Just because another character's an obstacle, does that make them an villain?

Not at all. You can definitely have good people with good motivations but with conflicting goals. A common scenario is two otherwise agreeable characters, one of whom has decided that an "at any cost" strategy is the only thing that will lead to victory while the other has a more idealistic "not like that" view. They can both be written as virtuous characters, or different degrees depending what the author wants out of them.

It can also be done as a good character who makes a mistake but is otherwise good and they can even find redemption. A good example of this is Boromir in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Of course not! Good friends always disagree with each other over things. If they have goals that conflict then there will obviously be tension. If you can show the closeness of their relationship and possibly put in a little humour to the situation it is probable that the readers will warm up to the character. You could put them in a situation where they have to sacrifice their own goal to help or save the MC.

You can also have anti-heroes and rebellious team members. The proverbial 'light and dark' of a character isn't a tickbox; it's a scale that can change over time as well.

For example, I am agnostic/athiest and my best friend is a pretty devout Christian. When we end up talking about things like the afterlife, our opinions massively differ but neither of us are trying to undermine the other or anything - we just don't agree. If someone was causing a trouble for her based on her views, the ones I disagree with, I'd defend her in a heartbeat. Maybe you can find a way to show that side of your character to your readers?

starrystorm said:

I don't want one of my side characters coming off as a villain, I want people to root for him just as much as they root for my main character. But he doesn't agree with my MC, and I afraid it's making him look like a villain. He's just a strong believer in something that the MC is against.

Click to expand...

Sounds fine to me. Interesting, in fact. This is the stuff good fiction is made of. Any character can become an antagonist for another character. It can be temporary or it can span the entire novel. That doesn't make them villains. Antagonist just means one who opposes. If a novel has a main antagonist, a character who causes trouble and harm throughout, that's what most people think of as the villain, but not every novel has or needs a villain. Every novel should, however, have antagonists.

What Maryn said. Also, most novels have multiple antagonists. It's not even completely unusual for the protagonist to be also be one of their own antagonists (more common in certain genres). Whether the antagonism comes off as villainous is all in how you write it. (Villains typically have to be ruthless and committed to their ideas, which is the tipping point between villain and hero. The ideas might even be good ones, but once you have a character who will do anything to achieve their ideals and can't be dissuaded from that course of action you have a villain, not a hero.) So, a character that disagrees with your protagonist but is willing to listen/changes part of their position/effects the protagonist's perception is likely not a villain, but simply an antagonist.

MCs usually change during the course of the story, so they could start out opposed and eventually come to see each other's point of view.

Perhaps to ensure the friend is not seen as a bad guy, show that he has understandable reasons. And perhaps also show him doing other good things so that he is not just this one thing. His morals might be making him act against his friend, but maybe you can also show that they can also make him act selflessly in another instance (could be quite unrelated). Or show a softer side of him. Perhaps it would help to show him being torn by conflicting issues - to stand by his friend or stand against his friend's revenge (I assume). Give him so much reason to be in opposition that he feels he has no choice - take away the possibility of middle ground.

I may take some heat for this, but I don't believe in villains in the purest sense.

At the bottom of the scale are those people who are just broken; Jeffry Dahmer types. They're broken, psychotic, deranged, and are incapable of empathy or resisting their urges. They know they will be punished for what they do, and hide it, but I don't think they realize they are hurting others; or if they do, it's a very limited scope. These people are thankfully rare.

The greater number - the rest of us actually - believe that what we do is good. Even Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, believed they were doing a good thing. They thought they were bringing justice to the masses, and of course killed millions in doing so. So, I believe that the greatest evil is done with the best of intentions.

So, I'll agree with Lone Wolf:
Perhaps to ensure the friend is not seen as a bad guy, show that he has understandable reasons.

Good and bad are malleable concepts based on POV. Perhaps show this character as trying to do something that's good, but the consequences turn out badly for your MC.

Only if you are Donald Trump.

caw

Just to add; I am definitely interested in seeing where this WIP of yours goes!

Don't worry about the label too much - hero and villain are tickbox things, antagonist and protagonist is like a sliding scale. Personally, I love mixing up the black and white assumptions and I adore reading it!

People can be asses without being villainous. People can be villainous without being asses.

In the real world, people's motives are weird and multi-faceted and sometimes utterly inscrutable. Oftentimes, motives are neither good nor bad, they're simply at cross-purposes. Say you and someone else are trying to go through the same door at the same time. Neither or you is a villain, but you can't both go through that door at the same moment, so you have conflict. Take that principle and blow it up to bigger proportions.

A quick example: Severus Snape wasn't a villain, but he was frequently an antagonist for Harry because he was kind of a jerk. Likewise, the young Tom Riddle is described as being polite and well-liked, but was completely rotten at his core.

A character is not a villain just for being an obstacle. A villain is someone who does horrible things to someone. The obstacle to the protagonist is the antagonist. Not all antagonists are villains. I have yet to write a story where the villain is the protagonist, but such stories exist. I hope I got what you meant, OP.

That sounds like a more interesting story because of it!

Personally I do this a lot - I usually try to write my protagonists on the edge of where you might think they are antagonists. In my current book there are two equal weight protagonists who are diametrically opposed on the fundamental issue of the book. They still get along quite well actually, because they're trying to accomplish the same thing at all points, it's just their backgrounds are completely different so they're coming at it from different sides.

It's more important what motivates them - that, IMO, determines whether they're a good guy or a bad guy in the end.

you need an antagonist. That doesnt have to be a villain, or even a person, and sometimes can be the protagonist, too.

I don't think I have ever read a villainously evil villain. I'm not sure they exist in most modern books.

starrystorm said:

I don't want one of my side characters coming off as a villain, I want people to root for him just as much as they root for my main character. But he doesn't agree with my MC, and I afraid it's making him look like a villain. He's just a strong believer in something that the MC is against. Does an obstacle have to be considered bad?

Click to expand...

What everyone has said is right, but with one caveat.

Obviously you need to make sure that the disagreement between your MC and SC is not an argument of morality or legality, or else your readers may still not root for him if his belief is different to theirs.

Let me try and make this clearer:

Let's say your Main Character is a believer in law and order, but your Side Character thinks if someone attacks you, you should be able to retaliate in kind. Obviously you are going to have a group who won't be rooting for him if they believe this is wrong.

Now they can both believe in the same thing, but come at it from different paths, that should be fine.

starrystorm said:

Yikes. I haven't thought about it like that RoyalFool. Thanks. I show it from the friend's POV too, so the readers have a large chunk dedicated to both sides. None of them are unlawful because I try to support both sides as best as I can. I guess the best way is to check. I'll have to read through and make sure no wrong conclusions are being made.

Click to expand...

Yes, the POV is super important, because it can make the reader root for the person they're not expecting to.

I cannot remember the name, but a few years ago a novel came out that, for about half of it, you were following a Native American tribe. You grew to love all the characters, etc., and you felt emotionally connected to them. So, when the westerners invade the land in the second half, you actually root for the Native American folk.