>>96857185
In the most ideal case, the villain could be responsible in some way for an event in every PC's backstory so every PC has a reason to kill the fucker.

>>96857185
I will pretend that this is relevant to /tg/ and throw you a bone but even then you question is phrased retarderdly. There is no "best" way to present an antagonist in a vacuum. You have to take in account the setting and the themes you would like to explore and of course your own personal preferences. Hell maybe you should even consider what your players would enjoy fighting against. Personally I enjoy villains that are hypercompetent and so above and beyond the players that consider them a minor nuisance at best, at least initially. Maybe they fucked over the players in some way or the other but they haven't noticed that at all. I also prefer for them to be evil because they enjoy being evil and not because someone ate their kids-meal when they were six and broke their toy.

>building PCs before you have a campaign to put them in
Nogames are so funny

They should be doing things the players and their characters don't like. They should have a distinct personality including clear motivations and weaknesses that the players have the opportunity to exploit them rather than just levelling up for a big fight.
They should be interesting enough that they're worth interacting with but don't need to be fully fleshed out characters with long backstories. To the extent that the game is a story, it's one about the player characters.

>>96857262
>>building PCs
try reading OP again, retard.

I mostly avoid villains, at least for the main antagonist. I've found my players usually enjoy games the most when the antagonist is a good and likeable character, but one whose goals or position force them to be at odds with the players. I am kind of lazy so my go to is generally "opposing leader in a war" but it can be anything really.

>>96857185
Have multiple villains. You can do both