What makes a good antagonist?

[Noivian]

We've all probably experienced a good role play at least once in our role playing career, regardless how brief said role play lasted. One of the things about a good role play that I remember is the challenge the main characters went through, supposedly caused by the main antagonist. So that means that one of the pivotal points of a good role play is a good antagonist, right? There's a lot of different types of antagonists; characters, concepts, natural disasters... practically anything could be an antagonist, depending on the situation.


Let's take a moment and talk about antagonists. What makes them a good antagonist? What makes them a bad antagonist? When making a plot, do you notice there's any one specific type of antagonist that you tend to use? Is one specific type of antagonist better than other types? You can also talk about and get help with antagonists you're currently developing here, if you want. Remember to only offer constructive criticism or contribute to the conversation! Let's not start talking smack in here.

 

[Saccharine Cyanide]

I think the what makes a good antagonist is the same as what makes a good protagonist: a clearly defined set of goals and a rounded and fully developed personality.  The only thing that sets an antagonist apart is that their goals have to directly oppose the goals of the protagonist(s).


In roleplaying, it gets kind of complicated because every character is simultaneously a protagonist and an antagonist, because every character is a POV character (the exception being NPCs). I guess if the roleplay has a certain goal, the person trying to keep the other players from reaching it could be the antagonist.


If we're talking "villains," I think a good villain is one who has a clear set of motivations. A bad villain's motivations are usually reduced down to "they did it because they're bad." A person's character is not the same as their motivations, and people tend to forget that.

 

[Cashdash25]

Hateability, Challenge and Reward.


Players need a reason to hate, or want to oppose, the antagonist(s), depending on the nature of your campaign this could be for a wide variety of reasons, it could be that the BBEG is threatening the party's homeland, he could have killed their parent or brother at some point in the past, or it could be that the bad guy is a Nazi or equivalent cartoonishly evil stereotype.


The antagonist also needs a way to challenge the party, a threat or obstacle between him and the party. An army of minions, a well fortified castle, magical powers, etc. Something that the players need to overcome in order to defeat him.


And finally there needs to be a reward, a payoff for all the hard work the party has put into bringing him down, hoards of treasure, nationalistic pride for defeating a threat to their country, avenging the death of a family member, magic maguffins, etc. Something that the party can point at and say "that's what made the whole quest worth it",


Obviously this is a horrendous oversimplification of the subject but it sums up the major points nicely.

 

[Tedronai]

As said above, a great antagonist has clearly defined goals but they must directly relate to the protagonist's goals and therefore set them on a collision course.


Say for instance your antagonist's goal isn't to destroy/enslave the world, thereby putting him at odds with the entire world. Then they need to be orchestrated with a protagonist. They don't need to be their dark mirror as marvel seems determined to do in every film. Just opposed to their goals.


A villain like Cruella Devil was only looking to make a dog fur coat, now on its own that's only as evil as your personal opinion on the fur trade or indeed animal rights. She was memorable because the protagonists were the dogs she wanted to turn into a coat and their owners.


If the protagonist had instead been the young stereotype farmer with a destiny to save the world she wouldn't have been a great or even good villain for him.

 

[Birdsie]

I have much experience in role-playing villains in roleplays, so I will shed the light of some basic rules into you.

1. Power. An antagonist should nearly never be the same type of fighter as the protagonist. Is the protagonist a Knight with an oversized sword? Give the antagonist a bow and some poison arrows. Is the protagonist a lone vigilante that uses guns? Give the antagonist telekinesis. This is to differentiate the two. In terms of effectiveness, it depends. You can give the antagonist an equal amount of power as the protagonist to make the antagonist seem more "alive," or you can make him stronger to make him a greater threat.
   
2. Give him a personality. An antagonist isn't always a merciless killing machine. Maybe our Dark Lord here is the father of Emily, a little nine year old girl that attends school not knowing that daddy has an evil lair. Or maybe show a scene of him getting stuck in traffic and being powerless to do anything about it? Also, give the antagonist a list of select goals. It doesn't have to be world domination. Maybe he just wants to go to his home and this somehow argues with the protagonist's goals? Maybe by leaving he makes 5000 people die in agony, but the desire to be with his family is stronger, forcing him to fight the protagonist? Also, never do the "evil corporation" thing. The antagonist may have minions, but a lifeless, money-thirsted company is never a good antagonist.
   
3. Make him vital. An antagonist shouldn't sit around in his castle all day, writing on his his whiteboard about how much he loathes the hero, or playing chess with himself in a symbolic way. He's on the move. He's growing in power, making deals, setting traps or creating allies for himself. Or maybe he's playing with his children. Point is, the antagonist should make the protagonist feel uncomfortable. The protagonist should always have that "the sonuvabitch is plotting against me as we speak," feeling , all over them. An antagonist should often try to fight the protagonist in one way or another.
   
4. Not all antagonists are evil. Maybe it's just Jimmy the Barber who really wants to beat the protagonist in a TV show?
   
5. Make them relatable. You need an antagonist that everyone both hates AND sympathizes with. You can achieve it in a multitude of ways. Kill someone everyone likes already. Do something that causes hardship for the other characters, or simply steal something really important for a character. But most importantly: have a motive. Never do the "evil for the sake of being evil" antagonist. He just killed someone? Maybe he was just the secondary antagonist, and the real one paid him to do so. Caused hardship for others? Maybe he didn't know that making philosopher stones causes random people over the world to suffer torment for the rest of their lives? Stole the protagonist's golden locket they got from their mother?  Well, maybe the antagonist's mother is going to die unless the antagonist pays the hospital bill and he needs the locket to get money? It would also be a moral conundrum for the protagonist. Innocent life, or sentimental item ownership? Such a debate.
   
6. Make them comparable. Make them comparable to the protagonist, yet also different. It adds a lot of value and allows characters to relate even more. Maybe they both like puppies? Maybe both of their families were murdered respectively, yet the antagonist chose a darker path of revenge? Maybe they have the same uncurable disease and will share each other's fate in a month or so? Just give the antagonist two or three elements that will make the audience go "oh, look! That person is also a human being with feelings and emotions!"
   
7. Sometimes it's better that way. Sometimes, though. The things I said above just don't apply. Maybe because the plot requires them to be that way. Maybe the antagonist is a zombie Lord who was also the protagonist's brother? Maybe they don't have feelings because of something? Maybe they're a malevolent demon? Too inhuman to sympathize with.
   

 

[Grey]

It so happens I wrote on this topic...

 

[Tedronai]

I have much experience in role-playing villains in roleplays, so I will shed the light of some basic rules into you.

I agree with almost everything you say, but don't believe making a antagonist sympathetic is essential, or sometimes even wise. Yes, you want them relatable and to have understandable motivation for their actions (as opposed to being mad, cackling lunatics) but if you can entirely sympathise with them it can turn them into tragic ot even anti heroes and thereby undercut the heroes triumph. However sympathetic they might be at one point in their lives by the end they need to be unsympathetic or you'll have some readers siding with them.

 

[Cashdash25]

Hey, a mad cackling lunatic can be a great antagonist for the right plotline. There's a reason the Joker is as popular a villain as he is.


An antagonist doesn't need to be relatable, sympathetic or any other personality traits really, all of that depends on the type of villain you want to write and the type of story you want to tell. It isn't necessary in order to make them a good foe for the protagonists, it's the fluff that adds nuance to the story, not the core parts of it.

 

[Tedronai]

Hey, a mad cackling lunatic can be a great antagonist for the right plotline.

True but I do feel the joker is the exception that proves the rule. That said even he was sympathetic once (well, maybe). There's a reason the killing joke is considered a classic.

 

[welian]

Villains and antagonists with motivation and ambitions are crucial to the roleplay. I find it helps to also have a team or faction for players to join (they get enthusiastic about a chance to explore the story from anourher viewpoint), and a theme or aesthetic to to the antagonist.


As an example, in an old RP I ran, the antagonist was a demon empress who had the land of dragons. Her next target was Earth, because it had a wealth of natural resources like lumber and crops that her conquered land was lacking due to war damage. My players found it very amusing to imagine a demon queen in flannel running an illegal logging operation out of Alberta.

 

[InKryption]

I don know if this has been said already, but what I believe makes an good antagonist is someone that has a sort of history with the protagonist. Whether it be directly, or not.


Speaking of history, the antagonist doesn't always have to have malicious motivations. In fact, a good antagonist can be someone who is a victim of something, like trickery of a greater force, or the loss of a loved one, whom they want to bring back, through possibly destructive methods - and the list goes on. As I believe I saw someone say before, it depends on the POV.

 

[Cashdash25]

True but I do feel the joker is the exception that proves the rule. That said even he was sympathetic once (well, maybe). There's a reason the killing joke is considered a classic.

True.

 

[Melpomene]

Oh, this is something I am kind of passionate about. 


First thing is first, know that there is a difference between "Villain" and "Antagonist", an antagonist can be a villain, but they don't always have to be. People tend to forget this.


Remember, and antagonist's goals have to go directly against the protagonist's (Now in a group rp, the protagonist can be a bit hard to determine, but in a 1x1 it can be pretty easy to do). That being said, I will repeat what I said before THE ANTAGONIST DOES NOT NEED TO BE EVIL. I am very sorry for my repetition, but so many people just don't seem to get this. I personally think that some of the most interesting antagonists are the ones without evil intentions. But, that is simply my own personal preferences. If you wish to make the antagonist evil, do so, but they don't have to be.


Be sure to give the antagonist a personality. A distinctive personality.  Don't make their only traits "Evil", "Psychotic" and "Sadistic" (Just because it worked for the Joker, doesn't mean it will work for every character). Give them a real personality, give them traits that anyone could relate to. 


Here is another thing, give your antagonist goals. I think that the best antagonist had goals and made decisions that actually make sense from their perspective. Their reasoning isn't just "because I'm EVIL! Mwahahaha". No, their decisions and goals actually have sound reasoning behind them. 


Now, you don't have to make them completely sympathetic. They can still do things that are inhuman and unnatural. Look at Hitler, he has done unforgivable things, but I guarantee I can find a few good qualities about him, that doesn't make him a good person deserving of my sympathies. 


Make sure your antagonist isn't too powerful for the protagonists and not too weak either. This is one of the things that will make or break your rp. Too powerful, they can't be stopped. Too weak, they are stopped without any nail biting suspense! There is no fun in that! So be sure to balance the power out well.


Finally, make sure it actually makes sense for this antagonist to be the antagonist in this particular story. Count Olaf wouldn't be that big of a threat in Middle Earth. Y'know, since they have Sauron to deal with. 


Alright, that is all I can think of at the moment. I will add more if it comes to me!

 

[KRONOS]

Oh, this is something I am kind of passionate about. 


First thing is first, know that there is a difference between "Villain" and "Antagonist", an antagonist can be a villain, but they don't always have to be. People tend to forget this.


Remember, and antagonist's goals have to go directly against the protagonist's (Now in a group rp, the protagonist can be a bit hard to determine, but in a 1x1 it can be pretty easy to do). That being said, I will repeat what I said before THE ANTAGONIST DOES NOT NEED TO BE EVIL. I am very sorry for my repetition, but so many people just don't seem to get this. I personally think that some of the most interesting antagonists are the ones without evil intentions. But, that is simply my own personal preferences. If you wish to make the antagonist evil, do so, but they don't have to be.


Be sure to give the antagonist a personality. A distinctive personality.  Don't make their only traits "Evil", "Psychotic" and "Sadistic" (Just because it worked for the Joker, doesn't mean it will work for every character). Give them a real personality, give them traits that anyone could relate to. 


Here is another thing, give your antagonist goals. I think that the best antagonist had goals and made decisions that actually make sense from their perspective. Their reasoning isn't just "because I'm EVIL! Mwahahaha". No, their decisions and goals actually have sound reasoning behind them. 


Now, you don't have to make them completely sympathetic. They can still do things that are inhuman and unnatural. Look at Hitler, he has done unforgivable things, but I guarantee I can find a few good qualities about him, that doesn't make him a good person deserving of my sympathies. 


Make sure your antagonist isn't too powerful for the protagonists and not too weak either. This is one of the things that will make or break your rp. Too powerful, they can't be stopped. Too weak, they are stopped without any nail biting suspense! There is no fun in that! So be sure to balance the power out well.


Finally, make sure it actually makes sense for this antagonist to be the antagonist in this particular story. Count Olaf wouldn't be that big of a threat in Middle Earth. Y'know, since they have Sauron to deal with. 


Alright, that is all I can think of at the moment. I will add more if it comes to me!

Basically what I had In mind, but In a longer detailed version. But In short yes, a good villain In my opinion Is one In which you can't help but have these conflicting feelings for In a obscure way that you feel almost torn amongst two sides that oppose eachother like day and night; sweet and bitter. Someone, whose what others would consider evil yet aren't really as evil as one might think; someone whose maddness has reason or a certain purpose; someone whose complicated In essence. But a good villain can also just be rotten to their very core and have no other excuse for their actions than, "why not...".


Like Pagan Min....


There's the good side...

....and then there's bitter a side...

 

[ElDuderino]

Relatable, understandable and with clear motives.

 

[Thalia_Neko]

One thing that I always think about when constructing an antagonist for my rps, is making him/her layered.


In much the same way your protagonist (aka your character) should have various personality quirks. So should the antagonist. If hes evil make him think every now and then that perhaps hes not in the right. If hes just misguided, making him realize that is one thing, but make him realize that, while not wanting to turn good because it goes against something that keeps him "evil" is another.


Being layered is what makes a great antagonist. Another word for it, is relatable.

 

[Cashdash25]

It seems a lot of people seem to think that being sympathetic is an important trait for a good antagonist, to the surprise of no one who knows me I'm going to take a contradictory stance on that and argue that you should very, very rarely portray your antagonist in a sympathetic manner.


Now, don't get me wrong, the "Good Men Doing Bad Things" trope is a well used one that I hold a lot of respect for, but it's usually used in the context of the protagonists of a story rather than the other way around, for a very simple reason: It sucks all the fun and satisfaction out of killing them, ruining the "Big Damn Heroes" moment that's supposed to be the grand payoff for all the player's hard work.


Instances like the Killing Joke storyline that was brought up earlier are notable for being rare exceptions in the portrayal of antagonist characters rather than the rule for exactly this reason, if you constantly play the antagonist as a sympathetic character then your players are going to start to sympathize with him, they'll stop wanting to oppose him or worse, start to feel like they're the bad guys. If you're running an evil campaign that's fine, but those are comparatively rare.


Another reason to shy away from this behavior is that it runs the risk of making the players feel like they're not the focus of the story, GMPCs are a hated spector of the genera for exactly this reason. Player's don't like to feel that they aren't the main characters, and if you aren't careful could grow to be apathetic towards or actively dislike the campaign.

 

[Tedronai]

Agreed in part.


I think they should all be sympathetic but only up to a point, usually in their backstory. However, if they're still sympathetic by the end you have all the problems @Cashdash25 suggests.


To use the Killing Joke as an example again, the Joker (possibly) had one really bad day, the kind of day that any one of us could suffer if our fate or luck ran bad. Everything after that point, his insanity, his determination to prove that all it takes to make a monster like him is one bad day makes him sympathetic to the reader. We can relate to him (even if only on a superficial level). We can look at him and think, but for better luck that could have been me.


Of course, none of this excuses the atrocities he commits in the name of that demonstration, but they gave him a motivation to act, motivation that we as readers can understand, even sympathise with. He was trying to make sense out of the senselessness of everything that happened to him that day and it took him down a very dark path. If he were just being evil for the sake of being evil, then when Batman comes calling he could just pack up and move on, start causing more mischief in Metropolis or wherever since that's an easier way to cause further evil but it would be anticlimactic to say the least. Just as the protagonist has to have a strong motive to stay the course when everything is getting harder, more dangerous, the price they pay ever greater, the same is true of the antagonist. They have to have a reason to continue antagonising right up until the end.

 

[Thalia_Neko]

Note, I am not talking about the "Villain" in my particular post. I'm talking about specifically an "antagonist". Which in my rps are usually not the same person. The villain in my eyes is more or less someone who is just evil and theres no way around that. But the antagonist can be like a second "protagonist" it his/her own way. Fleshing him/her out makes the antagonist all the more interesting and exciting.


If it pains your characters to ultimately "kill" the antagonist in this scenario, after making your characters feel for him, or understand his motives, then you've basically done it right imo. Having bittersweet "wins" can cause for a lot of character growth. But when making the antagonist (not the villain) relatable you don't have to do it where your characters see. You can do it where only the rper can see, so they themselves understand things, but their characters wouldn't. So maybe their characters have no qualms about ending the antagonist, but in the rpers mind they're like "Ah, god, we just killed off that super interesting character.. Damn!"

 

[sathanas]

It's probably because I love bittersweet stuff, and can love character regardless of their actions (re: my avatar if you know the character, would be despicable were he real) but I really like villains.


I'm in the camp of enjoying relatable villains. Of course, characters who unjustifiably fought other kids as a child, has little empathy, and childlike impulsiveness probably isn't relatable for most... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


However I think a good antagonist comes down mostly to how much you can enjoy them. Whether that's through hating them or relating to them, it's not as important. They have to work well in a technical literary sense (like most other people have said- work against the protagonist, cause conflict, etc, basically properly fill the antagonist's role) and be entertaining. So what makes a good villain is probably very subjective, imo.


I'm a fan of antagonists with layers, people who aren't stark black and white. Their depth makes them more interesting and their actions less predictable imo. I also like plots where the stakes are something much smaller than the whole world, humanity, even a country, because then the protag doesn't necessarily have to win, or get everything he wants/needs- hence the story being less predictable and dull. 


But I also like villains who are absolute batshit, like Petelgeuse from re:zero, because he was rather entertaining. 


The sad thing tho, is that like I said what's entertaining is very subjective. ): you could make an antagonist you absolutely love, but other people will still dislike them. There's plenty of people that hate the Joker in all his incarnations. People tend to love or hate disaster movies where the antagonist is the disaster. Some people like to hate the villain and some people like to relate to them, hence debates on which is better.


I think the best thing you can do is think about why you personally like an antagonist, what features were good and what features were bad in antagonists you see in media, and incorporate your conclusions into your own work. 

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

If your antagonist isn't relatable, then they're a flat character. The best antagonists in my opinion are essentially people on the wrong side of the aisle.