So, when you're gaming, what do you prefer from your villains:
1. When villains have a motivation and justification from their own point of view of what they're doing, and basically think that what they're doing is right in some sense?
(ie. Braniac wants to take over the universe because only he is capable of establishing order, Xu Huang really believes that Cao Cao is the only hope for civilization, the Saxons feel that it is their right given to them by their gods to conquer the british people, serial killer dude is crazy and thinks that he has to collect all those spleens in order to stop the PBS Mind Control Satellites, etc)
or
2. Villains are just Evil, they know it, and they like it that way?
And does this answer change in terms of henchmen or non-humans? Should orcs have motivation in D&D? Or should they just be Orcs? Is that motivation enough?
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditSo, when you're gaming, what do you prefer from your villains:
1. When villains have a motivation and justification from their own point of view of what they're doing, and basically think that what they're doing is right in some sense?
(ie. Braniac wants to take over the universe because only he is capable of establishing order, Xu Huang really believes that Cao Cao is the only hope for civilization, the Saxons feel that it is their right given to them by their gods to conquer the british people, serial killer dude is crazy and thinks that he has to collect all those spleens in order to stop the PBS Mind Control Satellites, etc)
or
2. Villains are just Evil, they know it, and they like it that way?
And does this answer change in terms of henchmen or non-humans? Should orcs have motivation in D&D? Or should they just be Orcs? Is that motivation enough?
RPGPundit
For me, #1.
-clash
Quote from: RPGPundit1. When villains have a motivation and justification from their own point of view of what they're doing, and basically think that what they're doing is right in some sense?
I give you the corporate executives of Enron, circa 2000: "We're going to fuck grandma in the ass!" They had motive and justification from their point of view, but they also knew that what they were doing was very, very wrong.
Quote2. Villains are just Evil, they know it, and they like it that way?
Again, I give you the same Enron execs, for the very same reasons. They knew they were evil and they liked it that way.
So, basically, I don't see it as an either-or situation. Sometimes evil people feel totally justified in doing what they do, but they're also totally aware of how depraved it is, and they like it that way. So there's a third axis that I use when characterising villains.
!i!
Mostly 1, but I'm willing to admit that some people are willing to consider themselves evil because of a transgressive thrill from doing so.
Quote from: RPGPundit1. When villains have a motivation and justification from their own point of view of what they're doing, and basically think that what they're doing is right in some sense?
As a rule, I prefer these sorts of nuanced NPCs, someone with complex but strong beliefs but may run counter to the characters'. [I don't have "opposition" or "bad guys" in my games, obviously, because it's not up to me to decide who they oppose.] But as you point out, fantasy includes a large variety of possible motivations, some of which are so alien to us that they may as well be Just Evil.
The guardsman who pockets your Magic MacGuffin isn't just a two-dimensional dickhead, he's a tragic single father trying to support his five surviving children. But the lich-king, who just "wants a home for his people," is a member of a "species" which reproduces not by intercourse, but by death: it doesn't matter how much he explains, "Look, I'm just supporting life formed on negative energy, I'm not A Bad Guy," he's still just going to look like a bad guy. But I like to have realistic motivations for them, anyway.
I suppose I do differ when it's just minor characters; as much as I'd love to have every character in the game world planned out in advance, with all their motivations intact, sometimes the guard is just a guard because Lord English would have a guard in his chambers. If the guard becomes
important, if something starts happening around him, I try to weave a complex tapestry on the spot, but I do not always succeed.
Hi!
I think its a mix. Some NPCs are there as window dressing. They set the tone of the game, test a mechanic or generally make a point. these need to fill their role, but don't need to be fleshed out. City Guards, whether dull-witted slackers or feisty extortionists are two-dimensional and really don't need a 3rd dimension, unless there is something else going on there (like they are the mastermind behind some grander plot than rob the guys coming into the city).
But, BBEG, and even other players in a more complex story need to have more depth, in my opinion...
1... it's not all that hard to make their motivations up, so why not...
But 2. can also be interesting when done right (I am not sure if it is considered to be right, but it can be turned into some sort of absurd kafkasque existetional horror)
Typically I'd go with #1, with the caveat that some characters would consider self-proclaimed evil to be motivation enough.
As others say, a mix is best. I lean toward your choice #1 most often, most especially for longer, more involved arcs.
But sometimes I like having a black-and-white situation. For example, when I'm running a fantasy game, I like having my goblins just be goblins: evil dudes whose job is to spread evil in the most evil fashion possible. I don't need an ecology of goblinkind or some nuanced examination of how the adventurers are the "real" monsters for slaughtering innocent orc babies and their wetnurses. If I want a 3 dimensional villain, I'll use a human instead.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSometimes evil people feel totally justified in doing what they do, but they're also totally aware of how depraved it is, and they like it that way. So there's a third axis that I use when characterising villains.
This. I like a mix of #1 and #3.
Sometimes people feel justified; sometimes they just want something. For minions, it's usually the same way. Monsters are still monsters, though.
Generally, I'm all about #1.
Not that my players give a solitary rat fuck about that, so it might as well be #2.
In the end, two wins by default more often than not...
#1 for my group. Even for Orcs....
Esp for splatter campaigns, my players like some motivations behind the evil acts. Although there have been a few "I'm just an asshole" villains , they are normally the lead goon or second tier villains....never the Big Bad.
Edit: An example would be the villains from the Rock. You got Ed Harris whose doing some pretty fucked up things because of his beliefs....than you got the two whackjobs towards the end of the movie who are just dicks.
Regards,
David R
Is there an option for people who know that they're doing a bad thing, don't enjoy it, but do it because they're weak?
Because even both of these options together don't cover the full gamut of my villains. I think if you add in the weakness, you're getting close.
Gleeful unrepentant evil is the only sort of evil that has any place in my games.
Quote from: RPGPunditSo, when you're gaming, what do you prefer from your villains:
1. When villains have a motivation and justification from their own point of view of what they're doing, and basically think that what they're doing is right in some sense?
(ie. Braniac wants to take over the universe because only he is capable of establishing order, Xu Huang really believes that Cao Cao is the only hope for civilization, the Saxons feel that it is their right given to them by their gods to conquer the british people, serial killer dude is crazy and thinks that he has to collect all those spleens in order to stop the PBS Mind Control Satellites, etc)
or
2. Villains are just Evil, they know it, and they like it that way?
And does this answer change in terms of henchmen or non-humans? Should orcs have motivation in D&D? Or should they just be Orcs? Is that motivation enough?
RPGPundit
I want both, depending on the villain. Having all NPCs of a certain stripe work the same way smashes my realism radar.
It depends on the creature or villain.
Chromatic Dragons tend to not be cognizant of their evilness. They're essentially racist, and simply incapable of recognizing the needs of humans as having real legitimacy.
Demons and Devils revel in their own evilnesses. They actually take real pleasure from pointless cruelty, lying, and sowing ruin and destruction for it's own sake.
Evil Humanoids are motivated by the spark of evil, and rarely capable of overcoming their basest desires and urges, and are thus considered iredeemably evil. Few of these creatures posses any sort of intellectualism, generally possessing only a dim cleverness. They are not merely culturally or economically disadvantaged, some metaphorical other, but are actually twisted mockeries of the human and demi-human races.
Evil humans -- who tend to be the major villains of my campaigns -- tend to have more complex motivations, or to be more accurate, tend to have complex justifications, rationalizations and delusions about their evil deeds.
Since evil is a real force in my campaign (an extrapolation of spells like detect evil), it would be most accurate to say of human villains that most think they are good, but a few (generally the most powerful) know they are evil.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineMostly 1, but I'm willing to admit that some people are willing to consider themselves evil because of a transgressive thrill from doing so.
Same here.
I think most genuine harm is done by people who have a detailed rationalisation and strong motivation for what they're doing.
There are of course people who think that to be nasty is k3w1. Some serial killers are like this. "Who do I have to kill to get into the papers?" said the BTK killer thirty years ago.
As GM I have to have fun roleplaying too. The first type of guy is fun to roleplay, especially when they're explaining themselves to the PCs and one or two say, "Well, I can see that point of view, that's reasonable..." then shake their heads suddenly and sit up indignantly, "no wait! That's crazy shit! You're evil!"
But the second guy is just lame and stupid and no fun to roleplay.
The second guy can be good so long as he's integrated properly into the world and not presented as being stupid. We've all met people in our lives, I'm sure, who seem to really thrive on the misery of others without deriving any material benefit from it.
It depends on whether the villains are PC's or NPC's and what "genre" is being gamed.
Note that my OP does not suppose that the justifications used by villains are actually meant to excuse them in anyone's eyes but their own; I'm not talking about some lily-livered PC "no one is really bad" philosophy here, where Death Knights are just "misunderstood" or its really all "society's fault".
I'm talking about the ways villains present themselves as, well, the hero of their own story.
Lex Luthor is an utter shithead, but he's often justified himself by suggesting that Superman's "super" nature is something that destroys the value of humanity, that Supes is a monstrosity because his very existence insults human potential and makes human beings like ants that must live or die by Superman's whim. It just so happens that Lex ALSO believes that of course, he's the paragon of the human species and that if it wasn't for Superman's very presence, he would be the natural saviour and ruler of mankind.
RPGPundit
There are numerous kinds of evil in my games.
Evil because you serve a philosophy is one thing that has its place, but I could never do that with the *majority* of encounters with evil.
Likewise, some people are straight up perverse, acknowledging the evil of their ways, and maybe even reveling in that knowledge. Again, doesn't strike me as a majority situation.
The majority for me is the group that is selfish, uncaring, and shortsighted. They take because they want. They kill because they're angry. They lord it over their inferiors because in their mind their word is law. They neglect their obligations if it doesn't serve their own whims. They need no justification to behave a given way but their desire to behave that way. And if they don't care what's good, why would they call themselves evil?
Add to this group a few with the intelligence to pretend to have a second agenda beyond their self-serving nature, but that don't actually care about it. Those that justify their whims after the fact, that is.
And lastly there's another minority situation where a person acts as a catalyst for a series of nasty things happening without realizing it. Incompetence in office can appear indistinguishable from evil.
I like a mix.
I'd also nominate another category for people who don't self-examine and just do evil things. Justification, identification, all that crap? Don't care. I'm just going to go kill this grannie and steal her shit. Why? 'Cause.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI give you the corporate executives of Enron, circa 2000: "We're going to fuck grandma in the ass!"
!i!
Actually they had a motivation Greed. Which fits the criteria for #1.
I am firmly in the #1 game. Because the added details generate more conflict and more conflict means more opportunities for adventure.
However understand sometimes the reasons can be pretty basic like Greed. Other times they can be a result of culture/religion.
I find the deconstructed, relativist "He's just misunderstood" villain to be just as cliche and painful to the ear as some find a more black and white game world, and more to the point, he requires a lot more work. And you can definitely keep him the hell out of my fantasy.
Certainly it's good to have some motivation for the guy, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to have a guy who's just a bastard.
Quote from: J ArcaneCertainly it's good to have some motivation for the guy, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to have a guy who's just a bastard.
Peter Parker: Eddie, it's the suit. You've got to take it off.
Eddie Brock: Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't ya?
Peter Parker: I've been there, Eddie. The power; it feels good. But you'll lose yourself to it. It'll destroy you. Take the suit off Eddie, it's not too late!
Venom: [ponders thought] Nah... I like being bad. It makes me... happy...
Quote from: J ArcaneI find the deconstructed, relativist "He's just misunderstood" villain to be just as cliche and painful to the ear as some find a more black and white game world, and more to the point, he requires a lot more work. And you can definitely keep him the hell out of my fantasy.
Certainly it's good to have some motivation for the guy, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to have a guy who's just a bastard.
The idea of a person having motivation doesn't
imply that he's just misunderstood though. His motivations can be evil and twisted and wrong, in a very black-and-white way that everybody
but the villain can see clearly.
There's still a big difference between someone who says "I will exterminate the half-breed races because their filth pollutes our world!" and someone who says "I hunt half-elves because I'm
eeeeeevil!"
Still though, J has a point. Niether the racist guy or the evil guy are terribly original at this stage of the game.
I run mostly S&S, and I find the games are just more fun if the bad guy is, well bad. The PCs don't even really have to be good, really, but the bad guy has got to be bad.
Quote from: RPGPunditSo, when you're gaming, what do you prefer from your villains:
Both, because the real world has both. The secret to keeping the villains who know they are Evil and like it that way interesting it understanding that such people are not necessarily stupid.
Quote from: TonyLBIs there an option for people who know that they're doing a bad thing, don't enjoy it, but do it because they're weak?
That's yet another option and a good distinction to make. A variation includes things like werewolves, possessions, people under mind control, and so on -- basically people who have lost control of themselves.
For me, it really depends on the game. If it's a lighthearted S&S swashbuckling romp, then the bad guy is just plain evil. If it's anything more nuanced than that, then I like my bad guys to have reasons for doing what they do, although - like the Pundit - that doesn't excuse them. The closest my villains get to "sympathetic" is when they're confused individuals who are applying disproportional responses to genuine problems. ("My parents were killed by soldiers from Dodgy Kingdom X... therefore every man, woman and child from X must suffer!")
Everyone who is in #2, has a backstory (#1) to explain why they are that way. Sure you can be Evil and still be a functional "normal" member of society. It is when they decide to "risk themselves" and be all they want to be, that they become villians.
Most Evil Villians don't consider themselves Evil, they just think that the rules don't apply to them, or that they deserve this. The Selfishness applies.
Now my Deamons are Evil of Evil's sake. He is their boss. They eat/ gain energy due to discord/ negative emotions/ evil energies generated by the actions of "souls". How they do it and their motivation for liking their "evil" this way or that, requires some degree of backstory. (I was there and caused the first murder in a jazz club. I liked the flavor. Now I haunt the clubs, looking for that smokey flavor of dispair with a tinge of magical music.) It does not have to a lot, but it changes a mechanical challange to something interesting (and gives you a wedge to trick the demon).
Now your Orcs, they are following X-leader (who has personal goals who are important), they are just trying to make a name for themselves (thus will do things normal maurading orcs might not do), looking for food and anything they can easily get (so they get something and run), or ... well you see how this works. Each motivation changes the "tactics" of your fodder monster.
Sometimes, you might even see the dynamics of the fodder monster group. One guy tries to run, the guy in back whacks him on the head and he keeps on fighting. (Thus the PCs target the guy in back and sure enough that one orc runs immediately and others soon follow).
Nobody said the story had to be long and involved, but it should be there.
Quote from: MoonHunterNobody said the story had to be long and involved...
Or that you have to delve deeply into that story.
Quote...but it should be there.
While in my own games I absolutely agree with you, I've seen people make do and have fun. Personally I always have something. But I can see the appeal of not having too much.