PDA

View Full Version : A good villain.



Lady Corvus
2021-03-10, 01:22 PM
Hi! Some questions:

In your opinion(s), what makes a good main villain/BBEG? What are some good ways to introduce them? How many times should the PCs meet them before the final battle? How much of an influence should they have on the whole story? How can they be threatening while not unbeatable?

Thanks!

Batcathat
2021-03-10, 01:33 PM
Something I really enjoy in a villain is interesting and sympathetic motivations. I prefer someone doing awful things for excellent reasons to yet another "Mohahaha! Let's conquer the world!" any day.

Xervous
2021-03-10, 03:05 PM
Hi! Some questions:

In your opinion(s), what makes a good main villain/BBEG? What are some good ways to introduce them? How many times should the PCs meet them before the final battle? How much of an influence should they have on the whole story? How can they be threatening while not unbeatable?

Thanks!

The best villains are the ones the players choose for themselves, the ones where they (the player characters) make it personal. Be it an NPC they choose because they don’t like how he pronounces gif, or the NPC that delivers a slight or an inconvenience without batting an eye, the main thing to note is that these villains are the ones that get your players going “If I could get my hands on Parnell...”

For a long term villain you may want to take it slow, as that lets your players form expectations for this NPC before the trap snaps and those expectations are betrayed. Bandit leader who sent dudes to rob people on this road? Ho hum. Merchant who is selling adulterated maps that lead travelers along a ‘shortcut’ that turns out to be infested with rust monsters, and said merchant deals in metal armaments... That revelation will win outrage. Of course remember the villain should have a reasonable chance at losing in the end, but don’t immediately serve them up on a silver platter after the initial outrage. Once the seed is planted even small acts will grate on the players as they want to dislike the NPC as it’s the only thing they can do short of taking action against the NPC. The action composes the turning points and climax of the adventure, but they’ll be loathing the NPC every step of the way between those highlights, grumbling about him when they stop to buy pastries, scowling at merchants who are hawking wares out of crates stamped with the NPC’s crest.

On the number of meetings there is no good number. Depends on the plot and the players and the GM. If I could make a system of it and put a single number on it then it wouldn’t be an art after all.

Again it’s hard to say. But I will say this on story impact. The more linear a plot you intend to spin the more of the story the villain should be involved with. This is mostly a matter of player perception. If a demon invasion forced all the refugees to this city and the city is the whole scope, the lazy minister who neglects to do much for the people could be the main villain. He doesn’t actually do much, but he is referenced plenty such that the players can fixate on him as the source of all the looting, killing and oppression. The “I was puppeteering these nations against one another” evil vizier could easily have low villainous screen time up until his climactic reveal, but I’ll bet you a shiny pixel the players will more likely remember one of his lieutenants some years down the road.

Villains start out with advantages over the player characters. In the course of the adventure the players will either grow to overcome those advantages or find opportunities to bypass them. The minister who loses an emergency election has lost the protection of his office that would otherwise have doomed the peasant born players to execution if they raised a hand against him. Or maybe a player earned a title and now has sufficient social standing (and party shenanigans shutting down other villain options) such that the only choice available to the minister for addressing this problem is to issue a formal challenge and settle things with a duel. The players would lose to the villain at the start, the adventure is the story about how they find themselves to winning circumstances.

JoeJ
2021-03-10, 03:43 PM
When it's good to have the PCs first meet the villain depends on what kind of villain you're doing. If their homeland is being invaded, there's probably no reason to have them meet the BBEG until the final battle. OTOH, if this is a case of a great hero falling into evil, that's going to be more powerful if the PCs are friends with the hero before he falls. For a master manipulator, I'd want to get to about a quarter of the way through the campaign before the PCs even figure out that there even is a "spider in the web" so to speak. About halfway through they'd meed the villain in disguise; if possible I'd have him become their patron. Three quarters of the way through the campaign they'd discover that their patron is really the BBEG, and all the missions they've been undertaking have actually made him stronger. Then the last quarter of the campaign can be spent trying to fix the problem they unwittingly helped create. Something that detailed obviously requires a bit of player buy-in, to keep the PCs on track, so if you like very sandboxy games I wouldn't suggest this kind of villain.

Wizard_Lizard
2021-03-10, 05:45 PM
Something I really enjoy in a villain is interesting and sympathetic motivations. I prefer someone doing awful things for excellent reasons to yet another "Mohahaha! Let's conquer the world!" any day.

I mean my types of games are a little atypical, but sometimes I prefer the "Mohahaha!" villain because... ugh sometimes I feel a little worn out by the angsty moral conundrums, but players and dms are only alike in that they are different.

GrayDeath
2021-03-10, 07:23 PM
A lot of things.

My personal favourite Villains however are those that have, for a long time, fought besides the "Heroes".
But their paths diverged, further and further, and in the end, while both can fully justify what they did to themselves (being it raising an udnead army even if your friends disagreed, or turning on your friend the moment they switched their god from Chauntea to nerull^^).

My, from both my palyers and myself, most memorable Villain, after who I named my Account on another Forum, actually was first saved by them, when a Planar Invasion/Scout party was actually killing his small merc Company, fought alongside them through 2 campaigns to stop a "Ishtars High priest would applaud" City state from enslaving the Elves, travelled to another Version of the same Planet, prevented an insane Elfish Lich from using 3 artifacts to kill half the continent, and somehow saved the Continents Champion of Darkness.....just to kill said Champion later, steal his power, activate his Doomsday Thingy (which aside from projecting a Field that kills all nonundead 15km around it, mainly produces more or less one Fantasy Version of a necron Warrior every 15 Minutes. For free. Who obey the former ally.

He even sent them a thank you note, and proimised not to bother them as long as they stayed off "his" Continent for at least 50 years.

Yeah, well. They cursed for about 15 Minutes, saw all the small signs (or almost all) i ahd hidden, suddenly got it.

Sadly, thats likely a once in alifetime campaign (has been over for almost 10 years now.....sigh).

aglondier
2021-03-11, 02:01 AM
The paladin/lawful good character's super supportive and enthusiastic mother is the bad guy. All she really wants is for her child to be the biggest damn hero in the world...and for that there must be a villain to oppose...besides, he never cleaned his room...

Batcathat
2021-03-11, 02:38 AM
My personal favourite Villains however are those that have, for a long time, fought besides the "Heroes".
But their paths diverged, further and further, and in the end, while both can fully justify what they did to themselves (being it raising an udnead army even if your friends disagreed, or turning on your friend the moment they switched their god from Chauntea to nerull^^).

I agree, that sort of hero/villain relationships make things a lot more interesting I think (and in my case, it hits the same soft spot of "villain that's almost a hero except for..." that I mentioned above). I think a good example of that is the relationship between Magneto and Charles Xavier in various X-Men media. Old friends, agree on a lot of things, both passionate about the future of mutant kind... but frequently violently disagree on the specifics of that future.

King of Nowhere
2021-03-11, 10:28 AM
Closely related to that, the players must respect the villain. they must consider him a worthy opponent and an equal.
For this, the villain must be competent; possibly show him working hard for his goals. he must have a sensible plan that would have a decent chance at working. having the villain win at first just by fiat would turn him into a villain sue, which is bad.

Keltest
2021-03-11, 10:36 AM
Closely related to that, the players must respect the villain. they must consider him a worthy opponent and an equal.
For this, the villain must be competent; possibly show him working hard for his goals. he must have a sensible plan that would have a decent chance at working. having the villain win at first just by fiat would turn him into a villain sue, which is bad.

I disagree. The Villain's plan doesnt have to have a remotely good chance of success. They key here is that if the villain fails, thats just as bad, or possibly worse, than success. Maybe instead of becoming an immortal lich, they blow up their mountain lair and bury the capital city of a kingdom under rubble, killing untold thousands. Maybe the fabric of reality gets torn apart. Maybe catgirls become unavailable as a playable race in future campaigns. IMO a villain works best when their plan is bad no matter the outcome, because then "well we can just take the one MacGuffin and ignore him" becomes a much less viable solution.

Xervous
2021-03-11, 10:40 AM
Maybe catgirls become unavailable as a playable race in future campaigns.

I’m not seeing the downside here. Other than not getting to be the one who managed that wondrous feat myself

Keltest
2021-03-11, 10:49 AM
I’m not seeing the downside here. Other than not getting to be the one who managed that wondrous feat myself

Without the threat of catgirl murder, people on the internet will be free to muddle D&D with pointless scientific arguments forever!

Calthropstu
2021-03-11, 10:54 AM
A good villian is... believable.

"I'm going to destroy stuff because hahaha I am evil!" just doesn't sit well with me. Think Morgan freeman in Chain Reaction. Or the villian in 6th Day. They had legitimate reasons, real goals and sound arguments. They weren't trying to destroy, they were trying to do something.

My villians tend to think along such lines. In fact, more than once, my pcs have ended up siding with the bbeg.

Xervous
2021-03-11, 11:58 AM
Without the threat of catgirl murder, people on the internet will be free to muddle D&D with pointless scientific arguments forever!

So you’re saying the contributions to the discussions from catgirl lovers should be prevented? Argument invalid, anime profile pic?

Catullus64
2021-03-11, 12:21 PM
Rubbish to all of this "three-dimensional characterization, believable motivation and sympathetic traits" nonsense.

Good villainy is all about Style. If a villain has flair, his or her motives can be insane, monstrous, or just straight-up petty, and the players won't mind. Or, to put things more seriously, focus on the villain on the experiential level of the players, and how they will be impacted by the villain's actions.

An eldritch abomination that endlessly devises strange and nightmarish traps for the heroes, all the while expressing its confusion that they don't appreciate its "gifts." A mad bard out to destroy the PCs for ruining one of his performances while saving the day. A master thief who wants to steal the treasure the PCs are after, for no reason other than proving he can get to it first. I'll take these villains over Knight Templars and Woobies any day.

Batcathat
2021-03-11, 12:49 PM
Rubbish to all of this "three-dimensional characterization, believable motivation and sympathetic traits" nonsense.

Style is good. No reason it can't coexist with an interesting, sympathetic and believable motivation though. It's like preferring a car that goes fast or one that looks good. No reason not to pick both (well, in the analogy I guess money is a reason, so the metaphor isn't great).

King of Nowhere
2021-03-11, 12:58 PM
I disagree. The Villain's plan doesnt have to have a remotely good chance of success. They key here is that if the villain fails, thats just as bad, or possibly worse, than success. Maybe instead of becoming an immortal lich, they blow up their mountain lair and bury the capital city of a kingdom under rubble, killing untold thousands. Maybe the fabric of reality gets torn apart. Maybe catgirls become unavailable as a playable race in future campaigns. IMO a villain works best when their plan is bad no matter the outcome, because then "well we can just take the one MacGuffin and ignore him" becomes a much less viable solution.
well...
if the villain is crafty, you won't be able to stop him for long just by foiling a single plan.
thinking on it, none of my villains had ever relied on any macguffin, ever. at least, not the kind that can be just taken away. heck, i generally dislike the very concept of macguffin, as in some innocuous object that inexplicably has ridiculous powers and cannot be replicated or stuff.

the ancient dragon who firmly believes humanoids will gradually encroach draconic land and eventually drive dragons to extinction, and is trying to unite the dragons to wage extermination war on the humanoids - all the while manipulating several humanoid powers into conflict among themselves, so that there will be less remaining to fight the dragons - is not going to be stopped by foiling a single plan.
In fact, that one managed to put a friend as party cohort and use said associate to manipulate the party into causing conflicts. For most of the campaign, the party thought the ancient dragon was their ally...


Rubbish to all of this "three-dimensional characterization, believable motivation and sympathetic traits" nonsense.

Good villainy is all about Style. If a villain has flair, his or her motives can be insane, monstrous, or just straight-up petty, and the players won't mind. Or, to put things more seriously, focus on the villain on the experiential level of the players, and how they will be impacted by the villain's actions.

An eldritch abomination that endlessly devises strange and nightmarish traps for the heroes, all the while expressing its confusion that they don't appreciate its "gifts." A mad bard out to destroy the PCs for ruining one of his performances while saving the day. A master thief who wants to steal the treasure the PCs are after, for no reason other than proving he can get to it first. I'll take these villains over Knight Templars and Woobies any day.
those are very different kinds of villains, and they have their place at my table.
But they tend to be more laughing stock material than serious villains.
I just can't imagine those lunatics as really dangerous. Sure, they may put up a hard fight, but they are just too dumb to accumulate enough power. The main villains all have multiple sources of power (money, allies, minions, political influence) that they achieved over time with careful management. those lunatic villains, on the other hand, would quickly lose all of the above, leaving only their personal combat capability as their tool.

Catullus64
2021-03-11, 01:05 PM
Style is good. No reason it can't coexist with an interesting, sympathetic and believable motivation though. It's like preferring a car that goes fast or one that looks good. No reason not to pick both (well, in the analogy I guess money is a reason, so the metaphor isn't great).

I wasn't really trying to say that those things are actually bad, just overrated; and very often, attempts to make your villain sympathetic can backfire.

I had a DM once who set up this evil duke to be the villain. Dude tried to use us to frame one of his rivals, tried to have us killed when we got wise, and threatened one PC's family to try to bring us in line.

And then the DM was surprised and offended when we hated the guy's guts and held him in contempt, rather than respecting him as a worthy opponent. "He really thinks he's doing this for the good of the kingdom! He wants to bring peace and avert a war!". None of that mattered, though, because A). The duke never treated us, the player characters, with any decency, and B) he had no charm or stylish traits, he was just a self-serious bore. The DM failed to make him "sympathetic" in any respect save the abstract philosophical nobility of his motives.

Inversely, if you put too much effort into making your villain sympathetic, that sympathy can override the PC's actual motives for opposing them, and suddenly what you have isn't an antagonist anymore.

If you can make a villain a rounded, dynamic character, without sacrificing flair and fun, then great. But that balancing act takes a far, far better writer than most people are, and I think most DMs would be better served focusing on making the villain experientially entertaining than on giving him tragic, noble motivations for trying to blow up the sun or whatever.

Batcathat
2021-03-11, 02:08 PM
And then the DM was surprised and offended when we hated the guy's guts and held him in contempt, rather than respecting him as a worthy opponent. "He really thinks he's doing this for the good of the kingdom! He wants to bring peace and avert a war!". None of that mattered, though, because A). The duke never treated us, the player characters, with any decency, and B) he had no charm or stylish traits, he was just a self-serious bore. The DM failed to make him "sympathetic" in any respect save the abstract philosophical nobility of his motives.

So your point is... that it can be done incompetently? Sure, but so can pretty much anything. There are a lot of GM:s who try to create stylish villains but fail completely but I wouldn't say that detracts from your argument about style being important.


Inversely, if you put too much effort into making your villain sympathetic, that sympathy can override the PC's actual motives for opposing them, and suddenly what you have isn't an antagonist anymore.

Usually the villain's methods or goals are reason enough to keep the PCs hostile towards them, even if their motives are sympathetic. But sure, there are bound to be exceptions to that, I just don't see it as a problem. There's likely to still be conflict enough for a fun adventure, the PCs will just be on the other side of it.


If you can make a villain a rounded, dynamic character, without sacrificing flair and fun, then great. But that balancing act takes a far, far better writer than most people are, and I think most DMs would be better served focusing on making the villain experientially entertaining than on giving him tragic, noble motivations for trying to blow up the sun or whatever.

But that's the thing, to some people the sympathetic (or at least understandable) villain is more entertaining then some mustache-twirling capital-E evil monster, no matter how stylish.

And really, it doesn't take that much writing talent to come up with an understandable reason for doing something. At least not much more than creating a truly stylish villain (if anything, I would say style is tougher, but that's admittedly rather subjective).

Telonius
2021-03-11, 02:24 PM
It depends a lot on the campaign. Some campaigns aren't really villain-centric. Some sorts of "Elder Evil" campaigns (where you're fighting a malign force of nature) don't really have a "villain," in the sense of some person actively plotting to thwart the heroes (or who the heroes are trying to thwart). For there to be an interesting villain, you need to have it structured as a "person versus person" conflict, not any of the other types (person vs nature, society, self, etc).

If you're running a short campaign, you're going to have to have a much quicker reveal of the bad guy. For a one-shot or short campaign, it's less important (and less possible) for you to have the sort of motivation stuff that a longer campaign would have. You will only have a couple of scenes where the villain himself is present, so you need to reveal the info through other characters. A good way to do this is to have a couple of sympathetic NPCs who have been personally hurt by them. Talk to the lady at the orphanage that's being foreclosed, and the adorable/hilarious urchin who'll be thrown out on the streets; don't have them see Snidely Whiplash directly. Show them the damage, and they'll be much more satisfied with a one-shot fight.

For a longer-term campaign, you'll have more of a chance for the villain to interact with the heroes, especially if he meets them early on. Heroes hate, hate, hate feeling powerless. Put them in that position with the villain obviously there and in charge, and they will take it personally. He doesn't necessarily have to capture the heroes (though that is a traditional way of doing it). And it doesn't even necessarily have to be a physical conflict. It just has to be something where the villain does something villainous, and the heroes can't do a thing about it.

JellyPooga
2021-03-11, 03:23 PM
Hi! Some questions:

In your opinion(s), what makes a good main villain/BBEG? What are some good ways to introduce them? How many times should the PCs meet them before the final battle? How much of an influence should they have on the whole story? How can they be threatening while not unbeatable?

Thanks!

Preface: All of the following is only my opinion. Please take it as such.

1) On the difference between a "(Big) Bad (End) Guy" and a "Villain"

It's important to distinguish the two narratively, I think, because in large part they can be separated.

For me, a Villain is an antagonist of the Player Characters (or protagonists) on a personal level. They are the recurring foils to the players' endeavours and vice versa. Think Batman vs. The Joker or Holmes vs. Moriarty. A Villain being ultimately defeated or killed also means the end of the protagonists story; everything noteworthy a hero accomplishes, even if seemingly unrelated, can in part be attributed to their ongoing feud with their Villain, so when one ends so does the other. In the context of an RPG, a Villain should never be killed, only foiled or defeated until such time as the campaign is concluded and the PC's either retire, their mission accomplished, or die taking down their foe(s) in a blaze of glory.

A BBEG, on the other hand, is the Saturday Morning Cartoon BadGuy-of-the-Week. Their motivations and goals can be independent of the over-arching plot campaign OR if they are a part of the grand campaign, they're there as the mid-stage boss, lieutenant or other "let's give the players a definitive win" kinda deal. BBEG's very much can be defeated and/or killed and while they can recur and even eventually become Villains over time, they can or should typically be forgotten once their involvement in the player characters story is ended.

In short, Villains escape to fight another day. Bad Guys are sword fodder.

DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that means Villains are more powerful than Bad Guys. A Bad Guy can be physically, magically or otherwise much more powerful than a Villain. Even if they work (either directly or indirectly) for the Villain. The difference is their relevance to the plot and the player characters themselves (or to put it another way; Villains have plot-armour).

2) Introductions

This is entirely campaign/adventure dependant. But some general tips:

- A Villain might never reveal their hand until the PC's discover or catch up to them. Some of the best Villains operate hidden in plain sight; they might even be directing the PC's actions as a quest-giver. Others might always be one step ahead of the PC's investigations. It's hard to introduce a Villain as a Villain without the Players wanting to kill him on sight (or at least try), so the obvious solution is to introduce a Villain as something other than what they are. If you do introduce your Villain as a Villain, be sure to have some kind of contingency plan to keep them alive or in the game. Extreme power differential is the easiest, but probably least interesting method here (e.g. setting a Lich against Lvl.1 PCs; the "problem" is clearly solved, but the result is...narratively somewhat unsatisfying). Sacrificial minions, escape tunnels/secret doors, emergency magic and traps work well for when the PC's have invaded the Villains lair, as cliché as they may be. A defeated and captured villain can escape their justice/jail; even if sentenced to death a Villain can have a lieutenant or patron rescue them from their doom (riffing on this, death can even be a road to power for certain Villains; turning NPC's into Undead is a time-honoured method of bringing them back in a more powerful incarnation).

- Bad Guys don't have to be, but really work well when well telegraphed. Introduced as an obvious Bad Guy, they become a focus for the short-term Adventure (as compared to the long-term Campaign). If they're powerful, they can be introduced early and often; putting the PC's down/in their place before continuing with their nefarious plans, until such time as the PC's have trained and levelled (etc.) to the point of defeating them.

- The last two points can be interchanged, but the impact of doing so will hit differently because of the time-scales and themes involved. A trusted friend or ally over the course of several adventures turning out to be a Villain hits very differently to the friendly town Mayor that turns out to be the Bad Guy leading the cult that's been abducting children for the adventure-of-the-week. One is a tragic and devastating reveal, the other is an episode of Scooby Doo. The converse also has similar connotations; a frequently encountered Villain defuses their mystique and threat as a Villain, turning them into an ineffectual Skeletor to be defeated every weekend by He-Man, instead of being a credible ongoing threat.

3) Threat

Threat is a tricky one. If you set up a character to be too much of a threat, then fulfilling that image in practice can lead to encounters with them being too hard (even TPK). If you set them up as a threat that isn't fulfilled then the encounter with them is unsatisfying. If you set them up as not enough of a threat, then the encounter with them isn't the finale it could be.

The type of Villain or Bad Guy very much determines the kind of threat they can pose. A mastermind style Villain might not be much of a threat in person, but through their machinations and manipulation can bring threat to the PC's loved ones, dependents or similar off-screen elements like villagers, princesses, whole towns or entire planes of existence. This offers indirect threat to the Players, allowing you to include elements to your adventure/campaign like time, choice (of who to save or what to do) and more ephemeral, non-combat challenges in place of the more visceral lumps of HP and whacky attacks/abilities that a series of combat encounters does. A Villain or Bad Guy, for example, that inflicts a supernatural plague on a village asks the PC's to fight the disease as much as it asks them to seek out and destroy the source.

Taevyr
2021-03-11, 03:50 PM
I always found Rich/The Giant's article on the old forum, on how to build/write a good villain, an excellent tool; unfortunately, those forum articles aren't as easily found anymore, but I'll see if I can find it on the wayback machine.

EDIT: found it. https://web.archive.org/web/20191224025145/http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html

JoeJ
2021-03-11, 04:47 PM
One idea that is kind of intriguing that I've never seen done is to have a master villain that the PCs never actually meet. Think of Sauron in Lord of the Rings; he's defeated and destroyed, but never faced directly.

FatR
2021-03-13, 09:43 AM
Something I really enjoy in a villain is interesting and sympathetic motivations. I prefer someone doing awful things for excellent reasons to yet another "Mohahaha! Let's conquer the world!" any day.

When people say that, there always seems to be an implication that power, immortality, and ability to indulge one's most exquisite vices are not excellent reasons. Bah. Nonsense. To the soul grinder with peons not appreciating what is best in the world.

A bit more seriously, qualities of a good villain depend on what you want to see in the end. If you enjoy hateable villains, then their hypocricy and/or sheer pettiness should be emphasized. If you enjoy stylish villains, they should have despicable goals, towards which they strive with skill, charisma and excellent leadership. Sympathetic villains are actually the hardest to do right, particularly in the TTRPG frame, and "doing awful things for excellent reasons" is almost always the wrong recipe, because at some point you will be forced to confront the question of "can the villain's methods actually achieve the posited greater good?" and as the answer is almost never going to be anything but decisive "No", given that he's positioned as a villain in the first place. Sympathetic villains in fiction sink or swim solely on quality of writing/acting, to greater extent than characters in general, and this quality is not going to be very high in a TTRPG session.

Batcathat
2021-03-13, 10:02 AM
When people say that, there always seems to be an implication that power, immortality, and ability to indulge one's most exquisite vices are not excellent reasons. Bah. Nonsense. To the soul grinder with peons not appreciating what is best in the world.

Fair point, those are pretty good reasons, just not very interesting reasons, in my opinion.


Sympathetic villains are actually the hardest to do right, particularly in the TTRPG frame, and "doing awful things for excellent reasons" is almost always the wrong recipe, because at some point you will be forced to confront the question of "can the villain's methods actually achieve the posited greater good?" and as the answer is almost never going to be anything but decisive "No", given that he's positioned as a villain in the first place.

I don't think finding good reasons for the heroes to oppose the villain is that hard, even if they understand (or even agree with) the villain's goal. A classic being the villain's goal legitimately improving things for a lot of people but coming at some horrible cost. A plan that make life great for half the population of the world... at the cost of killing the other half. A plan that can cure all disease... at the cost of sacrificing the occasional orphan. A plan that protects some horribly persecuted group of people... at the cost of killing everyone else. A plan that achieves world peace... at the cost of free will. Etcetera, etcetera.

Basically, making the villain an extreme utilitarian, which should contrast with the more conventional morality of most heroes.

But if the heroes despite all of this find themselves agreeing with the villain I wouldn't be opposed to it. Sounds like it would make a pretty interesting adventure.


Sympathetic villains in fiction sink or swim solely on quality of writing/acting, to greater extent than characters in general, and this quality is not going to be very high in a TTRPG session.

And a stylish villain doesn't? Any GM can just portray that "skill, charisma and excellent leadership" with no problem? A badly portrayed villain with an interesting motive can still be an interesting villain, I'm not sure the same can be said about a badly portrayed attempt at a stylish villain.

Jay R
2021-03-13, 11:05 AM
A "good" villain? The best villain is Cardinal Richelieu.

In The Three Musketeers, the novel and all the movies up through 1974, Cardinal Richelieu is the musketeers’ enemy for political reasons, but he isn’t a villain. He supports France; he’s just trying to build up his (and France's) power base, and the musketeers are in his way. He is suave, quiet, courteous, and deadly. And he has spies everywhere.

Athos (1948]: “My, friend, my friend, my young country friend, when will you learn about Paris? By now, Richelieu, without the slightest doubt, knows even the color of your underpants.”

He knows everybody’s secrets, even those of his allies – and uses them. When Milady considers not working for him any longer:

[1948] “Can there be anybody more trustworthy, milady, than an ambitious woman of fashion... with a history?”

In the 1916 movie, he uses the fact of being a priest for a power play over Queen Anne. He offers her a blessing, which she, a dutiful Catholic, must bow and accept.

He is capable of being convincingly evil while remaining thoughtful and subtle.

[1966] Richelieu (speaking of Constance): Is she pretty?
Rochefort: Why, … yes. Charming.
Richelieu: So much the better. Such women like their bodies too well to have them broken on the rack.

He plays the long game, and is not too worried about minor setbacks.

1921: “I never acknowledge defeat; I make use of it.”

1948: “It takes a good man to prevent a catastrophe, milady, and a great man to make use of one. You and I, my dear, are rare new creatures in this ancient world of impulsive men. We have intellect. We think. And when we think, our impulsive enemies are helpless.”

1973: “They have won, we have lost. The point, that is; the game continues.”

You can make the case that the musketeers are the villains. Richelieu is trying to prove the Queen’s actual disloyalty and treason, and the musketeers successfully prevent it. But in truth, it’s neither. They are merely on opposite political sides, both loyal to France.

This is a statement from the historical Richelieu: “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

Richelieu is willing to do nearly anything to succeed, including kidnapping Constance, and setting ambushes to kill the musketeers, but he is still appreciative of their abilities. When Richelieu loses, he always does it with a becoming grace.

[1973] Milady: “Your Eminence is a great player - great enough to lose. I do not like to lose.”
Cardinal Richelieu: “You must suit yourself, Milady. But if in the end you should, try to do it with a becoming grace.”

In fact, he promotes D’Artagnan to Lieutenant of the Musketeers, only moments after he was going to have him put to death.

This is a great villain.

When I run the FGU game Flashing Blades, I get to play Richelieu. [This is not the only reason to run that game, but it is certainly the best one.] In every public scene, even in a tavern in the Caribbean, I always know which character present is reporting to the Cardinal. And he is not out to destroy the PCs; he has his own agenda, and will cheerfully support their efforts “against” him, if it serves his real goal.

In the ideal game, they successfully stop Richelieu's plan, save the unfortunates who were going to die, and earn their just rewards. And then they learn how Richelieu used the victory to set up his own triumph on some other issue.

HumanFighter
2021-03-13, 01:55 PM
My favorite kind of villain in fantasy settings is the old evil wizard who hangs out in a castle, tower, or fortress and has an army of weak minions that the party can easily hack and slash through, but can still be reasoned with. Goblins would be a good example of this. And like, the wizard isn't all-powerful, but he can still do a lot of stuff and has quite a few tricks up his sleeve, like taunting the party with spectral projections and whatnot. Why is the wizard being an evil bastard? Who knows, you can leave that up to the GM to decide. I just think it is a cool villain idea.

KineticDiplomat
2021-03-14, 01:56 PM
I think it depends on the type of villain. At a glance, here are a few (definitely not all) categories of villain and how I think they can be played well in RPGs:

1. The power villain. He’s big, he’s bad, and his primary attraction is being big and bad while also being freakin cool. Ironically, the key story telling here is NOT fighting him. Once he’s a pile of stats and abilities, his mystique disappears and he’s just a boss fight. But while he’s off-screen, when you only hear rumors and see aftermath, or catch a glimpse of him going all one winged angel, the tension grows. Think Beowulf or FFVII - Grendel or Sepiroth are kept “off screen” for a while, which does far, far more for them than having a fight.

If you must fight them early, make it clear that they outclass the PCs completely and utterly - both to avoid a TPK and to keep that big bad thing going. Ultimately, you want the players to have to find the info/Macguffin, build the alliance, form the plan, or what not that will let them challenge him, NOT just character advance until ready. D&D is hard to do this for because rapid exponential power growth combined with a plethora of powers means that the natural solution is to “level/gear up and then use a rules exploit to win.”

The key is that you build to the big dramatic fight because you have to find a way to even the odds. Otherwise it’s just another generic fight in systems that are often much about fighting.

More to follow...

Wizard_Lizard
2021-03-14, 04:43 PM
Style is good. No reason it can't coexist with an interesting, sympathetic and believable motivation though. It's like preferring a car that goes fast or one that looks good. No reason not to pick both (well, in the analogy I guess money is a reason, so the metaphor isn't great).

I guess that the metaphor here might be time and effort of character writing?

Williamnot
2021-03-14, 06:38 PM
One thing is similar between my favorite villains, something important.


Style.

People remember villains because they were fun. They were fun to listen to, even if they were taunting you. They weren't idiots, they were smart. They looked cool. They made jokes and poked fun at the protagonist. Most importantly though, they were fun to oppose.

Any villain can be a Sauron, or a Voldemort, or a Darth Vader. But the favorite villains that people remember are the ones that made screwing up their plans a load of fun to do.

The best way to make it fun in my opinion is to make them emotional, but not in a "Oh they're a drama queen" way. When you screw up their plans, show the characters that the villains gives a **** that they screwed up all their hard work. If the villain just moves on to the next plan, that's no fun. But when the BBEG blows his stack, or begins sobbing, that's interesting. The reaction doesn't have to be extreme, it just has to be interesting.

That's my two cents at least.

Kelb_Panthera
2021-03-14, 07:14 PM
What makes a good villain?

What makes a good character? Complexity, believability, strong motivation, etc. The line between hero and villain lies in method and target.

Good target, good method: classic hero.
Good target, bad method: anti-hero.
Bad target, good method: sympathetic villain.
Bad target, bad method: classic villain.

In my opinion, both the sympathetic and the classic villain can be done well.



Let's go with a nice tropey one for an example: the would-be usurper. He seeks to take political power by deposing those who rightfully hold it.

First, the sympathetic villain. Lets go with the even more tropey king's right hand man. The king has taken ill and our villain is acting as reagent, the prince being too young to take his father's place. What the heroes must uncover is that the reagent is -responsible- for the king's illness which is, fortunately, drug-induced and easily reversible. Now, the sympathetic part; the reagent took this drastic step because he discovered (wrongly) that the king was getting ready to declare a crusade against a powerful neighboring kingdom. The reagent is a man of strong conscience and does not wish to see the kingdom decimated by an unnecessary war and thousands of her men slaughtered; a near certainty if the king's (apparent) wish were followed through. He was convinced by the rumor monger (let's make this an outside factor such as a fiend or agent of a rival kingdom) that this was the only way, that the king would certainly ignore his pleas and warnings or perhaps even send him away.

As a complication, however, there are loyalists within the court that suspect the king's sudden illness may not be genuine and other nobles, a baron fostering the prince and his faction within the court, that would very much like to see the king succumb to his illness and the prince installed as their puppet-king.

Here's the villain part. The reagent, while torn with guilt for doing so, is quietly arranging for those who seek to either restore or slay the king to be "dealt with" in various degrees of permanency, all of them with very unsavory methods; blackmail, assassinations, fabricated scandal, etc and so on. He prefers people not to be harmed but it is sometimes unavoidable and such machinations are certainly preferable to war.

It's for the greater good, don't you know. His hands are stained with blood and betrayal, both figuratively and perhaps even literally but he had a reason that's actually not a terrible one. He's a sympathetic villain.


Now the classic villain; same setting and circumstances as above. The villain is the baron fostering the prince. He -knows- the king's illness is a lie and he strongly suspects the reagent is responsible. He doesn't really care though. It would be very much in his own interest for the king to simply croak. As the prince's foster and one of the highest ranking of the nobility beneath the king, kicking the reagent to the curb is something he feels is well within his ability to orchestrate. In fact, it's guaranteed if he can show the reagent's perfidy so long as his own scheming isn't uncovered. Naturally, this would leave him in a perfect position to take over the day-to-day until his charge grows into the role of king-proper.

Unlike the reagent, he knows nothing of any crusade and would dismiss it if he did. The king's too weak for that sort of decisive action against a rival nation, in his opinion. It's not the worst idea he ever heard though. Those backward barbarians have been getting too big for their britches anyway and their fall would open up trading routes to the prosperous eastern kingdoms.

Also unlike the reagent, he thinks nothing of using blackmail, intimidation, murder, and worse to further his own ends. Anyone in a lower station is little better than an animal, be they minor nobles or especially peasants. He'll trade their lives for what he wants as easily as a merchant trades coin for his own investments. He, of course, cares about his family and close allies; the former on a visceral, human level; the latter as pleasant enough company and useful besides; though none of them enough to throw his own life away and very few of them even so much as to risk his station. He's suave, calculating, brutally efficient in his dealings, and makes a show of any "charity" he bestows on lesser nobility; binding them to him by debt of honor, if not fiscal responsibility and making him look good for the less machiavellian amongst his peers. HIs own peasants love him because his feifdom is prosperous and he doesn't abuse or overtax them, they're more productive that way, but they have no idea he'd sell any of them in an instant, and has in the case of a few who've slighted him personally or stumbled into something they shouldn't know about.



And there you have it. Two, IMHO, decently believable villains; one sympathetic and one classic. If I were actually running this scenario, I'd flesh them both out much more than this but it should illustrate the point.

The reagent means well but got in -way- over his head. Even have him willing to restore the king after the situation becomes more secure or he's discovered and willingly accept any punishment or retire to a monestary in penance if you want extra sympathy.

The baron is just a machiavellian power-monger in addition to being a developed character.


Now, personally, I'm 100% okay with outright Evil monsters; not just classically evil humanoids like orcs and drow who hail from cultures that are anathema to the heroic archetypes but even devils and demons that are 100% guaranteed going to continue being an unrepentant, unmitigated problem for as long as they draw breath on the prime; the kind of foes you can just go to town on, no questions asked. Whether they're properly horrifying or totally camp is all in presentation, after all.

King of Nowhere
2021-03-14, 07:22 PM
A "good" villain? The best villain is Cardinal Richelieu.



i wasn't familiar with the three musketers besides the most general sketches, but i wholeheartedly agree; this is what i was trying insuccessfully to communicate. this is the kind of villain i want as the main big bad of the whole campaign.

in fact, i managed to get that kind of creed with my two best villains. and they were well received enough that they both survived the campaign and are still around in a new campaign set into the world's future. both helped the players at times when it also helped them.
the part about being polite to their enemies and gracious losers is very important, i think. if they insult the players, they end up being hated. if they act all arrogant and condescending, it makes them look dumb when they are defeated by those guys they snubbed. if they start raving things like "this cannot be! I am invincible!" they lose whatever credibility they ever possessed as masterminds.
if they recognize the players as worthy opponents, accept that their latest plan has been twarted, and try to turn the thing to their advantage, they can have several story arcs and keep being respected by the players throughout them all

GrayDeath
2021-03-16, 11:38 AM
True.

But pulling off a good Richileu....I think the closest I ever came was in a short (12 sessions) Star Wars Run taking place around the Jedi Academy time line, qwhen I used Grand Admiral Thrawn to "hire" the Players to prevent a big bad explody thingy on Coruscant.

While in the background preparing to attzack the republic AND using that prevented Blow Up to get his spies there. ^^

BRC
2021-03-16, 01:57 PM
The keys to a good villain by my count

1) Consistency

If you come across a good villain, it can be tempting to just make them the mastermind behind any evil scheme you can think of, because they're evil and doing evil stuff or what have you. A good villain should have a Goal or set of goals, and all their schemes should play towards that goal.
The goal can be pretty general, but it helps if there's some specific focus. "The villain wants power" is fine. "The villain wants to usurp the throne" is better. "The villain wants to Usurp the Throne so they can use the kingdom's armies to declare war on all Dragons" is wonderful.

2) Presence

It's pretty rare for the PC's to actually, directly FIGHT the villain before the final confrontation, and even then, you should be sparing with the Villain's actual appearance, but even without them personally there, they should have a distinctive Presence, something that makes thwarting their schemes different than fighting other enemies.

For example, if your Villain is an evil Wizard, perhaps their minions often include summoned elementals, or spellcaster apprentices, sycophants who serve the Wizard hoping to learn from his arcane mastery. Their lieutenants are provided with scrolls of high-level spells to use.

If your villain is an evil royal advisor, then they'll attack the PC's with deniable assassins, proud knights who believe they have been insulted, or even just dutiful civil servants who have been ordered to bring the PC's in to stand trial in a kangaroo court. The connection can be purely thematic, but the Villain's presence and personality should be felt in every encounter with them.
I'm fond of coming up with some defining Gimmick for the elite henchmen of my villain (For example, they all get different magical tattoos that can summon minions or conjure weapons or what have you)

3) Fallibility

It's easy, and tempting, to make your villain an impenetrable Magnificient Bastard, who always seems to come out ahead no matter what the PC's do until the final clash occurs and the PC's defeat them at the cusp of their scheme succeeding. This is fun for a bit, and it certainly makes the villain a threat, but it gets old really fast. The Players want to feel like they're making an Impact.

Let your Villain fail. When the PC's stop their scheme, let that frustrate them, even if it doesn't necessarily END their plotting. Maybe they need to take a riskier approach, or lavishly spend more resources than they wanted to. Make it clear that, due to the PC's actions, Things Are Not Going According To Plan. Often, this is a good way to raise the stakes, and make things more dangerous.

For example, The Evil Wizard had planned to use the Chalice of Fire to summon an army of Fire Elementals to fill out their armies. The PC's stopped them from getting the Chalice, but the Wizard still needs hearty foot soldiers, so he bargains with a Demon Lord for fiendish reinforcements. The PC's now have to fight Demons, and the Wizard's forces are resorting to Blood Sacrifice to pay the debt, which is, in turn, making other factions more motivated to join the fight, and perhaps getting some of the Wizard's lieutenants to turn against them.
Things are more DANGEROUS now that the Wizard is using demons instead of elementals, but their overall position is less secure, this isn't what they wanted. Getting the chalice was still a victory


4) Personality

A good Villain should be memorable. This doesn't necessarily mean high drama, but the GM should have a very clear sense of who the villain is and how they see the world, and that should carry forward with how they behave and interact. As a general rule, avoid "Crazy" as a personality trait, that word is meaningless. If your villain is irrational, deluded, or obssessed, give them clear direction for those traits. A villain should have a very clear sense of how they see themselves (This might be self-delusion, a facade that cracks under pressure), and this should come through.

5) Believable

It's important that the PC's can believe that this villain exists and represents an actual threat.

It bothered me, when my group played through Tyranny of Dragons, how the Cult of the Dragon had seemingly endless numbers of fanatical followers, being able to field literal armies that clashed with established powers. Sure, they had draconic backup, but when your stated, public goal is "Summon an evil dragon god", where do you find that many people to fight for you? I could see a small well connected Cult forming, but nothing that should be able to field an army.

If your Villain has a large following, explain why people might follow them. If they have vast reserves of power, explain where that power came from.
Their motivations should be believable as well, and once again, the motivation shouldn't be "They are Crazy".

This isn't to say they need to be shades-of-gray maybe they're right. The Villain can be clearly in the wrong, and needing to be stopped, but the players should be able to understand WHY the villain is doing what they are doing, and why they have the resources they have to do it.

King of Nowhere
2021-03-16, 02:09 PM
True.

But pulling off a good Richileu....I think the closest I ever came was in a short (12 sessions) Star Wars Run taking place around the Jedi Academy time line, qwhen I used Grand Admiral Thrawn to "hire" the Players to prevent a big bad explody thingy on Coruscant.

While in the background preparing to attzack the republic AND using that prevented Blow Up to get his spies there. ^^
true, pulling off that kind of villain is difficult. it won't succeed every time.

that's why, if you try to set them up a villain and fail, you add some goofyness to them and demote them to b-list villain. and when he's defeated because they failed to correctly manipulate the party and their contingencies for things going awry didn't work, well, perhaps this guy was never as competent as he thought he was.
perhaps all his plan was a manipulation made by the REAL villain, yet unrevealed, who set up this gullible fool as a wannabe main villain as part of his own master plan.

if the new villain fails to make an impression, and the newer villain too, just admit to the players that your villain didn't turn out as well as you wanted, and blame it on you not being a professional storyteller. there are times for an author saving throw, and times to try and admit failure with dignity

BRC
2021-03-16, 02:47 PM
i wasn't familiar with the three musketers besides the most general sketches, but i wholeheartedly agree; this is what i was trying insuccessfully to communicate. this is the kind of villain i want as the main big bad of the whole campaign.

in fact, i managed to get that kind of creed with my two best villains. and they were well received enough that they both survived the campaign and are still around in a new campaign set into the world's future. both helped the players at times when it also helped them.
the part about being polite to their enemies and gracious losers is very important, i think. if they insult the players, they end up being hated. if they act all arrogant and condescending, it makes them look dumb when they are defeated by those guys they snubbed. if they start raving things like "this cannot be! I am invincible!" they lose whatever credibility they ever possessed as masterminds.
if they recognize the players as worthy opponents, accept that their latest plan has been twarted, and try to turn the thing to their advantage, they can have several story arcs and keep being respected by the players throughout them all

In my general advice post up above, I advised against just playing the Mastermind, but if you want to play a mastermind...

A key part of practical intelligence for somebody like a matermind villain is flexibility, and recognizing that situations change. No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that.

Also, if your goal is to get your players to respect the intelligence of your villain, demonstrating flexibility is a far easier way to do it than trying to make them seem omnicompetent.

If you try to pull off a "This was my plan all along", without having carefully foreshadowed the plan and given the PC's a chance to thwart it, then it comes across less as "The Villain is an intelligent mastermind", and more that "The DM is retconning things to make the villain an intelligent mastermind", whether or not it was actually a retcon.


On the other hand, having the villain demonstrate flexibility, pulling out to avoid wasting resources on a lost cause, demonstrating that they had a genuine contingency (not an elaborate scheme where they render the PC's actions moot) makes it feel like the villain is actually smart enough to plan for things to go wrong.

The issue with the Xanatos Gambit is that it's easy to after-the-fact declare that the villain predicted the specific WAY things would go wrong, and had a plan to account for that. Which only works from the Player's perspective if they have some evidence from beforehand that such a plan was in place. Otherwise, it's going to look like a Retcon, because in real life people don't have highly specific contingency plans for the thousand ways something could go wrong. Even if they don't get mad at you for retconning in the villain's victory, such a "Mastermind" only lasts so long as the GM keeps retconning things to continue the illusion of invincibility. When there's nothing the PC's could have done about the plan, then the villain's intelligence isn't a challenge to overcome, it's just "We keep breaking their toys until the GM decides to let us win for real and doesn't retcon in some contingency"

A more general contingency or fallback plan, one not reliant on predicting any particular outcome or course of events besides the most general "Well, I guess I lost", is far more believable, and makes the villain appear genuinely more competent. The players understand what happened, and can engage on that level.


For example, The Evil Advisor sends an Assassin to kill the King. The PC's thwart the Assassin! Huzzah!

Bad approach "Oh, while the PC's stopped the assassin, another, different assassin had infiltrated the royal guard, and the King was killed anyway".
If the PC's had some clues about an assassin in the Royal Guard, maybe that could work, "Oh, we failed to follow those clues and stop the second assassin", but if it comes out of nowhere, it just feels like a retcon, how was the Advisor supposed to know to send two assassins? If he could get an Assassin in the royal guard, why not just do that in the first place?

Plus, it negates the PC's victory, which is never good.


A much better approach is "The PC's kill the Assassin. They are thanked by the crown. The Advisor says to the king "My Liege, a conspiracy lurks in the shadows. Had these brave heroes not been there, you would have died.

We must keep you safe. The Royal Guard should escort you to our stronghold in the mountains, I will stay here and rule on your behalf, trust me, we will find the villain who sent this assassin!"

The latter plan works much better because it's a contingency that can be used no matter HOW the assassin is stopped, and requires minimal extra resources or risk that would be wasted on an elaborate backup plan. It's entirely predictable considering the known circumstances (The King trusts the Advisor, the PC's have no evidence tying the advisor to the assassin, the Assassin is caught and thwarted), which makes it a far better demonstration of intelligence than relying on information the players couldn't have known.

Jay R
2021-03-16, 05:15 PM
BRC wrote much excellent stuff, including this:


The issue with the Xanatos Gambit is that it's easy to after-the-fact declare that the villain predicted the specific WAY things would go wrong, and had a plan to account for that. Which only works from the Player's perspective if they have some evidence from beforehand that such a plan was in place. Otherwise, it's going to look like a Retcon, because in real life people don't have highly specific contingency plans for the thousand ways something could go wrong.

When I play him, Richelieu doesn’t have highly specific contingency plans for the thousand ways things could go; he has several contingency plans that cover most general possibilities.

When I was running Richelieu, the PCs were in the Caribbean1, and had successfully stolen a ship. Within a day, they met someone they’d seen a few times (one of Richelieu’s spies2). He had a sealed envelope for them from Richelieu, congratulating them on acquiring a ship, with some useful information on where a Spanish ship carrying gold could be found at that time of year. I emphasized that there was no way the news could have gotten to France and back.

Near the end of the encounter, a sharp-sighted PC noticed that there were several similar envelopes burning in the fire. Richelieu had prepared for several possibilities, including the PCs acquiring a ship.

1Yes, I’m aware that Richelieu is too early for the golden age of piracy. Their initial mission was to investigate the rumors of French boucan-hunters raiding on the island of Cuba. These will eventually become the “buccaneers” of the Caribbean, leading to that golden age.

2As I said earlier, in any public location, I always knew which character was reporting to Richelieu.

Lord Raziere
2021-03-16, 05:53 PM
When I play him, Richelieu doesn’t have highly specific contingency plans for the thousand ways things could go; he has several contingency plans that cover most general possibilities.


Yeah don't pull out bat shark repellant, try a plan like "have an escape route" or "secondary weapon if first doesn't work"

the real problem with having a thousand contingency plans is that anyone with power operates on a budget, time constraints and the fact that highly specific plans are highly inefficient or wasteful anyways: sure you can make a specific plan to take down a specific enemy if they ever do X Y and Z, but the more specific the scenario the more improbable it becomes and the more the preparation becomes useless and a waste of time and money.

really you want to keep your contingencies as widely applicable as possible, so that you have come up with as little of them as possible, because you can use one for so many. its why a lot of plans for when a disaster strikes no matter how weird or improbable they are is "evacuate the area". because one of the best ways to make sure your not hurt when things go wrong is to NOT be there no matter what is actually happening. Its simple, everyone can understand it and can be used for many things.

a villain if they have no reason to stay at a specific place and needs to live for the specific plot to work, can just have an escape route. its plausible, common and has nothing to do with the PC's themselves since there could be a lot of things they might want to avoid.

In short, don't act as if the villain is preparing specifically for your PC's because they somehow magically know they are the important ones: remember that they are just people in that world like everyone else and the villain might have more enemies if they're that evil, and they can't plan specifically for those guys either out of similar "too narrow and impractical" concerns.

BRC
2021-03-16, 05:59 PM
BRC wrote much excellent stuff, including this:



When I play him, Richelieu doesn’t have highly specific contingency plans for the thousand ways things could go; he has several contingency plans that cover most general possibilities.

When I was running Richelieu, the PCs were in the Caribbean1, and had successfully stolen a ship. Within a day, they met someone they’d seen a few times (one of Richelieu’s spies2). He had a sealed envelope for them from Richelieu, congratulating them on acquiring a ship, with some useful information on where a Spanish ship carrying gold could be found at that time of year. I emphasized that there was no way the news could have gotten to France and back.

Near the end of the encounter, a sharp-sighted PC noticed that there were several similar envelopes burning in the fire. Richelieu had prepared for several possibilities, including the PCs acquiring a ship.

1Yes, I’m aware that Richelieu is too early for the golden age of piracy. Their initial mission was to investigate the rumors of French boucan-hunters raiding on the island of Cuba. These will eventually become the “buccaneers” of the Caribbean, leading to that golden age.

2As I said earlier, in any public location, I always knew which character was reporting to Richelieu.
that one's a bit of grey area from what I'm talking about, but ultimately works because this Highly Specific Plan doesn't actually require the Cardinal to invest any additional resources, except the time and ink to write a letter.

He already knows where the spanish ship will be. He's already watching the PC's.

It means he's the sort to write a series of highly specific letters instead of just trusting his agent to act on their own initiative, but that's not a huge deal.


The Xanatos Gambit usually falls apart because it's a huge investment of resources to account for a specific situation that may or may not have occurred. Considering how much of an RPG session is up to chance/unpredictable, this means that the "Mastermind" would usually be in idiot, hence why it usually looks more like the GM just retconned something.


If the Contingency Plan doesn't actually cost the Mastermind anything, it's fine, but even then I'd shy away from the above sort of thing too often. It's going to lose impact with "oh, our GM is showing off how smart the villain is by retconning them into having countless contingencies"

Lord Raziere
2021-03-16, 06:18 PM
Though on the other hand, the countless contingency plans could actually be played as a villain flaw, namely a variant on (Tvtropes) Complexity Addiction (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplexityAddiction)

but instead of multi-step plans, its having so many contingencies that they can't possibly be kept track of and the resulting impracticality of their minions being unable to follow them all or something. like imagine being a minion who has to memorize this or that plan in case the villain is not there and they end up writing things down on a note just to keep it all straight, or something sets off multiple contingencies at once that end up just colliding with each other and causing a big mess.

furthermore, the downside of contingency plans is that they're inherently reactive: a clever person if they manage to infiltrate you, figure out what your plan is secretly and then sabotage things so that it looks like the conditions are created for the contingency to go off, such a bluff can waste resources and provide opportunity for a real attack to begin while everyone is dealing with the emergency they think they're dealing with- like fire drills. in short, to counter super-preparedness, be very good at deception, bluffing and feinting to make the person waste resources on fake threats. paranoia is a flaw for a reason.

King of Nowhere
2021-03-16, 08:09 PM
being prepared has little to do with making many contingencies. it has to do with resources and redundancy.

resources are used to deal with failures, but they are not contingencies. a contingency is a specific plan to deal with a specific situation. a resource is something that can be used in multiple instances. Having a second assassin infiltrated in case the first fails is a contingency. Having a second assassin at hand to deal with any "obstacle" on your plans is a resource. you can send it to finish the job of the first assassin if he fails, you can send it somewhere else. it's something you can use to adapt to a new situation. wealth, minions, informations, all those are resources that the villain can use to adapt to a new situation.
"but", one may say, "having resources and using them does not imply being smart. any rich spoiled kid can have resources". yes, but a mastermind will use well his resources, while a dumb villain will squander them. the dumb villain will kill the messenger and abuse his minions, who will then run away at the first chance. a dumb villain will alienate his allies, waste his money. a smart villain had many resources exactly because he spent a long time carefully cultivating them. he's quite like a pc in that regard, because also the pc has many such resources like allies, influence, spies that he can gather or lose.

redundancy means your plan is stable enough to deal with failures. there is no single point of failure, no single event that would throw everything in disarray if it goes wrong. just like in engineering a cable car is built in a way that the breaking of any single cable will not result in catastrophe, so is a good evil plan not dependent on anything too specific.
eventually enough failures will throw the whole plan out, but it will require much effort.

Calthropstu
2021-03-16, 08:16 PM
I know this is a pun of the title, but what about a villian that is literally good?

The epic of Robin Hood for example, from a certain perspective he's a villian as well as a hero. Taxes are an absolute necessity to any government. By robbing the tax collectors, he caused severe problems within the government.

I wonder how pcs would react to a villian who actually was doing good, but was also causing harm.

Composer99
2021-03-16, 08:37 PM
5) Believable

Their motivations should be believable as well, and once again, the motivation shouldn't be "They are Crazy".



Eh, I think this is villain-dependent - which, in turn, is setting-dependent and game-system-dependent.

Gods (of Chaos/the Warp or otherwise), AIs, demon princes (c.f. the Demogorgon thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628486-Demogorgon-behaviour) on these boards), beholders, dragons (depending on the setting), and assorted eldritch entities, among others, might well be by their very nature "Crazy" by human standards. Heck, depending on the setting, a long-lived or immortal elf is probably getting close to the same standard, insofar as their life spans alter their viewpoints.

Lord Raziere
2021-03-16, 09:06 PM
b
redundancy means your plan is stable enough to deal with failures. there is no single point of failure, no single event that would throw everything in disarray if it goes wrong. just like in engineering a cable car is built in a way that the breaking of any single cable will not result in catastrophe, so is a good evil plan not dependent on anything too specific.
eventually enough failures will throw the whole plan out, but it will require much effort.

hm. Sounds really difficult to achieve. Not all GMs may be able to make such a thing.

BRC
2021-03-17, 10:07 AM
Eh, I think this is villain-dependent - which, in turn, is setting-dependent and game-system-dependent.

Gods (of Chaos/the Warp or otherwise), AIs, demon princes (c.f. the Demogorgon thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628486-Demogorgon-behaviour) on these boards), beholders, dragons (depending on the setting), and assorted eldritch entities, among others, might well be by their very nature "Crazy" by human standards. Heck, depending on the setting, a long-lived or immortal elf is probably getting close to the same standard, insofar as their life spans alter their viewpoints.

Oh, "Crazy, incomprehensible" villains can work, but I'd argue that they're never going to really work.

If the players can't follow the logic, as irrational as it is, behind your antagonist's actions, then the antagonist is not going to be compelling as a foe. It's not going to be engaging.

The villain's logic doesn't need to be something the players would agree with, in fact, it often shouldn't be, but it SHOULD be something the players can Comprehend.

It should be based around some obsession, delusion, or worldview that the players can grasp and follow along with.

"The Villain wants to kill a lot of people because they're crazy and think Murder is fun" works for a one-shot, but doesn't make for an especially compelling antagonist.

"The Villain wants to murder a lot of people because they worship a dark god of blood and slaughter" is a bit better, but is still pretty flimsy by itself since it boils down to "The villain just wants to kill people".

"The Villain is trying to attract the favor of a dark god of blood and slaughter, and is setting up massacres as dark rites to appease the slaughtergod" is good. There's a logic you can follow, and something the players can grab on to. Maybe the slaughtergod specifically wants a lot of people to kill each other in an orgy of violence, so you get the villain instigating wars, or the Slaughtergod wants the villain to prove themselves against strong opponents, so you see them seeking out the champions of the land to kill.


When you list your Villain's motivation as simply "Crazy", then you lose any nuance, and your Players are going to be unable to engage with the villain. You need to build something more. They need goals, and a worldview that justified and supports those goals.

Composer99
2021-03-17, 10:49 AM
Oh, "Crazy, incomprehensible" villains can work, but I'd argue that they're never going to really work.

[...]

Can't agree. As a player, I have no problem finding such villains engaging. I just have to understand that that's what we're dealing with.

Feldar
2021-03-17, 10:57 AM
The villain wants to stop something bad from happening because he's GOOD.

That makes an interesting villain.

Kelb_Panthera
2021-03-17, 11:20 AM
"The Villain wants to kill a lot of people because they're crazy and think Murder is fun" works for a one-shot, but doesn't make for an especially compelling antagonist.



60+ years of The Joker being a pretty popular DC comics character suggests this isn't wholly accurate.

quinron
2021-03-17, 11:46 AM
"The Villain wants to kill a lot of people because they're crazy and think Murder is fun" works for a one-shot, but doesn't make for an especially compelling antagonist.


60+ years of The Joker being a pretty popular DC comics character suggests this isn't wholly accurate.

It all comes down to writing and portrayal in this case - the Joker genuinely looks like he's having the time of his life planning and pulling off crazy capers and mass murder. His motivation isn't so much "I want to murder because I'm crazy" as "I'm chasing my bliss, and my bliss is horrible crimes."

He's not a sympathetic villain; he's an aspirational villain. We all wish we had as much passion and dedication for something as the Joker does for murder, but even those of us who do usually aren't as able to enjoy it as much as he does. Plus he's so darn good at it.

Now I kind of want to write a whole adventure where the party's main attitude toward the BBEG is "resentment."

Lord Raziere
2021-03-17, 01:07 PM
It all comes down to writing and portrayal in this case - the Joker genuinely looks like he's having the time of his life planning and pulling off crazy capers and mass murder. His motivation isn't so much "I want to murder because I'm crazy" as "I'm chasing my bliss, and my bliss is horrible crimes."

He's not a sympathetic villain; he's an aspirational villain. We all wish we had as much passion and dedication for something as the Joker does for murder, but even those of us who do usually aren't as able to enjoy it as much as he does. Plus he's so darn good at it.


I don't aspire or am envious of a ridiculous cartoon. Its really about the style when it comes to Joker. presentation is everything when it comes to your black-hearted villains with no sympathetic motivation as Megamind would say. with other villains, you can afford to be more down to earth, to be more reasonable, to be more real. But someone like the Joker, you got to make as ridiculous as possible. you don't aspire to what they do, because they're a complete cartoon character that will never exist. instead of going 3-dimensional in characterization, you take the dimension they have "I love murder" and jack it up so high that it breaks the scale, you make them not just some random murderer but someone who sets out to kill as many people as possible and in strange twisted ways that it becomes the core to who they are, you make them as loud, weird, over the top so that people remember it, people etch the character into their minds and as long as you make the character funny enough that etching is a positive one and they become archetypical, iconic because they go not just from doing villainy to DEFINING and INNOVATING it because they keep coming up with new ways to be ridiculously evil.

Contrast Joker with Lex Luthor, who is so down to earth and human that you could easily see him being a real person. Sure he has this whole jealousy thing towards Superman, but that envious pettiness is incredibly human and relatable, there is a lot of people like that. Lex Luthor just has the rare privilege of being that guy to someone who is godlike because of his unparalleled talent and skill. if he lived in ancient greece he'd be considered a hero of a tragedy, for he checks all the boxes of one, and if you cast him in a shakespearian play he'd be the protagonist. His style is different, more understated. I don't aspire to be him either. the point is presentation, and Luthor pulls it off well, it not over the top, but that fits for what he is trying to be: a villain with good publicity who always somehow manages to make people trust him over and over again despite being proven to be scum who wants Superman dead. Lex is so good at this, doesn't even have a secret identity.

most non-moral extremist villains take their cues from Joker or Lex Luthor because of how old and influential they are. they kind of define the two ends of the spectrum of pure evil villainy because of presentation.

VoxRationis
2021-03-17, 01:09 PM
I'd like to reiterate a point that Rich made in his villain-writing piece someone cited above: limitations. A good villain has limitations that circumscribe their possible actions to things. Ideally, those limitations should be not just reasons they can't kill the PCs immediately, but also things that alter the villain's actions in the absence of the PCs.

I'd like to use the movie Green Room as an example. In that movie, the neo-Nazi villain, played by Patrick Stewart, has far more power and resources than the protagonists, but far less than the authorities or general society, and this informs his goals (at least as far as the movie goes) and his actions. Most of his short-term goals and actions revolve around the idea of damage control, since he knows that if knowledge of the movie's events spreads beyond a very small inner circle, he'll likely get arrested. He has attack dogs, but he can't just throw them around like Zerglings because he has a small and sharply limited number of them. He'll disappear and seem passive to the protagonists for long stretches of time so he can handle dynamics within his organization, dynamics likewise mostly hidden to the protagonists.

Therefore, when making a villain, think about what the villain's limitations are, what sorts of constraints they have to their actions. Some of these are simple, like the fact that a human villain will have to take meal, sleep, and restroom breaks. Others might be logistical; a villain might want to concentrate force by moving everywhere with a host of 10,000 orcs, but road conditions and food supply won't permit that. Still others might be political; the villain has rivals he nonetheless depends on and can't just kill, or is answerable to some other authority or group, and has to act in certain ways in order to keep their favor. Indeed, many villains probably have minions they depend on that only work for them for mercenary reasons, and thus need to be appeased with treasure.

Batcathat
2021-03-17, 01:14 PM
I feel like both the Joker and Luthor are hard to use in discussions since they come in so many different (and sometimes wildly disparate) versions. Maniacal mad scientist Luthor have very little in common with well-intentioned extremist business man Luthor and so forth.

Lord Raziere
2021-03-17, 01:25 PM
I feel like both the Joker and Luthor are hard to use in discussions since they come in so many different (and sometimes wildly disparate) versions. Maniacal mad scientist Luthor have very little in common with well-intentioned extremist business man Luthor and so forth.

I mean we're not supposed to care about previous iterations. Reboots exist for a reason. those other disparate versions are for those who really care about the long convoluted and headache inducing history of comic books, because that is all they are good for anymore. when people say these names they know who it is without needing some in depth discussion about which one they are specifically referencing and having to play a game of "But Technically" to see who can bring up as many obscure details as possible.

BRC
2021-03-17, 01:30 PM
60+ years of The Joker being a pretty popular DC comics character suggests this isn't wholly accurate.

does it help if I say that I generally hate the Joker as a villain.

But even then, The Joker usually has some degree of logic to his actions. He's wildly inconsistent depending on who is writing him, but that's a factor with all comic book characters.

Sometimes the Joker is obsessed with Batman, and his crimes have the primary goal of getting a reaction from, or proving something about Batman.

Sometimes the Joker is an Anarchist, trying to destroy what he sees as the false facade of civility that holds society together.

The Killing Joke is considered one of the best portrayals of the joker, and the core of that is that it gives the Joker a very clear mission statement (At least for the duration of that story). The Joker believes that everybody is just "One Bad Day" away from becoming like him. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to torture commissioner Gordon, the story very clearly lays out his worldview and motivation, and every action he takes is in pursuit of that motivation.

And, as said above, the Joker, with his circus themed henchmen and big grin, shows how far you can get on style alone, but the Joker has the advantage of a visual medium to convey that style, which TTRPG's won't have.


And yes, you could probably get away with "I just like murder" villain if you throw enough style into things. But your players are not going to really be able to engage with said villain except "Oh, we need to stop them I guess, because Murder is Bad".


A good villain should have presence even when they're not in a scene. If your villain's only goal is "Murder people", then, what, you run into their henchmen, and the henchmen are killing people? You find a bunch of bodies, and, since you can't find any other reason why these people might be dead, it's because Wacky Murderman wanted to Murder them.

"Evil just because they're crazy" is the default, cop-out of villain motivations. It justifes any villainous action because "Well, they're crazy I guess", which in turn means that the villain effectively has nothing driving them. They just do stuff because they felt like it at the moment.

Calthropstu
2021-03-17, 03:30 PM
does it help if I say that I generally hate the Joker as a villain.

But even then, The Joker usually has some degree of logic to his actions. He's wildly inconsistent depending on who is writing him, but that's a factor with all comic book characters.

Sometimes the Joker is obsessed with Batman, and his crimes have the primary goal of getting a reaction from, or proving something about Batman.

Sometimes the Joker is an Anarchist, trying to destroy what he sees as the false facade of civility that holds society together.

The Killing Joke is considered one of the best portrayals of the joker, and the core of that is that it gives the Joker a very clear mission statement (At least for the duration of that story). The Joker believes that everybody is just "One Bad Day" away from becoming like him. He didn't just wake up one day and decide to torture commissioner Gordon, the story very clearly lays out his worldview and motivation, and every action he takes is in pursuit of that motivation.

And, as said above, the Joker, with his circus themed henchmen and big grin, shows how far you can get on style alone, but the Joker has the advantage of a visual medium to convey that style, which TTRPG's won't have.


And yes, you could probably get away with "I just like murder" villain if you throw enough style into things. But your players are not going to really be able to engage with said villain except "Oh, we need to stop them I guess, because Murder is Bad".


A good villain should have presence even when they're not in a scene. If your villain's only goal is "Murder people", then, what, you run into their henchmen, and the henchmen are killing people? You find a bunch of bodies, and, since you can't find any other reason why these people might be dead, it's because Wacky Murderman wanted to Murder them.

"Evil just because they're crazy" is the default, cop-out of villain motivations. It justifes any villainous action because "Well, they're crazy I guess", which in turn means that the villain effectively has nothing driving them. They just do stuff because they felt like it at the moment.

Crazy can work.

For example:
The US is spiraling out of control. Republicans and democrats are going at each other, black white and hispanics are openly insulting and attacking each other, the roads are falling apart, federal buildings are being set on fire, people even attacked the capital building.

The government is literally powerless to stop anything. Solution? ROBOT ARMY TO KILL EVERYONE.

Spore
2021-03-18, 08:23 AM
To me, a good villain links a relatable goal or personality with the sheer insanity of their ideals.

Drmccabe
2021-03-18, 03:44 PM
I always like the villain who isn't actually a bad guy. He's just not on the side of the PC's. He may even hold the same values (or better values). To make this kind of villain just create some desires of someone who would be aiding the PC's, then put him in a rivaling town. This doesn't need to be a BBEG but can.

In one game I made a Lawful Evil Guard Captain who helped out the party several times. Being high-level, I decided he would have a lot of personal development. So he didn't come off as pompous and didn't frivolously expend his power over others. But he definitely had his own goals.

I also like when a bad guy becomes a good guy because there is a third, shared, enemy. It's in these situations we blur the line between good and evil, friend and foe, and that's just like reality isn't it?

One major difference (irl and in game) between good guys and bad guys is that good guys have to win a certain way and bad guys don't care how they win as long as they do. You could also make a bad guy who has to win in a certain way and this would give the audience something to root for in the villain. It might also draw the question to the PC's who have labeled themselves LG-CG "are we the baddies". But that's more of a silent note, not something super obvious, just something casually observed.

Also, worth noting. In the Marvel universe the ultimate villain is some massive alien who can snap his fingers because of universe controlling power gems. In the DC universe the ultimate villain is a weak man who has everything taken away from him. So you could go either way.

oxybe
2021-03-18, 04:00 PM
A good villain is one that reflects the hero in some fashion.

either because they come from similar circumstances and only one bad situation caused the villain to go evil and the hero to go good.

or they have similar causes they fight for, but very different outlooks on how to go about it and forcing the hero to consider that his way may not be the best way to acheive their goal.

Maybe they are diametrically opposed. That they both exist to affirm the other's resolve. That the villain disdainfully believes our hero is weak because he relies on his friends to overcome obstacles, whereas the hero feels pity that the villain will never know the strenght that comes with the trust and love of close allies and family.

The villain doesn't really need to be super deep. Not every villain needs a sympathetic background. sometimes people are just jerks. Often the villain is one the player will make for themselves. The GM may make the Antagonist of the story, but the Villain is entirely one of the player's making. they're the NPC who's goal they want stopped for a personal reason. it could be on the background of the character or just develops into animosity over time and interactions.

But their actions do need to resonate with the heroes.

Taevyr
2021-03-18, 09:41 PM
Also, worth noting. In the Marvel universe the ultimate villain is some massive alien who can snap his fingers because of universe controlling power gems. In the DC universe the ultimate villain is a weak man who has everything taken away from him. So you could go either way.

Now I really want to know which DC villain you're talking about, 'cause that doesn't quite fit Darkseid.

MrStabby
2021-03-18, 10:03 PM
I think a good villain supports all three pillars of play in an entertaining way.

Social

A good viallian permiates the setting, sometimes in small ways and sometimes in big ways but in ways appropriate to the scale of the campaign. The bandit chief that stole from travellers enables the social encounters where you meet the travellers and appreciate the effect this has had on their lives. The evil wizard with an evil plan casting an evil spell from his evil tower out in the evil wastelands but who has never yet had a known adverse impact on the lives of people you actually meet and talk to is much less engaging. You see the world through the eyes of the NPCs you meet, be they bystanders, allies of henchbeings of the villain.


Combat

You want an antagonist that can be defeated but will require heroic efforts to do so. The threat revealed should be mechanically backed up but also foreshadowed. If you are have a bard as your antagonist they should have left a trail of enchanted, dominated and charmed persons in their wake so you can anticipate the final showdown. Likewise a fighter is all talk and no trousers if they are a pushover. Whatever they defeated and whatever obstacles the villain in the campaign overcame to be a threat should be represented in their stat-block. It might be abilities or even magic items that specifically would explain their victory.

They should also be mechanically memorable with a new twist that shales things up.

Finally, they should have a set of strengths and weaknesses that enable the whole party to contribute approximately equally. If you have a paladin and a fighter in the same party in D&D 5th edition, you probably don't want your enemy to be undead or a fiend or else the fighter will not be able to contribute equally to the paladin. You want everyone in the party to relish the showdown.



Exploration

Possibly the most important part. You want to be able to explore the villain as you would explore anything else. The history, the locations, the tales... explore their character and their motivations.

Mysterious is not a personality, it is the absence of a personality.

Likewise, Evil isn't engaging.

I think the Joker is an interesting villain as protrayed in films like Joker or the Dark Knight because the film explores their history, or their acccount of it at least. It gives a sense of a world unfolding.

A great villain is one that can keep shedding layers and revealing more and more with a depth and complexity that lasts the campaign.