I'm not sure what got me thinking about this, but I feel like fantasy RPGs and associated fiction have a lot more really memorable villains than heroes/allies. To be fair, part of that is because on the RPG side of the equation, the expectation is that the player characters are the big damn heroes. But even in novels, background material, etc., I feel like you're a lot more likely to see interesting villains. There are plenty of cheesy villains, sure, but most of the best characters are villains.
Just off the top of my head, Lord Soth, Count Strahd, and Iggwilv come to mind. Drizzt and Elminster might be more iconic, but they're so cheesy, and Raistlin is as much a villain as a hero.
So, who are the most memorable/iconic villains from published material, in your opinion?
Reposting Jon Irenicus of BG II.
https://youtu.be/Wdy-k_qLdQg
Zoran from the JRPG "the last story" was a selfish goof motivated by greed and survival, but not unreasonable or a psychopath. He was only a minor villain though
Ulrik von Kharkov is compelling in the one short story he got, it's just that trying to actually use him in an RPG is hard.
>Hi guys I am a Black guy and I'm a vampire and actually I was a panther all along and I have self-control and self-loathing issues fuck wizards btw
>>48133811
Donavich from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Larloch is essentially the final boss of Faerun, and gets nowhere near the love he deserves.
Szass Tam gets a lot of love, but he's really just a pale shade of Larloch.
>>48136692
This guy knows his shit, although I am of the opinion that Larloch has progressed beyond the point of mortal desires, and basically just wants to be left the hell alone to do whatever the hell he's doing in his megadungeon. He's also the literal "Good luck, I'm behind 7000 skeletons" meme guy.
What about demigods, gods, and archfiends? Vecna, Kyuss, Orcus, Lolth, etc.
>>48133811
>To be fair, part of that is because on the RPG side of the equation, the expectation is that the player characters are the big damn heroes. But even in novels, background material, etc., I feel like you're a lot more likely to see interesting villains. There are plenty of cheesy villains, sure, but most of the best characters are villains.
I think it's an issue of motivation. You don't need complex motives to do good. It's "good" because it's what we're taught we're supposed to do. It doesn't inherently add any depth to the character, and you have to go out of your way to give these motivations any sort of nuance. Why people do things they AREN'T supposed to do will always, all else being equal, be more interesting than why they follow the rules. In fact, simply giving a character the motivation to do bad, you've given them actual, definable character traits- They're greedy, or vengeful, or narcissistic.
You also have a lot more leeway when it comes to acceptable behavior. Villains are often pretty unhinged to begin with, while heroes have to be relatable. People like Deadpool so much because he's one of the only superheros out there who's allowed to actually have fun instead of taking things deadly serious. Sure, Spiderman enjoys the occasional quip, but it's nowhere near on the same level. For an extreme example, look at the Star Wars prequels. As terribly written as his character is, Emperor Palpatine is one the most consistently entertaining characters in those films because he's the only one who seems like he's having any fun. A hero couldn't get away with that.
>>48133847
It warms the cockles of my heart to see this.
>>48133811
It depends on what kind of fantasy you're going for. Khan Ulric from Legend remains my favorite villain in fantasy because he was an honestly written character.
On one hand, he's the head of a slavering horde of mongol savages. He's killed millions of people, most of them innocent, and burned down entire civilizations.
On the other hand, he explains why he did this, and the reasons make perfect sense. He united the tribes of his people, and then did what literally every other great warlord in history did. He's made his people rich and powerful, and he destroyed their enemies. He's a good leader, but being a good leader of a nomadic steppe-culture means being a conquering warlord. He's not malevolent, he's just doing his job. He's also set the groundwork for what may someday be a peaceful empire with a flourishing of trade and culture.
The book never makes excuses for him, it just explains why he did what he did. That's a good villain, one who didn't need some complex philosophy or secret motivations to act, he just did what made sense at the time, and that happened to be becoming Ghengis Khan.
What I can't stand are satirical villains, or thinly-veiled ideological "gotchas," those are almost universally lame.
