Great Evil Characters

There are so many poorly characterized villains. There are so many bad ideas about what makes a great evil character. If you've ever wanted to write or roleplay an evil character, you run into the problem of how to actually be evil without becoming a petty jerk or a deranged psycho.

The problem is that we work hard at rationalizing our own actions and seeing ourselves as the protagonist. The very foundation of our stories are based on imagining ourselves as agents of change in a world shaped by our actions. Even in eldritch horror, a genre characterized by its incomprehensible terror and loss of control, the madness must still engage the known, the human. We resonate by imagining ourselves trapped in such a doomed fate. To be a proper character, good or evil, they must not only self-actualize, they must rationalize and see themselves as protagonists. But they're the antagonist! Surely they know that.

If you try to draw on real life, the most popular evil stereotype in the English world, Nazis, will immediately let you down. Nazis have been so regurgitated and recycled that they have become meaningless. Boiled down to anecdote, conspiracy, absurdity, insult, and shorthand, they have lost almost all flavour of the truth of evil. Understanding the actual mechanisms of evil from their stories is like studying the agricultural potential of mashed potatoes.

So what makes a great villain? Perhaps our history of stories can help? We're back where we started. Too many bad shots. Maybe they were evil because they used unsanctioned violence? Of course, it is okay for the hero to use violence, since they see themself as defending against violence with violence. Convenient when the hero is dropped into a conflict and told they must defend against the enemy who started it.

Maybe it is a tragic backstory? The villain needs to be humanized before they can be defeated. This story is not going to have a one-dimensional antagonist! Look, they love their cat and they even have a daughter. In many ways, humanizing the antagonist, trying to make them complex and nuanced, is a misdirection to hide the problem. It works the other way around.

It's not depth that makes a great character, it's that depth comes from growth, and growth makes great characters. Why is your villain not growing? Not growing a heart, but why are they stuck on world domination or something so pointless? A good character changes throughout the story. Attributing their evil deeds to being bullied doesn't make them any more profound than saying your hero is heroic because they grew up poor. It's the change during the story, not before the story, that counts.

So what makes an evil character rationalize themself as a protagonist? It's that the means justify the end. Yes, people had to die, but it was necessary to achieve the best result. For you and your countrymen, this is easily a noble act. What growth is there? When you're in conflict, you have to change course.

If you want to study the Nazis as an example of great evil, you start with ambition. Ambition requires power to act. Social chaos presents an opportunity for power if you're willing to vilify the weak as powerful, to paint a simple answer to a complex problem, to focus frustrations. The ends of power justify the means of blame...

This simplicity allows for a broad audience looking for an easy to understand solution to the problems they face. Attention is power, but power imposes obligations to deliver. The weak must be dealt with in order to solve the problems. The ends of problems justify the means of punishment...

But punishment is not free. It must be imposed to extinguish freedom. Such acts of imposing bondage require action, and action has a price. The cost of not allowing the weak to support themselves becomes significant, significant enough to be used by others to usurp your power. Learning the cost of dealing with the weak angers those who empower you and forces you to cut costs. The ends of the costs justify the means of the cuts...

But what solutions do you have? You must continue to deny their humanity, but not being productive makes them dependent on the state. And at the fork is evil. Enslave? Exile? Execute? The ends of political dissent justify the brutality...

At each stage, our character's trait of ambition drives the narrative. They grow as they are forced to deal with adversity. It doesn't have to be ambition, almost any character trait can inflict suffering for its own sake. As long as they keep telling themselves that the end justifies the means, you can make them evil. That they're doing what's best for themselves, their allies, or even the world. It's indifference to suffering in order to achieve a noble goal that makes true evil. We explain our actions to the suffering as done out of compassion, if we're even aware of it. For their own good.

But do not worry about confrontation. We're really good at not recognizing the suffering we cause. Of portraying it as exaggerated, insignificant, justified, or misunderstood. Those who desire your goals will still congratulate and support their hero. Of course we deserve this recognition, why would you question it? You crave it. There's no need for nuance. Sure, they can be cold and calculating, but warm and jovial can be just as cruel. Someone who does all sorts of altruistic things can still cause great harm to those who are indirectly hurt by it. We do this all the time.

Now all you have to do is choose your protagonist from the ones they step on. Their goals are clear. Their actions make perfect sense. And yet, evil.

So try this the next time you're writing a villain. To avoid clichés, choose character traits not often associated with evil. Maybe compassion, bravery, brilliance, or endurance. Don't template a dark, edgy killer, and you might just avoid the temptation to resort to narrow-minded brutality. Instead, see their actions as steps of growth toward their goal, at some painful cost.