I must state that all definitions are based on fiction and are in no way to be equated with actual human beings. Fictional villains are by their very definition exaggerations, and the theories in this essay cannot, and should not, be applied to historical personalities. This essay is entirely rooted in fantasy.
Evil, villainy, antagonism. These are three separate qualities that are often equated with each other, but are in fact so very different that it is necessary to make distinctions between the three. Evil is the complete absence of a moral code. Evil villains derive pleasure and satisfaction from the torment and anguish of others--they enjoy pain for its own sake, and they have no wish or ability to be redeemed. Neutral villains can be redeemed--they carry some spark of humanity, though it may be forgotten and long-buried, they have the potential to be Good. Antagonists aren’t evil, and neither are they always the main source of conflict with the protagonists.
Quick, what do the following characters have in common?: Ares, Gollum, Q.
Answer: They’re all neutral antagonists. You can be an antagonist, and not be a villain. The defining quality of antagonists is not evil, but merely possessing goals that are contradictory to the goals of the established “good guys”.
Ares, for example, isn’t a villain. He often behaves in a manner that would seem contrary or even destructive, but in the end he does, in his own twisted way, have the best interest of humanity at heart. He is a necessary element to the world.
Gollum is merely interested in self-preservation, but again he isn’t evil. Selfishness, to parrot Ayn Rand, isn’t an entirely bad quality. When it comes down to it, we’re all looking out for number one, albeit not directly and not aggressively. Gollum is pathetic and corrupt, but he isn’t a villain out to wreak havoc on the world. He simply wants the Ring--not out of a craving for power, but because he needs it.
Q, on the other hand, is above such petty concerns. He looks down on humanity with its narrow morality, and sees it as his own personal plaything to do with as he wishes. Curiousity, not evil, is his weakness. He doesn’t mean to harm people--he just toys around with them a bit.
Another good example of a neutral antagonist is Severus Snape. Professor Snape is probably the most complex character in J.K. Rowling’s world. He is vicious, snide, condescending, and aggressively antagonistic toward Our Young Hero. He has an unflattering appearance and gives every indication of being a sinister, unlikeable character. Yet he is consciously labelled a “good guy”, or at the very least an ally, within the books. We are repeatedly told that he used to be a “bad guy”, and has returned to the side of Good. It is merely his personal grudges that sully his reputation, as the Headmaster trusts him, and he has clearly actively campaigned to rid himself of his old image.
Then there are the characters we can decidedly label “villains”: Callisto, Darth Vader, Faith, Jareth. (You may notice the absence of Spike. His character changes so rapidly, with such wildly differing goals each season, that he’s nearly a different person. It would be impossible to analyze him without getting in-depth and showing favouritism, so I’m just leaving him out altogether). However, none of these characters are “evil”, either...they are corrupt and single-minded in their obsessions (and each one is obsessed with something), and said goals are directly and specfically in conflict with the goals of the protagonists, but they are all too imbued with personality and empathetic qualities to be purely evil.
Callisto is a very sympathetic villain. After being emotionally scarred as a child, she fell into permanent madness and was imbued with an all-consuming obsession to not merely destroy her, but to make her suffer. This is not an excuse for her actions (much as Callisto likes to level the blame at Xena); merely an explanation.
Faith sees it like this: “Buffy is a Slayer. Everyone loves Buffy. She is good. I am a Slayer. Therefore I am good. Everyone should love me.” She is very hurt and confused when she does not get the love and prestige that she expects is her due, as a Slayer. Everything is very black-and-white to her--in that she is black (bad) and Buffy is white (good). She doesn’t see that Buffy has to win the respect and admiration of others from working every day as a decent human being...she simply sees herself as an appendage of Buffy, or as the tail to her head on the coin of life. They are two halves to the whole, and people should react to them in the same way, no matter what.
Unlike Callisto and her history with Xena, Faith does not have a reason to see Buffy as having ruined her life. Buffy is a convenient avatar, a symbol of everything she both hates and wants, and cannot have.
You may wonder, with all my explanations for antagonists, whether truly evil antagonists can exist. Ladies and gentlemen, I can safely answer yes: Such entities as Voldemort, Darkness from Legend, the Emperor from Star Wars, Morgoth, numerous Disney villains, and other “super-villains”. Bad guys such as these are less characters than they are archetypes; symbols of Ultimate Evil and Corruption. They are corrupt from the beginning, they have no redeeming value save to serve as a contrast with Good. Frequently they have very little personality, other than the steterotypical evil mwah-ha-ha I shall conquer de vorld vith my atomic laser from Mars disposition.
There are exceptions to this rule...Morgoth, for example, is simply loaded with personality...he has mile-wide blind spots regarding Men, and he’s terribly petty. When the Valar visit him with the plan to chain him, he insists that Aule must bow and kiss his foot, with the dual intention of a) humiliating him for a personal grudge, and b) kicking him in the face. Now that’s just playing dirty. He cheats and schemes and grovels when he’s caught and gives backhanded compliments and toadies up to Iluvatar and basically is a real snake in the grass, only on such a subtle scale that you really have to admire the sheer two-facedness that he exudes. He’s like a teenygoth, the kind who in high school is all, “They’ll get what’s coming to them,” and is vengeful and bitter to the end of his days, and the popular kids snub him because he’s rancorous and morbid, and he doesn’t understand WHY. He acts repentant when he’s caught, and plays the good kid for a while, until they all have their back turned and he sees what he can get away with this time--be it brandishing a semi in the hallways, or creating an army of balrogs.
Another such example is Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. In fact, I would give her as a quintessential example of a well-made classic villain. She had style, wit, glamour, pathos, and some serious power to back it all up.
All characters referred to in this essay are not my own creation, and are the property of another. Ares and Callisto: Xena. Spike and Faith: Buffy. Darth Vader and the Evil Emperor: Star Wars. Q: Star Trek. Jareth: Labyrinth. Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape and Voldemort: Harry Potter. Morgoth: The Silmarillion. Darkness: Legend. Sauron, Saruman and Gollum: Lord of the Rings. Maleficent: Sleeping Beauty.