Hydaelyn Role-Players
Roleplaying the bad guy - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Roleplaying the bad guy (/showthread.php?tid=11756)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Telluride - 05-27-2015

(05-27-2015, 12:22 PM)Hyrist Wrote:
(05-27-2015, 12:08 PM)Mercurias Wrote: Exactly.

This is the problem you run into as a villain. Everyone wants to show that they are heroes...And the end result is that villain characters end up being some kind of evil doppleganger of John McClane who has to fight through the really, truly impossible odds.

Remember boys and girls, respect your villains. They're rarer than gold.
Other way around.

Villains are dime a dozen. Storytellers can shell them out like there's no tomorrow, at no consequence to themselves. Roaming Villains need pitch their story in a way that's interesting, believable, and respectful to both Characters and Players alike. Otherwise, it's just another ooc person on a power trip.

Eorzea, up until 2.55, was putting its faith in a woman who vacillates between being captured and being worse than useless, and a Hero who is so achingly naive and masochistic that it nearly beggars belief in some occasions. This is some silver age, Pre-Miller, Pre-Moore comic-book level Heroing, right here.

This is a PRIME setting for an entry level scheming villain. The Joker would be ruling Uldah and making the Brass Blades wear clown masks within a week.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Imo - 05-27-2015

Everything Hyrist said so far is gold. Though exceptions could be made for mostly harmless low-key crooks and other bad guys who are not villains in a comic book meaning of the word.

(05-27-2015, 12:29 PM)Telluride Wrote: This is a PRIME setting for an entry level scheming villain. The Joker would be ruling Uldah and making the Brass Blades wear clown masks within a week.
Well, Ul'dah is more or less under the control of a clown in a mask right now.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Mercurias - 05-27-2015

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: This is fundamentally incorrect, in the fact that when you assume the role of Villainy, you are no longer a Player. And let me explain why.

Player Characters, especially in this game, are a function of the protagonist as perceived by Storytellers. Traditionally, in all forms of roleplay to play an antagonist, is to sit at the opposite side of that table. The concerns as a PC should not be the same as those playing an antagonist, because an Antagonist is, the moment he engages a protagonist, holds the weight of responsibility of delivering a good conflict story-line to that player - especially in free-form roleplay. You, are no longer a Player Character at that point - you are a Storyteller, or you are a glorified NPC working under a Storyteller, there's no room for a Player-Character antagonist cause it will boil down to Player vs Player mechanics, which requires a Storyteller to establish fair grounds, to which you've already claimed in your post should not happen.

I kinda don't know where you're getting all of that. The absolute literal definition of a player character is a character who is directly controlled by a player as opposed to the GM. 

And I could, technically, go off onto lots and lots of paragraphs on why all wrong, but I kinda don't need to argue with you on the point of a definition. 

The next point on this portion of your post I disagree with, is that a pure antagonist is incapable of being a PC because responsibility to drive plot and conflict turn the...Character...Into a glorified NPC? I kind of don't understand that. If you, as any kind of PC, aren't willing to drive plot and conflict, then what exactly are you doing? I can't think of any character I play who is incapable of doing that. 

And I'm afraid that my post never stated that I believe fair grounds in combat should never happen. I wrote that, in order to establish fair grounds, I tend to play villains who are more powerful than those I would normally play. 

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: Attempting to create a Villain PC fails to serve the primary function of an antagonist to begin with and assumes the stance of hiding behind the rights of a Player Character, while being dynamically opposed to the role of a Player Character. 

Have you never played a tabletop game where the party turns on one another? It happens all the time. honestly, I'm sort of surprised and disappointed that two RP groups on Balmung haven't taken to getting into outright warfare IC while being friendly OOC. It's fun! You should try it sometime!

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: In free-form, in the absence of a storyteller, players collectively agree on the limits and extents of consequence between each other when crafting a storyline. This is easy to establish when groups all are invested on the same side of a conflict or have characters that work together. However taking a villainous approach on a player level means that you're actively an antagonist to said groups. Even with perfect OOC/IC separation there is an innate conflict of interest there on both an IC or OOC level.

So in other words, my points are flawed because my subconscious wants to win in a fantasy game if I establish my villain character as a PC rather than a "glorified NPC"? If I have characters on both sides of the conflict (which I do), then does this balance out my conflict of interest or do alts not count as PCs at this point?

And what if my whole interest is to tell a good story, regardless of which players win or lose? Where's the conflict there if I just want to make it all interesting?

And if your conflict of interest concept was really the case, wouldn't the storyteller, who decides how the stage is set for both parties, be able to curb that?

I've actually got a very good pair of storytellers I work with, by the way, and a significant part of their job is to take requests from both sides of the conflict and incorporate them into the overall story in order to satisfy all parties, since, as my storytellers believe, villainous PCs are still PCs. 

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: They're playing something along the lines of a slice of life or adventurer storyline, you're specifically writing to disrupt that. Without a Storyteller to oversee that, all that it amounts to is an unsolvable conflict where you are assuming their consent for the sake if your own idea of a story, while hiding behind consent rules to enforce that story. This implies that if the other players don't play to your dance, then they can never progress. That sets a bad tone for what could be an interesting story.

Killing off the villain in the middle of the story kind of ends the story. What players normally want to do is automatically kill the villain and end the story. At that point...They've ended the story themselves. There is no interest. Boom. Over. 

More to the point, there's actually a significant amount of OOC communication between the storyteller and both sides of the conflict. I still don't get the part where you assumed I don't work with a storyteller.

Also, you're speaking of assumed consent. Half of my posts were referencing the difficulties i'd had as a villain PC of protags attempting to force consent down my throat. That is sort of the problem I'm talking about. As a villain, I will never FORCE a player to interact or get injured, and all I'm asking in return is the same courtesy. I never stated that I was unwilling for my character to ever be harmed.

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: Conversely, doing so from the Storyteller perspective re-asserts and re-aligns all intents in roleplay. Instead of disrupting, you are providing plot for said Slice of Life and Adventurer style roleplays, by playing the Villian role. Playing a continual and Repeat villian means you never really leave the Storyteller perspective and you must focus first on what story you are bringing others, rather than simply pursuing 'your own' story. Otherwise, it boils down to the level of being antagonistic rather than being an antagonist/villian. And that comes with its own IC/OOC problems. Which leads into the next problem playing a "PC" Level.

Honestly, I treat 'my own' stories purely and entirely as side stories. What I always concern myself with, on either side of the table, is always going to be the story as a whole. You don't have to be a Storyteller to want to make the story better. The point of the story isn't to win. It's to make people respond and have fun. We're entertaining one another. 

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: Law enforcement is an active and real element within most worlds - especially in Eorzea. A Villain who's openly a villain to the point where a PC can report their actions, must have a means of dealing with persecution that is acceptable to their constituents. This is especially true seeming many adventurer type PCs will be holding a rank of some sort in one of the Grand Companies. And when that happens, you MUST have the rank of Storyteller in that situation or you must concede to another storyteller's call. "I escape because I said so." pushes the borders of consent, because no party, on the player-character level can rightly claim ownership of the greater law-enforcement entity in a roleplay - that is a role of a storyteller.

That's why I talk with the storyteller and establish what goes down at that point. Also, most of my roleplay tends to happen in a group where people don't like talking to the authorities. I've always been willing to have my characters captured if the story demands it, and in other games (not this one yet), it's actually happened.

You're right, if the storyteller tells me that a bunch of NPCs catch my villain, then my villain is caught. Hurray!

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: Playing any character at all with a certain level of power or authority in the game world, if we're going to be totally honest about this, without first assuming the role of a Storyteller or working directly with one amounts to simply playing a power-fantasy, intentional or otherwise - it cannot be done correctly without first putting all included characters to the forefront of your consideration. To be a roaming player character is to be a Storyteller with a story waiting to happen, and should be presented to other Players as such before the story happens to prevent OOC conflicts of interest.

Fixed that for you. 

(05-27-2015, 12:05 PM)Hyrist Wrote: This is why I see so many attempts at Villainy in Roleplay failing so frequently. Collectively, we are playing a game, and no matter how you perceive it Villainy is a linchpin role in that game. A Villain is a source of conflict, a source of story. And as such, that comes with a bit more responsibility than your typical PC role. Even a Player Character, who's running an independent story-line for their character's personal plot, assumes the role and responsibility of Storyteller while doing so, for Villains, unless you're 'in hiding' or assuming the role of an Anti-Hero for a plot other than yours, you never step away from that Storyteller role. You are a walking plot-line. You can't assume that you are a Player Character. Player Character comes with limitations and assumptions a Villain can't concede to.

Every player is a potential storyteller, and let's be honest, if you can't put your character's importance away and respect the stories of others, then you shouldn't be roleplaying with them. You should be writing a novel.

There are a massive amount of bad villains out there who want to power trip, do evil things, and never, ever reap any of the consequences of any of their actions.

There are also a massive amount of bad heroes out there who want to power trip, perform violent and/or risky actions, and never, ever reap the consequences of any of their actions.

Consequences are part of RP. If you can't accept them, then why bother?

That goes for all PCs.

(05-27-2015, 12:22 PM)Hyrist Wrote:
(05-27-2015, 12:08 PM)Mercurias Wrote: Exactly.

This is the problem you run into as a villain. Everyone wants to show that they are heroes...And the end result is that villain characters end up being some kind of evil doppleganger of John McClane who has to fight through the really, truly impossible odds.

Remember boys and girls, respect your villains. They're rarer than gold.
Other way around.

Villains are dime a dozen. Storytellers can shell them out like there's no tomorrow, at no consequence to themselves. Roaming Villains need pitch their story in a way that's interesting, believable, and respectful to both Characters and Players alike. Otherwise, it's just another ooc person on a power trip.

I'll agree that bad villains or GM-controlled villains are a dime a dozen.

GOOD villain PCs are rarer than gold. I don't think that they should have to make a pitch. The way roleplay works, any player can always say they don't want to interact.

I've never really had anyone say that about my villains, though. Almost as if I'm not 'fundamentally incorrect'. 

I'll be damned.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Qhora Bajihri - 05-27-2015

I think... playing an antagonist in a plotline is not the same as playing a morally reprehensible character, and both could qualify as villains in theory. Heck, the hero in a villain's story is the antagonist, a la Dungeon Keeper.

But to imply that any character that provides conflict must be played by the storyteller is a bit hard to believe. It's quite possible to antagonize without being a planned, manipulated cog in a storyteller-operated plot machine. It's also possible antagonize without power tripping, provided you know your co-writers/audience and communicate with them.

My "villains" would have their moments as plot devices, per se, but even then, I wasn't necessarily providing the story. I was simply interacting on that basic roleplaying level. Perhaps I provided an instigating action here or there, but sometimes there was no plan, or sometimes someone else had the plan, and I was simply providing interactions from that morally reprehensible perspective, you know, like a player character might. Then when they weren't playing that antagonist/antagonizing role for others, yes, they'd be anti-heroes in their own tales.

I think there's subtlety and detail being addressed here that's difficult to make any hard and fast statements about.

If PC law enforcement and PC lawbreakers get involved with each other, OOC communication and cooperation has to happen quickly and efficiently, or it's going to devolve into a power-tripping mess. There needs to be give and take in situations like that, and it's possible, someone needs to step into a storyteller role just to maintain civility. But I don't think that such situations occur particularly means that PCs cannot play either lawbreakers or law enforcement. It just means remembering we're all in this together, and cooperation means compromise.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Aduu Avagnar - 05-27-2015

The biggest issue about a villain pc is the endgame.

Sure the heroes want a grand chase, the villain esxaping from their clutches. That works well a few times  but ultimately, no one enjoys having a villain they can't eventually beat.

If the villain is a pc as opposed to an npc, then you have the issue that most people come Into. People dont want their characters to die. Which would be the ideal end to the heroes story.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Mercurias - 05-27-2015

(05-27-2015, 04:37 PM)Nako Wrote: The biggest issue about a villain pc is the endgame.

Sure the heroes want a grand chase, the villain esxaping from their clutches. That works well a few times  but ultimately, no one enjoys having a villain they can't eventually beat.

If the villain is a pc as opposed to an npc, then you have the issue that most people come Into. People dont want their characters to die. Which would be the ideal end to the heroes story.

There are ultimately only three real fates for villains:
-Capture
-Conversion to the good guy side
-Death

Personally, I've killed off a loooooot of my villains.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Warren Castille - 05-27-2015

Let's talk power dynamics.

As a person in a roleplaying community, my expectations are to tell my own interlocking story in the greater world. I'll have my character meet people. I might get to appear in their storylines. They might appear in mine. We'll collaborate to put together a story that pleases the parties involved.

Playing a villain looks exactly the same on paper, but it's sort of the not the same. When you establish yourself as a villain, you are intentionally looking to derail (or just complicate) the "we're a large community telling stories" stuff. If I'm writing a detective story and someone else is roleplaying a murderer and wants to get involved, the story would be unfun if I'm suddenly unable to catch my man. This can make for good stories - is the villain a criminal mastermind who is legitimately ahead of the hero? It can also make for bad, bad stories: The villain appear in broad daylight, murders someone in the Quicksand and then magically escapes because the plot states so. That's basically railroading and or godmoding a result because the villain is unable to out-play the hero, or is just unable to "properly" play a villain.

That sounds a bit heavy handed. When roleplay because competitive instead of cooperative - when we're no longer hunting down dragons together because it fulfills us both but you're a heretical mastermind summoning them and I'm trying to stop you - you run the risk of simply being outplayed. Dramatic scenes are fantastic, but undoing a player's hard-thought or just spur-of-the-moment traps is unfun. Yes, the plot requires the villain to escape after the bomb goes off. No, that's not satisfying when there's a strike team barring all of the exits and a crack archer watching the scene from a vantage point. It basically says "Your roleplay doesn't matter until the last session."

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're roleplaying a villain and you lose? Lose. Don't just handwave and go "nuh-uh!" because that will make you lose your heroes. Difficult-to-capture isn't the same as impossible-until-convenient-plot-lull.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Hyrist - 05-27-2015

Wow, my original post got chewed up quite a bit by formatting.

So, that was quite a bit of lost work,so let me summarize the important points and leave it alone.

A character you create, whatever title you decide to give it, is yours. This is what we call an Origonal Character. It deserves all the respects and protections that should be given to a character that is owned by a person. That is regardless of PC, Villainous Characters, NPCs, or Facilitator PCs.

A Villain is not, however, by function a "Player Character". A Player Character historically, especially in Final Fantasy history are protagonists. Even in cases of Player vs Player, each player is depicted as the protagonist of their own story.

A Villain, by contrast of say, a bad person, is a Character designed or utilized for the purpose of a story. Regardless of whether or not they are an Original Character. They function first and foremost as a Story Facilitator, rather than a Player or participator. A character claimed under the title Villain and are participating on a player level, is typically deceiving their role as part of their story, are participating in someone else's story - or simply playing an opposing faction (as per PvP style plots.) 

To accurately play an active Villain, or an Antagonist, one removes themselves from the 'Player' role, and into the role of a story writer or a story facilitator. Those people, are expected to be the same or in close communication with one another. This communication, as an expectation is only required of player characters in the absence of a Storyteller/GM or facilitator role present. 

Always remember:
A villain is a class of character specifically designed to give someone else's character a bad time, somewhere, at some point. This is inevitable. As such it needs be designed and presented in a manner that the affected player(s) will be amenable to have that bad time happen to their character, and enjoy the story it provides.


The separation of Story Facilitator roles (Storyteller/GMs, Facilitator PCs, Villains/Antagonists, and NPCs) from that of a Player Character is a function to further protect those people from the universal trappings of power and IC/OOC separation issues that these roles can become increasingly vulnerable to. In the case of Villains in particular, they're additionally more outwardly reacted against, hence their rarity outside of set contexts.

It's up to the "Villain" to prove that they are the 'rarer than gold' good type to the players (And Storytellers if they're simply being facilitator.) and not the other way around. Therefore, accepting the role is as accepting a greater responsibility than a typical roleplayer would. The prospective Villain player must respect the role they are taking, or they're most likely setting themselves up for a difficult and miserable time for themselves, and their prospective players.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - ArmachiA - 05-27-2015

There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-27-2015

This all sounds rather complicated.

I play a villain and he just kicks old ladies and takes lunch money from kids.

And he's a corrupt asshole. However I don't have to be a story facilitator or anything crazy. I also think Warren's view is a little strange, what's the point of doing plots without some resistance?

My blade is constantly arresting people for being drunk, starting fights, stealing in the quicksand. People tend to enjoy it, even if they didn't plan on me doing so. What's the point of doing something if no one notices.

I don't view villain as meaning like Dr Evil, I just view it as being non-heroic. Plenty of room for those types in lots of stories.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Hyrist - 05-28-2015

(05-27-2015, 11:18 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

There is a distinction between "Bad Guy" as in horrible individuals, and Villains, as in for a character created to fufill a function in a storyline.

People who just want to gather together and roleplay 'bad-guys' for the sake of being bad is, Well, their right. Though questions are raised as to the actual execution of such a concept.

But if you show up, cause a disturbance, and hide behind the 'bad guy' title when retaliation comes around. You're in for a terrible time, and a worse reputation. Communication and cooperation are paramount.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Cato - 05-28-2015

There's plenty of room across the board for every shade of 'good' and 'evil' to be represented within the role-playing community. I've never understood the aversion to 'bad guys' that many role-players seem to have. To me, I suspect they simply don't want to admit that they're only really interested in having their character predictable save the day with only a few minor setbacks along the way.

I'm certain that many more individuals would happily role-play villains and antagonists if it weren't for the ridiculous expectation that they should essentially just be somebody else's punching bag.

I, for one, remain perfectly content to have my character encounter compelling villains and antagonists. Character development should be a mutual rather than a one-sided affair and so I'm happy to have Graeham influenced by villains and antagonists as much as he will be influenced by other 'good guys'.

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Verad - 05-28-2015

(05-28-2015, 01:03 AM)Hyrist Wrote:
(05-27-2015, 11:18 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

There is a distinction between "Bad Guy" as in horrible individuals, and Villains, as in for a character created to fufill a function in a storyline.

People who just want to gather together and roleplay 'bad-guys' for the sake of being bad is, Well, their right. Though questions are raised as to the actual execution of such a concept.

I do not see any questions. What questions are being raised?

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Kuro - 05-28-2015

I have watched this thread with great interest for a while now and it is sad to see so many people look at the role and cringe with disgust... Having played villains for many years myself and will continue to do so in this game too no doubt.

In my experience the role is not that much different to a Player Character in reality even if it may feel like it is, when it is at least to me a Player Character with some additional rules and responsibilities because of the actions of said character. A 'good guy' player character might ruin a day or disrupt an RP scene just as well both IC or OOC depending on the said characters personalities. Wish people here could give villains a chance!

I also echo Graeham for being unoriginal. Yaaaay Graeham!

RE: Roleplaying the bad guy - Hyrist - 05-28-2015

Quote:I do not see any questions. What questions are being raised?


*Deep breath*

Story premise, method for evading persecution on long term (That's local, GC, AND Alliance level persecution due to being an organized grouping. Size garners attention.) Interaction limits, rules and concepts when dealing with, well, anyone not an antagonist, or even another antagonist of opposing goals especially as a group or with another group. Methods of acting or RPing in public settings, especially considering the above, again, on the personal, and group level.

This is on top of your typical lore, play-ability, continual activity, and logistical problems any other group are concerned with that could put you at odds with players on an IC or OOC level (or both) even if you were a protagonist group. This is compounded by the fact that many organized villainous elements are fairly well known and established (Syndicate, Brass Blades, Corpse Brigade, One of the 8 Garlean Cohorts in Eorzea, Redbellies, Coeurl Claws, Harriers, Lunatics, Rogue Pirates and the newly christened 2.55 group which I'll not spoil, nor will I touch on Beast Tribe entities, Void entities, Ascians, or even Undead. ) leaving little conceptual room for a larger organization that does not answer to or conflict with these criminal elements on top of law abiding or law enforcement entities. 

That's a lot to hammer down before you even start making decisions of creative liberties as a group and establishing your own canon within it. I'll openly applaud the group that tackles that challenge fully knowing the difficulties involved, but there would be a quite a lengthy conversation to be had before any sort of collaboration could be done. There are so many potential clashing points in a pre-established villain base even in fully free form RPs in forums that adding in the often restrictive elements of MMO's level of canon and lore into it and factoring the many ways the interpretation of such deviates even among protagonists - is such a bramble patch of potential disasters and unwanted drama for all involved that I as a story-writer wouldn't even touch the project from a leadership standpoint.

I'd have to speculate that either the leadership there simply doesn't care for such things or they are some of the most cautiously meticulous people in the field of roleplaying. Either way they stand in the center of a conceptual minefield, and I don't envy their position.

If I were to boil all those concerns down to two questions - I'd ask how they avoid becoming a Scarlet Letter, or if they even care about it.