Does a villain necessarily need to be reasonable, and have redeeming qualities?

[MonkeySage]

I've been thinking, not all "villains" have redeeming qualities, and not all of them can be reasoned with- I wouldn't even count all of them as "Characters" per se.

A demon, for example, depending on the setting, can't be reasoned with. They don't really want anything, and don't normally have redeeming qualities. They exist only to destroy all that is good and beautiful.

One of the antagonists in my pathfinder settings is a primal force, which seeks only to suck the world into dark oblivion-to literally devour everything, and it too cannot be reasoned with, not least because it's completely irrational.

[Tiadoppler]

Nope.


You can have an antagonist which is a force of nature, or an abomination, or a being forged of pure evil and malice. Someone who commits atrocities because it doesn't occur to them not to, or something which is simply incompatible with the existence of the world as we know it.

But...

For plot purposes, it's good to also have an enemy you can relate to and communicate with at some level. Maybe it's the BBEG's general, or an obstructive bureaucrat, or a politician who doesn't believe in the threat you're facing. Dialogue and roleplay are important aspects of D&D, and having a Unknowable Thing of Evilwrongbad be the only main opponent means you miss out on:

> Villainous gloating
> Witty one-liners (PC -> NPC and vice versa)
> Social interaction and scheming
> Understandable your opponent's motives
> Being forced to work with the enemy

In addition, when there's a BBEG which has absolutely no redeeming qualities, it becomes harder and harder to justify the PCs being the primary/only source of opposition to the BBEG's scheme. When Drai'lak the Worldbreaker opens its mouth and prepares to chew on your planet, the various deities/nations/adventurers of the world will likely team up to stop him. But, if King Drai'lak, ally to the nation of Fritz'gibberish and loyal friend to all Elvenkind starts doing a few unexplained rituals at various ley-lines, this might pass under the radar and provide an opportunity for the PCs to investigate and uncover his plot.

[Knaight]

The word "reasonable" has a few different meanings that can get used here. The key one is that their decisions should make some sort of sense. They might be monstrous decisions in line with monstrous goals, they might be both evil and stupid decisions made out of habit or for the fleeting pleasure of just killing somebody, they might be incredibly self destructive decisions born out of character flaws that impact efficacy while also being thoroughly villainous, born out of character flaws that impact morality.

Still, there should be some sort of sense to them, and under that definition of reasonable almost every villain probably should be reasonable. There's the occasional personified force of nature which can break that, but your demon example doesn't fit that. They have a goal - destruction of all that is good and reasonable. They likely are prone to short sighted decisions stemming from a lack of impulse control and organization, where they cut straight to the destruction instead of getting organized first. They're likely smart enough to do something both clever and vile once just rampaging backfires on them. They are, in short reasonable by that definition.

Now, "reasonable" in the sense of "a reasonable person" where the intended connotation is more that they're decent people able to get along with others? Not every villain needs that. Plenty can still have it though; plenty of absolutely terrible people were able to be decent and get along with others as long as it was the right others, and are terrible mostly because of what they did to their outgroups.

[Thrudd]

No. I mean, you want them to behave in a believable way. But in a fantasy setting, "believable" might be a lot different than it is for the real world. Also, it is likely your players won't be interacting a whole lot with the villain except to confront them and defeat them, so the degree to which they are reasonable or redeemable is probably irrelevant. The players have heard about them and are going after them because the villain has decided to be "unreasonable" at this point, at least from the pov of the players.

If this isn't the case, I would argue that you're not talking about a "villain". You're dealing with two or more factions that each have reasonable motives and goals, any of which players might have conflict with or join up with depending on their proclivities. Using the word "villain" implies it is a predetermined opponent for the PCs and therefore to some degree they must be unsympathetic, lest you have the PCs become "villains" themselves.

[Tanarii]

No. And that also can be a fantastic weakness for PCs to exploit, if it makes them predictable.

Of course, sometimes "being reasonable" is also a predictable weakness. For example, you can almost always distract or waylay a D&D Devil with an offer to strike a bargain.

[Honest Tiefling]

If we take reasonable to mean 'their actions make sense', in a way...No. Sometimes the sheltered emperor does things that only make sense to him, but not to anyone with a dash of common sense. But people have gone to war for silly and stupid reasons, such as a royal feud. Being dumb is a part of human history. Why not embrace it? Sure, idiot royalty is just one example and probably one propped up by far more competent people, but I felt it was a good example.

Mob violence is another idea. Few people benefit from the violence being inflicted on their own communities, but that hardly stops anyone. Mobs also give a fair number of encounters and forces players to make hard choices NOW.

[Geddy2112]

Even demons are in some sense reasonable, as others have said. They are thinking and intelligent creatures, even if they are impulsive and reckless. While they might not have any redeeming qualities to most, their qualities could be a valuable asset or kindred spirit to some. Redeeming qualities are somewhat subjective, as mercy could be seen as redeeming to some and damming to others.

It may be possible to reason with even the most reckless and vile creatures, so long as they are intelligent(though it does not have to be). Even things that are off their rocker crazy could be "reasoned" with albeit in a very strange way. The same goes for eldritch forces-they are certainly thinking and intelligent, but their reason, morality, ethics, or lack of all those are so alien to mortals that reasoning with them is possible, but not in any way most could understand. This could make it possible in theory, but impossible in practice.

A primal force is different entirely-it is an unthinking thing, or if it is aware/thinking/intelligent/sapient/understanding in some sense, even limited, it has a truly one track mind and singular goal. They cannot be reasoned with because they either lack it, or to them the only reasonable thing to do is their single task.

Overall, a villain needs neither reason nor redeeming qualities, but most will have one or both in some sense.

[LibraryOgre]

My first thought on reading this?

Kefka.

Kefka was using a fascist government so he could destroy the world and become an overgod. He has no redeeming qualities. He is in no way reasonable. He's still a terribly memorable and effective villain.

[inexorabletruth]

Meh... how about a villain who is technically reasonable, but just truly awful?



Like, technically reasonable, as in someone intelligent enough to be reasoned with, but still unredeemable? I think that is more terrifying than some force of nature. Tornadoes are destructive and can't be reasoned with. They're scary, and were actually used as an antagonist in Twister. But, the really scary ones are the ones with intelligence, malice, cunning, and at least the appearance of a conscience.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are also those whose mindset is so alien as to be unreachable. Creatures who exist at right angles (that measure +dolphin degrees) to anything approaching normal logic. The mortal incarnation of the idea of pride. Or despair.

Or those more normal creatures whose values are alien to those of the party. The BBEG of my current campaign is a creature that, while formerly mortal, pursued art. Art in the form of twisting and distorting living beings into new shapes. It's current body is a hideous face, transplanted onto a spherical body surrounded by 10 octipodean tentacles. Oh, and infused with power from outside reality (he made a deal with sentient, borg-like thought-forms that have a beef with all existence) as well as the power of the souls it's consumed and twisted. He's not redeemable, he has no redeeming qualities, and he's not reasonable at all. No words will sway him, his "logic" requires facts and mindsets not available to others, etc. But he's currently trying to turn off the sun by bashing in the mechanism that powers it (in the Astral Plane), so he's got to go.

[Anymage]

I'm going to semantically focus this on the word "villain". You can certainly have antagonists who are irrational or even nonsentient, but you rarely feel any emotional impact from dealing with them. You want an active entity who the players feel satisfaction in thwarting.

And in an RPG where the story is filtered through the PCs perspective, it's hard for a pure evil villain to actually pull that off. It's too easy to either go cardboard evil, or inscrutable force. Both, again, work as antagonists. But you'll want more to work with if you expect your players to get properly emotionally invested.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to semantically focus this on the word "villain". You can certainly have antagonists who are irrational or even nonsentient, but you rarely feel any emotional impact from dealing with them. You want an active entity who the players feel satisfaction in thwarting.

And in an RPG where the story is filtered through the PCs perspective, it's hard for a pure evil villain to actually pull that off. It's too easy to either go cardboard evil, or inscrutable force. Both, again, work as antagonists. But you'll want more to work with if you expect your players to get properly emotionally invested.

That's not my experience. I've had a few antagonists--

* A evil lady who sacrificed her entire complex to a living death for power and was attempting to sacrifice an entire city. No redeeming characteristics there, just pure cackling evil. The party hated her with a burning passion.

* The afore-mentioned Twisted One (evil tentacle beast). They have had a grudge against it now for most of the campaign.

* A group of sentient thought-forms bent on destroying reality. They hunted those down with gleeful abandon.

* A "good" person whose goals and methods were too far from the party's. They tried to negotiate and were deeply saddened by the end result (the guy couldn't hold together after they showed him what he really was doing and went boom).

* A cowardly archivist who had etched his soul into a library to avoid paying a deal with some hags, instead sacrificing his people. They hunted the hags and then went back for the archivist.

There's been no difference. They care for reasons orthogonal to the reasonability/redeeming characteristics of the villains.

[Shoreward]

Players have a tendency to hate any roadblock, especially ones with hit points. Said roadblock could have the most reasonable motives in the world, but if they stiff the players when it matters someone is going to knock their hat off on the way past.

As for your question, the important part is there is some underlying logic to the villain’s actions. Even the maddest hatter operates on a twisted logic. A monster who you can't reason with with and whose goals are pure evil can still be trusted to act in a destructive, corrupting way. Hell, I'd say a "force of nature" villain is even more consistent and reliable than a human one.

Y'see, in my experience there's two broad categories for villains. Either you have a villain who is understandable and sympathetic - a kind of tragic, fallen figure - or you have a villain who is a personified force. The first is something the story wants you to understand, while with the second you're expected to cheer for its destruction.

The first one works for a certain kind of story, and it's hip at the moment, but it's not necessary for all stories. The second kind is one you see in many classic epic fantasies, where they almost represent corruption, chaos, and hunger in and of themselves. You're more likely to see the second villain turning people with actual, physical corruption than with a compelling speech and a sad backstory. At its most complex, it wants to tempt you to be evil like it is. It's simple.

This is fine. It's especially fine for a game with real people who want catharsis when they beat a villain rather than the "did I do right?" bittersweet feeling of the first.

My recommendation? You have a big, force-of-nature villain. Add one or two of the other kind, and make them lesser threats. Come up with why they cause destruction and seek power, whether in the name of the larger threat or in the name of combating it. If you'll permit the alignment shorthand, create a Lawful Evil villain to act as a foil to your Chaotic Evil demon.

In short: No, you don't have to make a sympathetic villain with a reasonable motive... but you want some internal logic, and you want to know what your villain does for your story.

[oxybe]

My first thought on reading this?

Kefka.

Kefka was using a fascist government so he could destroy the world and become an overgod. He has no redeeming qualities. He is in no way reasonable. He's still a terribly memorable and effective villain.

I, for one, welcome our new clown overdeity.

And I'm not just saying that out of fear of death lasers from his ludicrously tall tower. Now excuse me as I go wear these green and white robes and march in front of a second, smaller tower.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Just because a villan is pure evil doesn't mean it's a bad character.

Think the jocker, he's a true psyco but he's not a bad charatcer because he has motivations and ideas other than "I'm doing this because I'm evil Muhuauahuahau"

Here have a video:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Y'see, in my experience there's two broad categories for villains. Either you have a villain who is understandable and sympathetic - a kind of tragic, fallen figure - or you have a villain who is a personified force. The first is something the story wants you to understand, while with the second you are expected to cheer for its destruction.

This, basically. A good villain is either too human to too inhuman. They either tap into fears about your own actions, and the things you might be driven to do by mistake or in pursuit of your own goals, or they tap into fears about the chaotic, uncaring universe where you can do everything right and still suffer. Both can be extremely effective.

[Darth Ultron]

No.

This is a big Disney and Wacky Politically Correct thing from the last couple years.

One Train wreck of thought is that everyone is a Good Angel...and that Villains are not even really villains; they are just people having bad days..and all they need is love and understanding (and, of course, for everyone else to bow down and roll over and do exactly whatever the villain wants..wink wink) and suddenly every ''so called villain'' will be a Good Angel again.

You see this is just about all modern fiction.

But it IS Fiction. Plenty of villains, even more so the monster type ones, are just bad to the bone.

[hamishspence]

The concept of "redeemed villains/antagonists" goes back thousands of years. It's not a new thing.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm going to semantically focus this on the word "villain". You can certainly have antagonists who are irrational or even nonsentient, but you rarely feel any emotional impact from dealing with them. You want an active entity who the players feel satisfaction in thwarting.

And in an RPG where the story is filtered through the PCs perspective, it's hard for a pure evil villain to actually pull that off. It's too easy to either go cardboard evil, or inscrutable force. Both, again, work as antagonists. But you'll want more to work with if you expect your players to get properly emotionally invested.

I'm not sure how that lines up with how the terms are used, IME, by writers.

An antagonist is a character opposed to the protagonist, but they don't have to be evil or bad, just opposed.

The villain is the one who is actively evil.