| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recently I was in a conversation where someone described cultists sacrificing innocents as being 'boring and lazy writing' because there was no personal attachment for them.
To me that seemed overly analytical, as if the act of having to rescue people from being killed was trite and overdone unless it's someone you specifically care for. I could not wrap my head around that line of thinking.
The more they elaborated, the more fantasy tropes they decried as being overdone until eventually I asked "Then what does a fantasy hero do?" To which they had no response other than "I don't know, I just don't want to fight against someone that that has a sign that says 'bad guy' hanging from their neck."
This threw me for a loop. All I could think of was a quote from Lemony Snickett - "I'm at a loss for how to write a villain who doesn't do villainous things"
How do you go about writing your villains in a way that isn't boring or overdone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't let some self-appointed critic force you into a desperate attempt to move beyond tropes. As long as you and your players enjoy the villains as presented, everything is fine.
Anyway, some ideas, mostly from GameMastery Guide and elsewhere:
1) Introduce the villain early. Maybe they seem nice first, or at least neutral. This adds contrast to their evil deeds uncovered later.
2) Make it personal. You don't have to kill anyone important to the players, it's enough to foil their plans. Collect the quest reward in their name, send them tax collectors, convince the king they are actually traitors etc..
3) Evade the group one or two times. When the players have enough, they shouldn't be immediately successful in taking the villain out. On top of escaping the villain could make sure the adventurers accidently kill someone innocent (illusion magic, mundane disguise etc.), open a gate to the Abyss or offend one of their allies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't please everyone, and should not even bother trying to please people that bring up "problems" without possible solutions. Nobody needs that BS... like people in the summer saying "Howa'bout this heat?" GTFOH with that useless nonsense.
As for bad guys without signs that say "bad guy"... think of politicians or preachers that genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing. Think about the villains that honestly think they are the heroes. They could be doing evil things for a "greater good", or might even be doing evil things completely by accident as a byproduct of something that was meant for good. You could even lead the party on to the completely wrong guy, and the party will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger
Those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers
And you will know my name is the Lord
When I lay my vengeance upon thee... and then punish the party for killing someone innocent...
Alignment shifts for everyone! You are all fugitives from the law, and all the guards everywhere are looking for you by name, face, and association. Looks like the GM was the villain all along. Lol. You mad, bro? Personally invested yet? Want to set things right, clear your names, kill a bad guy that is actually bad? Yeah? The bad guy you are looking for is the bad guy over there... the one with the sign that says "bad guy".
Most people want to feel righteous in their cause. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides
By the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will
Shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness
For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children... heroes help those in need simply because they are able to help those in need, not because the heroes are personally invested in any given situation in-which they act heroic. If you have to be personally invested before you take action to help save innocents from being sacrificed by cultists, then you aren't a freaking hero!
Having a bad guy with a sign that says "bad guy" makes it easy for the party to justify their reckless abandon murderhobo pursuit of said bad guy. They want their murderhobo BS to be "justified" because they are murderhobo'ing "bad" guys. The more obvious those bad guys are bad, the easier it is to justify spending every feat you have available on combat-related murderhobo munchkin madness clownshoes shenanigans.
And people want to be able to use their toys. They earned them, bought and paid for... that feat that you had to wait until BAB +11 to get/use, or 15 ranks in Spellcraft... nobody wants all that hard work to be for a completely mundane villain, regardless of how evil they may, or may not, be. So you skip the politician and the preacher that are simply misguided, because they are boring and lazy... and you go with cultists sacrificing innocents, because cultists sacrificing innocents DESERVE all the combat-related murderhobo munchkin madness clownshoes shenanigans you can throw at them.
Screw those guys, they are rude and mean. Cultists should not be sacrificing innocents, and innocents should not be getting sacrificed by cultists! That cultist holding a weapon over the helpless child, that is a bad guy wearing a sign that says "bad guy"... you can unleash the dogs of war without feeling dirty or guilty, and without fear of punishment from the GM. Get'em!
I don't have to make it personal... how can you reasonably expect to personally involve everyone in a party when they all come from different families, races, locations, backgrounds, social circles... you are going to run out of people the entire party cares about real fast. And how overplayed is it to have the villain befriend the party just to betray them later? Didn't see that coming. Lol. Eventually the players just abandon or kill every NPC you try have around the party on a semi-frequent basis.
Nah, I don't shy from or try hide my evil. What some [obviously] consider boring and lame writing, I consider classic. It is a fantasy game with dungeons and dragons... both dungeons and dragons are beyond overplayed, it has all been done before [previous DnD editions] and already happened again [PF2]... by the time you read this, you have already read it. So just run with it... have your bad guy standing in front of the burnt remains of a still smoking orphanage with a lighter, a can of gas, and a smile. The party need not know any of the children that once lived there, all they need to know is that children once lived and now do not... and this guy, the guy with the sign that says "bad guy", this freaking guy is why said children no longer live.
Have your Implacable Stalker Nightmare Lord Bogeyman picking his teeth with a baby's rib. Mm-mmm. Finger. Licking. Good. If the party does not get personally invested simply by witnessing the bad guy with sign that says "bad guy", then they ain't heroes and this story isn't about them, anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently I was in a conversation where someone described cultists sacrificing innocents as being 'boring and lazy writing' because there was no personal attachment for them. . . .
That's... kind of funny to me. Are the PCs playing evil characters?
I wish I could remember the Star Wars book it was, but I read one many moons ago where Luke was running around with Lando for a bit, and Lando was looking for investors in a project. They saw the same edifice and Lando saw the money involved to make it... and Luke saw how defensible it was and the subtle marks of violence it had endured. Then a little later on Luke makes the point that no one sees themselves as evil. In hindsight, it was a great depiction of character for both...
I imagine that the best villains are the ones who almost could have been good, but there's that little twist that distorts their perceptions just enough... So make a good character who learns the wrong lessons from a terrible event, and go from there. How would they behave? How would they act? It's almost like an argument or discussion where someone is nodding their head for the first three quarters of the topic until they get to the end and there's that 'Waaiiittt...' moment.
For ttrpgs, SheepishEidolon's #2 suggestion is the most applicable. A party doesn't really care about beating a bad guy when it's all the same to them, when they haven't invested in their characters. If you give the characters a reason to really hate that guy... then the rest sort of falls into place. (...Even though if they're playing GOOD characters, saving innocents should be enough... the loot is a fringe benefit... I mean, Spiderman and Superman get absolutely nothing out of it... )
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this is tricky because you have to tell your story to appeal to your audience, which first means learning about your audience and to whom you are catering.
Some people like having unambiguous evil to target, it makes their lives simple. They hate when things get complicated or morally grey. Its easy to fight something whose only goal is to harm others.
Other people like the ambiguity of the situation. Two rival kingdoms at war, a misguided father trying to bring their child back to life through eldritch ritual, and etc. The idea of a relatable or tragic villain appeals to some groups because it gives them opportunities to be introspective about their own path through life, or a chance to turn the misguided villain back towards the light.
Personally, I attempt to write my villains as characters. They have motivations and desires, and the PCs can investigate (or not) the villains to the degree of their choice before confronting them. Enough investigation could allow them to turn foes into friends, or at least persuade someone towards a less destructive path.
However there are forces within the classical pathfinder/dnd world which are not easily disuaded from their path. Or forces whose paths are darker or violent because of their nature, like extraplanar evil creatures or abberations who have entirely different views on morality. Once again I try to write these enemies as characters, however understanding their desires (and how to subvert them) is a much larger challenge for the player characters. Can you convince a Vampire that it is in their best interest to protect their flock from other threats and to trade that protection for tribute in blood rather than simply ravaging the country side? Depends on the GM and the players, their expectations and desires.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Make it personal. You don't have to kill anyone important to the players, it's enough to foil their plans. Collect the quest reward in their name, send them tax collectors, convince the king they are actually traitors etc..
This is my go-to method in order to really get the players/character to dislike one of my NPCs. Its even better (or worse, from the PC perspective) when it is one of their allies or close contacts.
Just be sure not to over use it. They'll end up being twitching, paranoid messes that won't trust ANYONE.
real evil, convince the nobility that growing a goatee and twirling your mustache are trendy things that every man should do.
evil leave humiliating notes attached to body parts of missing party-friendly npc. saying they (pc) were too late and\or that the npc kept saying the pc would come and save them etc.
evil doesn't care about breaking the trust and feeding off betrayal. it's far more impact if the nice old merciful nun is cooking stray children in the basement ('come in come in, i got candy for you'), then if it's the crazy old cultist down the road.
evil comes in many colors, there is the crazy kin, the sophisticated kind, the detached and or abscessed kind and the sadistic kind. what seem to connect them all is the fact they usually care littlie for others. and tend to leave a few bodies behind...
...doesn't that make most hobo-murderers evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to question the morality of the person making those statements. Without knowing the full details of the conversation I may be missing something. From what I can see that person would be considered neutral at best if not outright evil. I could be wrong about them and if so they have my apology for judging them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I point to Mayor Richard Wilkins III from season 3 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He had an evil goal, and would do evil things (or, at least have his minions do them). But, he also took his job as Mayor seriously, and tried to do a good job. His public face was one of caring and congeniality.
. . .
Evil could be a compulsion or an illness driving the being to commit these acts. Evil could be a religious or ethical belief that doesn't square with the rest of society. Evil could be what FEELS good to the individual. . . .
Makes me think of Dexter, Punisher, and Hannibal respectively... Oh, and Johnny would be all three, but then again, he is a parody of a sort.
You make a lot of excellent points.
|
Honestly I am not even used to write for Heroic Characters.
Most of the times my players hand more towards neutral, sometime they play an Evil alignment themselves.
Antagonists for me need to be personal.
But even when a character is good, why would they feel they are the ones who are supposed to stop the bad guy, why not the entire rest of the world?
When I write a villain, their plan is always threatening the players directly.
My villain might be evil, might have consequences for the world, but first and foremost they have consequences for the players. It is the players charge because if the villain win, it might suck for the world maybe, but is going to be the total demise of the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But even when a character is good, why would they feel they are the ones who are supposed to stop the bad guy, why not the entire rest of the world?
Well, because that desire to stop evil (the bad guy) and prevent them from hurting people is an intrinsic part of what makes that character GOOD to begin with. They are people that not only recognize that someone else is doing evil but are those willing to actual sacrifice a bit of themselves in order to put a stop to it.
Concepts like this are why a lot of people don't like the alignment system, especially when it comes down to defining good vs evil. If we use the D&D alignment system to judge ourselves, well... People like to think that they are good and mean the best, when we really all fit pretty well inside that 'grey' area between good and evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil is subjective... you can be a hero to a nation for building train tracks from one coast to another, but you are an evil villain to the indigenous tribes that were displaced in the process. And it is just as possible to make a campaign with a party of heroic characters protecting the advancement of civilization against the savage barbarian menace of the untamed wilderness, as it is to make a campaign for a party of brave/heroic indigenous warriors protecting their lands from the invading pioneers.
I have found that I like my bad guys to be doing unquestionably bad things. I find it easier to roleplay my villains if I can hate them for what they are doing. I can sell pure evil. I am not a good enough GM or drama/theatre actor to properly present Yuris, the breadmaker, who has befriended the PCs and goes out of his way to show kindness to the party when they pass his shop, only to be found in the sewers three sessions later, his face streaked with tears holding his own daughter to a slab, a knife in his other hand, crying over and over "you don't understand... she HAS to die... its the only way to stop it... the end is coming, don't you understand? I'm so sorry baby... it'll all be over soon..." I do not have the stomach to put myself in the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief.
No, my cultists ARE the apocalypse... or are trying to be, at least. They are sacrificing innocents, and turning them into an army of Undead to unleash upon the world. Cultists following a Familial Lich, propagating Fiendish children to continue the Lich's bloodline. Cults that produce and distribute massive amounts of drugs, running a blackmarket spanning continents, trading drugs for elixirs of immortality to deliver to an insane king. I find it both easier for me to roleplay these types of villains as a GM, and easier to keep the party interested in pursuing these types of villains without getting distracted.
At the risk of sounding obvious, a lot of this may come down to how said evil-doers are introduced. Interrupting a ritual during a dungeon-crawl in which cultists weren't even expected will probably elicit a different reaction from players than a climactic battle at the end of efforts to stop a great threat against their land. That's not to say that a random encounter CAN'T be interesting; just that very often it will be seen and treated as just that.
Likewise, what is the balance of "show me" versus "tell me" for the villains in question? When the only evidence of the infernal evil the cultists are sworn to are the accouterments they wear or the things they shout right before initiative is rolled, players might be forgiven for not being emotionally invested. If the PCs witnessed enough scenes of the cultists' atrocities in advance, however, they may not be as blasé about their enemy.
And that's before we get to the background and context of the evil-doers. "Evil cleric seeks to destroy village," to summarize the motivations of one AP's antagonist, doesn't come close to capturing the tale of loneliness, abuse, betrayal, and abandonment that led them to being corrupted. The BTK Killer, mentioned above, wasn't just killing people; he was mailing letters to authorities and newspapers alike, taunting them over his murders. When he was discovered, people were shocked to discover that a "normal," educated family man who led a church council and Cub Scouts was, in fact, the perpetrator of these horrific crimes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Key questions I tend to ask about my villains are "What is his goal and Why dose he want this? How much is this person willing to let others suffer to achieve that goal? How much of a participant in that suffering is he willing to be?" and Finally "What is the Exception?"
That last question tends to be pretty important because it helps set the Line that the villain will or won't cross.
Example: I have an Exiled Noble who wants to take over the Kingdom.
Goal: Take over the Kingdom
Why: Honestly things he would be better at running it. His family line are the rightful rulers after all.
How much Suffering is he willing to see: Some, not a lot, he believes he is doing this for the best, but some sacrifices are inevitable
How involved in that Suffering: He doesn't want to see it. If it needs doing he'll give an order to a minion and then try not to think about it.
The Exception: Insults to his family. He sees his family as heroes driven from the kingdom. Insult that legacy and he will burn your village to the ground and light the torch himself.
So I use all that as my guide to how he thinks and how I RP him
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself thinking of the Dwarven paladin in Goblins. Walks into a room full of Orc's and other goblinoids then proceeds to slaughter them all. Kidnapped kid say's "Thank you so much for rescuing me!" and his response "You've been exposed to evil and the seeds of corruption are planted" then kills them. Complete and utter fanatic who'll kill an entire town of innocents without hesitation because one of them is guilty and the rest are corrupted by association with them.
That said I WANT my bad guy's to have nice clear I"m a monster signs because this is a game for escape. The real world has a million shades of gray (doing evil for the ends, different views, genuinely believe their in the right, corrupted by the world while trying not to be, etc) and I play pathfinder to escape that world for a time. I don't want to kill the "villlain" and then find out they were just trying trying to support their poor sick sibling or were misunderstood or some other thing that'll make me feel guilty about killing them. I want to play a world where I'm the hero and can make a difference and wrap up the problem of the week in 40 minutes and the current big bad by the end of the season as it were, a world were people get their happily ever after, where the villains are clear and unambiguous. Sure other people want a more realistic scenario but for me I want a black and white world for a little while where you don't think to yourself "That guy had a wife and kids who are now going to be out on the street starving and dying." after a fight.
This also for me ties into what the party is. They aren't (usually) militia, police, FBI, ASIA or whatever law enforcement agency exists in your world they are at best mercenaries and at worst poor saps dragged into something far beyond what they expected. Either way you don't recruit people like this for the corrupt town mayor or the police officer who thinks a bit of violence protects the innocent "better one imprisoned innocent than a thousand guilty men walk free". You get these people for the big threats that invading horde of demons, the rising ancient horror, the series of brutally eaten villagers. The villain should be clearly (a) evil and (b) beyond the limits of the local law forces before they turn to the wandering adventurers to solve it. If its just a local gang then why isn't the local militia/town guard handling it? This gets a little iffy with low level characters starting out who may be said militia or groups who want gritty, grey realism but generally you don't nab the wandering gunslinger unless you have a bandit problem that are raiding and robbing your town.
Evil is subjective... you can be a hero to a nation for building train tracks from one coast to another, but you are an evil villain to the indigenous tribes that were displaced in the process. And it is just as possible to make a campaign with a party of heroic characters protecting the advancement of civilization against the savage barbarian menace of the untamed wilderness, as it is to make a campaign for a party of brave/heroic indigenous warriors protecting their lands from the invading pioneers.
I've got to disagree there. In D&D, Evil is far from subjective. It is quite easily spelled out and measurable. What is subjective is the PERCEPTION of what constitutes a 'villain'. What the individual thinks of themselves and their actions, or what others think, has no impact on the alignment of said individual or their actions. Evil can be normalized and adopted into law or societal behavior, but that just makes it commonplace. It doesn't change what it is.
Other than that, I'm pretty much with you on how to run villains.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what you do, is take it literally. Have the party get to the BBEG and find that he's just some dude with a wooden picket sign that says, "I'm evil!" But the twist is that the sign is intelligent, evil, and took over this guy's will. It's the sign that says "I'm evil" that's been controlling the guy the whole time.
Everyone wins. The GM gets to have an evil villain that literally says they're evil. The players get a twist they don't see coming. The critic gets an unconventional villain with a surprising amount of nuance for such a silly concept.
Obviously, something like this wouldn't work in a serious-toned game. But the concept is sound if you were to use the idea of this twist with some more serious themes. The villain IS more sympathetic; they're under the control of another. This forces the party to make some heavy choices concerning what to do about the one who's been pulling all the strings but turns out to be a puppet themselves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, what you do, is take it literally. Have the party get to the BBEG and find that he's just some dude with a wooden picket sign that says, "I'm evil!" But the twist is that the sign is intelligent, evil, and took over this guy's will. It's the sign that says "I'm evil" that's been controlling the guy the whole time.
Everyone wins. The GM gets to have an evil villain that literally says they're evil. The players get a twist they don't see coming. The critic gets an unconventional villain with a surprising amount of nuance for such a silly concept.
Obviously, something like this wouldn't work in a serious-toned game. But the concept is sound if you were to use the idea of this twist with some more serious themes. The villain IS more sympathetic; they're under the control of another. This forces the party to make some heavy choices concerning what to do about the one who's been pulling all the strings but turns out to be a puppet themselves.
That sounds like evil Inc where a piece of paper was given sentience by the villains and set out to take over the world by pretending to be memos diverting resources to its desires.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience players don’t always know what they want.
The most common feedback I get is that they want more gritty and realistic games, but do they really? Let’s take combat. Realistic warfare is mind-numbing monotonous utter boredom for countless hours punctuated by intense short lived utter terror. Does anyone really want to play a game like that? Of course not.
As a GM I generally go with cliched villains because they are easy to represent. The GM has a tough job, to describe a whole fantasy world in a way that the players can understand. Being overly subtle or deliberately misleading is more likely to create confusion than better games. I’ve tried subtle villains, what usually happens is either the players figure it out immediately, in which case you might as well have made it obvious, or they never do and they waste precious game time on red herrings until you make it really obvious.
That’s not to say you can’t mix it up a little. For example you could have a villain that is obvious to the PCs but not to everyone else (including the NPC authorities). That way the PCs aren’t chasing pointless red herrings but the treatment of the villain is a little different.
Realistic warfare is mind-numbing monotonous utter boredom for countless hours punctuated by intense short lived utter terror.
Fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more they elaborated, the more fantasy tropes they decried as being overdone until eventually I asked "Then what does a fantasy hero do?" To which they had no response other than "I don't know, I just don't want to fight against someone that that has a sign that says 'bad guy' hanging from their neck."
This threw me for a loop. All I could think of was a quote from Lemony Snickett - "I'm at a loss for how to write a villain who doesn't do villainous things"
How do you go about writing your villains in a way that isn't boring or overdone?
Well… you could always do a “bait and switch” sort of villain… someone who go through great lengths to make the party believe they are in fact on their side, when in reality they are the one pulling all of the strings…
There are a couple of ways to do this in fact…
Option 1) an underling or unwitting pawn is used as a stand-in big bad evil guy… the stand-in might know what is going on, or they could be completely clueless… whatever the circumstance they always seem to be present or atleast connected to every “major evil act” the party encounters… the true evil guy operates under the guise of either a victim, a “benevolent benefactor”, a ruler or high ranking official, a member of the guard, or an “inconsequential NPC”… this sort of setup is meant to wait for the perfect moment to pull the rug out from under the players as they realize they have been chasing the wrong guy this whole time.
Option 2) the players become the villains… basically, you have your players working under a “benevolent benefactor” and performing “great deeds of heroism” only for those very heroics to be setting the groundwork for a nefarious scheme. As the story progresses the state of the people in the land the heroes have been in should worsen in some manner, peoples attitudes towards them should slowly drift towards the negative, and the players should eventually start to question if what they are doing is even right. For this setup you have to target morally grey areas on a regular basis. Never have the party do anything overtly evil, but also keep making them do things that aren’t exactly good either. They must be constantly reminded “this is for the greater good” and they must be made to think that as well. If all is done right then they will be completely blindsided when the big reveal comes and they realize the evils they have done… note: bonus points if you can pull this off with a moral high ground Paladin in the party.
Option 3) big bad evil guy is on vacation… ok so this option is for a more humorous approach to the “not the bad guy” trope… basically you paint the big bad evil guy as exactly that in everything the party is told about them… but for whatever reason he doesn’t seem to be doing anything nefarious at all.. in fact he seems to be the exact opposite of what the party has been told… so now the party believes they might have been hired by the “real bbeg”… the real genius behind this plot device is that you as the GM can just wing it… you essentially let the players write the story without them even realizing it as they try to uncover a hidden evil plot that simply doesn’t exist. This is however not possible to pull off successfully with every group of players as some groups will simply sit and stare at you waiting for you to give them all the directions while this plot device relies heavily on them steering off script.
In my experience players don’t always know what they want.
A scathing truth to be sure.
It seems like nowadays players want every npc that they come across to have a nuanced backstory, allied or not. Even the lowly kobold guard someone mentioned further up needs to be a tragic hero of his own story.
There's also the trend towards redeeming villains while not wanting them to do villainous things such as -reads list- own slaves. Y'know, because every slave capturing warlord is versed in modern day economics and the long term effects on the economy of their warband because of slave labor vs paid workers.
But at the end of the day, most sessions are 3-4 hours, most of which taken up by either combat or rping amongst the players (if any) with a bit of exposition to keep the story going.
Another thought just popped into my head: game mechanics. Detect Evil is a spell or class ability in this game; Sense Motive is a skill that can be maxed out; Divination is a school of magic. Now certainly there are ways around these to protect your BBEGs, but if you don't plan for your players employing these, it doesn't matter how insidious you make your foes' evils, they're a D20 roll away from uncovering.
Depends entirely on how you run the world. The vast majority of people are not of a significant high enough level to even detect as an alignment (that requires at least 5HD) and those that do have an aura from a class feature. Any villain worth their salt 5HD or more is going to take steps to conceal their alignments if having an evil alignment is a detriment to their agenda.
Its important to remember that Detect Evil (or similar spells) either return a result of 'evil' or 'not evil'. And most magic requires gestures and spoken word in order to cast it, generally of such a display or volume that it gets the attention of others. Blatant displays of magic might be considered impolite or even dangerous in certain areas, just as if someone was carrying around a firearm in real life. You SHOULD have people acting accordingly, especially if they lack ranks in Spellcraft and can't tell a dangerous spell from a harmless one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More and more, I'm thinking of my villains as being different from the heroes in terms of two key areas: what are the lengths are they willing to go to achieve their ends, and on which side of the narrative are you.
Take Benedict Arnold as an example. Here's a man that fought to overthrow English rule off the Colonies until he turned traitor. Narrative question here is easy: from the American side, he's a villain while he's a hero from the British side. He's a man that came to his senses and switched to the side of right. The lengths: money. He wasn't willing to work for a cash strapped army so he switched sides when he was offered a substantial sum. So even from the British side, he is probably viewed as an anti-hero fighting for the side of right.
Take Darth Vader as a counter example. Here's a guy that is villainy personified. Except if you see it from the imperial side of things, he's the epitome of a good guy. He keeps order, puts down rebellious activity so law-abiding citizens can go about their business. Sure the government could use some reforms, but the grav-trains run on time and the food and rent is affordable. What makes Vader a villain is him willing to destroy all life on an entire planet to get at a government in insurrection.
Honestly, the single biggest difference between a flat 1-dimensional villain and a complex one you can emphasize with is whether you know the reasons for their actions. The Giant Starfish in The Suicide Squad, "I was happy floating in space looking at the stars."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More and more, I'm thinking of my villains as being different from the heroes in terms of two key areas: what are the lengths are they willing to go to achieve their ends, and on which side of the narrative are you.
I would agree with the first; lacking restraint and/or a sense of proportion is a central indicator of a villain. "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are His own." (possibly apocryphal) / "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." / etc.
The second I would disagree with, however. IMO, it would be better to tie the villain's actions to a "signature failing" (or sin, if you want to tie their [lack of] morality closer to the alignment system or the underlying Judeo/Christian influences). To go with your examples, a large influencing factor behind Benedict Arnold switching to the British was envy of George Washington (Washington actually lost most of his battles in between his spectacular successes, while Arnold consistently won his; but Washington received more fame/recognition). For Darth Vader, I believe pride was probably his downfall (although you could also make arguments for other sins).
I would add a third component, as well: a goal. This goal, along with their "signature failing" is why the villain is performing all of their "unrestrained/disproportionate" actions. A villain without a goal is just a cartoonish pinata "doing evil for evil's sake" which may be what the player in the OP was complaining about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Recently I was in a conversation where someone described cultists sacrificing innocents as being 'boring and lazy writing' because there was no personal attachment for them.
To me that seemed overly analytical, as if the act of having to rescue people from being killed was trite and overdone unless it's someone you specifically care for. I could not wrap my head around that line of thinking.
The more they elaborated, the more fantasy tropes they decried as being overdone until eventually I asked "Then what does a fantasy hero do?" To which they had no response other than "I don't know, I just don't want to fight against someone that that has a sign that says 'bad guy' hanging from their neck."
This threw me for a loop. All I could think of was a quote from Lemony Snickett - "I'm at a loss for how to write a villain who doesn't do villainous things"
How do you go about writing your villains in a way that isn't boring or overdone?
I can understand the complaint to an extent. When this is your 100th campaign fighting the cultist that is sacrificing innocents by throwing them into the deathpool to summon the Elder Evil it becomes pretty boring. However, if it's your first experience it's really cool.
They're tropes, which means they're popular in the stories.
It's completely possible to make an antagonist that doesn't reuse these most common of tropes. Usually, by making them not really evil.
It is entirely possible for the PCs main antagonist to not be evil, but to simply have a goal that puts them at odds with the world at large.
Not every enemy needs to be the puppy kicking type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But even when a character is good, why would they feel they are the ones who are supposed to stop the bad guy, why not the entire rest of the world?Bluntly speaking? Because you're a PC.
If a player won't accept that meta-level state after they create the 'good' character that's already a part of your example, then they can stay home and leave the space for another player.
Agreed.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...
Who doesn't understand this on a fundamental level, even in life outside of the game? What sort of coward has to be personally invested before they take action? Seeing the bully bully people around should be enough to make you bully the bully around... even if they aren't your people the bully is bullying around. SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING. You're either the wolf, the sheep, or the shepherd. It's that simple.
Who shows up to the table wanting to play a "hero" in a fantasy game with the mindset that they are unwilling to help anyone their character doesn't know or care about? Why waste your time and everyone else's begrudgingly being dragged out on all these stupid quests helping these stupid people your character refuses to empathize with or care about? WTF is the point?
At some point you have the wonder if the person is purposefully being pedantic just to be difficult. Like, I'm SO SORRY my stories, and the villains within, don't live up to your standards for uniqueness. GTFOH. Everything is just a copy of an imitation, how original are THEIR ideas?
In the immortal words of Jack Black/Tenascious D:
Shut up and Screw you
You freaking d!ck
Always nay-saying everything I create
You piece of $#!+
You create something like inward singing
You freaking $#!+
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know you or your friend, but I think you're doing cultists wrong.
And that's also the way cults operate. They'll tell you that you can't socialize with outsiders. If you leave the cult you'll be shunned. The cult is the only safety net you'll have, and leaving means giving up everything you have.
The innocents aren't the ones being sacrificed. The innocents are the cultists who are being manipulated.
I don't know you or your friend, but I think you're doing cultists wrong.
** spoiler omitted **
That IS the tragic twist, isn't it?
Most of the cultists aren't even Evil, themselves... they are closer to Yuris, the breadmaker, who has befriended the PCs and goes out of his way to show kindness to the party when they pass his shop, only to be found in the sewers three sessions later, his face streaked with tears holding his own daughter to a slab, a knife in his other hand, crying over and over "you don't understand... she HAS to die... its the only way to stop it... the end is coming, don't you understand? I'm so sorry baby... it'll all be over soon..."
I cannot imagine the manipulation necessary to create the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That IS the tragic twist, isn't it?
Most of the cultists aren't even Evil, themselves... they are closer to Yuris, the breadmaker, who has befriended the PCs and goes out of his way to show kindness to the party when they pass his shop, only to be found in the sewers three sessions later, his face streaked with tears holding his own daughter to a slab, a knife in his other hand, crying over and over "you don't understand... she HAS to die... its the only way to stop it... the end is coming, don't you understand? I'm so sorry baby... it'll all be over soon..."
I cannot imagine the manipulation necessary to create the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief.
I have a straightforward definition for evil people: people who make evil acts.
For me the cultists are still evil, we just happen to know what turned them to evil, and maybe there is hope for redemption, but they are definitely evil and will detect as such if they have sufficient hit dice.
Otherwise I have to work with a definition of evil that is too nuanced for my brain to handle with all the other stuff GMs have to do. I’ve tried running games that are more subtle and nuanced, but I found them to be too much like hard work.
Yuris the Breadmaker takes time, takes engagement; it also takes its toll on the GM. Imagine you're a dad with an 8 and a 10 year old IRL, and you've decided for whatever reason to deliver Yuris as a believable, well-RP'd villain. There have been times I've cried real tears playing bad guys in my games.
Me daughters are 7 and 11... it is why I keep repeating that Yuris, the breadmaker, example... it really hit close to home, and I would cry and/or puke trying to put myself in the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief.
Yuris the Breadmaker takes time, takes engagement; it also takes its toll on the GM. Imagine you're a dad with an 8 and a 10 year old IRL, and you've decided for whatever reason to deliver Yuris as a believable, well-RP'd villain. There have been times I've cried real tears playing bad guys in my games.Me daughters are 7 and 11... it is why I keep repeating that Yuris, the breadmaker, example... it really hit close to home, and I would cry and/or puke trying to put myself in the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief.
You guys are clearly more committed to the game than me. If that’s what you enjoy, more power to you, it sounds like your games are really rich and detailed.
I don’t have the time or inclination for anything too serious. I’m not sure what you would call what I run these days: popcorn RPG perhaps.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's just it... I play bad guys with signs that read "bad guy"... some generic, yet hideous, display of pure Evil... something that can be described in one or two lines, without ripping my own bloody emotions out of my chest just to try impress the impossible to please.
Is that a Bogeyman picking his teeth with baby bones? Yes. Is that Evil enough? Yes.
Or it very well should be. We should be able to move on with all the "heros" properly motivated into action.
I shouldn't HAVE to cry real tears trying to put myself in the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief. You know how much work it already is to GM? You know how absolutely exhausting and mentally taxing it is to ride that emotional roller coaster? And this is supposed to be fun? WTF do people expect of me?
Nope. I'm with you. Popcorn RPG's it is. My bad guys wear signs that say "bad guy"...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But even when a character is good, why would they feel they are the ones who are supposed to stop the bad guy, why not the entire rest of the world?Bluntly speaking? Because you're a PC.
If a player won't accept that meta-level state after they create the 'good' character that's already a part of your example, then they can stay home and leave the space for another player.
Agreed.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...
Who doesn't understand this on a fundamental level, even in life outside of the game? What sort of coward has to be personally invested before they take action? Seeing the bully bully people around should be enough to make you bully the bully around... even if they aren't your people the bully is bullying around. SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING. You're either the wolf, the sheep, or the shepherd. It's that simple.
Who shows up to the table wanting to play a "hero" in a fantasy game with the mindset that they are unwilling to help anyone their character doesn't know or care about? Why waste your time and everyone else's begrudgingly being dragged out on all these stupid quests helping these stupid people your character refuses to empathize with or care about? WTF is the point?
At some point you have the wonder if the person is purposefully being pedantic just to be difficult. Like, I'm SO SORRY my stories, and the villains within, don't live up to your standards for uniqueness. GTFOH. Everything is just a copy of an imitation, how original are THEIR ideas?
In the immortal words of Jack Black/Tenascious D:
Shut up and Screw you
You freaking d!ck
Always nay-saying everything I create
You piece of $#!+
You create something like inward singing
You freaking $#!+
I disagree a little here, the general sentiment I agree with but on occasion and if all the party's on board with it (to avoid annoying people trying to have fun) it can be amusing to play the not my problem Bilbo Baggins who gets dragged against their will or mosty against it on the adventure and grows from it.
"What? No I'm NOT going with you to try and stop that big, scary, dragon because its a DRAGON! No, please stop, put me down, eep!"
. . . . time passes . . .
"Just because your bigger and stronger doesn't give you the right to push people around what would your mother think?"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just it... I play bad guys with signs that read "bad guy"... some generic, yet hideous, display of pure Evil... something that can be described in one or two lines, without ripping my own bloody emotions out of my chest just to try impress the impossible to please.
Is that a Bogeyman picking his teeth with baby bones? Yes. Is that Evil enough? Yes.
Or it very well should be. We should be able to move on with all the "heros" properly motivated into action.
I shouldn't HAVE to cry real tears trying to put myself in the mindset of a man who is tearing himself apart inside, committing possibly the most horrifying act in his life, all for some apocalyptic belief. You know how much work it already is to GM? You know how absolutely exhausting and mentally taxing it is to ride that emotional roller coaster? And this is supposed to be fun? WTF do people expect of me?
Nope. I'm with you. Popcorn RPG's it is. My bad guys wear signs that say "bad guy"...
We all have our preferences and there's nothing wrong with that. This is more of a spectrum thing, though. Just like sandbox - railroad. Most players will have a preference for a play style that's somewhere in the middle. You also don't have to do this to every villain. It's just that sometimes it's fun to really really hate a villain. That's not a bad thing.
So, one question remains for me: If we call one end of the spectrum Popcorn RPG, what do we call the other end?
I don't know you or your friend, but I think you're doing cultists wrong.
** spoiler omitted **
This is very well put. If more RPG cults acted more like actual cults, we would have more interesting adventures and stories. I may think about how I operate the cult the next time I want to use one in an adventure I'm running. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.
So, one question remains for me: If we call one end of the spectrum Popcorn RPG, what do we call the other end?White Wolf :)
I would have said something like “clinical RPG” as in the GM is skilled like a clinical psychologist, and the tone is more serious, but “White Wolf” works just as well.
I disagree a little here, the general sentiment I agree with but on occasion and if all the party's on board with it (to avoid annoying people trying to have fun) it can be amusing to play the not my problem Bilbo Baggins who gets dragged against their will or mosty against it on the adventure and grows from it.
"What? No I'm NOT going with you to try and stop that big, scary, dragon because its a DRAGON! No, please stop, put me down, eep!"
. . . . time passes . . .
"Just because your bigger and stronger doesn't give you the right to push people around what would your mother think?"
Doing something like that really is something that should be discussed with the rest of the party beforehand though… because springing a stubborn character personality on them last minute can be rather jarring and annoying. Also many peoples natural reaction would be to just leave them behind as well… while sure it can be fun from time to time, it’s not fun for everyone else when you just do it spontaneously. I’ve seen deliberately stubborn characters sap the fun out of many play sessions before because the player didn’t discuss it with anyone. When no one is ready for it it just makes the character feel like a hinderance and deadweight. Events get dragged out because they stubbornly refuse to move from a spot, encounters that could have been skipped are forced on the party because of their stubbornness, encounters that really shouldn’t have been skipped are because of them… the list goes on… so, yeah… before you go play a stubborn character that has to be dragged along by the party early on and grows by the end, you should be sure to discuss things with the rest of the party (as well as the GM, never know when they might just take your characters stubbornness at face value and split the party to your detriment) before you start playing said character… as well as being sure you can identify when it is and isn’t a good time to play up your stubbornness.