Villainy is a story-telling concept. The 'bad guy' in every story is but the person people must feel animosity towards, as he's who the hero must overcome. It's a simple concept that has been used also in politics to a great deal. 'We the heroes, must liberate this villainy infested nation'.
In roleplay-terms, there's usually two ways to go about villainy. Subscribe your character to one of the, as 'evil' established agendas in the game/story (In Star wars, that'd be becoming a 'Sith',) In Final fantasy it may be serving the Garleans, or any other antagonistic faction/group you can find.
Or, take the second route, and establish your character as a 'villain' towards a group of 'heroes'. Find a group of goodie-two-shoes looking for a villain.
Overall however, I don't..suggest creating a character just because you want that 'Villain' vybe. I've been playing, throughout the majority of my roleplay career only non-hero characters. Antagonists, side characters, neutral characters, straighout villains and anti-heroes. Usually, Heroes are the noble, strong figures that subscribe to 'taking the high road' of love, compassion, and whatever pop-culture values currently are upheld. The moment you subscribe yourself to a 'good' cause, while still adhering to a moral code in your actions (do not kill, do not torture is an example), you have a fledged hero at your hand.
Playing a villain simply means substracting one of those points. A Hero without a good cause is a side character. He can't 'take the spotlight' of heroism, because he has nothing to fight for. He has morals, so he will 'protect', but he wont be in a spotlight, as he's not yet subscribed to a greater cause.
Take from him Morals, but keep the cause, and you've got yourself your anti-hero. Willing to ignore moral standards to get the job done. Ends justify means etc.
Take both, and you've got someone focused solely on his own, individualistic gain. No morals to tell him 'you must be good to others', no cause to make him do good things for others, in the end means he'll be an egoistical civilian at best, or full blown megalomaniac at worst.
Anyway.. this is a very roughl set of examples, not really good either. If you really want to, perhaps jumpstart a few ideas, I suggest tvtropes.org. While it's written at most in a comedical light, alot of the tropes simply exist and can help you steer your character in the direction you want to.
As a footnote, I'd like to add that, outside of fiction, true Villainy and Heroism seldom exist. A good example is Genghis Khan. The whole world all-around considers him one of the most brutal, vile warlords of his age, with women having plunged themselves off the cliffs of their village rather then suffer what his men would do to them when they'd reach their village. One of his most famous lines was 'I am gods wrath. If you would not have sinned, god would have not sent a punishment like me upon you'. Though I might be paraphrasing it.
At the same time, he's seen as a folklore hero in Mongolia, as his conquering established the silk road connections, and he was also known as perhaps one of the first 'religiously open' historical figures. He allowed anyone to follow whatever religion they chose to, aslong they didn't dare tread upon mongolian faith.
Same person, same acts, two entirely different ways to view him.
In roleplay-terms, there's usually two ways to go about villainy. Subscribe your character to one of the, as 'evil' established agendas in the game/story (In Star wars, that'd be becoming a 'Sith',) In Final fantasy it may be serving the Garleans, or any other antagonistic faction/group you can find.
Or, take the second route, and establish your character as a 'villain' towards a group of 'heroes'. Find a group of goodie-two-shoes looking for a villain.
Overall however, I don't..suggest creating a character just because you want that 'Villain' vybe. I've been playing, throughout the majority of my roleplay career only non-hero characters. Antagonists, side characters, neutral characters, straighout villains and anti-heroes. Usually, Heroes are the noble, strong figures that subscribe to 'taking the high road' of love, compassion, and whatever pop-culture values currently are upheld. The moment you subscribe yourself to a 'good' cause, while still adhering to a moral code in your actions (do not kill, do not torture is an example), you have a fledged hero at your hand.
Playing a villain simply means substracting one of those points. A Hero without a good cause is a side character. He can't 'take the spotlight' of heroism, because he has nothing to fight for. He has morals, so he will 'protect', but he wont be in a spotlight, as he's not yet subscribed to a greater cause.
Take from him Morals, but keep the cause, and you've got yourself your anti-hero. Willing to ignore moral standards to get the job done. Ends justify means etc.
Take both, and you've got someone focused solely on his own, individualistic gain. No morals to tell him 'you must be good to others', no cause to make him do good things for others, in the end means he'll be an egoistical civilian at best, or full blown megalomaniac at worst.
Anyway.. this is a very roughl set of examples, not really good either. If you really want to, perhaps jumpstart a few ideas, I suggest tvtropes.org. While it's written at most in a comedical light, alot of the tropes simply exist and can help you steer your character in the direction you want to.
As a footnote, I'd like to add that, outside of fiction, true Villainy and Heroism seldom exist. A good example is Genghis Khan. The whole world all-around considers him one of the most brutal, vile warlords of his age, with women having plunged themselves off the cliffs of their village rather then suffer what his men would do to them when they'd reach their village. One of his most famous lines was 'I am gods wrath. If you would not have sinned, god would have not sent a punishment like me upon you'. Though I might be paraphrasing it.
At the same time, he's seen as a folklore hero in Mongolia, as his conquering established the silk road connections, and he was also known as perhaps one of the first 'religiously open' historical figures. He allowed anyone to follow whatever religion they chose to, aslong they didn't dare tread upon mongolian faith.
Same person, same acts, two entirely different ways to view him.