Okay, so what do people feel are the "overused" villain concepts?


RPG Superstar™ 2009 General Discussion

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 aka Lord Fyre

Since I seem to have been unknowingly caught by this (with my "angry druid" submission), what do people feel are some of the "overused" villain concepts?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 6 aka TerraNova

Hidden-hand masterminds who hide behind the corrupt courts to effect their evil schemes. Not just overused, but actively corrosive to any campaign which, say... actually <i>likes</i> civilization, <i>likes</i> the ruling monarchy, and wants it to succeed.

Star Voter Season 6

While tropes are not cliches and are perfectly valid storytelling strategies, the following are the entries from TV tropes:

Go to The evil villain party.

Go to The typology.

Go to Fixing an evil overlord's common mistakes.


I didn't make the cut so take my counsel for what its worth but:

Insanity as the reason for villainy - not that it never happens - or that insane people can't make good villains, but insane people can't organize themselves most of the time much less truly significant or interesting threats. Then to be a good villain has followers of some flavor - most beleivable PCs/NPCs don't wouldn't want to follow a leader who could be clearly described as insane.

Because its EVIL Bad guys that do bad things because they are evil are just lame in my opinion. Same with CHAOS.

No Money in it Greed is a fantastic motivation for any bad guy especially a villain. If the villain isn't going to get rich or powerful when his plans succeed then it is probably not a very well thought out villain in most cases.

No Plan The villain is a powerful NPC but doesn't have any reason to be there, or have plot that has a realistic chance of success. Heroes take the longshots, villains have a long term plan.

Basically, I personally prefer a more literary game. That means I like my bad guys to have good reasons for what they do. I like them to have logical backgrounds that have lead them to the dark side and I like for them to have motivations and story arcs that provide a logical context for the nasty things they do.

The motivations and background provide IMHO the best hooks.

I get that doing this is difficult - but IMHO that is the difference between a monster and a villain.

Plus in the wild world of fantasy role play there are plenty of interesting monsters that are evil - vampires, demons, dragons, etc. they don't NEED a motivation - what they are is there motivation.

A "VILLAIN" needs to be more.

Also a HUGE pet peeve of mine is villians that have resources for the PCs to capture that don't use them to stop the PCs I mean what the heck - how did the jack-a-ninny get to a villain in the first place if he keeps his magic, money, minions, and mansions safely away where no one can hurt them.

A villain uses his/her resources - his "lair" is protected - think about a lich spends centuries plotting - of course it will have protected his home with traps, magical, mechanical and otherwise, he will have agents providing him with intelligence, he will have escape routes bolt holes, creatures/minions to protect him.

And I respectfully disagree with Mr. Schulz - a "Villain" (as opposed to a bad guy) should be some sort of mastermind - perhaps not with a vast criminal network - but with plans and multiple players in them that he is manipulating.

I am also fan of the villain who has interesting retainers - not just hapless redshirts. I like even better when the villain hides behind one of his retainers.

Two coppers from a guy who pretends to be a blue elf


I think that it's hard to really nail down "overused" villain concepts, as it relies so heavily on the individual's gaming experiences. I know that over my years of gaming, I've seen a ton of intelligent undead villains. However, another gamer may have seen very few, and as such aren't going to see the same overuse that I would.

Also, villain concepts that are overused are often that way because they're good villain concepts. The trick there is to give it enough of a spin to capitalize on the quality concept while not making it seem as if it's a cookie-cutter version. For example, Gulga Cench is in many ways the classic "intelligent monster lurking in the sewer and filled with wrath that will soon be visited on the civilized world above." By making him an otyugh as opposed to a wererat or a kobold sorcerer, the author used a classic villain type, but gave it a great spin to avoid seeming cliche.

I think that a lot of the examples that people post in this thread will seem like examples of amazing villain types to other people. As with everything about gaming, great villains are very subjective and require a fine balance of something old/classic and something new/exciting to really jump off the page.

Just my $0.02, of course.

CR

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Corrosive Rabbit wrote:
For example, Gulga Cench is in many ways the classic "intelligent monster lurking in the sewer and filled with wrath that will soon be visited on the civilized world above." By making him an otyugh as opposed to a wererat or a kobold sorcerer, the author used a classic villain type, but gave it a great spin to avoid seeming cliche.

I can tell you that was a very conscious design point for me with Gulga Cench. I knew I wanted to take the classic mastermind villain scheming in his underground lair, but I wanted to define him with an unexpected characterization. As many people pointed out, they'd didn't even realize otyughs were intelligent, much less capable of being a viable mastermind villain with the proper layering of ideas and mechanics. Hopefully, the stat-block round will demonstrate exactly how he's constructed for that purpose.

But all in all, I very much agree with CR. The oft-used tropes for villains are still winners. The trick is using those roles in a uniquely interesting way.

My two-cents,
--Neil

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Kyr wrote:


No Money in it Greed is a fantastic motivation for any bad guy especially a villain. If the villain isn't going to get rich or powerful when his plans succeed then it is probably not a very well thought out villain in most cases.

I strongly disagree with this one. Plenty of great villains don't care about money at all. Very big, very recent example: Joker in "The Dark Knight." He burns a huge pile of money because he doesn't care about it.

Far more villains are motivated by lust for power than for money, with money just being one of the trappings of power. However, some villains don't even care about power, such as (you guessed it!) Joker.

I think a better way to say this would be "No Plausible Motivation." A villain needs a plausible reason for doing the things he does: it might be power, it might be money, it might be revenge (which I think is overdone), it might be a terribly misdirected sense of righteousness (many real-world 20th century despots fall into this category, along with "power"; this is also how Anakin Skywalker fell to the dark side).

Kyr wrote:


No Plan The villain is a powerful NPC but doesn't have any reason to be there, or have plot that has a realistic chance of success. Heroes take the longshots, villains have a long term plan.

I don't think this is all that necessary, either. The villain doesn't need a plan so much as a strong driving force. A plan is a great way to provide such a driving force, but there are other ways to provide this.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 aka Lord Fyre

Corrosive Rabbit wrote:
I think that a lot of the examples that people post in this thread will seem like examples of amazing villain types to other people. As with everything about gaming, great villains are very subjective and require a fine balance of something old/classic and something new/exciting to really jump off the page.

If that is true, then ...

... why were so many people (including the judges) hostile to the "Angry Druid"? (Or, Druids & Bards in general?)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Lord Fyre wrote:
... why were so many people (including the judges) hostile to the "Angry Druid"?

I think the "angry druid" concept by itself is cliche. We've seen them all over the place since 3rd edition came out. I can think of multiple Dungeon adventures that had an "angry druid" as the antagonist.

My Vampire concept ran into similar troubles. Vampires are cliche, especially if there's nothing special about them. I figured having him be a child vampire would get him past that hurdle - I was wrong.


Lord Fyre wrote:
... why were so many people (including the judges) hostile to the "Angry Druid"?
Paul Worthen wrote:

I think the "angry druid" concept by itself is cliche. We've seen them all over the place since 3rd edition came out. I can think of multiple Dungeon adventures that had an "angry druid" as the antagonist.

My Vampire concept ran into similar troubles. Vampires are cliche, especially if there's nothing special about them. I figured having him be a child vampire would get him past that hurdle - I was wrong.

Yeah, I think Paul's got it. Don't beat yourself up though -- It's really hard to get the right amount of spin on a concept to make it new and fresh without wandering off into the territory of being weird and difficult to wrap one's mind around.

And as I noted, it's incredibly subjective. Even if you hit the sweet spot where the majority of readers are enthralled, there will still be people who find it to be either too cliche or too weird.

CR

Sczarni

Lord Fyre wrote:


... why were so many people (including the judges) hostile to the "Angry Druid"? (Or, Druids & Bards in general?)

There are only so many things you can do with a druid... if you want to make a druid villain, you are limited to what you have to work with.. once you see druid you expect the angry at the world or society druid


1. There were so many total cliches that have been done 100 times before, like the "angry druid."

2. Thinking that just saying "my villain's a mastermind!" makes them more deep as a result.

3. Motivations of "because I just love killing" or "I'm CRAAAAZY".

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

Ernest Mueller wrote:
1. There were so many total cliches that have been done 100 times before, like the "angry druid."

Okay, where? I've been gaming since 1978, and I am having trouble finding this supposed plethora of "angry druids" out there. Folks keep saying it's been done to death, or give a number like this. I would like some adventure titles, please, so I can see it myself. Otherwise, it's random statements of non-fact supposition.

Wayfinders Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9

Gamer Girrl wrote:
Okay, where? I've been gaming since 1978, and I am having trouble finding this supposed plethora of "angry druids" out there. Folks keep saying it's been done to death, or give a number like this. I would like some adventure titles, please, so I can see it myself. Otherwise, it's random statements of non-fact supposition.

Sunless Citadel. The BBEG was the evil druid Belak. As the standard 1st level module for 3.0, I have to think a lot of people played this one.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

James Hunnicutt wrote:
Gamer Girrl wrote:
Okay, where? I've been gaming since 1978, and I am having trouble finding this supposed plethora of "angry druids" out there. Folks keep saying it's been done to death, or give a number like this. I would like some adventure titles, please, so I can see it myself. Otherwise, it's random statements of non-fact supposition.
Sunless Citadel. The BBEG was the evil druid Belak. As the standard 1st level module for 3.0, I have to think a lot of people played this one.

Thanks, James :) Funny, that one is on my shelves, but it's not one we ever got around to playing in our group. I'll have to give that one a look.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 aka Lord Fyre

Ernest Mueller wrote:
1. There were so many total cliches that have been done 100 times before, like the "angry druid."

And that is what I am trying to dig at. What are some of these "total cliches that have been done 100 times before"?

Everyone's game experience is going to be different, so we are likely to end up with very different lists. :(


Well, for me if you throw in a concept that "this druid hates urbanisation and wants to see it destroyed" just trumps up a question "aren't they all like that anyway?"
Druid who hates urbanisation is a bit like dwarf-elf hatred, a hobbit who loves food, a foppish bard strumming a lute or a wizard who wears a robe with moons and stars and has bat guano in his pockets. Kind of a first thing which springs to mind when I think of "druid".

Star Voter Season 6

magdalena thiriet wrote:
a wizard who wears a robe with moons and stars and has bat guano in his pockets

Well, that explains charisma as his dump stat. Whew! The smell...

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

Hmmm...honestly its the monstrous villian that is cliche to me. I've run into more monstrous villians than anything else mainly because its an autoexcuse and generally I've found their motivations or reasoning lame. And of the lamest scapegoats of the monstrous villian I find its demons.

Its harder to create a viable non-monstrous villian hence the reason they haven't come up too often.


Lord Fyre wrote:

If that is true, then ...

... why were so many people (including the judges) hostile to the "Angry Druid"? (Or, Druids & Bards in general?)

It was a fine villain, to be sure. But it wasn't superstar enough, unfortunately. I don't know how to recommend how to kick it over the top into superstar status, but then, I'm not in the contest. The hostile commentary was a natural result of you placing your intellectual capital on a high pedestal. Even on a relatively nice forum like paizo.com, the higher up the ladder you climb, the more tomatoes get flung at you.


I don't care whats overdone if its done AWESOME! awesome gets my vote.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

MakeItADouble wrote:
I don't care whats overdone if its done AWESOME! awesome gets my vote.

I agree with this as well. Even though I beleive Monsterous villian are overused Gulga Cench received one of my votes during the last round.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Anry wrote:
Even though I beleive Monsterous villian are overused Gulga Cench received one of my votes during the last round.

And I thank you for it, good sir!


Evil druids.

- Sunless Citadel (WotC), by Bruce Cordell
- Trouble at Durbenford (Necromancer)
- Dark Druids, by Rob Kuntz
- various WotC freebies
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030425a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20010926a, by Sean K.Reynolds
- various Dungeon adventures
- Rise of the Runelords AP (minor appearance)

etc.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

NSpicer wrote:
Anry wrote:
Even though I beleive Monsterous villian are overused Gulga Cench received one of my votes during the last round.
And I thank you for it, good sir!

You're welcome. I look forward to your stat block this coming round. :)

As for evil druids, not run into too many myself. I admit though it is exceedingly hard to make a creative and interesting one....and that just goes for druids in general. Not just evil ones.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Evil druids.

- Sunless Citadel (WotC), by Bruce Cordell
- Trouble at Durbenford (Necromancer)
- Dark Druids, by Rob Kuntz
- various WotC freebies
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20030425a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20010926a, by Sean K.Reynolds
- various Dungeon adventures
- Rise of the Runelords AP (minor appearance)

etc.

Thank you :)

I have to admit being surprised at how many there are, not having run into them in my gaming ... but I was "away" from D&D until we discovered Pathfinder. And as we've only played the first of the Runelords books (purchased because of Seoni <G>) we hadn't hit the druid yet.

(Yes, DM, I will now forget that there is a nutso druid we'll be meeting someday <G>)

Interestingly, the only ones that I have in my library are the first and the last. I didn't collect Dungeon when it went to 3.5, since we were back on 3 (plus our LGS was bad at getting it on time and enough to go around). But I have now downloaded the freebies, so have expanded my evil druid collection a bit.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild

Kyr wrote:
A "VILLAIN" needs to be more.

Kyr, I really liked your points, but what I'm wondering about is if the Round 2 guidelines really make it clear what "more" it turns out that this contest is really seeking when they ask for a "villain".

Because judging from the responses to all the Round 2 submissions, I get the sense that when the people of Superstar say "villain", they really mean "Big Arch-Villain" and DO NOT (did not) want somebody mid-way up the villainy totem-pole.

ROUND 2 FAQ wrote:


Q1: What is a "villain"?
You know what a villain is. A villain is more than just a "monster" or an "encounter," though your villain may be a monster (as in not humanoid) and you may in fact encounter him/her/it. A villain is more than just an NPC. We want to encourage a broad reading of what a villain is, but here are some guidelines. 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

(emphasis mine)

Perhaps the snag is where it is mentioned that the "villain" must be more than an NPC, and more than an encounter. What about villains that are good as the force behind or active enemy in three or four encounters, but not thirty?

I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the preferences people have stated in this thread, since what you're looking for is just that - what you're looking for. There have been a lot of good comments.

My three cents is just that I think the term "Arch-Villain" would more accurately reflect what seems to me is being sought by a majority of this audience.


Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild wrote:
Kyr wrote:
A "VILLAIN" needs to be more.

Kyr, I really liked your points, but what I'm wondering about is if the Round 2 guidelines really make it clear what "more" it turns out that this contest is really seeking when they ask for a "villain".

Because judging from the responses to all the Round 2 submissions, I get the sense that when the people of Superstar say "villain", they really mean "Big Arch-Villain" and DO NOT (did not) want somebody mid-way up the villainy totem-pole.

Thanks - I am honored that someone who made the cut actually valued what I had to say.

To be clear, I am not looking for an arch villain. Though if the villain you wrote up was for middle to high level characters that might be the case.

I don't dobt that the guidelines could of been more explicit but I thought they were pretty clear.

To try and be clearer - a villain I think to some degree at least has to work through others. And uses more than brute force. A villain sets things up.

A non arch villain example - Urrak leads a team of five goblins. He send his goblins in shifts to gather information on caravans passing through his woods. Urrak knows the best natural choke points and terrain exceptionally well. He has meet with great success over the last two years. He typically begins with an ambush (using multiple prepared crossbows) and goes after the beast of burden and if possible damages the carts - to slow them down. Before things go to far however Urrak and his team with draw. The road is set with a series of traps. These are intended not to kill (though they often do) but to get the caravan to use spells, tools, etc. and tire themselves. Urrak spies how the caravan handels these traps to assess there level and measure the amount of risk he wants to take on subsequent attacks. Next comes stealth and attempts to assassinate the caravaners while they sleep. A favorite tactic is to drop a packet of poison into the water or food - but if defences are light a slit throat is a welcom bonus. A nighttime attack follows to disrupt sleep (and spell recovery) - poison crossbow bolts, pots of oil to set fire to tents - but again they fade away after or two rounds. This continues until all of the caravaners are dead or until they flee leaving behind their cargo. With preparation, prepared hiding places, good gear, and a timeframe beyond just a single encounter, Urrak and his team have defeated caravans and adventuring parties far beyond the ability of most goblins.

Sorry long winded - but in the example Urrak is a villain - not an arch villain, but a real threat - largely because his planning horizon is beyond a single encounter, he works with a team, and because he plans, and because he has a motivation - in this case wealth (doesn't need to be all that sinister to be bad news).

Crazy doesn't really work that well - not that it never does, many people sight the Joker. Well the Joker is kind of the exception that proves the rule - AND he has been done. But even he plans, works through others, AND has resources - in the Dark Knight his first act was to bank roll his operation to the tune of millions of dollars.

Now that said for Superstar, the villains should be Superstar - its easier to make an interesting villain with an cool back story when you have some levels to work with - which then leads to Arch Villain status - but I don't think its a requisite.

I don't know if that helps clarify - but I hope it does ;-)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Matt Banach wrote:
...I get the sense that when the people of Superstar say "villain", they really mean "Big Arch-Villain" and DO NOT (did not) want somebody mid-way up the villainy totem-pole.

I disagree, Matt. Here's why:

They stated in the same rules you quoted above that a villain "Does not have to be a final boss, but he/she/it must be more than a simple henchman..." Where you emphasized the first part of that statement to make your point, I'm emphasizing the latter part.

That's because you can have an entirely separate villain cooperating with the BBEG at the end of your adventure. He just needs to be something more than a mere henchman of that BBEG. In other words, he needs to have a strong set of motivations and goals all his own. He could stand on his own. And, provided he survives the adventure, he could easily be used again and again as a recurring villain who crops up throughout a campaign.

Does that make him an arch-villain? No. Not necessarily. He could be a low-level guy...or lower in level than the primary BBEG of a specific adventure. But where that BBEG is meant to bite the dust at the hands of the PCs, the other fellow may come back to haunt them because he escapes. You can pull off that kind of plot twist with any old henchman of the BBEG, too. But the folks at Superstar are looking for a villain, not a henchman. So he needs to be something more than that. For the purposes of that specific adventure, he might have allied with the BBEG, but he needs his own story and goals to make him villain-worthy, too.

Just my two-cents,
--Neil

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 aka Tarren Dei

Kyr wrote:

Insanity as the reason for villainy - not that it never happens - or that insane people can't make good villains, but insane people can't organize themselves most of the time much less truly significant or interesting threats. Then to be a good villain has followers of some flavor - most beleivable PCs/NPCs don't wouldn't want to follow a leader who could be clearly described as insane.

You know, it never occurred to me that Bracht was a madman. I tried to write him from his own perspective and he does not think of himself as mad. Of course, I realize he is loopy as a hot wheels racetrack when it is pointed out to me but he sees himself as inspired.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild

NSpicer wrote:
He could be a low-level guy...

But how likely would it be that such a submission receive comments like "not villainous enough", or "but this is Superstar"...

I mean, I totally agree with what you said as far as general theory, but in practice - what people have actually praised along with what they have panned - Superstar seems to be asking for the Arch.

Have any low- or mid-level villains been successful so far? (and by low/mid level, I mean the relative level of their villainy and scope of their activities and plans, not their CR)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild wrote:
Have any low- or mid-level villains been successful so far? (and by low/mid level, I mean the relative level of their villainy and scope of their activities and plans, not their CR)

Sure. Go back and re-read "Hetty" from last year. She's the lowest threat (just CR 3) compared to everything else, but forget about that...because, her aims/goals are fairly small in scope, too. Nevertheless, she's full-on villainous given the way she keeps increasing her brood. That entry advanced last year. So it was clearly both a villain...and a winning submission.

In addition, both Kotalya and Arthelia from last year were CR 9. Arguably, Kotalya had arch-villain potential given her control over a very specific part of her campaign world. But, the judges dinged her for not having any other ambitions outside of her twisted forest. Arthelia was done by Christine Schneider who went on to win the first RPG Superstar. That entry was a psionic "doppleganger" who didn't have any grand designs to take over the world. But she/he was still a murderous villain. That character had staying power, because much like Sharina Legendsinger from this year, she would be looking for ways to undo the heroic legends of the PCs. So, as long as your villain has "recurring" potential, that's what green-lights the concept a bit more than the one-and-done encounter villain like a BBEG at the end of an adventure.

Make more sense?
--Neil

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 6 aka TerraNova

I (who may not be the best judge!) think the operative word for villainous potential is not so much what the villain does, or why he does it. It is the way of presentation, and the larger context.

Take Balabar Smenk for example. One of the "greatest D&D villains of all times" if Dungeon magazine is to be believed. What makes him special, memorable and noteworthy enough that he's one of the most frequently re-inserted characters into AoW, if these boards are any indication?

If you look at him from a bit of a distance, he's pretty basic and no-frills. Fully human rogue out for the money, with few higher aspirations, on first glance. He doesn't plan on taking over the world, or ending it. He just slowly squeezes the life out of his local community, and won't have anyone interfere with that.

I obviously don't have the whole answer. I think what makes Smenk memorable and villainous is that he is not a dungeon boss. In fact, the AoW never really puts the party at odds with him unless they pick the fight. The friends he keeps (Filge is just sick!), the involvement in any dirty deal the party uncovers... it makes him cast a much longer shadow than he deserves. A direct adversary is easy to slay and discard. Someone whom you need in a way, but loathe to even let live, let alone accept aid from is another story.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild

NSpicer wrote:

So, as long as your villain has "recurring" potential, that's what green-lights the concept a bit more than the one-and-done encounter villain like a BBEG at the end of an adventure.

I totally agree that 'recurring' is a very important concept, and I would agree that recurrence has been shown to be a weighty consideration in past judging and fan commentary. So I'm on board with you there.

But after the issue of recurrence is settled, then you have to look at whether the creature presented would be pegged as "recurring, but still 'just' an NPC" or "recurring, but still 'just' a monster with a backstory"...

Aside: I suppose I'm not 100% on what folks around here mean when they use the term BBEG, or if they all mean the same thing when they use the term 'BBEG', since I interpret that as Big Bad Evil Genius, with the Genius part implying that he has been implementing ingenious plans (manipulative, calculative, long-term) the whole time. Is the BBEG the bad guy who has been antagonizing the party for years through schemes and minions, or is he (or she, or it) the dragon on the top of the mountain who gets "one and done" like you said in a final fight?

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Matt Banach wrote:
...after the issue of recurrence is settled, then you have to look at whether the creature presented would be pegged as "recurring, but still 'just' an NPC" or "recurring, but still 'just' a monster with a backstory"...

Sure. I agree. That's where you need to distinguish that character as more than "just an NPC" or "just a monster with a backstory." And that's where the true definition of a villain starts to take shape.

He has to be more capable than "just an NPC" or "just a monster with a backstory." It's not enough to say where he came from...or have him simply be a part of the background. He's got to be active. He's got to have a serious goal. It doesn't have to be world-spanning, mind you. But it's got to be something he can reasonably work toward...that will bring him into contention with the PCs, not once, but potentially several times over the course of a campaign.

That doesn't mean he has to be the prime villain who sits at the very end of the campaign (though he could be). But rather, at a minimum, he needs to be a 'plot thread' villain who's interwoven throughout. No one-and-done's for a true villain. That's what elevates him from "just a monster with a backstory." And, the fact that he's going places is what elevates him beyond "just an NPC" for the party to encounter.

Matt Banach wrote:
Aside: I suppose I'm not 100% on what folks around here mean when they use the term BBEG...

I'm using the term as "Big Bad Evil Guy"...which is often viewed as the "boss" monster at the end of a particular plot (as opposed to the minions and mooks you easily take down throughout).

In a campaign, you typically have a BBEG at the end of everything. He's the one in the final battle-royale that the PCs want to exact justice upon. And, just as typically, you'll find a BBEG at the end of each adventure (or chapter) that comprises the campaign. Each of them have their minions and allies. And, a BBEG can be your villain. But he doesn't have to be. That's the point of the RPG Superstar rules where they say a villain doesn't have to be the final BBEG as long as he's not just a henchman.

Matt Banach wrote:
Is the BBEG the bad guy who has been antagonizing the party for years through schemes and minions, or is he (or she, or it) the dragon on the top of the mountain who gets "one and done" like you said in a final fight?

Hopefully by now, you can see that the BBEG can be either. If the dragon on top of the mountain is villainous in his own right...and has had his schemes and minions in play for sometime now, possibly even pursuing a tangential goal to the guy who's been antagonizing the party for years, he can be a villain. And, clearly, the guy who's been antagonizing them (presumably as your intended arch-villain) can be a villain, too.

But, if the dragon is truly just a monster at the end of a locale-based adventure, who wasn't the mover-and-shaker of any particular agenda (whether it involves the main plot of the campaign or not), he won't reach villain status. He's "just a monster with a backstory." Also, setting him up to be a "one-and-done" encounter in a final fight implies he doesn't have any more depth to him than that one adventure. So he doesn't sound "recurring" enough to me.

But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil


I believe I can sum up this discussion with this truism: a Superstar Villain doesn't have to be an arch-villain...but most are.

Scarab Sages

I haven't read all the posts here, but let me add some of the cliches I've seen in my 30 years of gaming:
The Mad Wizard - he's evil because he's insance! And he's a powerful wizard, too!
The Evil Cultist - he's out to usher in a new era, destroying all and gaining the favor of his alien god!
The Fallen Hero - once a great hero, tragedy has made him a villain; usually undead.
The Scheming Monster - mastermind of a vast criminal network, he controls the city from behind the scenes. The twist: he's not human! Insert intelligent monster here.
The Misunderstood Villain - he means well, he really does, but all his plans ultimately bring sorrow and death.
The Toady - no matter how powerful or weak he is, this guy serves a more powerful leader, and blusters in the face of heroes, until things go wrong for him.
The Lost Child - through some McGuffin, this character still has the morals and ethics of a child, yet with godlike power.
The Alien Unknown - this is a being of such vast, alien wrong-ness that its mere presence is evil, though it itself is largely unaware of the world around it.

And that's just my two cents.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 aka Tarren Dei

What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?


Tarren Dei wrote:
What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?

Whether or not the reader likes it? If they like what they're reading, it's "archetypical", if not - it's "cliche" and "overused."

That probably sounds glib, but I honestly believe that any type of judgment in this regard is going to be so heavily influenced by the reader's personal preferences and experience, that it's nearly impossible to compile a general list of overused villain concepts.

That said, some villain concepts may have a higher rate of perceived overuse, based on the prevalence of their use in published and hence, widely distributed materials.

CR

Star Voter Season 6

Tarren Dei wrote:
What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?

I tell my students all the time that if it works, it's archetypal and mythic. It's only a cliche and overexposed if it doesn't work. Fear of what's been done gets paralyzing otherwise.

It's also really context-dependent. I do a close listening exercise with Led Zeppelin IV and you would not believe the number of students who exit that experience with a more positive feeling towards the band in general and Stairway to Heaven in particular. Taking a song that was never released as a single for the precise reason that it was crucial to hear it in its placement is like reading about a villain without access to his dialogue, the heroes, the minions, the back story, and the world setting.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 6 aka TerraNova

Tarren Dei wrote:
What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?

Without any formal credentials beyond high school, my personal definition is as follows:

'cliche': Common, uncreative element used in an manner that highlights its weaknesses, rather than its strengths.

'overused': An element that has recently (for some definition of "recently") been used too much. Hey, it's not as if there has been any really new story since ancient Egypt, just different ways of telling them.

'archetypal': An element that is in some way iconic and defining for its context. While such elements can degenerate into a cliche, they are in some way necessary and their absence or alteration produces a different, likely less well-received context.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

roguerouge wrote:
I do a close listening exercise with Led Zeppelin....

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks it's cool this discussion managed to work in Led Zeppelin?

Rock on,
--Neil
\m/

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Steven T. Helt

Ditto. Love this place.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild

Corrosive Rabbit wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?
Whether or not the reader likes it? If they like what they're reading, it's "archetypical", if not - it's "cliche" and "overused."

Hallelujah, CR! Testify!


I dont think there are any overused villian concepts; only poorly thought out or interesting presentations of villian concepts; players get frustrated if they dont get or cannot understand clues for hidden evil puppet masters who pull the strings of others; but this does not mean its a bad idea; these guys are exposed by the players talking to different factions and peiceing together that each group has a different set of facts about the same event and then find the source; that is the behind the scenes evil guy.

Its not a bad idea; but is a different kind of game with a big who dunnit theme;it is like everything; all in the presentation.

any villain can be interesting if you give him a personality with a few character flaws; some highly desirable goals and some moderately desireable goals; and leave a small trail of hurt survivors of his ecentricities behind him for players to sniff out.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 aka Tarren Dei

TerraNova wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
What is the difference between 'cliche,' 'overused,' and 'archtypal'?
Without any formal credentials beyond high school, my personal definition is as follows:

Academic credentials are worth nothing compared to a life long love of reading. (I got the former only so I could get paid for the latter.)

TerraNova wrote:

'cliche': Common, uncreative element used in an manner that highlights its weaknesses, rather than its strengths.

'overused': An element that has recently (for some definition of "recently") been used too much. Hey, it's not as if there has been any really new story since ancient Egypt, just different ways of telling them.

'archetypal': An element that is in some way iconic and defining for its context. While such elements can degenerate into a cliche, they are in some way necessary and their absence or alteration produces a different, likely less well-received context.

These definitions work for me. If we take the listings of 'cliche' villain types above at face value, we aren't left with much. I think a lot of villain types connect with deep rooted fears (and desires) that would probably occur again and again in different societies. The 'cliche' comes in when they are used without variation or reimagining.


This year, undead villains.
And that extends to villains with undead armies, too.
I appreciate that The Undead Spellcaster is an archetype, and that it is possible for them to be Overused without being Cliché, but I just wish that there hadn't been so many of the things this year.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Hmmm...three liches, two vampires, and a ghost. I guess so. :-)


NSpicer wrote:
Hmmm...three liches, a vampire, and a ghost. I guess so. :-)

Umm, there's the wraith too. And the hag with the zombie army.

Edit:
And at least one vampire went out in Round 2 (sorry Cermyk).

Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2009 / General Discussion / Okay, so what do people feel are the "overused" villain concepts? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion