PDA

View Full Version : The Art Of Villainy



erradin
2015-10-01, 09:18 PM
Every good story-arc needs a conflict of sorts. In many cases, DMs manage this through the efforts of Villains who either counter the players, or else need to be badly countered or terrible things will happen. There are many different KINDS of villains, though.

For example, we have what i'm calling Suave Evil. The guy or girl who has so much style and flair that they're just fun to watch. Like this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2vihYpsE1Y).(Minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer spoilers)

Then there's Manipulative Evil. This person would probably be referred to as a chessmaster by TVTropes. They have everything planned, and even their contingencies can have contingencies. Or maybe they just like using the good guys to do the work for them. Like this guy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePv8h2aCcFA) Warning: spoilers from the anime, Gankutsuo-The Count of Monte Cristo.

And sometimes there's Distructive Evil. They see the world order and they just want to burn it down to see if they can. Or else, they just like causing pain and destruction. I'm sure you all know The Joker.

Of course, you are all familiar with The Giant's fantastic comic and the numerous examples of complex and well-execute villainy there which demonstrates some of these kinds of evil, and others as well. I was hoping to discuss general villainy here and the motivations and executions that make it great and worthwhile as an encounter and a challenge in the DnD world. So I'd like to invite discussion by beginning with two questions:

1) What kinds of Big Bads have you set up or experienced in your campaigns that you think worked well? And if you could come up with a snappy 'evil descriptor' for them, what would it be? Chaotic evil? Stupid evil? Mastermind evil? Evil Evil?

And 2: What do you think makes a villain great in terms of characteristics and interaction with other characters in the world?

Vitruviansquid
2015-10-01, 09:34 PM
I don't believe in using that "chessmaster" type of villain for RPG's. If you're the GM and have complete power over the game's setting, it's crass rather than clever when you show that your villain has yet another contingency when his plans are foiled.

The Bandicoot
2015-10-01, 11:21 PM
Considering I just turned some of my players onto giantitp so....... If you are currently playing in a real life game in Wisconsin that involves amnesia, a warforged knight, a changeling rogue/cleric/temple raider, an unseelie fey air goblin warlock, a human cleric necromancer, and a goliath cleric/barbarian then please do NOT click the gorram spoiler or I will THROAT PUNCH YOU.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way......:smallredface:
Small bit of needed background, in my world resurrection isn't easy AT ALL. In order to bring someone back from the dead it requires a lot of time and resources to set up a ritual. It takes at least a hundred years to set this up. Also, immortality is something very difficult to achieve, even something like a lich's phylactery degrades over the centuries as the soul tries to make its way back to the body.
The Long Haul "Villain": The overarching enemy that's been throwing enemies at the party through various proxies is a lich responsible for raising each party member from the dead. You see, each member of the party is a semi-famous historical figure from the past that reportedly came very close to achieving true immortality. Now he knew he didn't have enough magical power to bring them back whole, so what he did was bring them all back at the level of power they were when they started adventuring and without all the accrued memories. The hope being that if challenged enough at least one of them might find immortality and thus the lich could actually live forever.

So he spent roughly 500-600 years setting up this ritual, another 100-200 years setting up all the contacts needed to send challenges out against this group wherever they go in the world as well as how to keep an eye on them. Truthfully I guess the only thing that makes him a villain is his complete disregard for anyone else's life.

Frozen_Feet
2015-10-02, 03:23 AM
Chessmaster is arguably very different from behind-the-scenes villains, especially in context of tabletop games.

Consider Chess itself. All the pieces are in open view on the board. Theoretically, you can predict all the possible moves of your opponent, it's just a question if you can predict the right ones.

It's easy to lay out a scenario like this in RPGs too. One classic way is a mirror match, where the villains are a party of near-identical abilities and equipment. If the GM is actually better at strategy, they can play a Chessmaster in the exact traditional manner. As a bonus, you can slyly teach players new ways to use their own characters this way.

Gamgee
2015-10-02, 04:03 AM
The betrayer is always fun.

erradin
2015-10-02, 12:52 PM
I don't believe in using that "chessmaster" type of villain for RPG's. If you're the GM and have complete power over the game's setting, it's crass rather than clever when you show that your villain has yet another contingency when his plans are foiled.

I can see what you mean here. It does seem a little unfair to claim that your villain is clever when the strategies he used would probably be impossible if you didn't control all aspects of the world. That said, Frozen_feet has a point as well. The plans don't have to be all concealed away and beyond the player's reach. The difficulty here is that it is hard to play a villain who is smarter than you are personally- especially if the players are better than you are at thinking in such ways. Then again, they are usually supposed to win at some point, so maybe that's not a bad thing.

I actually have a terrible idea that might be hard to pull off unless you're really careful. Plan very well. Make a good outline of the villain's plan and write it in a journal. Write down any changes the villain makes in a their 'villain diary' and only allow the villain to gain new resources beyond reasonable improv when they would have more time to sit, plan, and write it in a journal. Then, you can have the players discover the journal somewhere near the end to accomplish a few goals: 1) they know you weren't 'cheating' just to let the villain escape and you aren't going to claim all of this was planned from the beginning without alterations. 2) You can't include any inconsistencies that involve completely altering the truth of matters in the universe without them being discovered. and 3) this can be how they finally understand the villain enough to corner them by learning about the intricacies of their plan.

So is this a terrible idea that should never thee the light of day, or an interesting challenge?


Now that I've gotten that out of the way......
Small bit of needed background, in my world resurrection isn't easy AT ALL. In order to bring someone back from the dead it requires a lot of time and resources to set up a ritual. It takes at least a hundred years to set this up. Also, immortality is something very difficult to achieve, even something like a lich's phylactery degrades over the centuries as the soul tries to make its way back to the body.
see the original post-and read the warning label!

That's pretty devious! And clever, too! (and on a side note, I wanna make a new thread sometime soon discussing the effects and impact of death in a campaign, which I hope you will join me for. :)) Do you plan on having them learn some of the potentially personal history and recognize it, or will they learn bits and pieces without knowing that it might be important until later?

@ Gamgee I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about. I have some qualms with this sometimes because, when someone working with the party turns traitor and they had no ability to discover the ruse-not because they didn't look, but because the DM didn't put that ability in the game, it can feel a little unfair, if you know what I mean. Any thoughts on that? Has anyone seen this done really well?

HammeredWharf
2015-10-02, 03:25 PM
I like villains who work with the party for a while. The reason why could be anything: maybe the villain isn't that evil, maybe the party is a bit evil, etc. The important part is that it's not betrayal. The villain isn't their ally. They just happen to know each other.

For example, in one of my campaigns, the players screwed up big time and got caught by an enemy general. She behaved like a highborn lady (they even thought she's a paladin) and, after a few social encounters with her, the players thought they got her. Instead, she played them to reveal their spy network and sent them on a suicide mission afterwards. Now they hate her with surprising passion. It's even better than real betrayal, because they lost to someone who was always openly their enemy, instead of someone who pretended to be their friend, so the 'DM BSed us' feeling isn't there.

However, variety is the spice of life, so I try to make my villains as different from each other as possible.

TeChameleon
2015-10-02, 10:27 PM
Well, from my brief tenure as a Shadowrun DM, my players ran up against a surprising variety of opposition; there were plenty of the standard Megacorp rent-a-cops (guys that just follow orders and cash a paycheque), of course, Halloweener gangers (nihilistic lunatics who are a little too fond of fire), an opposing runner team (same basic deal as the party, really, just hired by the opposition), a cyberzombie (magitech undead supersoldier- borderline mindless killing machine, semi-constrained by programming), a couple of Gabriel Hounds (quasi-sentient magical shapeshifting feral dogs- pretty much straight predators, in other words) and their thrall pack, Insect Spirits (giant demonic extradimensional bugs that possess/alter/eat people and are trying to invade Earth from their home dimension), and the (homebrewed) result of a botched magical ritual that bonded the spirits of ritually murdered children to their toys in order to animate them as magical security drones (... Weeping Angels and Toy Story/Raggedy Anne have some surprising similarities, at least as far as the 'don't blink' end of things go :smalltongue:)

When the game resumes at some indeterminate future point, planned enemies include a panicky 'true believer' who sees the collapse of his organization coming if the players continue digging around where they shouldn't, a snobby, self-entitled aristo type who's working with the true believer, since he doesn't want his comforts to go away should the organization collapse, a secret conspiracy of black mages who are in conflict with the aforementioned organization, and potentially a variety of motorcycle gangers, monsters, and bandits, depending on where the adventure heads.

Granted, this is Shadowrun, so there isn't really a 'big bad' per se- at least, not planned as such. Things may change, I'm not sure, heh.

Of the other villains I've used in my writings, only one sticks out in my mind as being anything special- oog. And also a bit tough to summarize :smalleek:

So, after an abortive attempt that ended up summarizing almost the entire plot, another try; the 'villain' is a damaged spell, an insane magical A.I. designed to create a dark lord (or equivalent thereof) every two centuries out of the misguided belief that an external enemy is the only way to maintain a cohesive civilization. Unfortunately, the ruse was eventually detected, and an attempt to counter the spell damaged it without destroying it. Now it's trying to continue its function without really understanding how or why anymore. And, as can be imagined, is making rather a nasty mess of things.

The Bandicoot
2015-10-03, 01:26 AM
@erradin my players are fairly clever. They started at level 1 and by 6 mostly everyone has figured out who they used to be(including the one person that hijacked someone else's ressurection ) They haven't figured out who raised them or why or why exactly the gods had their souls locked up in a vault.

Mutazoia
2015-10-03, 09:35 AM
I wrote a short post a while back that touched briefly on this subject (you can read it here if you are interested (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?197339-The-Nature-of-Evil-Designing-your-BBEG)). In a nutshell: Your BBEG is THE most important NPC of your campaign, so you either need to tailor your BBEG to the style of campaign you want to run, or vise versa. A cold blooded, ruthless killer with very little subtlety will operate a lot different that your puppet master. Personally I classify my BBEG's thus:

1. The Beast. Not very smart, but makes up for it in sheer cruelty. He delights is slaughter and mayhem. Those he doesn't kill, he enslaves. He's the type that will raise a massive army and try to steamroll over everything and everybody until either he's conquered the world, or some one kills him. The Beast BBEG is perfect if you want to run a military style campaign with lots of epic battles between massive armies (that your PC's may or may not directly participate in). There's not a lot of planning or forethought with the Beast on the GM's part The Beast has a seemingly endless supply of faceless minions and is more than willing to keep throwing them away.

2. The Puppet Master. Smart, cunning and possibly cruel, the Puppet Master is the Power behind the power. He seldom, if ever, takes direct action himself, so he seldom, if ever, suffers the consequences of his actions, instead letting his puppet fall in his place. After all, you can always make another puppet. The Puppet Master may be controlling The Beast from the shadows for a time, if his current plans call for sheer brutality, but violence isn't the only card in his deck. The Puppet Master BBEG is good if you want to be able to switch styles up a bit over the course of a campaign, and/or if you want your campaign to be a mix of a combat and investigation/intrigue.

3. The Master Mind (or Chess Master if you prefer). The Master Mind is all about planning and strategy. Violence is a tool for the Master Mind, not a thing to be enjoyed for it's own sake, and probably one of the last tools employed. The Master Mind will have plans within plans, contingencies covering everything. Even if you beat the Master Mind at a scheme, he'll have a fall back plan that ensures that he really didn't lose much, if anything at all. It may seem to your players that your Master Mind BBEG is always coming out on top, but that's the Master Mind's schtick....even the PC's victory in one area could be just what the Master Mind wanted all along. Getting his opponent to make the move he want's them to make, and making them think it was their choice the whole time. The Master Mind BBEG is good if you want a lot of intrigue in your campaign, and is probably the second hardest BBEG to play correctly, due to all the planning you will have to do ahead of time. A good reference for the Master Mind BBEG is to read "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli, or Baron Harkonnen from Dune (who actually uses a bit from "The Prince" on Arrakas).

4. The OP mentioned Evil evil. This is probably the hardest BBEG to pull off, as most people have a very Holly Wood influenced version of "evil" wedged firmly in their head. All I can really say here is that evil...TRUE evil, will not be ugly. It will not be the horrible, scary looking, grotesque monster that comes to drag you kicking and screaming to hell. TRUE evil will be the good looking nice guy that becomes your best friend and not only gets you to think that going to hell in a handbasket is a great idea, but that taking out 3 mortgages on your house to buy the hand basket yourself is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Remember, the devil isn't a short, red man with horns an a tail. Lucifer was an angel, and he was God's favorite. the Evil evil BBEG is all about temptation and leading the world to the most horrible end possible, with the world following cheerfully along as if nothing could be finer. For a pretty good reference, go watch Disney's "Hercules", and take note of how James Woods portrays Hades...he's got a pretty good start there.

TeChameleon
2015-10-03, 06:43 PM
Just a quick addenda to Mutazoia's post- another fun Chessmaster/Master Mind example (especially if you don't feel like wading through Frank Herbert's neutronium-thick prose or five-hundred-year-old Italian Political theory :smalltongue:) is David Xanatos, from Disney's Gargoyles. His big thing is that he always sets things up so that he gets something he wants from the results of his plans. Heck, he even turned being sent to prison into a minor PR coup to humanize himself- he had gained a reputation for arrogance and ruthlessness, and he portrayed being sent to prison as a wakeup call that humbled him and made him more approachable.

So that's another way to play the chessmaster- s/he arranges matters so that s/he'll get something they want out of a situation, no matter what happens.

TheFamilarRaven
2015-10-03, 07:40 PM
Don't forget The Overloard villain. He/she has one or many villains that work for him/her. They could be suave villains, chessmaster villains, destructive villains etc. These villains operate independently from their master, but always have goals that further the Overlord's agenda.

For example, the chessmaster cult leader trying to bring about his/her god/goddesses' return. In the case, the god/goddess is the overlord.

Knaight
2015-10-03, 08:06 PM
Singular villains are only one of many ways conflict can emerge. I tend to prefer numerous factions, entrenched societal forces, and a colorful cast of characters which can cause conflict, some of which are sympathetic figures with different goals than the PCs who can end up in direct conflict, and some of which are very much not.

Mutazoia
2015-10-04, 11:06 AM
Just a quick addenda to Mutazoia's post- another fun Chessmaster/Master Mind example (especially if you don't feel like wading through Frank Herbert's neutronium-thick prose or five-hundred-year-old Italian Political theory :smalltongue:) is David Xanatos, from Disney's Gargoyles. His big thing is that he always sets things up so that he gets something he wants from the results of his plans. Heck, he even turned being sent to prison into a minor PR coup to humanize himself- he had gained a reputation for arrogance and ruthlessness, and he portrayed being sent to prison as a wakeup call that humbled him and made him more approachable.

So that's another way to play the chessmaster- s/he arranges matters so that s/he'll get something they want out of a situation, no matter what happens.

That's not another way to play the Master Mind...it is THE way. No matter what happens, the Master Mind get's something out of the deal, win, lose or draw. He has planned in advance...probably years or even decades in advance. The way to beat the Master Mind is to find a way to force him to make snap decisions with out the time to consider all the angles, and then keep at it to keep him off balance.


Don't forget The Overloard villain. He/she has one or many villains that work for him/her. They could be suave villains, chessmaster villains, destructive villains etc. These villains operate independently from their master, but always have goals that further the Overlord's agenda.

For example, the chessmaster cult leader trying to bring about his/her god/goddesses' return. In the case, the god/goddess is the overlord.


The thing about the Master Mind is that he can be controlling the Puppet Master who is controlling the Beast, with out the Puppet Master knowing he's being controlled.

For example:

The Master Mind provides the Puppet Master in Kingdom A with seemingly random and separate bits of information which, when taken together, cause the Puppet Master to cause the Beast to invade Kingdom B. This in turn disrupts trade between Kingdom C and Kingdom D, which passes through Kingdom B. This results in the economy of Kingdom C, (which relies heavily on the import of some natural resource that is abundant in Kingdom D (let's say wood) but almost non-existent in Kindom C (a dessert Kingdom)) almost completely crashing. With building projects brought to a screeching halt and half the population now out of work, the Master Minds agents Kingdom Cs government are able to discredit other ministers, removing them from office and replacing them with more agents. When the Master Mind has enough of a power base in Kingdom C, his agents vote to join the war against Kingdom A (thus placing a check on the growing power base of the Beast/Puppet Master combo) which in turn weakens Kingdoms A, B and C further, leaving that entire section of the continent destabilized for quite a long time, providing the Master Mind opportunities to place more of his agents within the ruling bodies of each Kingdom by replacing those killed in the war, or discredited and run out of office by real or manufactured events.

So, basically the Overlord is yet another term for the Master Mind. Bringing back a God/Goddess is a goal. If the God/Goddess is the one pulling the strings to bring about their return, they are the Master Mind.

erradin
2015-10-04, 12:21 PM
I like the variety of villains we've had so far. I also like the idea of the Evil evil mentioned by TeChameleon. Just something about Hades is wonderfully amusing. But difficult to play since you also have to be persuasive.

Another thing that's been on my mind in terms of villains is a realistic motivation. I know I mentioned destructive evil villains- and maybe some demon lord would do that- but I find them some of the hardest villains to justify using. Who REALLY wants to end the world, or even personally rule it? I find I tie my villains closely to their reasons for acting and, as someone has pointed out, the best villains are the ones that kinda have a point when they say "this is broken and needs fixing." I'm of the opinion that no-one really acts purely for the sake of evil itself, rather they assume what their doing is somehow justified by the results, or are else convinced that the 'side effects' are someone elses problem.


One campaign I was in had the main villain simply trying to restore his exiled and oppressed people to the civilized world- which stood a good chance at making the world extraordinarily difficult to survive in for everyone else. We had to stop him- not because he was wrong, but because it came at too high a price.

So what kinds of motivations have you guys seen that make great villains?

TheFamilarRaven
2015-10-04, 03:30 PM
<Stuff>

So, basically the Overlord is yet another term for the Master Mind. Bringing back a God/Goddess is a goal. If the God/Goddess is the one pulling the strings to bring about their return, they are the Master Mind.

I'll admit I only skimmed through some of the presented villains, so you're probably right. I do like the name Overlord better though.....


What about villains that are environmental? As in, not an actual person. Such as a spreading magical disease that creates zombies, or a Dark Void from Beyondtm that threatens to destroy the <insert Prime plane>. I guess it's not a villain as far as traditional definitions go, but it's certainly an antagonistic force. Just doesn't have a snappy name. Maybe something like, Force of Darkness, or Pervasive Evil

Red Fel
2015-10-04, 06:21 PM
http://41.media.tumblr.com/b72377a52d51c9276d6ca6b5abf515de/tumblr_nfvdru0z4g1tqyfuro1_500.png
Listen! They're going to say the words!
[Anticipation Intensifies]

FocusWolf413
2015-10-04, 08:46 PM
My favorite villain was probably an elf named Wendall. Now, if anyone has read Villains by Necessity, you'll remember how much of a royal ***** that one wizard was. Wendall was pretty much the crusader version of that wizard. The party was full of "morally flexible" individuals, and Wendall made it his mission to make their lives miserable. He chased them across the world Javert style with the intent to capture them and torture them until they were so broken that they would be "good."

Wendall eventually met his end. The party set up a bit of a trap for him. The party's wizard and ranger/rogue heavily trapped an area, which the Crusader was lead to. When Wendall "cornered" the party, the bard tried to diplomance him as a distraction so everyone else could get into place. He was so set in his ways that when presented with a logical argument about how his actions were wrong, he lost it and charged the bard with abandon. He slipped on a spot of magical grease, fell into a portable hole, and got chucked into the ocean.


http://41.media.tumblr.com/b72377a52d51c9276d6ca6b5abf515de/tumblr_nfvdru0z4g1tqyfuro1_500.png
Listen! They're going to say the words!
[Anticipation Intensifies]

((Nobody's done this yet? Jeez.))

Red Fel
Red Fel
RED FEL

Red Fel
2015-10-04, 09:15 PM
Red Fel
Red Fel
RED FEL

http://38.media.tumblr.com/53cf9d3e09f5a869a78b74c4d6499897/tumblr_n1p0hekWWn1qgmx0co1_r2_250.gif

Finally! Honestly, you'd think by now summoning me to these threads would be practically rote. Well, let's get on with...

Just a minute. Can it be? Have my lessons been heeded?

I mean, as I look over this thread, I see... Very insightful, clever, nuanced, and dare I say, fun concepts for villains. Much of what I would have said has already been said, and that gladdens my empty, black heart.

Naturally, I do have a few remarks.


I don't believe in using that "chessmaster" type of villain for RPG's. If you're the GM and have complete power over the game's setting, it's crass rather than clever when you show that your villain has yet another contingency when his plans are foiled.

The trick to the chessmaster is to make him a behind-the-scenes villain, but not an omnipotent one. Let me explain.

First, one of the keys to a solid BBEG is to never personally introduce him unless you're ready for the PCs to fight and kill him. Any NPC, once he appears, can be a target, even if the PCs don't know that he's the BBEG. The chessmaster, the power from the shadows, is perfect for this precise reason - he has a reason to never appear personally, so he can keep operating and motivating the plot.

But here's how you draw the line between the omnipotent "I made everything happen" to the simply powerful and manipulative - clues. It starts with name drops. An NPC spills the name in his last breath. The PCs find the name elsewhere, in scrolls and communications. People clam up when the name is mentioned. Next, it's organizations. The PCs start to notice different organizations that recognize, rely on, or target those who know the name. Soon, it's intermediaries. People who claim to be associates of the name, who represent the name, who wish to speak on behalf of the name. At last, it's the name in person - perhaps not readily identifying himself by the name, or perhaps presenting himself in such a manner as to render open combat impossible.

Through these means, the villain isn't retroactively claiming responsibility. The PCs have known all along that he was involved. If anything, they don't know what else he's been doing, but they definitely know he's been active.

By way of illustration, think of the BBC's Sherlock series.

In the very first episode, Sherlock pursues a serial killer, who reveals that he has a sponsor for his dastardly crimes. When Sherlock literally tortures the man into revealing who has been paying him to kill, he utters a single word: "Moriarty." That name continues to appear for some time, until the villain himself finally makes an appearance.
That's the goal. Not to have the villain's gloating, "Yes, it was me," make the PCs want to kill him, but to have the villain's actual appearance hotly anticipated. They know he's out there, they're just waiting to meet him in person. It's like a cross between meeting your teen idol and Inigo Montoya finally discovering a man with six fingers on his left hand.


The betrayer is always fun.

First off, it's tricky to pull off without making your players feel cheated. The trick to it is to drop hints, forecast clues that the NPC in question is in the process of betrayal, rather than planning it all along. Alternatively, show cracks in the character's shell to suggest that, even if the betrayal was intended from the beginning, the NPC is starting to have second thoughts.

One of the greatest attributes a villain can have is sympathy. A villain who is relatable, particularly a tragic one, can be moving and memorable. If your PCs are truly shocked and wounded by the betrayal, or better if the NPC is saddened by it and the PCs understand why, you've created a thing of beauty, and a sharp pang in the heart every time your villain shows his or her face.


Just a quick addenda to Mutazoia's post- another fun Chessmaster/Master Mind example (especially if you don't feel like wading through Frank Herbert's neutronium-thick prose or five-hundred-year-old Italian Political theory :smalltongue:) is David Xanatos, from Disney's Gargoyles. His big thing is that he always sets things up so that he gets something he wants from the results of his plans. Heck, he even turned being sent to prison into a minor PR coup to humanize himself- he had gained a reputation for arrogance and ruthlessness, and he portrayed being sent to prison as a wakeup call that humbled him and made him more approachable.

So that's another way to play the chessmaster- s/he arranges matters so that s/he'll get something they want out of a situation, no matter what happens.

It's called the Xanatos Gambit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) (TVTropes warning), and the basic idea is, "Heads, I win, tails, you lose." It combines nicely with the Batman Gambit, which boils down to, "I knew you would do that, and intended the result."

Mutazoia mentions that the way to beat the Mastermind is to catch him off guard and keep him from cooling down and recalculating his plans. That's true for some species of Masterminds, the kinds so arrogant as to assume that they have no weaknesses. But a truly rational Mastermind - one of the Xanatos school - recognizes that he is himself imperfect, and therefore plans around his weaknesses. So he will plan for the eventuality that someone keeps him from planning.

My way to deal with a Mastermind, of course, is to literally deal with him. Mastermind villains, the truly rational actors among them, are powerful allies. As long as your interests coincide with theirs, they will help you. Now, it means that you'll have little chance of opposing him directly, but it also means that you can use him - or more accurately, allow him to use you - in pursuit of a common goal. So keep that in mind, not every villain needs to be an enemy.


What about villains that are environmental? As in, not an actual person. Such as a spreading magical disease that creates zombies, or a Dark Void from Beyondtm that threatens to destroy the <insert Prime plane>. I guess it's not a villain as far as traditional definitions go, but it's certainly an antagonistic force. Just doesn't have a snappy name. Maybe something like, Force of Darkness, or Pervasive Evil

I'm loathe to call them actual villains. Antagonists, certainly. In the movie Castaway, and many similar stories, for instance, the antagonist is nature itself. But an antagonist isn't the same as a villain. An antagonist is any force, including but not limited to people, that acts against the protagonist, or main actor, of the story. Villain is specifically an evil person. Villains choose villainy, or in some cases it chooses them. The villain must be conscious of his actions. A tidal wave does not think about the towns it crushes. A zombie apocalypse has no plan as to what happens when the world is devoured. Entropy has no dastardly scheme to foil. Natural forces are an element of horror due to their inevitability, but there is no real way to humanize, pity, or hate them.


Another thing that's been on my mind in terms of villains is a realistic motivation. I know I mentioned destructive evil villains- and maybe some demon lord would do that- but I find them some of the hardest villains to justify using. Who REALLY wants to end the world, or even personally rule it? I find I tie my villains closely to their reasons for acting and, as someone has pointed out, the best villains are the ones that kinda have a point when they say "this is broken and needs fixing." I'm of the opinion that no-one really acts purely for the sake of evil itself, rather they assume what their doing is somehow justified by the results, or are else convinced that the 'side effects' are someone elses problem.

. . .

So what kinds of motivations have you guys seen that make great villains?

I'm a big fan of villains whose motivations, once known, complicate matters. I'm enamored of the idea of sympathetic evil. The kind of stuff that's horrifying on paper, but once you see the results and the goals, you start to wonder, "What if he's right?" Because that's how evil can spread and corrupt - through the idea that it can do what needs to be done, that a little dose of evil is a valuable and helpful thing.

Some of the greatest villains recognize this. They recognize, for instance, that many medicines are derived from poison. Lethal in its natural form, but when refined and in limited quantities, it does a world of good. This is how they see their villainy.

So I use villains with noble goals, such as saving the world from an even bigger villain, or villains with tragic stories, such as one driven to madness by a parasitic plant spirit. The kind of villains the PCs don't actually want to stop. A world-shattering event like stopping the BBEG shouldn't feel like just another big encounter. It should be thrilling and heartbreaking, emotionally powerful. The context alone should make it distinct. That can be achieved by creating a villain whose motivations are ultimately good, or whose driving force is ultimately tragic.

FocusWolf413
2015-10-04, 09:36 PM
[*does the lord's work*]

I'm going to shamelessly adapt some of these ideas.

Mutazoia
2015-10-05, 12:46 AM
Another thing that's been on my mind in terms of villains is a realistic motivation. I know I mentioned destructive evil villains- and maybe some demon lord would do that- but I find them some of the hardest villains to justify using. Who REALLY wants to end the world, or even personally rule it? I find I tie my villains closely to their reasons for acting and, as someone has pointed out, the best villains are the ones that kinda have a point when they say "this is broken and needs fixing." I'm of the opinion that no-one really acts purely for the sake of evil itself, rather they assume what their doing is somehow justified by the results, or are else convinced that the 'side effects' are someone elses problem. {snip}

So what kinds of motivations have you guys seen that make great villains?

Again referencing the bit I wrote a while back:

As the BBEG is the most important NPC of your campaign, a LOT of your design and planning work should be on his motivation. The BBEG who's motivation is 1) Drain all the Zinc from the lake. 2) ??? 3) EVIL! will be forever relegated to the realm of Saturday morning cartoons.

Your BBEG's motivation will either influence, or be influenced by, the style of campaign you want. For example, if your BBEG is the Beast, his motivation will more than likely be simple conquest...the desire to rule as much as he can before he kicks the bucket, while at the same time satisfying his baser desires to rape, pillage and plunder. Your Puppet Master will most likely be after power for power's sake....to be able to pull the strings that make entire kingdoms dance. He may or may not have an actual long term goal; He could just be in it to prove (mostly to himself) that he can do it.

The Master Mind will usually be the one with the solid, long term goal. To him, power isn't the end, it's the means to an end. Even if that end is world domination, his domination will serve a purpose, such as unifying a continent to bring an end to the endless wars of selfish kings.

So, basically, most of the work you need to do on a campaign is going to be on your BBEG and his motivations.


What about villains that are environmental? As in, not an actual person. Such as a spreading magical disease that creates zombies, or a Dark Void from Beyondtm that threatens to destroy the <insert Prime plane>. I guess it's not a villain as far as traditional definitions go, but it's certainly an antagonistic force. Just doesn't have a snappy name. Maybe something like, Force of Darkness, or Pervasive Evil

Things like natural (or supernatural) disasters are not villains, they are situations. You need to figure out WHY these situations are happening. If it's the magical Zombie disease, you need to determine how it came about (just as your players are going to have to). With something like this, it might be a tool of a BBEG, or it might have been created by accident with one grief-stricken mage attempting to resurrect his dead wife and screwing the magical pooch. In the case of Cat-Thulhu threatening to pounce the <insert Prime plane> to death...Cat-Thulhu becomes your BBEG.

Environmental situations can be tricky for the player's to deal with, and could quite possibly lead to a feeling of let down when they are denied the opportunity to kick a BBEGs butt. Not to mention, depending on the type of situation, it may be that the players will be unable to do anything about it at all, with out a lot of hand waving by the GM. A huge meteor on an impact course with the planet is going to be way out of scope for most fantasy characters, even when the mages can one shot an ancient Red Dragon, and there are really no spells in the books (core or splat) to stop a major fault line from giving way, or mass volcanic eruptions. Plagues are easier to deal with...the kind that cleric's can't cure normally. In short, I would suggest staying away from anything that your players will not have a reasonable chance of defeating/fixing by RAW