|
So, on the Paizo Chat Room, we were just discussing the nature of villains and how the three big bad's we've seen so far are all of the 'Destroy the World' motivation, to various degrees. (Karazoug and Ileosa could be classed as 'Rule parts of the World, destroy others', for instance).
This, I suppose, is one of the bad things I've seen from Paizo. While I've no complaint about the big bad characters themselves, as they have all been intriguing characters, it's odd that Paizo would choose to have the same overarching motivation for three (and from the looks of Legacy of Fire, four) big bads.
Given Paizo's skills with characters, plots and general adventures, this realisation was a surprise for me. I find antagonists that have more complex motives to be the most memorable characters possible, and I point to the KoTOR 2 trio of Sith Lords, along with the antagonist in Fable 2 as examples. Really though, I'd just like to see an adventure path that deviates away from 'Save the World' plot, though I feel that having a main antagonist who doesn't want to destroy it would be a start.
Thoughts guys?
Mmmm.... I think in a long simple way you may be right Uzzy, but also their personal motivations always came first. None said "I want to rule the World!", they had their own -very personal- agendas. Ileosa was a vanity-obsesive character; Karzoug was power-obsesive but more on a wealth/power hoarding level: and AP# seems to aim more to a personal racial vendetta.
Well, that's just my point of view.
WHAT the... TO THE CHAT ROOM!
*70's Batman backgroung music*
Hmmm, where is the chatroom?
I have no problem with Big Bads striving for unlimited personal power/world domination and otherwise being utterly evil. What sometimes bothers me in Paizo AP's is minor villains, that try to mess with incredibly dangerous individuals, such as PCs, for no good reason (
|
I have no problem with Big Bads striving for unlimited personal power/world domination and otherwise being utterly evil. What sometimes bothers me...is minor villains, that try to mess with incredibly dangerous individuals, such as PCs, for no good reason...or even care about screwing PCs more, than about their own hide...follow the BBEG fanatically, fighting to death and acting as a united front of evil, despite being selfish bastards in general and the fact, that the BBEG offers them nothing, but being his slaves for ever and ever.
Not so much a problem with Paizo adventures, but with the genre of D&D, since the beginning.
The game is set up to pit the PCs against a series of challenges, of ascending difficulty, on their way to foil the main villain. The xp and advancement rules force this (you can't fight giant rats and Kobold Warrior1s all campaign), and it helps to inject a bit of variety, but it implies a Heirarchy of Evil which probably wouldn't exist among creatures (often chaotic, usually evil) who, by definition, don't play well with others.
So, on the Paizo Chat Room, we were just discussing the nature of villains and how the three big bad's we've seen so far are all of the 'Destroy the World' motivation, to various degrees. (Karazoug and Ileosa could be classed as 'Rule parts of the World, destroy others', for instance).
This, I suppose, is one of the bad things I've seen from Paizo. While I've no complaint about the big bad characters themselves, as they have all been intriguing characters, it's odd that Paizo would choose to have the same overarching motivation for three (and from the looks of Legacy of Fire, four) big bads.
Given Paizo's skills with characters, plots and general adventures, this realisation was a surprise for me. I find antagonists that have more complex motives to be the most memorable characters possible, and I point to the KoTOR 2 trio of Sith Lords, along with the antagonist in Fable 2 as examples. Really though, I'd just like to see an adventure path that deviates away from 'Save the World' plot, though I feel that having a main antagonist who doesn't want to destroy it would be a start.
Thoughts guys?
What were the motivations of the two examples you mentioned? I am not familiar with them.
I would have said Karzoug's motivation was to reconquer his realm upon returning to it-- kind of like the elves did or tried to do as I understand it. The fact that he needed a bunch of greedy people to die to bring him back was just the fuel.
I think that there is a huge difference from destroy the world and conquer a country in campaign issue. Largely because if the former succeeds well... oops (and it never makes sense someone else really big, like a god, doesnt try and stop them) and the latter just means ther become a country rule by an ancient archmage. I think Golarion already has at least one of those anyway.
So far, the goals are/were:
So far, the destroy-the-world-to-other-goals ratio is just 1/3. Some destroying, enslaving, conquering, and sacrificing of innocents is to be expected - what self-respecting super-villain doesn't do that? Peer preassure's a killer in the upper echelons of malignity.