By, villain...
Do we mean "evil" as in babies on a stake (Eddie Izzard reference) or "antagonist" as in a force which must be overcome?
By, villain...
Do we mean "evil" as in babies on a stake (Eddie Izzard reference) or "antagonist" as in a force which must be overcome?
Either or both. If the person is doing bad things that could classify them as a villian. Planning to do bad things also counts.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
aka Draconas
|
Pay attention to the villians of previous years. A true villian is someone whose actions are leading them on a collision course with the PCs. A villian is not just a unique monster or mad scientist who wants to be left alone in his castle and not interact with the world. The villian has to be dynamic and be someone the heroes want to defeat because their plots are either directly affecting the PCs, someone the PCs know, or is going to cause harm to everyone on a global/regional/local scale.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Villain is often synonymous with antagonist as used in literature. An antagonist of a anti-hero type person might be different from the antagonist of an altruistic (superman-like) hero.
Typically you'd think of a group called the White Brotherhood, or espousing to follow their "Lawful Good" God's word and bring it to the world, would be a good organization.
But Robert Jordan wrote one such group that was a far more insidious villainy than someone overtly evil.
Some examples of what a villain might be could include:
From the perspective of the ones in power, Vin Diesel's Riddick could have been considered a villain, although in the movies he was certainly portrayed as the anti-hero while the ones in power were the villains.
The albino assassin from Da Vinci code was obviously a villain, and yet, from a slightly different perspective, he may have made a good anti-hero. He was certainly not evil.
Villain is often synonymous with antagonist as used in literature. An antagonist of a anti-hero type person might be different from the antagonist of an altruistic (superman-like) hero.
Typically you'd think of a group called the White Brotherhood, or espousing to follow their "Lawful Good" God's word and bring it to the world, would be a good organization.
But Robert Jordan wrote one such group that was a far more insidious villainy than someone overtly evil.
Some examples of what a villain might be could include:
From the perspective of the ones in power, Vin Diesel's Riddick could have been considered a villain, although in the movies he was certainly portrayed as the anti-hero while the ones in power were the villains.
The albino assassin from Da Vinci code was obviously a villain, and yet, from a slightly different perspective, he may have made a good anti-hero. He was certainly not evil.
I'm not familiar with Robert Jordan's work (I just couldn't get into Wheel of Time), but judging by your description, I have a church organization in my home campaign that operates similarly. Sometimes good guys as antagonists can be very interesting to play out; I think it's easy to forget that Law and Chaos struggle as much as Good and Evil do (indeed, such struggle has been in the game since its earliest inceptions when Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic were the only alignment choices).
I think another good example of a character who is "good"-aligned, yet antagonistic and villainous (though I've only read the first four books, so I could be wrong) is Morgan, the council warden from Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. Few characters can make your blood boil every time they grace the pages, but Morgan's actions always make me wish Harry would turn that blasting rod on the smug bastard and be done with him for good!
Morgan would actually be Lawful Neutral, upholding the dictates of the council even if the innocent must perish. It's only when somebody is trying very hard to do the right thing and the Council is punishing them for it (i.e. the daughter of a Paladin of God) that he experiences any moral hesitation whatsoever.
You want Lawful Good in Dresden's books, you look at the Knights of the Swords. The White Council and the Wardens are Lawful Neutral and proud of it...'rebel' Wardens are the LG types.
===Aelryinth
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
(edited, tidied up, clarified, years expanded)
Villainy is defined in the minds of the voters... I'd really strongly recommend reading the entries pertaining to villains from RPG Superstar 2008 and 2009. There were entries there where the villain presented might have had possibilities for a film or novel, but simply didn't measure up to the often different standards expected of a villain for a roleplaying game.
I repeat (because I think it's really worth repeating): Look at the 2008 and 2009 entries. The voters and posters have told anyone willing to take the time to read those threads what they thought of the villain in each case, why it was/wasn't villainous enough for them, and passed various other comments/judgements.
Some common criticisms I recall seeing have been to the effect of:
'This isn't a villain, this is a monster...'
'This isn't a villain, this is a henchman of a real villain...'
'This isn't a villain, this is just some poor guy who's misunderstood...'
'This isn't a villain, this is a random encounter/combat...'
'This isn't a villain, this is a plot device...'There have been other criticisms too, and of course praises for things which people read and felt truly defined what makes for a good roleplaying game villain.
This is actually a really good point and makes me want to take back my last post, sorta.
I fully believe that villains and antagonists are synonymous. But if the large majority of the voting audience believes that Villains are merely a type of antagonist, then we have a disconnect.
One that would or could prove fatal to someone's design that didn't fit the contemporary view.
While I like to create moral conundrums in my campaigns, where the line isn't always clear between who is a good guy and who is a bad guy, this doesn't always translate well to those not playing in my campaigns.
So that being said, I'd err on the side of what you think the majority will feel. That doesn't mean to change your writing style or try to write what you think others will want to see.
But you do need to know your audience when writing for them.
For part of Empire Strikes Back, Lando is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
For part of Empire Strikes Back, Lando is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
good point! Because in the end he leaves with the heroes and sorta becomes one in Return of the Jedi.
So there are types of antagonists that are not necessarily villains.
But I do think that some antagonists are villains that many people would not label a villain.
The misunderstood guy, or the Lawful guy who's using the law to cause harm (even if unknowingly), etc. Those could be classic villains, but often folks wouldn't consider them villains because they aren't inherently evil or don't consciously do evil things.
EDIT: Ninja'd and SKR said it better.
For part of Hamlet, Laertes is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
For part of Harry Potter Series, Snape, is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
For part of Lord of the Rings, Boromir, is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
For part of Empire Strikes Back, Lando is an antagonist because he's interfering with the PCs.
He is not a villain.
Villain and antagonist are not synonymous.
Lando was never much of an antagonist because he was only taking actions due to being threatened by Vader and the Empire. Vader was still the antagonist, Lando was just a black Stormtrooper.
Try thinking in terms of the most memorable, iconic villians and what they represent. Lex Luthor is probably one of the first that would come to mind, everyone knows who he is and there is little doubt he's a antagonist to Superman - but evil? Far from it. In fact, he's just got a different view of the world in which his actions are actually heroic.
And that skewed viewpoint makes all the difference. Lots of other really iconic villians fit a similar mould. Ozymandias's destruction of New York to save the world, for instance.
I'm not one to say that the fans are wrong, but in my opinion, most of the "That's not a villain, that's a..." posters refrom previous years should have really said "That's not what I want from a villain, because...". People like to distort semantics around their own personal viewpoints.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen, though. If you want to know what sorts of villains the voters dig, do your homework.
Far in the future, will we be able to create the villain using your own or anyone else's archetype from Round 2?
That would be cool.
Try thinking in terms of the most memorable, iconic villians and what they represent. Lex Luthor is probably one of the first that would come to mind, everyone knows who he is and there is little doubt he's a antagonist to Superman - but evil? Far from it. In fact, he's just got a different view of the world in which his actions are actually heroic.
And that skewed viewpoint makes all the difference. Lots of other really iconic villians fit a similar mould. Ozymandias's destruction of New York to save the world, for instance.
Lots of villains have a worldview in which they are the heroes. Luthor is hardly alone in that regard. "I must kill the world to save it, and incidentally make billions of dollars while doing it!" doesn't mean he is a hero.
Luthor breaks laws because he believes he is above them. In Metropolis, he reigns via blackmail, extortion, threats of force, exposure, and his companies routinely steal ideas, patents, designs, and technology from other, better companies. He murders those who personally piss him off, like his own foster parents, childhood bullies, teenagers who just want to be heroes...
Luthor is evil through and through. His warped worldview is driven by his own unmatched greed and ego. he wants it all, and the fact that Superman has the respect and adulation he craves just sends him right over the edge.
He's not a hero with a strange worldview. He's a megalomaniacal genius of the highest calibar with delusions of nobility that he occasionally uses to justify his actions to the recalcitrant.
==Aelryinth
I was actually about to say much the same thing, but then I remembered how much comic book characters can vary from one portrayal to the next.
Still, I really can't think of a time when Luthor was "far from evil".
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I think its clear some villains don't think of themselves as villain, or evil. But to me, a real villain IS evil. If someone weren't I'd say they were an antagonist. When Superman and Batman come to blows, neither are evil - they just want to go about things differently. COuld one call the other a villain? (of course, I think that Superman at the time thinks of Batman as jsut a wanted vigilante and not as a hero, right? But past the fourth wall, neither are villains).
SO, my games might have antagonists, but if I am going to make a villain, he/she/it is going to be evil. The villain in my current adventure proposal (Lord willing) is just about as evil as I ahve conceived. I watched nonvillains in villain rounds a couple of times: I have bit salivating for a chance to bring evil into the world.
I mean, you know...a fictional villain......
good point! Because in the end he leaves with the heroes and sorta becomes one in Return of the Jedi.
off subject this evolution was because Harrison Ford didnt like playing Han Solo and asked that the character be killed, so he wouldnt have to act the part. Because of this Lucas had Solo frozen in carbonite because he wasnt sure if Ford was going to do Revenge of the Jedi.
...
Still, I really can't think of a time when Luthor was "far from evil".
Smallville, first few seasons anyway. :)
Ozymandias, for me, was criminally insane at the least, but most definately evil. Two wrongs do not make a right. Using the fact that his world was moving toward nuclear war in order to justify his choice to kill millions and framing Dr. Manhatten for the deaths. Evil, if somehow justifiable by some warped standard.
The comic examines the ethics of his choices a lot more thoroughly than the movie, IMHO. (And what happens to New York is a fair bit different.)
That being said, I think Watchmen is pretty inscrutible if you weren't old enough to know what was going on in the 80's or earlier. (I don't know if this is the case for you or not.) Once you lose the context of a real world in which it was taken for granted that probably, someday America and the USSR would nuke the crap out of each other and end humanity forever I don't think Watchmen's plot makes very much sense.