With last week’s basic overview of villain motivations, this next part of October will deal with the types of antagonists, going into how they vary.

In many ways, a villain should complement a character to a similar extent as their best friend, love interest, or foil (if they do not already fulfill this last purpose). This does not require a large amount of history between them, or even a significant rivalry; however, there should still be meaningful parallels between them.

Common ways are having starkly different personalities, as opposites; or having them so similar in mindset that they almost feel like different versions of the same character. A good example of the first is Jack Sparrow and Barbossa, while an instance of the second is Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty.

Family dynamics achieve this, too. Whether it’s Thor and Loki (Marvel or mythology), Zuko and Azula from ATLA, or Hamlet and Claudius, characters related by blood are oft looking to spill it. In many ways, it can show the factors in play that bring people some similar backgrounds into different paths.

With all of this, here are some pointer topics (and subsequent questions) to help flesh out the type of villain intended:

  1. Atmosphere: is this antagonist meant to be more comedic, or serious? What effect does this have on how threatening they are, and how they act? What is the writer trying to evoke through these characters, and how are they meant to be viewed? Are they intended to be compelling, sympathetic, irredeemable, and/or mysterious?
  2. Rationale: is this antagonist motivated by ideology (with a code, philosophy, allegiance to a group, etc.), or are they more of an opportunist/mercenary? If the former, how dedicated are they, how does it effect their behavior, and could they be dissuaded from it? If the latter, how far are they willing to go to achieve their selfish goals, and could they be persuaded into a higher purpose?
  3. Method: is this antagonist more methodical and planning, or adaptive and improvisational? Do they rely more on external or internal processes? Do they approach problems in a concrete or abstract manner? Are they more utilitarian, or do they they also seek meaning through their work? Are they better with people or things?
  4. Attitude to the Hero: does this antagonist view the protagonist more as an obstacle to remove, or an asset to try and bring over? Vice-versa can be asked of the hero towards the villain. Additionally, how significant is the hero to this villain personally (and vice-versa)?
  5. Role in the Story: is this antagonist meant to be more long-term and even recurring, or are they more of a situational villain (ex “bad guy of the week”)? Are they a major threat in the story (ex the main villain), or a secondary threat (a good way to determine this is if any type of ‘final battle’ will occur with them)?

As one would expect, there is some bleed-through on these question answers, and they are not always strictly binary. The answers at one given point in the story may be different than another, because of character change.

And this leads into my final point of the night: villains are people too. All advice on character development applies to them. Especially if they are more long term and major threats, they should have their own story arc as the hero would, as they have the page/screen-time.

Note: all works and characters are the property of their respective owners. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, commentary, and or parody. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.