Hello. As a newcomer, I'd like to pick the brains of more competent people than myself about what makes a good antagonist. I've wondered about this often, and have come to some ideas of my own -- and some I've probably stolen, but forgotten the source of -- so I thought I'd throw some mud at the wall and see what sticks.

The most important factor, to myself, is that the antagonist has a point in what their doing. Whether it is a 'kill a few to save many' logic, or a superiority complex, there needs to be an internal logic that supports the actions of the antagonist. Of course, there are gradients to this, from small-time to big baddy, as well as from the misunderstood and necessity-driven to the warped logics, but common for them all, I believe, should be consistency between logic and action.

That's rather broad, I realize, which doesn't make it very useful other than for the general case. Do you have a more concrete insight into the makings of a good foe, or do you disagree that logic is a requirement in the first place?

    The struggle for survival and power, for instance. The 'it's me or them' mentality makes good antagonists. You can take any race for the throne and the bad guys in them and see that they're just thinking 'If I don't kill them, they will kill me and the ones I love.
    It's amazing to follow the story of the underdog heir that comes to the realization he will need to kill his brothers and sisters if he wants to survive and have his offspring to survive. He comes to terms with it and becomes the 'bad guy' to preserve power and, therefore, the right to live.
    It is a warped logic? I don't think it is.

      SrtaA
      I should probably have defined my terms better

      What you're referring to is what I'd call necessity-driven logic, which I think can be extremely powerful in many cases. In short, I wholeheartedly agree. Especially the realization part, if you consider a situation where a character might start out as naive or 'unspoiled' in some sense, and then is slowly transformed by necessity into a being of sheer survival instinct.

      What I meant, but didn't specify, about warped logics, is a case where what we consider 'common sense' is warped out of proportion. An example could be a society with a practice of human sacrifice is completely acceptable -- with a perfectly consistent logic to the whole affair -- in which case an antagonist from this society could clash with someone from a society with a more 'conventional' moral compass, on the grounds that their worldviews are diametrically opposed.

          One of the best antagonists (believe it or not) is from my hindu mythology, Ravana. He is a beloved antagonist. It is not like his acts were driven by some moral struggle. I mean there are different versions of it. But he never did anything that can make you say that he IS the antagonist. This is purely my POV and I have read the Ramayana. I could be wrong in my interpretation. But I felt the only reason he was portrayed as the antagonist was because Rama was supposed to be the protagonist. He was also a smart learned man. He earned respect in his own right. :D

            fantasybliss30
            That's a good point. I find that a lot of mythology doesn't bother with the whole why-is-this-one-a-bad-guy thing. Take Loki, from norse mythology, who's morals and deeds are suspect to say the least, but he also helps out a lot when the norse gods are in trouble. Overall, he's an ambiguous character, who's a lot more honest about his own morality than most of the gods, which is what gets him locked up in the end. With a snake dripping poison into his face, no less.

            I wonder if good or bad in the mythological sense is just what's in opposition to the ruling pantheon?

                Winterwisps
                That is such a great thing to point out! I mean have the so-called heroes never hurt any innocent soul? Never did anything out of pure selfishness? Almost all I know have. But they also represent what you called the values of the ruling pantheon.

                    Winterwisps Relatability. Antagonists aren't always the villain of the story but they are a reminder of the people we meet in reality which makes us love or hate them. Protagonists are usually OP but antagonists are like the mirror which brings down a possibly perfect, god-like protagonist or at least challenges the Protagonist's views and values with reality.

                    For example in Death Note, L was the antagonist to the protagonist Light because L treated Light like a human whereas Light thought himself as a god. Another example is Umbridge from Harry Potter series. She's despicable because she was the epitome of everything wrong with a corrupt government. She also showed Harry the mirror in terms of the fact that just because he is the Chosen One, it doesn't mean that he's gonna get his way all the time.

                        fantasybliss30
                        Agreed. The greek and norse mythologies, which I am most familiar with, are like that, at least. I think it plays into what @Tea_Tae says about the antagonists reliability. They might not always be villains, but they're there to show a different angle to the protanoginst, or indeed the reader in some cases. A likeable antagonist with a very good point to their actions can completely change the dynamics of a story, as well as invite a difficult inner struggle in the protagonist.

                        Tea_Tae
                        I really like the way you put that. Indeed, the antagonist is not neccessarily a villain, and their point of view goes to show that the protagonist is not always right, just because theirs is the perspective we're following. That's only when it works, however; when it fails, the mirror of the antagonists just seems pointless. What I'm interested to know is why does it sometimes fail and create a weak antagonist (in the literary sense).

                        It may be useful to look at situations where it doesn't work. I'll be speaking in general terms, since I don't see the need to throw shade around. A theme I've come across a lot is the schism between poor and rich, which can be a good one. What I find jarring, however, is when the antagonist (usually the rich one) only justifies themselves through circular reasoning like, "I'm right because i'm rich, and I'm rich because I'm right" - or something like that.
                        In that case, I don't believe they are providing a proper mirror image of the case against the protagonist, but are simply there to be disliked by a reader, which I think is a cop-out. I believe the reason why it fails to be logic.

                        Umbridge is logically consistent because she's a beaurocrat; someone who believes in procedure and is adept at sidestepping responsibility. She's also been given a mission to reign in what appears to be a constant source of chaos at Hogwarts, which is a thorn in the side of the government (If I remember correctly. It's been a while since I read HP, and might have gotten the nuance wrong). In that case, her opposition to Harry, and her showing him there's a perfectly consistent worldview which holds him to be nothing more than a child throwing a tantrum, is perfectly reliable, which makes it powerful.

                        If she had just shown up out of the blue and told the students they no longer needed to know how to properly defend themselves, without there being any logical root to her argument, I believe it would have seemed arbitrary and pointless to the readers.

                        I guess this was a long way of saying that I think logic gives birth to reliability :).

                              They're badass. Always challenges the protagonist's want until they make them almost puke blood.

                              Serious note. An antagonist will always be the challenger to a protagonist's want (e.g. objective or quest), which will draw out their need.

                              An example is Lord of the Rings. Frodo's antagonist is Smegal because they both want the same thing, but have opposing goals that causes friction and a life/death situation. Through this interaction, Frodo's need is realized, which is that he can't finish his quest on his own; made clear when Sam interfere with Smegal's plans.

                                Winterwisps
                                I wrote recently a novel with a lot of dubious characters. Many of them were antagonists to each other, and most of time, they're able to understand each other motivations, even if it clashed with their interests.

                                For instance, I had ' the King' archetype - 'Only I know what's going on, I don't need to explain it to you'
                                He's in the power, and used to hunt witches and pagans, but he learned something about 'sides' the hard way. To correct his past mistakes and protect the ones he love the most, he manipulates the MC's life shamelessly using his power. Although he develops a fondness for her, he's often her antagonist, because he always decided for using her and everyone else for his greater goal - which is, in the end, protect the ones he loves, even if they don' acknowledge it.

                                The Hunter archetype - 'You did wrong and you must pay'
                                The Inquisitor, a man blindly guided by his dogmas. Is he a bad guy? No. It's like Javert, from Les Miserables. Kind bureaucratic, I guess, and a bit short-sighted. Not a bad guy, but a powerful antagonist (not that my character is that good and fleshed).

                                The Envious type - 'Why her?'
                                sometimes, and it's a valid and very common trope, envy is a powerful motivation for antagonism. The only reason is the perception someone has something you think should be yours, be it real or not. It can be more than the stepsister boycotting the romance, it can be as powerful as Cain and Abel. Also, good plot twists when we discover the real antagonist was in front of us disguised as a lamb!

                                Imaginary Reverse Blackmail type - 'She can't judge me, how dare she?'
                                That's how I call it. A character becomes the antagonist out of a perceived rejection. But looking further, he's using all his power to destroy the protagonist because he truly believes the protagonist knows something or despises him for something shameful. And the protagonist doesn't give a shit for this secret.

                                The pure type _ 'I'm too exalted and close to God to lower myself and understand your sinful reasons,' type.

                                The Reigning Queen type - 'I fought hard to be where I am, I'm a queen in a land of kings, I must secure my power the way I can, and you are a problem to my plans.' From seduction to murder plans, you know, this type will do anything because she's just don't want to become a frog anymore.

                                Deranged reasons - 'You won't feel so lonely again...! Look at this, my son!'
                                I guess it's the classic 'warped logic' as you said. A minor supernatural antagonist that had minions he used to see as 'protegés' and family, and when they see them sad, he goes out and brings 'brides' for them... It's just plain and obviously warped logic, not much elaborated, anyway.

                                The rogue - 'What's in it for me?' There were plenty of rogues in my book. They change faces a lot, and can be more dangerous than the openly antagonists. For money, mostly.

                                For me those are perfect valid antagonist types and I used them in my last novel, as I said.

                                    Veronica8
                                    Very true. I know I've encountered examples of antagonists where this element is missing, and the antagonist is just going after the protagonist because it's the protagonist, and then what's the point?

                                    I think you've hit on something crucial, I did not fully appreciate. I've been focused on the origin of logic and its consistency, but of course this has to extend into the future as well, and indeed to the goals the antagonist is trying to achieve. If these do not align, then it just seems arbitrary.

                                        Winterwisps Yep. Character design works best when it's based on "wants" and "needs". Antagonist is only that because their "want" conflicts with the main characters. But by having them each challenge each other's "want", it draws out more of their "needs".

                                        This character design framework allows characters to be three dimensional. There are various character arc methods that are based on this.

                                        A "want" is obvious. It's what the character is set out to achieve in the story. An Example is Frodo's quest to destroy the Ring of all evil in the fires of Mount Doom.

                                        A "need" is what the character develops or obtains on their journey. Example is what I mentioned earlier about Frodo's need to realize that he can't complete his quest on his own. This isn't obvious and is made realized when the character overcomes triggering events like battles and challenges throughout their quest etc.

                                        This link might help.
                                        https://thenovelsmithy.com/want-versus-need-storytelling/

                                        You also might want to check out Brandon Sanderson's YouTube lectures on Character Design. This one is cool.

                                            SrtaA
                                            I like the concrete examples - thumbs up!

                                            As you say, there's plenty of variations, and many valid ones which makes perfect sense. These are what I think of as gradients of logic when I try to generalize; from a small-time thug who's just trying to get by, to a powerful king who has worked hard to secure his realm, and will use any means possible to keep it together. I think what differentiate these are the circumstances --which will always be relative, and therefore difficult to generalize-- and then their extention into future time.

                                            What I mean by that is that some antagonistic logic is mostly useful in the short term, like say the necessity-driven logic we discussed before. In that case, you can only extend the logic for as far as the necessity is maintained, meaning you'd have to use the pent-up momentum, story-wise, the moment the need is just about to be fulfilled, or right after. Of course you can extend the need, but then you lose the element of desperation that is so compelling.

                                            On the other hand, you can have your king archetype whose goals and schemes extends so far into the future that there might be elements where the protagonist and the antagonists mid-way goals align completely, but their end-goals remain entirely different.

                                            I don't want to imply that one is better than the other, simply that their utility is different, as well as their pay-off. I'm also sure there are specific examples which does not adhere to this box I'm trying to fit antagonists into, which is what makes it so interesting!

                                                Veronica8
                                                I love me some Brandon Sanderson. The man's an absolute genius :D.

                                                Thanks for the tip - I'll be sure to check it out!

                                                  Winterwisps See from my POV (I can't guarantee if it's right or wrong), a weak antagonist is when they don't pull through with their motive. If I have to point out, I felt all the major antagonists in Naruto were bad because they gave up their motives after Naruto's talk-no-jutsu. I was loving Pain until the very end when Naruto's friendship speech completely destroyed his character. Like, years of anguish and pain does not go away with a simply talk from a teenager. The built up was great, ending was bad. That's one way of destroying a great antagonist.

                                                  Another way of looking at weak antagonist would be to look at Marvel. Other than Loki and Thanos, do we remember any of the others? Why? Because we don't connect with their motives nor do their actions make any sense to us. It was simplified to 'we wanna help Thanos kill' or 'we wanna take over the world'. Meh. Zemo had a good potential in Captain America Civil War but the way I saw it, the antagonist were the superheroes themselves who were on opposing ends of the same spectrum (from Iron Man's POV, Cap was the antagonist and vice versa)

                                                  Then we have the most common type of weakass antagonist is the one who falls in love. Like, they'd give up their whole motive for a girl. I'm sorry but this is pure stupid especially in a day and age where people move on much quickly in relationships. For example, the Darkling from Shadow of Bones trilogy. He was introduced as this invincible force to be reckoned with but in the end, he became a shadow of the FL because she 'saw' through him. Thousands of years he lived and no one else saw through him? Really?

                                                  Then there are great antagonists who have no motive at all. Like Joker. He has no identity, no back story, no motive. Yet, we can relate to him because he has the ability to twist people's thoughts with the truth. That makes him one of the greatest if not the greatest antagonists.

                                                      Tea_Tae
                                                      I see your point in all of those examples, and I think I'd agree -- especially Pain, but my issue was more that he dealt out a lot of meaningful deaths around him, only to reverse it all and making all that emotional investment meaningless when you think about it.

                                                      However, I do think there's a way to make those antagonists work, even as their motives shift, but it requires a lot of subtle effort, I'd say. Pain does have a backstory that supports a belief in friendship (as far as I remember it -- been a while since watched Naruto). He even uses the dead bodies of his old friend in a mockery of comraderie, which suggests he holds on to those emotions in his own twisted way.

                                                      Where I think it falls flat in that case, and I agree with you that it does, is when the shift is too sudden. As I said it's been a while, so I'm working from memory here, and I might get the deatils wrong, but In Pain's case, it might have worked if we had seen a 'crack-in-the-armor' incident before the big fight that ultimately turns him to 'the good side'. What I mean by that is a moment where his mock-friendship is pointed out, or maybe that his ideals are challenged in a way that forms a crack in his fundational beliefs. In that case there are only two options for him, take out the flaw by taking out Naruto and his village who embodies the flaw, or allow his foundational beliefs to crumble.

                                                      But, as you said, a thousand years of anguish does not just go away in a talk, which is why the 'crack' that forces him to act, must be suficciently deep to warrent such a desperate action, and I don't think it ever was.

                                                      Similarly, I think the love-turn can work as well, although I am not familiar with your example, so I'll just speak in general terms with the variables you set out. I would agree that it's a bit jarring to just see love=change, but it is an emotion which can be a strong motivator, and therefore I think it's workable, again, as long as the proper subtlety has been established.

                                                      If we've got a character with a thousand years of backstory, there should, as you said, have been instances where someone would have gotten at least a little close. I guess there are configurations in which the antagonists rarely see anyone, and therefore the likelyhood of them meeting someone special is zilch, but I'm going to assume that isn't the case. Once an incedent has been established that cements the antagonist's belief that love is pointless, like a betrayal or simple disillusionment on the side of the partner, then you need the same 'crack-in-the-armor' incident to precede the actual change.

                                                      It might be something as simple as the antagonist creating a bond with a child, seeing them grow up and find love and talking with the antagonist about its virtues. The antagonist might be dismissive, but watching the young couple there might be some lingering longing which they themselves do not fully understand. Then maybe years later, they themselves get to experience what their young friend talked about.

                                                      That's one way I think would work, but I absolutely agree that it can deflate a badass antagonist if it comes off as arbitrary or something needed for the plot to work.

                                                      In short, I agree, but with caveats x)

                                                          I think a good antagonist must have
                                                          1- MO to make him memorable
                                                          2 - a moral code (even if twisted) to justify or prevent him from doing things

                                                            SrtaA
                                                            You've said in short what I couldn't manage in lengthy paragraphs - excellent!

                                                              Write a Reply...
                                                              Web Novel Novel Ask