Sci-fi villains and the evil overlord list

[Ryu]

My fiancee and I co-write books, and while I've been working with him I have noted a direct inverse relationship between how closely the antagonist has read the evil overlord list and how successful the protaganist is. Obviously, the villain needs to be a credible threat, but at the same time the hero needs to win. We're trying to do both at once for our main villain for the WWIV timeline, but it is extremely difficult.

I have two questions:

1. In a near-future setting, are there any rules on the list that would prove to be detrimental? (More importantly, is this particular rule something a hero could exploit?)

2. Are there any that simply don't apply in a realistic, near-future setting that we can just wave off as non-applicable? (Excluding the ones regarding maintaining control over your sex-drive, since the overlord is female we have carefully looked these over already.)

A full copy of the list we are using can be found here: http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

[Samuel]

My fiancee and I co-write books, and while I've been working with him I have noted a direct inverse relationship between how closely the antagonist has read the evil overlord list and how successful the protaganist is.

Don't make the villian super powerful. Sure they have legions of doom... but they have to pay them. And dammit the economic crisis is hurting everyone. The merchants have less money you can exhort, bandits are stealing supplies, some is selling off ammo onto the black market... Have the heroes have their own forces at their beck and call. Have valid reasons they have to stray from the list (if I send in my best and they are wounded another villian will pick me off).

A hero should win because they are more competant than the villian, not because the villian is less competant.

For the first 100 they don't apply if the villian

Doesn't consider self evil 18, 19, 38, 47
Doesn't have unlimited resources 50, 52, 53 (don't want to piss off the king dammit!), 59 (smart AIs will hide intelligence), 67

[Bakustra]

I think that you're going about this the wrong way. The Evil Overlord List can be summarized in three basic rules:

1. Don't be incompetent.

2. Don't be pointlessly evil.

3. Do take advantage of your knowledge of stories.

But the list is, frankly, secondary even in abbreviated form. The most important thing is to consider matters from outside the story first, and then shift the story to fit the deeper elements. Why does your hero prevail, ultimately? That is to say, what distinguishes hero from villain in your story? Why do they come into opposition? How are they alike, and how are they different?

These questions relate to the idea of the foil character, which many excellent and famous villains are. Batman's four most prominent nemeses (The Joker, the Riddler, the Penguin, and Two-face) are all foils to him in some way. All of them have something of Batman's prowess, which makes them a credible threat, but all also differ in such a way for Batman to be able to fight and defeat them easily. Not all villains are obvious foils, but by taking a competent protagonist and making the antagonist a foil, she can be threatening by sharing in some of the hero's positive traits, but defeatable by having her own negative traits for the hero to ultimately exploit. Of course, the details are up to you, and if there are any deeper themes you wish to explore with the story, those can serve as good jumping-off points for forging a foil.

I hope that this post has been helpful to you.

[Rossum]

Another thing to consider is that the villain may have someone other than the hero to worry about or may not be able to quickly identify who their true opponent will be.

The Evil Overlord lists suggests things like watching all the taverns to keep an eye on adventuring parties and such, it could be that in doing so they get several false positives and think that a bunch of traveling actors are budding adventurers or neglect to consider a bunch of bandits who may eventually get in the Overlords way. Likewise, a villain might get distracted by keeping an eye on James Bond while agent 017 keeps a lower profile and saves the day in a manner that doesn't involve flashy weapons, tuxedos, or seducing the various women in the story.

[Revy]

As I understand it, the evil overlord list was written to poke fun at the stereotypical Hero vs Villain cliche situation that turns up in a lot of fiction. Like Flash Gordon - you know Flash is the Hero and Ming the Villain, and they both ham up the expectations of those roles. In doing so, ubber cliche villain Ming ends up making the kinds of mistakes in the list.

I would suggest throwing out the list altogether, and instead write the story with two Hero's instead of a Hero and a Villain. Difference is, the two Hero's are opposed to each other. Or, if it fits the setting better, two different Villains also opposed to each other. Ideally, you should have two opposing characters that are both rooted for by different readers.

One such example that comes to mind is the Death Note series - the series focuses on two characters directly opposing each other. A vigilante called Kira, and the detective trying to catch him, called L. The story focuses on both characters equally, and depending on your personality you might end up rooting for one of them over the other. The series doesn't fall into the rut of 'This character is good and right and this one is evil and must be stopped' (well, it did later on, but it went downhill then anyway). If you write your story that way, you should be able to avoid many cliche villain overlord pitfalls by simply not having a clearly defined evil overlord.

The only difficulty in doing that is that you, as the writer, have to root for both sides yourself. It's inevitable that you'll lean in favour of one side over the other, but the more you can avoid doing that the better the characters and story will be, because it will seem more like there are two equal opposite sides instead of Good vs Evil clicheness.

You said you co-write books. That could actually help in this case. One of you could design the character and motives for one side/faction, and the other could do the opposing side. One of you could write for one side and the other vice versa, thereby avoiding the issue of the narrative being biased in favour of the hero or against the villain. Treat it like a debate with both of you wanting the side you represent to win and be considered to be doing what’s best, and you could end up with a hell of a conflict instead of a hell of a cliche.

[Korto]

I've always felt the real problem that would make Evil SuperVillains weaker than heroes was trust. Who do you trust in your underlings? First, are they smart or are they stupid? You can trust the stupid ones, trust them to do something stupid. But with the smart ones, are they good or evil? You can't trust the evil ones, treacherous backstabbing bastards (eg Saruman), but trust the good ones? Smart and good, and knowing about your evil plans? Sounds like they'll come down with an annoying case of ethics, and that's not helpful.

[Ryu]

As I understand it, the evil overlord list was written to poke fun at the stereotypical Hero vs Villain cliche situation that turns up in a lot of fiction. Like Flash Gordon - you know Flash is the Hero and Ming the Villain, and they both ham up the expectations of those roles. In doing so, ubber cliche villain Ming ends up making the kinds of mistakes in the list.

Well... yes. That's kind of the point, isn't it?

I would suggest throwing out the list altogether, and instead write the story with two Hero's instead of a Hero and a Villain. Difference is, the two Hero's are opposed to each other. Or, if it fits the setting better, two different Villains also opposed to each other. Ideally, you should have two opposing characters that are both rooted for by different readers.

In our fiction, the leader/ruler of every faction is, in a way, an evil overlord. The only reason this one was focused upon as such was because the main characters are on the other side. Never the less, although she is no more evil than their masters and they know it, that has little bearing on the situation. In many a situation, we have had IU media segments demonize her for one action and then turn around and praise their masters for the same act. The universe's moral is that life isn't.

One such example that comes to mind is the Death Note series - the series focuses on two characters directly opposing each other. A vigilante called Kira, and the detective trying to catch him, called L. The story focuses on both characters equally, and depending on your personality you might end up rooting for one of them over the other. The series doesn't fall into the rut of 'This character is good and right and this one is evil and must be stopped' (well, it did later on, but it went downhill then anyway). If you write your story that way, you should be able to avoid many cliche villain overlord pitfalls by simply not having a clearly defined evil overlord.

I don't think we can really apply Death Note to this, and... you need a figure of power in a fiction that revolves around war, that they be evil is simply a case of art imitating life, is it not? Our fiction revolves around war, it therefore needs a figure of power, and somebody trying to kill her off. This person need not be a hero, and is not, but they still need to remain, or we've naught left.

The only difficulty in doing that is that you, as the writer, have to root for both sides yourself. It's inevitable that you'll lean in favour of one side over the other, but the more you can avoid doing that the better the characters and story will be, because it will seem more like there are two equal opposite sides instead of Good vs Evil clicheness.

...The books that Jeremy writes have strong moral lessons, the books that I write are largely a-moral, but still deliver a lesson anyway. When we co-write a book, it is generally pure entertainment, but nonetheless, it's all the same universe, which is completely a-moral, caring none for whose cause is just and delivering crushing penalties to the loosing party regardless of whether they were in the right or not. I don't think either of us need worry too much about falling into such a pattern, what with Jeremy's writing method (which amounts to controlled MPD) and my dismissal of morality.

You said you co-write books. That could actually help in this case. One of you could design the character and motives for one side/faction, and the other could do the opposing side. One of you could write for one side and the other vice versa, thereby avoiding the issue of the narrative being biased in favour of the hero or against the villain. Treat it like a debate with both of you wanting the side you represent to win and be considered to be doing what’s best, and you could end up with a hell of a conflict instead of a hell of a cliche.

We co-write come of our books. Some of them are written only by one of us, some by only the other. I, for the most part, am resposible for this arc. (Which is odd, the primary antagonist was his creation.) I have some of the overall plot laid out, which is subject to change, and the anti-climactic "reality ensues" paragraph in which Serenity, our antagonist, dies Spoiler

only to be revealed to be the trusted lieutenant, the real overlord being her youngest sister, Sonya, a trusted member of the advisory cabinet of one of the other factions.

I don't think that falls into the good vs evil cliche. Never the less, although the sisters do believe that what they are doing is evil, this goes for all leaders by this day and age, and at least they admit it. They read the list more or less and a common-sense check to keep themselves from getting delusions of granduer and leaving openings than anything else.

[Samuel]

Never the less, although she is no more evil than their masters and they know it, that has little bearing on the situation. In many a situation, we have had IU media segments demonize her for one action and then turn around and praise their masters for the same act. The universe's moral is that life isn't.

That sounds like many interactions between different countries/tribes/political parties. It doesn't mean the universe is amoral, it means your evil overlords have forgotten an important rule- destruction, carnage and violence are bad for sedentary states. You need to make rules for fighting and butchery and make a system that is both gentler (so less people die and you have more to tax) and favors you (demonizing terrorism as unspeakably evil is a good idea when you are the state. Unless they are freedom fighters of course).

After all, a situation run by evil overlords will eventually decay into something we are familiar with as the method of choosing new rulers becomes formalized. If it is by blood it will turn into a monarchy. If by the approval of the inner circle an oligarchy. If by the acclaim of their troops, potentially democracy.

[Simon_Jester]

I've always felt the real problem that would make Evil SuperVillains weaker than heroes was trust. Who do you trust in your underlings? First, are they smart or are they stupid? You can trust the stupid ones, trust them to do something stupid. But with the smart ones, are they good or evil? You can't trust the evil ones, treacherous backstabbing bastards (eg Saruman), but trust the good ones? Smart and good, and knowing about your evil plans? Sounds like they'll come down with an annoying case of ethics, and that's not helpful.

For the stereotyped Evil Supervillain, yes.

For more realistic villains, not so much. For example, Ghenghis Khan led an army that conquered most of Asia, killed millions of people, and destroyed entire cities. There are regions that were attacked by the Mongols that still haven't really recovered, eight hundred years later.

In any fictional tale, Ghengis Khan would make a great evil overlord. But were his troops disloyal and untrustworthy? They were not. Once he had united the Mongol tribes, Ghengis Khan earned the loyalty of his men by leading them to great victories and distributing plunder. His generals obeyed his commands, and more importantly bent their own great talent to figuring out even better ways to conquer his enemies in his name. He had one of the most tightly knit, best organized armies in pre-modern history.

So the guy with a huge conquering army and Legions of Terror isn't necessarily having to watch out for underlings trying to backstab him.

[Samuel]

Don't forget he let commoners rise up the ranks which was also popular. He also undertook measures to make sure his soldiers were taken care of and supplied- he didn't just earn their loyalty by winning. Although that was a really big motivator.

Course in the long run the empire did devolve into backstabbery and fall apart.

[Ryu]

Don't forget he let commoners rise up the ranks which was also popular. He also undertook measures to make sure his soldiers were taken care of and supplied- he didn't just earn their loyalty by winning. Although that was a really big motivator.

Course in the long run the empire did devolve into backstabbery and fall apart.

Every nation ultimately fails. Rome, Persia, the Ottomans, the USSR, they all died off eventually. The same goes for all current world powers, especially the United States. Humans too will die off, and eventually Earth will be lifeless. The sun will explode, the galaxy will collapse upon itself. It doesn't really mean much that something is destroyed in the end, time is both an unstoppable force and an unmovable object.

Damn it, there I go, waxing philisophical. Shoot me, lest I start using old english and speaking in ryhmes.

[Mayabird]

The sun will not actually explode since it's not big enough; in its red giant phase it'll throw off most of its mass, but not any sort of violent supernova thing. The galaxy will not collapse upon itself but will be dispersed; eventually (and we're talking like 'the only stars left are a few ancient red dwarfs that formed at the very tail end of stellar formation') most matter in the galaxies will be flung out into interstellar space, at least according to the calculations I've seen with only a very small amount ultimately falling into the central black holes.

[Ryu]

The sun will not actually explode since it's not big enough; in its red giant phase it'll throw off most of its mass, but not any sort of violent supernova thing.

...throwing off most of its mass is the explosion to which I was referring.

The galaxy will not collapse upon itself but will be dispersed; eventually (and we're talking like 'the only stars left are a few ancient red dwarfs that formed at the very tail end of stellar formation') most matter in the galaxies will be flung out into interstellar space, at least according to the calculations I've seen with only a very small amount ultimately falling into the central black holes.

...and this would happen how? I'm a highschool student and not an astrophysicist, but I just don't see how an ever-increasing gravitational pull in the centre of the galaxy and an ever-decreasing amount of centrifugal force amongst the stars results in said stars being thrown out into space instead of being sucked into the black hole.

[Terralthra]

The skein is still expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. In most local human-scale cases, the other forces act to keep matter together in its regular form. In the vast empty spaces between stars, the expansion of space-time is winning over the fundamental forces.

[Ryu]

After all, a situation run by evil overlords will eventually decay into something we are familiar with as the method of choosing new rulers becomes formalized. If it is by blood it will turn into a monarchy. If by the approval of the inner circle an oligarchy. If by the acclaim of their troops, potentially democracy.

A monarchy is just a long family line of evil overlords, an oligarchy is just a commitee selection of an evil overlords and in democracy, or at least american democracy, the elections (which are all at least soft-rigged, by the way) just puts in a committee of evil overlords. I can't remember who I'm paraphrasing, but which is worse: a single tyrant one hundred miles away, or a hundred tyrants one mile away?

[Ryu]

The skein is still expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. In most local human-scale cases, the other forces act to keep matter together in its regular form. In the vast empty spaces between stars, the expansion of space-time is winning over the fundamental forces.

Thank you for covering that, and in doing so confusing me further. That's really about enough on this topic, I'll just wait until I can get a more complete picture in college.

[Samuel]

After all, a situation run by evil overlords will eventually decay into something we are familiar with as the method of choosing new rulers becomes formalized. If it is by blood it will turn into a monarchy. If by the approval of the inner circle an oligarchy. If by the acclaim of their troops, potentially democracy.

A monarchy is just a long family line of evil overlords, an oligarchy is just a commitee selection of an evil overlords and in democracy, or at least american democracy, the elections (which are all at least soft-rigged, by the way) just puts in a committee of evil overlords. I can't remember who I'm paraphrasing, but which is worse: a single tyrant one hundred miles away, or a hundred tyrants one mile away?

The single tyrant. The hundred tyrants get stuck in commitee.

The problem with declaring all ruler evil overlords is that an evil overlord is generally a position you crawl your way up to and forge from nothing. Regular political apparatuses stabilize and become more long term focused and benevolent over time. Unless you think the Queen of England is secretly ploting the downfall of America so her army of redcoats can rule supreme.

[Ryu]

After all, a situation run by evil overlords will eventually decay into something we are familiar with as the method of choosing new rulers becomes formalized. If it is by blood it will turn into a monarchy. If by the approval of the inner circle an oligarchy. If by the acclaim of their troops, potentially democracy.

A monarchy is just a long family line of evil overlords, an oligarchy is just a commitee selection of an evil overlords and in democracy, or at least american democracy, the elections (which are all at least soft-rigged, by the way) just puts in a committee of evil overlords. I can't remember who I'm paraphrasing, but which is worse: a single tyrant one hundred miles away, or a hundred tyrants one mile away?

The single tyrant. The hundred tyrants get stuck in commitee.

The problem with declaring all ruler evil overlords is that an evil overlord is generally a position you crawl your way up to and forge from nothing. Regular political apparatuses stabilize and become more long term focused and benevolent over time. Unless you think the Queen of England is secretly ploting the downfall of America so her army of redcoats can rule supreme.

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

[Ghost Rider]

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

That's cute, but that's just meaningless jargon given what we see as facts.

[Ryu]

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

That's cute, but that's just meaningless jargon given what we see as facts.

Same goes for his statement, so where does that leave us?

[Ghost Rider]

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

That's cute, but that's just meaningless jargon given what we see as facts.

Same goes for his statement, so where does that leave us?

You making more sense out of what the fuck this matters to the fact of how the real world operates versus the usual insanity that is fiction? You didn't refute anything Samuel said and just resorted to some bit pf philosphy 101 to lead to here?

We can go on for a few hundred posts, but in the end, you haven't posted a rebuttal to his statement but a piss poor evasion that you can't back up with anything except your pissant subjective nonsense.

[Ryu]

That's cute, but that's just meaningless jargon given what we see as facts.

Same goes for his statement, so where does that leave us?

You making more sense out of what the fuck this matters to the fact of how the real world operates versus the usual insanity that is fiction? You didn't refute anything Samuel said and just resorted to some bit pf philosphy 101 to lead to here?

We can go on for a few hundred posts, but in the end, you haven't posted a rebuttal to his statement but a piss poor evasion that you can't back up with anything except your pissant subjective nonsense.

And he has yet to prove an inclination towards "long term stabilization and benevolence." There is a debating principal of debate you are breaching here, it's called "burden of proof." He needs to prove his statement correct or concede, I do not need to prove it wrong or accept it.

[Samuel]

Long term benevolence? Rewarding subordinates to insure loyalty insures benevolence in the long term. Of course for many societies there were few resources to do so... which is why you pillaged your neighbors.

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

Most humans are by nature selfish and tribal. That is entirely different from evil. You can get people to work in the snow, in buildings without roofs, doing 12 hour shifts and on half rations by appealing to their better nature when the situation is desperate enough. You can get people to stand and fight, even though the optimal choise is to run away and live. You can structure an entire empire on a system that is based on trying to make people better.

As for rulers don't need to be evil- they may all be ruthless, but evil is not required. Asoka is a famous counter example.

[Ryu]

Long term benevolence? Rewarding subordinates to insure loyalty insures benevolence in the long term. Of course for many societies there were few resources to do so... which is why you pillaged your neighbors.

I really don't see it that way. As my signature suggests, I am a misanthrope. I believe that since most humans are evil by nature, most rulers will be, by default, evil.

Most humans are by nature selfish and tribal. That is entirely different from evil. You can get people to work in the snow, in buildings without roofs, doing 12 hour shifts and on half rations by appealing to their better nature when the situation is desperate enough. You can get people to stand and fight, even though the optimal choise is to run away and live. You can structure an entire empire on a system that is based on trying to make people better.

As for rulers don't need to be evil- they may all be ruthless, but evil is not required. Asoka is a famous counter example.

They don't need to be, but this doesn't mean they aren't. They are still humans, and therefore self-serving in their every endeavor. Selfishness is the root of evil. Do the math.

The main concern of humanity is carrying on their genes. The only things humans are willing to fight for are their ability to reproduce, their lives, and ultimately any offspring they might have. They might fight to protect those they deem as important to these other things, but this a development of their primary concerns.

However, neither you nor I have presented any evidence, and we can sit here and bicker until somebody shoves us into the SLAM forum or the colliueseum, and we still won't have gotten anywhere. I suggest we end this discussion now, either by agreeing to disagree or my both conceding our points.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

He needs to prove his statement correct or concede, I do not need to prove it wrong or accept it.

Since you made a counter claim in far more certain terms than his original claim, I'd say the burden of evidence lies just as equally in your hands, dipshit.

In fact, you made the original statement that all rulers are default evil overlords, and then followed it up by saying you think most people are evil by nature. Prove these claims or concede. Of course, first you'd need to define what "evil" is. By the look of things it qualifies as anything you personally dislike, since your use of the word evil certainly doesn't match up with the dictionary definition, which defines evil as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked".

Since what is considered "moral" varies from person to person, and there is no universe moral code, this definition doesn't help your claim. So frankly, I would like to challenge your claim right now. "Evil" is a subjective term, carrying no absolute and definite meaning unless there is an absolute moral authority. Prove the existence of this absolute moral authority or concede.

Benevolence, on the other hand, can easily be described as the presence of altruism. The origin of the word is benefaction, which means to give aid or gifts. It is a simplistic manner to go through history books or even news papers and find acts of benevolence and altruism - kindness - being carried out by politicians and world leaders. All of these words have absolute meanings that do not require an absolute moral authority. Benevolence is altruism, altruism is a selfless concern for the welfare of others, kindness is doing things to make others happy.

Gee, we're all so evil, coming up with concepts like benevolence and altruism and kindness. Clearly all rulers are evil though, because... you say so! By virtue of... you say so!

They don't need to be, but this doesn't mean they aren't. They are still humans, and therefore self-serving in their every endeavor. Selfishness is the root of evil. Do the math.

Selfishness2 = Evil? Got some more in-depth calculations there that we can study, or do you just like making unsupportable blanket statements?

The main concern of humanity is carrying on their genes.

That is an inbuilt, instinctual desire, yes. Many people chose to ignore it.

The only things humans are willing to fight for are their ability to reproduce, their lives, and ultimately any offspring they might have.

And their country, and freedom of expression, and freedom in general... honestly, do you get off on making statements that are patently false and not providing evidence?

They might fight to protect those they deem as important to these other things, but this a development of their primary concerns.

More baseless claims without any supporting evidence! You basically just claimed that there's no such thing as selflessness, that everyone does everything purely and entirely for selfish reasons, and that kindness is something that doesn't exist. Prove these claims or concede now.

However, neither you nor I have presented any evidence, and we can sit here and bicker until somebody shoves us into the SLAM forum or the colliueseum, and we still won't have gotten anywhere. I suggest we end this discussion now, either by agreeing to disagree or my both conceding our points.

"Since I have no way of proving my assertion, since I make an unprovable argument, I shall suggest we both end the argument here before someone can point out how flawed my stupid arguments are!"

Too late.