Let's talk villains and antagonists...

[Tarvek Val]

Greetings all.

 

For this topic, I am curious to learn: who are some of the villains and antagonists from the Heresy / 40k universe that "work" for you, and which ones fall flat?

 

By "work" I mean: which villains do you think best fulfill their roles and are believable enemies to our beloved heroes? Which villains or antagonists just fall flat, and why?

 

This topic can be as broad or specific as you want to take it. Is there a particular faction or warband that just doesn't seem a credible threat to you? A specific character? A combination of the two? Let's hear it!

 

 

[Tarvek Val]

Here are some of my own thoughts on the topic.

 

Villains that I think are done extremely well:

Honsou, the Iron Warrior: I think Honsou (taken from the context of the Ultramarines series, where Honsou serves as an antagonist to the ultramarines Uriel Ventris and Pasanius) is a perfect villain. First and foremost, he is a capable and cunning enemy who nearly succeeds in destroying his Imperial foes many a time. He poses a credible threat to the protagonists, first through the use of his Daemonculaba devices (which give him the ability to ‘grow’ Chaos Marines at a prodigious rate) and secondly through his invasion of Ultramar (along with the daemonic host of M’kar). He is far more than a simple push-over, and I think that Graham McNeill did a great job of introducing his character in the Ultramarines series. I am certainly glad that Honsou and his Iron Warriors received their own omnibus!

 

Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka: While I have not read much that focuses on Ghazghkull himself, this character deserves mentioning simply for the effect he has had on the Imperium at large. Simply saying his name in the 41st Millenium is enough to cause even the toughest Cadian trooper to get queasy! Ghazghkull may not have the most developed, fleshed-out character, but the threat he poses to Armageddon and the neighboring worlds and sectors is considerable.

 

Villains and antagonists that I find wanting:

Ignatius Grulgor (in terms of the novel Flight of the Eisenstein): As someone already said in the thread discussing FotE (I believe it was Brother bluntblade), Grulgor simply doesn’t come across as a compelling victim. At the end of the day, he’s an arrogant blowhard who gets shunted out of a warship, absorbed by the warp, and turned into a daemon. Then, of course, he ends up ‘dying’. He simply didn’t strike me as a credible threat to the protagonists.

 

The Word Bearers Legion / Iskavan the Hated: Ok, so hear me out… I think, when written by the right author in the right circumstance, the Word Bearers as a fighting force can be a very potent antagonist. Their dedication to the Pantheon, their fighting prowess, and their consequent blessings of Chaos makes them a fearsome foe, to be sure. However, on the other hand, these qualities can easily be used to excess. I think the Word Bearers (and other Chaos factions) lose their potency when they are written as nothing more than religious nutjobs who like to run around sacrificing people to the gods. Oftentimes, works featuring the Word Bearers end with the WBs getting defeated due to sheer tactical stupidity for some “evil Chaos-y reason. Take, for example, Foedral Fell and his thousands of Marines being sacrificed by Maloq Kartho during the Underworld War. Had they not been killed, the WBs could likely have had a far greater chance of winning the war on Calth…

 

Another example occurs in the Blood Angels novels by James Swallow. While I enjoyed the books, I found the primary external antagonist of the first novels (Iskavan the Hated) to be almost pitiful. Iskavan basically shows up at critical moments throughout the books, only to have his forces completely routed by the Blood Angles. Iskavan simply isn’t a compelling villain because there was never even the slightest hint of him coming away with a substantial victory. His forces (who certainly fall into the above category of strategically incompetent Chaos lovers) can’t seem to do anything right, and at the end it is revealed that Iskavan’s masters viewed him and his host as nothing more than cannon fodder… sound familiar?

 

To be clear, I have grown to appreciate the Word Bearers more in recent years, particularly after reading The First Heretic and Betrayer. The first 40k book I ever read was The Word Bearers omnibus, and I love the dark and brutal portrayal of the legion in that book. That said… I feel that sometimes the WBs are used as a scapegoat enemy, and that they (and other Chaos forces) can be a crutch used in substitute of a more interesting, compelling, and original villain. 

[Roomsky]

I've always been a villains guy, I love me a good right proper bastard. It may surprise you, then, that I often measure the quality of work by how much I care about the protagonists, which for all my love of the baddies is generally where the story's focus should be. BL frequently impresses me with how likeable and memorable it can make its protagonists, so forgettable villains aren't often a problem for me. Szo Sahaal wasn't the antagonist, or really even the "villain" of Lord of the Night, but I loved reading about him, and thus don;t hold it against the story that I can't remember the name of the Inquisitor.

 

All that said, a few do stand out on either side of the pack. Just know that I don't really count "forgettable" against a BL antagonist than so many other works. The whole universe basically holds the role of "villain" anyway.

 

The Good

 

Fulgrim

There are a few reasons why Fulgrim works so well as the antagonist of Angel Exterminatus, not the least of which being his titular book early on in the saga. Seeing Fulgrim's fall, and his supreme reluctance to kill Ferrus, almost makes it surprising how utterly sadistic he is around Perturabo. His character evolved into someone so slimy it's hard not to be entranced by the sheer, classical villainy of it all. What's more, it's clearly established that Fulgrim has tangible weaknesses, he needs Perturabo, he needs the IVth legion, and he's not invincible. He takes losses but gains the upper hand in the end, and to my mind a villain is best when their plans come across as thwartable, not simply a foregone conclusion.

 

Nathian

Sometimes what an antagonist represents means more than their on-page presence. Which is not to say I found Nathian lacking in his few pages, but what he represents is why I still remember him so long after reading Ravenlord (Gav's best Corax work, btw). Too many author's skip over the implications in-period of the wider heresy, what such a betrayal can really do to marines who don't fall so easily into the camps of stalwart loyalist and bloodhungry traitor. Nathian shows how the war didn't simply warp astartes, but broke them, sending them on a nihilistic bent from which there was no recovery. Far more effective than the raving Word-Bearer in Soulforge, and in half the page count.

 

The Shard of Magnus from the Ahriman series

Sometimes a villain wins you over by just how brilliantly they've played everything. A foil to Fulgrim's more obvious duplicity, this thing wasn't even all that important until Unchanged rolled around, but once it became clear who was pulling the strings it felt not only earned, but almost frightening in how effectively it had operated. And such is probably the greatest antagonist for a character like Ahriman, one whose labyrinthine scheming eclipsed even his own.

 

The Bad

 

That Death Guard from Deathfire

Probably one of the most hilariously mishandled antagonists I've yet read from BL. From his first moments on the page you could tell exactly how his story was going to end. He was never sinister, threatening, or especially vile. He came across as just some guy, eagerly setting himself up for the least-imaginative ironic fate imaginable. 

 

That Word Bearer from Soulforge

How do you undermine anything close to tension in one easy step? Make the antagonist in love with his own voice while not holding anything resembling an advantage. Were the readers to believe he was anything like a threat to Corax? I don't think I've read a more flaccid confrontation, and even the worst of BL tends to be fast-paced enough to keep me from internally shouting "get on with it," but this guy managed it with startling rapidity. No tension, no versimillitude, and as much as Corax liked to pretend, he didn;t have anything remotely interesting to say.

 

The White Scar's leader in Sword of Truth

This is in part to the strangely racist accent put on by the VA in the audio drama, which as the original form of publication, I will take to be the most canon. He loses the rest of his villain points for yelling "Noooooo" while the protagonists stand still and are slowly enveloped by an obvious teleport flare, instead of having them shot.

[1ncarnadine]

A villain that works for me: Eidolon, from Path of Heaven, and basically every appearance since

 

A villain that falls flat: Eidolon, every appearance before that

[mc warhammer]

just to make sure i’m on the right page...my understanding of an antagonist is a narrative role, and that it doesn’t equate to “villain”.

 

so abaddon would be a villain and antagonist in horus heresy but is a villain and protagonist in the black legion series.

 

is that how we’re viewing this? i’ll keep this to villains for now

 

for me, best villain would be first claw (as a unit)

 

most disappointing is fulgrim

 

i’ll have a think on antagonists. maybe the alpha legion (pretty much their m.o) or space wolves

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yeah, I have to say I'm frankly disappointed with Fulgrim so far. I suppose it's partly because Angel Exterminatus felt like was just McNeil trying desperately to remind us that he once wrote a book called Storm of Iron that everyone loved, and isn't it cool to see all the same characters again?

 

In regards to villains done well, Abaddon in the Black Legion series definitely fits into this. We're finally getting him expanded into the literal anti-christ that he's always been portrayed as, and is going some way towards dispelling the memes that have grown up around him.

[Tarvek Val]

Yes, you understand correctly, Brother mc. An antagonist is something or someone that opposes the protagonist (but is not necessarily evil and can sometimes simply have different opinions or views) whereas a villain is a character marked by evil actions or motives. Apologies for not being clearer. 

[mc warhammer]

thanks tv. and it’s me and my overthinking that complicates things! good topic

[DukeLeto69]

Rushing so can't give a more thoughtful answer but will just throw out...

 

Pretty much ALL the villains in the Eisenhorn and Ravenor books work/fulfil their role very well indeed!

[m_r_parker]

For me an Antagonist / Villain (or any character really) 'works' when they have a believable motivation for their actions. More often than not, in my opinion, that level of character development is reserved for the protagonist of a story with the antagonists simply being a foil for their actions. 

 

One of my personal favourites is Lorgar, in particular his depiction in The First Heretic. The destruction of Monarchia really gave Lorgar the catalyst for change, the Primarch from a religious world and background being punished for finding divinity in his leader. Being forced to look for the divine elsewhere, and actually finding it, gives him the righteousness to go back to his 'father figure' to prove him wrong. Having the XIIIth there to enact the will of the Emperor, and Guillman being shown as the example of how Lorgar should be also gives him great motivation for his actions at Calth. Being told by your 'father' to be more like your better 'brother', Lorgar could have taken it as the direction and challenge as it was intended but instead took the more petty (and somewhat more human) reaction of wanting to bring Guilliman down. From that point on you know the reasons why Lorgar went down this path, one that Erebus and For Phaeron laid out for him. More importantly you can see the payoff for Lorgar beyond Istvvan, being more accepted by his brethren where previously he would have been made of fun of or ignored, being proven right about his convictions through the power that he is able to wield. 

 

As for one that doesn't work for me, I have to go with Erebus. I still don't really get what his deal is and what he ultimately wants, and for a lot of the time he's simply used as a pro-Chaos manipulator. Being sent out to the various Legions to set up lodges and plant the seeds of Heresy, I get that from a more holistic view of the setting but I don't get what Erebus gets out of it personally. Erebus is the one who ultimately brings about Horus' fall, and as important as that is to the whole narrative I still can't see what's in it for Erebus. All I can see is that he's the will of the Chaos gods manifest in the mortal realm, everything he does is because it's needed by the gods - and that seems to be the end of it. Stretching forward into the 40k universe, and specifically the Word Bearers trilogy where he makes an appearance at the end of the trilogy, Erebus is still 1) internally vying with Kor Phaeron for control of the Legion and 2) mortal. By this point surely Erebus has done enough to ascend to daemonhood, where other Astartes from the traitor Legions have been chosen, so either he's not as important as he thinks he is or he's turned down the gifts of the gods (which would be highly out of character for a Word Bearer, and be indicative of him having larger unknown goals). Either way there's still no explanation why he set down that path, unless it's been covered in a novel that I haven't read (such as the Lorgar primarch novel), and this bugs me because he's a central point of the narrative. 

[mc warhammer]

i’d read an erebus novel that promised to flesh him out and answer those questions you raise

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

One of my favorite antagonists is Khârn - post Heresy. I loved Chosen of Khorne.

[Marshal Rohr]

The Emperor, after Master of Mankind.

[TheRealMcCagh]

In Greek Mytholgy Erebus is one of the first primordial beings and born directly from chaos. So if he is anything like his namesake, it kind of makes sense that he pretty one dimensional and evil-for-the-sake-of-evil. 

[Indefragable]

Anyone aligned with Chaos has believable motivations, to me. Like a gold rush of sorts, they are (mostly) deceived into thinking they can change their lives by doing chaos-y things for chaos-y reasons...no matter how moustache-twirly the results may be.

 

By no means does that forgive poor writing or plain old stupidity on the part of characters, but when a city scavenger believes he can become a Daemon Prince by doing whatever the little voices say....then, well, from a certain perspective, its logically illogical that he would then think that some cartoonish scheme would also work.

[bluntblade]

Mortarion and Eidolon as written by Wraight. Mainly because they are presented as such credible threats, and Wraight gives each of them the sense of a real inner life. Likewise the two Thousand Sons commanders in Battle of the Fang.

 

An unusual antagonist and one that I think works brilliantly is the Daemon of the First Murder. It's so very other in the way it is written.

[Lord_Caerolion]

The idea I get from Erebus in Betrayer, at least, is that he latches on to religion to boost his ego. Sure, he goes through all the same statements of belief that Lorgar does, etc, but really, he wants to be the Deliverer, the one that people turn to, and praise the name of right alongside the gods they worship. Unfortunately, so many portrayals just show his as "evil for the sake of it".

[MrDarth151]

I don't find any of them particularly enjoyable.

 

No point in getting invested in players, when I know the game is rigged.

[Tarvek Val]

I too am a bit skeptical of Erebus's portrayal in the Heresy and 40k canon thus far. He is portrayed primarily as a scheming manipulator, and his complete lack of any good qualities whatsoever makes him hard for me to like as a character. I mean, even such characters as Lucius, Abbadon, and Horus are shown to have some redeeming qualities: Horus's almost paternal love for his sons and his genuine regret for sacrificing those who would not follow him into rebellion, Abbadon's honor (at the opening of the Heresy, at least), Lucius for his drive for excellence and *original* loyalty to the Emperor's cause. Heck, even Fabius Bile is revealed to have some regret for some of the things he has done over his lifetime... 

 

Though Erebus certainly isn't intended to be a sympathetic character, I certainly wish there was some big, confirmed hint or clue as to why he originally turned from the Imperial Truth to worshipping the Chaos gods. 

 

Minor spoiler for Lorgar primarch novel, regarding Colchis:

I mean, we know that Colchis had archaic cults that worshipped the Chaos gods. They didn't quite take the same exact form of the Pantheon, as it became known, but the gods of Colchis are easily recognized as the Four Gods of Chaos. It is reasonable to assume that Erebus never quite got over what he had learned on Colchis and that he never paid more than lip service to the Imperial Truth. However, it would be nice if this were confirmed one way or another.

 

And, of course, one thing that I simply cannot get over is Erebus's actions in Betrayer. I really liked Argel Tal.

[Lord_Caerolion]

There is the scene in Betrayer when Erebus has just "arrived" back from Calth, where he's walking through the ship around the crew, and he definitely sees himself as some sort of messianic figure. He turned because he wanted to be the Space Pope. He didn't just want to be religious, or to seek the truth like Lorgar did. He wanted to be the one that the unwashed masses turn to for salvation, the literal Word of God. The only redeeming factor I can really see is that he does appear, in that scene, to care for his "flock", in his own twisted way. Certainly not for the individual members, but he definitely wants to be looked up at.

[Tarvek Val]

Erebus and Kor Phaeron are alike in a lot of ways... They both manipulate others to increase their own status and position, and they only seem to care for their own interests and agendas, which I think could certainly be fleshed out more thoroughly. Look at Kor Phaeron; he could care less about Lorgar until Lorgar is shown to be the next holy figure of Colchis, and then suddenly he just steps into the father figure persona. I feel like Erebus is similar in that he puts on a front for his cult following. He may state that his Chaos followers are valued, but he is clearly willing to discard anyone who is of no use to him personally, be it Argel Tal or even his fellow members of the Dark Council of Sicarus. I'm certain that he would do away with good ol' Kor Phaeron himself if he thought he could get away with it... in fact, if I'm remembering correctly from the Word Bearers omnibus, the two have had a long-lasting rivalry for millennia.

 

As a sidenote, perhaps the root of Erebus's bitterness could be put down to the fact that he is in Lorgar's shadow. Perhaps he thinks, deep down inside, that it should have been him and not Lorgar who led Colchis into the new era, following the path of the gods? He always claims that he was the first person to truly comprehend the glories of Chaos, and his arrogance sees him butting heads with many of the Chaos primarchs, from Lorgar to Horus himself. If he truly did have an inferiority complex and felt that he couldn't compare with Lorgar's charisma and faith, it would make sense for him to have turned to other means of gaining the power and status he so desperately craved.

[Roomsky]

I have to disagree with Fulgrim, as he's one of the few characters that serves the role of out-and-out villain and antagonist. There are plenty of villains far better written than the ones I cited, but their quality comes from their being protagonists. As for the Heresy series, most antagonists lose their teeth because they're either a) occupying the role of supporting characters in the larger narrative, rather than a calculated story obstacle, and or (b can't die and thus don;t have a terrible amount of dramatic weight.

 

Fulgrim in AE succeeds in being memorable, a hate sink in spite of his narrative immunity, and now occupies a role in the story that leaves little room for his own point of view any more. His sympathy died with Ferrus, the first to truly fall to chaos becomes the first out-and-out monster of the Heresy.

 

I count myself lucky for reading AE before Storm of Iron, both because Storm of Iron is (IMO) a far worse book that would have tainted my perception of AE. As a new reader, the only thing I thought was strange was the Honsou reveal, otherwise it all fit just fine into the two-thirds of the book I really enjoyed. 

[Orwell84]

As for one that doesn't work for me, I have to go with Erebus. I still don't really get what his deal is and what he ultimately wants, and for a lot of the time he's simply used as a pro-Chaos manipulator. Being sent out to the various Legions to set up lodges and plant the seeds of Heresy, I get that from a more holistic view of the setting but I don't get what Erebus gets out of it personally. Erebus is the one who ultimately brings about Horus' fall, and as important as that is to the whole narrative I still can't see what's in it for Erebus. All I can see is that he's the will of the Chaos gods manifest in the mortal realm, everything he does is because it's needed by the gods - and that seems to be the end of it. Stretching forward into the 40k universe, and specifically the Word Bearers trilogy where he makes an appearance at the end of the trilogy, Erebus is still 1) internally vying with Kor Phaeron for control of the Legion and 2) mortal. By this point surely Erebus has done enough to ascend to daemonhood, where other Astartes from the traitor Legions have been chosen, so either he's not as important as he thinks he is or he's turned down the gifts of the gods (which would be highly out of character for a Word Bearer, and be indicative of him having larger unknown goals). Either way there's still no explanation why he set down that path, unless it's been covered in a novel that I haven't read (such as the Lorgar primarch novel), and this bugs me because he's a central point of the narrative. 

 

You've summed up perfectly what's wrong with Erebus as an antagonist. He doesn't need to have any redeeming qualities morality-wise, just a more compelling portrayal than he's had so far. Thus far, all we've had is 'I'm destiny's hand' and 'Ooo, I can out-sneak Alpharius as a manipulator.' Of course, post-Battle of Pluto that latter boast does kind of ring truer...

 

I don't think he does show up in Lorgar's primarch novel, that's largely from the perspective of Kor Phaeron. With any luck, somebody will do for Erebus what Josh Reynolds has done for Fabius Bile and Wraight for Eidolon.

[SickSix]

Protagonists: It may be cliche but I really got attached to the 3 main good guys from the first 3 books, Loken, Torgaddon and the EC captain.

 

Ahriman I think was awesome pre-Prospero. Haven't read enough since to really speak of him post fall.

 

I really liked Ferrus Manus. I wish they would have axed Corax at Isstvan V instead, he's super lame.

 

The loyalist World Eater that runs with Garro is awesome.

 

Barbarus Danitioch obviously. In the running for favorite character.

 

Finally I would say the Khan and his chief librarian.

 

Antagonists: I really grew to respect/understand Little Horus after the short story where he fights Iron Hands.

 

Argel Tal was awesome. I Liked him.

 

Conrad Curze. I knew basically nothing about him but every story I have read with him so far I like him.

 

 

Honestly there are too many characters I don't like or care about to mention.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

John French has done a great job with Ahriman imo