|
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.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?"
That's why I said if the party agree's, it can be interesting to play but its a concept the whole party has to agree to before hand. Not a no, no like stealing or screwing over other players but still definately something everyone has to know will be happening and agree to beforehand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I enjoy playing up the cliches and tropes of "boring villains". The monologuing, the mwahahaha's, sacrificing the townsfolk and raising them as undead, the whole bit; these are obvious villains and the party knows exactly what to do, and sometimes these types of villains are a lot of fun. "Boring villains" are what make your truly insidious BBEG's stand out in contrast, and become even MORE hated by the PC's, because they trick your PC's with "gotcha" moments, lie/deceive, send assassins in the middle of the night, lure the PC's into traps, or somehow find a way to attack/damage the PC's in a way that feels personal.
Anywho, if you're feeling like the whole "kill this BBEG, now kill this BBEG, now kill this BBEG" thing is getting stale, you could use "competitive" NPC groups who are Good aligned, but are in competition with the party of PC's somehow. This good-aligned "anti-party" is perfect for providing challenges to the PC's while acquiring McGuffins when you don't feel like putting the McGuffin in the middle of an evil cult's lair but still want to have an antagonist of some kind.
This anti-party could be treasure hunters or the militant-wing of a merchants guild looking for a quick payday. Maybe the McGuffin that both the PC's and the anti-party need is a cure to some deadly disease, and maybe the anti-party is simply trying to find it first for accolades or status as "champions/saviors of the realm".
Let's say that even if the PC's find it first, the good-aligned anti-party isn't beyond stealing it from the PC's. Queue the always-fun Indiana Jones chase scene.
What if this anti-party actually has a moral high ground over the PC's because the PC's want to keep the prize money for retrieving the McGuffin, but the anti-party would rather see that prize money donated back to the realm's impoverished and needy, and can therefore "justify" stealing it from the PC's.
I think having the typical zealots/cultists and maniacal necromancers are important to have in a campaign because it does provide this contrast from your truly insidious BBEG's. But, I also think "writing evil" should be more thought of as "writing antagonists"-- not all challenges have to be evil--, and coming up with cool motives/goals for your antagonists are what is going to set your campaign up to be fun and memorable.
Don't overthink it. You can let someone ruin every aspect of the game for you, if you like. I recommend just playing with people that enjoy the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, evil characters can have the same emotions that characters of any other alignment has. They can love someone as deeply as a good character, nurture their children and teach them what they believe is right and wrong, and suffer and grieve at the loss of those they love, even if they were the cause of their demise (Thanos sacrificing Gamora, for instance). Evil seldom sees itself as evil and often they are doing the right thing for whatever cause they believe in and recognize that sacrifices must be made to achieve an objective and sometimes those sacrifices are their lovers, spouses, or children.
Writing evil can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. Evil very often masks itself as the good guy in the white hat, their motives being hidden behind layers of subterfuge and lies. Evil doesn't have to always be rubbing its hands and laughing "Mwa-ha-has" all the time. In fact, it shouldn't. The bad guy rarely wants to draw attention to him/herself. I once threw an Anti-Paladin at my players who wore glittering polished armor and wore white clothing, had the white horse, the whole bit. When he turned on the party, they still thought he was a good character but under the influence of some controlling entity. They found to their chagrin he wasn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember one of the few evil characters I've played (I have GM-ed so, so many more). It was for the adventure path Hell's Vengeance. and I made my first (and only) Tiefling. He was an Oracle of Life that gave lip service equally to Calistra and Zon-Kuthon, but never actually drew any power from either of them. He had two professions, one as a courtesan for the Church of Calistra and one as a torturer for hire at any of the churches requiring his services.
He was a very interesting character to roleplay. Despite his more chaotic alignment, his curse (Legalistic) kept his behavior from becoming entirely self-focused. He actually valued and enjoyed the lives of those around him to the point that he grew disgusted when it became necessary to take lives. He firmly believed that everyone around him had value in one way or another, though mostly as a tool to be used to achieve one goal or another. He hated 'wasting' a good tool for anything less than its intended purpose. Even those he tortured had value, and he would often be courteous and apologetic once their sessions grew to a close. Those he could heal, those that were not sentenced to death and could serve another purpose, he healed gladly.
He was a very endearing character, though had some seriously fatal flaws that cropped up due to how the story progressed and how his personality shifted in response to the messiness and casual disregard for life that war brings. Is it ironic that he did what Evil characters do best? Turned on his party and joined the Good guys. Just got up one night and walked away.
Good times.
For a running campaign I like to go with the "mafia boss" evil. More of a lawful evil. Your big bad doesnt have to murder puppies or burn down hospitals to draw the ire of the heroes. Maybe he is a really likeable guy, and early on tricks the group into doing something that in turn starts a domino effect that puts the big bad into power somehow. Big bad is now in charge or has some sort of power, and the group has a personal reason to want to take him down.
|
|
For a running campaign I like to go with the "mafia boss" evil. More of a lawful evil. Your big bad doesnt have to murder puppies or burn down hospitals to draw the ire of the heroes. Maybe he is a really likeable guy, and early on tricks the group into doing something that in turn starts a domino effect that puts the big bad into power somehow. Big bad is now in charge or has some sort of power, and the group has a personal reason to want to take him down.
Mayor Wilkinson from Buffy? Quite happy to sacrifice babies for power but genuinely tries to keep the town running and in good condition even if voters are regularly killed by nightmarish monsters.
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.
There's nothing wrong with stereotypes, they help people to take short cuts in working out things about other people. Evil villains should kick a dog, blow up their own allies, and generally be merciless. They should twirl their moustaches and kidnap the fair maiden.
If you want to avoid stereotypes then great, give your villains some depth. First of all what is their motivation? Why do they do the things that they do?
For example: Magneto in the comic books and films is trying to make a home for his people, fellow mutants, he doesn't care about ordinary humans and views them as obstacles. Homo superior are destined to supplant homo sapiens and their wars on mutants are a threat to mutant destiny. He's a villain because he'll kill, enslave, or threaten people to achieve his goals. His goals aren't evil but his methods are.
For example: A Chaotic Evil pirate captain sees his crew as akin to a wolf pack. The strong hunt the weak and can do as they want because they are strong. He allows absolutely no weakness in his crew. If you steal from a fellow crew member or cause dissent in the crew then you're considered prey, no longer part of the crew. Life aboard ship is disciplined but he doesn't kill anyone who works for the good of all, in fact he treats them very well. He'll serve a stronger captain but will vie for position where he can supplant the other but that is expected and encouraged.
For example: I played a Chelaxian sorcerer who considered themselves to be a patriot. Those who rebelled or sought to undermine the empire had to be dealt with harshly as a lesson to other potential rebels. He didn't enjoy torture or killing but to keep society functioning it was sometimes necessary. When accused of being evil by the so called forces of good he would point out that a stable society was necessary for people to flourish and bringing down the lawfully appointed rulers was an act of chaos that would result in far more deaths and much more destruction.
For example: I played a tiefling witch in Way of the Wicked whose mother had fled her hometown with the infant and spent her life living in the woods eking out a difficult subsistence. Inquisitors from the town burned their house down in their effort to find the "demon" that she had spawned. He fled for his life but everyone he met, except for rare worshippers of Asmodeus, treated him badly. He doesn't consider himself evil but he has learned to attack first and ask questions later. The follows of Mitra are intolerant, cruel, ignorant people and do not deserve to live in his view.
It is all about motivation.
Your cultists aren't sacrificing innocents for fun, they are trying to raise a great power to correct some evil (in their mind) that is worth the sacrifice. What price is 100 souls when it saves thousands?
{. . .}
For example: A Chaotic Evil pirate captain sees his crew as akin to a wolf pack. The strong hunt the weak and can do as they want because they are strong. He allows absolutely no weakness in his crew. If you steal from a fellow crew member or cause dissent in the crew then you're considered prey, no longer part of the crew. Life aboard ship is disciplined but he doesn't kill anyone who works for the good of all, in fact he treats them very well. He'll serve a stronger captain but will vie for position where he can supplant the other but that is expected and encouraged.
{. . .}
That's Evil, but not really Chaotic Evil -- Chaotic Evil would consider whoever fell prey to have their stuff stolen and wasn't able to mount their own attempt to get it back as, well, prey; of course, whoever got their stuff stolen and succeeded in getting it back would earn respect for that. Dissent against your superiors would be forbidden (unless you managed to make yourself the superior), but dissent against others of the same rank, not necessarily so, as long as it didn't get in the way of your superiors' plans (such as they have). Actually, Chaotic Evil isn't too far off from the way Klingons operate . . . .
The above pirate ship example sounds more Neutral Evil, although some Neutral Evil would still look the other way on stealing as long as you didn't get caught and as long as your theft didn't inconvenience your superiors. Lawful Evil would work hard to stamp out any unsanctioned theft, and would also reserve the option to preserve those showing weakness if they were useful enough for some purpose, as long as their weakness could be managed so as not to endanger the superiors (this extends a bit into the other Evil alignments -- for instance, controlling the pirate crew by getting them addicted to rum).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
E-V-I-L (sorry, couldn't resist)
^I thought somebody else would have said this already, but I was also going to say: very, very carefully.