting with what happens if he's not hatable. You say that if he's not hatable, you won't be able to justify killing him. What happens if killing him isn't justified? You say it would be an anti-climax if he just peacefully abdicates--but what if he believes that he needs to stay the leader, and that Reuben would not be capable of guiding the tribe properly? If he needs to be killed to make Reuben the leader, but if killing him would not be justified, then what does that say about the morals of the structure you've created? And does that message really change if he's hatable and killing him feels more cathartic?

In one way or another, a lot of fiction is built around human sacrifice. Sometimes, it's an actual death--the frail, innocent kid dies so that the more worldly kid can mature into adulthood. Sometimes, it's simply a rejection--the guy the girl loves is too handsome and charming, so in some way he's eliminated from the narrative so the girl can hook up with the guy who's supposed to represent the losers who're reading the book. I think it's worth investigating these sacrifices, and determining what it means when you continue them.
[/UTILITARIAN]

 

[Twook00]

Reading this, I see Malak as being more of an opposing force than a villain. He is the chieftain, plain and simple. The return of the rightful heir means nothing to him if the heir was raised outside of the tribe. Besides, you say he’s corrupt. My assumption is that he is a machismo narcissist who believes fate has placed him in this role.

You could add conflict between Malak and Reuben, I think, by simple way of Reuben being a contender for Malak’s power.

I think of Game of Thrones. Robert Baratheon wanted to have the Targaryen children murdered for fear that they would come back, win supporters, and wage war for the throne. There‘s bad history between them for sure. Maybe Malak has been responsible for similar acts of cruelty against Reuben. Maybe there is something personal between the two families going back generations.