|
For the last few weeks I've been thinking about the great villains in published adventures, comparing apples to apples. But I've hit a snag in the "what-makes-the-BBEG-a-Villain" criteria.
For me, at least, a villain should be an NPC who the PCs encounter at least once or twice before the final encounter and must always be an NPC the PCs are aware of -- thus leading to opportunities for fear, hate, disgust, etc. toward the villain before the final showdown at the end of the adventure (or "chapter" in a Campaign).
The problem is that in D&D's published adventures history, there are very few villains based on this criteria. Shockingly few. The great villains all have great back stories, sure, but in almost all cases the PCs only meet the villain once in the adventure -- at the Final Encounter. And in a great many cases, the PCs never have any opportunity to learn about the villain during the adventure -- as written.
There are some, certainly. The greatest D&D villain of all time, for example (by anyone's standards) is Strahd from I6, and he certainly fits the criteria I listed. And there are others, from Balabar Smenk in Age of Worms and Karylin from "Umbra" to Loliadac, Vhalantru, Queen Ileosa, Milos, Zensher, Iramine, Azurax, King Irovetti, Laveth, and about 25 others.
But that's only about 30 or so villains the PCs meet a few time times and really get to know, albeit usually from a distance, in published adventure history.
Heck, Eclevdra, Acererak, and Ashardalon are only really met once in the published adventure. (Briefly seeing Eclevdra behind the tentacle wall in G3 is not a meeting.)
And what about Flame?!
And The Skinsaw Man?!
And Adivion Adrissant, Explictica Defilus, Lyman Frack, Kazmogen, Zenith Splintershield, Baron Urik von Kharkov, Father Jackal, Gobbling Jack, The Gray Philosopher, The King of Roses, Imrizade Blackros, Nualia, Vlaakith, Gellidus?!!!
And hundreds more.
The PCs only meet these greats -- at least as written -- once,... when they kill them.
Now, I've always found ways to get these great villains in the Players heads long before they meet them in the Final Fight so the adventure's climax is all the sweeter. But that's not as written. Nualia is a perfect example. As written she's one of the all time greats for back story. Unfortunately, run-as-written, "Burnt Offerings" doesn't allow the Players to ever really know Nualia. She's just another bland cleric to kill when they finally meet her in the "dungeon." Adivion Adrissant is the same thing only worse -- he's the BBEG from volume one of a 6-volume AP and the PCs essentially never even hear his name until just before the final showdown in volume 6!
Does that mean Nualia and Adrissant can't be compared to Stahd and Smenk?
What constitutes a great published villain?
Shouldn't PCs HAVE to know who they are, what they're doing, and have roleplaying opportunities in the struggle against or search for them?
Running Kingmaker, I've run into this snag quite a lot - its villainess is notorious for seemingly coming out of left field, with the GM provided with a few notes of "this is something she's been up to" but no way for that information to trickle down to the PCs if the plot is run as written.
So I've taken great care to make mention of her as early as chapter two. NPCs - particularly fey - speak of her in legends and myths and ancient stories. Her title, Queen of Forgotten Time, gets floated around by lesser villains and allies alike, and the PCs latched onto it and have been doing everything they can to find out who's the name and face behind the title. It didn't take them long (We just finished Chapter Two) for them to place the blame for 90% of their troubles at her feet, and their inability to identify her and track her location down is the source of much of their frustrations with her, in addition to all the trouble she's attempted to bring down on their heads. They're looking forward to every scrap of information they can seize to point them toward her and eventually take her out.
When I ran Savage Tide back in 2007-9, it was much the same with its original villain. They were on his trail as early as the first chapter, and by the third they wanted nothing more than his head on a plate. His short-lived teaser appearance later in that chapter and finding out his involvement with the pirates and the catastrophe in the second made it all the more so, and the showdown at last in Chapter Five was immensely cathartic for them. Too bad the game ended shortly after that.
As with all things, YMMV depending on what one is trying to go for narratively speaking.
Personally, I prefer a villain that makes sense, but is ultimately wrong. One that actually gives the heroes pause, if only for a moment, forcing them to think about why EXACTLY they believe what they believe.
I do agree with both the sentiment and sadness on this issue.
I like my campaigns to have recurring villains of both the defeatable and completely indefeatable variety... It sort of breaks my sense of immersion when the baddest asses in the game either 'appear simply to be defeated' or 'are just placemarkers for a party to poke a thumbtack in as a 'he's more powerful than us so he must die' villain....
I like big bad guys to be viscerally present in establishing themselves as superior badasses sever times before a showdown where he is intended to fall...
But on a larger note I also don't feel a world seems realistic to me if there isn't at least a handful of people in the world that the players just flat out know they cannot hold a candle to.
|
Personally I would not use other people's game modules as a basis for good storytelling. Look at your favorite books or movies for what makes a great villain.
Game modules tend to be based off the idea of combat challenge, like a video game. You start off with simple/easy opponents and work your way up to the final boss fight. But a good villain has nothing to do with their challenge rating.
A good villain is someone who knows what they want, and doesn't let pesky society, rules, or anything stop them from taking it. And if not for the intervention of the heroes, the villain will achieve their goal.
I prefer to introduce my villains early. First the PCs meet the villain in a non-combat situation where they talk to each other. Maybe give them some reason to dislike the guy, but no reason to attack him... yet. Next give the PCs some clues that the villain is really behind things, a note on one of his henchmen, overhearing a conversation, etc. Then at least one confrontation where the villain gets away before the final showdown. PCs will always try their hardest to not let the villain get away. But even if they foil all your grand schemes and catch him early, remember it's a world full of magic. If all else fails, his minions can recover his body and get him resurrected.
Some great published villains:
Count Dracula (being able to turn into bats/mist or whatever. He comes and goes as he pleases and takes what he wants. It's up to the heroes to eventually track him to his lair for the final showdown).
Terminator (because who doesn't like an unstoppable killing machine. Forcing players to run away is a touchy subject, but could make an interesting villain being forced to flee until they can discover the monsters weakness to be able to defeat it)
The Joker (some low level lackey the heroes thought they killed comes back for revenge)
Darth Vader (ok it's really cheesy, but what would your players do if they found out the villain is one of their loved ones?)
One of the downsides of roleplaying games is that you are always stuck from one point of view. In most storytelling mediums you have break-aways where the villain gets their own scenes where their character/story gets fleshed out. As a gamemaster you have to figure out how to make up for that lost opportunity. That probably means finding out about the villain second hand from NPCs, diaries, etc, or more face time squaring off with the villain himself. If your villain constantly thwarts the PCs and keeps getting away it will make it all the sweeter when they finally catch the guy.