To Make a Villain (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Role Playing] >> Role Playing General Discussion



Message

Sir Nicholas -> To Make a Villain (3/11/2015 23:01:00)

With things a little slow around here, I figure it's time somebody got it moving again with a nice little topic. The question I thus put forth to you my friends is what kind of Villain you are looking for in RP's. As we all know, antagonists are the meat-and-potatoes of RP, so I figure we should discuss the process by which we make them, what motivates them, what guides them, what it is they do, and how they do it.

For me, I like to create a foil char to whatever char I am using at the moment. A Baddie that can pose a threat to the Hero not just on a physical level, but also on a philosophical and motivational one. It is a particular favorite idea of mine to use the "Evil Counterpart" idea, in which the Villain is a dark reflection of the Hero. They represent what the Hero could become if they lose their moral compass.

And don't think this is only limited to just the typical "Dark Lord with Spikes of Villainy" thing, because all antagonists have their place in the worlds of fiction. The sky is the limit here my friends.



Draycos777 -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/12/2015 0:47:49)

Well, I wouldn't say that a villain or an antagonist has to be 'evil' per say. The way I view it, is that, an antagonist is someone(s)or thing(s) that the main character(s) of a RP, or story, have to overcome. Take Kell's RP for example. Domrius is clear the main antagonist, however, he clearly isn't a dark refection of the commanders. In fact, I'm sure that he cares for his troops. The opposite of evil if you ask me. Yet, he still does a good job at being the antagonist of the RP. Giving the commanders the looming threat of defeat and/or death and bringing war to their homes under the orders of Empire whether he wants to do so or not.

Also on the flip side, what if the character that your playing isn't a 'nice' person? Then your antagonist might become the hero theirself. Stopping your character from filling their goal. Or by a turn of events, your character's antagonist could be their best friend. They both still care about eachother, but their paths are fated to be at odds with eachother.

Like you said, I believe that a good antagonist will test your character psychologically, however, I don't think that you need a 'evil counterpart' to achieve this.



dethhollow -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/12/2015 16:51:13)

I'm actually working on a new RP concept with someone, but we've hit a bit of a snag figuring out how to get the main plot together. So that will be something.

Anyways, in my opinion, the point of having a villain is to try to move things forward in the story so there's two main things they have to accomplish. They have to be some threat to the heroes, even if it's only because they're deceptive, and they need to be someone the heroes actually would want to stop. Which is why I'm not a fan of villains who are made to be sympathetic characters, it's good to have something relatable but you still have to have them do things the protagonists would want to stop. Otherwise they're really not a great villain, they're just sort-of an anti-hero or rival type of character. A character like that can become a good villain if they're turned towards desperation or paranoia or something and are forced to the extreme, but then you have to at least acknowledge that they can't be played sympathetically any more.

Characters who are mirrors of the heroes are good for normal stories, but I'm unsure how you'd do something like that in an RP unless you stretched some stuff or specifically based a character off of a player character. Which I guess wouldn't be too hard, but I've never managed to do something like that in an RP so far. IDK, maybe I should try that one day?



Sir Nicholas -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/13/2015 23:54:46)

Both have excellent points, though in my case I like to have my baddies be sympathetic enough to where they are not totally divorced from Humanity (Unless we're talking about Eldritch Abominations) - but are still bad enough to be Antagonists.

In regards to your question, it's entirely up to the writers to figure out what to do with their characters. I've never had any of mine turn bad, though a few have done some morally questionable things, yet unambiguously remain good. This is because it's my belief that a Protagonist needs to be resolutely moral and incorruptible, but at the same time is willing to vanquish evil.

Take my main for example. Jameson is a Hero in every sense of the word. He is a warm, righteous, compassionate, loyal, level headed, kind, noble and remarkably down to earth man that always tries to do the right thing. At the very same time, he is also quite willing to kill if its necessary. In fact he somewhat disdains the idea of saving the Villain, as he believes that reforming them is infeasible at best, next-to impossible at worst.

As for your other point, yes, there are often morally grey situations where there's no true Villain but simply a char that is in your way.

And as I have said, it need not be limited to one archetype. I was simply mentioning the 'Dark Reflection' is my favorite method.

How to do it in an RP? Well, it's easy. You make a Baddie that has a clearly defined goal and motivations that are similar to the Heroes, and yet they are opposite in alignment if not in their methods. Then you play up how much alike they are, without them truly being the same person. Then you show the viewers (and your fellow participants) that they differ on one key point: How far they are willing to go.

Jameson's counterpart in an RP I participated in, in the past was a Death Knight named Taer. They had a similar powerset, were incredibly dedicated to their respective causes, and had the same fighting style and methods: Commanding whilst fighting on the front lines.

The whole time as well, they were respectful to each other, each recognizing the other's abilities as superlative.

_____________________________________


A few times, I've been in RP's where the Baddies were not "evil" in the conventional sense, but were still harmful to people and the Heroes. They were in a way, outside our concepts of morality. Such a thing has never proven difficult for me to handle given that if I must fight against something harmful, I will kill it without hesitation or remorse.

However, I don't see the appeal to it. If a plot device, character or something isn't malevolent, but isn't wholly benevolent either, then what is its motivation? It's not like there's things that are just... there, unmoving and completely apathetic to all, without any purpose.



dethhollow -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 17:37:47)

I feel like a lot of people really underestimate the effectiveness of just making a villain who's a jerk. I mean, it's effective, it definitely makes people want to fight the villain to shut them up, and it's reasonable to think that there would be just straight-up evil jerks out there who just want to mock other characters and gain power and stuff. But, oddly, you really don't see that type of character being played too often. I've seen quite a few villains who are just meant to come off as cool characters and some complete murderous monster villains that just like killing people, but not that many characters who are just like "I'm going to taunt you because I know I'm on the winning side" or something along those lines. It's sort-of weird to think about, that people want to play a bad guy but, killing aside, they don't really want to play a "bad" guy, as in an unlikable character.

Back on the topic of the whole dark reflection thing. If we're just talking about our own OCs being reflections of eachother, then I actually do have a pretty good example of that between Vexoz and The Skull Knight. Vexoz is one of my better protagonists. I really don't go for characters who are meant to be a sort-of absolute good, the idea of someone just being a shiny white knight never really appealed to me, I always give them some kind-of edge or something that makes them sort-of flawed as a character in one way or another. And the few characters I have that are just sort-of generally all-around good people are almost always the ones with the most screwed up secrets. Anyways, Vexoz and The Skull Knight was less about how they are physically and more of a psychological parallel. Both are physically strong people, but the real reflection was that Vexoz was all about basically fighting to try and save people, but was heavily weighed down by the guilt of everything and was often going out of his way to take on more dangerous tasks, almost as if he was seeking his own destruction. Skull Knight, on the other hand, was much more driven by impulse. He's a character who goes out of his way to fight and destroy for the sake of his own twisted amusement without guilt, remorse, or empathy. Only a sense of thrill and joy from doing it without even the ability to understand the very concept of death.



TJByrum -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 17:42:17)

I'd say you first need to find out whether you want an antagonist, or a villain. I suppose the villain fits both bills, but I look at it differently.

When you call someone 'villain' it makes me think of inherently evil characters. The types whose only desire is to kill, burn, conquer, and pillage, with no real rhyme or reason to do it. They simply... do it. Or people who do it out of greed, hate, disrespect, and spite. Those are evil characters. They're also the type of characters that I largely dislike as a whole.

An antagonist, to me, is more interesting. An antagonist is someone who may be a rival to the hero and his allies, but he may not necessarily be 'evil' or 'wrong', he may simply be on the other side of the conflict. Take the Trojan War, for example; was Hector a villain? Was Achilles a villain? No, not exactly; they were both generally good guys depending on how you look at it. But they were enemies, so they acted as one another's antagonists. This is everywhere though; Three Kingdoms: was Wei, Wu, or Shu the villain? Or how about Assassin's Creed? Is it the Assassins or the Templars who are the villains? This is the way I like to look at things. But then again, I have a rather extreme sense of looking at things. I honestly felt bad for Megatron in the Transformers franchise; to me he seemed determined to save his home planet, and he would have done anything to keep it alive, but the Autobots blocked that vision. Perhaps there's some backstory I don't know about that would change my view, but oh well.

In the end, I don't like evil characters, and I think it makes for a boring storyline because they're not 'real'; they don't have qualities you can relate to. I feel like you need an antagonist who, depending on where you start, your character could have very well joined them. It's by the fates you happened to join the side of the 'hero'. Or maybe what the antagonist is doing feels wrong to you but not everyone else. I like that sense of realism there.

If I were placed in such positions, I'd be labeled a villain. I'm the type of person who would go to any length to make sure the people I cared about was safe. I don't care if it meant letting hundreds of other people die, so long as the ones I care about are okay I'll be fine. I'm also the type who would want absolute control over the population. The more I can do to keep people safe and in line, the less deaths, sorrow, and chaos we'll have. I'm the type of individual who would be akin to a Darth Vader type (not exactly evil, just wanting to end bad things and caring to much for the people he loved), and I'm more than certain this shows through some of my characters via role playing.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 19:19:13)

I understand your reasoning now TJ, and I agree there are such characters that fill a role as "Antagonistic" but not evil. From what I gather, you're a shining example of The Unfettered. Willing to do anything to accomplish a goal. And were I placed in such a position, I would be the opposite: The Fettered. I follow a strict set of guidelines that ensure I remain wholly moral and at the same time, willing to allow people freedom to choose for themselves.

That actually reminds me of a dynamic I've developed.

The perfect example of what would be considered an "Antagonist" in my works by your definition would be named Vegalok. (The username of a member that is sadly no longer with us). A powerful Vampire turned servant of Oblivion, he's Jameson's truest Nemesis and rival.

Aside from the fact they are completely even in skill, abilities and attributes, they have incredibly similar upbringings. They differ in that Jameson chose to become a Paladin and serve morality wholly. Vegalok on the other hand chose to follow the Reaper and uphold the balance of life and death. (For reasons I will not disclose as-yet)

Psychologically speaking, they are so much alike that within five minutes of their first conversation, they figure out this is the person that they could have become had their circumstances been different.

Had Jameson never left his amoral Lycan kin, he would have been like an animal, serving a powerful supernatural figure (The Werewolf King) and holding humans in disdain instead of loving them. Had Vegalok chosen to resist his vengeful, predatory nature, he would have likely ended up separating from the Vampire Queen and chosen his own morality to serve.

Their attitudes are likewise similar-but-different:

Jameson is compassionate, Vegalok is apathetic, though not without a shred of kindness in him.

Jameson enjoys the life of a Paladin and actively goes out of his way to vanquish evil wherever he finds it, Vegalok follows his duty to ensure people die at their appropriate time - and to eliminate specific individuals that would threaten the balance.

Jameson is cheery, humble, affable and outgoing - Vegalok is grim, arrogant, cynical and a loner.

They both absolutely love to fight, though for different reasons. My Pally loves nothing more than to slay evil, while the Vampire enjoys brutally slaughtering his opponents.


And while I'm at it, though Vegalok is a being of Oblivion, he is not evil. In truth, he's a sad, lonely individual that seeks to end his tormented existence. As an immortal Vampire - he'll doesn't age and can only die if he were fatally injured or slain in battle. He doesn't want to kill himself - as that would be the "easy" way out. As it is, he views his Nemesis as the one person worthy enough to end his life. Because Jameson is his equal in combat and a follower of good - Vegalok thinks that dying by his opponent's hand would be the ultimate irony and truth.

By contrast, Jameson has no intention of doing so for two reasons: One, because Vegalok isn't evil, so it wouldn't be just to end his life. Two, because he enjoys fighting him too much. As I mentioned, Vegalok is his equal in every respect, so in his mind, it would be a shame to lose such a powerful adversary.


They don't actually hate each other at all. Quite the contrary in fact. Were they not enemies by circumstance and by their respective professions, they'd be the kind of friends that are virtually inseparable - the kind that hang out all the time and share a friendly rivalry.



TJByrum -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 20:34:49)

@Sir Nicholas: I once believed I could maintain a certain moral upstanding. I mean, in real life, I would have followed the ideals of Captain America. But I went through something ion my life that made me open my eyes and realize something that made me change my view; and these same morals was how I use to be. After that event, my characters in role plays began to reflect that same sort of realization.

If anything, you'll notice my characters are generally good guys; they're loyal, honorable, and respectful, and will do anything to keep the ones they care about alive. But they are easily corruptible in the sense that if something serious comes up, they'll do anything to overcome it. Anything.

Ask yourself this: if you had to decide between killing your loving daughter, or killing a group of 20 innocents, which would you choose? I know the right thing to do would be to save those innocents, and that's morally correct. But me? I'm sorry; if I had a daughter, I would love her to the end of the world, and I would do anything to keep her safe. Therefore, I would let those 20 innocents die. So long as my daughter is alive and safe, I'm fine.

And now put this in roleplay form. You have a villain who made a deal with some ancient vampire lord. Why? His daughter died! And he loved her! Evil took her from this world! Seeing no other way, he makes a deal with the vampire lord, which unfortunately dooms the population at large. So, naturally, a hero must rise to destroy this 'villain'. At this point, however, I would agree with the villain's motives. Unless of course he threatened the lives of my own family, in which case I would do anything to completely destroy him.

And the conflict of Jameson and Vegalok sounds interesting. Is that a short-story, novel, or role play idea?



Sir Nicholas -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 21:04:21)

Let me say that's a commendable ideal, TJ, but it's one that I disagree with. Sacrifice is never easy. And I would likely hate myself for that sacrifice, but if its for the greater good, I will make it. But we can discuss ethics another time.


To answer your question, it's a story I worked on here in the Forums a long time ago. It's still there, but I've left it unfinished because it was taking up too much of my time, and because we all know how the storyline it's based off ends. It's called The Galin War if you're curious.

And also, I do intend to actually make their conflict a role play plot device in the future. If I may cite a Chinese concept as a metaphor: Their rivalry is as enduring as the Dragon and the Tiger. Justice and Revenge. Harmony and Discipline.



Draycos777 -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 21:28:13)

Idk, when it comes to morality in characters. Mine seems to always stand somewhere in the gray area. Some people would no doubt see them as good, since they can be friendly if other characters get to know them. And they are vastly loyal to those that are able to befriend them, however, they're methods and personalities would make more then a few people avoid them and see them a 'bad' characters.

Take Kitsondra, my own vampire queen, for example. She is very attached to the Hallows Inn and Sloan, however, the grip she has on information going in and out of town and well as how she uses in to gain influence over everything, isn't something the other characters are trilled about. She also has no problems about mocking her opponents. Especially if they are much weaker then she is. Torture isn't even out of her books. If anything, to people such as Sorlan and Heinrich, Kitsondra is quite the antagonist. It's their job to deal with such creatures, but Kit (unlike your Vegalok) has no intention of dieing. In fact she plans on just crushing them if they become a complete nuisance to her. So I think that the term Villain and Antagonist both have some gray areas.



dethhollow -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/15/2015 22:15:02)

quote:

If I were placed in such positions, I'd be labeled a villain. I'm the type of person who would go to any length to make sure the people I cared about was safe. I don't care if it meant letting hundreds of other people die, so long as the ones I care about are okay I'll be fine.


That sounds a lot like an RP I was in a while back. Essentially the setup was that there was a group of people who were clearly meant to be the antagonists of the series that wanted to kill everyone who wasn't part of their group and a party of heroes who were going to stop them but, as the RP went on, the people with the villains actually ended up being overwhelmingly more likeable than the heroes were. It actually got to the point where the antagonists' plan started becoming sort-of an after thought while two of them managed to go through with a wedding in a pretty touching scene. Meanwhile, by default, because the villains were currently just minding their own business and being more relatable characters, the group of heroes actually somehow managed to turn into the RP's real villains even though they were fighting to stop the deaths of millions of people. And then the guy in charge of the heroes' army ended up being probably the least likeable character I've ever seen, basically hitting on anything that moved and only carrying out the attack on the villains, where many people died on both sides, in an attempt to get with a girl.

Yeah, I know this isn't a super relevant post to the topic at hand, but it was the weirdest most backwards final stretch I've ever seen in an RP.



Sir Nicholas -> RE: To Make a Villain (3/17/2015 23:28:46)

Well no one said the Antagonists can't be friendly, likable, or otherwise have redeeming qualities, did they? And while I'm at it, there's no reason why the Heroes can't have dark sides or flaws, right? As I've said, my characters all have flaws and qualities that make them more relatable.

There is another Antagonist - (Named Antares) I created on another Forum elsewhere that is very much an Affably Evil toon. In spite of his negative traits, (Greed, pride, ambition, vengefulness) he's also perfectly polite, soft-spoken, erudite and the respect he gives his adversaries is genuine. Not to mention the fact he's happily married and has a son that he loves dearly.

What makes him Evil is that he's also a crime boss and a powerful sorcerer in command of some very bad juju.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375