Which type of villain would be more threatening & interesting to write

Is the Antagonist more threatening when they're just some lone wolf who does everything themselves, the boss of a gang of uniquely powered/skilled thugs or when they're the leaders of a large number of soldiers who obey their orders with militaristic precision?

Is the antagonist more of a threat when they're openly cruel and sadistic to their own followers or when they treat their followers so well, the latter follows their orders without question

Is the antagonist more scary when they think themselves superior to the heroes in every way or when they actually believe that they and the heroes are similar enough that they should be allies not enemies?

Is it more scary when the villain is always insulting and abusing the hero with the intent to kill them or when they're always messing with their heads and always maintaining a considerable respect for them?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

I think that's cleared that up nicely.

Hmm. For the second point, the villains in one of my stories' setting are two factions. One faction treats their soldiers cruel and badly, the other treats them (and pretty much those who don't know their motives) well and with respect.

The latter is considered much more dangerous, as they cause the heroes to get bad publicity for stopping them. And when the public doesn't have good opinion of the good guys, it does cause major problems in the long run, especially when the good guys are outnumbered and need co-operation to stand a chance against the bad guys. Plus, the latter faction doesn't have many problems from The Dog Bites Back and subsequent Enemy Civil War while the former does.

edited 28th Dec '15 4:55:40 AM by ironcommando

What makes the latter faction evil, by the way?

The former faction (Defiance) are the chaos and destruction type while the latter faction (Enforcers) is trying to assimilate everybody in secret while putting up a good front. Both of them are powerful extradimensional aliens and they also don't like each other.

Enforcers use various methods that don't raise suspicion while being able to do so thanks to good publicity. They form alliances with planets/galaxies and give them protection/tech to make lives easier while stamping out other villains/terrorists and defending the civilians from the Defiance.

Of course, with their good publicity, they use it to do what they want with the masses. Such as drafting and training select few civilians to fight for the country against the Defiance, in exchange for the Enforcers' benevolence and protection. These are sent off to secret missions to prevent suspicion, then the Enforcers take a few of them into another dimension and turn them into more Enforcer aliens. The families of the "missing" soldiers are told by the Enforcers that their relative "regrettably died in the line of duty" and will be given an honorary funeral.

Other tactics: Sometimes, they can assimilate an entire planet that the Defiance recently attacked then pin the blame on the Defiance (who do have planet-destroying weapons). The Enforcers can easily make sure that no witnesses escape while making the incident resemble a Defiance attack thanks to their superior tech.

And to answer the first question... it depends on how powerful the villain, and the villain's squad/army (if they have one) is. A single, lone wolf villain can be more threatening than an army if said lone wolf villain is a One-Man Army.

edited 28th Dec '15 7:54:06 AM by ironcommando

These are just my opinions:

1. The second one seems most interesting to me.

2. I'd go with being cruel to their followers, but that has danger of coming off as ridiculous instead of threatening.

3. it depends on the villain.

4. If the villain is physically threatening, the first. If not, the second.

Slightly unrelated topic;

What does it say about an antagonist when they have a private army at their disposal, a "lair" with advanced technology and equipment, and access to things like helicopters, private jets, yachts and limousines?

They're rich and have good authority. May be one of those classy villains.

Which makes the antagonist more threatening:

When they're basically the opposite of the hero in almost every possible way

or

When they're basically the hero if they took a different path.

I'd say the second. The first, if not done well, tends to come off like a Bizarro-type of villain. (I know that's not what you meant, though. More like diametrically-opposed alignments in an RPG.)

The second might be someone the hero finds more sympathetic, and thus he would find them more frightening when he thinks: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Of course, this really only works when both the hero and the audience are aware of the villain's (true) backstory. Otherwise, he comes off as just another Big Bad.