I’d argue with the idea that the bad guy “probably doesn’t know he’s the bad guy.” While it may be true for the creatures of Jaws, Jurassic Park and Aliens, there are no illusions in Die Hard that Hans Gruber doesn’t know he’s a bad guy – he knows, he just thinks he’s smarter than the good guys.

In Karen Crowder’s case, she may or may not know she’s the bad guy. She knows that what she’s doing is considered corrupt by outsiders; but in her world, the end justifies the means and corruption is only relative; so she’s actually doing the right thing.

Either way, I agree that it makes a huge difference in the development of your character if you can get into the mind of the bad guy and view everything from his perspective.

The science of criminal profiling was developed from this approach to investigation. You put yourself in the shoes of the bad guy. What’s your next move? Why did you do it? Where did you dispose of the weapon? body? cash?, etc. This is especially effective in those cases where the criminal thinks he is, or actually is, smarter than the authorities, such as white-collar or serial crime.

That approach can lead to significant cases in real life, resulting in complex characters in a script. Two good examples are The Informant and Breach; both taken from actual cases. Two good fictional examples are The Usual Suspects and the Silence of the Lambs.

There is a very thin line between cop and criminal - I think it's occupied by writers.

Would love your opinion some time on the 'transferable' Nemesis and whether it really works or not. Eg in "Taken" it's kind of like Nemesis tag. A cool trick but I think it dilutes the power a little. Yes? No?

(Apologies if you've already discussed this and I've missed the boat.)