What happens to Villains

DubstheDuke

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
301
Points
103
So I've been thinking about a certain cliche which I wanted to discuss a little.

The villain is convinced by the mc to give up his evil ways. The mc forgives the villain and they become friends. When I first saw this cliche I thought it was awesome and loved it, but as I saw it over and over it became null and meaningless. It was like being a villain was just another way to introduce a new comrade to the group, which I think it fine sometimes, but when every villain in the series is forgiven regardless of how heinous their crimes were it gets old. But anyways, I think this requires a certain delicate touch.

I think there are some villains that need to be killed, and others that need to be redirected, and whether this happens should not be predictable by the viewers. I think that there should never be a villain who is just straight up "He was born evil", with a few specific cases aside. Each villain should at least be plausible. Why would someone just be born evil? I can see someone being extremely self centered and arrogant and not care about anyone else, but being born evil, and doing evil just to do it? The only reason I can see for this is if the villain is literally some sort of sadistic demon or mindless beast that has these desires instilled into it from birth.

But as far as whether they should be killed, well first off I think that if a villain is to not be killed, then they should be someone redeemable. Someone who became the demented person they were because of some tragic experience or some great vision. Even so, not all of these people should be saved, and some should be killed for the sake of unpredictability. The scene of forgiveness and or death should be dramatic, and you shouldn't know what will happen until the end of it, from my perspective.

Now what about the punishment of the villains themselves? Should they just die, or should they experience worse than death? Torture, etc.

Of course, this depends on how heinous of a villain they were. I like to punish my villains more the greater harm they caused to everyone, yet I also like to find unique and creative punishments for my villains. I don't like just killing them off. That would be boring. I enjoy making them suffer in ways that are unimaginable, ironic, and to the point where even the evil they did might pale in comparison to their punishments.

I often like to think 'what would this person hate more than anything else in their life?'

For example, there was a certain villain who was a dictator, brainwashing his people to the point of infatuation. They viewed him as immortal, and didn't believe they could exist without him. As a test of loyalty he forced his soldiers to each remove one of their eyes, and anyone who refused to do so was to be killed as a dissenter to his rule. In the end, this villain had both of his eyes ripped out. However, it was not just this. This villain was the very definition of a double standard. Nobody was good enough in his eyes. Someone would do one thing, and he would complain, sending them off to be worked like a slave. Another person would then do the exact opposite, and he would then complain for the exact opposite reason, sending that person off as well. He viewed himself as better than everyone else, and everyone else as inferior to himself. In his mind, everyone was nothing more than a stepping stone meant to produce pleasure for him.

As part of his punishment, I had him fuse with a certain heroic character who was the exact opposite of him, and these two would then internally dispute over what they should do.

The self sacrificing hero would go out of his way to help people, even putting his life at risk, while the selfish dictator wouldn't be willing to lift a finger.

This person was then put under a number of simulations.

Simulations of scenarios where he would have to kill himself in order to save someone else.

The righteous hero would continuously plunge himself over the edges of cliffs, or in front of cars, etc. In order to save the children in danger, and the disagreement between the two would only cause more gruesome deaths, and unsalvagable situations.

Anyways point is, I quite like making some really crazy punishments for my villains, and to be honest, while there are some villains that I have salvaged, most of them I don't because the punishment is the most memorable scene in an arc.
 

Maple-Leaf

•Deceased
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Messages
681
Points
108
I don't usually enjoy a main antagonist. I usually read the stories where the "main antagonist" is only revealed at the end or the main character is fighting against his circumstances. Either that or the main character is the antagonist. I don't think I can say much on this topic but hey, props to you for being creative.
 

averagewriter

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
100
Points
28
Not sure. I have yet to reach this point. At this point in the novel I am writing, I have yet to to introduce any villain other than the first one and I haven't even decided whether to make him a friend or a foe as of yet.
He should be considered as redeemable, though that is not enough for me to make him a friend as l like to be unpredictable with my story.
That feeling of uncertainity where even I as the author do not how some parts of my story will end, gives me a sense of thrill as its' main reader. Since the main purpose for why I started writing this series is self entertainment.
 

Shiver

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
37
Points
48
and the ones consigning the hero and villain to that hell are considered 'good'? Dang, those are some twisted views.

I mislike ye olde redemption arcs and I loathe the 'Goody goody hero trusting the villain to be good deep inside' trope. I'm not into reoccurring villains, so offing them is fine in my mind, as long as it doesn't become a villain of the week type thing. If my villains aren't smart enough to survive, I'm sure as hell not going to save them.

Nowadays its almost mandatory that every villain supposedly needs some deep backstory explaining why they are the way they are. While that works in some cases, in many cases it's superfluous. I try to remember that villainy can just be incredibly fun.
So I'll definitely have villains who are just having fun (or they just want to see the world burn). Basically born evil, but without using that phrase.
 

bigbear51

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
193
Points
83
I personally love the cliche because I'm a sucker for a redemption story. As well as considering a lot of stories I grew up with.

The main problem that makes it lose a lot of impact though. That would have to be that it's usually poorly done. It's just that there's a few rules that should be followed to make it believable for an audience to accept a face turn.
 

Maple-Leaf

•Deceased
Joined
Jun 4, 2020
Messages
681
Points
108
If there is a villian I think I prefer the "kill them off no matter the circumstance" ending. Simply because I can't imagine the type of characters I read about doing anything different.
 

K5Rakitan

Level 34 👪 💍 Pronouns: she/whore ♀
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
8,298
Points
233
In such cases, the true antagonist is society. Society made the individual that way, and that's what you call a villain until they are corrected by the protagonist. However, the claws of society are strong, and I don't think every villain should be redeemed, as this rarely happens in reality.
 

DubstheDuke

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
301
Points
103
and the ones consigning the hero and villain to that hell are considered 'good'? Dang, those are some twisted views.


Oh no don't worry, my main characters are absolutely not good. They're the real villains. But that's what makes it so fun. It's a story where the protagonists are just likable villains with a sense of justice, but an extremely twisted one.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
14
Points
18
It is also important to take note of how the protagonist is portrayed. If he/she is on a righteous path not killing in the story, then the redemption arc protects his personality and stance. If he does do something that goes too far off from his personality it can create all sorts of problems and possible loopholes for his previous activity. So there is always a limitation set by how the story progressed to that point. A versatile MC will have a wider range of methods to deal with his enemies, while an MC with a clear set of guidelines will be limited by those. (The problem with a versatile MC is that it will be hard for the readers to connect to at some parts of the story.)
 
Top