What makes a good antagonist in this franchise? (potential spoilers)

Dr_Con

I'm interested to see what peoples opinions are on this topic. In the context of "good" and "bad" I'm referring to player perception of well-received vs poorly-received, there will be no wrong answers as this is entirely subjective (feedback, if you will).

What are some examples of good antagonists from ESO/TES franchise?
What are some examples of bad antagonists from ESO/TES franchise?
Who would you compare some of these antagonists and story telling strategies to from popular media?
What makes them good or bad?

For reference, here's a start to some of the chapters/zone updates available in the game- feel free to reference a quest from one of these zones to share your idea (many of these are directly linked- this is for inspiration, not a definite list):


Aldmeri Dominion (Auridon, Grahtwood, Greenshade, Khenarthi's Roost, Malabal Tor, Reaper's March)
Daggerfall Covenant (Alik'r Desert, Bangkorai, Betnikh, Glenumbra, Rivenspire, Stormhaven, Stros M'Kai)
Ebonheart Pact (Bal Foyen, Bleakrock, Deshaan, Eastmarch, The Rift, Shadowfen, Stonefalls)
The Vestige storyline (incl. Coldharbour)
Fighter's Guild
Mage's Guild
Various Undaunted Dungeons- (from the Matriarch at Arx Corinium all the way up to Quintus Verres in Volenfell)

---

Blackwood/The Deadlands (Gates of Oblivion storyline)
Clockwork City
Craglorn
Gold Coast - (Dark Brotherhood story)
Elseweyr
Greymoor
Hew's Bane - Thieves Guild
High Isle/Galen
Imperial City DLC
Murkmire
Necrom (Telvanni Peninsula/Apocrypha)
Northern Elseweyr/Southern Elseweyr
Orsinium
Summerset (+Artaeum, Psijic order)
The Reach - Greymoor/Dark Heart storyline
Vvardenfell (Morrowind release in ESO)
Western Skyrim (+Blackreach)- Greymoor/Dark Heart storyline

Feel free to reference Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim- the success of all of these is responsible for the MMO we now enjoy, after all.

Use your discretion to add in spoiler tags.

Finedaible

Dagoth Ur was the best antagonist of the entire franchise. He was clearly a mad villain with the powers of a god yet had a certain inexplicable charismatic charm and some really sensible dialogue (good writing). Another reason I think he is the best is that any supporting lore behind Dagoth's past (or even a lack thereof) fostered its own mystery and intrigue surrounding his character, the Tribunal, and Red Mountain, which let players get creative about what they think really happened; much like how players still try to come up with theories about the disappearance of the Dwemer today.

Kesstryl

I really liked Rada al-Saran because everything he did was for his Grey Host family whom he loved, and he also loved Verandis as part of that family, which gave the plot better much better stakes than the evil for the sake of evil usual villian.

I also like Lyranth, though her being an antagonist is a big dunno yet as her thirst for power is benefiting the saving of Nirn for now, and we don't know how far that will go until saving Nirn ultimately blocks her goals.

Rebirthment

Kesstryl wrote: »

I really liked Rada al-Saran because everything he did was for his Grey Host family whom he loved, and he also loved Verandis as part of that family, which gave the plot better much better stakes than the evil for the sake of evil usual villian.

I also like Lyranth, though her being an antagonist is a big dunno yet as her thirst for power is benefiting the saving of Nirn for now, and we don't know how far that will go until saving Nirn ultimately blocks her goals.

I do like how Lyranth has always had an interest in mortal beings and the things they do. While she only cares about her goals, she does appear to have some sort of care about Nirn. At least more so than any other Daedra we have seen.

Soarora

As the others commented, Dagoth and Rada are great examples of good villains. I’m particularly fond of Dagoth because you can pity him or even believe in his cause. The whole Morrowind story is a tragedy that spans eras and it really pulls on the deepest parts of you. I’d say a good villain needs to be believable and multidimensional like they are. We all know that the Ascendent Lord was an awful villain. He’s supposed to be a twist villain and yet is very predictable and has zero dimensionality. Just one cause by birthright. What spurred him to desire the control he does? Where is the moral grey area? What boundaries are too far for even the villain to cross?
I think Necrom has done it’s villainy well too. I wouldn’t even consider any of the “villains” a villain with how they are all morally grey and have realistic reasons for their actions.

Foxtrot39

Usualy it summed up with 2 part

Personality : charisma and not being two dimensional unless its the goal, if you can sympethise with them to some degree or even agree to some part of their cause its already a good sign in term of character design

Cause : The final objective and the means used to archieve them, if the cause is ridiculous or clearly had better option to archieve them the vilain is just gonna look like an idiot

Finedaible

If we are only talking about ESO antagonists then I would probably say that Thieves' Guild, Dark Brotherhood, Orsinium, and Murkmire vaillains were good too. None of those were god-like beings with only 1 dimension to their character, they had somewhat relatable motivations behind them even if you can't approve of their actions.

Olauron

Estre (especially if you focus on her in Coldharbour) is an example of good antagonist. She is clever, she is understandable, she don't mix ideological with personal.

I_killed_Vivec

To turn the question round, I've always found Mr Cheesy to be cheesy

(I know Uncle Sheo has his fans, I ain't one).

spartaxoxo

Rada al-Saran is hands down the best villain in ESO, pre-Necrom in my opinion. He had a motive and viewpoint that made sense for his experiences. The mistakes he makes aren't because he's conveniently stupid for plot for the most part, but because of a consistent character flaw (his earned arrogance) and his love for Verandis. And he's charismatic, which is in big part of picking the right voice actors for the job. He really blew me away in terms of not just ESO but MMOs in general, which tend to have very generic villains.

Speaking of generic villains, by far the worst one in ESO was the Ascendant Lord. Generic, forgettable, nonsensical, and seemed to be chosen for the twist and "shock" factor alone rather than because of sensible writing.

When it comes to writing they need charisma first and foremost. If the villain is memorable and entertaining, people won't really care that they are not particularly sympathetic. Look at Sheogorath. He's really doesn't have much redeemable traits. But, he's fun. So he remains very popular. Most of the Daedra are like that.

But, writing a character with depth makes it a whole lot easier to write a good villain. If people can understand why they went down the path that they did, then it helps make the villain more interesting as it challenges us to think about their goals and feel for the villain.

OgrimTitan

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

To turn the question round, I've always found Mr Cheesy to be cheesy

(I know Uncle Sheo has his fans, I ain't one).

1 thing is to be a fan, another - being objective. TESO did many things good, especially compared to Oblivion and Skyrim, but Sheogorath is not one of them. This guy literally invented music, yet he acts as a stand up comedian. He's a cosmic force, one of the pinnacles of the universe. He should be a balance between the Joker and the Beyonder (comic book characters), not JUST the Joker parody. His design is also very-very bland compared to Shivering Isles DLC.

---

As for the topic in discussion: yes, Rada al-Saran wins hands down among blockbuster types of villains. People compare him to Dagoth Ur though, which is completely incorrect. It's like to compare some really good blockbuster movie to some author work of David Lynch. Most of Morrowind setting/characters had double, even triple meanings or layers of understanding. Dwemeri, Numidium, dunmer culture were all metaphorically the representations of certain types of creative approaches or types of creators (no, I'm not expanding on this, the point is to explore those things yourself). Dagoth Ur was no expedition - he was a creature of dreams, seeing the whole universe as his own stupid dream he can correct any way he pleases. I think you can guess by this what kind of people Dagoth Ur metaphorically represents.

But even on a surface level he was tragic and misunderstood character. It's a beautifully crafted mess of who betrayed who and who killed who at the Red Mountain. People would scream "Tribunal killed Nerevar and convinced him of Dagoth's betrayal" and will be deadly wrong.

---

Also, I commend the work on Mehrunes Dagon in Gates of Oblivion. Passive storytelling and small details made him the most 3-dimentional version of him we ever saw.

chessalavakia_ESO

Spoilers Sort of examples of antagonists I liked/didn't like from chains:

For ESO, I felt that Septima Tharn, Estre, Magistrix Vox, The Black Dragon, Rada al-Saran, and Nocturnal's Champion were decent antagonists involved with major quest chains

For Skyrim, I felt that Lord Harkon was a decent involved with a major quest chin.

For Oblivion, I've got nothing for the major quests.

For Morrowind I felt that Dagoth Ur and Orvas Dren were decent antagonists involved with major quest chains.

Some of the worst ones for the games in my view would be:

ESO: Javad Tharn

Skyrim: The Silver Hand who don't even get names.

Oblivion: Mannimarco

Morrowind: It didn't really have many chain antagonists unless we count the whole kill me to advance stuff.

Generally speaking, my impression is the easyish way to make a well-received antagonist is to make a heroic character toss in a few flaws that aren't too annoying and put them on the wrong side and give them some moments to be impactful/seem competent but, be sure not to hype them up too much.

Braffin

I'll start with some of the antagonists I enjoyed:

- King Kurog of Orsinium: While of course he chose the wrong methods to achieve his goals, I can very well understand what he tried to do: Unify his people to give them a chance to survive the harshest time in Tamriels history. As Bazrag said: "Remember the Kurog who was. Strong, confident. A king who cared about his people." One of the few antagonists I would've spared, if possible.
- Angof: While he is nothing special as antagonist, I really like his redemption arc in coldharbour. Finally a man thinking about his own doings and what has become of it.

And one I particulary dislike:

Mannimarco: While I overall enjoyed the main quest, I never could warm up for the archetype of "overambitious, evil sorcerer". Maybe I've seen/read it too often, as I'm dealing with fantasy/mythology quite much in general, but his storyline, including the ending, was simply too predictable for my taste.

Soarora

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

To turn the question round, I've always found Mr Cheesy to be cheesy

(I know Uncle Sheo has his fans, I ain't one).

Sheogorath in Oblivion is fantastic. He is unpredictable, mixing demented thoughts and manic expressions in ways that strike you with deep fear. Sheogorath in ESO is awful and is treated like a child.

merpins

Alduin was a bad villain, is a good example. An end-of-the-world type villain, whose appearance and intrigue was solely based on the fact that he was a dragon. A creature of instinct mostly doing what one would know it would do if it was alive, to prepare its strength to do... What you know what he would do if he was alive. World ending threats like him aren't interesting. It's a quest to fell a beast; the quest itself is where the fun comes from, but ask yourself this- When was the last time you played skyrim, and actually pursued the main quest before doing any other major quest line? I'd wager most players did it only the first playthrough of the game, and ignored it most of the time for every subsequent playthrough.

TaSheen

Soarora wrote: »

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

To turn the question round, I've always found Mr Cheesy to be cheesy

(I know Uncle Sheo has his fans, I ain't one).

Sheogorath in Oblivion is fantastic. He is unpredictable, mixing demented thoughts and manic expressions in ways that strike you with deep fear. Sheogorath in ESO is awful and is treated like a child.

Sorry, don't agree. He was never good in any of the games. Just.... ick. I deal with it in the MG questiline but it's just painful.

merpins wrote: »

Alduin was a bad villain, is a good example. An end-of-the-world type villain, whose appearance and intrigue was solely based on the fact that he was a dragon. A creature of instinct mostly doing what one would know it would do if it was alive, to prepare its strength to do... What you know what he would do if he was alive. World ending threats like him aren't interesting. It's a quest to fell a beast; the quest itself is where the fun comes from, but ask yourself this- When was the last time you played skyrim, and actually pursued the main quest before doing any other major quest line? I'd wager most players did it only the first playthrough of the game, and ignored it most of the time for every subsequent playthrough.

Well, I actually do the MQ in Skyrim in at least half of my playthroughs (approaching hundreds by this time). It mostly depends on whether I'm in the mood - which is about half the time - or if I have a character who has a serious reason to go there (and that's mostly dependent on the character herself, and her backstory).

While I really find nothing fun about the choice between Ulfric and Empire, I actually do the MQ that 50% of the time BECAUSE the whole Alduin the World-Eater is so much better, so much more absorbing, than Ulfric and Empire.

I've written whole novels (a LOT of them) about my playthroughs of Skyrim, keyed to having to deal with an ancient inimical World -Eater dragon - and how my very ordinary characters found the guts to deal with him....

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.

Thank you for your understanding.

prof-dracko

The problem with a lot of villains is that they're Daedra, which are decent threats but can only be so original. Daedra just [codeare[/code] so you can't exactly apply whether they're good or bad. That said, Nocturnal playing the long game over a few expansions was pretty fun, if ultimately anticlimactic.

The antagonists of the Murkmire and Orsinium DLCs are well-liked because they're sympathetic. You understand the why, even if you don't agree with the how. Naemon was pretty neat, too, since you could understand his frustration at his situation.

Going with the consensus here though, Rada is the best and the Druid King the worst. Rada had a goal, the means, the power, and the charisma. The Dark Heart story was a great way to make the threat immediate without having to resort to it being Daedric (although Daedric powers were involved, none actually made an appearance in the story so I don't count it).

The High Isle story was well written and built up, only to have a very anticlimactic antagonist with a very flimsy, last-minute feeling power grab. I remember almost nothing about his actual plot, and it was only last year. I vividly remember the side quests and other stories in the Systres though, which should be the other way around.

It feels like for Dark Heart they had a great villain with a story to tell, then built a zone to facilitate that, whereas for the Systres they had a neat zone full of cool lore and environments and had to invent a villain to fill that space. One worked, one didn't.

Finedaible

merpins wrote: »

Alduin was a bad villain, is a good example. An end-of-the-world type villain, whose appearance and intrigue was solely based on the fact that he was a dragon. A creature of instinct mostly doing what one would know it would do if it was alive, to prepare its strength to do... What you know what he would do if he was alive. World ending threats like him aren't interesting. It's a quest to fell a beast; the quest itself is where the fun comes from, but ask yourself this- When was the last time you played skyrim, and actually pursued the main quest before doing any other major quest line? I'd wager most players did it only the first playthrough of the game, and ignored it most of the time for every subsequent playthrough.

Many players forget Alduin as a main villain, but to me the real antagonists in that story were the Thalmor and subsequently Ulfric Stormcloak from most viewpoints. Alduin was just a plot device. Like Ulfric did have a valid cause against the Thalmor and their religious persecution, but he caused more instability for Skyrim and the Empire with all the infighting than it was worth, to say nothing of Ulfric's racial discrimination. Ulfric only wanted to fight anyone he could to see if it would eventually stick.

KingArthasMenethil

An example of a good one would be Dagoth Ur has the game world build him up enough which is like most of the character people get from him because once you get to him ingame he info dumps you and you start the fight to disenchant a heart. But how the game world builds up the Devil of the Dunmer is very good to how TES3 handles its main antagonist though I feel it's lead to later stuff taking the wrong stuff in regards to Dagoth Ur.


An example of a bad one I feel would be Mehrunes Dagon in Oblivion. This Daemon does not say a single thing and arrives at the very end to get beaten down by Sean Bean (Martin Septims voice actor) ending his destructive goals in failure. The game world of base TES4 is writing issue of its own but the writing that went to the Mythic Dawn is either Cultist Propaganda or Mankar's madness.

Necrotech_Master

for me personally, a lot of it has to be how the quests and dialogs are written

for example, the previous 2 expansions (blackwood and high isle), i didnt really enjoy the story that much

blackwood the characters all felt really dumb with how everything went down, and it annoyed me greatly, especially eveli (between the blackwood arc and the black drake villa it massively painted her as a blonde bimbo with a grating annoying voice to me)

the original content in this game (harborage arc) i think was well written, mannimarco seemed like a good villain to me, though out of the original arcs i liked mages guild the best (i do have a slight bias to liking sheogorath but i found the quests very entertaining and still do)

i dont remember much from the eso 5 skyrim game, the last time i played it was before ESO even released (2012-2014 somewhere in there lol)

i found some of the other main villains a little to me kind of lacking i guess, it really comes down to how the final fight was executed

like the molag bal fight at the end of the coldharbour/harborage line

Finedaible

KingArthasMenethil wrote: »

An example of a good one would be Dagoth Ur has the game world build him up enough which is like most of the character people get from him because once you get to him ingame he info dumps you and you start the fight to disenchant a heart. But how the game world builds up the Devil of the Dunmer is very good to how TES3 handles its main antagonist though I feel it's lead to later stuff taking the wrong stuff in regards to Dagoth Ur.


An example of a bad one I feel would be Mehrunes Dagon in Oblivion. This Daemon does not say a single thing and arrives at the very end to get beaten down by Sean Bean (Martin Septims voice actor) ending his destructive goals in failure. The game world of base TES4 is writing issue of its own but the writing that went to the Mythic Dawn is either Cultist Propaganda or Mankar's madness.

I think this brings up a good point in that in previous Elder Scrolls titles and some of the best DLC, we only ever discover the villain through the limited scope of our character and the accounts of other characters we meet along the way. In the more recent DLC In the Elder Scrolls Online it doesn't quite feel that immersive since we are bombarded with disembodied information before we even get to experience something for ourselves, per say. So perhaps it is more a matter of the method of exposition than it is about hyping an antagonist up for a story.