I got a request to expand a concept for someone, and to do it publicly, so, here we go. It might end up a little long, but consider this to be a little bit of my personal view on what makes compelling conflict.

So, you've come up with the wonderful hero, Peter the Protagonist. He'll save the damsels, stand for the eradication of bigotry, and generally be a swell guy. Now you just need to throw a villain at him and everything will be set and you have yourself a story.

All melodrama aside, I think the writing of heroes is easy. The protagonist of a story is who the story is about. She comes fully formed with the concept that you are writing.

You say you're writing a story about a fifteen year old college student? Or a little person who dreams of going to space? Or a group of friends who don't do much of anything at all?

Every story idea comes ready made with heroes. They are part and parcel what you are writing about.

They're the easy part.

Writing people to conflict with them isn't as easy. You see, regardless of how much you'd like to make your protagonist out to be a Paragon of Virtue, they're not, and taking the easy road out by saying your hero is good, and your villain is evil is kind of short sighted.

You'd miss out on great stories like "Mastermind" if that were the case.

Now, I don't say here whether it was well written, just that it has a great concept, and an adequate implementation.

When any of us begin to write, we should first take a moment to figure out what our protagonists virtues and flaws are. They will, more than anything else, tell us who are characters are, and let us make for them adequate antagonists.

Let me explain...no that will take too long. Let me sum up.

The Joker is a character that most of us will agree is a villain, and many will state that he is just plain evil. That is a discussion for fan-bois everywhere to beat into the ground.

What The Joker really is, is a foil to Batman.

The flaws in The Joker's character show off the virtues that exist in The Bat.

As an example, Batman will not kill. He is famous for not killing people. It doesn't matter how evil you are, he doesn't kill you.

The Joker, on the other hand, kills, causes to be killed, entices to murder, and generally reduces the surplus population with abandon.

I picked this extreme example, because it's easier to understand. I'm not suggesting that your antagonist needs to be evil for it to work. On the contrary. They should be as human as your protagonist, or the conflict will feel lopsided.

That means that if your main character is a normal high-school student, the villain could be a teacher, parent, fellow student, or even a random homeless guy. The antagonist shouldn't be a hardened ex-con or a super-criminal.

Unless you're writing horror, but then that is a different animal entirely.

Conflict, to be believable, should be surmountable by the hero, or something that the hero can grow to overcome.

Generally, you should put the conflict's resolution just out of the hero's reach to begin with. Something that the protagonist knows they can't achieve. Then, when they overcome it, there is satisfaction there for the reader, as well as the protagonist.

As the agent of your conflict, the villain needs to be within the ballpark of the hero's capabilities. If your villain has greater flaws than your hero has virtues, then the conflict again feels lopsided. The greater the antagonist's flaws, the easier the resolution of the conflict will feel.

Take a moment to consider a protagonist winning the fight while the antagonist monologues. This need to spell out the plan to the readers is not a good thing for either the writer, or the antagonist, to do. And yet, all too often we, as writers, do just that.

So, what makes a good villain, and from that, a good conflict?

The better question is what type of conflict are you trying to portray?

You see, if you're writing a story about Man vs. Nature, having your antagonist be a storm works, while having it be a super-genius evil mastermind is a little less worthwhile.

In Man vs Self, the antagonist IS the protagonist. More specifically his self-image, how he sees himself, is the protagonist and other-image, how others see him, is the antagonist.

I bring this up, because man vs nature acts a lot like man vs self when you are considering story construction.

Another thing to remember is that your protagonist has flaws as well as virtues. And your antagonist should have virtues as well as flaws.

Think about the real world for a moment. None of us here are paragons of virtue. Our heroes AND villains should be the same. In fact, a good villain has a flaw for every virtue and a virtue for every flaw of the hero.

they feel more paired that way. It's also the reason that a lot of conflicts seem to result in a hero turning the villain into a friend. They are polar opposites, and there are many times where opposites do attracts.

There is more I could say on this subject, and I hope this is a good start. If people like this, drop me a question in the comments or a PM and i'll post another installment of this thing.

Also, I just want to note something. Everything here is my opinion. I don't pretend to be an expert at the written word. I love reading, I love to write, and I know what I like.

I've also spent way too much time talking about literature with my brother who has a bachelor's in French Lit.