PDA

View Full Version : Which Villain is More Compelling?



Axinian
2013-11-10, 11:43 PM
NOTE: If you're in my upcoming campaign (you know who you are), I'd prefer you stay out of this thread.


So I'm thinking through how I want to roleplay a certain villain in a Pathfinder game I'm gonna run, and I'm unsure which of two directions I want to take him. More than that though, I was curious as to what the Playground thinks of this:

Which do you find to be a more compelling/interesting/memorable villain?

1) The inconspicuous benefactor who turns out to have been the bad guy all along!

or

2) The guy who is obviously up to something, but seems to be helping the heroes out for the time being.


I lean towards number 2 myself, because that's less often done, but how does the playground feel?

Anxe
2013-11-11, 12:31 AM
The one who honestly feels he is making the world a better place through his actions. :smallbiggrin:

Of your choices, I'd say #2. I've overused #1, so now I tend to avoid it. #2 isn't so much a surprise, as a coming doublecross.

Spore
2013-11-11, 01:50 AM
Actually both things are pretty cliché in my books. I'd prefer a villain whose intentions and beliefs are relatable. Up to a point where it becomes scary even thinking about it.

Not a guy who kicks puppies for fun but one who creates attack dogs out of said puppies that they can "defend themselves" twisting them to abominal creatures in the process.

Jay R
2013-11-11, 11:39 AM
3) The villain is who isn't inherently a villain; his goals are merely opposed to yours, and he is both unscrupulous and coldly practical. He doesn't care if he rewards you or kills you, as long as it serves his purposes. (Cardinal Richelieu in the novel, or as played by Charlton Heston, Vincent Price, or Nigel de Brulier. Not the loud, ranting ham villain of the more recent movies.)

A Tad Insane
2013-11-11, 12:10 PM
The second one can be very fun if you learn how to machievilli, and pull of a quadruple cross. You could dress him/her in red and have them speak with a faux Spanish accent, just to taunt how little they expect it

AstralFire
2013-11-11, 12:12 PM
Focus more on execution than the broad strokes, all of the ones mentioned before have been done to the point of cliche. Though I am partial to 3.

Slipperychicken
2013-11-11, 12:55 PM
Which do you find to be a more compelling/interesting/memorable villain?



I need to know more about the villain to make such a judgement.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-11, 01:37 PM
The one who honestly feels he is making the world a better place through his actions. :smallbiggrin:


Actually both things are pretty cliché in my books. I'd prefer a villain whose intentions and beliefs are relatable. Up to a point where it becomes scary even thinking about it.

Not a guy who kicks puppies for fun but one who creates attack dogs out of said puppies that they can "defend themselves" twisting them to abominal creatures in the process.


I need to know more about the villain to make such a judgement.

I'm highlighting these, because they cut to the real secret behind making compelling villains. You're talking about the scope of the villain's plans, and their preferred methods, when that's not the interesting part. It's not the core of what makes the villain a villain. It's the hook, and the face, and the way that the players will encounter the villain, but that's not what the villain is about.

Give the villain a simple, relatable reason for doing what they do. It doesn't have to be justifiable, but it should be unexpected. That's what will make your villain real.

As for your two "methods of villainy", use #2, unless you're very confident to pull off #1 in stellar fashion. (Never mind that I'm actually using #1 for the actual antagonist of one of my campaigns--one of their allies is running a long con to manipulate the events to her own good.) #2 makes them wonder what's up with the villain's motivations, which is where you can directly pull in that thinking you've done on the villain's motivations.

Also, write those motivations down. That'll prevent you from "drifting" the character concept. You can consciously change the motivations as you go, but have a reference sheet to keep them in mind.

Axinian
2013-11-11, 02:52 PM
I'm highlighting these, because they cut to the real secret behind making compelling villains. You're talking about the scope of the villain's plans, and their preferred methods, when that's not the interesting part. It's not the core of what makes the villain a villain. It's the hook, and the face, and the way that the players will encounter the villain, but that's not what the villain is about.

Give the villain a simple, relatable reason for doing what they do. It doesn't have to be justifiable, but it should be unexpected. That's what will make your villain real.

As for your two "methods of villainy", use #2, unless you're very confident to pull off #1 in stellar fashion. (Never mind that I'm actually using #1 for the actual antagonist of one of my campaigns--one of their allies is running a long con to manipulate the events to her own good.) #2 makes them wonder what's up with the villain's motivations, which is where you can directly pull in that thinking you've done on the villain's motivations.

Also, write those motivations down. That'll prevent you from "drifting" the character concept. You can consciously change the motivations as you go, but have a reference sheet to keep them in mind.

Yeah i know all this already. i wasnt asking how to make a villain interesting, i was asking which plot device people generally like more, but i guess the way i worded things was confusing.

This is all good advice anyway though.

RochtheCrusher
2013-11-11, 05:00 PM
I am actually doing both right now, with the same villainess. :-P

Half my party suspects her of being extremely shady, while the other half... trust her implicitly? For some reason?

The point is, if your bad guy is trying, at all, to look innocent or like they're reformed, then which of these things your party thinks they are might not be up to you.

Kane0
2013-11-11, 11:10 PM
1) The inconspicuous benefactor who turns out to have been the bad guy all along!

or

2) The guy who is obviously up to something, but seems to be helping the heroes out for the time being.


When I saw the options I thought:
1: Sun Li the Glorious Strategist
2: Asmodeus

I can't decide. I'd pick the one that hasn't been used most recently/frequently.

Zaydos
2013-11-12, 12:22 AM
I'd go with 2, but that's because my players assume any kind benefactor is secretly evil. So next time their benefactor is openly a hell lord.

Gettles
2013-11-12, 06:28 AM
Methods, motivations, and relatability are not what makes a villain compelling. Get a memorable personality down because it doesn't matter how many words you dedicate to fleshing his end game out, if no one is interested in what he has to say he is just a sack of HP to be removed.

Joe the Rat
2013-11-12, 09:33 AM
Assuming you pull them off well:

#1 is the heart-stabby one. That's actually a good way to do the reveal - have them stab someone. But this is a difficult one to pull off well. Seriously difficult. You want to drop some subtle clues and hints - so even if they don't piece it together, they at least can see the trail of evidence after the fact. But don't telegraph it. Also, depending on how jaded your players are, this may turn into #2 anyways.
GM: "Hi, I'm the high priestess of incorruptable pure pureness."
PC: "Oh, that's the villain."

#2 I find more interesting, and a lot more fun. It can be a deal with the devil / lesser evil kind of arrangement. That also creates some ambiguity about who the villain of the piece is - the guy raising an army of Fel Goblins from the Outer Darkness to lay waste to the Known Kingdoms, or the guy (literally) raising an army of the Ungrateful Dead to take the High Throne as part of his bid for Apotheosis. Someone your players don't want to work with, but he's their best chance at succeeding on something far more important than whatever his particular bit of villainy is... at the moment.


#3 Is its own cliche (or Trope, if you speak-a that language), and can make for some interesting unintentional shifts. What if your Bad Guy's reasons and goals are such that the party decides he's got the right idea? Persuade the BBEG that yes, his goal is noble, but his methods are off. We'll help you if you do it this way instead, or at least stop kicking puppies.

Of course you could always subvert this, to where the stated (reasonable) goals are simply the overt outcome of the BBEGs plan, but the true intention actually is flat out crazy train evil.

I'd do #2. That way the players can put a lot of time and effort into scheming up ways to beat their erstwhile benefactor, and less time poking at the plotholes in your current storyline. :smallbiggrin:

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-11-12, 10:52 AM
I'd go with 2, but that's because my players assume any kind benefactor is secretly evil. So next time their benefactor is openly a hell lord.
Bingo. Sometimes, it's just not worth it to try and keep things a secret. Plus, surprise can often be less satisfying than the suspense of "...they keep helping me. WHY ARE THEY HELPING ME???" :smallbiggrin:

Scow2
2013-11-12, 12:00 PM
Something crazier to go with is to make #2 "Obviously Evil", but ultimately actually a hero of some sort.

I've been thinking of running a Cosmic Horror game at some point (After reading a particular arc in Legostar Galactica) where the players find themselves in the middle of a cosmic war between the Great Old Ones... and Cthulhu and Azathoth are the Good Guys - "Indifferent and uncaring" doesn't mean "Spitefully malevolent".

boomwolf
2013-11-12, 12:48 PM
The "secretly evil" plan only works if there are multiple benefactors, and most really are good. so assuming everyone is evil might even backfire. added bonus when benefactors turn on each other and the players have to choose sides (or try to play multiple sides as gamers do XD)

The "obviously evil yet useful" theme also requires a delicate balance, there has to be some sort of strings attached, or costs for using his aid (so when the time comes where they don't see what he gains, they will LOOK for what he gains)

"Not evil, just enemy" is great for gray vs gray morality games, but shine less on your average DnD games due to its heroic nature. however in a not-so-heroic setting, an enemy that is dead set on killing the players because of entirely valid reasons is very satisfying.

Every villain has potential, as long you have enough creativity and acting skills to make him believable.

And lets not forget the forth type "What on earth is he tying to do" villains. where the players are honestly baffled by the villain just because he is obviously evil, yet does not seem to DO anything rational. no seeming plan, no reasoning, no logic, heck he even does good sometimes. naturally he probably knows something the players don't, and with that information his actions makes perfect sense.

AKA_Bait
2013-11-12, 04:09 PM
Just linking this in case the OP hasn't read it yet. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html)

tulebast
2013-11-12, 05:16 PM
When I saw the options I thought:
1: Sun Li the Glorious Strategist
2: Asmodeus

I can't decide. I'd pick the one that hasn't been used most recently/frequently.

Humorously, my favorite villain I ever ran was a priestess of Asmodeus. She caused all sorts of problems for the party because even though they knew she worshipped the lord of devils, she never appeared to perform any evil acts around them. In fact, she was having a relationship with the party mage which drove the paladin nuts. One day, the paladin was in a mood and took a swing at her, and she got in a lucky (the paladin rolled balls on a save) and incapacitated the paladin and left the room. The paladin eventually woke up not much worse for wear and went to attack the priestess, who had to remind the paladin that she hadn't done anything warranting such violence and would respond appropriately to defend herself again. Really bent the paladin out of shape to have to walk away from her. She never did outright betray the party, though she did use them when convenient and watching them paranoia over it was loads of fun. She was perhaps one of the smartest villains I've ever had in my games.

Cerlis
2013-11-13, 06:16 AM
I think i only like 1 if they end up being a really calm sociopathic psycho. Like that person completely calm whistling a tune while listening to mozard as he flays his victims alive in a shack int he woods... Or are professional and completely unassuming...and remain that way till the end. Kinda like Devin's assistant (though less....Good). They are all business and handle everything professionally and keep their cool. And not in that "I'm only keeping my cool cus i'm a smug bastard". The more mortal the better. their defense is their planning and the fact that they are often willing to work WITH any opposition and find away around any conflict so that the only people unreasonable will have to deal with half their allies not wanting to help them take her down.

The second one, from what i've seen is easier to do right. And But i think i prefer them when they are Outwardly villainous Allies. Basically a BBEG Villain who happens to want something the heros can give him and so is helping them. If they find out about his "down the road" plans that they dont like he pulls out either blackmail or "well i guess if you dont WANT my help..." cards

The Fury
2013-11-14, 12:22 PM
I'd go with 2, but that's because my players assume any kind benefactor is secretly evil. So next time their benefactor is openly a hell lord.

That's a good point-- how would your players react to either one of these? If they'd assume that any benefactor they meet is secretly evil then maybe the more obviously evil villain would be more effective. It'd be funny if the players actually decided to trust the obviously evil person helping them too-- Hey, I've seen it happen! Though if they really are expecting any benefactor to be secretly evil, having a benefactor that's actually on the level and not trying to trick them might add some additional player paranoia.