Ah no it's completely understandable and I agree with you 100%! I grew up with a religious family as well I guess... So whenever I talk about my story with them it's incredibly awkward.

I just hate how many people (including my family) mistake me for being like I don't know, Satanic xD when it's not the case, religion is religion and I really love the stories each one has, but that's about it, lol.

I some times go to the bible for research, some times other articles, books, etc, I did a lot of research for it just so I can give a really good twist to to the stories in my own way, and I also involved different religions in it in different ways, just so it's not focused on one group...

And I only saw a few episodes of Sleepy Hollow, I was really uninterested by it with the horseman, I just didn't think a character like him would fit in a story like that... But that's my opinion.

Holy crap so many in-depth answers and they all have good points. XD

What actually made me want to make this topic was me brainstorming comic ideas (nothing that will be started for ages or possibly not at all, but I like to do it when I'm not in the most "Daniel-y" of moods) and one idea I had kind of involved the idea of a possible "big bad". Seriously though don't ask me about my ideas, they're in shambles right now. XD But yes, I've been kind of wondering if complete monster baddies have the same impact they used to.

Daniel has become a pretty damn twisted character obviously, but that's...sort of of different to me since it's not meant to be your typical good vs evil type thing and is almost a possession story in some ways and -
....and uh, yeah...THAT. XD

I'm in the crowd that thinks the Complete Monster type evil can be entertaining in the "love to hate them" sort of way, or at the very least an intimidating obstacle for the protagonists....when written with care, even better when there's a smidge of grey mixed into that pure evil. Otherwise it's only amusing in the Disney villain sense, or just completely annoying (my problem with Diablo 3, all the intimidation was sucked out of the demon bosses with typical uber villain speeches XO).

However, even when a crazy bad villain is done with a bit more subtlety, they do seem to be something the masses have a harder time buying into anymore, and the more complex villain is still the one I tend to enjoy reading about/watching the most as well. Just more to enjoy there, more to think about. XP

I'm honestly really happy you brought up this topic, because recently I was having problems with my antagonist/villain/whateverfloatsyoboat and this actually helped me quite a lot with the character and sharpening them.

I think we've seen so many well-drawn, believable villians that a crazy bad villian just seems a bit more like ... I don't know ... playing? Which is not to say it's a bad thing, but it's .... easier to read. For me, it's all down to what kind of story you want to tell, and what experience you want your readers to have. An over-the-top villian is, I think, inherently less scary (and, therefore, less of a hook), simply because it seems inevitable that they will be defeated.

For example, I remember reading one book that I found very hard going. It was difficult because people were doing terrible things, but they were all acting in a way that seemed believable, you could imagine that things like this would happen in real life. And as a result, I didn't know how it was going to end - so I had to keep reading, because I had to know how it was going to work out (good or bad - I find that leaving a difficult book unfinished is more likely to etch it into my memory than actually fighting my way through to the end). Then, suddenly, a character was introduced who stepped over the mark - his 'evilness' seemed somehow over-the-top in comparison to the setting* and the other players. And I stopped reading the book. Because I knew how it was going to end. This character was too overtly evil-for-the-sake-of-evil (within the overall tone of the story) to not be defeated by the final page, while the other aspects of the book made it too difficult to read as just a fun ride.

For me, the safety of knowing that the crazy big bad is going to be beaten lends itself more to a story I'll read for entertainment, rather than to challenge myself a bit. There's nothing wrong with those kinds of stories - they include some of my favourite movies, for instance - but if you want to really terrify me, give me a villian that's just real enough (within the setting) to convince me that s/he might win, or that - given the right circumstances - I might even find myself behaving like that. The villians that make me confront those facts are the ones that really stick with me (though sometimes I wish they didn't ).

* Obviously matching actions to the setting is a pretty big part of believability. If your setting is a concentration camp, 'believable evil' can be a lot more evil than if your setting is a high school.

Personally, I don't like clear cut villains. Who are our clear cut villains in real life? Even the people who committed the most atrocities and stuff did so in the name of and for the supposed benefit of their people/country. Excepting the insane, most everyone we would call a "villain" is doing something for some reason that to them seems worth it.

So I like to instead thing of protagonists and antagonists. They have different goals and oppose each other, but that doesn't mean one is "right" and the other is "wrong." I'm trying really hard to show my readers that the guy making the deathbots isn't a "bad guy". Even the "big bads" will be shown WHY they are doing what they do, and why they think it is the right thing.

That's the sort of "villain" that is the most interesting to me. One where I can understand why they're doing what they're doing.

A couple people have said this already, and I agree: The form the antagonist takes depends on the needs of the story. It all comes down to what you want to say.

For example, the Big Bad Wolf doesn’t need a backstory to humanize him because Little Red Riding Hood is a story about stranger danger. Knowing more about him makes him less of a stranger. That, and predatory behavior — both literal and figurative — is seen as a motive in and of itself, and most people won’t need justification for it.

‘Card-carrying villains’ are entertaining in comedy or camp work, and complete monster-types can work very well as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, where their awfulness is their hidden depths.

If your theme has elements of ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’, or your villain is an active foil for the hero, you’re going to want those details that make your antagonist human, either to parallel the protagonist, or to make them relatable to the audience.

Tragic villains have a place too. I’m not sure how much of an antagonist she is since she’s rather morally gray, but Carrie comes to mind as a character that had to cope with constant abuse before she finally snaps, and I think she’s a character that a lot of people genuinely feel for. It helps, too, that Carrie is cautionary tale about the cost of abuse.

In terms of villains I like, as someone who has an affinity for regret and redemption themes in general, I am occasionally a sucker for the tragic villain. >_>; Provided, though, that they actually develop. They either grow and overcome their pain, or it totally and completely consumes them. Characters that waffle forever on whether or not they’re getting better or worse lose me. I don’t care if it’s positive or negative, but there must be progress.

I can really like any type of villain as long as they’re doing their job story-wise, but I find stuff that exclusively follows the villains like Dangerous Liaisons and Sweeney Todd really hard to watch, even though both of those clearly frame their characters’ actions as abominable. I stopped watching Dexter because I found it too exhausting to try and parse whether I could like him as a protagonist. I really need a protagonist that I can latch onto and to root for, and I like villains mostly as an extension of that character’s development.

I was going to talk more about this and about Daniel but Ti already hit my thoughts smack on the head. XD

yaaassssSSSSSSS

I know myself I love villains, nothing beats a well thought out villain. I personally find the ones that believe they are the hero or that what ever they are doing is the right thing are the most interesting.

At that point you have a character who fully believes in their cause and that tends to make them the most dangerous for the actual hero of the story.

Villains who are characters first always tend to be more interesting than the ones that are evil just for evil's sake, but sometimes that can be fun if done right, ie: original Maleficent who cursed a baby because she wasn't invited to an infant's birthday party.

Well, you can't apply the same criteria to fairytales, to my knowledge, as fairytales are not about characters at all. And they were not written by people, either. You can't apply the criteria of what makes a perfect garden to an ancient forest.

I have a lot of fav villains, like A LOT.

One thing I always worry about is making the antagonist more interesting (and sometimes more liked) then the protagonist. Which I guess isn't bad but I feel like if my readers want to spend more time with someone other then the main character, then I've probably failed somewhere with my protagonist XD

Okay I'm gonna try and make sense because I suck at explaining my thought patterns. But one thing I think people should remember is perspective is INSANELY important for just how 'liked/unliked' and 'sympathetic/not very sympathetic' your character is going to be. And I'm not talking about stapling a tragic backstory on them or kicking puppies, I mean what you choose to show the reader when it comes to your characters actions.

One big way to do this is controlling levels of humanity you place on them. Like not in a literal sense, but more in a repeatable and emotional sense.

For those who are reading Gunnerkrigg Court, I think Anthony Carver is a great example of this.

SPOILERS FOR THE LATEST CHAPTERS BELOW.

Anthony Carver is the protagonists mysterious father who dropped her off at the Court Boarding School when she was 11, right after her mother had passed. We hear about him from various different people, all with their own opinions on his character. Three years pass in story and he suddenly shows up again as said protagonists teacher, only for him to emotionally abuse her in front of the class and then inform her shes going to be repeating a year for cheating. He's stoic, cold and barely shows any kind of expression.

As u can imagine, readers. were. PISSED.

But then about two chapters later we're given his point of view, and what the hell he's been doing for 3 years after abandoning his daughter. It doesn't excuse his actions, but that flashback def made his character a lot more interesting, even if he's still a shitty dad. But we see him getting drunk, admitting he fucked up, and even crying. He goes from cold inhuman enigma to broken mentally unhealthy man who probably shouldn't have custody of a 14 year old. Because of what the writer chooses to show the readers. If we hadn't been shown that side of his character people would probably still be waving their pitchforks and wanting him killed off as soon as possible.

Compare this to say, One from Namesake.

GENERAL SPOILERS BELOW

I fucking hate One, and I'm just gonna straight up guess this is what the writer wants. He's stoic, only shows smugness, contempt and anger when he is being emotional. Worst of all he never seems to get caught off guard, he's untouchable. Something that can get old real damn fast (cough AIZEN cough) so even when it looks like the protagonists one upped him, nope it was all a con by him. If you want your readers to just straight up hate a villain making them show little to no humanity and a superiority complex is a great way to do it.

On the other hand this can also backfire because I feel like One is actually the weakest character in Namesake, and I'm kinda waiting for some kind of 'man behind the curtain' reveal (HAH) that someone in story was writing him as a Mary sue villain all along.

Like I think before ANYTHING, charisma/intelligents/badassness or whatever, if you want your villain to be interesting and not just straight up hated by the reader 100% then have them REACT TO THINGS LIKE A PERSON. Not just the cool emotions either (I'm looking at u stoic 'exactly as planned' anime villains for fuck sake) like actual human emotions. Even if those emotions are garbage and evil.

...I think we were all traumatized by FMA Tucker...

Yeah, the Namesake antagonist arcs are what inspired my big long essay about webcomic pacing in the first place. Being stuck with untouchable badass evil dudes who outclass the heroes in every way and don't ever give them even minor victories (and taking away their memories, which actually regresses character development) is exhausting in any medium, but it's particularly painful in webcomic form. That might be why my Sombulus antagonists have been pretty much non-entities in the story; I just can't bring myself to write the kind of manipulative characters the story calls for and subject my readers to what could be months of the protagonists gettin' a beat down when they finally take action. I need to get tighter as a writer before I even try it.

Anthony Carver is definitely acting as an antagonist, but he's not a villain. There was some regression in Antimony's character development when he showed up (though we're seeing some indications that she's not as whipped as she appeared), which was frustrating, but Gunnerkrigg keeps its pacing quick and its arcs tight, and that was ESSENTIAL to keeping Anthony redeemable, multi-faceted, and human.

I'd say he's more of a Semi-antagonist at present but I never really said villain. XD

but yeaaah pacing is def a big factor. I hate, hate hate hate memory loss stuff for that reason. Back pedaling a characters development is so frustrating. It's what made me stop reading Trying Human.

Yeah, I just keep going back to the title of the thread, and I feel like "villains" are a subset of antagonists who are irredeemable. If we can see enough facets of an antagonist where we can justify their actions or sympathize, they can still be antagonists. But they are not, by definition, villains.

Man, now I wanna rewatch Megamind.

What's the difference between a villain and a 'super' villain?

PRESENTATION!

Ursula LeGuin once wrote that good people, like good cooking, good music, and good art, are intrinsically more complex and interesting than bad people, bad cooking, et cetera. While I don't quite have LeGuin's allergy to the literary villain, I do feel strongly that if your villain is more interesting than your protagonist, you have failed your story, your readers, and very possibly yourself.

I see this a lot, though. There seem to be two main reasons. First, there's this weird assumption that being good is a default state that you don't have to provide any explanation for and that never causes any conflict. These writers either have a great deal more faith in the human race than I do or they aren't thinking very hard. Or they've made the common mistake of conflating good with nice. Nice (and I say this as a well-practiced "nice girl") is a social strategy whose primary objective is to make sure you're never in situations of conflict; once you get the basic conversational reflexes down it's pretty low-effort. Good is a moral stance, and it is infinitely more difficult, as well as having only a vague incidental relationship with the social stance of "nice". Nice people are not always good; good people are not always nice. A nice protagonist is somewhat difficult to pull off because of that conflict-avoiding reflex, but someone good will always run into situations that challenge their sense of morality.

Which is the second thing that often seems to be behind the disastrous "sweet-and-spicy villain, oatmeal hero" stories. The villains are under constant challenge. They are given a backstory to explain their bad behavior; they're given choices to make, trials to undergo, difficulties to overcome; whether they'll make the right decision or the wrong one is in suspense, and the reader knows they'll face consequences either way. The hero... gets nothing. Their backstory is largely perfunctory or focused on something besides their moral stance. The choices they're given are pretty simple -- even if they're put in a "temptation" situation, it's such that only a complete idiot would make the "bad" choice. Their trials are likewise predictable and the outcome never really in doubt. They're always rewarded for making the "good" choice and never face consequences.

It therefore shouldn't surprise anyone than they're utterly boring.

Sometimes this happens because the writer is just more interested in the villain; sometimes it's because they love their heroes too much and coddle them, keeping them out of the way of making mistakes or legitimately scary decisions; sometimes it's just, as I said, that failed assumption that good means nice and nice is the default state of everyone in the world. Well, no.

I'm pretty sure I have more to say on this, but I'm late for work already, so....

Hear, hear. I notice this too. And it seems that too often, the only way the writer knows how to not make a hero bland, is to make them an anti-hero. You don't really see much in-between, in other words, you don't really see a lot of heroes who are written as real people. But I don't think it's only about how the writer makes their characters; I feel the dark side is all too attractive to a lot of people (scary as hell how many young people are flocking to the IS in the real world) and that's going to happen no matter what. Or maybe it's a certain glamour villains are portrayed to have? A bad guy who's a total loser and may not pull such a following, but then again, they may not appear very threatening either.