A Logical Argument on the Topic of Villainy

by Rob Leo a.k.a. Trevor Lyniad

It has been a long while since my last submission. "Skies of Arcadia," "Lunar 2: Eternal Blue," "Final Fantasy X": I haven't been around this good old neighborhood for the maiden downpours of editorials dwelling on such games. Now that I am finally returned, I see that delay has thrown me past the more specific of submissions, only to have me landed neck deep within a waging battle of both wit and ideology concerning villainy in RPGs, and in the most recent installments, villainRy.

What a massively complex topic of argument; how could I resist getting involved?

Now then, to the first and most necessary question: "What is a villain?"

A villain, in the classical sense, is one who goes against those who stand for "Good," a stance usually adopted through a perversion in morality, such as greed, lust, wrath, envy, you know, all the cool stuff. A villain might also be one who commits a villainous act. Such a definition came into popular use due to the feudal use of the word "villain," one that referred to the lowest class of feudal tenant, a servant, a stature considered vile.

Aside from these definitions, it is also plainly visible that a villain can also be something other than an animate, or once animate entity (Dracula tries for loopholes). For instance, "Oedipus Rex," the play authored by Sophocles, does not contain within its passages a complete villain of mortal fiber. Rather, it tends to the notion that a force, in this example, Fate, is that which is to be held in villainy. A force such as Fate might even be considered greatest of adversaries because of its utter versatility. To quote our friend Romeo, as he so delicately phrases it (as he screams up to the heavens):

Now that we understand what a villain is, we might understand a major villain's purpose within an RPG.

A major RPG villain must be of a threat that drives the hero upon a quest of reasonably equal significance, whereby making the story line believable. If my little brother came into my room now and said, "I am going to take over the world tomorrow," I wouldn't jump out of my chair, grab a sword and shield, and with my two or three closest allies travel to a distant land in order to find a way to stop him. And I certainly wouldn't write about such a thing, or create an RPG that would follow such a ridiculous turn, for the threat and the quest are horribly at odds in terms of weight. However, the threat and quest could also be equal and miniscule at the same time. My sister could have finished the milk (curses!) and my quest would be to go buy some more. Therefore, there must be another variable at work with this portion of the villain's purpose.

This variable is intrigue. A villain must not simply push the hero upon a quest of equal stature to his threat, but must also make that threat intriguing to the gaming audience. It is therefore the villain, due to his initial act of villainy being the impetus for the game's proceeding action, that determines not only the future of the game's story line, but also the initial reaction to the game by the player. "Final Fantasy VII" is a good example of how a quest matches a threat of great magnitude. The Threat: a meteor summoned by Sephiroth that will destroy the inhabitants of the world. The Quest: save the world from this atrocity by finding a summoning power of equal, and perhaps, greater strength. Presto! The audience is intrigued, and the heroes' reaction is believable.

Now that a major villain's core purpose is understood, let's examine the ways in which a villainous character might be portrayed so as to enhance its presence within an RPG, keeping in mind a major villain's core purpose of gaining the interest of the gamer.

A major villain should be....

- Intellectual

Imagine an RPG where the major villain is a total moron. Not in the sense that you consider his philosophical outlooks to be moronic because you disagree with them, or think him moronic due to how he goes about his doings simply because you think there to be a better method. For example, you might deem Ultimecia a moron because you don't see any clear reason why she would attempt what she attempts. (Which, by the way of a tangent, has to be one of the most ridiculous of plot-holes in the history of the Universe and beyond.... phew.) I am referring to a character of villainy that is a moron in the sense that he thinks that "2 + 2 = Bacon" and that the Yankees were right in trading Jay Buhner in '88. I'm talking truly lacking in the brains department. Imagine such an RPG, or can you even do so? It's extremely difficult, because such a villain could never be intriguing nor much of a threat as to spawn an intriguing plot.

In fact, many people hold close to their hearts the idea that a villain of intellectual superiority in reference to the hero is the preferred, myself included. This idea goes along with the notion that with the increase of intelligence, there is an equal increase in the capacity for evil. Kurtz from Conrad's The Heart of Darkness is a prime example of this. It is Kurtz's seemingly endless capacity for evil that can be seen as the most intriguing element of the novel. Iago to Othello, Moriarty to Holmes, Ghaleon to Alex, Krelian to Fei: each of these villains, as well as many others, are known by many as the greater of the species. The small may dwindle, but the great will fall.

This idea of intellect still floats with the idea of a force as the major antagonist. Due to a force's relatively limitless flexibility, such an antagonist may be made to seem more intellectual and craftier than any mortal being.

- Alluring

A major villain should be alluring not only to the player so as to create an intimate interest, but also to the characters within the RPG itself. Just as in real life, the characters in RPGs, both major and minor alike follow those other characters that seem to have an allure of tongue, wit, or face. The characters if given the opportunity to think might definitely run from the major villain, but they're often too bedazzled by him to find such time.

An alluring villain has an immeasurable advantage over a villain who has not such traits. Sure, there are examples of villains amidst RPGs that are not alluring but are yet so powerful as to be deemed great, such as X-Death. But, the truth of the matter is that such villains are in fact weak in comparison to the other, more charismatic characters. This is due to the fact that despite their power, they are alone, and in their lack of persuaded allies, they are vulnerable. You might say, "Well, what if he were to force people under his control so as to aid him in his diabolical scheme?" A character forced to aid a villain is less of a threat than a character that joins a villain willingly. Not to mention the fact that most often than not in an RPG, such aids to villains are set loose from their bonds one way or another.

A force, as well as a man, may be alluring. A force as good-natured as love may be considered a villainous antagonist in many works of literature.

- Multi-Layered

A gamer must be able to relate to the major villain of an RPG in order for a steady or increasing level of interest and believability. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to make special use of the ancient way of the tragic hero.

Take a man (I'm not being sexist, but rather going about a generality, so don't e-mail me about it. Such things have happened.), usually one of nobility or of a high acclaim. Give this man a single tragic flaw, a flaw such as greed, a lust for power, you know, something good and sinful. Let this flaw grow and grow within the man, until his body has been withered away from the inside, only to leave a shell of its former self containing but that flaw and the drive it commands. Similar to the tragic hero, whose tragic flaw (i.e. Odysseus and pride) seems to continually halt his ultimate triumph, this breed of villain is continually conflicted by his underlying sense of morality and his overbearing fault, causing a skewed sense of right and wrong and overall morality. It is with his many layers that a villain most often ensnares the gamer, causing him to become entranced with both the character and the game itself.

A force such as Fate may of course be multi-layered, but not in the sense as explored above. Rather, Fate finds its layers in terms of possibility, and it is the endless array of possible outcomes that makes Fate a most hazardous adversary.

To respect a villain for fitting all these criteria is one thing. A villain such as Krelian may indeed be respected in that he could justify his threat upon the world with a reasonable and sensible argument. In addition, one might also respect Krelian in that if not for his tragic flaw of doubt, possibly the most brutal of all faults, he would have been a great man in the truest sense of the word. Also, a villain such as Ghaleon might be respected for his ability to back his assaults with a reasonable argument that simply disagrees with the philosophical ideals of the hero (and in this case, the World as well).

To look-up to such a villain is another. I have read in some editorials, including the latest upon this topic, that such men as Sephiroth should be looked upon with envious eyes. Here is a quote from the editorial "Response to Essence of VillainRy" (Note: The "R" in "Villainry" has been capitalized not in mockery or something so immature, but rather to show for future reference that this is a misspelling.):

"Well, in the root of it, sanity is being normal and keeping composure. Evil is not normal, giving into one's urges is normal, but insane? Kind of contradicting isn't it? I admire Sephiroth because what he does, he does with such sangfroid, it just feels good to read."

Let's look at this quote sentence by sentence. In sentence 1, the author of the editorial defines sanity with a personal flare. No dictionary would call sanity the condition under which one is "normal," because "normal" can and will never be defined. In addition, to associate sanity with composure is also a mistake. A man who clucks like a chicken constantly between claims that he is the reborn spirit of King Phillip of Macedonia may do so while keeping his composure, for he might do so quietly and calmly. No, sanity is rather, as Webster's defines it:

sanity \San"i*ty\, n. [L. sanitas, from sanus sound, healthy.] The condition or quality of being sane; soundness of health of body or mind, especially of the mind; saneness.

Soundness of mind does not mean the aspect of composure, but rather the ability to differentiate between what is right and wrong and to judge and reason upon such conclusions. Now, can you honestly back Sephiroth's actions with a reasoning that abides by right and wrong? I don't think you can. Sephiroth was right in his own mind, but his reasoning, if argued to one of sound mind, would appear rather insane and selfish. In contrast, a villain such as Ghaleon would be able to display his argument to someone of sound mind and be deemed sound of mind as well, because his actions sparked from a philosophical methodology that was sturdy with foundations of logic, though that logic was skewed by selfishness as well.

Sentence 2 is nothing but personal speculation. One might disagree or agree with it depending on his or her personal beliefs. A believer in original sin might disagree and say that evil is "normal," while a realist might say that neither is "normal," and that it depends solely on the person. The idea that giving into one's urges is "normal" is rather vague. Some might take instinct as the foremost drive of the human mind, and others might say that strength is garnered through self-preservation against one's primal urges. Therefore, because "normal" cannot be defined, does this statement by the editorial's author pertain to majority, or to expectation?

Sentence 3 is a statement that I personally find frightening. I am not insulting the author so much as wishing he had rephrased his thoughts. To say that you admire a man because what he does he does with such sangfroid (coolness in a tense situation) is rather disheartening. Sephiroth was insane, as this argument has attempted to show, and though he had his reasons, he also had the strength to rise above, which ultimately makes him weak. To say that you admire a man despite his actions, sane or insane, because he orchestrates them with a coolness of character reminds me of such people as those who followed Charles Manson, amongst others.

Sephiroth is a good villain, but he is not great in that he does not have enough depth. He is alluring, styled, intelligent, and fits his purpose, but his reasoning is lacking, and a villain who simply goes about a personal vendetta or goal without a methodology that we as sound-minded people can understand, as well as deem sane, is rather lacking all together.

On one last side note, I would like to respond to comments in the editorial "The Essence of VillainRy" (once again with the "R" fellas).

Though this argument is at odds with the responsive editorial to "The Essence of VillainRy," it does not totally coincide with that editorial either. The author is correct in saying that urges of lust and greed are immature and not the opposite. He is also correct concerning villains in RPGs, for the most part. However, concerning heroes, this argument extends to oppose one of his most vital of points.

To say that a hero with a turbulent past is of a lesser strength than one who has not might be true. Sure, a "bad-ass" hero who hasn't always been pure of heart might be weak, but if he weren't so, would the character be more or less believable? Also, if the hero remained fully pure of heart, wherein does the relation between gamer and character lie? I personally do not want to play as a man that I admire, but cannot at all relate to. Some of the greatest and most renowned heroes of both literature and RPGs have not only had tragic flaws, but have also been subdued by these flaws, not to mention often the flaws of the very enemy that they had sought to vanquish. Odysseus was a tragic hero with the flaw of pride and Fei held the tragic flaw of self-pity/cowardice. Leon from "Tales of Destiny" and Lacan from "Xenogears" (later called "Grahf") are two heroes turned villains through their own tragic flaws. It is the tragic flaw that most often helps to define the character with the greatest ease. Also, the tragic flaw adds another layer unto the character, posing the potential for a hero's losing, a hero's turning evil, and a hero's loss of integrity. This is without a doubt an intriguing factor.

After reading this editorial, one might be able to judge the worth and strength of a villain in a pure way, untainted by the materialistic and the trivial aspects of a character. Sure, style is great, so is being a "bad-ass" as one editorial author referred to frequently, but it is only a single aspect of a villain. A villain that not only follows its purpose, but also is able to be intelligent, alluring, and most importantly, multi-layered with a philosophy or outlook that still follows a soundness of mind, is a character that will stand the tests of time because like any real person, its memory will live on in the hearts that held it with respect.

- Rob Leo a.k.a. Trevor Lyniad

Original Editorial: Reponse to Essence of Villainry