TheRPGSite

Just for easy kicks, let's find out what the true iconic weapon of martial villainy is!

It's multiple choice.

Obviously the weapons will be decorated with screaming skulls and bat-wing motifs.

Dunno why, but i always think that someone wielding a fiendish looking staff is one of the coolest images, so i voted other!

Staff.

Petrified Cockatrice's Head on a long chain.

A sandwich, likely a Dagwood. He's quite self-assured (and always hungry), and he can easily grab the ivory-handled chunk of iron with the blood-stained serrated edge if he needs it.

Riding crop.

I voted sword. Mainly because I really like swords, and the idea of a BBEG wielding a vampiric blade that continues to drain blood from the wounds it causes even from a short distance is evil.

There's something about the morningstar that screams "I am a brutal, vicious thug without the slightest shred of mercy".

A letter opener and an envelope containing the one message can turn the PCs into putty.

Literally the first thing that came to mind was a condom.  Truly petrifying.

A trussed up gnome, who is someone the PC's recognize. Gnomes do full damage on the first three hits, after that they are broken and only score half damage.

In true classical manner, he's wielding a hostage. Doesn't need to be a sentient being. An important message would do just fine.

Quote from: Axiomatic;842874There's something about the morningstar that screams "I am a brutal, vicious thug without the slightest shred of mercy".

My vote too. One of the things I like about them is how they can combine the decorative flair of a scepter with the brutal qualities you've mentioned.

Consider this guy's weapon (4e DMG)...

(http://i.imgur.com/XkShsJf.jpg?1)

Or these little images from Diablo III:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/artisan/blacksmith/recipe/earthshatter
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/nutcracker

A real villains' hands are empty, but they wield a ton of goons with a variety of weapons.

Since you specified "warlord" I went with an axe, although Morningstar is a good choice as well, but tend to me to denote less of a "warlord" than "pack leader". An orcish or hobgoblin weapon maybe.

I considered swords briefly but there are, to me, either the weapons of the evil horde or the evil Overlord.... either nicked and blunted from hundreds of strikes or gleaming and fine-edged, a weapon of rank.

I went with bizarre alien bio weapon cause these days I'm feeling science fantasy more than just straight fantasy.

As long as it's on fire, it doesn't really matter.

But Halberd. A Flaming Halberd.

... crossed arms.

And he looks quite like the dude playing Littlefinger on Game Of Thrones.

Only with him is a pack of armored killers with bared blades, and the Evil Warlord Villain drawls "I'd offer to take your surrender, but that'd just give you time to plan something.  So my men will just take your heads, instead.  I know you'll all die bravely."

If my Evil Warlord type is one who leads with his men/monster rather than from the back, I wobble between two weapons:

Great Sword

Great Axe

Typically two handed weapons, and he will wade into battle with no fear, no surrender and a willingness to sacrifice everything to kill, maim, destroy those who've been foiling his plans.

After all, the Players NEVER encounter the Warlord first thing, they have to build up to getting his attention first, then when they have it, that's when he or she (I've had several Evil and Not-So-Evil Barbarian queens over the decades of GMing) gets into the fray.

What's the movie quote again:  "At first you had my attention, now you have my interest."

Quote from: Arkansan;842900I went with bizarre alien bio weapon cause these days I'm feeling science fantasy more than just straight fantasy.

Yeah, and it's what helps keep on top of the dogpile. I'm thinking the old z-movie Laserblast.

...restraining order?

...silver chain with you father's silver-plated skull on its end?

...big bag of gold coins and a bribey smile on his lips?

...wicked-looking sex toy that's clearly incompatible with human anatomy?

My warlord wouldn't enter dramatically. They would send an envoy with complete diplomatic credentials allowing the envoy to negotiate in the warlord's absence, who also does double duty as a Forward Observer.

So that the offsite artillery (or more likely, the offworld ortillery) can get good targeting information for the first few barrage salvoes. That is, assuming that the "good guys" do not acquiesce to the warlord's demands.


Seriously guys, I know this board loves its D&D and OSR clones, but if you are really thinking about kingdom building or nation smashing as part of the campaign then read a good history book. Or read some military science fiction like Space Viking by H. Beam Piper or the Janissaries series by Jerry Pournelle. IMHO, no self-respecting warlord is going to go and enter a kingdom until it is pacified enough to do so. That warlord will send in a trusted flunky to be the sharp end while they are safe in back.

... Keys to the killdozer.
... The ring that's imprisoned the soul of the original warlord, letting the demon run the body like a sock puppet.

Quote from: jeff37923;842948Seriously guys, I know this board loves its D&D and OSR clones, but if you are really thinking about kingdom building or nation smashing as part of the campaign then read a good history book. Or read some military science fiction like Space Viking by H. Beam Piper or the Janissaries series by Jerry Pournelle. IMHO, no self-respecting warlord is going to go and enter a kingdom until it is pacified enough to do so. That warlord will send in a trusted flunky to be the sharp end while they are safe in back.

Too true! Not a lot of would-be conquerors went too far leading from the boar's head. But all too often gamers crave the high drama and terminality of chopping off the serpent's head. I too adore history, and crave verisimilitude more often than not, but I feel both things should serve gaming rather than the other way around. :)

And to be fair, nothing about the question posed suggested that the kingdom the action is set in hasn't been "pacified" and that the PCs aren't springing an ambush or leading an assassin.

That said, it's a great point, and I like the cut of your jib.

Quote from: jeff37923;842948Seriously guys, I know this board loves its D&D and OSR clones, but if you are really thinking about kingdom building or nation smashing as part of the campaign then read a good history book. Or read some military science fiction like Space Viking by H. Beam Piper or the Janissaries series by Jerry Pournelle. IMHO, no self-respecting warlord is going to go and enter a kingdom until it is pacified enough to do so. That warlord will send in a trusted flunky to be the sharp end while they are safe in back.

History is not why we play these games.  It's often boring and written by the winners.

Quote from: jeff37923;842948My warlord wouldn't enter dramatically. They would send an envoy with complete diplomatic credentials allowing the envoy to negotiate in the warlord's absence, who also does double duty as a Forward Observer.

So that the offsite artillery (or more likely, the offworld ortillery) can get good targeting information for the first few barrage salvoes. That is, assuming that the "good guys" do not acquiesce to the warlord's demands.


Seriously guys, I know this board loves its D&D and OSR clones, but if you are really thinking about kingdom building or nation smashing as part of the campaign then read a good history book. Or read some military science fiction like Space Viking by H. Beam Piper or the Janissaries series by Jerry Pournelle. IMHO, no self-respecting warlord is going to go and enter a kingdom until it is pacified enough to do so. That warlord will send in a trusted flunky to be the sharp end while they are safe in back.

Agreed. But I was thinking about the warlord that succeeded a decade ago.
If the PCs are meeting him at all, they're obviously leading the revolt!

That said, there were successful leaders that were leading from the the front. One of them wept for lack of known lands worth conquering, the legend says.


Fun fact for the guy who said morningstars aren't a noble weapon, the origin of the scepter is the humble mace!

Kilt, of course. Any man who would wear that to fight is crazy and to be feared.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842962History is not why we play these games.  It's often boring and written by the winners.

Pedantry over historical accuracy in a game is a bit much at times, but don't write off history just because of an online argument over games. I'd much rather read a history book than a fantasy novel. However, I also wouldn't object to a warlord showing up personally in a game because that can be exciting.

Quote from: AsenRG;842963Fun fact for the guy who said morningstars aren't a noble weapon, the origin of the scepter is the humble mace!

You're thinking what D&D calls the Morning Star vs. the German version, which is what D&D calls a 'Flail', it's a stick with a chain and a spiked ball, or balls,m on the end.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;842975Pedantry over historical accuracy in a game is a bit much at times, but don't write off history just because of an online argument over games. I'd much rather read a history book than a fantasy novel. However, I also wouldn't object to a warlord showing up personally in a game because that can be exciting.

My point is, if my players are going to end up to face a Warlord type NPC villain, and a fight HAS to break out, the bad guy will willingly wade into battle (with his friends/troops) with the PC's and have a good chance of winning.  Or at least believing he'll win.

History can be fun, but for the most part it's rather mundane compared to what can happen in a RPG where Magic can twist the laws of reality.  The other thing is that most of what happens rarely involves a group of 'heroes' against the world, it's often army vs. army with the leaders who often don't do much, being the obvious faces we are expected to remember.  Maybe that works for some people, but not me.

Again, as always, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Quote from: AsenRG;842963That said, there were successful leaders that were leading from the the front. One of them wept for lack of known lands worth conquering, the legend says.

I think it was more than by his age, Megas Alexandros was already dead, having trounced the mightiest empire in his time and traversed half the known world.

A spoon... to eat someone's heart out. Like Sean Connery's thumb, in his hands the spoon does mega damage. Because Warlord Villain.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842962History is not why we play these games.  It's often boring and written by the winners.

That may be true, but history can also lead us to some great ideas for adventures and keen insights into why things are happening in a campaign as they are.

Mammoth hissy fit.

Quote from: jeff37923;842948IMHO, no self-respecting warlord is going to go and enter a kingdom until it is pacified enough to do so. That warlord will send in a trusted flunky to be the sharp end while they are safe in back.

While the general point that the, uh, general of the army is unlikely to be riding in the vanguard is well taken, the limitations of communications technology and the historical difficulties warlords have had in trusting their flunkies have often meant that yeah the warlord was at least in the army that he was using to conquer whatever he was conquering.

(Currently rereading Herodotus: the part where Cyrus loses his army & his head to the queen of the Massagetae is, of course, probably apocryphal, but also completely badass, Game of Thrones can eat its heart out)

(Also, cue argument about D&D magic vs. telegraphs)

Oh yeah and flails, or a nice sword if I'm going for a more respectable vibe.

A macuahuitl bladed with the sharpened bones of fallen champions, etched with foul runes to the 8 Furies.

Either nothing (other than maybe a sinister fondle-toy such as the pocket watch in A Few Dollars More), or an MP40.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;842985You're thinking what D&D calls the Morning Star vs. the German version, which is what D&D calls a 'Flail', it's a stick with a chain and a spiked ball, or balls,m on the end.

No, I'm not. There are morning stars with chains, but they're not the most common variant, just the most known. The name of the weapon comes from the ball with spikes, though, which gives it star-like appearance.
There are quite a few examples of morningstars without chain, though. And I'm talking about them.

QuoteHistory can be fun, but for the most part it's rather mundane compared to what can happen in a RPG where Magic can twist the laws of reality.  

:D
I'm not even going to comment. Let's just say I've read enough of the most popular high-magic fantasy, and all of it combined is less useful than a single well-written history book.

Quote from: Kiero;842988I think it was more than by his age, Megas Alexandros was already dead, having trounced the mightiest empire in his time and traversed half the known world.

Yeah, and he had lead a few battles from the front;).

His dick.  On fire.

And he's laughing.

Quote from: AsenRG;843012Yeah, and he had lead a few battles from the front;).

Not really the Roman style, at least not for a general. A young contubernales trying to make a name for themselves, perhaps, but a general led from behind the fighting line, director rather than participant.

He was born two centuries or more too late if he'd wanted to be the tip of the wedge.

An apple, or a small pet.

He's so casually in charge at this point that there's no need for him to actually hold a weapon.

Well it looks like axes currently hold the lead in the serious choices category of this highly scientific poll. ;)

Now I'm wondering why.

Association with executioners?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;843099Well it looks like axes currently hold the lead in the serious choices category of this highly scientific poll. ;)

Now I'm wondering why.

Association with executioners?

(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x395/11223916_1052002711511379_1642975660285833597_n.jpg?oh=e5b031cf833f9c566dd07d3ab265a6fb&oe=5657616E)

Blood For The Blood God!!

Quote from: Kiero;843023Not really the Roman style, at least not for a general. A young contubernales trying to make a name for themselves, perhaps, but a general led from behind the fighting line, director rather than participant.

He was born two centuries or more too late if he'd wanted to be the tip of the wedge.

He lead the cavalry charge in 338 BC, helping his father defeat the enemy, didn't he? I'm pretty sure he had lead other cavalry charges as well, though I can't name a particular one.

Still, for most Evil Warlords avoiding the front line is a sign of professionalism, it's just not an absolute rule!

Quote from: jeff37923;842948Seriously guys, I know this board loves its D&D and OSR clones, but if you are really thinking about kingdom building or nation smashing as part of the campaign then read a good history book.

I read history. Many medieval kings led from the front as it was an expectation of heroic-style, warrior-band leadership.

Anyway,  I voted morning star. It looks mean and in some systems like RM it has a high fumble range, so it leads to comedic effects and black humour ala "This is gong to hurt me more than t will hurt you!.

This poll tells me that very few people actually run Warlord villains.  They much prefer Masterminds.

I decided to go with spear for reasons.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;843130This poll tells me that very few people actually run Warlord villains.  They much prefer Masterminds.

Well there's a fun conversation tangent: are masterminds over-exposed and is it time to bring back the good ol' straightforward horde-leadin', terror-hollerin' warlord? A warlord renaissance of sorts. ;)

Quote from: The Ent;843131I decided to go with spear for reasons.

Aww c'mon, you can't leave it at that.

The head of your lover or wife.

Quote from: AsenRG;843112He lead the cavalry charge in 338 BC, helping his father defeat the enemy, didn't he? I'm pretty sure he had lead other cavalry charges as well, though I can't name a particular one.

Still, for most Evil Warlords avoiding the front line is a sign of professionalism, it's just not an absolute rule!

And then there's the very specifically D&Dish argument that it makes a lot of sense for the evil warlord to be at the tip of his cavalry charges, because he is probably one of the top tier fighters on his team, a top tier fighter is tremendously effective against regular troops, and he's also probably got some magical means to bamf out & back to camp if things start looking ugly, so...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;843133Aww c'mon, you can't leave it at that.

I just couldn't come up with something fun enough for the "other" option :o

I then thought, well, swords are classic and all but kinda everywhere. Maces, axes and similar do scream "brute force" but he's a warlord not just a big dude. Spears aren't a that common "boss" weapon but can be cool and awesome as anything.

I closed my eyes, pictures it, and came up with double-handed battleaxe.

May not be original, but its still like the "evil uncouth" counterpart to a sword.

 
...and just as prone to Freudian imagery...
(http://www.bustatoons.com/blog_images/blog_odd_weapon.jpg)

Fusion Gun Man Portable.

Plain, since he plans to use it.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;843162Fusion Gun Man Portable.

Plain, since he plans to use it.

-14 or -15?

Quote from: Crabbyapples;843146The head of your lover or wife.

Your lover or wife, giving him head.

"Hah, Jokes on you Warlord Villian! Welcome to the wonderful world of Herpes!"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;843167Your lover or wife, giving him head.

Your lover or wife's head, giving him head.

In my current campaign, the closest thing to an actual warlord is a sentient orca, so I go with "a torpedo launcher harness".

A stick.

That is to say, from my point of view, the simpler the weapon, the scarier the villain must be to have the guts to show up with nothing more than that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;843979A stick.

That is to say, from my point of view, the simpler the weapon, the scarier the villain must be to have the guts to show up with nothing more than that.

How about a porcelain cup, then:D?

Quote from: AsenRG;843990How about a porcelain cup, then:D?

A paper fan.

(http://i.imgur.com/XBV6W5S.jpg?1)

I was originally going to say "a spoon", but someone beat me to it.

Again, I think the OP should have clarified what they meant by a 'Warlord'.  Because to me, a Warlord is someone who leads an army, a weapons expert and tactician, but tends to be relatively straightforward in their strategies, simply because they have both the man-power and skills to not need to rely on subterfuge and guile.

A Mastermind, on the other hand, is never the one you see or should expect.  Plots within plots, plans with multiple outcomes outlined, and NEVER EVER shows up unless the players find out who they really are and comes calling.  And even then, unless the players are extra devious, the Mastermind has a contingency.  Hopefully.

Again, my interpretation, I could of course be wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;844197Again, I think the OP should have clarified what they meant by a 'Warlord'.  Because to me, a Warlord is someone who leads an army, a weapons expert and tactician, but tends to be relatively straightforward in their strategies, simply because they have both the man-power and skills to not need to rely on subterfuge and guile.

A Mastermind, on the other hand, is never the one you see or should expect.  Plots within plots, plans with multiple outcomes outlined, and NEVER EVER shows up unless the players find out who they really are and comes calling.  And even then, unless the players are extra devious, the Mastermind has a contingency.  Hopefully.

Again, my interpretation, I could of course be wrong.

I personally figure a Warlord would thoroughly absorb and practice the aphorism, "Never repeat a winning plan."

Lord Hong, for instance.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844278I personally figure a Warlord would thoroughly absorb and practice the aphorism, "Never repeat a winning plan."

Lord Hong, for instance.

Yes, but at the same time, if a Warlord isn't the direct sort of villain, then they're not a Villain.  They become a Mastermind if they rely on misdirection and foist their plans on their minions.

Not to say that they can't change, but once they do, they're not Warlords and are not the point of this poll.

In my opinion of course.

That's also assuming that they survive the PC's, of course.  Ego and all that.

Lightsaber.

Call it what you like, but my Evil Warlord's ideal weapon is the same as my ideal Evil Warlord (Darth Vader): a brilliant red beam of Fuck You in sword form.

To me, a warlord is a blunt villain, possibly leading from the back until the big showdown(s), but very direct and overt in his methods. The mastermind sets up complicated plans and contingencies and multi-layered deceptions, but the warlord leads ten thousand screaming savages straight to the target and sticks to stuff like ninjas or diversions if he's going to bother with deception.

To me, a warlord wins battles.

Tactics win battles.  Big screaming hordes, anybody can win a battle with.  A warlord wins battles when outnumbered, outflanked, outmaneuvered, and out of supply.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;844393To me, a warlord is a blunt villain, possibly leading from the back until the big showdown(s), but very direct and overt in his methods. The mastermind sets up complicated plans and contingencies and multi-layered deceptions, but the warlord leads ten thousand screaming savages straight to the target and sticks to stuff like ninjas or diversions if he's going to bother with deception.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844396To me, a warlord wins battles.

Tactics win battles.  Big screaming hordes, anybody can win a battle with.  A warlord wins battles when outnumbered, outflanked, outmaneuvered, and out of supply.

I don't disagree with any of these, my only caveat is that the Warlord is a visible figure, he'll be in the the battle directing his troops himself.  A hands on type, the players will know who they're dealing with when facing one of them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;844396To me, a warlord wins battles.

Tactics win battles.  Big screaming hordes, anybody can win a battle with.  A warlord wins battles when outnumbered, outflanked, outmaneuvered, and out of supply.

That's more 'general' to me.

It's the difference between this guy:
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/square_small/0/3353/528048-awdor_evil_general.jpg

And this guy:
http://pre14.deviantart.net/a387/th/pre/i/2012/238/1/8/warlord_by_leejj-d5ch3zp.jpg

Yeah I guess.  I just took the term to mean "Generic melee-combat based boss-villain".