This video was sponsored byÂ
World Anvil. That's right! IÂ Â was but a pawn in their ingenious master plan! Itâs weird that we make villains likable. Right? Like, just on a basic on-paper level. Itâs one thing to have an antagonist whoâs
opposing the protagonists but fundamentally has a sympathetic and understandable motivation,
or a future redemption-arc recipient being given plenty of redeeming qualitiesÂ
in advance of that, but itâs very weird that we take pure dag-nasty evil villains and make people like them. Seems kind of counterproductive, right? Thatâs the bad guy. We want the audience to root for the good
guy. So itâs only natural that plenty of villains
are sprinkled with what is known as âkick the dogâ moments - where, to prove how evil
they are, the villain does something that makes them instantly unlikable, like kicking
a dog, stealing candy from a baby, or some other dastardly scheme designed only to remind
us of how bad they are. And yet plenty of villains are written with
the opposite approach. Instead of constantly driving home how cruel
and irredeemable they are, we get regular reminders that they have some set of admirable
traits the audience is drawn to respect. These villains are definitely villains, doing
bad things for bad reasons, and yet the story goes out of its way to convince us to like
them on some level. This produces the archetypeÂ
known as the Magnificent Bastard, the official trope designation for the kind of villain who makes you stand up
and shout âoh you magnificent bastard!â when they do stuff. The Magnificent Bastard is a difficult trope
to classify, because so much of what makes it work is raw charisma, which is basically
just a step up from je ne sais quoi in the vagueness department. A Magnificent Bastard is a villain you canât
help but admire - and the problem there is that that is an entirely subjective judgment. People find different things admirable. So a villain who comes across as a magnificent
bastard to one audience might come across as just a garden varietyÂ
bastard to another audience. Itâs tricky. But there are some concrete characteristics
we can fall back on. A magnificent bastard isnât just a matter
of charisma. Magnificent Bastards - d-dâyou think I should
shorten that? MBs? MagBasts? I dunno, I just feel like neither of these words
are gonna feel like words by the time Iâm done with âem. And I dunno if I really wanna say this five
million times. Lemme see if twitter has any alternatives. all right, letâs see⌠glamtagonistsâŚ
ray of sinshine⌠charismaniacs- So, charismaniacs, as a rule, have a very
specific base set of character traits that vary from âtotally objectiveâ to âtotally
subjective.â Weâve already mentioned âcharismaâ,
so thatâs covered. Next on the list is intelligence. Magnificent Bastards are typically tactical
geniuses and at minimum are cunning adversaries, not easily trapped or misled by the heroes. They might be facing off against an equally
brilliant protagonist in a game of high-stakes chess, or, more commonly, they might be the brains while their heroicÂ
nemesis is more the brawn, opposing their strength with cunning multi-layered
plans to outwit and confound them. As a general rule, the charismaniac will always
make the best possible decision they can make given the information they have. If they know enough to put together something,
theyâll probably figure it out. If they could conceivably know something,
they probably know it. Now this trait is actually a bit risky, because
if you take this too far, you end up with the Magical Genius, a character who is allegedly
smart but functionally just knows exactly what the writer needs them to know for the
plot to happen. Rather than putting the pieces together or
deducing something in a way the audience can follow, theyâre just magically right. This is, on paper, the easiest way to write
a smart character, since it doesnât involve the writer doing any actual work to make their
train of thought make sense, but it never actually works, because part of what makes
a smart character admirable to the audience is seeing them figure things out - not just
magically know stuff. The audience needs to be able to follow along,
because otherwise youâll be making apparently arbitrary logical leaps, which will lose your
audience, and if the audience gets lost, theyâll feel disconnected from this character theyâre
supposed to like and sympathize with. If a smart character doesnât figure things
out in a way the audience can see, we wonât appreciate it. This is why so many well-written detectives
have partners who arenât genius detectives who need the play-by-play explained to them
so we can recognize the skill and cleverness that went into the deduction. If itâs just a smart guy magically realizing
things that we never had a chance to notice, the whole situation feels unfair to the audience. And thatâs something you wanna avoid, because
when things feel unfair, the audience becomes aware of the hand of the author making things
unfair. If the magnificent bastard is basically just
omniscient, thatâs not fair to the audience or the characters. We need to be able to understand what this
character knows and how theyâre putting it together or weâll just feel like the
author is jerking us around. This is one of the reasons villains have a
tendency to monologue their evil plans just to make sure weâre up to speed. And speaking of fairness, another key quality
of the charismaniac is standards. Charismaniacs frequently have some kind of
personal code or creed to follow. This is the most unconditionally admirable
trait these characters can have. Without standards, anything goes. The plot basically turns into a brawl. But if your character is aÂ
genius master manipulator with standards, that gives us rules, and the whole situation resolves into something more
like a game. The most sympathetic charismaniacs do treat
their villainous schemes as games, and tend to react pretty well to losing, because it was
fair. This basic concept of fairness and fair play
elevates the charismaniac above many of their evil peers and automatically makes us like
and respect them more. Theyâre not interested in winning at all
costs - they have rules, and some sort of personal honor code that they adhere to.⨠Now, while broadly unconditionally admirable, this
trait is not actually one hundred percent necessary for a charismaniac. Classic die-hard villain Hans Gruber is an
iconic charismaniac, and his personal standards are actually quite low - the only code he
seems particularly interested in is the dress code. But he almost makes up for it through his
combo very brilliant plan and extremely good performance by Alan Rickman. Heâs pretty sneaky and dishonorable, but
honestly that just makes him seem smarter, and that makes up the difference so we end
up admiring him more. Heâs very good, and we as
an audience can admire extreme competence just as much as we couldÂ
admire personal standards. Now what actually seems to be the rule is
that, the lower the standards of the charismaniac, the more driven they haveÂ
to be towards accomplishing their overarching goal. Because most charismaniacs have a goal, but
they donât all want them that badly. In fact, I think we can actually subdivide
here into two categories - goal-driven and code-driven. If a charismaniac cares more about their endgame
than their principles, we get a type one, a little heavier on the âbastardâ than
the magnificence. If they care more about their personal standards
than any individual victory, we get a type two, usually significantly more principled
and overall rather less villainous. Type ones are usually very pragmatic - and
frankly, pragmatism is its own kind of standard, where the practical end goal is prioritized over anything more superficial,Â
like a personal code. So I guess... they're ALL sort of code-driven? Ahh, that's too complicated. Anyway! So for instance, MagnetoÂ
would generally be written as a type one - he has a personal code, but his number one priority is protecting mutantkind,
and he will do almost anything to further that goal, even sacrificing other mutants
or manipulating his oldest friend. Heâs still very regal and principled, which
is the charisma factor, but heâs willing to go pretty far to make his goals happen.Â
So he's functionally more pragmatic. And then thereâs characters like the â90s
version of Carmen Sandiego, a total type 2 who was committing massive crimes left and
right, but treated the whole thing as a game and had some very strong principles about
what was and wasnât fair - strictly never using violence, respecting the heroes trying
to hunt her down, and even going out of her way to rescue them if no-one else is gonna
save them first. Sheâs in it for the kicks, and itâs no
fun if anyone gets hurt - so the individual heists matter a lot less than sticking to
her principles. Thereâs also some charismaniacs who fall
into a kind of middle ground, where they have a personal code but they also have a goal
they prioritize over anything else, and depending on which one is more immediately relevant, they
might oscillate somewhat between the two. For instance, Miranda Priestly from The Devil
Wears Prada is a fairly unique magnificent bastard who prioritizes her career and her
fashion magazine over any of her personal relationships and even the careers of her
closest friends, which is utterly ruthless and goal-oriented, but she also has a surprisingly
ironclad personal code when it comes to who she respects and how she treats the people
in her life - she has basically no respect for the butt-kissers, but she recognizes effort and when people actuallyÂ
try - and, more importantly, succeed - she favors them. She clearly doesnât like it when people
just try to please her, because then theyâre not actually taking their job seriously, theyâre
just starstruck and/or power-hungry. Ultimately, only the job matters to her, which
is why she tosses people out when theyâre not doing well and sacrifices whatever she
needs to guarantee the future of her business. In a sense, this is the ultimate marriage
between principles and goals - the only principle is to further the goal. Of course, sheâs still an absolute nightmare
to deal with because of those ironclad principles, but thatâs what makes her such a good antagonist. Code-driven charismaniacs are, as a rule,
more sympathetic than goal-driven charismaniacs, for the simple reason that theyâre more likely to side with theÂ
good guys on a case-by-case basis. A goal-driven character will pursue their
objective relentlessly, which in the case of a villain is usually bad for the heroes. A code-driven character will abandon an evil
scheme the minute it betrays one of their principles, which can sometimes involve actually
turning on the other bad guys and siding with the good guys. But this is only one side of the definition. This gives us some coreÂ
traits of what a charismaniac is - but we havenât yet explored what they arenât. A Magnificent Bastard is kindÂ
of a complex balance to strike, and there are some tropes they just canât do without losing either their magnificence
or their bastard-dom. For instance, charismaniacs cannot betray
their goals or principles for petty reasons. They can still be petty in tangential ways
- in fact, that can help cement their bastard-ness in the eyes of the audience - but they cannot
trip themselves up on the grand scale for small reasons. They canât indulge their personal whims
to the detriment of the actual plan. Charismaniacs need to be ableÂ
to look at the bigger picture. Some other villains, usually the chaotic or
incoherent ones, have a habit of dropping their plans the minute something more interesting
comes along, which is a very respectable branch of villainy, but it takes away that bigger
picture aspect. They let themselves get distracted. A charismaniac might abandon their current
goal because theyâve found an even bigger picture to prioritize, but theyâll usually
avoid derailing their current plans for anything as petty as, for example, revenge,  or personally screwing
with the protagonists. A nemesis might drop their scheming to prioritize
messing with their arch-foe, but a proper charismaniac would just have âmessing with
the arch-foeâ penciled in for six oâclock while the rest of their machinations continue
unchanged. Nothing makes a villain look more incompetent
than actively sabotaging their own plans for personal reasons. Pettiness puts a ding in the perception of
intelligence. An audience that thinks your bad guy is too
petty to pull off any real scheming wonât care how brilliant they are on paper or how
much magical knowledge the writer gives them - theyâll come across as too easily distracted
to be the scary genius weâre supposed to respect. And thatâs actually anotherÂ
key trait - charismaniacs should not be notably vulnerable to leverage. If your villain is emotionally unstable and
prone to violent outbursts or rage, they donât really come across as in control. We get the feeling the good guys could just
push a few of their buttons and theyâd be totally coming apart at the seams. That doesnât leave the audience wondering
how the heroes are going to prompt the standard villainous third-act breakdown, theyâre
just wondering when the heroes are gonna push that big red âobviousÂ
insecurityâ button and switch the bad guy into meltdown mode. That takes away a lot of the battle-of-wits
side of things, which is an invaluable part of the Magnificent Bastard archetype. So while a charismaniac  can still have vulnerabilities
- even ones that do eventually get exploited for the olâ third-act breakdown - they need
to be largely unflappable, and any vulnerabilities they do have should be closely guarded and/or
something the good guys would never willingly exploit. They usually need to be self-aware enough to know
their own weaknesses so they can anticipate attacks and defend against them. All this plays into making this character
seem very clever and very difficult to oppose - key factors of the Magnificent Bastard. If theyâre easy to take down, theyâre
not that magnificent. But on the flip side, they canât be totally
indestructible. If the villain is functionally omnipotent
and/or omniscient, that scuttles the whole âfairnessâ aspect of the conflict and
destroys the âbattle of witsâ element from the other side of things, since the heroes
cannot beat a villain whoâs written to be unbeatable. In order to sell us on the actual conflict,
the heroes need to have a chance, even if itâs just a slim one. The villain might initially appear unbeatable,
but that means the heroes need to find their weaknesses - and itâs not fun if the villain
just doesnât have any. Those villains suffer from the same problem
as the magical genius archetype - the audience knows the writer is just giving them whatever
they need to win. Probably my ultimate example ofÂ
a really well done magnificent bastard is David Xanatos, oneÂ
of the primary antagonists of the 90s disney cartoon Gargoyles, an improbably
excellent show that everyone should watch. Perusers of TVTropes might already be familiar
with his name, since heâs the trope namer of the âXanatos Gambitâ, a plan where
every foreseeable outcome benefits the planner somehow. Heâs really good at this. Pretty much any time heâs participating
in the plot, itâs because he has at least one plan in play, and no matter what the good
guys do, heâs gonna end up benefitting somehow. He has a few overarching goals, most notably
obtaining immortality so he and his wife can enjoy fabulous wealth and power forever, but
he really doesnât care about any of his individual small-scaleÂ
goals, which is why his plans always at least partially succeed. As long as oneÂ
of them comes to fruition, he considers it a win. Heâs also very charismatic and charming,
and surprisingly principled. For one thing, the protagonist gargoyles are
basically his biggest recurring antagonists, not least of which because he continually antagonizes
or manipulates them - but the thing is, they all turn to stone during the day, and itâs been
pointed out how easy itâd be to just destroy them during that stone sleep. And Xanatos deliberately doesnât do that, even
though he totally could, because he thinks itâd be a waste. Fundamentally Xanatosâs mainÂ
interests are general curiosity and furthering his wealth and technological supremacy and having an interesting time while he does
it. Taking the easy way out would be boring. And the thing about having no really exploitable vulnerabilities is actuallyÂ
addressed in a specific episode where Xanatos proposes to his future wife and fellow supervillain withÂ
a magic artifact that accidentally turns her into a werewolf. Hey, these things happen. When it becomes clear toÂ
him that he canât deal with the situation on his own, he tries to manipulate the gargoyles into helping him out before
the transformation kills her, but unfortunately they know him a little too well by now and
go to leave the minute they realize heâs playing them. Heâs forced to admit that the monster theyâre
hunting is the love of his life and he really, really needs their help to save her. Theyâre still suspicious, âboy who cried
wolfâ and all that - he does have a history of manipulating them by saying he needs their help - but on the off-chanceÂ
that a sort-of-innocent person is actually at risk, they do eventually
help him out, and they learn that he was actually being fully honest with them. No tricks, no ploys, just genuine desperation. Heâs clearly pretty galled by having to
open up like this, and doesnât like the idea that his perennial nemeses know his weakness
- but of course, theyâre good guys who donât think of "having a love interest"Â
as a weakness, so this never gets exploited, because thatâd be a real dick move. After this point, basically whenever Xanatosâs
loved ones are in danger, the good guys help him out with no manipulation involved. And after a while, he kinda mellows out and
stops all the bad-guy stuff and just becomes their rich dickheaded acquaintance. And thatâs not actually too uncommon for
type-two charismaniacs. If their principles matter strongly enough,
they end up skirting the edge of Anti-Villain territory, and might even hit the Hero Of
Another Story zone - which, admittedly, does somewhat diminish the long-term villainy of
the character archetype. In the ideal scenario, if and when this character
flips to being a good guy, they donât really lose their brilliance or their principles
- they just swap their goals to somewhat more heroic ones and become a terrifyingly effective
threat to the bad guys on par with the threat they used to pose to the good guys. In fact, itâs pretty obvious that magnificent
bastards arenât always villains, because in most well-written versions of his character,
Batman is kind of a magnificent bastard. Heâs got all the key elements - intelligent, charismatic, fiercelyÂ
principled and goal-oriented, while not allowing personal vulnerabilities
or petty ideas to distract him from his crusade. Heroes and villains alike are intimidated
and frustrated by his scheming and occasionally manipulative tendencies, and heâs a living
nightmare for the villains he matches wits with. Heâs a full-on type 2 charismaniac, prioritizing
his principles over everything else - his no-killing policy is ironclad and heâs clearly
uncomfortable with the near-omnipotence of the justice league, refusing to properly join
and routinely calling the others out on getting a little too cozy with having a big space-cannon
on their flying base. Heroic charismaniacs are comparatively rare,
but they are loads of fun when theyâre done right - all the coolness factor of a
standard charismaniac, plus you can actively root for them without feeling morally dubious. But plenty of magnificent bastards stay villains
right to the end - and in those cases, itâs not uncommon for them to have a classic third-act
breakdown where their magnificence is tarnished somewhat as the heroes manage to genuinely
get under their skin somehow. Some magnificent bastards are magnificent
right down to their bones, and take defeat with dignity, but others are a little more
insecure in their magnificence and might start to crack when one of their vulnerabilities
is located. The third-act breakdown is an integral part
of the villainâs defeat, where the heroes take an emotional victory alongside a literal
one. If a magnificent bastard finally cracks, we
get to appreciate the magnitude of the events that cracked them, since in most proper cases,
we donât really see them properly flustered before the grand finale - and if they donât
have a third-act breakdown and instead take their defeat in stride, they reaffirm their
magnificence by denying the audience and the heroes that catharsis factor. Their defeat is incomplete because their character
is preserved - so this is fairly common with recurring bad guys who donât wanna lose
their punch on the first defeat. A third-act breakdown isnât always quick,
either. Some charismaniacs get thrown off their game
by an unexpected development and begin a slow slide into the breakdown zone, gradually getting
more and more tilted before losing it entirely. This is fairly common with classic disney
villains specifically, who almost always start out suave and charismatic, pulling the strings
on the plot before something happens to surprise them - and once theyâre officially off their
game, their defeat is only a matter of time. Magnificent bastards, as a rule, are only
as successful as they are confident. If they seem fine, itâs because the heroes
are playing right into their hands, no matter how well it looks like they might be doing. But if the villain looks actually shocked
or angry or otherwise uncharacteristically emotional, that usually means weâre outside
the planning zone, and they have to start improvising. Some villains are actually pretty good at
improvisation, but the ones with more ironclad plans tend to crack the minute they get even
slightly outsmarted. But thatâs actually part of the delicate
balance of writing a Magnificent Bastard. We need to see them established and consistent
before we start throwing in surprises like unexpected nobility or emotional instability. And if we throw those curveballs too often,
that starts being what we expect from the character. If your charismaniac is constantly getting
tilted and thrown off their game by the heroes, that really diminishes their magnificence. But if the heroes only manageÂ
that very infrequently, it reinforces the idea that this is an actual struggle. And on the flip side, if your charismaniac
is constantly doing surprisingly heroic or noble things because of their personal code
or whatever, they also slip out of the magnificent bastard zone because at that point theyâre
basically just a secondary protagonist who occasionally does schemes on the side. Itâs all about balancing the magnificence
with the bastard-ness; the audience needs to be sold on both. And, like any character archetype built on
charisma and coolness factor, if the character doesnât sell the charisma, the whole concept
falls flat. This is the biggest hurdle with a magnificent
bastard - if they donât actually come across as magnificent, the audience instead sees
the writer waving around their favorite character going âooooo look arenât they so COOL? look at all the nice suits I put them in! See, theyâre monologuing in a creepy yet
classy way! Ah, theyâre just so COOL!â and thereâs
nothing less cool than someone desperately trying to convince you theyâre cool. So yeah. And thanks again to World Anvil for sponsoring
this video! World Anvil is, of course, a browser-based
worldbuilding software designed to help writers, gamers and other worldbuilders keep track
of all the cool stuff theyâve been writing into their world. Itâs got interactive worldmaps, plot and
story timelines, custom wikis for major characters and plot points, family trees to keep all
your character lineages straight, and even a fully customizable calendar that lets you
define your own holidays, lunar cycles and more. And thanks to the recent writerâs update,
theyâve got a built-in word processor with a scrivener-like layout that lets you actively
write your story with all your worldbuilding notes right there for immediate reference,
so you donât need to jump around to keep everything straight. Very useful for making sure you donât lose
track of the details for your villainâs brilliant and extremely complicated evil scheme! Check out the link in the description for
more details, and if you want all the extra bells and whistles, you can get 20% off a
master or grandmaster membership with the promo code OVERLYSARCASTIC!
Charismaniacs
The Weatley core somehow manadges to be a magnificent bastard throught charisma alone.
He is litteraly designed to be dumb,he has a moral compass but it's more like a moral suggestion in his case since he literrally tries to dispose of Chell on "the part where you die",he gets angry constantly...he should be the reverse of a magnificent bastard but at the same time the first character that comes to mind when i think of this archetype
I was thinking Loki the entire time, I was wondering why Red never mentioned him.. but it occurred to me that Red idea of Loki may stem less from Marvel movies :P