Fantasy Writing

Out of interest what proves easier to develop first individual characters or the entire world of a novel. Also could someone give an opinion of this concept I have for an antagonist (to be named either 'Jinx' or 'The Outsider'):
A boy was abandoned at birth and was seemingly rescued by a local convent however in actuality he was taken in as a candidate for someone that could potentially lead the human race within the land of Tironde in the near future this led to him being experimented on and witnessing many atrocities. This boy as a result escaped and rejected his human origins alongside the 'poultry gods' that had been shoved down his throat for his entire life, he came to the conclusion that everything that exists came from random chaos and that life holds no meaning so he believes there to be but one path to truly achieve peace and that is the the death of every living thing (which does make sense to some extent considering how destructive life can be, how we can make life unpleasant for others and is it not better to confront death). This boy is set on a path of darkness, this deluded prophet is to become a lich.

Well, I honestly had a hard time following what you were trying to say here. The summary was kind of jumbled to me,and so I would recommend that you read this article which really talks about all of that Writing Chapter Summaries
And I think that a big thing is just to divide up this paragraph,because it isn't visually appealing.

Now back to your question. I think that it is much easier to develop the individual character first,before you develop the surrounding world in your novel.Why is this? The world is really a vast place to explore and describe, but you should have your character's morals and strategies set before you start world-building. What I mean is, you need to know how your character will react and act upon a different situation.

I think that you are developing your character from the beginning of your novel,to the very end of your novel. In every page,your main character's name is written on it. And they can change,and it's ok to plan as you go along. Just do what work's best for you.

I am pretty unsure,because your whole summary is just telling us about the character,not showing us. You show us who a character really is by their actions. That's the only thing that defines a character,and a person also. Words and dialogue help the reader get to know them,but only if their are genuine and honest.

I wish you the best of luck with your novel and hope that I helped,at least a little bit!

Thanks Pretelzing, sorry about the presentation, I can see where your coming from with your answer so I'll try working on a couple of characters here and there to see if it can help develop the notes that already exist regarding my world. Your feedback is much appreciated, but could I ask one more thing of you? Whilst I've only given an outline to my antagonist, is it an intriguing or original concept?

If by original, you mean never done before, then no. It's actually a pretty common trope for the antagonist to have a tragic backstory, and the particular fall into darkness that you've outlined follows a pretty typical structure.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. Depending on how developed of a character your antagonist is, his character arc can still be intriguing, especially if you play up the sympathetic aspects of his personality and motivations.

There are very few truly original ideas even in fantasy, and it's the execution and combination of ideas that makes a work feel fresh and original.

As for your initial question, it depends on the type of story you are trying to tell. If you're planning a character-driven story, then start with your characters. If your focus is on showcasing the world, then start with your worldbuilding. If a theme is the major point of your work, start with the theme. And so on.

From the sounds of it, your story looks character-driven, so I would recommend starting with your characters.

Kyllorac I actually meant if his motive was original, that was my focus. Is it perfectly sound for my villain to follow the philosophy that within life there is always suffering and to end suffering he must end life.

No, it is not original. As I said, that particular fall into darkness is pretty common. I think you'd be surprised how many antagonists/villains have that as their core motivation, especially in Japanese media.

It is logically sound, at least superficially. Whether it remains logically sound depends on the execution and how the character rationalizes things.

I honestly don't think that it's original. People's motives are like pattern that can really be traced back into their past. With that being said, I agree with everything that @Kyllorac wrote.

Ok, just checked online to see how many nihilists exist in fiction and was surprised to see how many there was. The general pattern is they see that existence is meaningless, they can use this as an excuse for action that can bring radical change (case and point 'The Joker' produces chaos for the sake of chaos) and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals no matter what the sacrifice. Is there any famous nihilists that exist, in reality or fiction, that left a significant mark or defied certain conventions? This could help to develop my villain. BTW thanks for the advice so far guys, at first I'll admit I was a little bit disheartened but in the grand scheme of things it should be for the best.

I think you can develop either first, but the story will be about the characters. If you worldbuild first, you have to be careful not to overload the narrative with irrelevant details. I think knowing the character's goals and personality is an important starting point for the plot. It seems like the best plots are those that arise naturally between the clashing of character motives and values, with little to no external influence pushing the protagonist to act.