One Character. Two Versions. There can only be one.

So I have a character, an antagonist, for a high fantasy story I'm writing. Now the character has one end goal: take over a kingdom and use its impressive power to wage a world war. The problem is that I've actually come up with two ways the character can go about this. Now, I think I know which route I'm ultimately going to go with, but I'm curious as to which version of the character people react stronger two.

The first version of the character is the eldest son of the royal family who was denied his birthright as King due to a physical defect (an under-developed arm). Not something you'd want in a culture and society where physical prowess is highly valued. Despite his weakness, he is given a position of power within the senate solely through his family, though is not taken very seriously. This character takes advantage of this setting in motion plans to eliminate his peers and elect like-minded allies into positions of power till he gains enough forces to wage a coup against the royal family and establish himself as king.

The second version is a heavily scarred former general who gains his position within the senate through his own merit. Despite his success within the government, this version of the character feels betrayed by it and hope to destroy it in order to remake it. This version essentially leads a double life as an underground leader uniting the downtrodden, the disillusioned and those who share his political beliefs into a personal army he hopes to use against the senate and the royal family in war of terror and finally a coup.

So which one sounds more interesting?

My initial reaction to the two is that if the society puts as much stock in physical prowess as to preclude the guy being king by birthright, society is not likely to follow him in a coup no matter what his position in Senate.

In which case, the veteran would likely be a more plausible contender to wrest power from the incumbent monarchy.

This goal doesn't make sense for either of those characters, war for its own sake only works if the villain is an evil spirit or something.

If the royal family are weak and decadent, and have lost a large chunk of territory to neighbours recently... then either of these work fine. A general performing a coup to restore the kingdom to its former glory works - though that would seem to clash with his position as some kind of populist leader, as reactionary 'things used to be better' golden-age stuff doesn't really mesh well with rebelling against the royal family; and it would most likely result in a civil war, as loyalists come by to support the king (and stab some uppity peasants before their own guys get ideas above their station). If he had a pliable prince to serve as a figurehead, while the general held all the real power, then a coup could work...

If the prince is bitter and thinks he can do better than his fuckup family - again, restoring the kingdom to power would be a good motivation, but in this case simple greed would work well enough, and an insane royal who just wants war for the swake of it could be believable. An historical example you could look at is England's Edward II, who gradually lost all of Scotland that his father had conquered and the remains of English holding in France, and was eventually overthrown by his wife and replaced by his son. Having a strong general working for/with him would be a useful asset, especially someone with the common touch who could get the people of the capital on his side.

What I'm saying is that you could have one of them working for the other, acting as the antagonist in appropriate situations.

Good point. Your dichotomy is false, why not Take a Third Option?

I think for both, which is most interesting will depend entirely on how you write them. I tend to think that in high fantasy, antagonists should in general be tragic, and they both have good hooks for that. #1 could be a story of someone who overcame physical and social disability, only to be brought down by their true, inner disfigurement, and #2 could be about a gruff, idealistic badass who sets out to bring justice to the social order but ends up miring his whole country in the bloodshed that is ultimately all he knows. I could find either of those extremely compelling.

Really though it's impossible to make any judgements about characters in isolation, what makes a character interesting isn't really their concept but how it establishes their place in the story.

I like the idea suggested above of using both characters, and having them work together to overthrow the current regime. There's potential for some interesting character interactions (and conflict) there.

I like that idea too, though I'm curious as to what people would think if the two were combined. A popular but disfigured general whose given a position of power not because of his own considerable merit, but through pity and popularity. Finding the senate and the royal family unfit to rule, he creates an identity for himself and uses an army of the disillusioned and downtrodden to ignite a war of terror, which he stokes in his political identity in order to spark a civil war, leaving the government open for a coup.

I would also like to clarify that when I said he wanted to wage a world war that I was using simplification. The nation is for the most part advanced, with a powerful military. The respective characters believe that despite this success that the nation has stagnated as a result of the royal family and senate. Believing that his people are capable of better and deserve so leads him to overthrow the government in the hopes that once he is in control, they can move onto their neighbours in a bid for conquest.