Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30706
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30706
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I write my antagonists to truly believe they are doing the right thing. They just begin with different beliefs about the world than my protagonists, that also truly believe they are doing the right thing.

For example, my antagonist may believe that a few dozen politicians, by their votes, are literally causing hundreds of thousands of people to live in misery and die from lack of medical care.

Now my antagonist sees an opportunity to rid the world of these politicians, one at a time, but each time will demand an explosion that he knows will kill hundreds of innocent men, women, children and infants. But for my antagonist, as much as he regrets ending those hundreds of lives, on balance he is protecting hundreds of thousands, so what he does next is a no-brainer to him.

Again, and again, and it is my protagonists job to stop him. My protagonist believes these lives are not worth the cost, and the corrupt and evil politicians will just be replaced by another round of corrupt politicians, that there is an infinite supply. So the antagonist is creating misery with no point.

The antagonist disagrees, if there is another round he will kill them too, until politicians are too afraid to vote for their vile policies under the threat of his wrath.

The protagonist knows sooner or later the antagonist will make a mistake and be caught or killed, and that goal will never be accomplished, so it is all a waste.

I could go on! But the point is that what is in conflict here is two **_fundamental belief systems_** that won't be shaken, each also driven by emotional investment (anger for the antagonist, sympathy & justice for the protagonist).

Original score: 1