My sister and I were talking yesterday about a recent interview she saw with the notorious BTK Killer. I commented that he had to have wanted to be caught because of the sheer stupidity of taunting the law enforcement officers long after the case(s) were considered cold. She said, "Oh, no, he didn't expect to be caught. He thought he was smarter than them."

So this has gotten me to think about real-life villains and motive for those heinous acts that most of us would consider "evil." Hitler was motivated by a sense of doing God's will, of purifying the Aryan race. BTK admitted to being motivated by sexual obsession/fantasy. What DOES motivate someone to commit evil? I guess I have a hard time mentally figuring this one out, as I don't get my jollies in the same way as these folks.

I'm interested in exploring the various motives that people have for committing villainous acts. I want to be sure to paint my villains realistically and not just some power-hungry cliche. I'd be interested in any observations of real-life that would make a villain seem more 'real'. What characteristics might be typical among this group? Here are my suggestions:

1) A feeling of intellectual superiority.
2) A feeling of being the victim.
3) A desire to act out fantasies.
4) A sense of inflamed righteousness.
5) Desire for control.
6) Self-satisfaction in fooling other people, of having that secret "If they only knew..."

Drugs, brain damage, bad childhood... those are all causes. What I'm trying to figure out is how the twisted thinking manifests itself in the character's personality.

****

Since I'm finding this growing list useful, I'm going to continue adding points that have been raised in the discussion below.

7) Survival of the fittest--that the better man/woman should come out on top.
8) Desire to be a hero, that is creating chaos so one can swoop in and rescue someone in distress.
9) A sense of entitlement.
10) A sense of 'want' that manifests through greed, lust, jealousy, etc.
11) Revenge-becoming a self-appointed enforcer of the law or moral code of conduct.
12) Desire to create a state of happiness, or "all's right with my world because I've forced it into submission."

I think the first thing that can help us in fiction is to call them antagonists instead of villains. The reason is simple: Villains are black and white bad guys. Antagonists oppose the will of the protagonists. They might even be really great people. They are definitely more interesting people.

And people do bad things. I do bad things. You do bad things. Why do you do bad things?

I lie. I have lied to save face or to get something I want. It's selfishness. And that is one root cause of the bad things people do.

Of course, a lie is a "minor" evil. The more evil the acts of the antagonists, the better the explanation you will need. What kind of a greedy SOB kills a thousand people to make a billion dollars, for example? The kind who does not think people's lives are worth as much as a billion dollars, obviously. Would he do the same thing if the thousand people included his friends and family? Is it different if they're Americans or some ethnic group he despises? Is it different if he pulls the trigger or assigns someone else to do it?

If he assigns someone else to do it, why do they pull the trigger? There are assassins in real life. Why do they do that? Political motivations? Monetary? Is their own life at risk if they refuse? Are they avoiding jailtime?

I also think jealousy would be a cause. Jealousy is a chief characteristic in many villains. Some classics are (this is lame, but) the stepmother in Cinderella and the queen in Snow White put the heroines through travails because the villains were jealous of their position in society and good looks. I know this is just children's literature, but these are easily identified villains, and jealousy was the main reason for their wickedness.

I wish I could come up with some examples of jealousy in more adult fiction, because I know I've seen it, it's just not coming to me right now. <sigh>

However, there are a few who had wonky childhoods that manifested in deviant adult behavior. Jeffery Dahlmer was in my mind as I made that comment.

On a lesser scale, I'd say some people can only feel "good" by doing bad. Do you hold the elevator door for a stranger or watch them run and close the door at the last second? You have no emotional attachment to a stranger so either action is "justifiable" but which makes you smile?

or maybe

"I am not happy. I have a right to it. Therefore I have a right to hurt people until they make me happy. If they acted the way they should, I wouldn't 'have to' do this."

or maybe

It's all about happiness. We're all motivated by the desire to be happy, we just pursue it in different--sometimes evil--ways.

For some happiness is in power. Or in the satisfaction that the fulfillment of greed or lust brings. And they never stop until someone stops them or until they learn--usually the hard way--that such things never bring complete happiness. The pursuit of happiness, particularly when done for the fulfillment of selfish desires, is like a drug. The more you pursue it, the more you crave it. The more you crave it, the more you will do to gain it until you will sink to any depths, always reaching for something that you are chasing but can never catch.

Those who are truly happy find joy simply in the pursuit itself. They understand that it is a pursuit, not a goal.

I don't know. Does that help? Does that put into perspective the motivations of evil people? It certainly helps me sympathize with them to a certain extent. After all, an antagonist with NO sympathetic qualities is not well characterized, IMO.

Here's one: someone who does evil things to make themself a hero in their own mind.

They control someone (through drug allocation, abuse, isolation, or emotional manipulation, or all of the above) to the extent that their victim cannot function well on their own. So when something bad happens to the incapacitated victim in the outside world, the bad guy gets a rush out of "saving" them from the situation that he/she created in the first place. They get to wear the white hat.

Unfortunately, the victim sometimes believes their antagonist wears that white hat, as well.

A boss who will fire you if he finds out you've violated corporate policy and are dating a co-worker is an antagonist. A boss who is trying to kill you for attracting the attention of a woman he wanted to date is a villain.

There are often many antagonists in fantasy fiction, but usually you will also find at least one villain in the story. We don't need to make him into Snidely Whiplash, but if you are going to have a villain, it is nice to give him some depth of character as rationale for his behavior. I'm just trying to explore what some of that deeper rationale might be attributed to.

And about motives...most of the time, motives mean all the world to the person, but absolutely nothing to anyone else. When writing, it's important to give the motive meaning to the characters.

The ascription of "evil" as a behaviour label is often a post-event rationalisation. And it's usually ascribed by the "winner" - who, mysteriously, happens to be the good guy! What a handy coincidence! Capitalism's good and Communism's evil, because Capitalism won and got to dictate the terms of good and evil. Churchill was good and Hitler was evil for the same reason. If the "bad guys" really get to win, they clearly aren't the bad guys - they get to set the very standards by which "good" and "bad" are judged.

quote:

---

It's all about happiness. We're all motivated by the desire to be happy, we just pursue it in different--sometimes evil--ways.

---

IMO this describes a shallow, boring antagonist. A deep, interesting antagonist is selfless in pursuit of his cause. Consider Colonel Jessep in A Few Good Men or Sheriff Tate in To Kill a Mockingbird. These men are motivated to do what they believe is right. Jessep believes that he tortures his own men for their protection in a war zone, Tate believes he must allow the people of Macomb to lynch Tom Robinson to protect the town's peaceful way of life.

Despite his use of torture, Jessep isn't a sadist. He's a hard-working, dedicated officer who really loves his men and wants to protect them. And Tate isn't a corrupt sheriff, he's not even a racist. He is honestly doing his best to keep the peace in Macomb.

I agree, no matter whether you label the character as an antagonist or a villain, the character should have some depth, and should have some rationale for his/her motives.

Don't we all experience similar emotions? Isn't it what we do despite the emotions that separate us? What are these emotions that cause everyone to engage in an internal struggle? Desire, greed, lust, envy, anger, hate, resentment, jealousy, power, revenge, fear and probably some others I'm forgetting. Also in addition to those emotions how about maturity, integrity, self-esteem (or lack thereof ) and most likely the need to feel important? All of these I'm sure play a role in the struggle as well.

This struggle I believe breaths life into the protagonist and antagonist and is at the root of the conflicts between people.

quote:

---

I'm interested in exploring the various motives that people have for committing villainous acts.

---

So in the list from above, I would say that, the motives can be distilled into an even more simple form, for example:

1) A feeling of intellectual superiority -> Amounts to a need to feel superior -> Amounts to feelings of inferiority -> Due to lack of self-esteem.
2) A feeling of being the victim -> Resentment / Jealousy
3) A desire to act out fantasies -> This does not seem evil in of itself ( perhaps it's to mean evil fantasies )
4) A sense of inflamed righteousness. -> The need to feel important.
5) Desire for control. -> Fear and Hopelessness.
6) Self-satisfaction in fooling other people, of having that secret "If they only knew..." -> Amounts to a need to feel superior -> Amounts to feelings of inferiority -> Due to lack of self-esteem.

So in constructing an antagonist whom is driven to have a sense of intellectual superiority I would include other evidence of having a lack of self-esteem. For example having the antagonist blowing up at a friend or coworker who disagreed with them, or worse corrected them, or even worse did it in a group or in public.

Why?

Because without a supervillian, there can't be a hero. If there is only conflict between humans, then you only have champions. And champions are limited. They don't represent any ultimate good, only the local good of this or that group.

Only those who face an inhuman evil can become heroes. Death is also a supervillian. Sometimes he shows mercy or pity or is tricked out of his prize...in stories, at least. But in reality, Death does not flinch. He admires the soul that faces him with courage and purpose, but admiration does not stay his hand. Because if it did, if facing Death well could save you, then it wouldn't be courageous to face him. It would merely be prudent and cool-headed.

From a purely combative/competitive perspective, the good guy can only be as skilled as the people he goes against. Where would Sherlock Holmes be without any really smart criminals? Any great general without a resourceful enemy? Even in sports, great athletes excel because they have stiff competition. That's why I lean toward the antagonist rather than super villain (comic books and epics have super-villains)

As has been said before, one of the most interesting things about antagonists is that they don't necessarily have to be "evil". In fact, the hero can be mostly bad and the antagonist good, and it still works. Who here has seen at least one movie about bank robbers told from the bank robber's point of view? The storyteller doesn't have to give a legitimate reason for their actions, he just has to make us like the robbers better than the cops trying to capture them. We actually end up rooting for what should be the bad guys without realizing it.

I recently saw a Brazilian theatrical interpretation of the Disney cartoon “The Little Mermaid,” in which the main “villain” character in the cartoon was no longer “evil,” but simply another person (in this case, a giant octopus) trying to get ahead in life the best way she knew how. All her actions were perfectly rational based on her own situation and understanding of things. She didn't hate the other individuals in the play, nor was their any reason for us to seriously hate her. She helped the main character out twice, even if she did have somewhat selfish motivations for doing so. Then in the end of the play, Ariel dies (which I guess for a mermaid means that she turned into a rainbow or something, but she certainly didn't marry the prince like the Disney version). I really enjoyed the production, which surprised me, because I hated the movie (and lets not even get started on the “straight to video” sequel).

As I think back on my favorites: Dune and Lord of the Rings, I remember they have super-villains: Baron Harkonnen, and Sauron. Even OSC used a super-villain in his Alvin Maker series: the Unmaker.

I'm curious as to what end of the spectrum each of you gravitate toward in YOUR stories? Note that I'm not asking about theory; it's a given that the "bad guy" doesn't have to be evil, and that antagonist characters with more depth are more interesting to read about.

I'm wanting to know what you use in actual practice: villain or person-with-different-goals? And if you write both fantasy and science fiction, do you find that genre influences whether you gravitate toward one end of the spectrum or the other?