Villains with Internal Codes

by Romie Stott

The center of any story is conflict: man against man, man against himself, or man against his environment. Without something to struggle against, there is no story - just a setting and some characters. In other words, the most important element of a story is not your hero, but the force opposing your hero.

Unfortunately, many otherwise competent authors have a mental block when it comes to writing a villain. If you've played a lot of video games, read a lot of fantasy, or watched a lot of action movies, you know the drill: villains must be incredibly, ridiculously evil so that we can have lots of fight scenes and not feel that our heroes are murderers.

Take Lord of the Rings, for example. Sauron is not a good villain. He's a plot device, and a bad one. He's the ultimate evil with infinite power and as big an army as he wants and he wants to destroy everything good and beautiful and he likes ugly monsters and he lives in a big black castle surrounded by desolation and magma. Ho-hum. Fortunately, Sauron almost never shows up in the book.

Sauruman, on the other hand, is a good villain. He's a control freak who wants power, and he'll be on whichever side offers it to him. He cares more about knowledge than about people or trees; he breeds monsters and builds war machines to see if he can. He uses the palantir so he can know what it knows, even at the expense of giving away his own secrets.

Are Sauruman's thirst for knowledge and his drive for power different motivations? No. They both embody the same desire for control. That's the secret to writing a good villain - or a good hero: find out what he wants most. The best authors will then take the next step and ask why it's so important to him. . . . which is how we get Gollum, everyone's favorite Lord of the Rings villain. What does he want? The ring - not as a tool to accomplish a further goal, but as an end in itself. Why does Gollum want the ring so much? Tolkien gives us an extensive backstory about how over time the ring became exclusively central to Gollum's existence.

As a result, we find it completely believable when Gollum puts himself through extreme deprivations to follow the heroes' party; when Gollum obeys and susequently betrays Frodo; and when he's willing to hurl himself into a volcano in order to be with the ring in the end. We're even sympathetic.

Gollum works because he follows the most basic rule of writing a villain: villains are people, just like heroes. Villains have favorite candy bars, take vacations to the beach, and worry about running out of toilet paper. They don't think of themselves as evil (although they may have the same self-esteem problems as anyone else); they just do what they feel they need to do to get what they want. They don't all work together; they don't all like each other. They may even be heroes themselves - albeit heroes who disagree with your main character.

MOTIVATION

A person can justify anything she does. If she couldn't, she wouldn't do it. This means you, as the author, have to be able to justify everything every character does - even the character who only appears for one sentence. You don't always have to tell the reader, but you have to know. "I need this character to sabotage the factory because that advances the plot" is unacceptable. That's your motivation - not your character's.

In general, the more controversial the choice, the more rationalization the decision will take. For instance:

Q. Why did you eat?

A. Because I was hungry.

Pretty straightfoward. A more difficult question, however, will usually result in a more complex answer.

Q. Why did you eat that person?

A. We were stuck on a frozen mountain and we hadn't eaten in two weeks. He was going to try to eat me; I could see it in his eyes. Then he broke his ankle. I had to kill him; he was going to attract mountain lions. If I hadn't killed him and eaten him, we would both have died. One of us had to survive in order to bring home this letter which proves Count Bossa is building a private army which will attack during the coronation ceremony.

It's a matter of confidence. If your character is sure he's right, and sure no one will question him, his justification will be short and simple. If he's worried that he's wrong, or that someone important will think he's wrong, he'll have an elaborate excuse.

What a character finds controversial and what society finds controversial may be different things. That said, don't underestimate the intelligence and adaptability of your characters; cultural background is great, but people assimilate quickly when it comes to the big obvious things. If your cannibal character is worried that his non-cannibal superior will disapprove of his decision to eat someone, he'll still spend a lot of time thinking up those justifications.

Perversely, a confident person or a person making a less important decision will be more likely to acknowlege alternatives than someone who feels guilty, or nervous, or more at risk. The person who made the controversial decision has probably spent more time analyzing it, perhaps excessively so. She may even reach the point where she doesn't see it as a choice at all: it was the only way.

As a result, villains' choices should be at least as justified as heroes'. Every bad action should have a rationalization behind it - and that rationalization will not necessarily extend to other bad actions. This means that just because a villain is evil in one respect does not mean he's evil across the board.

He may be a corrupt cop trying to shut your heroes' business down, and he may have no problem with shooting an unarmed woman in the head. That doesn't automatically mean he also rapes his daughter, burns down churches, kicks puppies, and beheads his employees for minor infractions. He didn't shoot that woman because he's evil; he shot her because he had what he thought was a good reason. "Because he's evil!" will never be an adequate justification.

Villains without justifications ruin stories because they shatter the reader's illusion that the story is real. Even when stories are set in deliberately unrealistic worlds, they must ring true emotionally. In order for your readers to have a stake in the central conflict of the story, you need a fully-realized villian who will torment the readers as much as he does the heroes. That takes justification.

RULES SYSTEMS

When you are writing a villain, or a law-breaking hero character like a vigilante or a thief, it helps to come up with a few basic rules which determine what the character is and isn't willing to do. For instance, let's look at Darth Vader.

Vader:

1. Wants to preserve order
   • is willing to kill people for it
   • is willing to save other people for it
2. Wants to belong to something larger than himself
   • likes the Empire
   • was drawn to the Jedi order
   • feels some familial responsibility
3. Views people who use the Force as superior to people who don't
4. Is willing to delegate, but likes to deal with things personally when possible
5. Worries about who will replace him when he is gone

There's a lot more than that going into Darth Vader; he has an extensive backstory, specialized combat techniques, and a robotic suit, without which he wouldn't be Vader. However, these rules are his main drives, and they're a blueprint for everything he does. No matter how complicated his decisions, they are rooted in some combination of the above rules.

It's important to note that these rules are present tense; they don't go into Vader's childhood and family history. Vader's past shaped his drives, but his drives also shaped his past; given the same background, a different person would have made different choices. Often the best hero/villain nemesis pairings involve two people who started in similar circumstances, but came up with different answers to the important questions.

An internal code tells you more than what a character's actions will be: it tells you how she thinks about those actions. What is she willing to kill for? What is she willing to die for? What does she want, and what does she fear? To determine cause and effect, you need to be able to clearly state your villain's wants and needs - and to clearly distinguish between the two. Furthermore, you need to know how much she is willing to bend the rules - both those she sets and those set for her.

Most people internalize the basic rules of their society. Stealing personal property will mean something dramatically different to a communist character who believes all things belong to all people, a member of the nobility who believes anything he wants is his by the grace of God, and a libertarian who believes private ownership is the foundation of society. By the same token, if a character belongs to an organization like the clergy or the military, he may be unwilling to violate the rules of that society even if it is in his best interest to do so.

Lawbreakers don't always make the best villians; some of the great villains are strictly by the book. Often the "villain" the readers will hate the most isn't somebody with evil, take-over-the-world plans; it's someone petty. Think about it: would you be more frustrated if your plan to save the world was stymied by a badass ninja assasin with a vast criminal empire, or if you were balked by a car-rental clerk showing off for his girlfriend? Likewise, your opponent might be someone who wants your mission to succeed . . . but wants the credit for it.

Although you need to know your characters' motivations, not every character will be perfectly self aware. In other words, what a character's motivations are and what a character believes her motivations to be are sometimes different things. A character may believe she does something to be nice, when deep down, she's trying to show off. She might believe she surrounds herself with strong people because they are her peers; secretly, she might feel weak and want protection. Conversely, meek people are often convinced that they are ruthless.

It's up to you how well a character knows himself, and how much you are willing to tell the reader. You may know his favorite movie, the names of his pet fish, and his most traumatic childhood memory. You may only know that he's tall and willing to work for whoever pays him the most. Either way, you need to know his rules - what he will and won't do, and why - and you need to stick to them. And remember: just because a character is willing to do a thing doesn't mean he will do it every time the opportunity presents itself.

MENTALLY ILL CHARACTERS

Don't give someone a mental illness unless you know what you're doing. It might seem convenient to say: "this character is psychopathic, so I can have him torture characters for fun and knife his boss at a random moment!"

No. You can't. That won't be a cool and unpredictable twist ending. That will be clumsy writing.

To begin with, "psychopath" and "sociopath" are not terms which are currently used by the American Psychiatric Association or the DSM-IV. They were phased out when the media sensationalized them, just as the Motion Picture Association switched from "X-Rated" to "NC-17." The current official term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder."

"Antisocial" does not in this case mean "hates people." In fact, people with this disorder are often quite charming, and usually care deeply about how they are perceived by others. What "psychopaths" are is people who are unable to feel connected to others - people who lack the capacity for empathy, and who therefore feel no remorse when they hurt someone.

Does this mean they enjoy hurting people? No. That would be sadism. (And not all sadists enjoy hurting all people; many sadists only enjoy causing pain to people who like pain.) If you cry, or ask an antisocial to put himself in your place, he won't be moved - but if he can get what he wants by being nice to you, he'll be nice to you. (I use the pronoun "he" advisedly; those with this disorder are overwhelmingly male.)

There are other disorders which might be what you're looking for - schizoid, perhaps, or narcissistic, or manic, or some combination of disorders. (Some preliminary research links can be found here in Reflection's Edge's Resources section.) Whatever you decide, you're looking at a lot of research. You need to know how strongly genetic the illness is - did one of the character's parents have it? How is it treated, and how sucessful is the treatment? Is the illness cyclical? Is there something environmental that sets it off?

When is the onset? (Some forms of schizophrenia don't begin until a person's 30s, and others are set off by the stress of combat, college, or relocation.) Is there organic damage involved? (Most antisocials sustained damage to their frontal lobes sometime before the age of 13; they have trouble with logic and higher math, and can't understand which rules are okay to break and which rules aren't. Most people with multiple personality disorder have a history of abuse and substantial brain damage; as well as being emotionally stunted, they are usually retarded or learning disabled - not exactly your criminal masterminds.)

On an important side note, don't confuse schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder. "Schizophrenia" does mean "split mind" - but split from reality, not split from itself. Likewise, schizophrenia, schizoid personality disorder, and schizotypal personality disorder are not the same thing, nor are they closely related.

Mentally ill characters are not unmotivated characters. Although their responses may seem inappropriate, they are not random. A severely autistic person may love you for three weeks and then act like she doesn't know you - perhaps because you took off your necklace, which was how she recognized you. A person with frontal lobe damage may blow up at you for offering her a piece of candy - but she couldn't tell that your facial expression was one of friendship instead of hatred.

In short, writing a "crazy" person means doing more work, not less. "Crazy" doesn't give you the freedom of random, fearless, unmotivated actions - people with mental disorders are usually under more constraints, and more rigid constraints, than anyone sane. Do your research, and do a lot of it - different schools of psychology offer different explanations. Make sure your sources are reliable, and as recent as possible. Our understanding of the brain changes every year; some theories that were respected thirty years ago are now almost comic.

BREAKING THE RULES

Sometimes, the best-laid plans will go awry, and you will realize you want a character to do something which violates the nice rule system you've set up for her. Does this mean you have to scrap her internal code and turn her into an elaborate deus ex machina?

Well, there are two good sneaky ways to get around the problem, but first you need to make sure a problem exists. Maybe your character has a rule about never stabbing anyone in the back, and you really want her to stab someone in the back. Look again at her primary motivation as a character - control, renown, protection, whatever. That motivation probably supercedes any lesser code. For instance, if your character defines herself by her protective urges, she might stab someone in the back if her brother was threatened.

Likewise, some subjects are so emotional that they override rationality. This is why we have the temporary insanity defense. There's the obvious "endanger a mother's child and see what happens," but there are other more unexpected (and nevertheless intensely personal) issues that will make otherwise reasonable people intractable. Think of heated conversations you've had or overheard about abortion, adultery, religion, or politics. People present things as "facts" which aren't. They ignore other facts that are real. You're often dealing with nothing more than a rational veneer over a gut emotional reaction.

Finally, fear, pain, hunger, or drunkenness can make someone do what she wouldn't otherwise. Drunkenness lowers inhibitions; the others involve basic animal drives which may be stronger than your character's more evolved rational side. In effect, you have to ask yourself two questions:

1. How strong is the rule? Is it central to the character's life, or is it just a preference?
2. What is the character's mental toughness? Can she hold up against torture, or bribery, or temptation? How much torture? How much bribery? In battle, she might be the bravest person in the world, but can she stand up to social ostracism?

Give a character enough reason to break a rule - even a self-imposed rule - and she'll break it. She'll probably regret it later, but that's for later.

If that's not enough, well, there are those two sneaky tricks. Trick one is to give your character imperfect information. Maybe she mistakes someone for someone else. Maybe she trusts the wrong person. Maybe she misunderstands what someone says, or doesn't hear the end of a sentence. Maybe she incorrectly analyzes how dangerous or hard a situation is or isn't. There are endless reasons why your character may be confused and not realize it.

Remember: while you are omnicient, your characters aren't - nor are your readers. If you use this trick, make sure you explain it to your audience during or after the fact. (This does not, however, mean your character has to realize what happened.)

The second trick isn't really a trick. If your character isn't doing what you need her to do to advance the story, rewrite the character. Change her internal code. Maybe it requires a complete overhaul. More likely, it just needs a little tweaking. Maybe our character who doesn't steal irreplacable things can't back down from a dare, or maybe she hates people of a certain social class and will steal anything she can from them. Maybe she doesn't steal irreplacable things unless they're holy relics, which she collects. Do what you need to do to make the story work.

. . . but be sure to make it backwards compatible. If you change a character's motives and logic, you change it for always. Just because you didn't need her to love holy relics until page 170 does not mean she didn't love them back on page 3. You may have to do some rewriting.

It is possible for a character to have a change of heart mid-story, just as real people have spiritual epiphanies, but it is unlikely to change his internal code - only the way he interprets it. A character's code - his rules - tells you what his values are, and who he is. It is the backbone of any decision to change sides, or turn good, or betray his best friend.

If you want a to change a character's internal code - his most deeply held beliefs - it will probably take a long process of justification, a transformative experience, and a struggle to change. It can make for a great story, but it takes a lot of time, and the audience needs to see it happening. If you decide to write a story which includes a villain's redemption, or a secondary character's fall from grace, you may quickly find he is taking over the book.

Although you can have a character change his mind while the reader isn't looking, it's almost always a bad idea. Suprise is not the same thing as suspense. Suspense involves slowly building tension, and involves the reader in the process - is what we think is going to happen really going to happen? How will the character pull it off? Will he succeed? Suspense gets the reader thinking, theorizing, playing along with the book.

Surprise is just a guy jumping out from behind a corner. Sure, you'll get the reader to jump, but it's not much of a challenge - you not only made the guy, you made the corner. Discriminating readers will be angry instead of delighted. They count on you to lead them through a complete story, and after a couple of flashy fake-outs, they'll stop reading.

CONCLUSION

Villains are characters, just like heroes. They have people they love, and people they hate. They worry about their finances; they laugh at good jokes. Sometimes, they are selfish. Other times, they are generous. They may be horribly evil, and we may love to hate them. They may be so close to good that they make us cry. Whatever villain you choose to write - however realistic or outrageous - is a person with needs and fears. Write him that way, and your readers will remember.

---

Romie Stott is the associate editor of Reflection's Edge.