RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Way back when Chainmail first introduced us to the idea of a fantasy battle, the boss of the evil army was the EHPSS, which was intended to be an obvious abbreviation for "Evil High Priestess." From such obscure beginnings, we have seen a cavalcade of villains of every stripe throughout the annals of RPG adventures. While monstrous villains have always been a popular choice, creatures with class levels have always been compelling villains, taking what the PCs can do and using their own dirty tricks against them. In some respects a villain is a deus ex machina, because they can do things that aren't strictly speaking part of the rules. A villainous baron doesn't need the Leadership feat to acquire a retinue of loyal soldiers, so for some purposes class doesn't matter as much as the role the GM establishes for the villain. Even so, some classes make great thematic fits for making a really good bad guy.
This week’s WORMY’S WEDNESDAY WHAT from LEGENDARY GAMES?
What is your favorite character class (or class/race or multiclass combination) to use when creating villains and why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard / Arcanist:
- Classic fantasy BBEG since forever.
- Wizards and other full casters with access to Divination/Enchantment/Etc. would naturally rise to the top echelons of political power.
- Wizard and Arcanist have the edge because their power and versatility increase hugely when they have access to some money and time. And Evil Wizards have both in abundance.
- Their ambitions may go beyond seizing control of the kingdom, to world domination and/or apotheosis. Non-casters can certainly try for those things, but will have far more need of MacGuffins and plot armor.
Cleric:
As above, but with an evil religious twist.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
Clerics are an interesting case, since the kind of planar (or even undead) allies they provide are also things that can be provided in the same way just by the plot. The bad guy has a demon ally, and an army of the undead (or maybe his lair is just guarded by the undead and don't technically work for him, or he has figured out how to fool the undead into believing he is the one they are programmed to obey).
Say our cleric casts his or her planar ally spell, the only real difference between Claire Cleric's demon ally and Fred Fighter's demon ally is that you get xp for fighting Fred's (since it's an independent creature) and you don't for fighting Claire's (since it only exists to help her because her class abilities made it appear).
There are plenty of other reasons why evil clerics make great villains; I was just wondering about their ability to obtain or create allies vs. what kinds of allies other villains have on their team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics and Wizards (Necromancers more so) seem to be some of the best villains. They are able to tailor their spells to directly combat the PC's, they have access to crafting (for minion items), and the magical MacGuffins to put them in a place of evil power. It is possible that a barbarian chief could rise to the top of the evil plot, but it requires a messier, less subtle path that can take away from the mystique of more intellectual villains, and make them easy to spot by the PC's. Full caster villains can also use magics to escape to fight again, martials have a harder time surviving.
Brutes make fine lieutenants, tanks for holding the PC's back while the main cleric or wizard monologues and mocks from safety.
Rogues are a rare possible exception, while not powerful themselves, their CHA abilities can make them deadly political foes, pitting a neutral leader against the party who may have no idea who the true villain is. They are great for intrigue and subterfuge.
That said, there is something truly terrifying about a monstrous humanoid Magus who lures the PC's fighter in for a good old bash fest, only to hit him with a dazing, persistent ray of enfeeblement. Then hit the caster with a disruptive acid arrow.
In short, I love any villain that makes the party think, mystery can help make a decent character exceptional, and solving the mystery as well as vanquishing a foe make the victory all that much sweeter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree that it's rare to find a non-caster class that works well as a large-scale villain, just because martials are so limited in comparison to casters at high levels.
In addition to the above, I'd like to add Bards to the list. Think of every single Diplomancer Bard you've ever seen, and imagine that talent twisted against the party rather than in its favor.
I'm with you Orthos - I think bards need more love as BBEGs, both as the 'power behind the throne' and then as a surprisingly capable opponent.
I would also like to throw in Summoner and potentially synthesist summoner into the mix - you have a real chance in this to totally disguise the nature of the BBEG and surprise the party.
I enjoy having the main villain be someone that is underpowered, and depends on powerful assistants to provide the challenge. Spoiled, cowardly aristocrats. Elderly, evil scholars. Puppet leader that rules because of a Faustian contract.
It isn't what we see in video games or king of the hill game mechanics, yet it is something we see a lot of in the real world. Most (though not all) world leaders wouldn't last long in a boxing ring.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I enjoy having the main villain be someone that is underpowered, and depends on powerful assistants to provide the challenge. Spoiled, cowardly aristocrats. Elderly, evil scholars. Puppet leader that rules because of a Faustian contract.
It isn't what we see in video games or king of the hill game mechanics, yet it is something we see a lot of in the real world. Most (though not all) world leaders wouldn't last long in a boxing ring.
Agreed. There's even a trope for that.
It makes perfect sense that, in a clan of giants that the strongest one would be the boss, or the top gladiator would rule Thunderdome, but that really should be a different trope altogether. Not every organization should be built on a hierarchy of "I'm tougher than you, so I'm in charge." There's plenty of room for villains with political and economic power who are not themselves superdupermegapowerful!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I'm with you Orthos - I think bards need more love as BBEGs, both as the 'power behind the throne' and then as a surprisingly capable opponent.
I would also like to throw in Summoner and potentially synthesist summoner into the mix - you have a real chance in this to totally disguise the nature of the BBEG and surprise the party.
I love bards as villains. I used a number of them in War of the River Kings, and even did a full rebuild of King Irovetti as a single-classed arcane duelist after the APG came out. That's how I used him in my home Kingmaker campaign, and he was a delightful rival in roleplay and a holy terror for the PCs in combat.
I enjoy having the main villain be someone that is underpowered, and depends on powerful assistants to provide the challenge. Spoiled, cowardly aristocrats. Elderly, evil scholars. Puppet leader that rules because of a Faustian contract.
It isn't what we see in video games or king of the hill game mechanics, yet it is something we see a lot of in the real world. Most (though not all) world leaders wouldn't last long in a boxing ring.
While true, there's a few extra things to consider with a more fantastical setting. For example, the whole "Why am I working for this politician when I can turn the universe inside out with a word?" If you believe in the guy's goal fanatically that's one thing, but most of the time I imagine the magely underling probably has an agenda of his/her own.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Wizards are the most terrifying villains to me when I am playing, because they could conceivably do anything. You also expect them to be prepared for any contingency to the point of paranoia. Witches and clerics are much the same, except dialed down half a notch.
Oracles and sorcerers make great villains because they have interesting themes built into their class mechanics.
Manipulator-type bards are also terrifying opponents, because you never know who will be working for them.
I always felt monk/assassin was a good villain combo. Imagine some random unarmed, unarmored peasant walks by, touches you, and BAM! Make a Fort save or die. Then make another Fort save against the poison. Then make another Fort save or be stunned and have your speed reduced to 5... etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
a full rebuild of King Irovetti as a single-classed arcane duelistI don't suppose you'd be willing to share that stat block, would you?
It's posted up in the Kingmaker AP forums, probably in the main sticky thread. I don't have a link but a quick search in that section for Jason Nelson+Irovetti+arcane duelist should probably turn it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am guilty of using way too many Oracle BBEGs.
Each mystery has a ton of depth and variety, adding a weakness allows something for the players to exploit, high Charisma to explain its ability for leadership...
I like sorcerers. They will have a high charisma and it powers their spells. That makes them challenging and you can understand why people follow them.
I'd like to see Viktor Saint-Demain from Dungeon Magazine restated as an Investigator. He was a grand villain.
My favorite way different.
I prefer the Evil Aristocrat schemer.
Yes the players can blow him away in a straight fight but he does not play that way , working behind the scenes, never getting his hands dirty, hiring others to do his dirty work. And you have to prove he is behind his evil deeds to take him down
Intelligent monsters with sorcerer levels. Sorcerer is customizable and has oomph, but is straightforward in play, allowing me to focus on tactics and flavor. Monster, because I love monsters.
My favorite way different.
I prefer the Evil Aristocrat schemer.
Yes the players can blow him away in a straight fight but he does not play that way , working behind the scenes, never getting his hands dirty, hiring others to do his dirty work. and you have to prove he is behind his evil deeds to take him down
Says you. Welcome to Downtown Chaoticville.
Dudes, the slayer.
He studies you from the shadows. He stalks you for days, hiding in plain sight, or even disguised as a friend. Then, moving swiftly, he strikes with a seething hatred, one blow mutilating your corpse in a manner so disgustingly perverse that your allies wail in terror and panic at the sight. Those that freeze in place or cannot flee, he cuts down with barely a backward glance, spreading terror in ever-widening waves.
The time to bargain is long past. Your pleas for further life fall on deaf ears. Free from pity, free from remorse, free from fear, they will not and cannot rest until their foes lie in pieces splayed at their feet.
And then they will move on without a word.
I have to say that no class is THE best or worst class for main villain. Which one is best depends upon what kind of main villain you want. Thanks to points made above about the main villain not necessarily needing to be the toughest in a fight, even underpowered classes can work as some types of main villain. Even Ned Flanders can be the Devil in the right circumstances. Paladin would be hard to pull off in most cases, but could work as a few types of tragic villain.
I have to say that no class is THE best or worst class for main villain. Which one is best depends upon what kind of main villain you want. Thanks to points made above about the main villain not necessarily needing to be the toughest in a fight, even underpowered classes can work as some types of main villain. Even Ned Flanders can be the Devil in the right circumstances. Paladin would be hard to pull off in most cases, but could work as a few types of tragic villain.
Although Lawful good might be hard. Lawful neutral and chaotic neutral can make great villians. The Ispired from Eberron are lawful neutral types similar to a communist dictatorship( Country peaceful and prosperous but there no freedom And you dont dare step out of line) And a chaotic neutral anarchist type who just wants to destroy evey type of authority out there could a epic villian
As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.
As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.
Whether or not this would work depends entirely on what moral choices the Paladin has to make to seize control. This also requires the standing gov't to not be "legitimate authority" or the Paladin falls for not respecting their rule and becomes possibly the worst BBEG.
For a typical Good party, if he stays a Paladin and Good... why do the PCs care? Maybe he's being kinda mean, but he's helping these people, his actions are exonerated by the very concepts of Law and Good. Hell, stopping him would in fact be Evil if you really look at the people suffering in the country. That's not a BBEG at all.
As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.Whether or not this would work depends entirely on what moral choices the Paladin has to make to seize control. This also requires the standing gov't to not be "legitimate authority" or the Paladin falls for not respecting their rule and becomes possibly the worst BBEG.
For a typical Good party, if he stays a Paladin and Good... why do the PCs care? Maybe he's being kinda mean, but he's helping these people, his actions are exonerated by the very concepts of Law and Good. Hell, stopping him would in fact be Evil if you really look at the people suffering in the country. That's not a BBEG at all.
...well what if the PCs need macguffin and said macguffin is evil by nature? Ie, an ancient orb to travel to another plane but also grants domination to the wielder... or a dark entity that knows another entity's weakness... regardless, it may be a great RP or even combat encounter to try and negotiate with the Paladin who's blindly against the idea.
As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.Whether or not this would work depends entirely on what moral choices the Paladin has to make to seize control. This also requires the standing gov't to not be "legitimate authority" or the Paladin falls for not respecting their rule and becomes possibly the worst BBEG.
For a typical Good party, if he stays a Paladin and Good... why do the PCs care? Maybe he's being kinda mean, but he's helping these people, his actions are exonerated by the very concepts of Law and Good. Hell, stopping him would in fact be Evil if you really look at the people suffering in the country. That's not a BBEG at all.
That why I put in Neutral not evil country. if we have an ancient Republic in which a Minority of Land owning Aristocrats control the government, how much suffering and corruption should there be before the Paladin trys to take over? And if he out to stamp out vices players love like drinking, gambling and sex outside marriage , does your chaotic good side with him or against him?
Remember Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin claimed to being good for the people and look at what they really accomplished. a Paladin who reads a copy of Das Kapital could be bad news.
As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.Whether or not this would work depends entirely on what moral choices the Paladin has to make to seize control. This also requires the standing gov't to not be "legitimate authority" or the Paladin falls for not respecting their rule and becomes possibly the worst BBEG.
For a typical Good party, if he stays a Paladin and Good... why do the PCs care? Maybe he's being kinda mean, but he's helping these people, his actions are exonerated by the very concepts of Law and Good. Hell, stopping him would in fact be Evil if you really look at the people suffering in the country. That's not a BBEG at all.
That why I put in Neutral not evil country. if we have an ancient Republic in which a Minority of Land owning Aristocrats control the government, how much suffering and corruption should there be before the Paladin trys to take over? And if he out to stamp out vices players love like drinking, gambling and sex outside marriage , does your chaotic good side with him or against him?
Remember Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin claimed to being good for the people and look at what they really accomplished. a Paladin who reads a copy of Das Kapital could be bad news.
Pathfinder morality is objectively absolute. Actions are or are not Good and Evil. If the Paladin only thought they were Good and did them, he would fall. A Paladin that loses his way morally is not long a Paladin.
Pathfinder morality is objectively absolute. Actions are or are not Good and Evil. If the Paladin only thought they were Good and did them, he would fall. A Paladin that loses his way morally is not long a Paladin.As for running a Paladin as a Villain.
A Paladin lives in a laid back neutral country. And see the poor not being taken care of properly, see the Courts favoring some and not others, see vice in the Street.So he feels the country needs a strong Moral hand and decides he needs to be in charge and launch a Jihad to take over and get rid of all vices.Whether or not this would work depends entirely on what moral choices the Paladin has to make to seize control. This also requires the standing gov't to not be "legitimate authority" or the Paladin falls for not respecting their rule and becomes possibly the worst BBEG.
For a typical Good party, if he stays a Paladin and Good... why do the PCs care? Maybe he's being kinda mean, but he's helping these people, his actions are exonerated by the very concepts of Law and Good. Hell, stopping him would in fact be Evil if you really look at the people suffering in the country. That's not a BBEG at all.
That why I put in Neutral not evil country. if we have an ancient Republic in which a Minority of Land owning Aristocrats control the government, how much suffering and corruption should there be before the Paladin trys to take over? And if he out to stamp out vices players love like drinking, gambling and sex outside marriage , does your chaotic good side with him or against him?
Remember Pol Pot, Mao and Lenin claimed to being good for the people and look at what they really accomplished. a Paladin who reads a copy of Das Kapital could be bad news.
OK I can agree with that. But I run my Game in Eberron which is far more grey, and that one of the reason I like it.
Also, think of a scenario like that in the WarCraft universe: There, Paladins were originally all servants of Good, as advertised, but then somebody figured out how to trap one of the Naaru (the WarCraft universe equivalent of Outsiders responsible for providing Paladin powers) and force it to provide Paladin powers to non-Good characters, thus giving rise to the Blood Knights.
Of course, the Paladin villain could also be a Paladin that is in the process of falling (who says it has to be instantaneous?) due to being forced to take increasingly desperate measures (such as a situation like the Worldwound might elicit). These forums have at least one whole thread about Iomedae herself getting similarly desperate (to a lesser degree, so far) in Wrath of the Righteous due to a Worldwound-related situation.
I think of a better scenario: alignment requirements for classes are dinosauric.
"Evil" and "Good" are relative in my games, to me wanting to live in a universe where they are clearly delineated and this or that race is "always chaotic evil" is a bit wanting to go back to a time where you could say that stuff of actual races or nationalities in real life. Now, I know this isn't always the case, but it just puts me in a bad mood.
I had a Paladin "BBEG" once. He was the big damn hero of the game - an NPC that always came into the rescue of my players when surrounded, gave them quests, never lied to them in the least minimum, helped them out with money.
He sent them into various quests and was quite an affable guy, but then he starts sending them into more and more quests which are basically "kill orcs here". First its a stealth mission on a warcamp, then its assaulting a barrack as part of a larger force, then taking a farm ("it's supplying their troops, taking it will weaken the frontline"). Every orc at the farm strikes back. The teen orcs too. (There was also a trained wyvern to spike it up.)
Players weren't giving a single reason to humanize orcs. No crying mothers, no sobbing children. Every orc captive they met spat at them.
Last mission from the Paladin was taking McGuffin from a heavily-guarded orc oracle's tower. They really cleaned that place up. The oracle, who spoke no words, up and handed them the McGuffin as they were half-way done in the place. As soon as they had the item, he spat at them. The Sorcerer then killed him in a creative manner. With a vote of 3 to 2, the party decided to head back.
The Paladin thanked them, rewarded them, and invited them to continue with his plan - use McGuffin in certain location to eradicate all orcs from existence. Oh but it will be a dangerous mission, because said location would be filled with orcs and trained wyverns and... The party then flat out refused to do it. I'm still glad they did.
Paladins will always do what they consider to be Good for everyone, but sometimes they are being douches doing so.
Instead of saying "lawful good means doing nice things that I like", think it as "I know what's better for everyone, the order will be changed to this".
GODWIN INCOMING: I think that leaders like Hitler and such can be easily categorized as lawful good. I mean, look at the way he treated BUNNIES. Compared to what's currently done for Angora farming, he was a fricking saint in that aspect. The thing with lawful good is that anyone who doesn't fall within your "community" is a direct threat to the order you want to impose.
Another historical example would be the Greco-Persian wars. It's hard to call either side Lawful Good, but its hard not to either - just depends which side you are on. On the corrupt slavers who were white, or on the megalomaniac tyrants who were not.
I'm not saying you all have to play it any certain way. Your worlds and moral systems are much deeper and more compelling imo.
I'm just saying the way the rules and the standard PF world are written, things are boring and one dimensional and black and white, most of the time.
I think of a better scenario: alignment requirements for classes are dinosauric.
"Evil" and "Good" are relative in my games, to me wanting to live in a universe where they are clearly delineated and this or that race is "always chaotic evil" is a bit wanting to go back to a time where you could say that stuff of actual races or nationalities in real life. Now, I know this isn't always the case, but it just puts me in a
That one of the Reasons I like Eberron. Because it many shades of Grey. Take Orcs inEberron. You have your typical Warlike Orcs, but you also have your Gatekeepers. Orc Druids who devote their life to make sure BBEGs from the plane of Madness dont invade the world again.
And many Paladins of the silver flame are Lawful Good by way of the Inquisition .They dont like burning you at the stake, but its for the greater good.I prefer to be very loose with the alignment system as I dont want it to be a straight jacket for role playing and it really does not take into account how people are.
Take your Viking Warriors. To each other they where very loyal. Once they gave their word they kept it, they where generous and helpful to friends and Neighbors. they where often noted to be loving Father and wives. So at Home they could be consider Lawful good. But on a Raid they killed with out mercy. They burned village, raped and plundered people who never harmed them, and then enslaved the survivors. So away from home they could be considered neutral evil.
I've run a short campaign of LG vs. LG, with paladins on both sides of the conflict. One side's laws invoked the removal of free will and was intent on making everyone controllable pawns to be kept safe from evil, by the benevolent overlords, and the other side that wanted people to have free will and work within the confines of good laws to obey - more or less as things existed before the opposition made their move to control everyone. The idea that paladins can't be BBEGs is kind of silly, or at least very narrow thinking to believe that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics and wizards have been the typical.
James Jacobs prefers the bard it seems.
One of my most successful long term running Villains was a Druid.
Timeless body, wild shape, and thousand faces.
This Arch Druid was many things to many people over a long period of time.
She did an incredible amount of manipulation all in the name of "preserving the balance"
In an effort to prevent developing cities, expanding civilization and the like…she constantly worked the forces of good and evil vs. each other; instigating wars, selling renewable resources to both sides and… by and large became the antagonist for several groups of characters for the same players over a 5 year (real time span) as several players played descendants of their earlier characters.
a Few characters even fought her a few times, not realizing who or what they were fighting, depending on what form she was in at the time, and how they knew her, or in some cases had never met her.
It took a mind boggling amount of paper work to track who had seen her in what form or knew her under what name.
By the Time the Pc's actually took her down, she was a Venerable Aged Elf over 500 years old.
The first Pc's that ever met her, met her when she was 135 and 5th level.
The NPCs death led, essentially to the end of the entire campaign world as we knew it, and ushered in a Steampunk campaign, in the same world I was using.
The net longest running villain I had was a 0-level halfling in 1e, who had happened upon a ring of three wishes…. it just led to a bring of other calamities from there.
Wizards can be problematic for a villain standpoint because of the paperwork involved. You have to worry about all of the spells you have to put in their spellbooks, and you have to judge how much the spellbook is worth and what spells you can afford the player characters learning. And on top of that, there's calculating how many will fit in a spellbook, and deciding what spells the guy has prepared. It's usually easier for me to just go with a sorcerer with the sage wildbloodline and favored levels in spells.
In general, casters are more versatile than noncasters, so they make better villains. However, due to the unpredictability of the game and the action economy issue, I find that single BBEGs don't really do it for me most of the time. Organizations, groups, cults, ideologies, or abstract forces are usually better because it's harder to cut off the head of the snake.
^Agree on that. In addition, organizations that train their members in teamwork (including but not limited to Teamwork Feats) would give the PCs more of a challenge, and has the option to limit how much loot the PCs get -- if they are being given trouble by Fighters with ho-hum weapons but excellent teamwork with the a Wizard (who always leaves the spellbook back at base) and/or Cleric, they won't get rich on loot even if they always win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Commoner.
Expert. Max ranks in profession(banker), profession(lawyer), and profession(polotician).
^That shades into one or more Archetypes of Aristocrat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expert. Max ranks in profession(banker), profession(lawyer), and profession(polotician).
(Shudders) I believe Paizo has certain rules of decorum to follow. Some forms of evil are beyond even the darkest of their modules.
|
|
^Agree on that. In addition, organizations that train their members in teamwork (including but not limited to Teamwork Feats) would give the PCs more of a challenge, and has the option to limit how much loot the PCs get -- if they are being given trouble by Fighters with ho-hum weapons but excellent teamwork with the a Wizard (who always leaves the spellbook back at base) and/or Cleric, they won't get rich on loot even if they always win.
So, one of my current favorite bad guys is actually my own PC. He's a Slayer (Vanguard) who united disparate street gangs into a rival thieve's guild to help overthrow the one currently working with the sanction of the standing government. He used Tactician ability with feats like Stealth Synergy and Precise Strike to turn his thugs into way more competent sneaks and killers.