Shallow Villians Are No Good: Stay In The Deep End

by G. Carr 

In the movie "Austin Powers," when Dr. Evil puts Austin and Ms. Kensington in a classic James Bond style trap, his son asks "Why can't I just go get my gun, and we can blow their heads off?" Evil replies, "No. I'm going to put them in an easily escapable situation." What the heck does this have to do with video games, you may ask? This whole exchange illustrates how dissapointing and silly one-dimensional villians are. He does just what any James Bond fan expects of him, and this is why Mike Myers, the writer, is mocking him.

In the editorial "The role of villians in RPGs," Fritz Fraundorf writes that "The foremost problem with most villains is that they are only villains because the game tells us so," and goes on to describe the situation in Final Fantasy Tactics. In this game, Ramza faces up to the Church, his brothers, and many other random enemies. Of course, there could be different games based on point of view: These groups are enemies of Ramza because most of them are trying to kill him or screw up his life one way or another! If the game was from the point of view of, say, some group of common thieves, then Ramza and all of the nobles would be villians. This doesn't make them any less villainous; evil is in the eye of the beholder. If the Beouvles come to your hideout to oppress you, I guarantee you they'll be your villian soon enough.

"Or how about Sephiroth? He wasn't really a bad guy, just misguided. In fact, many people didn't feel that he should even have been killed."

As for the first part, this is exactly why Sephiroth makes an excellent villian. He started out good, and had a fall from grace. His gradual descent makes his character ever more complex, tragic, and intriguing. It allows for the player to contemplate things such as, what would have happened if he never found the Mako reactor, or the cellar in the mansion. As for the second part, why shouldn't he have been killed? He started out good, but then, he ran around killing everyone, and took it upon himself to wipe out all life on earth. I think at this point he's pretty much punched his ticket.

"In order for any villain to be truly effective, the audience (in the case of RPGs, the player) must dislike the villain. Take, for example, Balio and Sunder in Breath of Fire 3."

I've never played Breath of Fire 3, but I'll say what I can from Fraundorf's description of these villains. If these villains, time and time again, show up to thwart the wiles of the heroes, how interesting is that? Of course you dislike them, but we've got James Bond all over again. It's predictable and shallow. How involved can you get if your entire interaction with a villian is "Here we are to stop you again," "Oh no you don't," or that sort of thing? This sort of hero-villain relationship does nothing to draw the player into the game world. The villain falls into a traditional archetype with little variance, and while providing an obstacle to the player, provides no more stimulation than that: just another obstacle.

"Sephiroth may be a good character, but he is not a good villain. I even feel that he should have been an ally, and not the villain. The best villains are those with absolutely no redeeming qualities..."

The fact that Sephiroth would have made a great ally is exactly what makes him a good villain. His becoming an evil monster is all the more tragic and involving because of his former relationship with Cloud and SOLDIER. Villains like Kefka, who start out completely evil and only change in the sense that they gain more power, fall into that archetype, and provide nothing to the player. The development and complexity of a villain is at least as important as that of the hero, and games that fall back on that James Bond Dr. Evil villian stereotype, while they can still be excellent games, are leaving out an important and involving aspect of gaming.