How To Show Overt Evil

Robin Hobb had Prince Regal in the Farseer trilogy, he's a good example.

George R. R. Martin's has the Lannisters.

David Gemmell did an awesome job of Villains being just a member of another culture that was viewed as evil through the protagonists' PoV. Sometimes he even wrote from the opposite perspective in the next book: Drenai series; Rigante Series; Hawk books.

The main antagonist for the eight Demon Wars books by R. A. Salvatore
was well conceived.

The main element that makes an evil guy evil is his selfishness, as demonstrated by Prince Regal, and the Lannisters.

Being evil for the sake of being evil is dumb

The evil overlord needs to firmly believe in his own beliefs and trust that they are correct- but those are terribly wrong in the eyes of the good guys.

In my WIP, the Evil Overlord was initially good, and was also the head of a researching band of 'wizards.' However, these researchers stumbled upon a new source of magic, which demanded you body in return for its power. This new power is much stronger than what the other wizards use. All the wizards reject the deal, and die. However, this guy accepts it- wanting to experiment with a higher power. It ultimately results in him desiring to wield the power. He looks down on the 'normal' wizards as weaklings when compared to himself, and believes the world should be lead by someone who is more powerful, such as himself. Hence he attempt world domination.

PS: Unlike many other fantasy novels, in mine, there is actually a peace negotiation process before the war. It fails of course. The book would be far too boring if it succeeded.

Does that sound like a cliche?

I don't see why sadomasochism has to be evil. It's not.

I recommend you peruse the following category of articles: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilTropes

katzenjammer said:

This is especially difficult if the evil guy is supposed to be intelligent (which your primary antagonist usually is, or should be). Obviously, the best way to start is to make him believe he's the good guy. Now, if we've done this believably, it probably means that we've given our evil person's ideals some kind of logical (if not ethical) merit.

Click to expand...

I think this is the key to avoiding pointless evil for evil's sake. There are two ways to do this - one is to give the antagonist beliefs and values that you definitely disagree with, but which are convincing to him/her (and you can think about things in their culture/upbringing/etc that might make this so). So maybe the antagonist oppresses beings of a different species - a human that oppresses elves or etc. To make this believable, listen to what racists say to defend their views, see what kinds of underlying beliefs and arguments there are, and see whether these might apply to bad guy's actions.

The second is to give the antagonist views you do agree with (perhaps more extreme ones). So maybe, for example, while you can appreciate honour, but think that the value of life outweighs it, your antagonist can think of honour as the highest, most valuable thing. Life might be nothing more than a vessel for potential honour. So his actions will make sense given that ideology, and it may be possible for a reader to see where he's coming from - the reader disagrees with his priorities, but recognises that his basic values aren't as totally repugnant as, say, the speciesist antagonist.

And then you can combine them, too. Maybe antag is a utilitarian and wants to maximise happiness, but is racist and believes that humans are utterly worthless, nonsentient, and cannot experience pain or pleasure - so he maximises happiness for other species at a cost to humans. This is a mix of a belief you might agree with and a belief you think is mistaken.

A third option is to make the antag just indifferent to morality. If he's selfish, he'll aim to promote his own wellbeing and that of the people close to him. He doesn't think he's evil (so no mwahahaing or 'evil is delicious' speeches) - he's just doing what's best for him.

Does this mean that every conflict of good and evil is a conflict of 2 (or more) philosophies, each of which sees itself as "the good"?

Click to expand...

In reality, probably. In fiction, particularly fantasy/sci-fi, it may not need to be. If the antagonist is an actual god of evil, or evil incarnate, for example, it's probably justified, though perhaps uninteresting, to have them be purely evil and know it.

Does this mean that, in casting a hero and a villain as such, respectively, the Fantasy writer is ALWAYS making a political/philosophical statement?

Click to expand...

I don't see why this has to be the case. I can imagine stories in which the good guys and bad guys have differing moralities, and in which I agree with both to a degree (one of my absolute favourite kinds of story). Or one where, while we agree with the good guys, the bad guys win - not because of those moralities, but because of other elements of character personality/events/etc.

In other words, I don't think including moral difference always has to be a statement or endorsement - it can be an exploration. But I guess there's the danger that it will be interpreted as endorsement regardless.

Has anybody got examples of deliciously evil villains who aren't a complete joke? Has anybody struck upon interesting methods of writing villains?

Click to expand...

It's not a book, it's an anime, but Code Geass does some very interesting things with morality. A wonderful mixing up of typically evil goals with typically good personalities/methods and vice versa that works well to keep you questioning everyone's actions at a moral level. It allows you, if nothing else, to get inside the head of a person who is doing some incredibly horrible things, and to understand the motivation/justification for it from their viewpoint, even if you then decide you disagree and think the action was wrong.

Another example can be found in Jennifer Fallon's Second Sons Trilogy - this time, it's the indifferent to morality type. Extreme, but not totally unrealistic as a character, and boy does that character inspire hate. One of my most hated characters in anything I've read recently, and others I know who have read them agree.

katzenjammer said:

I thought of this question while looking into the thrashing Terry Goodkind's books have received. Some people think Goodkind is a sado-masochist freak whose books deal way too much with rape and sexual torture.

So the question is... how do you make a REAL bad guy without resorting to sado-masochism or cliche-style Evil Overlordism? In a genre where thousands of bad guys have done badguyish things and received their eventual comeuppances... how exactly is a Fantasy writer to make a new bad guy, BAD? Without getting stuck with a reputation like Goodkind's, and without being ridiculous? How do you avoid the evil "mwahaha's" over lines that aren't even remotely funny? How do you avoid the "I shall rule the world" rants?

In my own writing, the villain is by far the hardest person to write. I find it very difficult to imagine the way the evil brain works--without it collapsing in its own wrongness. This is especially difficult if the evil guy is supposed to be intelligent (which your primary antagonist usually is, or should be). Obviously, the best way to start is to make him believe he's the good guy. Now, if we've done this believably, it probably means that we've given our evil person's ideals some kind of logical (if not ethical) merit. Does this mean that every conflict of good and evil is a conflict of 2 (or more) philosophies, each of which sees itself as "the good"? Does this mean that, in casting a hero and a villain as such, respectively, the Fantasy writer is ALWAYS making a political/philosophical statement? Hmmm... if nothing else, at least Goodkind is kind enough to let us know where he stands He's certainly not trying to trick anybody.

I'm afraid I'm derailing myself here.

Has anybody got examples of deliciously evil villains who aren't a complete joke? Has anybody struck upon interesting methods of writing villains?

Click to expand...

My MC's are the villains...people who break cosmic rules (ie are evil) and are hunted for such infractions. Those who hunt them are the very righteous people who think anything they do to uphold the coherence of the universe is completely justified. That being the case...the righteous antagonists tend to fit perfectly into absolutely standard fascist nastiness which they direct at innocent people while the MCs get away with breaking all the rules and blowing up the righteous fascists by the boatload as necessary or in some cases just for fun.
I guess the interest is in the interactions among the rule-breakers. Some of whom have good reasons to enforce some rules from time to time. And that's where the actual conflict is...ie among the rather eccentric few who can break all the rules, but don't necessarily.

George R. R. Martin's has the Lannisters.

Click to expand...

you know, if I had lived there, I totally would have backed lord Tywin Lannister. Everyone else was just so stupid. Its not as if they're really evil. Their fairness and sense of honor is axiomatic.

The other Lannisters can kind of go hang, though.

Tywin was a great antagonist because he was brilliant and manipulative and ruthless. On the other hand, if you were a member of his family (other than his younger son) and went along with his plans, you didn't have too much else to worry about. Financially and politically, you'd be set. Heck, even though he despised Tyrion, he tried to give Tyrion dominion over the north.

I'll take an intelligent multifaceted adversary like that over the cartoonish Darken Rahl-type villain any day. In my own work, I always try to give antagonists at least one humanizing quality or genuine love/admiration for another person; not only is that more realistic, but it can make their negative traits look even worse in comparison.

Some people think Goodkind is a sado-masochist freak whose books deal way too much with rape and sexual torture.

Click to expand...

For me it wasn't what he dealt with, it was how he dealt with it.

This is especially difficult if the evil guy is supposed to be intelligent (which your primary antagonist usually is, or should be). Obviously, the best way to start is to make him believe he's the good guy. Now, if we've done this believably, it probably means that we've given our evil person's ideals some kind of logical (if not ethical) merit. Does this mean that every conflict of good and evil is a conflict of 2 (or more) philosophies, each of which sees itself as "the good"?

Click to expand...

Well yes. I mean Hitler thought he was the good guy, no? IRL not many people get up of a morning and think 'Oh, I know, I shall be evil today muhahahaha!' They really think they are either doing the right thing, or doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

Does this mean that, in casting a hero and a villain as such, respectively, the Fantasy writer is ALWAYS making a political/philosophical statement?

Click to expand...

Not really. They could just be making a statement say that obsession can be bad, stubborness of thought makes you an arse, or any number of things that aren't political / philisophical in more than a very vague way.

I mean, if you meet a guy and think 'What a wanker' are you making a philisophical statement?

I think the best bad guys are the ones where you could put yourself in their position and think 'actually I could see myself doing that too' For instance Tyrion Lannister ( btw I've only read the first book) was really believable as a 'bad' guy because I could sit and think 'Well I'd be bloody grumpy too, if that were me'

katzenjammer said:

So the question is... how do you make a REAL bad guy without resorting to sado-masochism or cliche-style Evil Overlordism?

Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was a cliche. Maybe I don't read enough. Is just having him a pure sadist a cliche? My character is a total sadist, very self-centered, and power hungry. Kills people on a whim or tortures them for fun. He knows he's evil and relishes it. He poisoned the king, his Uncle, framed the King's daughter, then married the Queen, just so he could sit on the throne. He's one of my favorite characters.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I didn't realize it was a cliche. Maybe I don't read enough. Is just having him a pure sadist a cliche? My character is a total sadist, very self-centered, and power hungry. Kills people on a whim or tortures them for fun. He knows he's evil and relishes it. He poisoned the king, his Uncle, framed the King's daughter, then married the Queen, just so he could sit on the throne. He's one of my favorite characters.

Click to expand...

I believe, I may have met a kindred spirit.

While I do have many villains that have understandable motivations, I also have one or two that are just plain evil. There's no reason for them to be evil, at least none that is revealed. They seem to have no motive beyond destroying anything and everything around them. They are inscrutable, beyond reason or logic. They are simpy in your face, chaotic, evil.

On the otherhand, it is cliche/stupid, when a villain is stupidly evil. For instance, Darth Vader. Why the hell did he think it reasonable to choke everyone in plain sight for any mistake? Surely those men earned their positions through some kind of merit? Surely they had some level of skill that made them important? It's rather hard to believe that anyone wanted to be an Admiral or Captain with that nut around. That is the kind of villain that defies the logic of the story. The Joker on the otherhand, is very understandable. He surrounds himself with people who are are mentally ill, and deals with those that don't really understand his motives. Therefore it makes sense that people continue to deal with him, until they realise just how crazy he is.

I hope I made somekind of sense there.

katzenjammer said:

Has anybody got examples of deliciously evil villains who aren't a complete joke? Has anybody struck upon interesting methods of writing villains?

Click to expand...

Instead of lifting some other writer's concept of evil, go after the real thing. Why not read "Understanding Terror Networks," by Marc Sageman? Or "Angler, The Cheney Vice Presidency" by Barton Gellman? Or try a biography of Stalin. Or the new examination of the Inquisition - "The Grand Inquisitor's Manual" - by Jonathan Kirsch.

Without reading the replies, for the most part, I just try to make my bad guys "human." Unless one is totally crazy or a sociopath, one has no reason to be the over-the-top villain that makes villains so goofy. I work under the assumption that most bad guys have their reasons, they feel they're in the right (even if they know that what they're doing is wrong--there's a difference), and then I get into their heads and work from there.

My favorite bad guys are of this type. In one story of mine, the bad guy treats the main character and everyone else as pieces in a game, and shows almost no empathy for anyone else. He sees nothing wrong with tormenting his twin brother (and by tormenting, I mean sending him nightmares in which their dead mother berates him for causing her death) or manipulating a former teacher of the MC's to try to kill her. He even kills her love interest and tries to suck out/darken her spirit, and does manage to kill another brother of his. He knows all this is wrong, and is amused by it all, but it's a type of revenge for him as he feels he was wronged. Payback. In the end I think he comes across as sympathetic because he had his reasons and he thoroughly believed in them as is shown in the story. He ends up "reformed," but is still ambiguous, as he still has the potential to commit horrible acts, and has a nasty temper. Plus his past is something he can't truly escape.

Another bad guy I write is still a bad guy, but so conflicted about everything--he's a cannibal, and is always threatening to kill and eat the MC, but the two have a weirdly love/hate relationship as she ends up helping him in strange ways and he ends up helping her. He tells himself he detests her but he does have a soft spot that even he can't face--he never quite gets around to killing her. Still, he causes all sorts of destruction and damage and isn't really a good guy. I find him enjoyable to write because he's so ambivalent. He wants to be evil and do bad, but sometimes he just can't.

In a different story I have a bad guy (there's no ULTIMATE bad guy in that story) who is horribly abusive to women, mocks his wiser elder brother and tries to steal his mate, wishes his tribe's leader would just die already so he can take over, and ends up getting most of his tribe (and himself) slaughtered on an ill-conceived raid he sets out on. He was just so loathesome through and through. In a rewrite I gave him the tiniest bit of a human side by making him actually have tender feelings toward his brother's mate--he threatens her, but just can't bring himself to treat her like dirt the way he does with most other females. And he's confused that he can't understand why; it irritates him. He ends up killed early on, but that one little change made him a more believable bad guy, IMO.

The first character I mentioned here was my favorite villain ever to write. The second one is really fun.

I don't know how much or how well this answered any questions but that's the experience I get from writing bad guys. I just don't set out to write an "ultimate evil" bad guy because it'll almost always end up cheesy. (And the ultimate evil bad guys I DO write, are usually just in the background, not taking up much interest while the more human bad guys do all the work. Such ultimate evil bad guys don't tend to stick around long or make very interesting characters.) Rather than try to show overt evil, I try to show characters committing evil acts. Evil hits a lot harder when it has a reason to exist, when it has a human face.

Hannibal is a 'fun' bad guy (taking dark fantasy into quasi-suspense for a step or two). He's erudite, extremely intellegent, and his weakness is Clarissa whom he can't kill, likely because she reminds him of his sister.

Dexter isn't evil to most folks because he only kills serial killers.

Evil often is a POV.

katzenjammer said:

I thought of this question while looking into the thrashing Terry Goodkind's books have received. Some people think Goodkind is a sado-masochist freak whose books deal way too much with rape and sexual torture.

So the question is... how do you make a REAL bad guy without resorting to sado-masochism or cliche-style Evil Overlordism? In a genre where thousands of bad guys have done badguyish things and received their eventual comeuppances... how exactly is a Fantasy writer to make a new bad guy, BAD? Without getting stuck with a reputation like Goodkind's, and without being ridiculous? How do you avoid the evil "mwahaha's" over lines that aren't even remotely funny? How do you avoid the "I shall rule the world" rants?
....
Has anybody got examples of deliciously evil villains who aren't a complete joke? Has anybody struck upon interesting methods of writing villains?

Click to expand...

If you research the history of the British Monarchy, you will see a parallel with Goodkind's evil villians and the royalty of the past. But to reach Goodkind's level, you need to research the papal history. The popes of the middle ages were much worse. My point is Goodkind's evil characters may be too REAL. In my humble opinion, A REAL evil character is one who believes their policies and practices are benefiting their dominion, all the while being kept blind by advisors. Something like our current political system.

An example, here is a plot from one of my unwritten stories.
Plague and pestilence rule the land. The working folk struggle to maintain an existence and frequently are forced to enlist in the royal army as payment for overdue taxes. The wars with the territories are exacting tremendous losses. Her majesty, Queen Kalai travels to a meeting with the territory leaders. "These wars must end! We must come to a resolve! The people need peace to tend to the crops. The healers are needed at home in the villages, not on the battlefields." A terrible rumble, then crash! The royal carriage comes to a halt upside down in valley. Queen Kalai, gown shredded and disheveled crawls from the wreckage to find her escort to the last man, buried under the rubble of the landslide. She removes the jacket from her driver to regain her modesty, and wraps her undergarments to a semblance of trousers. Finding a blade, still in it's scabbard, she arms herself from the roaming wildlife and heads through the woods. Fighting the tangled undergrowth for hours has exhausted our lovely queen, as she takes refuge in a knot of trees to pass the falling night. Crack. She places her hand on the hilt and slowly draws the blade. "Can you not wake the dead!" a male whisper again breaks the silence! "What, are you afraid of that fat evil Kalai's troops? We could dispatch a battalion of her club wielding army, just the six of us!"
A chorus of laughs followed Queen Kalai's gasp as she realized she was the topic. "Quiet!" a commanding voice rang out. The forest went silent! Even the birds seemed to attend to the last command. Queen Kalai froze but the partially drawn blade was too heavy. She slowly slid the blade back down into the scabbard when a glint of moonlight blinded her eyes. "What have we here?" broke the silence as the sharp tip of a blade rested on Kalai's breast. "Looks like we have entertainment for tonight!"
The blade against her chest suddenly vanished, along with the bearded thug as a gauntleted hand grabbed the thugs hair and jerked him back into the darkness. "Forgive the rudeness good miss," boomed out from a gleaming set of armor. "It has been a long journey and my men grow board. May we assist you in any way?"
Kalai takes the extend hand and raises herself to her feet. "Well yes, thank you, I am on my way to Trelane. Would it be too much trouble to point the way?"
"We ourselves travel to Trelane, to meet with the witch!" The bearded one blurts out.
"Yes, you may accompany us on your travel, if you so wish," the knight proclaims.
"Witch?" Kalai queries, "Of who do you speak?"
"Queen Kalai of course," the bearded one chuckles. "The bane of our lands, the evil slaughterer of women and children, the greedy tax whore, who else would we be talking about."
"Long live the witch!" comes flying from the dark.
"Yeh, as long a life as my torch!" the bearded one yells. A round of applause and laughter follow.

The point here is Kalai is the evil queen. She actually joins the band and must take up the fight against herself while pretending to be the daughter of a shipwright. She finds out that she is actually the villain, since her commands are being abused and her reports from her advisor's are being corrupted.

One of the most helpful reference books in my library, the one I always reach for when I'm struggling with a villain, is Mein Kampf. There are so many facets of evil twisted in beneath Hitler's words, just a sneaky, insinuous thread of seduction and manipulation that colors every single bit of prose in the book. Then when I write my villains, I'll take one single thread and build a character around it. Is the character mad? Seductive? Self-righteous? What are his/her goals? How does he/she hide his evil? Does he even try? What is it about the character that holds others in thrall?

But then again, I'm odd.

mscelina said:

What is it about the character that holds others in thrall?

Click to expand...

Some dopey brand of fascism? I haven't found it very useful to delve into
what makes fascists fascists. I just dress 'em up an send them off to be slaughtered for scenes that require heavy casualties to be inflicted.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

Ageless Stranger said:

On the otherhand, it is cliche/stupid, when a villain is stupidly evil. For instance, Darth Vader. Why the hell did he think it reasonable to choke everyone in plain sight for any mistake? Surely those men earned their positions through some kind of merit? Surely they had some level of skill that made them important?

Click to expand...

Machievellianism: He punishes failure severely to have the other ranks fear failure. And, while he is ruthless as a leader, he is more ruthless as an opponent. Darth Vader is a religious fanatic. He expects the same amount of discipline in those surrounding him. And, although he is a ranking "lord", he is separate from the military ranks, an emissary of the emperor who expects his master's word to be obeyed unequivocally. He is, on many levels, a very complex character. Do you know what the difference between an extremely devout religious crusader and a nutjob is? Answer: the Point of View.

katzenjammer said:

Has anybody got examples of deliciously evil villains who aren't a complete joke? Has anybody struck upon interesting methods of writing villains?

Click to expand...

I don't write villains. I just write two groups of people with conflicting goals and let it go from there.

katzenjammer said:

So the question is... how do you make a REAL bad guy without resorting to sado-masochism or cliche-style Evil Overlordism?

Click to expand...

Lately, I've been making my villains very emotionally understated. I've got a scene in one of my WIPs where a bad guy is about to torture one of the protagonists for information.* She protests that it's all wrong and he can't do this; his response boils down to, "Of course I can. I filled out the paperwork."

Of course, he's not the Big Bad of the setting; Big Bads don't have to do paperwork. I still find him an effective villain, if only because a lot of real life evil seems to work like that. Get up, get coffee, go to work, kill people, wonder who keeps stealing your tuna salad out of the break room fridge—it's just part of the routine.

Izunya


*Yes, I know that ordinary torture isn't particularly good at information-getting; it's a little more complicated than that. The device in question is essentially a mind probe with a nasty set of permanent side effects.

No has said anything about kicking puppies?

That's evil.

For what it's worth, Goodkind's sin wasn't making a sadomasochistic villain. It was making a completely one-dimensional villain. From that perspective, nothing the villain does is especially meaningful, since they're just a string of isolated events. One of the first things I learned about writing is that Plot is "a series of events in sequence for a reason." It's the highlighted part that was missing from Goodkind's villains. Just make sure you don't do the same thing and you'll be fine.

Let what they do deviate from what the reader would do - so badly that it shocks them.

This deviance needn't be particularly cruel. It may be cunning, ruthless, amoral, destructive, disruptive.

Give your villains strong but bizarre reasons for doing what they do. They needn't take pleasure from their acts. If the acts aren't cruel but just shocking, or if there's no pleasure from the cruelty then it's not sadism.