Evil Overlords and Villains

[Doppelganger]

Survival is good and these rules (no matter how terrible, no matter how unfair) is a key part of surviving.

It matters how terrible and it matters how unfair. When long-term surviving of a society contradicts with immediate personal survival, most people chose the later over the former.

This is a cast system, anyone who does not fit into the system is going to have to somehow deal with the feeling of guilt knowing they are doing wrong, that they are doing evil against the system.

Evil against the system is evil only while person is a part of it. Once the feeling of belonging is gone, then so is the feeling of guilt.

hierarchy = good  and rebellion = bad

Again, once personal interests prevail, there are many ways of how to bypass that law. Peasants revolting in Medieval Europe rarely bothered themselves with bigger picture and politics, they simply wanted to eat. If we assume that king is good and fair, but his evil henchmen abuse his laws then it's not rebellion to kill few hundreds of them. And if the king himself does not meet out expectations, well, we won't rebel against the system either, but let's get rid of the usurpier to the throne, so the real, good and fair king would rule.

I'm not sure morality can be that individualized.

Morality may be universal within given society, bit its applications in everyday affairs are very individual.

She is a slut, so it was not rape. He is a bad man, so it was it was justice, not the murder. I don't steal, I take back what the rich stole from me.
I had to, they forced me, I had no choice, they started first, Jesus told me to do it.

This is a very black and white society

Unless you are talking about ants, there is nothing black and white about any human society.

[SMuz]

I don't think going into morality is the right direction. Quoting the OP..

It's regarding "villains" in Arm, and the anti-heros to plots.

In a low fantasy game like Arm, everyone is flawed. You've got flawed heroes, flawed characters. Not really the point. For much of the present game, all the conflict seems to be competing for resources.. killing others for money, power, influence, etc. The game could use a little more direct conflict. The imms do toss in some giths, tarantulas, wars our way, but there's not much inter-character conflict. My character is happy. Happy. Something seems to be wrong there. Everyone who does store, seems to do it because they can't find anything interesting to do in the game.

It's not about morality or survival. Villains are about someone who OOCly, wants to be a jerk and get in someone's way. He's the templar who uses his power to choke a rival House. The dwarf who breaks into/gets accepted into a clan and tries to destroy it from the inside. The merchant who hires thugs to intercept his rival's caravan to Allanak.

Your villain will have his own IC motives and all, but OOCly, he's trying to make it hard - and fun for other players. Whether or not the character is selfish and ruthless is not the point. It's whether he gets in your way and provides you something to look forward to the next time you log on. Play the villain right, and you'll have a memorable character.

[LoD]

It's not about morality or survival. Villains are about someone who OOCly, wants to be a jerk and get in someone's way. He's the templar who uses his power to choke a rival House. The dwarf who breaks into/gets accepted into a clan and tries to destroy it from the inside. The merchant who hires thugs to intercept his rival's caravan to Allanak.

Your villain will have his own IC motives and all, but OOCly, he's trying to make it hard - and fun for other players. Whether or not the character is selfish and ruthless is not the point. It's whether he gets in your way and provides you something to look forward to the next time you log on. Play the villain right, and you'll have a memorable character.

I've met players before that believed it was more "fun" to OOCly be a jerk and cause conflict with every character of theirs (i.e. Delerak/Running Mountain).  However, I never saw any of his characters as villains.  I saw them as unreasonable and unnatural executions of a, frankly, abusive concept.  I definitely wouldn't support someone's intent to ICly manifest their OOC desire to cause conflict or friction between their characters the rest of the game world.

You're not really depicting a "villain" in the sense that most people perceive them, which is why they're dishing out all these responses about morality and perspective.  You're really describing a troublemaker who, driven by an OOC motivation, is a far uglier and unwanted creature in the game.  Making OOC decisions for your IC character presents some major problems because you're allowing your OOC bias to affect decisions that your character should be making as a result of their natural game environment.

I'd much rather the "villains" of the game be defined as a matter of perception rather than as a matter of OOC motivation.  I created a Black Moon ranger who was likely seen as a villain by many.  He was hunted, hated, and, not inappropriately, labeled a murderer, thief, and bandit.  However, he had IC motivation and justification for his choices.  There were plenty of times were he encountered someone in the wastes, but creating conflict or friction wasn't warranted or appropriate due to the IC responses of the other character, and so he didn't pursue any of those actions.  He made friends, helped people, and was part of a healthy social network -- he just wasn't a friend to everybody.

He was motivated by IC wants, needs, and desires.  Desires that could be manipulated, diffused, or tempted.  Needs that could be exploited.  There's no affecting an OOC agenda -- due to its very nature.  How can you affect the wants, needs, and desires of something outside of the system?  It's unnatural and inappropriate, and far less fair to your fellow players.

If you really feel the need to play a character that will have built-in conflict and friction, then create a concept you know will clash with a particular set of cultural beliefs, social practices, or moral guidelines. Allow them a full range of reasonable and natural emotions, and let their actions determine how the world defines them rather than making that decision in an artificial space like your living room, basement, or bedroom.

It will be better for everyone.

-LoD

[spawnloser]

I'm not sure morality can be that individualized.

This is a very black and white society: from the moment one is born one is taught the very clear-cut rules about the morality of society, namely  hierarchy = good  and rebellion = bad      This is a cast system, anyone who does not fit into the system is going to have to somehow deal with the feeling of guilt knowing they are doing wrong, that they are doing evil against the system.

Secondly, consider the the make-up of an apologetic people.   Survival is good and these rules (no matter how terrible, no matter how unfair) is a key part of surviving.  A true villain then would be one who is against survival, one who brings about chaos to the system.

Actually, morality can be very individual.  Some people, in real life, don't think it is wrong to beat "their woman" when she "mouths off."  Seriously, THEY DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS.  Society disagrees.  Many of us will disagree, me included.  This, right here, is an example of individual morality.

Yes, SOCIETY will consider someone evil for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean the person being labeled as evil actually thinks of themself that way.  They may think or recognize that they're selfish... but they don't think they are evil.  They're a victim of circumstance or they're only doing what society has forced them to do.

Also, survival is good.  Your own survival is better.  Who cares about the rest of society?  It isn't about chaos or killing people.  If your character is a "villain," s/he isn't necessarily looking to kill people.  That's a homicidal freak.  Sure, they're an antagonist too, but a real villain might help you one day because s/he thinks that it will better themself... and then the next day betray you for the EXACT SAME REASON.  That isn't chaos.  That's selfishness.  That's being ego-centric.  That's thinking that the world revolves around you.  The villain with real depth that is trying to take over the world more than likely isn't thinking, "Look at all the people I rule!"  They're probably thinking something more along the lines of, "Of course I should rule the world because I'll do it better than anyone else!"

Yes, there are villains that are out to destroy the world and cause chaos, but those are the ones that don't make GOOD villains because the whole world turns its efforts against them.

[SMuz]

Ah, I worded that wrong. The best villains are the ones people love to hate. Sure, there's more drama in attacking a friend, but there's always a place for someone who players have a guiltless grudge with. That's what the NPC animals, thugs, and monsters are for. I've seen three recent villains (excluding the Allanak templars, militia, and elves of course) in game, which I've thoroughly enjoyed plotting against. Two died very quickly, but the third one is still alive, an extremely strong warrior, and with a web of very powerful contacts.

The trick is to build an IC concept around a OOC desire. Right now, if you wanted a badass ninja, you could just make a 'rinthi assassin, get two knives and grind up your sneak, hide, and piercing skill to perfection. Equally dull and twinky as a badly planned villain. The good players.. they give that assassin a motive, background, ambitions, thoughts, friends, and a personality.

Same applies to making a villain. You can start your villain as some guy who grew up orphaned and hates everything. Then he rampages forth and destroys the world.. only to be killed by a 4-day ranger. Or you can start off with nothing, make a few IC/OOC plans, and try to pull them off one by one. Aim for failure.


Generic example: Elf assassin/jeweler
He's a good jeweler, who enjoys making pretty things and sells them at a good (inflated) price to others. He tries to get a job with Kadius, or some other clan, but chances are, any jewel store will reject him for being an elf. Or disallow promotion, access to stores, etc. Alright, fine. That won't stop him. Maybe he'll try an elf clan, but chances are, they'd consider him a merchant and look down on him for honest theft, and he'll look down on them for being thugs and thieves; see later.

He gets most of his fighting skills fighting off vultures, gortoks, or whatever while foraging for whatever he needs to produce jewelry.

After a while, he'll fall in love with a slightly upper class person. She will reject him for being an elf. He can't take rejection and will fall even more deeply in love with her. He'll make jewelry for her to try to attract her. Even if she likes him, he'll disappear for a while and she'll eventually cheat on him (inevitable!).

Now he'll get pissed and annoyed. He'll start stalking, practicing his sneak and hide skills by shadowing other NPCs or females. He will hate other elves for ruining his credibility. He gets good enough at stalking her after a while and start shadowing her around, telling her how much he loves her. She will naturally hate him even more. If she starts hiring guards/bounty hunters, he will assassinate her out of fear. If she sees other men, he will threaten them, beat them to near unconsciousness, steal their coins and clothes, and use it as an example.

And he'll get a deep, deep hatred for other elves, especially the thugs and thieves. They ruin his chances to cheat others legally. He will make friends with the Byn, even the militia, and try to take down these elven clans. With the money stolen from his girl's suitors and those made selling jewelry, he'll start buying elf skulls and elf heads...

So there you go, a perfectly hateable villain with a strong personality. Randomly generated too

[Is Friday]

I was always under the impression that selling wares at inflated prices was stealing, albeit a more subtle form of. I was also under the impression that this was a popular form of theft amongst elves.

[ibusoe]

Lots of neat posts here -- many of them trying to justify the reasons why it's bad to play a villain or why it should be difficult to play a villain.

But let's just be honest with ourselves for a minute -- playing a villain is lots and lots of fun.  It's not something that should be inaccessible to your average first-year armer and we shouldn't be discouraging them from doing this.  Hell, if one or two dozen villains popped up in Arm it would probably add flavor to the game. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more staff support for people who were attempting to play characters that went on a path of wrongdoing and tried to lie, cheat, steal and brutalize their way to the top.

[staggerlee]

Lots of neat posts here -- many of them trying to justify the reasons why it's bad to play a villain or why it should be difficult to play a villain.

But let's just be honest with ourselves for a minute -- playing a villain is lots and lots of fun.  It's not something that should be inaccessible to your average first-year armer and we shouldn't be discouraging them from doing this.  Hell, if one or two dozen villains popped up in Arm it would probably add flavor to the game. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more staff support for people who were attempting to play characters that went on a path of wrongdoing and tried to lie, cheat, steal and brutalize their way to the top.

I would argue that suggesting new players try well rounded characters with a real personality and motivations rather than a "villain" could potentially save them quite a bit of frustration, boredom and angst.

It's not that kind of a game.  I'd say similar things to someone hoping to play Sir Lancelot, but nobody asks how to play a perfect hero.

You can still lie, steal, cheat, kill, and everything else... just don't be a villain, if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.

[Ampere]

Lots of neat posts here -- many of them trying to justify the reasons why it's bad to play a villain or why it should be difficult to play a villain.

But let's just be honest with ourselves for a minute -- playing a villain is lots and lots of fun.  It's not something that should be inaccessible to your average first-year armer and we shouldn't be discouraging them from doing this.  Hell, if one or two dozen villains popped up in Arm it would probably add flavor to the game. 

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more staff support for people who were attempting to play characters that went on a path of wrongdoing and tried to lie, cheat, steal and brutalize their way to the top.

Guy, read those posts one more time.  Nobody is discouraging villainy; we're merely pointing out that what one person perceives as a villain, another may see as a hero.  What do charles manson, margaret thatcher, mussolini, john stewart, hitler, george w bush, and adhira have in common?  They all thought they were the good guys, but some disagree.

[Synthesis]

Yes, it's much safer to play the psychopathic type who is perfectly normal until the perfect opportunity presents itself (e.g. newbie inside locked apartment), then suddenly turns into a bloodthirsty murderer...who wipes off the blood afterward and goes to party at the bar.

[Jingo]

Yes, it's much safer to play the psychopathic type who is perfectly normal until the perfect opportunity presents itself (e.g. newbie inside locked apartment), then suddenly turns into a bloodthirsty murderer...who wipes off the blood afterward and goes to party at the bar.

Hmmm. I've also noticed this.

[SMuz]

But psychopathic villains aren't fun, mostly because they get away with it and don't have a real motive

[Synthesis]

If your definition of fun includes:
1. griefing
2. getting the power-up
3. winning the game
...then such so-called "villains" might be fun.

P.S. we were being sarcastic there, smuzzy wuzzy.

[LoD]

But psychopathic villains aren't fun, mostly because they get away with it and don't have a real motive

SMuz, we're saying that a "villain" isn't a class choice or even a background choice.  It's a label that can be applied to someone based on the perspective of the people around them. 

The trick is to build an IC concept around a OOC desire. Right now, if you wanted a badass ninja, you could just make a 'rinthi assassin, get two knives and grind up your sneak, hide, and piercing skill to perfection. Equally dull and twinky as a badly planned villain. The good players.. they give that assassin a motive, background, ambitions, thoughts, friends, and a personality.

The "trick" is to build an IC character concept and let the world label them.  There are plenty of people in Zalanthas that will be more than happy to give your character reasons to pursue the type of wrongdoings and misdeeds that might label them a villain.  The "good" players, as you label them, are the ones that allow their character to develop organically within the framework of the game rather than artificially outside of the game.

Keeping such a narrow focus on an OOC objective (i.e. being a villain) will force you to miss a variety of opportunities that might present themselves on a daily basis for taking that character another direction in a way that makes sense with their background, personality, and concept.  One thing that I've learned is that it's a mistake to try and force a rigid character concept into the dynamic game world.

Consider the current game, and all of its components, as a running stream that has agreed to move within a similar set of boundaries as they interweave and tell their story.  Creating a "light" character concept that doesn't assume too much about how they're going to interact with people, how they're going to develop, or what they're going to achieve will allow you to easily join the stream.  Creating a "heavy" character concept that makes huge assumptions about his/her IC goals or plans, how they are going to act toward other people, and what they plan to achieve is like dropping a heavy stone block in the small stream.

It generally strikes the water with a heavy splash, disrupts the flow for a few moments, and then sinks about as quickly as it was introduced -- because it's not attempting to be part of the stream.  It's attempting to disrupt it.

My advice is to start your character's as part of the stream.  They might still eventually become an obstacle, go against the current, or sink -- but it's a much more natural progression for everyone involved.  And you may decide, having floated awhile, that your concept doesn't need to make waves.

-LoD

[AJM]

I always daydream of my characters doing the whole Scarface thing. Starting off as a lowly dishwasher the slowly corrupting myself to become a huge crime lord (villan) who get taken down by his own actions.

[Reiloth]

I always daydream of my characters doing the whole Scarface thing. Starting off as a lowly dishwasher the slowly corrupting myself to become a huge crime lord (villan) who get taken down by his own actions.

Yep. Been there, done that. Fuck of a lot of fun.

[Aruven]

Mm, I think people are mixing opportunists and villains up here, but slowly sorting black from white. I don't think in a world like zalanthas you can put a finger on evil. Okay, unless the word 'demon' is in your s-desc.

A villain in armageddon is someone who wants to destroy the entire known world and see it purged in fire and ash.
...
Not that there is anyone like that...

But a PC player, as a 'villain', I think is nearly impossible to do. There is a sense of honor in killing for most people, warriors. Templars either strive for power or do what they think they must to protect their sorcerer-king. Tribes fight for their survival. Crimebosses are allies or targets. I can't think of one player I've actually met that... Okay, I can't think of TWO players I met that have played a 'villain'. 

[Pale Horse]

Aruven, Resident forum Nilazi.

As for villains, I don't really think there are any such things as villains on Zalanthas, beyond what the culture your character comes from tells you is one.  To everyone else, everyone else is a "villain".

[RogueGunslinger]

Sounds like real life...

[Aruven]

Sounds like real life...

You're DAMN right it does.

[Gimfalisette]

I have never played a PC who was a villain.

Also, I have never played a PC who was not a villain.

[SMuz]

I've played a PC who can't be a villain, just because he has his own morals. He does stick to them rather well, even when I feel like doing the wrong thing, some gut instinct tells me that it's out of character to cheat, backstab, whatever. He even did try to help out friends, even when it didn't benefit him. Ethically, he did have the sense of duty, sticks to virtues, and believes in rights, etc. I'd dare say he was a hero and he still remains one of my favorite characters.

Flipping that over, if you have someone's who's selfish enough, he will end up a villain. It's possible to make one hated enough. He just needs enough ego to do whatever it takes to win. He should be narrow minded enough to ignore ethics, but patient enough to not get killed out of impulsive rage. And every great villain, real or fake, has been an ass-kisser at one time in his life. And when he does get hungry with power, he should be powerful enough that people who hate him can't just whack him. Interestingly enough, that suits a lot of characters people like to make.

Running alongside with what LoD said, you just have to design the guy to flow in the stream the way you expect before you put him in. Sure, planning his future is pretty stupid (but fun), but a well-thought out personality helps more than anything.

[Dracul]

All my characters are villians, and all are often victimized by the other villians of zalanthas.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

villain (vil'en) n. a wicked or evil person, or such a character in a play.

evil 1 Morally bad or wrong. 2 Harmful, injurious  3 Anything that causes harm / pain.

Sounds like 97% of PCs I've ever met, under the correct circumstances. (Many Vivaduans included.)

So, I don't think that "Villain" is necessarily the right word, when taken literally. However, when taken theatrically; We all can name one or two, yes?  That Templar who's a bit too unmerciful. That Militia Private who organizes a mutiny against his superior officer in order to take power (A role I had the pleasure of watching the fore mentioned Delerak MASTERFULLY assume. Unfortunately he had such a bad rap at that point that the imms tag-teamed his ass anyways.) And, of course, Quick! (I still can't decide if I love to hate that guy, or just hate to hate him. Now that he's done killing me again and again, I can at least admire his acheivements.)

That being said, in my experience (which is sadly current, and thus unsharable), I must back up whoever said that villain isn't something you put in your Background, it's something that you become. And a world like Zalanthas gives you PLENTY of opportunity, if you choose to take it.

[Maso]

And, of course, Quick!

<3

That was no villain, it was a puppy dog inside a furry kittens body.