What makes well played evil?

[Morithias]

Something that a fellow forum poster said got to me.

"I see evil being played pretty awfully around the internet, so I'm glad to see someone who focuses on their personalities, goals and the fact that they're people, like everyone else, rather than on the "Omg evil so taboo!" aspect."

Apparently a lot of people play evil as nothing more than the anti-good. So my question is this.

What does make a well-played villain?

At first I was thinking sympathy and complexity and stuff, but then I realized one of my most favorite villain of all time, the forces of hell in the Dungeon Keeper series has none of that. And a ton of the acts of infamy in the Evil Genius game boil down to "be a jerk for no reason".

So what keeps these villains likeable despite no redeeming traits, but most other villains that are non-complex fall flat. What makes a truly well played and great evil pc?

Help people, Im joining an evil campaign soon and could use the tips!

[NikitaDarkstar]

Motivations or reasons behind their actions. They have a goal and they're willing to do what it takes to get there. Instead of "I want to rule the world simply because I can." you do "I want to rule the world because all these nations and people can never get along and are always fighting each other. If I unite them under MY rule there will be peace. Sadly it'll be near impossible to avoid collateral damage, but the world is better off without extreme elements that encourage rebellion, unrest and mayhem anyway." Real evil is never evil simply for the sake of being evil, nor does it view itself as evil. Even the most despicable of tyrants don't see themselves as evil, they simply don't care about people and figure if the people really wanted a better life they'd go out and get it, after all he did it, so why shouldn't they? If they can't do that they don't deserve it or they're to lazy.

Same with religiously motivated villains. They don't see themselves as following an evil god. They see themselves as serving the greater good despite their good having been vilified by other faiths, but their way is the true way, and their power is the real power. Of course sometimes sacrifices has to be made, including other living things, after all life holds the most power of all, but if one life can get you the power to change the life of hundreds or even thousands of people isn't it worth it?

The there is the category that simply wants power for their own selfish means. Maybe they got kicked around early in life and they got fed up with it, so they do everything they can for power, only to later realize that it came with too high of a prize and they're nowhere near as far up in the food chain as they thought, they're a middle-man, expendable, so they do what they can to make sure they don't get replaced and might even rise in the hierarchy, after all they're in to deep to get out, so you might as well make the best of it, because if you don't do it, you'll get replaced and someone else will do it, so you saying no won't change anything for anyone anyway.

But Evil simply because it's evil makes no sense. And being Evil in broad daylight, kicking puppies and burning orphanages simply because you're evil... that's self destructive. You'll get caught and you won't be able to do whatever it is you want to do. Heck even chaotic evil needs a reason. If that reason is insanity it needs some triggers, and some focus, otherwise you'll get trialed and executed in a heart-beat.

[DigoDragon]

I think well-played evil is the kind that their actions could seem justified with the right mindset. It's when they walk that line about "the end justifies the means" where the good guys have to stop and think a moment before proceeding.

For an example, in my campaign there's a princess who has built a far-reaching spy network in order to steal national secrets. She used those secrets then to expose her own mother (the ruler) and have her assasinated. A fairly black and white evil act, but then we learn that the late mother was a terrible dictator and the princess, while now aligned to take the throne, has left most of the governing powers to the much less corrupted local mayors while she travels abroad.
So the debate among my players is if she's evil or simply a liberating patriot. It could go either way.

[Milo v3]

Not all villians need a personal motivation to be good villians. Terumi from Blazblue is a great example of this.

But you can't do that if your in a group of evil as if any of you are evil because you think its fun, you will annoy everyone else in the group.

If you want Well Played Evil then I'd say look at OotS's Red Cloak and Xykon. They are good examples in my opinion.

Note, Xykon is basically as close as you can get to evil for the fun of it without everyone disliking your character when your in a group.

[Burner28]

Simply put the key to a well played evil character is not necessarily the ability to gain sympathy, but the ability to rise above being simply evil with goals, history and personality, method of doing evil(planning or brute for, for example) and even their own personal quirks.

[Thinker]

Moral dissonance goes a long way to making a villainous character. Sacrificing some defeated enemies to placate your god isn't so bad. Kidnapping the children of an enemy tribe might be the best way to keep them from growing up with the wrong idea about the world!

There's also the fact that butchering the people of the rival kingdom is the best way to stop them from butchering your kingdom. That's on a larger scale than a single PC though.

[aldeayeah]

I don't think either is "better-played", but in the context of cooperative roleplaying, evil with a cause (self-benefit, fanaticism, etc) is much easier to integrate than evil without a cause. It also makes for somewhat more realistic, or at least more relatable characters.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think the initial thing you quoted pretty much covered it.

A character who does evil things just for the sake of it, or worse, just because his or her player thinks its funny, is a flat character, and one who can be boring or immersion-breaking in a non-joke game. Although this is a valid interpretation for some kinds of demons and the like.

A character who is actually a character and does evil things because of established attitudes, goals, motivations, or other aspects of characterization, and has a personality beyond "is evil", is much more interesting.

Hm. Someone brought up Xykon earlier, and while his personality is pretty much just "is evil", I guess he makes up for it in sheer panache. He's also got established attitudes and goals, and if you read Start of Darkness you can see the arc of how he got where he is, even if he started off pretty damn evil on the very first page.

[weenie]

In a party context well played evil is evil that creates conflict, story twists and cool interactions without tearing the party apart. Evil characters can just be evil d***s who enjoy watching other people suffer for no good reasons, but they must be able to work in a party that isn't made up solely of sociopaths.

[Loxagn]

Well-played villains are typically the hallmark of a great campaign.
A truly great villain should strike fear into your players when he appears. They should love the villain, and at the same time absolutely despise him. I'll explain what I think quality villains should have, and use examples of each.

A great villain should not be immediately recognizable as such. If your villain enters to lightning crashes and diabolical laughing, then that's RPG shorthand for 'Kill this guy while he's flat-footed!' Or, even if he initially appears evil, make his introductory actions speak otherwise. The villain may have an entire criminal empire working behind his back, but publicly he could be a beloved leader, speaking of the good of his people. Or, if not something so grandiose, then at least appearing to be on the heroes' side, or offering something the heroes need. Take, for instance, the character of Fuhrer Bradley from Fullmetal Alchemist. He appears, initially, as a kindly ruler. A military general and a capable one at that, but ultimately benevolent. The term 'Fuhrer' rings a few alarm bells, but in spite of that, he quite easily evades any suspicion. So, when he outs himself as the homunculus Wrath and actively working for the Big Bad, it's an incredible shock, both to the characters and the reader. It's a surprise that he's a villain, and that can do wonders for a story.

A great villain is not a cardboard cutout. He should have a personality, and unless he's something abstract like an anthropomorphic personification of Destruction, a life outside of villainy. All work and no play makes Jack a very dull bad guy. Everybody has a hobby, after all. In this example, I use Kuja from Final Fantasy IX. He has his villainous works, yes. Plans to steal Eidolons, plans to cause massive wars, the whole massively lucrative business of being an arms dealer. But, we see that offscreen he has quite a few interests outside of that. We see him visiting an auction house, he's established as a noble in the city of Treno, he obviously has a great love of the theater (as he quotes various plays). When we see his base, it's not just a foreboding castle, this is a place that someone lives in. Obviously, a place that an obscenely rich epic mage lives in, but nonetheless. There's a library, lots of art, a comfortable-looking bedroom... Point being. This guy obviously does things other than villainy in his spare time.

A great villain is not just in it 'for the evulz'. He has a motive, and whatever it may be, it should be enough of a motive that players could look at it and either a) be able to admit that in a similar situation they might be doing the same thing or b) be conflicted enough to wonder if they might be doing more good helping the villain. Hint: 'Destroy the world!' is not a good motive for a truly memorable villain. It's possible to make a good villain with that motive, but prepare for players to roll their eyes when you say it. For this quality, I use the example of Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke. She is, certainly, at the core of all the story's problems. She is destroying the forest and angering the spirits, she's the one who caused the curse that is killing the hero, it's her industry that's causing so much war in the land, and in the end it's her that kills the God of the Forest, and the adoptive mother of one of the protagonists. At the same time though, we can sympathize with her. Her industry is doing worlds of good for the people around her, she's actually an excellent leader, and while perhaps a lot more greedy for land and money than is healthy, she has redeeming qualities, taking in people who would otherwise be cast out of society.

A great villain is implacable. He can't simply be 'talked out of it' and his advancements should be as inevitable as death and taxes. No matter what the heroes do to dissuade him, he should always be moving forward. For instance: No Country for Old Men's Anton Chigurh. Nothing the protagonist does can get the killer off his trail. Not money, or hiding, or even violence. Chigurh is unstoppable, and for that reason he's terrifying.

A great villain is memorable. Whether he's extraordinarily clever, incredibly witty, or just badass in that way that strikes awe into people who see him, the villain should always leave a lasting impression on the heroes. A comedic villain can be used to devastating effect, if one knows how to play them right. To twist what Xykon said a little bit: All you need is power, in as great a concentration as possible, and style. In a pinch, power can slide.
After all, if your players don't enjoy facing off against the villain, what point is there in including him in a game?

A great villain is a constant threat. He's always in the party's mind, whether he appears in person to trounce them or if the party is merely always following in the wake of his campaign of destruction. This does NOT. I repeat, does NOT mean that the 'true villain' comes out of left field during the climax, with no introduction and no familiarity. The most massive offender I can think of is Final Fantasy IX, which after dealing with the threat of Kuja (who should have been the final boss), pulls this otherworldly force named Necron out of nowhere and expects you to fight him. Don't do that. It leaves a bad taste in your players' mouths and will leave them feeling very wrong-footed, and worse yet, it feels like a Deus Ex Machina. Even if the villain only shows up in the ending, there should still be something telling the players he's there. Something about him, only if it's a name and a description. If your villain for most of the campaign has been the leader of a cult, don't just drop an evil god on the party at the end. Lead up to it. Have the cultists bear symbols of this god everywhere they go, let the players intercept mentions of a ritual to bring said god to this plane and then let them enter the villain's lair on the tail end of said ritual, but for the love of god don't just give them the Giant Space Tick from Nowhere trope. That's usually a terrible move on the DM's part and it's poor storytelling besides.

Not to say that there should be no surprises. A great villain always has something up his sleeve that the players didn't account for. Otherwise, what fun would there be in fighting him? It's your world, don't be afraid to give him something that the players can't have. A homebrewed feat, an artifact weapon that gives him an edge, a spell he researched himself, something like that. The surprise doesn't even have to be a mechanical one. Just something the villain does that the party wasn't expecting, something that proves how dedicated he is to his goal, from horrible acts of atrocity to something as tiny as a change in mannerisms. If the villain previously seems bumbling and primarily comedic, it's shocking and disconcerting to have the villain suddenly stop smiling when he gets injured for the first time fighting the heroes. If your players are emotionally invested in the game when a villain like that suddenly drops the facade of being playfully incompetent. Before now, it was fun. Now, there's a real threat, and the villain will no longer be playing with 'kid gloves'.

Creating a great villain takes work. But if you do it right, your players will remember your campaign for years to come. Remember: No Villain, No Campaign.
After all, without Ganon, Link would just be some kid in the woods. Without Bowser, Mario's just a plumber.

Without The Empire, there's no Rebel Alliance.

[Reluctance]

Genre is important. Snidley Whiplash is exactly what Dudley Do Right needs. Bugs Bunny plays well with Marvin the Martian. Drop any of those characters into a gritty survival flick, though, and the whole thing goes south.

In a cooperative game, the best villainous NPCs are the ones who engage the players. Depth usually helps with this, but sometimes you just need a shallow bureaucratic snob to get the players' blood boiling. The best villainous PCs are the ones who don't stomp all over everybody else's fun.

[Malimar]

In an RPG? What do well-played villains have that poorly-played villains don't? I have one word for you, just one word: subtlety.

[sdream]

Balance and convenience.

Evil has to match YOUR goals (not neccessarily the charactors).

A "good" evil villain might keep the characters guessing on their motivations and plans, be hard to predict how (or even IF) to stop their machinations.

A "good" evil character can still work with the party, either because they share some goals, or just because they respect and enjoy each other enough to be willing to put up with the other person working counter to their interests.

[dsmiles]

I'm big on the Lawful Evil villain (as far as the DnD alignment axis goes). I like to have someone who isn't out to destroy, but to impose his own view of law, order, and discipline on the general populace (whether they consent or not).

Also, a well-played villain can generate a large amount of sympathy from the heroes. He/she initially comes off as a hero themselves, or at least someone who is working for the betterment of society. Behind the mask, however, they're evil, and are using the heroes to unknowingly further their own designs; sending the heroes into more and more dangerous situations to take out either a) villains that have been purposely set-up to fall to the heroes, or b) the villains own adversaries in his/her rise to power.

If you get a chance to read Play Dirty by John Wick, his main villain (by the name of Jefferson Carter) falls into this category, and is masterfully played, turning the heroes weaknesses, and eventually their strengths, against them. Not necessarily killing the heroes, but forcing them into retirement when they can't handle the psychological stress any more.

[Yora]

I think a very good basis for playing evil is to simply have a very low threshold for acceptable collateral damage.

Some people enjoy causing and watching the suffering of others, but those are really the most deranged and dispicable and may even not be regarded as being capable of differentiating between good and evil. And for fiction, they just get way too cartoonish to be taken seriously as villains or antagonists.

If you want people to be passively evil and appear more plausible, just have them working towards their goal without giving a care for the damage that is caused in their wake. If most people would say "Well, it would work, but we can't actually consider doing that!", then an evil character of this type would say "Sure we can! And I'll do it."

[JoshuaZ]

They should have motivations that make them sympathetic. Redcloak wants what he thinks is best for his people and he's willing to do horrific things to get there. One of the great things about OOTS is that there are two main villains working together, and the fact that one of them is just in it for the evulz makes the other look even more reasonable in comparison.

[Rorrik]

For me the thing that really gave me a lot of insight into good villians was Rich's Villain Workshop (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html) article. Using his steps to give your character depth and motivation goes a long way toward a good evil character. The best part is, a lot of it applies to any character at all. Evil just tends to get cliched more.

[kieza]

I normally DM, and usually when a player brings in an evil PC, it takes about two sessions before I get tired of the slaughtering and tell him to make a new character. The one exception I've seen actually wasn't a motivated, calculating villain. He was a thug with a temper. To 90% of the people who interacted with him, he was a quiet, reserved type. To the other 10%, who somehow managed to make him mad, he was a bloody, gory nightmare.

He didn't go off on anyone who slighted him, either. He went after people who had been actively unpleasant or contradictory to him. Spill his beer? He waves it off. Bump into him on the street? Smile and a nod. Steal his taxi and grin obnoxiously at him? He breaks into your apartment and beats you to death in the middle of the night.

The party (characters, not players) didn't even connect this guy with the string of bloody murders that followed them around, until one of them ticked him off. When they woke up the next morning, and the provocateur had disappeared without a trace*, they got a little suspicious. When they eventually figured it out, they started treating him like a vicious dog to be let off the chain when necessary--and he was totally fine with that.

*He chloroformed the other guy and dumped him into a meat-grinder death-trap that they'd bypassed earlier.

[Necroticplague]

The way I see it, there are 3 things (simplified) that make up your alignment, and the same three things are required for cooperation in a group. However, the impact they have on alignment and how close they have to match up to the rest of the party's is in reverse order. These three things are Goals, Methods, and Reasons. Goals has to be the closest to the party's, otherwise why would you be working with them (For a simple example, let's use "save the world" as a goal for the whole party, mutually). However, since any person can desire anything, it also has the least impact on you're alignment. The Methods are the middle on both scales. It has to be close enough to the party's that the methods do not conflict constantly, but a little bit of dissonance every once in a while is a good thing. It also has a moderate effect on your alignment, since is acts, essentially, as the go-between for the other two (to continue example, the paladin and the barbarian both have no problem killing those who try and stop them in order to reach their goal, but the paladin is more likely to spend time judging who is "worthy" to die, while the barbarian sees this as a waste of ever-so-precious time. They butt heads over this every once in a while, but ultimately it just adds a more interesting RP aspect.). The last one is Reasons. This is why a character does something. This comes from the core of their personality and past, and thus is highly related to your alignment. However, here's the thing: the rest of the party doesn't even have to KNOW your reasons. Everyone can be trying to accomplish the same goal, using somewhat similar methods, but for entirely different reasons ( to still continue the example the paladin is saving the world because he sees it as the right thing to do, while the barbarian is a warlord who only wants the world intact so he has something to rules over).Thus, a good evil party member has the same (or at least compatible enough) goals, similar-enough methods to avoid excessive in-party fighting (though don't be afraid of a little), and completely different reasons from the good party members.

[Gettles]

A lot of people you that a great villain is about having a fleshed out back story, or a sympathetic goal, or any thing like that.
I'm here to tell you that is a lie. The real thing that a great villain needs is something much simpler to have but much harder to execute effectively.

The thing that separates great villains from forgettable ones is charisma. Force of personality is what Joker is so loved while Bane, Mad Hatter, and many others struggle for relevancy. If he can not control the scene as soon as he opens his mouth, if him speaking means the players are thinking "he's flat footed" as opposed to wanting to keep talking so they can see what he says next he is a failure of a villain an no amount of mapped out back story, no amount of complex motivations will save him.

With that is mind the first thing I would work on developing your personality. All aspects of it. How are they in casual conversations? How do you best get under their skin and how can someone know that they are in a lot of trouble? Are they direct in speech? Do they ramble constantly, talking a mile a minute? Or very careful in wording? Keep in mind quirks of speech they may have as well.

[valadil]

A well played villain is not the same as well played evil. An evil character is motivated by self interest. Everything he does will be for personal gain. He will be able to justify any of his actions. Burning down an orphanage in exchange for a sandwich is not often justifiable. On the surface an evil character may even look and act like a lawful good character because it's in his self interest not to look evil.

On the contrary, villains do look evil. They're bold and flamboyant. Villainy is really just about position in a story. If the players are good, their antagonist should be villainous. He should also be self motivated, but it's okay if he makes mistakes, especially if he's defeated by them. The point of the villain is ultimately to be defeated. This goes against evil, which ultimately will try and survive at any cost.

Anyway, when the players play evil badly, I think that too often they end up shooting for villain instead of simply evil.

[CGforever!]

A whole bunch of real-life people, I've heard anywhere from 1-6%, are born evil, incapable of good. They are neurologically incapable of caring about anything but their own desires. They have zero empathy. They can fillet a screaming infant as easily and nonchalantly as peeling an orange, and to them their is no real objective difference.

So, when people say that "evil just because" is unrealistic, they really don't know what they're talking about.

That's not to say that you can't make a character who is evil and not a psychopath, you can, but the world is chock full of people who are evil "just because".

[valadil]

That's not to say that you can't make a character who is evil and not a psychopath, you can, but the world is chock full of people who are evil "just because".

Evil does not mean irrational. Those people may not care what happens to someone else. But the do understand consequences. Maybe they don't understand that you don't beat up everyone you see because it's bad to do, but they do understand that beating people up leads to going to prison. You can be evil and still make choices to keep yourself out of prison. IMO this is what evil characters should be doing, or at least trying to do.

[willpell]

To me the worst traits a villain can have are pettiness and pointlessness. The mwahaha black hat does Evil with no reason at all, and the thief or thug is just taking a quick and dirty route to money and cheap thrills. Bletch. Give me a magnificent b*ard anyday, someone who at least injects a little awesome theatricality into life and makes a story epic by driving its central conflict.

[CGforever!]

But the do understand consequences.

Actually, the scary thing is, they don't. They literally don't grasp that they might fail, and they are literally neurologically incapable of fear. They might know that people who do X and get caught go to prison or whatever, but they don't get that they might go to prison. It doesn't make sense to normal people, but then normal people and psychopaths have different brains.

[Kol Korran]

i'll throw in my two cents...

what makes a well played evil? what makes a well played good? law? chaos? character?

in the simplest form, they need to invoke some sort of an interested emotional response. they need to want us to see more of them, either due to curiosity, sympathy, amusement or any other attraction.

the general principles of what makes a well played good character may (at most, not always) refer to evil characters as well:

1) believability, goals, motivations and all that jazz- been covered to death by previous posters, i'll leave it at that.

2) strong sense of personality, a presence: whether it's the ruler of thousands, a scheming powerful wizard, a priest of the god of slaughter, or the secret assassin, they need to be felt (when they want to) and draw the general attention of "i'm a real bad ass, don't mess with me"

3) Style: often not appreciated enough, but most memorable villains say cool things, dress a cool way, wield cool weapons, or most likely, just act in a superb manner. The Xykon example mentioned before falls easily into this category.

4) Limitations: (taken from a thread by Dust) this refers both to limitations imposed by the world ( a commanding officer, commitment to a state or so on) and internal limitations- what the villain will not do. this gives the limitations a more approachable personality, a sense of humanity (totally inhumane villains are fairly poor ones usually- we cannot relate well. they often feature in horror), and added complexity

5) evolution: a static villain becomes a boring one. but one that evolves through their journey, either through actual powers, but mostly through a changing of personality, ethos and limitation isa much more compelling and intriguing villain to follow.

i'm sure there are other things, a bit tired now, perhaps will add more later.

[willpell]

In an RPG? What do well-played villains have that poorly-played villains don't? I have one word for you, just one word: subtlety.

The problem with this is that it is impossible for the players to tell the difference between a villain who is too clever to reveal his plan, and a GM who is too lazy to come up with a villain. An RPG is interactive; you have to actually show things happening. Unless you have players who are good enough about ignoring OOC knowledge that you can do cutscenes, all the villain's subtle plots are just in your head, and IME campaigns usually collapse while you're figuring out how to drop subtle hints that X, Y, and Z seemingly random events were actually part of a diabolical plan from somebody who isn't stupid enough to announce his presence.

[Arbane]

If you get a chance to read Play Dirty by John Wick, his main villain (by the name of Jefferson Carter) falls into this category, and is masterfully played, turning the heroes weaknesses, and eventually their strengths, against them. Not necessarily killing the heroes, but forcing them into retirement when they can't handle the psychological stress any more.

Meh, I'd argue the REAL enemy in that campaign was John Wick. That kind of killer GMing just ticks me off.

(Although the guy with the "I go berserk when I see a red trolley" guy deserved the vicious hosing he got.)

[ChaosLord29]

Taste is always subjective, but to me, what makes evil played well is style. It's not enough just to be anti-good, you have to make it look good while you do it. My favorite villains are the ones I can't help but respect. Their methods might be cold, cruel, vicious or run the range of villainous traits, but they have to make me believe that their heart is in them, and that they're staying true to form.

The Galactic Empire always comes to mind, because they are the archetype for the evil empire. Sure Sauron is the original Big Bad, but Vader, the Emperor and even the Stormtroopers just have that perfect air of menace in all that they do to make them truly evil. Tywin Lannister I think is another good example, or the Party in V for Vendetta. Of the three on that list I hate the last one the most, but they make such great villains it's hard not to respect them.

I think we shouldn't underestimate the protagonists either, since good villains are made all the better by good heroes.

[Driderman]

A believable character, whether good or evil, should have believable motivations for his or her actions.
For example, is your character's evil an ideological or a practical evil? Entities who do evil for the sake of it are usually psychotic serial killers, fiends or active worshippers/clerics of majorly evil deities, while practical evil characters are often driven by selfish, more secular motives.

If the first, you'll have to come up a with several strong motivations, reasons and ideals that illustrate why your character is "over-the-top" evil and practices evil deeds for their own sake, since such a grade of evil is rare and hard to express. These types also rarely play well with others since doing evil takes precedence over working together with likeminded individuals.

The second type of evil is usually a lot easier to work with, as a practical approach leaves plenty of room for playing a "normal" character with an evil viewpoint. These are the secret CIA assasins that have a loving family life when not on duty, the Nazi officers that truly believe in the cause, the greedy thieves and killers on the streets and the bureaucrats of an evil empire that tramples individual rights under foot for the "greater good".

Entities like this practice do evil as the means to reach a goal of some sort and may easily have several redeeming features: Perhaps the Nazi officer sneaks in extra food for the children in the deathcamp, the CIA assasin really loves his wife and children with all his heart, the greedy pickpocket is a product of society and has a soft spot for the downtrodden, etc etc.
They also usually have less problems working with others so long as they have common goals.

Both kinds of evil character are fun to work with, but playing a good evil campaign can be difficult unless you plan ahead. One of the most obvious pitfalls is ending up with a band of PCs that can't work together, since they're all "over-the-top" ideological evil. Another is the misconception that being evil = killing things. Especially if the players start to kill each other.

I once played an evil campaign that worked out rather well. Four of the players were former soldiers in the service of an evil kingdom that had been sentenced to death after being framed for a crime they didn't commit by the king. The fifth was a daring swashbuckler and seacaptain that was introduced when the queen, hatching a plot of her own, had the soldiers sprung from prison and transported to the colonies with a seal of her authority.
Even though the group was radically different, it worked well for a long time because
1) We had a common goal: Establish dominance of the colonies and in turn each stand to gain from it.
2) We had a common history: Four of the players had a backstory that tied them together and gave a sort of camaraderie.
3) We needed each other: First, the task was so monumental that we'd obviously need each other to pull it off. Secondly, we were still outlaws in the old kingdom so it was pretty much us against the world.

As we all had different strengths and weaknesses, this made sure we needed to work together. Despite this, there was plenty of politicking, bickering, backstabbing and betrayal, we just couldn't let it escalate to the point where it became fatal. It worked really well.

[Grail]

Villains and Evil can be mutually exclusive.

What makes a 'good' evil character and what makes a 'good' villain can be different things. Granted, it is often easier to have them wrapped up in one package as generally if someone is a villain, then they are the antithesis of the heroes who are good, thus evil.

I have had success in a past campaign where the villain of the game was a Lawful Good Cleric. The characters themselves were all good as well. The main 'evil' NPC they came across actually was an ally (albeit temporarily).

A villain must oppose the characters. That is, their goal (whatever it is), must be in direct opposition to the characters. In the case of the good aligned villain mentioned above, he was trying to bury all knowledge of an ancient artifact, and when not possible (because the characters were trying to unearth it), he turned his goal to trying to destroy it. The characters needed the artifact for a specific ritual to save a king and his kingdom, but the Cleric was part of a secular cult devoted to keeping the ancient evil artifact out of the hands of mortals.

But that's not what you're really after, you want to know about how to make a 'good' evil opponent.

It is important still for this opponent or villain to be in opposition to the characters. Now, the goal of the villain (if main villain), needs to be in opposition to the primary goal of the story. The villain needs to threaten this, not necessarily the lives of the characters, indeed, in most fantasy RPG's and some sci-fi RPG's, death is little threat due to the existence of resurrection or similar processes. Of course, a bit of physical threat doesn't hurt. :smallbiggrin:

The villain needs to be believable and also there needs to be some form of continuity and consistency. Whether psychopath, sociopath or merely a misguided fool, it is important that the villain doesn't seem to be a random force (even if they are). Nothing will get the players off side quicker than an enemy that just appears to be a force of DM-fiat stopping the characters.

The villain also should be unique. Something about them should set them apart from other NPC's. And this isn't just mechanically or aesthetically, you as the DM need to take responsibility for playing them differently. When I have certain villains in mind, I work out phrases and voices that will be appropriate, even physical poses when running the game. For domineering villains, I like to stand and loom over the players as an example.

Evil villains should be capable of evil acts. And I'm not talking about stupid evil (though sometimes this is appropriate). Evil is very subjective, and there are different levels of evilness. The merchant that hikes all his prices up and cheats his staff and customers is evil, just not as evil as the Pit Fiend Sorcerer intent on blotting out the sun. The evil acts they do will be different, but they will still commit them, and often they will throw the evil act in the characters face.

I also like to introduce villains early, like first or second session. Then the game can progress with the knowledge and threat of the villain's existence in the background. Often it is until weeks later that the villain will ever appear again, but that early appearance, (always from a position of strength), will put the characters on the back foot. When your character is low level, a powerful villain will keep that powerful aura even after your character has risen in power themselves.

[Hanuman]

2 things come to mind

-Respect

-Relation

Really, these are two things which also make heroes well played as well.

Even if you don't realize it, you do respect some aspects of villains even if you don't agree with their moral choices, position or usage.

Hell, respect doesn't even have to come from the character itself, it can just be the enjoyment of the portrayal.

Here's a random example, a good villain is as much about the way the story is told as it is about the actual context of the villain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhLmLhpktEA

[Weimann]

I think the problem is when you're starting with making someone "evil" and then looking for ways to make that character relatable.

I'd say, drop the word "evil" alltogether. It's a subjective word that doesn't make a good foundation for a character. Do not use it. Look for opponents instead, and for reasons they might oppose you. Someone can be completely justified and still be in your way.

[hamishspence]

Alignment can be useful- but it may be more an "end of creation" thing- first you build your antagonist (or for that matter it may be an ally, or a "neutral" whose role might depend on player actions) then once all the building's done, you decide on alignment, based on a variety of things.

Past actions.
Planned future actions.
Attitude to own actions (ranging from extreme remorse to delight)
General personality traits.
Whatever else you can think of.

[Rogue Shadows]

I have a blog post that touches on this very subject (http://www.fimfiction.net/blog/18174), and at the end of the day, my advice is this: play Lord Zedd.

C'mon, you don't often get to play evil characters, and you know you want the chew the scenery. Especially when you get a chance to flip out and just be EVIL. Remember many RPGs (but especially D&D) are places where Evil and Good can actually be measured and quantified. People will self-identify as evil and revel in it.

But even if they don't, play it up for all it's worth, just cause. Deliver large slices of ham, like so:

“Enough! The life of a pony is as that of a gnat. As thou hast had a thousand years to sew thy lies, so shall I have a thousand to expunge them! Whatever paltry edifices thou hast raised in mine absence, I shall tear down, and raise glorious monuments of mine own. All that thou hast accomplished shall turn to ash in the fires of rebirth that shall spread across Equestria. Nopony shall remember thy lies, nor even thy reign! Thou shalt be forgotten!” Corona’s horn flared, the light growing painfully bright. “Thy banishment begins now, Luna!”

---[...]---

“Thou shalt not speak to me in such a manner!” Celestia exclaimed, as she felt her control on her temper slip. She did nothing to rein it in. “Dost thou not know who I am?”

“Of course I do,” the guard responded. “You’re the Tyrant Sun – Corona.”

“That is not my name!” Celestia shouted, stomping a hoof. It had significantly less force in this mere avatar’s body than it would have in person, but it certainly served to accentuate her point. “That is a lie constructed by my treacherous sister! I am Celestia, foal! I am the Sun! I am thy Queen! Thou hast no right to bar me from assuming my throne! It is mine! Equestria is mine! All of it! Mine!”

The way in which the white-coated unicorn waited for Celestia to finish shouting at him reminded her far too much of a parent nonchalantly observing a foal’s temper tantrum. The carefully neutral, almost conciliatory tone to his voice as he spoke next did not help with the impression. “Equestria doesn’t have a queen,” he said, “it has a princess. And as long as there is a breath in my body, I will never let you have Canterlot…Corona.”

Celestia snarled, an animalistic, alien expression and sound for an equine being. Her head dipped somewhat as her wings spread. “What is thy name?” she inquired in a low voice.

The unicorn drew himself up fully, to his admittedly impressive height, though he was still noticeably shorter than Celestia herself. “Shining Armor,” he declared.

The alicorn offered a bright grin that was totally out of place on her otherwise incensed features. “A hundred years from now,” she said, “when ponies walk by the still-burning crater that this city will become, when foals turn to their parents and ask "what happened here," those parents shall tell their foals a story of the hubris and the arrogance of one pony who dared to try and hold back the glory of the Sun. And the pony they speak of shalt be thou, Shining Armor!”
Yeah, I write MLP fanfics. What of it?

Also, be insane. Be completely, totally, tragically insane. Basically just pick one of the Seven Deadlies and imagine that it's an ability score that you have a 30 in. In Corona's case up there, I chose Greed.

[hamishspence]

True. Even if they might not see themselves as "in the wrong" they might happily use the "evil" name for themselves and the "good" name for everything they despise.

And scenery-chewing can be fun for both the players and the DM :smallamused:

[Bouregard]

Evil actions should be more worthwhile then "good" actions. If you can get the same reward for doing something good.. why bother doing it the evil way?

A evil good character usually trades long term benefits (trust, friendship, legal business) for short term profit.

Also they usually prefer fear and dependency as a motivator in their minions.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Someone else already said it, and they had the right of it. Well-played evil has charisma and panache, that's all it really requires, especially if this is a PC character and has to interact with other (presumably non-evil) PCs. Your character can be a horrible monster/utter dink, but if the other PCs want to see what he'll do next, say next, evil up next then you've succeeded because most players (even ardent role-players) will finangle their way into not causing inter-party conflict as long as they can justify it to themselves and possibly their characters. You can be blatantly screaming 'I want to destroy the world!' Evil from level 1, but if the character is memorable and likeable then your fellow PCs won't mind mind or just write it off as a phase.

Everything else like sympathetic motives, subtlety, 'realistic evil', whither they call themselves evil or not? That's all the bells and whistles that can make the character better and are entirely up to your personal preference. Yes, you can make Complete Monster-Mustache Twirling Villainy work as a character concept, but you need the panache and charm to make your fellow party members and DM want to have that character around. Otherwise you'll be accused of playing evil poorly.

[Reltzik]

There's a lot of good (er, right) ways to play evil, and a lot of bad (er, wrong) ways, and I can't think of any good rules that distinguish the two. In fact, I'd say the best evils are the ones that BREAK all the rules.

For example: Evil characters need to have understandable motivations. NO. It's fine if they do, but there's something to be said for a monster that is utterly alien and inexplicable in its (however formidable) thought process. Talk orange-blue alignment if you want, but in the end if it's engaged in mass murder and mayhem as a form of abstract art or music that only it GETS.

We need to sympathize with villains? NO. Think Joffrey from A Song of Ice and Fire. He's basically a spoiled and vicious brat who needs to have everything his way and never had a good role model. He inflicts lots of evil, has quite a few good people following him, and would make an interesting overall villain (even if the climatic battle would probably be vs his bodyguards rather than vs him). But he's not sympathetic. (Okay, he's not compelling, but the situation that puts him into power is... and in a sense, the PCs would be battling the society, rather than the individual.)

They can't be just kicking puppies and burning orphanages in broad daylight? Sure they can! Some of the more compelling villains I've run were, at heart, extremely insecure. They picked on the weak as a way of reassuring themselves that they DID have power to affect the world. If they had to skulk around to do it, that would defeat the purpose. This type of evil lashes out a lot, especially after a setback, and has to come down hard on anyone or anything that defies them. But in any case when its genuinely scared of something, expect it to subconsciously refocus its aggression on something other than the object of its fear (say, puppies and orphanages) given half an excuse. Because at heart, it IS insecure and DOESN'T want to risk a fair fight that it might lose.

The main thing to remember about evil is that there are no rules, save those that apply only to the character in question. If anything, I'd suggest focusing more on emotions rather than plots. Emotions are the motivators and the stumbling blocks. What satisfaction does the villain derive from evil acts and why? What keeps him or her at night? Guilt? Inadequacy? Rage? And also, what emotions should the villain stir in his/her/its allies? In the PCs? Even for incomprehensible evil, what makes alien evil so alien is not that these emotions don't exist, but that they've got little connection with what normal people might feel in the villain's place.

Of course, that rule probably has an exception too.