PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do you write a clever omnicidal maniac?



MonkeySage
2018-08-18, 03:09 AM
I've got a human Technomancer in this Starfinder campaign- highly intelligent, handsome, charming. Before he was captured, he was a well respected scientist among his peers, and practically a celebrity on his home planet.

But he may have been harboring some destructive tendencies which were brought out by the 2 years of torture in captivity he endured with a space pirate. While still just as intelligent and charming as ever, he has become what tv tropes might start to consider an omnicidal maniac.

His goal: The destruction of life throughout the galaxy. His motivation: Catharsis, thrill seeking, and a desire for "Peace and Quiet".

OMs are kind of a simplistic, cliche'd kind of villain, but they've been done well in the past. So I'd like to see what I can do to make him interesting, to make his motives, if not understandable, at least believable.

This is a setting where advanced technology exists side by side with magic and ancient gods- and the method he may use to achieve his goal probably involves working with some of the more hostile supernatural entities. Since he's a technomancer, he uses both magic and technology together.

I'm also wondering how he can use that charm of his to help him achieve those goals.

Edit: As a side note- still learning Starfinder. Can you create NPC bosses using the same rules outlined for Player Characters?

Frozen_Feet
2018-08-18, 03:39 AM
First thing is to think of a lucid justification for their nihilism.

A setting filled with magic, gods etc. may make this really easy or really hard.

On the easy side, we have those settings where "reality" isn't - it's all a dream of a mad god, or powered by belief, or a simulation running on a computer. In these cases, your character could do the legwork to, essentially, mathematically prove lives don't matter. "Seriously, guys. This all a dream. It is meant to end and we're all going to vanish with it. Here's the proof..."

Such justifications will seem outright insane to anyone who is not in on the joke, but the logic is adamant once the setting facts are put together.

On the hard side, we have those where objective reality is a thing and objective morality is as well. For these settings, you need to go all David Hume and hammer it home that value judgements cannot be made from facts. Follow it by going all Buddha and explaining how annihilation of self is necessary for salvation.

On a more practical level, have the character act sane, reasonable and normal when not directly engaged in the business of ending all life. Their philosophy is not just a justification for being petty or treating others badly. It's not personal or founded on a grudge.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-18, 04:29 AM
For me, there is no path from A to B.

You can have a believable villain - or someone whose ambition is universal destruction. But you cannot have both. Mutually exclusive.

If you look at tropesey solutions, a better one (again according to me) is to have someone ultra powerful, and equally unstable. Someone who's relatable on a human scale, a victim somehow - think Subject X (or Jack) from Mass Effect 2. Someone you might like, and sympathize with - but also someone so powerful and (self) destructive universal destruction seems like something you need to give serious consideration to.

And you also need a robust plot device. It's not a situation that can be peacefully resolved, because then you have a god NPC in your game. It needs to end with the death of that NPC. Or the 'I will leave this dimension for the good of everyone' solution, which is frankly a cop out.

Hormuz
2018-08-18, 10:58 AM
I'm probably noone, but still will humbly submit my worthless opinion on the matter.

When writing omnicidial maniac (OM for short, and yes, this is a retcon), there are two thing to consider (well, not two, but, like, those are really important, I guess): what he wants to kill, and how thoroughly. The first is the target, the second is the scale. You may think that motivation is important, but it comes way after those two factors are established. You make up motivation retroactively anyway, since you kinda just want to write omnicidiac, so bear with me.

The target for any omnicidial maniac may very gradually - despite what you would be led to believe from the name, I'd wager. Let's consider planet scale omnicidiac. If he merely wants to destroy all the humanity, he still can be considered omnicidial maniac, can he not? Or may be he wants to annihilate every human and any domesticated species (which he kinda does via destroying humanity by default, but I almost never seen this mentioned by any "humanity-killing" maniacs, so I guess this just goess to show how smart I am compared to everyone). Or all the animals, or all the eukaryotes. Or all the life on the planet. Or the whole planet, including the life. Or the very portion of reallity where the planet is, including all those pesky mountains and capitalists and even gods themselves (the regular, planet-wide variety). And each of those scenarious would require different motivations. Now despite the name maniac, the trope doesn't forbid "sorta good?" motivations, like obliterating a semi-intelligent, parasite-like species, because their continous existence threatens to destroy their host along with themselves, a.i. humanity, but the core characteristic of the maniac is that he maniacly (huh, get it?) pursues his goals, meaning there is no quarter given. The interesting implication is that someone may want to kill all hamsters, or all trees (or goblins, or undead), while still techincall being a omnicidial maniac. Note, that wanting to eradicate any of the "Evil Species" to the last one does not automatically turn you into omnicidial maniac, merely a hypocrite. But I digress.

All in all the target for omnicidial maniac (OM for short and gods why didn't I think of it before, oh wait I did) represent something which or whose existense he just can't stomache, so it's very important for motivation). The most common targets are intelligent life, or all the life, with a sprincle of reality and the world, in the cases when villain (we still writing a villain, right? I kinda forgot by this point) views said reality or world as crapsack or just plans to evade it's destruction in another reality/world. Be careful with definitions of intelligent life, or life in general. Depending on your Crap, I wanted to cross thing earlier, but didn't find the BB code, so I'm gonna spam those now like crasy. Also, found a spoiler. villains pedantry he may destroy all the humanity, while leaving dogs, elephants and chimpanzee alive. The same goes with the life, when villain destroying all organic life while sparing all those innocent organical substances like carbs and proteins. Mostly proteins. They can form a life again, why are you stopping, you dooming us all!

A scale is mostly just how big or thorough hero wants to be in purging of concious organisms (as a totally unrelated example). If, for example (sic!), you want to destroy all of your species on one planet in your noble crusade against all that is bad and breathing it's good and holy, but does not account for all those pesky glabglargs and humans, who can just colonise the empty space. If you want to be effective and really succed in your worthy goal, you need to scour galaxy per galaxy, planet by planet, annihilating the vary matter itself, so that no for of life, carbon or other would rise after you leave. Preferably to leave after yourself a cold clouds of hydrogen and helium, with cold being anything lover than 50 K, and enough energy as to not be pulled back by the forces of gravity. I remember one time, few billions after we left a perfectly cold clouds, the galaxy appeared again, crawling with weird bipedal scourge. I can write more, but I got bored. Sorry for taking your time.

gooddragon1
2018-08-18, 11:02 AM
Max Zorin from A View To a Kill (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGSjiQq998) seems like he might be of some help in some ways.

Maybe not initially omnicidal, but as things go down hill maybe having nothing to lose.

Haldir
2018-08-19, 06:26 PM
Its very easy to justify that the suffering caused by life is not equal to the good it produces. The staggeringly high rate of suicides is a testament to the fact that this is a common belief amongst some.

You don't need an elaborate justification. Common mental illness is enough. The problem is presenting that to the players.

Nifft
2018-08-19, 07:16 PM
His goal: The destruction of life throughout the galaxy. His motivation: Catharsis, thrill seeking, and a desire for "Peace and Quiet".

Those goals don't sound compatible with high intelligence.

An intelligent person who wanted "peace and quiet" would not take actions that guarantee him a place on everyone's most wanted lists.

The goals + the personality traits sound a lot more like a quiet serial killer than an omnicidal maniac. Still a villain, just not the type you're asking for.

MonkeySage
2018-08-19, 07:34 PM
Those goals don't sound compatible with high intelligence.

An intelligent person who wanted "peace and quiet" would not take actions that guarantee him a place on everyone's most wanted lists.

The goals + the personality traits sound a lot more like a quiet serial killer than an omnicidal maniac. Still a villain, just not the type you're asking for.

That's why I'm asking for ways to write him better. I normally avoid this type of villain unless they're a demon.

The most important aspects here are his intelligence and his charm. These are the elements I'm trying to use to write an omnicidal maniac. The how and why are not set in stone.

There's also the fact that he has been sitting in a space pirate's dungeon for 2 years, barely fed and poorly taken care of. She saw him as nothing more than a ransom.

Spore
2018-08-19, 07:41 PM
Have you considered looking into any character study involving Handsome Jack from the Borderlands series?

MonkeySage
2018-08-19, 07:43 PM
I haven't- who's that?

Anymage
2018-08-20, 12:35 AM
How married are you to the omnicide? Because killing everybody requires either utter madness, or a lovecraftian understanding so deep that it's indistinguishable from madness to outsiders.

There are several reasons why somebody might have a gross disregard for life, to the point where burning out a planet is an acceptable loss for them. Possibly even up to the point where they consider omnicide an acceptable casualty. (Splintering the fabric of causality in order to keep his torture from happening, for an idea that comes immediately to mind. Or else hitting the reset button on the universe so that he can have a say in the construction of the new one.) But accepting omnicide as an acceptable risk or even casualty is different from pursuing it as an end goal of its own.

MonkeySage
2018-08-20, 02:03 AM
I said he was clever, I never said he was sane. :P

Never intended it, either. Something in him snapped during the 2 years of torture, and he was already kind of a psychopathic narcissist before then, just not a dangerous psychopath.

DeTess
2018-08-20, 02:31 AM
Have you seen the 'Avengers: Infinity War' movie? Thanos is a decent example of someone taking an altogether logical idea, and then taking it to its insane, omnicidal, extreme, and this might fit your intelligent character.

Calthropstu
2018-08-20, 04:09 AM
For me, there is no path from A to B.

You can have a believable villain - or someone whose ambition is universal destruction. But you cannot have both. Mutually exclusive.

If you look at tropesey solutions, a better one (again according to me) is to have someone ultra powerful, and equally unstable. Someone who's relatable on a human scale, a victim somehow - think Subject X (or Jack) from Mass Effect 2. Someone you might like, and sympathize with - but also someone so powerful and (self) destructive universal destruction seems like something you need to give serious consideration to.

And you also need a robust plot device. It's not a situation that can be peacefully resolved, because then you have a god NPC in your game. It needs to end with the death of that NPC. Or the 'I will leave this dimension for the good of everyone' solution, which is frankly a cop out.

I have seen it done.

"I will destroy all life because the first time around was majorly flawed. Afterward, I will reinvent life resetting the universe and making everything anew. I know you find it distasteful, but it really is for the best. You will be destroyed, but through your sacrifice a new multiverse shall form, one where suffering will be greatly diminished. See, look at how perfect my new universe shall be..."

Grim Portent
2018-08-20, 05:45 AM
You could go the Owlman from Crisis on two Earths route. The character has learned that there are infinite alternate realities each differing only slighlty from the ones before it. Every choice he makes another version of him makes the other choice. His every move is predetermined and negated in a cosmic sense by the actions of all the other hims.

Being a narcisistic sociopath this is unacceptable. In order to correct this state of affairs he has to do something for which there is no opposite and no alternate equivalent. One act which no other version of him can render meaningless.

Destroy every reality, starting at the dawn of time.


Obviously this is difficult and requires advanced technology and powerful magic to achieve, so it's still in the setting up phase, but dangerously close to completion regardless. To his allies he presents a more palatable fake goal of taking control of the first sparks of life in reality and shaping them to fit their own desires and rule eternal over all things, only the most deranged would help him if they knew his actual plan after all.

Anymage
2018-08-20, 10:02 AM
I find it telling how many examples are from comics or comic related properties.

Anyways, if "he's nuts" is an acceptable starting point, you may as well also go comics on the front of just embracing that. On a less cosmic level, the Joker doesn't need a justification to have a few screws loose, it's just his character. He's both clever and charming, in his own way. And he has a fat stack of plot coupons, because let's face it; he'd have a much harder time replenishing henchmen, never mind not being killed out of hand by less erratic criminals, if ported to a hardnosed realistic setting.

Of course your scientist would need a cover plan to present to allies, unless he's a chessmaster type whose individual plans all look like mundane criminality until someone puts all the pieces together. But if being omnicidally crazy is his core trait, it might be worth comic book handwaving the specific whys and focus more on how the heroes can have interesting engagements.

Nifft
2018-08-20, 10:10 AM
You could go for a classical Narcissist: someone who is always looking for perfect companions, is effusive in praising new potential allies, and then when one of these potentially-perfect new friends fails in any way, suddenly this guy's disappointment turns him into a cold, murderous monster.

He's not omnicidal on purpose, it's just that everyone keeps disappointing him and/or stops paying sufficient attention to him. So they have to die.

Calthropstu
2018-08-20, 10:16 AM
You could go the Owlman from Crisis on two Earths route. The character has learned that there are infinite alternate realities each differing only slighlty from the ones before it. Every choice he makes another version of him makes the other choice. His every move is predetermined and negated in a cosmic sense by the actions of all the other hims.

Being a narcisistic sociopath this is unacceptable. In order to correct this state of affairs he has to do something for which there is no opposite and no alternate equivalent. One act which no other version of him can render meaningless.

Destroy every reality, starting at the dawn of time.


Obviously this is difficult and requires advanced technology and powerful magic to achieve, so it's still in the setting up phase, but dangerously close to completion regardless. To his allies he presents a more palatable fake goal of taking control of the first sparks of life in reality and shaping them to fit their own desires and rule eternal over all things, only the most deranged would help him if they knew his actual plan after all.

Love this. Combined with the chessmaster thought in the post following yours and you have a very nasty and very believable scenario.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-21, 02:26 AM
I have seen it done.

"I will destroy all life because the first time around was majorly flawed. Afterward, I will reinvent life resetting the universe and making everything anew. I know you find it distasteful, but it really is for the best. You will be destroyed, but through your sacrifice a new multiverse shall form, one where suffering will be greatly diminished. See, look at how perfect my new universe shall be..."

Yes, it's a classic - it was even the main villain scheme for one of the Bond movies. I still don't find it convincing. In fact, I find it so unconvincing, I've tried to use it as a pick-up line on many occasions. Unsuccesfully, mind, but I still think it's funny: Hi, babe, how would you like to partner up with me on a grand scheme to repopulate the world with a new race of super beings?

But, sure, I'll grant you ... if you really need some sort of justification for omnicide, it's one of the better attempts. I still don't like it, mainly because you need to humanize your villain, and this doesn't.

Calthropstu
2018-08-21, 05:09 AM
Yes, it's a classic - it was even the main villain scheme for one of the Bond movies. I still don't find it convincing. In fact, I find it so unconvincing, I've tried to use it as a pick-up line on many occasions. Unsuccesfully, mind, but I still think it's funny: Hi, babe, how would you like to partner up with me on a grand scheme to repopulate the world with a new race of super beings?

But, sure, I'll grant you ... if you really need some sort of justification for omnicide, it's one of the better attempts. I still don't like it, mainly because you need to humanize your villain, and this doesn't.

Sure it does, you just fail to understand it. Maybe he wants to redo creation to create a universe where his beloved doesn't die, or maybe he wants to undo his own existence. Maybe he believes humanity, indeed the universe itself, has stagnated and can no lnger move forward.

Another idea though is something I figured out a while ago.

I figured out a way to achieve the effects of time travel. Using reconstructive teleportation, you would break something down, scan it and rebuild it molecule by molecule somewhere else.

Now, what if you took that object and teleported it again... Based off the first scan? You would basically be reverting time on that object, bringing it forward in time.

Apply this principle to a whole planet and, assuming you are off planet whe it is deconstructed you achieve the effects of planet specific time travel.

In order to achieve true time travel, you must do this to the entire multiverse. You would create a restore point of everything. Of course, it would be insanely dangerous. It involves destroying everything, and if reconstruction fails there's no going back.

But an insane person would be willng to take such a risk. I doubt anyone would want such an insane plan to succeed anyways... Such a plan, even if it worked flawlessly, would grant the ungodly power of true time travel to someone. The ability to abuse that is near endless. So stopping this insane time travel experiment is top priority.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-21, 05:23 AM
Sure it does, you just fail to understand it. Maybe he wants to redo creation to create a universe where his beloved doesn't die, or maybe he wants to undo his own existence. Maybe he believes humanity, indeed the universe itself, has stagnated and can no lnger move forward.

Another idea though is something I figured out a while ago.

I figured out a way to achieve the effects of time travel. Using reconstructive teleportation, you would break something down, scan it and rebuild it molecule by molecule somewhere else.

Now, what if you took that object and teleported it again... Based off the first scan? You would basically be reverting time on that object, bringing it forward in time.

Apply this principle to a whole planet and, assuming you are off planet whe it is deconstructed you achieve the effects of planet specific time travel.

In order to achieve true time travel, you must do this to the entire multiverse. You would create a restore point of everything. Of course, it would be insanely dangerous. It involves destroying everything, and if reconstruction fails there's no going back.

But an insane person would be willng to take such a risk. I doubt anyone would want such an insane plan to succeed anyways... Such a plan, even if it worked flawlessly, would grant the ungodly power of true time travel to someone. The ability to abuse that is near endless. So stopping this insane time travel experiment is top priority.

Please refrain from telling me what I do and do not understand.

If you place the entirety of existance on one side of the scale, and a potential Schrödingers girlfriend on the other - no, that still doesn't convince me. You have the right idea, sure, but .. I remain unconvinced.

Now, the other thing isn't really time travel. It's dismantling the entire universe, then putting it back together in the exact same state it was in. It also requires the assembler/disassembler to be outside the universe. That still fails to convince me.

Using it on a smaller scale, however, could be interesting. Especially if you scan, but trigger the disassembly/reassembly at a later date - a save file, or failsafe in case of some imminent catastrophy. If such an option existed, that might sound appealing: 'We can save the world - yay!' But if it was ever misused, no one would ever know. And it creates the chance to discover that the system has been used maliciously, over and over, perhaps for millenia.

That's a story. I'd play that scenario. Well ... not now that I know about it, but otherwise.

Tyrrell
2018-08-21, 11:24 AM
If the character is quite certain that the universe that will replace his present one will be better, kinder, what have you, how does he or she find a moral justification for not replacing the present universe of woe with the new and improved universe of joy?

Our omnicidal maniac becomes more sympathetic if he/she find a way to spare some others from his destruction but not him/herself.

Edit: Looking at some of the earlier posts here's a scenario-

Our scientist has, as a result of his torture, been inspired to do some esoteric research about how the universe came to be. Through this research he discovers a fundamental flaw in the universe. Associated with finding this flaw he also works out how to create a new universe, in particular a universe without the fundamental flaw of the present one. One drawback of his new universe creation technology is the destruction of any universe that it the technology is used in.

He'd love to put more time into working out this bug but it just so happens that in the process of his research he also inadvertently started a countdown with regard to how long he has before the "universe reset window" closes. (To collect a useful data set concerning the creation of the universe and its flaws, he had to mess with things better left untouched.) So he has the choice to either leave this universe with its flaws or create a significantly better/more just/happier one while sacrificing everything that now exists.

Spore
2018-08-22, 11:22 PM
I haven't- who's that?


You could go for a classical Narcissist: someone who is always looking for perfect companions, is effusive in praising new potential allies, and then when one of these potentially-perfect new friends fails in any way, suddenly this guy's disappointment turns him into a cold, murderous monster.


Handsome Jack unites a few tropes. He is a narcissist, he thinks he is the good guy and though not explicitly omnicidal, he is sometimes very random in his choices of whom to kill on his planet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5onlG_8J18

As any game theory video, take it as it is. Thought provoking but ultimatively light entertainment, not a peer reviewed psychological study. I feel Jack is the basis of a fun and believable villain.

Cespenar
2018-08-23, 04:07 AM
No offense intended, but "omnicidal" just reads like bad writing to me. Not for this case in particular, but in the genre as a whole. All these Thanos's and whatnot, sure, you could crank up the charisma/badassness, make up a veneer of philosophy that would justify the omnicidal point of view (for about 10 seconds), and they would be passable villains. But it's still really apparent that they are just created to be a foil to the heroes.

The thing about omnicidal villains is that the "madly destructive" psyche clashes a lot with the organizational, social, and honestly "creative" mindset you have to have in order to gain power through the system. Look at RL tyrants. They often just want to hold on to power, or increase their reach.

You could make the character in the opening post instead having a motive of taking control of everything instead of destroying everything, and he would be much more believable.

AceOfFools
2018-08-23, 04:16 PM
It's not particularly compatible with the "Broken by torture," backstory suggested, but one option is the cosmic version of Zaroff from The Most Dangerous Game.

He's always been innately competitive, but also so beyond Gary Stu levels of compitent that he's succeeds trivially at every task he sets his mind to, which he quickly finds boring.

He turned to murder as way of trying to compete with law enforcement along with all of moral society, hoping at least that would challenge him. Proving his mastery over other human beings by killing them was actually rather to his liking, but found the getting away with it part to easy.

Never one to think small, he decides the only way to really challenge himself is to target a large enough group of people, entire hostile civilizations are willing to unite against him.

And he will crush them.

Obviously, this plan is not the product of a healthy or even remotely empathic mind. But it might be produced by a rational one. The premises from which he starts from are horrific and psychotic (his own amusement is more important than the survival of civilizations; his own happiness is more important than his own life), but a valid chain of logic exists between them and his actions.

A quirk to make him more memorable and unique as evil overlords go: he is absolutely thrilled when his plans are foiled. Challenge and difficulty is the whole point. The more he loses the bigger he smiles. The better the PCS are at foiling them, the more he loves pitting himself against them... which isn't exactly the best position to be in for the PCs.

Another quirk: he's maintains a very good idea of how strong his position and plans are. He's not a megalomanic. He's got no problem writing off time, people, assets, and even goals the moment circumstances make attempting to fight to keep them become unlikely to succede.

To quote Parson Gotti, "Perfect strategy doesn't mean we never lose."

Arutema
2018-08-26, 06:40 PM
Edit: As a side note- still learning Starfinder. Can you create NPC bosses using the same rules outlined for Player Characters?
To answer this: It probably won't result in a very satisfying boss battle. You'll get a pile of HP and stamina that has trouble landing hits on the PCs, and the PCs will in turn have trouble landing hits on him. Using the NPC build rules to make a CR 3 above the PCs expected level will probably get a better boss.

Ornithologist
2018-08-27, 04:42 PM
Rule number one for "Good" Villains - No one is the villain of their own story.

With the character prompt you have i'd go probably go with:

He started with visions of revenge on the space pirates. Soon those dreams grew to be anyone who was "evil". Finally, no one currently existing would qualify as good anymore. They otherwise would have stopped those pirates before they could torture him. etc. etc. If there is some self-hate in his personality, he can blame others for not being good enough to stop him, proving that there is no good people here. Self-delusions and faulty Logic are going to be critical here as well.

As far as using his pre-existing charisma... You could have him build a cult of mooks for the PC's to Muderhobo their way through. He could be a Villian with great PR, Ala Handsome Jack as mentioned previously. The hard part (the first) is finding people to follow his lead with his expected goal. They will either need to be okay with it or not aware of the end result. Hard part (the 2nd) is going to be how often he interacts with the party. I can't imagine a character with this kind of end-goal wouldn't just murder them once they get in his way.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html) is a fun workshop that the Giant has put together years ago. I use it for all of my main, major, and occasionally some minor reoccurring antagonists.

edit: maybe a "good" resource to look into would be mental illness's associated with serial killers.

Kareeah_Indaga
2018-08-27, 09:00 PM
Those goals don't sound compatible with high intelligence.

An intelligent person who wanted "peace and quiet" would not take actions that guarantee him a place on everyone's most wanted lists.

The goals + the personality traits sound a lot more like a quiet serial killer than an omnicidal maniac. Still a villain, just not the type you're asking for.

I dunno, the first thing that comes to mind for me is 'he's a powerful telepath and the quiet he's looking for is mental'. If he's 24/7 hearing every moment of panic, every petty grievance, every burst of anger on the planet, and he can't silence the voices in his head except by killing their sources...murder might start to look attractive. And maybe on top of that he's conflating the hurt/anger/fear he's getting accidentally with the deliberate malice he was subjected to, so there's his catharsis. For thrill seeking, he gets nightmares from the torture (made worse by being able to 'hear' every migraine and scraped knee) and putting himself into risky situations 1.) Takes the vast majority of his concentration, giving him something to think about that isn't from someone else's head and 2.) Wears him out sufficiently to sleep at night. And since the aforementioned murder is probably going to fall under 'risky' on some subconscious level he starts connecting 'I did a dangerous thing' with 'the noise and pain went away'. Does that work for a sympathy angle?

You'd probably need some kind of mind blank for the PCs if you go psychic with him though. :smallconfused: Might be able to hand wave the early parts of the adventure that he doesn't notice them specifically because they're just a couple more voices in a crowd, but eventually he should notice. Unless he only THINKS he's hearing all the voices etc. Then you could just have crazy. Or have him be under a curse the PCs could lift, something like that.

Nifft
2018-08-27, 09:14 PM
I dunno, the first thing that comes to mind for me is 'he's a powerful telepath and the quiet he's looking for is mental'. If he's 24/7 hearing every moment of panic, every petty grievance, every burst of anger on the planet, and he can't silence the voices in his head except by killing their sources...murder might start to look attractive. That's precisely the condition afflicting Elon Musk.

But seriously, he's a great example of what an actually smart person might do to cope with your scenario:
- Work himself unto physical & mental exhaustion (since that's a way he can sleep); and
- Figure out a way to get the heck off the planet with all the noisy brains.



And maybe on top of that he's conflating the hurt/anger/fear he's getting accidentally with the deliberate malice he was subjected to, so there's his catharsis. Lashing out at innocent strangers isn't a trait I associate with high intellect.

Conflating the source of his condition so he can attribute malice where there is none -- that isn't a trait I associate with high intellect, either.

You could certainly make a self-deluded NPC villain, but that villain ought not be the smartest person in the room, especially not if the players are supposed to figure out that he's deluded before he figures it out himself.

Avista
2018-08-27, 11:32 PM
'Broken by torture and intent to destroy all things' wouldn't exactly be charismatic. More of a brooder. You could say he believes existence is pointless, so the only not-pointless action is to destroy all existence.

I guess the charisma could be pulled off from a really good actor. Someone who puts up a front to get what he wants.

Frozen_Feet
2018-08-28, 03:40 AM
I played Shin Megami Tensei IV after posting in this thread. So slight spoilers ahead. The game has a good example of a clever omnicidal villain in the White.

The White plead for the main character to return the world to nothingness, so that all souls can have peace at last. They are pretty friendly and reasonable in their plea. But, like I talked in the first post, they can only do make the argument because the cosmology of Megaten is really merciless. God is evil and the world is doomed no matter which way you choose. No matter whether you choose to preserve the status quo or to tear it down in favor of something new, someone will come along and undo it because they crave for something you gave up. They don't just say this, they say it after they've demonstrated that this is what will happen via way of alternative timelines.