The Tropes of Playing a Villain in FFXIV

[No Longer Exists]

Villain is simply a bad, bad term to use in day to day RP, and really goes to show how different roleplay writing is from typical writing.

 

By definition (at least, as it pertains to writing, film, etc), a villain does not exist without a plot. An unlawful person is not a villain by virtue of being unlawful; it is merely a role to fulfill. They are nothing more than some player's character otherwise.

 

There's an enormous spectrum of unlawful, chaotic, and or evil people, so I won't even touch on that. I will say that, however, any of these (in addition to many 'good' characters) can fulfill a villainous role in a plot, so long as they're willing to do wrong against a protagonist. Again, there's a wide spectrum of what constitutes as wrong, from stealing from the rich and corrupt all the way to genocide.

 

That, as far as I'm concerned, are the only rules to villainy. The Joker is a literal crazy person and is one of the most beloved characters in comics. The xenomorph is nothing but a predator, and winds up being a horrifying villain. I can't even count the number of logical computer AI villains there are.

 

*Reaches out from under his hat and points to this post*

 

Thematically, an antagonist (see: Villain) is the plot device that works against the protagonist (see: Hero). So technically speaking, in open RP, there is no such thing as a villain or antagonist unless those individuals pertain to a specific story within the Open RP.

Example:

 

Mister A is an adventurer who saved a village from pirates bent on loot and plunder. Mister B was one of those pirates who survived the battle and vowed revenge on Mister A for the defeat. <-This is an antagonist in fiction.

 

Example 2:

Mister A is an adventurer who saved a village from pirates bent on loot and plunder. Mister B is an angry ex-merchant whose business was ruined and happened to be bumped into by Mister A on the Ruby Road Exchange. Because of that perceived slight, Mister B seeks to mess up Mister A's life. <- This is an antagonist in fiction.

 

Example 3:

Mister A is an adventurer who saved a village from pirates bent on loot and plunder. Mister B was exposed to too much aether and it warped his mind, so he stabs Mister A in the throat with a fork. <- This is not an antagonist in fiction. 

 

The difference is the plot. Random acts of chaos and violence don't make a villain specifically, because that character's random acts of chaos and violence are the story that player is telling at the time. Technically, that makes the crazy fork-stabber-guy the protagonist and anyone who reacts to it would become the antagonists. (Don't let me blow your minds now)

 

Now, to further make things more confusingly clear (Yay, I love oxymorons), in RP; Fork-stabber is telling his story of chaos and throat-poking but invites Mister A, C, and Miss D to join in the story. Whose the protagonist then? Still Fork-stabber. A,C, and D are now support characters in the tale. They are meant to enhance the story with their actions, regardless of if they decide to stab people with forks too or attempt to apprehend and browbeat Fork-stabber for being a psychopath. 

 

Finally, upon the conclusion of the story (be it Fork-stabber's success or failure), A,C,D and even Mister B or anyone else watching the event unfold from the sidelines has the capacity of creating their own story about the events in "The Marvelous Adventures of Fork-stabber" and thus become the tellers of their own stories. This makes them the protagonists and Fork-stabber becomes a plot device, not the antagonist (unless Fork-stabber decides to mess with whoever has begun their story and stab them with his mighty forks, at which point he becomes the antagonist.)

 

Point being: RP is a fluid progression of stories where we as PCs jump from role to role (protagonist, antagonist, support, and plot device) willy-nilly. 

 

And whether a character is a protagonist or antagonist depends entirely on who is telling the story at the time. Mr. Freeze's crusade to save his wife by stealing diamonds from rich people is only a villainous tale because it's told from the perspective of Batman. Otherwise, he's a man trying to save his wife. For more on this, check out a film called "Falling Down".

 

P.S.: On the subject of villainous ERPers. A simple quote will suffice: Whatever floats your boat.

 

*Retreats under his hat*

[Loki]

Thank you all for the incredible amount of feedback and information! It's nice to see everyone's stand point on what is correct and incorrect on the Villain/Evil/Dark associated characters and it has definitely helped me realize more than a few things that I missed or may have miscalculated in my Original post.

 

As always; keep the feed back coming for future or current evil-doers!

[Ciel]

Just my opinion, but if someone's 'villain' is just out looking for a little nookie in one form or another, that doesn't necessarily make them a villain.  It might make them a jerk if they're out to use someone, or it might make them a criminal if they're actually out to rape, murder, etc, and not much else.  Yeah, these things might define a villain on a personal level if said jerk/criminal has caused a person or character direct, personal harm.  However, sticking just to these things makes the 'villain' superficial.  A well-defined villain doesn't need sex, money, or power.

 

Many of the responses in this thread have already made some great points about what it's really all about, and given some great examples as to why specific characters are (or are not) great villains.

 

As someone who has an alt, I like to treat the details and histories of such a character no different than any other.  Everyone has a beginning and catalysts which brought them to where they are in life, it's just a matter of how these things define the character.  What sort of childhood did he/she have?  What sort of influences did they have growing up?  As they grew, how did those influences change and effect the character's perspective of the world and their motivations?

 

These are all important questions to ask.

 

One of the most fun parts is having people with a common background who are willing to help define the character, and vice versa.  This gives you allies, enemies, and influences on both sides.  I love a villain with motivations, even if their sole motivation is repaying some kind of debt owed to a higher power, whether that debt is monetary or the higher power is some sort of political or military force.  This also lays the groundwork for a sympathetic villain, someone whose reasons are understandable, even if the actions resulting from it would be considered repugnant by the population at large.

[Verad]

 

That's the thing for me, though. I find some of the best villains to be the ones where you can actually see the reasons for what they do. You hate them for doing it, but it makes... sense in some twisted sort of way. From their point of view, they're perfectly in the right and justified in their actions - even if it seems evil and crazy to everyone else. Qhora's mentioning of the Batman villains works well, and to use a more recent example - Senator Armstrong from Revengeance.

 

Not to say crazy evil doesn't have its place - my favorite Final Fantasy villain is still Kefka, after all.

 

And yet people enjoy the works of Lovecraft, and the appeal of those monsters are based largely on the inability of the human mind to understand what they are and their motivations. Madness comes not from the creatures, which are probably perfectly well-adjusted manifestations of the color Z, but from the protagonists as they struggle with the revelation of their own cosmic insignificance and their failure to comprehend.

 

And if we move from the realm of the inhuman to the more personal, raise your hand if Othello's Iago is your favorite Shakespeare villain. And Iago has no motive. He says "I hate the Moor" and all, but the more you read his soliloquies on that subject, the more you realize he's kinda making up the hatred as he goes along - sometimes he's bitter that Othello got the promotion, sometimes he loves Desdemona, sometimes he thinks Othello slept with his wife, it goes on. In Coleridge's essays on Shakespeare, he praises Iago for his "motiveless malignity," and it seems an apt way to put it. There's nothing understandable because there's nothing to understand - Iago's doing what he's doing for its own sake, and all the justifications are after-the-fact.

 

A bit like what's going on in the Mary Sue thread with the idea of power fantasies, we're seeing a collision here between contemporary tastes in the portrayal of villainy and the needs of RP as a medium, and getting "This is the right way to play a villain" conflated with "This is the right way to write a villain." There may be a correct way for the former, but there really isn't one for the latter.

 

Edit: Also, a note on players engaging in the trappings of villainy for sex, since that's OP's problem. It's not really to my tastes, first because it's a very conservative form of villainy - only villains do nasty things like sex - and second because of the all-too common problems with the portrayal of rape in roleplay. I try to skip it as a primary goal.

[Harmonixer]

I won't really be repeating anything that any of the others have posted, since I feel the points have already been made- but I will comment on the subject of villain rpers using it as a vehicle to get ERP.

 

I guess, I find it amusing that was even said in the first place, because I haven't run into enough of it myself? I mostly see do-gooders and everyone else using their characters to achieve the same goal.

 

Understand that, I am not against ERP or people that do it. I just think it's a lot like 'pot calling the kettle black' scenario. I honestly don't believe it's limited to any particular type of RP. There's plenty of people guilty of this and they are 'public' RP figures and both openly and privately do the same things. This extends to all games with RP I find.

 

So, there's that.

 

Also, Verad makes and excellent point on unrelatable villains. I hadn't thought of it that way. I do love monsters, especially the ones we can't actually understand. Kaiju, for example.

[Liandri]

Chiming in as a resident villain!

 

It's all subjective, some people think villains shouldn't be this, or shouldn't be that.

I find the scariest villains to be that ones that can be related to, in some form or fashion. It brings the whole sense of blurred lines into the forefront of characters, and their development.

 

There's not a right way, or a wrong way. But villains that have literally no reason for their motivations or goals, just elude me completely. I need a reason -why- people act a certain way, which, granted could be down to my education as a sociologist.

 

As for the whole ERP thing? Literally every other 'villain' I have encountered, or fellow strange individuals aren't like that. I think it's down to luck of the draw, and who you find yourself interacting with. You can't judge an entire group of roleplayers on one or two interactions, it's just entirely unfair.

 

I won't divulge the details of my character, or why she's necessarily villainous, as I believe my RPC reflects that, and I've noticed people could care less. I just believe there's reason behind most things, as far as logic goes - though I'm not dismissing another's views entirely, it's a matter of opinion, and what one prefers to see/read.

[Ette]

As someone who played almost exclusively villains or at least very dark grey characters for a while I would liiiiiike to add in my two cents:

 

Know who you’re writing with. Know the characters they’ll be put up against. Know the story you’re trying to tell.

 

Villain is, more or less, my favorite archetype to RP. I’ve been trying to switch it up into “usually well meaning” and “morally forgettable” with my latest characters. However, I’ve played PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING across the villain board from “destitute teenage girl trying very hard to win the approval of murders” to “cult leader orchestrating the death of thousands”.

 

I absolutely loved playing both. And other people found that working with and against them was fun, too! Both served their purpose in regards to what I wanted to write and both fit the narrative myself and others wanted to tell. I can’t say one was objectively better or worse than the other. In fact, if I were to switch their places they would have likely failed miserably as characters.

[Arelian Solin]

Time for my two cents! I've been playing morally ambiguous characters for almost the entirety of my roleplay "career" and I've come across a few very salient points when trying to be a villain.

 

A villain exists to act as a foil to a protagonist of some kind. Be it society, a group of individuals, or a sole individual.  As such, the character is typically crafted with these things in mind. Without something to serve as a balancing force, a villain character is--quite simply--a bad person. 

 

There's a world of difference between playing a bad person and playing a villain and there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a terrible person. But it's always important to know the difference.

 

This goes into Ette's point of knowing who you're writing with. The actual-factualness of being a villain is usually determined by the plot you're participating in and as such there's no wrong way to play a villain. If the story is centered around sexual abuse and assault, alright. That's what the villain will likely be about. But if the story isn't going to involve that content, you're an asshole for turning it into that and even bringing it up.

 

HOWEVER.

 

There are definitely things that cause a side-eye or a bitter laugh from my angle when I see things like the stupid sexy torturer and it's ilk. Usually because it's not being portrayed in a context-appropriate plot.

 

If you aren't trying to tell a story with your bad-person-wannabe-villain and instead opt to have them be a general nuisance and terrible person, make sure that's alright with the people you'll be getting them involved with. Never surprise people with content they might not be comfortable with, that's just rude. 

 

My overall point is a simple one and I'm just a wordy bastard, though. A good villain is defined by the plot and the context surrounding that villain. The only wrong way to play a villain is to remove it from that context or play it in an environment where it's context is no longer appropriate.

[Michikyou]

I will point out my observed experiences with roleplaying a Villain.

 

The issues stemming from the villain side in FFXIV is that everyone I and my friends have roleplayed with  - being it in kidnapping, torture etc has never accepted to letting anything bad happen to their character.

 

it is -very- difficult to be a villain when people are not willing to deal with the consequences of being a target but expect you to be subjected to their point of view. Hence why the whole 'rape, torture' thing exists, you might see that more often than not due to the constraints on most players.

 

For example when A few friends of mine were interrogating a law enforcement character they refused to let maiming, damage - psychologicla or physical mark their character in a permanent way.

 

The street goes both ways, and for villains? because we are the bad guy - people want us to lose no matter what.

[Loki]

I will point out my observed experiences with roleplaying a Villain.

 

The issues stemming from the villain side in FFXIV is that everyone I and my friends have roleplayed with  - being it in kidnapping, torture etc has never accepted to letting anything bad happen to their character.

 

it is -very- difficult to be a villain when people are not willing to deal with the consequences of being a target but expect you to be subjected to their point of view. Hence why the whole 'rape, torture' thing exists, you might see that more often than not due to the constraints on most players.

 

For example when A few friends of mine were interrogating a law enforcement character they refused to let maiming, damage - psychologicla or physical mark their character in a permanent way.

 

The street goes both ways, and for villains? because we are the bad guy - people want us to lose no matter what.

 

This right here. This makes it extremely difficult to play Villains in an MMO. It's exceedingly rare to find a group that will allow traumatic experiences or physical damage be dealt to them by a villain-like player. 

 

I do think there is a limit that needs to be drawn on what can and cannot be done to a players character and what those people are comfortable with happening to their characters. An agreement and understanding of potential consequences should be listed before a dark or villain associated character becomes involved in a plot and it should definitely be discussed among the group as a whole before a specific plot is underway.

 

Communication with other players is a big key in playing a single Villain among a group of Heroes. Villain's need to say what can and cannot be done to their characters and vice-verse for those playing the Hero(es) before any serious plot delving begins. This can be done without divulging too much into weakness' and strengths and past history, giving room to develop both sides in an in character progression.

 

There needs to be equal progression on both sides with renewed ongoing conflict whether on a personal or combative level for both to succeed. No side can be deemed the victor in any given confrontation in order to have a successful ongoing plot until it does get to the point where the person playing the Villain deems it necessary for the end to come.

[Arelian Solin]

I will point out my observed experiences with roleplaying a Villain.

 

The issues stemming from the villain side in FFXIV is that everyone I and my friends have roleplayed with  - being it in kidnapping, torture etc has never accepted to letting anything bad happen to their character.

 

it is -very- difficult to be a villain when people are not willing to deal with the consequences of being a target but expect you to be subjected to their point of view. Hence why the whole 'rape, torture' thing exists, you might see that more often than not due to the constraints on most players.

 

For example when A few friends of mine were interrogating a law enforcement character they refused to let maiming, damage - psychologicla or physical mark their character in a permanent way.

 

The street goes both ways, and for villains? because we are the bad guy - people want us to lose no matter what.

 

This right here. This makes it extremely difficult to play Villains in an MMO. It's exceedingly rare to find a group that will allow traumatic experiences or physical damage be dealt to them by a villain-like player. 

 

I do think there is a limit that needs to be drawn on what can and cannot be done to a players character and what those people are comfortable with happening to their characters. An agreement and understanding of potential consequences should be listed before a dark or villain associated character becomes involved in a plot and it should definitely be discussed among the group as a whole before a specific plot is underway.

 

Communication with other players is a big key in playing a single Villain among a group of Heroes. Villain's need to say what can and cannot be done to their characters and vice-verse for those playing the Hero(es) before any serious plot delving begins. This can be done without divulging too much into weakness' and strengths and past history, giving room to develop both sides in an in character progression.

 

There needs to be equal progression on both sides with renewed ongoing conflict whether on a personal or combative level for both to succeed. No side can be deemed the victor in any given confrontation in order to have a successful ongoing plot until it does get to the point where the person playing the Villain deems it necessary for the end to come.

 

I agree with this -- to a degree. Communication is vital (shocking, I know) but I've never actually run into a problem with certain players outright refusing to let anything happen to their characters. It's possibly because I just flat out won't have anything to do with a character that doesn't 100% accept "IC actions = IC consequences." At least not on an antagonistic level. I mean, shit. My main guild back in GW2 had a problem where people were too eager to have dire shit done to their characters. I'm talking like, any time we had villain NPCs crop up people were losing limbs left and right. It was great.

 

Like if I'm planning a plot with someone while I'm working the antagonist front, I put possible outcomes out there immediately. As in: Your character may be subject to and but absolutely never . If you are uncomfortable with any of these, please tell me now. 

 

9 times out of 10 they've told me what is and is not acceptable right then and there. If they go back on it? Well, you simply let everyone know that the player is going back on what they agreed upon and never associate with them again.

 

A general rule of thumb is that you can't, or it's very hard, to play a good villain character without an absurd amount of communication done beforehand. Don't expect random Law Enforcer from the bar or the streets to be down with what you're doing. If you need to, don't do your shit in a place where they can see it. If it comes down to it and they still show up, send a message asking them to step away from it. If they still refuse, black list the jerk. 

 

Basically, you need to be assertive as hell to play a good antagonist-type character. You've gotta have rules for people to go along with. You've also gotta be flexible because everyone has those same rules. Respect!

[Aife]

Personally I no issue most of the time rping with villain, especially since my characters less then a saint herself. Since I started rping with Lacey she's played both sides of the fence, a hero and a villain, or a villain whose worked for another villain. Nearly every interaction as a villain or Lacey being attacked by a villain/enemy has ended in some sort of delicious character development for my character (and sometimes their's as well) which I find thoroughly enjoyable. I do get that there is a stigma though. I've had a few bad interactions with players taking ooc thing icly which results in me quirking an eyebrow a bit. I generally back off after that because if someone can't see the line between ic and ooc they aren't worth rping with since I abhor real life dramatics. 9/10 though it's been a great damn time for all of us and we've had a good relationship ooc. 

I have noted though that a lot of role players aren't comfortable with horrible things happening to their character. When Lacey was violently attacked last year, resulting in some temporarily brain damage, by her former employer I had more then one rper contact me and ask me if I was okay with it or why I let it happen? Why'd I let it happen? Months of good character development, my friend. Why wouldn't I? My character turned over a new leaf after that and decided it wasn't wise to work for those sort of people anymore. She got into a long last romantic relationship and started on the road to redemption and trying to be a better person because of it. It was damn interesting. 

I think establishing boundaries are important though before delving into any darker rp. While I've never let Lacey personally torture anyone, I'm aware that not everyone is comfortable with that. And as for rape...I just...no. That's just something I'd walk away from cause it crosses a personal line for me. I think such things are important to discuss before delving into them ic. Everyone has different boundaries and I think as a rper they should be respected. You never really know the personal history of the rper and how you may trigger any real life trauma's.

[ArmachiA]

Everytime my FC does a heavy villian storyline, I always do a consent thread - where if they sign it they agree to be hurt, but with certain caviats

(You can see our current consent thread for the Voidsent storyline we're doing here: http://nightblades.shivtr.com/forum_threads/2067992)

This kind of makes players more comfortable since the guidelines are laid out for them and, while some people choose to stay away, a lot end up signing up.

 

But it is an issue with Villains, the fact not a lot of people want to have their characters hurt. Or - my biggest problem - wanting to beat the villain within the first WEEK of the storyline. T_T How are they villains if they get destroyed by you immediately?

[Tiergan]

^ I don't play any villains (at least not yet), but I find it insanely boring of you have a villain only for him or her to get mopped up within a few days of their appearance. Then again, I really like long drawn-out conflict.

 

I can also both agree and disagree with Verad. Villains where you can't understand their motivations at all from any angle can be TERRIFYING - which is why Cthulhu-type monsters and villains are freaky and horrifying as heck. When you can't reason with something or even begin to see through its eyes, it can be incredibly scary and throws things a little off-balance (in a good way). Villains in a friend's RP story are very cthulhu-mythos-like in nature and it gives the RP a very intense, horror-based feel where the villains feel overwhelming.

 

However, I'm also a huge sucker for Villains you can kind of relate to/identify with just because it can create a huge glorious emotional conflict for both readers (if we're talking about a book) and characters (if we're talking RP) to face a villain where they obviously need to be stopped, but you can relate to them or understand them. That conflict might come from either the fact that you get why they're doing what they're doing and a part of you wishes you didn't have to face off against them at all OR conflict might come from the fact that you can identify with what they're doing and it freaks you out that you can identify with a crazy horrible villainous person int he first place.

 

Sometimes it can be interesting to have a story where the villain is essentially a mirror to yourself, save for a few minor details that set them on a different course.

 

I guess it's all in what sort of narrative you're going for.

[Caspar]

I'm just really fond of the villains of circumstance, who are more or less forced into the antagonist role by conflicting interests or changing political/social situations, or were born into an environment where no other option was possible. A character who has no motive is also fun, but at times I like the more original take on it; where the character recognizes being moral is impossible for him, like, aware of his own psychopathy.

[ArmachiA]

I kind of have a soft spot for Comic Book Esque Villains. Like... in Injustice: Gods Among Us when Joker has Superman kill Lois Lane by using a mix of Kryponite and the Scarecrows fear gas making Superman believe she was Doomsday. Oh, by the way, she was pregnant.

 

It's just... deliciously over-the-top and effectual that in a world where SUPERMAN exists, the Joker can still effect his overpowered ass just by being incredibly wiley.

 

The Joker is a mystery himself in a lot of ways... but even then his motives have some kind of internal logic. His internal logic is everything is a game, and when the Joker does something, it never feels out of character.

 

I mean he explains his entire motive as to why he did it: Because he kept losing to Batman and Superman was an easy target. (Though actually his real motive was to get Sups to kill him to prove that ANYONE is corruptable. And that worked!)

 

That's it. Amazing.

 

(Shout out to Injustice's Harley Quinn - who owns bones)

 

I know that kind of villain can't work in a lot of settings. But that over the top kind of drama is definitely a guilty pleasure of mine.

[Magellan]

I will point out my observed experiences with roleplaying a Villain.

 

The issues stemming from the villain side in FFXIV is that everyone I and my friends have roleplayed with  - being it in kidnapping, torture etc has never accepted to letting anything bad happen to their character.

 

it is -very- difficult to be a villain when people are not willing to deal with the consequences of being a target but expect you to be subjected to their point of view. Hence why the whole 'rape, torture' thing exists, you might see that more often than not due to the constraints on most players.

 

For example when A few friends of mine were interrogating a law enforcement character they refused to let maiming, damage - psychologicla or physical mark their character in a permanent way.

 

The street goes both ways, and for villains? because we are the bad guy - people want us to lose no matter what.

I am one of those people who would be extremely hesitant to let anything bad happen to my character... in the hands of others. Why? Well maybe I'm a control freak. If I wanted to play a psychologically damaged person because of rape/torture/insert reason here, because I thought it would be interesting or fun to explore, then I would have rolled them that way, or contacted a villain character from the outset to plan a storyline.

 

If, however, I rolled an everyday person trying to overcome their past of slavery (just as an example) then I npc everything, and put it into their backstory. That way I can control what happened, how bad it was, and how it helped shape them into the person they are today. I am not interested in exploring themes of heavy, current, psychological trauma on this character, and in fact, to do so, would ruin my enjoyment of playing the character.

 

And thats a tricky thing in MMOs. I've had characters become broken, become uninteresting to play.... and just lose all their IC enjoyment due to interactions with others. Yet you've already put ALL this time into them OOCly... so now what? It can lead to frustration and burnout.

 

Typically, I don't get involved in villainous plots because it feels one of the two sides is going to leave feeling frustrated, and i'd not like to feel responsible for breaking someones character, just as I hope they wouldn't try to ruin the enjoyment I derive from playing mine.

 

 

Tl;dr: sometimes its just better to npc your characters antagonist (whether that antagonist be hero or villain) as a means of achieving your chracters goals, as pc vs pc clashes can create the bad kind of drama.

[cuideag]

I'm just really fond of the villains of circumstance, who are more or less forced into the antagonist role by conflicting interests or changing political/social situations, or were born into an environment where no other option was possible. A character who has no motive is also fun, but at times I like the more original take on it; where the character recognizes being moral is impossible for him, like, aware of his own psychopathy.

Bold/repost because that's basically my stance right there, and that is how I play my Not-Quite-Villain. Likewise, characters who fall into the "hero in my own story, villain in another's" is 100% my aesthetic.

[Darien Cadell]

When I've played more heavy-handed villains, I've always said from the outset that as a villain, my entire purpose was to lose. I had to look like I was about to have the upper hand, then have it taken away from me, in order to define the hero as the hero and my character as the villain. My character winning player-to-player encounters with "hero" types twisted the order of things and weirded me out. It just wasn't right. Now because it was an MMO, it ended up getting all convoluted and weird but originally, the intent was always to be the "loser," as it were.

 

Granted, that character was also the "I'll get you next time, Gadget!" type who was always ready to concoct another scheme with a semblance of seriousness, but me as player always setting him up for the fail. He never died, and never lost permanently, but constant losing was part of his joie de vivre.

 

Qhora fits more into the "more evil than a villain" category. She's the hero of her own little tale, but she very much sees how broken she is in everyone else's reflections, so she calls herself the bad guy without having that loss-seeking behavior my more archetypal characters had.

 

There's such a rainbow of villainous options available. No reason to be restrictive.

[Ludo]

I'm still reading what everybody has to say, and don't yet have anything to contribute to the topic that hasn't been mentioned already. But, as someone who has been struggling to find a way to roleplay their villain character that feels right, I do want to thank you all. Something I would like to learn more about is how to better play as a villain. I have a pretty good idea about my character; where they come from, what motivates them, why they are the way they are, but when it comes to participating in events and the like I often feel like I'm being inconsistent. How obvious should my sinister personality be? What should the ratio be between faux civility and abrasiveness? How do I keep the character interesting? I want the character to be a "bad" person but maybe I don't want that to be their defining characteristic.  These are the kinds of questions I struggle with, though I know the answer will be different depending on the character, and the person playing them.

[Zhavi]

I think what makes a good villain is what also makes a good hero - well roundedness. A Villian should be just as fleshed out as a hero would be, having motivations behind what they do beyond "I am evil".

 

That's it, really.

 

Even Hedonistic Villains can fall into under umbrella, provided they are fleshed out well enough. There are plenty of very good Hedonistic Villains in fiction and as long as they aren't pressuring or harassing me for ERP, they can be a hedonistic as they like.

 

The problem is, as Verad says. Many villains aren't logical or have good motivations. That's part of what makes villains scary. They don't play by the same rules as 'normal' people.

 

I think many villains do have good reasons for why they're doing what they're doing. However I don't think it's a prerequisite.

 

Why not? Some of the most villainous people in our history were very logical in their thinking and to them and those who followed them had perfectly good motivations.

 

To some people in the world, your country/culture is villainous (and no, I don't necessarily mean the most obvious example for us western folks). It can be a matter of cultural or historical reasoning, or religious or personal. Just because they aren't necessarily good motivations to you doesn't make that a universal truth. There's all sorts of people and perceptions in the world, and that counts for fictional worlds too.

[Verad]

I think what makes a good villain is what also makes a good hero - well roundedness. A Villian should be just as fleshed out as a hero would be, having motivations behind what they do beyond "I am evil".

 

That's it, really.

 

Even Hedonistic Villains can fall into under umbrella, provided they are fleshed out well enough. There are plenty of very good Hedonistic Villains in fiction and as long as they aren't pressuring or harassing me for ERP, they can be a hedonistic as they like.

 

The problem is, as Verad says. Many villains aren't logical or have good motivations. That's part of what makes villains scary. They don't play by the same rules as 'normal' people.

 

I think many villains do have good reasons for why they're doing what they're doing. However I don't think it's a prerequisite.

 

Why not?  Some of the most villainous people in our history were very logical in their thinking and to them and those who followed them had perfectly good motivations.

 

To some people in the world, your country/culture is villainous (and no, I don't necessarily mean the most obvious example for us western folks).  It can be a matter of cultural or historical reasoning, or religious or personal.  Just because they aren't necessarily good motivations to you doesn't make that a universal truth.  There's all sorts of people and perceptions in the world, and that counts for fictional worlds too.

 

Subjectivity is all well and good, but the point is more that for every logical and methodical villain with motivations that make perfect sense from their perspective if you look at it from that, there are as many who are illogical, irrational, or intentionally lacking in understandable motivation.

 

One isn't better than the other. But both exist.

[Zhavi]

I think what makes a good villain is what also makes a good hero - well roundedness. A Villian should be just as fleshed out as a hero would be, having motivations behind what they do beyond "I am evil".

 

That's it, really.

 

Even Hedonistic Villains can fall into under umbrella, provided they are fleshed out well enough. There are plenty of very good Hedonistic Villains in fiction and as long as they aren't pressuring or harassing me for ERP, they can be a hedonistic as they like.

 

The problem is, as Verad says. Many villains aren't logical or have good motivations. That's part of what makes villains scary. They don't play by the same rules as 'normal' people.

 

I think many villains do have good reasons for why they're doing what they're doing. However I don't think it's a prerequisite.

 

Why not?  Some of the most villainous people in our history were very logical in their thinking and to them and those who followed them had perfectly good motivations.

 

To some people in the world, your country/culture is villainous (and no, I don't necessarily mean the most obvious example for us western folks).  It can be a matter of cultural or historical reasoning, or religious or personal.  Just because they aren't necessarily good motivations to you doesn't make that a universal truth.  There's all sorts of people and perceptions in the world, and that counts for fictional worlds too.

 

Subjectivity is all well and good, but the point is more that for every logical and methodical villain with motivations that make perfect sense from their perspective if you look at it from that, there are as many who are illogical, irrational, or intentionally lacking in understandable motivation.

 

One isn't better than the other. But both exist.

 

Meh, it's my opinion that a vast majority of people tend to make sense, even if purely to themselves, over those who don't (which is why psychology took off the way it did and why good marketing pays off). I guess that's because it's my opinion that 99 times out of 100, characters built who are illogical, irrational or intentionally lacking in understandable motivation are sloppily made, with the onus of that burden being not on the villain, but the creator of the villain.

 

 

....but I did totally misread the post I quoted.

 

....because I'm awesome like that.

 

....and I think I'm arguing with smoke because I'm not really disagreeing with you, but it's a lame attempt to save imaginary face.

[C'kayah Polaali]

Meh, it's my opinion that a vast majority of people tend to make sense, even if purely to themselves, over those who don't (which is why psychology took off the way it did and why good marketing pays off). I guess that's because it's my opinion that 99 times out of 100, characters built who are illogical, irrational or intentionally lacking in understandable motivation are sloppily made, with the onus of that burden being not on the villain, but the creator of the villain.

 

I think there's a lot of truth to this. A villain doesn't have to make sense to other people, but if they don't make sense to themselves, it's a sign that either the character is batfuck insane (and there's room for that, don't get me wrong) or the character isn't well done.

 

Manson made sense to himself.

Fromme made sense to herself.

Gotti made sense to himself.

Hitler made sense to himself.

 

Honestly, if your villain isn't supposed to be just purely loony bin crazy, they should make sense to themselves, too.

[Aaron]

I disagree that villians cant be relatable. I cop it up to three types of villians. 

 

Evil Evil - Villians who do evil things because why the hell not? Take Kefka for example, nothing relatable about his goals at ALL. But that's not why he's a good villian. Yes a good villian because when you see what he does you hate him so much you get happy when you finally take down the guy. He draws appeal to people because he is the perfect button pusher. The guy poisoned a entire water supply cause he felt like it.

 

Wrongly evil - Villians who have a genuine cause to do what they do, but go about it "wrong" to say. Take say, Garlean for example. They WANT to stop primals from killing everything and being summoned. They WANT to bring Eorzea into a technical age and stop any magic catastrophe BUT they are going about it completely the wrong way. With these villians you can understand the Garlean have a noble cause, but the way they're doing it makes them evil and hated. But you KNOW they just want to do the same thing Eorzea does, stop primals and unite everyone. 

 

Turned evil - These are my favorite, these villians weren't always villians, but do to events out of their control and manipulation.  They become tragic villians and must be put down. Sephiroth is a prime example. In Crisis Core he was a great guy and a hero. Everyone liked him. But because of outside aspects *cough* Genesis jealous ass* he was manipulated and would ultimately become a villian. If it wasn't for genesis SEPHIROTH would have probably never did anything wrong. 

 

I think a lot of villians can be relatable, but also some just can't. Not every villians a bad guy for no reason. 

 

This was mainly to add to a post I saw earlier in this thread. Im done ranting now lol