Hi all.
We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
Hello fellow writers, I am LOM, and I'm new in this block. I'll introduce myself with this topic.
How do you portray your antagonists?
For the unfortunate who do not know, antagonists are villains. The bad guys. The evildoers who give your story suspense and excitement.
I am curious to see the different ways of how you guys portray these "anti-heroes" in your fanfictions.
I noticed that most of the fics show the antagonists personify "immediate evil". In simpler terms, you know from the first sentence that character is in that he or she is the villain.
I myself tend to enjoy novels, or in this case, fanfics, with the antagonist not immediately revealing who he or she is.
I portray some of my villains as depraved lunatics with great power and will use them to commit atrocities with them. These would be your average superpowered goon wwho basically doesn't give a flying *** about the law. Same really applies to the common crooks in my story that don't have powers. The ones with powers are in it for personal gain and are often used by a higher authority. Suckers.
However, behind those goons are men and women who so firmly believe that their view is correct that they've convinced the public that they might be right. For example, someone with an anti metahuman stance would fund an organization dedicated to wiping the metahumans out. Why? Because they believe their philosophy is correct. No one should challenge their belief and will do anything to get their way. These villains are deeper because they have a deeper motive that can cause dissent in society. Are they right or wrong? Society takes the views and usually the average joe gets wrapped up in it and joins a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping out metahumans.
The head honcho could be someone in a suit high up in government. Who knows? The point is that they can get others to join their cause and that makes them a threat. It's the power of persuasion.
Then there's the big baddies who basically want to destroy everything in their path because they are genocidal. Their view is that races that are humanoid are a disease in the galaxy and must be wiped out. Take the resources, conduct experiments and move on while causing as much death as possible. Or another baddie that seeks conquest and riches.
So, I go from common thugs to supercriminals to organizations bent on genocide to aliens that just plain want to destroy all to clense the galaxy and suck in every resource for their insectoid empire. I usually create villains that are in it for personal gain, world conquest or out prejudice on a segment of humanity that has gifts. The organizations control the goons with their sweet talk. But, you and I know that they'd get stabbed in the back eventually.
Each villain has a purpose. They plot in shadows and that's how they attack. Some act in secret while hiring goons to do the grunt work for them.
My antiheroes just come in shades of gray. They will do what's right if it serves their needs or the needs of some hero they're working with. They won't like each other's methods but in the grand scheme of things, working with the Justice League would be better than going solo against an army of darkness. That's how they would see things. It's very Batman-like. they see the big picture and grudgingly help despite how they both handle the villain du jour.
That's a simple question: I portray them just like everybody else.
Note that all people that have been thought of as true villains have an ultimate sense of purpose behind their actions, and aren't necessarily even psychotic or mentally insane. Misguided, yes. Pure evil, no. They almost always have a method to their madness and a reason for their actions. As Emperor Palpatine told Anakin Skywalker, good and evil is a matter of viewpoint. Either side should have a logical argument for being the heroic side. It's just a matter of the fact that there is a clash of powers.
Take Joseph Stalin for example. America and several other allied powers were under the state of mind that Communism was a vile, controlling form of government that would lead to a world dictatorship. Yet from the viewpoint of Stalin, his officers and a large majority of his country, it was the best way to keep the world under control in times of conflict.
Along these lines, note that I frequently do chapters from a supposed antagonist's perspective. In fact, the first chapter of my fic (sometime before summer...) if told from the perspective of a recurring villain. Several chapters from there on out focus on characters on the opposite side of the "main characters." Remember that your antagonists should feel just as human as your protagonists. Everybody has a reason for what they do, bar mind control, at which point their puppetmaster has motives.
Well, the villians have differed in my fic thus far. Such as Nascour - from when he was introduced I made it clear that he is 'evil'. First introduced him from the main character's perspective when they first meet him - looks evil, aydda yadda yadda. Later on I've included a few more scenes with him, including part of it showing his thoughts, which just emphasises that he IS evil.
Then there's Miror B - an antagonist of sorts, only far less evil, and have tried to have readers see that he's not all that into that sort of business to begin with. Also play against the whole 'evil people are serious and gloomly' sorts and have had Miror B upbeat, cheerful and that such.
And then there's the smaller-scale antagonists, with varying protrayals, some as the normal evil-type, some as the dumb-evil type, and so forth...
Heck, most of my fics follow the antigonists! So I get to play around with them more.
Take my personal favorite, Jirarudan. I'm going to spoil future chapters of Obsession here, although if you've seen the movie and know what happens to him, you should be able to guess most of it. [spoil]By the end of the story (which will end with the last shot of him from the film), he realizes that he's done *something* wrong, but it's more of a mechanical or planning failure in his mind than anything morally wrong. He still can't figure out why or how everything went so very wrong, but to himself, he did nothing that the situation didn't require.[/spoil]
Other characters, like Domino, know that what they do is illegal *and* morally wrong, but they do it for the greater good. Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?
And then you have characters like Vicious or Giovanni. Sure they know that stuff, but they don't *care*. The important thing is to come out on top, and it doesn't matter how you get there.
But that's not to say that I define them only by these. I've written all four of these examples as sympathetic, since they're the heroes of their own stories. And when you tell the story from their viewpoint, you start to get into *why* they think these things. And it's always interesting to find out what they think.
Well, I try not to reveal too much about the main antagonist of my fic until I need to. Right now, the readers are kinda in the dark about the plans and such of him, except for a few hints here and there. Anyway, Lord Gregory (the antagonist) is usually only seen for a few paragraphs, and his personality is so far mostly hidden.
However, his underlings (two in particular) get a little more limelight. There portrayed as knowing that what they do is wrong, and they're not exactly malicious, but they just follow orders well.
It varies for me. In an older fic, it was immediatelt clear that the villains were villains, but then it started to become more veiled. In a few of my fics in particular, there are a few characters who are clearly not good, but also a few who might seem good but have committed certain acts or been part of an act which means they can never truly be considered good.
Eh bien, I'm a mystery geek.
I just love not to let the reader know who the antagonist is... I like to sometimes,give the antagonist a secret identity, let's call it "X". Everyone knows how X thinks, acts, and what he did... They all hate him. But who is X? We know that he is one of the main characters, but why would he be like that?
Then I usually make the reader assume that the wrong character is "X"(usually twice) by revealing character's pasts and also using by circumstantial evidence...or even the true "X" framing him.
I also like to make the antagonists insanely smart, who consider everyone else inferior to them. They are not evil , they are just either bored/think this is going to help the world"...Although I also like the "completely insane, yet is a genius" type.
Kehe, technically antagonists =/= villains. Antagonists are the ones acting against the main character, so if your main character is evil, then the antagonist would be the good one.
But not too many main characters are evil, so the two terms end up synonymous. =S
But hey, since I've been here so long, I'll just copy/paste my post in the last thread like this:
I know that anyone who has even read a bit of LC or is familiar with it will say that the villain is Team Rocket and the motive is power in a second. But in reality, Team Rocket is just a plot device, or to be really blunt--a setting. They are the action, the column around which the actual plotline wraps itself. LC puts far more focus on characters, and most of them go in phases. Giovanni himself is almost a plot device if not for chapter 17, but his true chance to shine doesn't come until midway through Part 2.
One of the first villains in LC is Tyson, a typical Rocket Executive motivated by pure loyalty to his team. He acts rashly in capturing Jade, and after looking like a fool in front of a higher Executive, becomes obsessed with making sure that things go right when he is in charge--even if he is overseeing an insignificant mission. This hints at a perfectionist side, especially when you consider that he is the head of the Experimental Pokemon Division, and will only train the most successful specimens. He tends to act without thinking, and often prefers the "easy method" of dealing with rebels. Although he only plays a major role in three chapters, I like his personality, and he was fun to write about.
Then there's Astra,
who is motivated by...friendship?
Astra, aka Starr, was once good friends with Jade, but that was before she joined Team Rocket, and it's been five years since then. She's more of an antagonist than a real villain, but she has no problem with torturing Jade through electrocution (five times), and captures, interrogates, threatens her with death, and overall acts as a major opponent against Jade's every move. On the other hand, she actually saves Jade's life many times, and her actions are more selfish that malicious--she tortures Jade in order to keep suspicion off herself, for instance. In the end, however, she proves herself when faced with the decision between either saving herself by killing Jade and another rebel friend Ajia, or being killed along with them.
However, the fact that Starr was forced off of Team Rocket shows that her personality has not changed at all, and she is still a Rocket at heart. She is also very indecisive—she wishes to still be a part of Team Rocket’s goals, and even though she hates the Johto Commander, would be willing to go undercover on the Johto Force in order to be a part of them. She likes power, doesn't care about saving the Legendaries or any other rebel ideals, and actually has more in common with Stalker than Jade does, despite the fact that Jade is the one who wants to side with him. I don't think she can be appropriately described as either good or evil.
Wow, look at me, I rambled off about an antagonist who isn't even a villain. =P
All clarity ceases here.
Then we get into the Johto Force, which is radically different from the Kanto Team Rocket Force, in terms of both loyalty and motives. Even though the Kanto Force has to deal with rebel attacks, the Johto Force is the one that's being penetrated from within. The whole idea behind it all is a goal of power and honor, only without having to resort to ultimate conquest.
This brings me to the true antagonist of LC who actually is not a villain either, and hasn't even come into the story yet, despite being mentioned occasionally. The motives are power without conquest. Honor to three sides, three ideals, but true loyalty to only one...a grand dream to take down one using the other. A dream of using destiny to construct destiny...and ultimately, a goal of Revolution.
At the point I'm at in LC, it's quite clear that the character Stalker, while previously a role-model in the eyes of several other characters, is a lot more than he appears. At the same time, however, no one is entirely sure what side he is on.
The "older" characters in the story who were previously involved with Team Rocket either hate his guts of regard him as a rival. The younger characters don't initially realize, however, that the whole time they were working with him was just a test, and that he really didn't care too much if they had died. That's all I can say so far, though. Stalker is one of my favorite characters in my fic if only for his ability to play triple agent and leave me guessing as to what side he's on.
So LC doesn't have any villains? Not quite...in Part 4 (yes, Part 4), the true villain is introduced. Or rather, "revealed".... Motives? Lost power. Twisted ideas of balance and the "right" manner of things. There will be betrayal. There will be hurt on both sides. And ultimately, the protagonists will become the antagonists in the true fight for revolution. They will fight to preserve things as they have known them, but is that really the "right" way? Or is it just the warped human perspective of things? An unwillingness to let go of the past, and let a deeper and more proper, if deadly, one shine through?
Yeah...the virtue of simplicity is conspicuously dead as far as LC goes. >< Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, though.
Kehe, technically antagonists =/= villains. Antagonists are the ones acting against the main character, so if your main character is evil, then the antagonist would be the good one.
I usually tend to make sure my antagonists and/or villains have a serious motivation other than being Just Plain Evil—everyone has their reasons for doing what they do, even if what they do is bad. It helps make the character more believable, IMO—antagonists are just characters with different goals, in my mind. (Besides—you can do way more with that development-wise than you can with a giggling lunatic.)
I portray some of my villains as depraved lunatics with great power and will use them to commit atrocities with them. These would be your average superpowered goon wwho basically doesn't give a flying *** about the law. Same really applies to the common crooks in my story that don't have powers. The ones with powers are in it for personal gain and are often used by a higher authority. Suckers.
However, behind those goons are men and women who so firmly believe that their view is correct that they've convinced the public that they might be right. For example, someone with an anti metahuman stance would fund an organization dedicated to wiping the metahumans out. Why? Because they believe their philosophy is correct. No one should challenge their belief and will do anything to get their way. These villains are deeper because they have a deeper motive that can cause dissent in society. Are they right or wrong? Society takes the views and usually the average joe gets wrapped up in it and joins a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping out metahumans.
The head honcho could be someone in a suit high up in government. Who knows? The point is that they can get others to join their cause and that makes them a threat. It's the power of persuasion.
Then there's the big baddies who basically want to destroy everything in their path because they are genocidal. Their view is that races that are humanoid are a disease in the galaxy and must be wiped out. Take the resources, conduct experiments and move on while causing as much death as possible. Or another baddie that seeks conquest and riches.
So, I go from common thugs to supercriminals to organizations bent on genocide to aliens that just plain want to destroy all to clense the galaxy and suck in every resource for their insectoid empire. I usually create villains that are in it for personal gain, world conquest or out prejudice on a segment of humanity that has gifts. The organizations control the goons with their sweet talk. But, you and I know that they'd get stabbed in the back eventually.
Each villain has a purpose. They plot in shadows and that's how they attack. Some act in secret while hiring goons to do the grunt work for them.
My antiheroes just come in shades of gray. They will do what's right if it serves their needs or the needs of some hero they're working with. They won't like each other's methods but in the grand scheme of things, working with the Justice League would be better than going solo against an army of darkness. That's how they would see things. It's very Batman-like. they see the big picture and grudgingly help despite how they both handle the villain du jour.
I find making villains much easier than finding a reason for the protagonist to want to go against them. Not everyone's a knight in shining armor waiting to go save people. A lot more people keep their own safety above those of others.
Villain: Ha ha ha! I am currently making plans to destroy this city!!
Hero: That's nice. Now, I don't even live in this city so I could frankly care less. See ya!
The question I find myself asking more is why and how this character antagonizes the hero. Unfortunately it's kinda one-dimensional in the games as battling the evil guys is mainly a way to progress, and unless you get close to losing or lose to them, you don't really develop any sort of a grudge.
The only exceptions I see are the Coliseum games, where the protagonist is directly affected by the actions of Cipher, whether it's a grudge against them for being used as a pawn or kidnapping your father-figure, you have a reason to dislike them and want to fight them.
For me, something needs to snap between the Protagonist and Antagonist for me to see a believable story. Does the antagonist perform some cruel act to the protagonist and simply disregard it as nothing? Did the antagonist perform the typical "You killed my father" routine? Does he bump into the protagonist and not apologize? Unless there's a reason for the hero to want to fight the villain, it won't happen.
In my story, the main villain is basically an evil organization. A little side note: I tend to watch Kim Possible(don't judge), and I find it interesting how the usual villain, Dr. Drakken's, best plans tend to come about while he starts utilizing corporate business practices; that said, when I start writing further scenes from the 'evil' side of things, it'll be shown better that how they do things tends to be more businesslike than anything.
A lot about the organization is still mysterious at this point, particularly who the boss is and what his or her plans are. As a whole, the organization is clearly evil; if one of their agents shows up somewhere, bad things are gonna happen.
However, the individual members aren't always quite so bad. I don't like writing in characters who have no better motivation for their actions than 'hey, I'm a jerk, so I'm gonna go around and do bad things'. I agree wholeheartedly with Blivsey in that antagonists need to be just as human as the 'hero'. Therefore, most of the villains that will actually appear will more often than not have some redeeming qualities that keep them from being obviously 'pure evil'. My goal is to make it possible for most of these villains that appear to actually be sympathized with by readers.
Anyway, I'm somebody who does not believe in total evil. Wen I have villains, they may do treacherous things, but they should aways be able to justify it. Nobody does something just for the sake of being bad.
I write my antagonists to be in direct contradiction to the protagonists.
That said, I don't mean goal or personality wise, but in the way they go about doing things.
For example, in the last fic I did, the antagonists (Team Aqua and Magma, or , more specifically Yurizuie and Stacy, two original members for each team, respectively.) went about doing things differently from the heroes. Where Yuki was kind, Yurizuie was a ******* who stole pokemon. Sera was supportive, and Stacy condemned team mates when they failed.
Now, well, now I've blurred the line of my protagonists and Antagonists. Things aren't so cut and dry anymore. Well they are. I'm trying to not give away too much, since I'm so much furthered ahead writing Three Ways than I am posting it. The whole antagonistic group isn't reveled for a while, and they all have a reason for doing what they are.
I think that's the IMPORTANT part of villainy, having a reason. I try my best to make sure my villains have good reasons to be doing bad things, and they aren't just doing it to have fun.
I hope all this makes scence. It did in my head...
Though my villains are hellbent and almost unrecognizable human beings, you will see qualities that make them so. They bring the uglier side of humanity to life, and throw it in the Protagonist's face every chance they get to deter them.
Most importantly though, they make my heroes think. It's not just a simple matter of Good cop bad cop or clear cut lines of good and evil. They're going to make my heroes think about what they're doing and if it's right or not, instead of in the game where you're rolling your eyes at their stupidity and thinking 'you're abusing Pokemon, it's bad, so time to defeat you.'
I like complex characters, and personally I find the villains in most shows/movies/books to be the more fascinating creatures than the protagonists.
Um, if I think I'm reading that right (and I might not be, lol), then no, since the protagonist is always the main character, unless I am very much mistaken. The protagonist can be evil and the antagonist can be good, since the literal definition of "antagonist" is the force working against the protagonist.
But the protagonist isn't evil all that often, lol.
I think villians SHOULD be portrayed in an evil light, however, we all gotta remember they're humans too, so I like to think up a history for the character, why are the evil? What drove them to such madness? All things (for me anyway) happen for a reason, and I think that readers would enjoy knowing the reason, by having the antagonist break down or something, or other characters explaining their past.
I often think on the DnD scale of things when it comes to villains.. Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic Evil. What makes them be this way and why.
I think of what drives them to do the wrong things and if the things they are doing are really wrong. There are those who are borderline sociopathic, that what they do is a natural part of them and that they are porn to do misdeeds. Then there are those who are just a little misguided.
