I wanted to comment on the concept of a ‘pure evil’ villain, and why I believe they are better than what they can often be given credit for today.  A story’s villain might be the most important part of a story, as one could argue that the level of heroics by the main character are only as great as the villain they defeat. I would begin by saying that a great host of different villains, of course, exist, but I find that there are two kinds of villains that are the most common.

The first is the ‘pure evil’ sort of villain. This one is quite simplistic, where the villain is a complete embodiment of evil who is filled only with malice, and they are simply evil because they are, or perhaps because they enjoy being such. Often their goal is to simply enslave and rule over all others and they will stop at nothing to do so. There is little explanation needed as to why nor how they came to be as they are within the story, only that this villain is evil and must be defeated.

The other common sort of villain is one more complicated. They are not simply evil because they are, but rather will often have a story of how they became a villain. Perhaps this villain might have been wronged by the good characters, and in result view them as evil have a grudge against them. The villain might believe they are doing good when in actually they are doing great evil. Someone else might have forced them into becoming what they are. And so on. These villains are more realistic and more human, and therefore the reader can more easily understand how they have the motivations that they have. And the motivations are more specific than to simply rule over others. Complex is a very common word used for these sorts of villains. They might fall into a more gray area and not be totally evil, and they might have a more complicated reason for becoming the villain. They are not nearly as simple as a purely evil villain is.

Now among these two kinds of villains, one is very often praised while the other is quickly dismissed. The complex villain is often acclaimed for being more realistic and more compelling. The pure evil villain, however, is very often quickly dismissed, with many in the field of storytelling asserting that such a villain is old and overused, unrealistic, uninteresting, lacks a specific motivation other than to rule over others, and thus should be avoided.

I do not agree with such assertions, and I believe that these ‘pure evil’ villains can be far better than they are given credit for. Now, that is not to say that such a villain does not have its fundamental weaknesses, which I think are well documented. Such a villain, simply evil and filled with malice, can fail of course if told poorly, but could the same not be said for the more complex villain also? And could the same not be said of any concept that is implemented into a story?

What I argue is that the purely evil villain has its strengths that can be underappreciated. And the more complex villains, while they do have their traits that make them interesting to the reader, also have their own weaknesses that might not always be pointed out.

The complex villain can make for a more interesting situation within the story, where perhaps good and evil are not so clear, and with the villain not being so evil and the good not being so good. The villain might be more human and relatable, where the reader might be able to understand why they became as they are in the story. A complex villain might think they have justifications to their actions, even if those actions are wrong. And these ideas, of course, can work if done well.

The greatest weakness of the complex villain, I believe, is that if they fall too far into the gray area, then there is a risk that the reader might relate too much to or even sympathize with that villain, possibly more so than the main character. In a story, we are supposed to root against the villain, are we not? And this weakness of the complex villain I consider to be a strength of the purely evil villain. The reader can know very clearly who not too root for, and someone who is filled only with evil and malice would not be relatable to the reader.

I would also argue that the pure evil villain can be terrifying in a way that a complex villain cannot. The complex villain, being more realistic and more human, is more approachable compared to the purely evil kind. The fact that the pure evil villain is unrealistic makes them less relatable and less human, and this makes such a villain more unknown, more supernatural, and therefore more frightening and often times more powerful. It means that they cannot be approached, nor reasoned with. The lack of realism is a reason why critics will state that this villain should be avoided, but I would argue that fantasy, where these villains are often placed, by definition is not realistic, and therefore it is ok to have such a villain in a story.

In facing such a more frightening villain, greater courage is required, and other timeless themes of selflessness and sacrifice may are also be needed. A tale with a purely evil villain, I would argue, can greater achieve such themes and in general reach greater epic heights than a tale with a villain that is more human and complex.

But I do not quite argue that one is better than the other. That is a matter of personal preference. The strengths of the complex villain are better documented, and so I am giving the strengths of the purely evil villain, which I do not think are pointed out nearly as often. I instead argue that the pure evil villain should not be so quickly dismissed, and that such a villain is better suited for certain stories, just like the complex villain has certain stories that it is better suited for.

For example, in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, the themes are of good and evil, courage, friendship, selflessness, and not giving up amidst great adversity, among other things. A more human, relatable, complex villain would not fit in such a story as a more purely evil villain like Sauron would. The Lord of the Rings does not lack complex characters, as I think Gollum would fit into such a category. However, the ultimate evil of the story is Sauron, and having such a great evil allowed Lord of the Rings to portray the more timeless themes like courage and friendship I think better than any other story written. And having an evil villain like Sauron allowed the story to reach epic heights that I don’t think any other story ever has, nor will, reach.

On the other hand, A Song of Ice and Fire, by George R.R. Martin, is considered as a more gray, complex story where good and evil are not quite so clear. The characters are more human and no one is quite evil, nor is anyone quite purely good. A pure evil villain would not fit so well into that story in the way that more complex villains and characters would.

I will go to movies and give a different and very interesting example: Star Wars. Among the themes of Star Wars are good against evil, being tempted by evil, or the dark side as it is called in the story, tragedy when one falls to the dark side, but also redemption, where one sees the good in a villain when others cannot, and risks their own life just to bring them back. This story actually requires both kinds of villains.

In Star Wars, Darth Vader would better fit the category of a more complex villain, but while he might be the main antagonist, he is not the ultimate evil in the story. That would be the emperor, who fits the description of a purely evil villain. For Anakin Skywalker to turn to the dark side and become Darth Vader, there must be an evil, devil sort of character to tempt and bring him to the dark side, thus creating the necessity of the emperor, the pure evil villain and ultimate evil in the story. Without such a devil character, there is no complex villain like Vader. The payoff for the story then comes when Vader’s son Luke risks his own life to redeem his father, leading to his father becoming good again and defeating the emperor.

Being an author myself, I would be remiss if I did not include my own story as an example as well. A Drifters’ Road, though only one book is published as of now, will contain themes of good and evil, and in it I will try to capture many themes that Tolkien once did. There are also religious allegories in the tale, with themes of faith and whether a greater power watches over us, and also a sort of theme of angels and demons, where angels will serve God, or in my story that creator is called Enilundar, while demons will choose to reject him for evil. And with such themes, complex villains do not fit so well in my story as purely evil villains would.

The greater point I make is that some kinds of stories require this ‘pure evil’ villain. And if so, then the writer should put such a villain in there. If this villain does not fit the kind of story the writer is making, then they should not put the ‘pure evil’ villain in it. Everything comes down to what kind of story the writer is creating. The purely evil villain is better suited for my story than the complex villain is, and for other stories, it can be the opposite.

Critics of these ‘pure evil’ villains I think can be quick to dismiss them. Such villains have their weaknesses if done poorly, but again, the same goes for complex villains, or any other kinds of villains for that matter. While critics would say that a pure evil villain is too simplistic in character and in motivation, I would not agree, and I would assert that a pure evil villain can have character beyond simply being evil, and that they can have motivations beyond simply wanting to enslave and rule over others, while still being simplistic embodiments of evil. 

Now if I were to describe how I would write a ‘pure evil’ villain in order to give him character and motivation beyond just ruling over others, but still remaining as a simple and purely evil villain, I would best describe it as this: Make him the devil. Such an approach would make the villain terrifying in a way that I believe a complex villain cannot achieve. And the more terrifying that a villain is, the stronger the writer can portray common and timeless themes like courage and selflessness, and not giving up in such great adversity, themes that very often are used in tales that involve good and evil. While The Drifters’ Road is only one book into the story, I will say that Vyroun, the ultimate villain for the first adventure, though not for the entire series, is intended to have similarity to Satan himself. Vyroun is an embodiment of evil who will tempt others into serving evil also, just as some would describe Satan as doing.

And if I were to describe the approach that I would take to a ‘pure evil’ villain’s motivation, I would use a famous literary line from John Milton’s poem, Paradise Lost: Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven. In my story, The Drifters’ Road, the greatest villains at one point or another chose to reject God, or Enilundar as he is called in my story, and instead chose to serve evil. And through such a choice, they become demons, so to speak, who are embodiments of evil with no good in their hearts. Such an approach I use with the intention of bringing an epic element into my stories as well as a level of myth and legend. Such elements, I believe, a purely evil villain can better bring about than one that is more human and complex.

I would conclude by emphasizing that I do not assert that purely evil villains are better than more complex ones, as I consider that to be a matter of personal preference, but rather that I do not believe that these ‘pure evil’ villains should be so quickly dismissed as they often are. Sometimes they are necessary in a story, and these villains can be great if done well, like Sauron or the Emperor. There are certain themes I believe that these villains can bring about in a way that a more complex villain cannot. While critics could argue that these villains are not realistic, I would counter by saying that fantasy itself is not real, and therefore the villain does not need to be realistic. And while ‘pure evil’ villains can be criticized as being too simple in concept and in motivation, I would counter by saying that sometimes in a story, a simpler approach is better than one that is more complex. That, of course, depends on what kind of story it is.