Villainy Theory

Something I definitely saw in a number of comments not only in my entry but in many entries was "This isn't a villain". I don't know how many other contestants used this, but one of my main guides in this round were these attributes on the Round 2 Rules:

A villain:

* Is a unique NPC
* Is an individual creature or entity
* Is as much a plot device as an encounter
* Is an antagonist for the PCs
* Does not have to be a final boss, but he/she/it must be more than just a simple henchman
* Must be capable of being a proactive opponent, not simply reactive
* Must be capable of independent thought and be able to come up with plans and take actions to thwart the PCs

I know at least some commenters don't wholly agree with this definition, since I saw things like "This is a plot device, not a villain". But I'd like to see if we could develop this idea further. What part of this definition should change, if anything?

I'd like this made explicit:

* Does not have to be high CR to be a villain.

I'd like this made explicit:

* Does not have to be high CR to be a villain.

While that is certainly true, so is

A villain:
* Is a unique NPC
* Is an individual creature or entity
* Is as much a plot device as an encounter
* Is an antagonist for the PCs
* Does not have to be a final boss, but he/she/it must be more than just a simple henchman
* Must be capable of being a proactive opponent, not simply reactive
* Must be capable of independent thought and be able to come up with plans and take actions to thwart the PCs

But, I think to do well in this contest, at least this year, higher CR would be better.

What most of the audience is looking for, in my opinion, is a campaign villain. What might be a great villain for a session length adventure, lets say a module, is not igniting the voters.
They do not seem to be interested in the chief of the hill giants, except as a lackey, or the leader of the frost giants, except as the next step to the real villain. They want the demonic storm giant using these pawns to further a quest of total planar domination.

Next year, or even next round, who knows?

What most of the audience is looking for, in my opinion, is a campaign villain. What might be a great villain for a session length adventure, lets say a module, is not igniting the voters.
They do not seem to be interested in the chief of the hill giants, except as a lackey, or the leader of the frost giants, except as the next step to the real villain. They want the demonic storm giant using these pawns to further a quest of total planar domination.

Next year, or even next round, who knows?

Balabar Smenk would like to disagree with those voters.

Seriously, while it may be true that people are looking for campaign-long villains, that's not required by the contest nor do all voters or judges go by that definition. Many talk about incorporating a villain into their worlds, which would seem to mean that a villain does not need to dominate the campaign.

Nothing about a low-level villain requires them to be one-and-done. And even if that villain defines the campaign for only levels one through five, that's what, 6 months or more of great play? I'll take that every day and twice on Sunday.

I know at least some commenters don't wholly agree with this definition, since I saw things like "This is a plot device, not a villain". But I'd like to see if we could develop this idea further. What part of this definition should change, if anything?

Speaking as someone who used a version of that in a couple of threads, I guess I should try to explain what I meant. I think that a villain should be a plot device, as opposed to an encounter, but they should do more than other potential plot devices, such as an artifact or a geographic location.

For example, if the effect that a villain has on a world could be easily duplicated by a magical item, then I think it becomes too much of a plot device, and not enough of a villain.

I also think that villains should act as plot devices in part, but that they should be flexible and capable of proactive behaviour. Villains that are heavily plot devices work alright in books, as the author maintains control of all of the characters.

In an RPG game, it's a bit tougher, as players often don't hesitate to ignore the plot being put forth, and head off in search of a plot they like better. If there's no logical way to have the villain follow the PCs (or at least have the results of having ignored the villain follow the PCs), then the villain falls to the wayside along with the plot.

Generally, one of the prerequisites for a good villain (for me) is that they are capable of having an effect on the campaign and are not reliant on the actions of the PCs to do so. At the end of the day, a villain is defined by what they do, not by what they are. I believe that some of the villain concepts were limited by their ability to reach out and affect the PCs, either because they were incapable of doing so, or didn't seem to have any motivation or reason to do so.

To the list above, I would add that an RPG villain has to have a degree of flexibility that allows for the GM to use the villain in multiple ways against the PCs, regardless of how the PCs choose to react to it.

I should say that I believe that none of the villain concepts put forth by any of the finalists were unusable or unworthy of further development. I think there were great ideas lurking in all of the entries, but that the finalists who move on will be the ones who succeeded in bringing those great ideas to the fore in the 500 words allowed.

Unfortunately, in this type of competition, where half the field advances, and half does not, there's a tendency to get into a binary yes/no mindset when reading through the entries. Although this is the contest format, I understand how difficult it can be for contestants who have to sit quietly and watch the negatives in their work be highlighted while the positives go unmentioned, and I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize if any of my comments on any of the threads were taken as overly negative.

CR

Nothing about a low-level villain requires them to be one-and-done. And even if that villain defines the campaign for only levels one through five, that's what, 6 months or more of great play? I'll take that every day and twice on Sunday.

I agree. I am just seeing some “My group would pwn that guy so fast” type reactions in the threads.

a high CR monster or 2 dimensional high CR enemy is not ensured to remain in the public's minds...

what was asked was memorable villains... and that has nothing to do with CR and everything to do with coolness...

*A reason to be (you don't need a novel's backgroud to give this idea)
*A description that helps spark the imagination (you need the villain comming alive inside your mind)
*Ambitions (plnsfor the present and the future and something that keep it moving)
*A need to interact with the PCs (the idea is that you are ding a villain for the PCs, so its worthless if they never meet any plot around him... much less if the villain is more an ally than a villain, still smart villians have been known to sponsor heroes just to betray or convert them in the future...)
*Unique... ("nothing worst thatn just "another dragon", ahh yes another cultist, another lich, another merchant princess, another evil aristocrat, another monster... hey that doesn't mean you can use those archetypes... just that your villains MUST stand ABOVE them).

that is for me a Villain

PS: I used this comment about "where is the villian" more than once... the ones I rememberare 2... The benign spirit that needs sacrifices to keep an eartly paradise for his followers... that is the idea... tis benign... it doesn't hunt peoples for this... he doesn't corrupt his people so they will give him weeakly sacrifices, he doesn't make them fear his retribution if they fail... its just a spirit that needs some blood to keep going on... he doesn't even choose the sacrifices and if he could find another way he would take it

Gnoll Orator... this NPC is awesome... just not a villain, he is gnoll that was week, hurt and that in order to survive adapted, ok he is still using the idea of might makes right (usual for chaotic beings... and many times even Lawful ones), but he talks to people about making a better place forall, he is fighting to have a mixed culture with humans, demihumans and humanoids... ok he does it somethimes in an agresive maner, you can't blame him for being a gnoll...

if he at least told that he is making a gang to follow him with his idea and he uses them to backstab those who outspoke him, that he sale slaves in the meantime to raise funds, that he is aiming to garner enough support as to bring down the pasha and install himself as new pasha... then we would be talking about a villain... instead he sometimes uses the mob to bring down those who attack him for being a gnoll

A character doesn't need to be evil or possess evil motives in order to be villainous. An example of a potentially good-aligned villain might be an overzealous crusader or religiously-motivated conquistador. In his determination to "save the savage people from their demon-inspired religion", the villain may pave the way for greater evils. A more modern take on such a character would be a military officer determined that any suffering is justified to stop his people's enemies. "Better that they all starve than the Nazis capture these supplies. Lieutenant, burn the village."

The problem with these villains seems to be that their authors embraced this idea too enthusiastically. In order to avoid unmotivated "B movie" villainy, they gave their villains realistic motivations. Unfortunately, these motivations weren't destructive enough to mark them as villains. "Conquer the civilized lands, putting their people to the sword," is a suitable motivation. "Choose a sacrifice, that your crops may prosper," is less so.

a high CR monster or 2 dimensional high CR enemy is not ensured to remain in the public's minds...

what was asked was memorable villains... and that has nothing to do with CR and everything to do with coolness...

]

It's not very cool if the PCs can kill him easily.

The problem with these villains seems to be that their authors embraced this idea too enthusiastically. In order to avoid unmotivated "B movie" villainy, they gave their villains realistic motivations. Unfortunately, these motivations weren't destructive enough to mark them as villains. "Conquer the civilized lands, putting their people to the sword," is a suitable motivation. "Choose a sacrifice, that your crops may prosper," is less so.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think some people fell into the trap of trying to make their villains' back stories too rational and consistent. The problem is that villains are, by definition, not rational or consistent.

Villains are people who take what might or might not have been a legitimate grievance or slight, and then go way over the top in their overreaction. They are delusional in their skewed world-view and the justifications they create for their own actions. They are willing to wade through rivers of blood and fields of skulls to prove the correctness of their world view, whether it be to themselves, or to an uncaring world.

Attempting to create a reasonable and consistent villain is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. The key is to define the villain's delusional world view and then ensure that he is consistent and reasonable in relation to that world view.

Just my $0.02,

CR

Montalve wrote:

a high CR monster or 2 dimensional high CR enemy is not ensured to remain in the public's minds...

what was asked was memorable villains... and that has nothing to do with CR and everything to do with coolness...

]

It's not very cool if the PCs can kill him easily.

if they can kill him easily

actually Fable 2 villains is said to have been killed too easily

rember villains are more than stats and not every confrotntion with the players must be physical, and evenhigh CR villains with a few lucky shots and criticals against them, would die tooc heaply

I wholeheartedly agree. I think some people fell into the trap of trying to make their villains' back stories too rational and consistent. The problem is that villains are, by definition, not rational or consistent.

I would go further and add that the majority of the villain's goals were either absent or "thinking too small".

Villains think and plan big--otherwise, they're some other villain's minion. Global/planar conquest, genocide, ascension to rulership/divinity...these are epic tasks that may start small, but have big, lasting effects. Controlling the city watch? Not so much.

Fax Celestis wrote:

Montalve wrote:

a high CR monster or 2 dimensional high CR enemy is not ensured to remain in the public's minds...

what was asked was memorable villains... and that has nothing to do with CR and everything to do with coolness...

It's not very cool if the PCs can kill him easily.

if they can kill him easily

then its not being played smartly :P

A villain can work at a low CR, but recall that "low CR" does not equate "weak". Even a first-level party is expected to take on a CR 4 or 5 encounter (albeit incredibly infrequently).

I agree. I am just seeing some “My group would pwn that guy so fast” type reactions in the threads.

That sort of response irks me, since the villains haven't been given stat blocks (yet). "My group would just cast divine plot and immunity to badassitude, then slaughter the villain," say these people. They remind me of 1st edition players who boasted of having slain Tiamat or Elric with their 8th level characters: It's not that it can't be done, but such a feat says more about the DM's failure to craft a challenging scenario that it does about the villain.

True villains aren't just "badass", they're a jump ahead of the PCs. They take the initiative, seeking out obstacles to their plans' progress. They anticipate that foes may interfere, so they put back-up plans in place. PCs who boast they will "pwn" their foes (God, I hate that phrase...) better get used to false leads drawing them into ambushes, villains who set their plans in motion before the PCs discover them, and similar embarrassments. The current plotline in Order of the Stick exemplifies how arrogant characters can set themselves up for failure.

They take the initiative, seeking out obstacles to their plans' progress. They anticipate that foes may interfere, so they put back-up plans in place.

I believe that sentiment arose from the fact that the majority of the villains did not have such foresight or readiness described within the entries.

I believe that sentiment arose from the fact that the majority of the villains did not have such foresight or readiness described within the entries.

That's a good point, but in such a tight word count, describing such would have been difficult.

Fax Celestis wrote:

I believe that sentiment arose from the fact that the majority of the villains did not have such foresight or readiness described within the entries.

That's a good point, but in such a tight word count, describing such would have been difficult.

Well, one could add in a small number of words that they have minions and/or followers (ie: "Corporal Harriman is followed by a wing of knights on giant eagles at all times." 15 words.), but yeah, word count is a killer.