The ultimate villian:

[BearBear]

I had an idea, considering I'm always talking about how villians and heros are never pure, what makes the best villian in your opinion?

The idea was that a villian like how the Bible depicts the anti-christ is best to me. Say a villian has a large following of otherwise normal people who have just fallen under their charm or believe their promises. A certain ex-president comes to mind and so does a certain billionaire (or all of them).

A villian that proposes to do great things but secretly (or obviously) is a egocentric, charlatan. They bring chaos and deliver little for all the promises. They also reap destruction on the theoretical environment for theoretically useless reasons, threaten disaster, use power to cover up mistakes including appropriating and changing history to suit their desires. Untouchable even to superheroes because they're so well loved by half the population. Someone divisive and polarizing.

In this case they're not redeemable to me even if half the things they do are beneficial. I will probably explore a villian like this too.

Have you had an anti-christ archetype in your stories?

What's your ultimate villian like? (One even Data can not best?)

How can you defeat someone like that or like yours?

 

[Sheilawisz]

Hello BearBear.

Just a friendly reminder here, for everyone to read the Forum Rules carefully. You see, any discussion that involves real world politics and/or real world politicians, even indirectly, is not allowed in this site.

Thanks!

 

[Queshire]

Makes things a bit awkward since fiction often has connections to the time period it's written in, but a rule that has generally shown its worth.

For me the villains that leave the greatest impact are those that are... hmm... how do I put this? Reasonable in their methods.

I like villains that the heroes can sit down and have a conversation with. Not like the trope of the villain inviting the hero to a big fancy dinner or someone who only does so out of a villainous sense of honor, but out of, on some level, respecting the hero and treating them as an equal player.

This reasonableness should also extend to their methods. I'll give them say, one free pass. Say access to a demon whose blood increases magical power at the cost of increasing the darkness in someone's heart, creation magic or the type of super intelligence you see in a comic book verse. They still need to properly leverage that to be a threat.

 

[BearBear]

Hello BearBear.

Just a friendly reminder here, for everyone to read the Forum Rules carefully. You see, any discussion that involves real world politics and/or real world politicians, even indirectly, is not allowed in this site.

Thanks!

Just edit it out or delete it, I thought I was vague enough. I can't edit ot delete my own posts after five minutes or something.

 

[Sydnie]

For me, the best villains are ones with strong conviction, genuinely good intentions, and personal ties to the protagonist(s). It adds so much emotional weight when the ultimate conflict comes down to the hero versus someone they never wanted to fight, who we as the audience never wanted them to fight, but who must be stopped regardless

SPOILERS AHEAD, GAMERS BEWARE: A really strong example is the final boss in Persona 5 Royal. He's a genuinely likable character who, over the course of the game, develops a positive relationship with all the characters in the player's party. And it's clear that he really just wants to help people. Even as the heroes are actively challenging him, he still would rather talk things out and reach an agreement. But because they can't, they have to fight anyway. This makes the series of fights with him at the end so much more impactful than they would have been if he were like any of the game's previous bosses.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Just edit it out or delete it, I thought I was vague enough. I can't edit ot delete my own posts after five minutes or something.

That's not necessary.

I posted the reminder just to make sure that this would not result in another political storm. That's what happened a long time ago, so we created a very specific rule that speaks against it.

The thread can continue normally, just without further allusions to such people.

 

[pmmg]

For me, its whatever villain fits the story. Cause villains do not stand alone, they are made by context, and developed as according to the needs of the tale. just like any other character. And so, any villain may be cool in one story and not in another.

There have been many villains I have enjoyed, but to simply say, I like this type best so into my story he goes is not useful to the tale.

I like any character who brings growth and perspective to the tale.

I think a villain will suit best if his story goals are somewhat understood and sympathetic, but still clearly in need of opposing.

 

[Finchbearer]

The charismatic leader would be my definition of the ultimate evil in both fiction and non-fiction. Someone with the pretence that they are doing something good when their psychology is actually very dangerous. Those people who possess a false sense of grandeur. Cult leaders would be a perfect example.

 

[FifthView]

“...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

This comes close to describing it for me, but only if you look at it through the lens of Dolores Umbridge.

This kind of villain might well have particular desires and goals, but these aren't really all that important for the reader to know. They may be rather odd enthusiasms, however, and knowing them might be creepy.

These villains are entirely certain of themselves, certain that what they do is what they should be doing, and they will keep doing it no matter what.

They are sociopaths, quite happy to see others suffer and the world burn, because this image is a reminder to them of their own superior position in the universe. And they do hurt people. People are always somehow in the way. Grubby people. Needy people. Whiny people. Mischief-causers and idiot stumblers cluttering up the whole way. Wannabe's—these annoying people. However, if you ask these villains, they will probably deny that they take pleasure in seeing others suffer and the world burn; rather, if the world is suffering, perhaps the world deserved it, and isn't that dreadfully sad?

The very best of this type of villain isn't all that special. Alone, not particularly powerful. No laser beams from eyes or supreme magic is necessary. In fact they're rather mediocre by most standards, except that they have achieved positions which make their efforts possible. Their position is another proof to them of the superiority they possess. Everything's ticking along as planned. They are narcissists, and everything is their mirror, either in contrast (the gubby interlopers) or as proof of their superiority (the things they do, the things they are able to do, the things they have achieved.)

They will go on doing what they do, forever. Someone or some thing must stop them.

 

[BearBear]

That's not necessary.

I posted the reminder just to make sure that this would not result in another political storm. That's what happened a long time ago, so we created a very specific rule that speaks against it.

The thread can continue normally, just without further allusions to such people.

You seem very reasonable and I'm not at all interested in a political storm, I'm only interested in entertaining discussions and minor shock value.

I was thinking, many sites I've been on had heavy moderation, now I'm prepared to accept it wasn't the moderation in 9/10 times. I'm a barely contained tragedy, but it's fun at least. I have something like tourettes where I say or do things and then have to take them back. It's like past trauma bubbles up but it's very minor, still, I'm prolific so it shows it's head often enough. That too is much much less then it used to be. I'm much better now but you know. Nowadays I say to moderators: ding me and if it becomes a deal breaker for you then I won't hold it against you. It's just not something I've been able to fix yet.

 

[BearBear]

The charismatic leader would be my definition of the ultimate evil in both fiction and non-fiction. Someone with the pretence that they are doing something good when their psychology is actually very dangerous. Those people who possess a false sense of grandeur. Cult leaders would be a perfect example.

100% agree

“...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

That's one of my favorite quotes.

And they do hurt people.

Should the ultimate villian also secretly struggle internally? A sociopath often does have a pained inner struggle. Psychopaths get the free ticket to not caring but they're technically terms no longer used in diagnosis and they're considered on the same spectrum now, so maybe it's a sliding scale or different for every person who has this.

However, if you ask these villains, they will probably deny that they take pleasure in seeing others suffer and the world burn; rather, if the world is suffering, perhaps the world deserved it, and isn't that dreadfully sad?

Beautifully said.

 

[Sheilawisz]

You seem an alright and decent person, BearBear. Welcome to Mythic Scribes.

It's actually quite difficult to get in real trouble here, it's only the truly conflictive and negative people that get banned. Just stay chill, keep the rules in mind, be friendly and everything will be fine.

Contact me in case that you need Mod assistance for something.

 

[Devor]

To add a little to what Sheila said, many of us enjoy coming here as a refuge to get away from the political sniping that happens elsewhere. Please do not bring it here.

 

[BearBear]

To add a little to what Sheila said, many of us enjoy coming here as a refuge to get away from the political sniping that happens elsewhere. Please do not bring it here.

Personally I wouldn't be here is it was, so it's not my intent. I don't want to watch the world burn or anything... except maybe in traffic.

 

[skip.knox]

An ultimate villain first of all needs an ultimate hero. Start there.

The uv doesn't need to be ultimate in any ultimate sense - they need to be ultimate for that world. It's about scale and perception.

The uv comes to us via other characters, in how they speak of him or it, how they react. So it's really up to you the author.

My preference is to see villainy - danger, strength, immorality, etc. - develop over time. Like with battles, start small then keep raising the stakes.

 

[Miles Lacey]

The charismatic leader would be my definition of the ultimate evil in both fiction and non-fiction. Someone with the pretence that they are doing something good when their psychology is actually very dangerous. Those people who possess a false sense of grandeur. Cult leaders would be a perfect example.

The problem with villains who are charismatic leaders is it becomes too easy to make the obvious comparisons with 20th Century tyrants like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin and cult leaders like Jim Jones and Charles Manson.

For me, the ultimate villain is one who can challenge the hero on every level: intellectually, physically and even ethically. The clash between the two comes because the villain's motto of "the ends justifies the means" conflicts with the hero's view that there must be an ethical/moral line in the sand that must not be crossed.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Whatever works for the story is the answer. Hannibal Lecter is an "ultimate" villain because he's precisely what the story needs. In LoTR we never even see the "ultimate" villain, but he is still great at his role. Lecter would absolutely be in my top 5 villains of all time list if not #1.

One characteristic I think is probably a good trait for "ultimate" villains is an absolutist attitude toward the object of their desire, whether it's killing, taking over the word, becoming a billionaire, eating people's livers... whatever. Make them a force of nature and Evil.

The one trouble with Lecter is that the literary version is impossible to separate from Hopkins' master performance, which makes him trickier to judge. But, even in the book he totally overshadows Wild Bill.

 

[pmmg]

The problem with villains who are charismatic leaders is it becomes too easy to make the obvious comparisons with 20th Century tyrants like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin and cult leaders like Jim Jones and Charles Manson.

For me, the ultimate villain is one who can challenge the hero on every level: intellectually, physically and even ethically. The clash between the two comes because the villain's motto of "the ends justifies the means" conflicts with the hero's view that there must be an ethical/moral line in the sand that must not be crossed.

Yeah...I did not want to comment on this one, but to me, these have been played. But...its not for me to say others dont put them at the top.

I am sticking with my original answer of, whatever villain fits the story. Villains do to stand alone, they are part of a whole. They need the whole to make them effective in the story they are in.

 

[Finchbearer]

It doesn’t even need to be a leader - those who are sociopathic, psychopathic and narcissists who are out there quietly controlling, manipulating and coercing behind closed doors are ‘ultimate villains’ to me.

 

[FifthView]

Whatever works for the story is the answer.

I think this might apply better to "ultimate antagonist" than as a description of "ultimate villain," but then again it applies to everything. What's the ultimate setting? The ultimate cast of side characters? The ultimate length? The ultimate.....? Why, whatever works for the story, of course.

I'd understood the original question to be one separate from any particular story. An idealized sort of thing, a thought experiment. What is the ultimate villain.

I wonder now if such a question is good or harmful. If we come to the answer regardless of story, then begin to develop a story, are we possibly shooting ourselves in the foot? Or will our answer actually inform our, er, ultimate solution, so that our works-for-the-story villain becomes more terrifying?

But not every story needs a villain. An ultimate antagonist will do just fine.