Roleplaying the bad guy

[Darien Cadell]

I "always" play the "bad guy". First quotes for don't always, and second quotes for whatever it is we're really talking about here.

 

Whatever they are, they tend to have negative qualities, like arrogance and narcissism, along with questionable morality, but they have to be capable of playing with others at some level, even if it's begrudging acceptance that they can't crash the moon into the planet without a little help somewhere along the line.

 

My current character did the Face-Heel Turn. She was sweet and good, and now she's a seething ball of hate that makes her "difficult" to RP, but she has a job that keeps her able to work with others when necessary. Quotes for difficult, because there are plenty of tricksy ways for a creative player to have fun with an unpleasant character without sabotaging or outright destroying interactions with others.

 

I prefer the jerk on the outside roles, whether actually morally questionable or simply misguided with an attitude, but when playing with strangers, I keep the reins on to some degree. I might be more sarcastic than outright offensive, or I'll use body language to convey opinions rather than outright say what she might be thinking.

 

I find it difficult to play the charming with ulterior motives type, but I think those can be some of the most frightening when it's discovered what they're really up to.

 

And I've had the same "stealing all the girls despite not caring at all about girls" situation Blue mentioned develop across multiple characters. I always thought of it as a black leather jackets and motorcycles sort of situation. They just seem so cool and aloof, smoking a cigarette and glaring at everyone else's cheer and friendliness. And there's something to the wanting to fix them, too. Maybe that's a better way to think of it than bad guys and heroes. Some people gotta be the snarky assholes racing their motorcycles down suburban streets in the middle of the night. Yes, they're bad guys but they're not "bad guys," really, even if they are professional thieves or hit men or assassins or what have you.

 

As for villainy, I don't mind filling that role, but it's hard to do as a main character, I think, yes. Much easier to do as a side character in someone else's story. Even my most moustache-twirling character was in a guild full of moustache-twirlers, so when you're just one of many, there's a sort of uneasy camaraderie that doesn't feel as villainous as it does standing alone against the white knight whose girlfriend you just tied to the train tracks. Which I had the occasional opportunity to do to much gleeful effect, but it wasn't his everyday life.

[Ashe]

My character is like...the most awful person ever.  Like I mean even I wouldn't be friendly towards him (it's amazing some characters are).  I think people more respect the fact that he's smart rather than like him because he's so unlikable.  

 

Ashe became a jerk by accident though.  I was OOCly frustrated with the lot I was RPing with early early on.  Like SUPER early on. He was only supposed to be arrogant, but not really a "bad guy." But he turned into this asshole with a HUGE chip on his shoulder and then became wannabe super villain.  I've had people get mad at me OOCly because they thought I was mad OOCly when I was just RPing Ashe...that and I've been told he's very difficult to RP with by people who have characters who just want to have fun. 

 

I'm going out of my way to change him now.  Trying to ICly move him to where he will have a change of heart.  I've been working on making him nicer too.  Being the super villain was just too much ahaha.

[Emberhair]

My character is like...the most awful person ever.  Like I mean even I wouldn't be friendly towards him (it's amazing some characters are).  I think people more respect the fact that he's smart rather than like him because he's so unlikable.  

 

Ashe became a jerk by accident though.  I was OOCly frustrated with the lot I was RPing with early early on.  Like SUPER early on. He was only supposed to be arrogant, but not really a "bad guy." But he turned into this asshole with a HUGE chip on his shoulder and then became wannabe super villain.  I've had people get mad at me OOCly because they thought I was mad OOCly when I was just RPing Ashe...that and I've been told he's very difficult to RP with by people who have characters who just want to have fun. 

 

I'm going out of my way to change him now.  Trying to ICly move him to where he will have a change of heart.  I've been working on making him nicer too.  Being the super villain was just too much ahaha.

 

If you're set on changing him, then by all means its your character, but it does make me sad to hear this. 

 

You shouldn't have to change what you want to do based on bad experiences. HOWEVER, it sounds like you're bringing a lot of aggro to your RP if it has potential to spill over like that. I would suggest instead of making him good or switching him around, find some brand new RP people to test a more toned down version of your character on. 

 

I think this is an important point to raise so i will do it here: 

 

THE TERM "GODMODDING", DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT JUST REFER TO POWER, BATTLE AND ABILITIES.

 

What i mean by this, is that more chaotic characters should not be godmodders in personality either. If you're brushing people off or outright abusing them; thats godmodding. If your character absolutely CANNOT be convinced of doubt even slightly or make them upset; thats godmodding.

 

Chaotic people are exactly that; PEOPLE. They will have weakness. People should be able to shake their foundations with words as well as weapons.

[Warren Castille]

Something to consider that's fairly unique to the roleplaying side of writing: "Bad guy" RP comes with its own bundle of stereotypes and assumptions. Everyone's probably had experience with the tryhard edgelord guy who angsts for the sake of angsting, or the person who willfully makes the "wrong" decision to make things as complicated as possible for the sake of "story."

 

When we have limited windows to spend our free time, and we choose to spend them on roleplay, it can be incredibly frustrating to "waste" an evening on someone who's only using public interaction to further distance themselves as a brooding loner who is totally misunderstood, you guys, and he's got all sorts of personal demons that only he and he alone can combat. As a result, some roleplayers (myself included for the most part) aren't willing to risk letting someone being a prick into their world and canon, if only because others have wasted previous time in the past.

 

Antiheroes and difficult-to-befriend-jerks-with-hearts-of-gold are sometimes overdone archetypes, and they (like anything else) are often done poorly. I've probably missed out on some interesting scenarios because of my unwillingness to take a risk, but I can guarantee I've saved myself some grief in the long run, too.

 

My hat's off to anyone managing to make the gimmick work, though. Your contemporaries have done a good job of trying to ruin the space.

[Mae]

In other games, other RP communities, I've seen bad guys (the unpleasant jerks and the villains) thrive for years time. Part of it is server/community/group climate, the other part is the actual work they did, both in developing the character and socially.

 

OOC connections/communication/presence seemed to be key for them. OOCly these were some of the nicest and most social people in the community, which probably helped smooth things over when things got hairy. People are also more likely to compromise with someone they're friends with, so for the villains this allowed them to have a much more 'enjoyable' ratio of wins to losses in confrontations -- meaning they're not always getting curb-stomped.

 

For the villains, their motivations were reasonable and well-thought out. None of them were mustache-twirlers doing evil for the sake of doing evil. They were businessmen and researchers who didn't care about laws, morals, and who they stepped (or tested) on. Religious leaders who followed evil gods, but was on a mission of conversion rather than a mission to sacrifice everyone they come across. One that was entirely focused on bringing down a government organization he thought was corrupt (granted, it -was-, but that was OOC knowledge) that everyone who showed even a bit of sympathy/cooperation with the organization became a target too. One that I remember hearing about, he had periods where he just went feral, akin to one of those man-eating tigers that sometimes go on a rampage around settlements, and the rest of the time he was fairly normal and no-one suspected him. A unit of soldiers that was 'disowned' while still behind enemy lines (I know there's an actual military term for this, I just can't remember it).

 

The unpleasant jerks, they often had either an important skill that kept people coming back to see them/'force them' to attempt to be social, or had some redeeming quality/trait that they'd occasionally pull out for a few moments. Healers who hate everyone and weren't afraid to scream it from the rooftops, grumpy town/local guards who have a soft spot for kids. An extreme racist who loudly speaks about how the others are filth, but is one of the first to jump to save someone regardless of race because "you may be below me, but a life is still a life". Also consider that being an unpleasant jerk doesn't always mean being the grump. I've seen snobs who don't realize they're being condescending and unbearable. And that guy who swoops and and saves a woman from an 'uncivil' situation, only to turn around and reveal to be chauvinistic pig himself.

[Ashe]

My character is like...the most awful person ever.  Like I mean even I wouldn't be friendly towards him (it's amazing some characters are).  I think people more respect the fact that he's smart rather than like him because he's so unlikable.  

 

Ashe became a jerk by accident though.  I was OOCly frustrated with the lot I was RPing with early early on.  Like SUPER early on. He was only supposed to be arrogant, but not really a "bad guy." But he turned into this asshole with a HUGE chip on his shoulder and then became wannabe super villain.  I've had people get mad at me OOCly because they thought I was mad OOCly when I was just RPing Ashe...that and I've been told he's very difficult to RP with by people who have characters who just want to have fun. 

 

I'm going out of my way to change him now.  Trying to ICly move him to where he will have a change of heart.  I've been working on making him nicer too.  Being the super villain was just too much ahaha.

 

If you're set on changing him, then by all means its your character, but it does make me sad to hear this. 

 

You shouldn't have to change what you want to do based on bad experiences. HOWEVER, it sounds like you're bringing a lot of aggro to your RP if it has potential to spill over like that. I would suggest instead of making him good or switching him around, find some brand new RP people to test a more toned down version of your character on. 

 

I think this is an important point to raise so i will do it here: 

 

THE TERM "GODMODDING", DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT JUST REFER TO POWER, BATTLE AND ABILITIES.

 

What i mean by this, is that more chaotic characters should not be godmodders in personality either. If you're brushing people off or outright abusing them; thats godmodding. If your character absolutely CANNOT be convinced of doubt even slightly or make them upset; thats godmodding.

 

Chaotic people are exactly that; PEOPLE. They will have weakness. People should be able to shake their foundations with words as well as weapons.

 

I would never consider him all powerful and his personality impossible to work with, but I think he deserves a change of heart.  He's so angry that I even considered killing him and starting over. 

 

The plan I have for him is to have him have a change of heart and kind of make him more what I originally intended. 

 

The RP I have had on him has been fun, don't get me wrong.  But I've had people be like "It's difficult to RP with you because your character never loosens up," or get a tell like "Are you pissed off with me?" The thing is he actually does loosen up, but around people he has been with for a very long time. It's weird to me that people expect him to be super open with them literally after 5 minutes of RP. 

 

And Ashe has been convinced of doubt. I've had him go into surprisingly deep conversations, had people he works with get mad at him and him reflect on the fact on some shit he did was REALLY stupid ('cause it was). He's also felt guilt...but the fact that he is so hellbent on revenge pisses me off. 

 

That being said, I'm also not cut out for RPing nice characters. Like I'm really bad at it.  It always sounds so fake or makes the characters sound really stupid. So Ashe will never be super nice.

[Verad]

Anything more means you're either being a jerkwad or you're running a story for other people.

 

One is alright.

 

The other means you should probably stop RPing

 

It's true, running a story is exhausting work and I don't recommend it to anybody, so please stop if you're doing so.

 

Jerkwadism is fine, though, and I've found that my antagonistic characters work best when they are jerkwads. To take it a step further, though, they work best when they are not interesting or stylish jerkwads. 

 

This is the great contradiction I see with players trying to make antagonistic characters: They want to make their characters be antagonistic, but then do things that undermine their ability to do so. One of these is taking the oft-given and oft-misguided advice that a villain's motives should be understandable in some way, in order to allow the audience to relate to them. I understand the intent - making your character something to whom your audience can relate would seem, in theory, to put the protagonists in a moral quandary somehow. In practice, it results in a great deal of Draco in Leather Pants* and the character's slow degrading from antagonist to just another person.

 

The other problem I see is what happens when players try to make their antagonists interesting by making them cool. They get witty one-liners and nice-looking outfits and suitably impressive backstories. All of this only accelerates the problem above. In order to run an effective antagonist for any length of time, you will need to make players want to RP with you with the goal of "I want to see that sonovabitch dead" rather than "This guy is so compelling! Give me more!" And that means as few cool bits as possible. 

 

*I hate referencing TVTropes in any circumstance, but for once the term applies.

[Nero]

Really, there are two separate issues being discussed here. Roleplaying as an antagonist is quite a different subject from roleplaying as a villain, and the frequent mistake I see being made is in believing that "antagonist" and "villain" are interchangeable terms. They're not. 

 

With that in mind, I will move forward in my assumption that Emberhair is specifically referring to roleplaying as a villain, not necessarily as an antagonist. 

 

You're on the right page as far as communicating OOCly and making sure heated interactions never become personal between two players. That said, it's usually never fun to roleplay with someone who is a dick just for the sake of being a dick, not because that character is unlikeable in a moral sense, but because most characters who are roleplayed as jerkwads are flat, one-dimensional, and boring, with completely arbitrary behaviour and habits that fail to establish any significant consistency. Such characters come across as idols of self-indulgent wish fulfillment, and subsequently fail to be believable as people.

 

This subject would be very easy were we simply talking about a story, but roleplaying is something different. In roleplay, a villainous character is 99% of the time someone you can't get rid of, an obstacle that can never be fully overcome. Thus, in order for interactions with characters who are "bad" in the moral sense to be meaningful and reasonably frequent, there is one absolutely critical thing you must establish, and that's depth.

 

It's the most difficult and most important aspect. Like I said, a character who is a dick just for the sake of being a dick is boring for the same reason that a goody two-shoes Lawful Good hero guy is boring. There needs to be reasoning, motive, and impulse behind their dickish actions. Said reasoning and motive doesn't need to be significant (although that can certainly help), but it does need to be present, even if it's something random, unexplainable, and petty, like "Miqo'te ears really piss him off" or something similar. Why does your character snap? Why does your character constantly mock others? Why does he get sent into fits of rage? Why is he racist? Why is he arrogant? Why is he lazy or flaky?

 

In addition to the above, it's important that your character isn't a dick all the time, unless you fully intend on killing said character off somewhere down the line. It's not as if he needs to spend half the year being Mother Theresa and the other half of the year being Heinrich Himmler, but there need to be certain occasions--even if they're specific or rare occasions--where he can be seen as something other than a complete prat. That's the entire purpose of depth: to demonstrate that a character isn't just an archetype with stock traits (i.e. one-dimensional), but a person, with moods and attitudes and perspectives and opinions that come together to define someone we're supposed to care about. 

 

You need to somehow convince your readers that something within this character can be counted as a redeemable quality, even if that single redeemable quality is completely outweighed by the irredeemable ones. Even if you want to keep your villainous character as a complete asshole who will never, ever change his fundamental behaviour, your readers still need a reason to care about what happens to this character and a reason as to why their own characters should interact with your villainous one. If your character is a sociopathic narcissist who frequently robs, steals, and insults others, other characters will have absolutely no reason to interact, and the RP is dead in the water.

 

Depth is absolutely critical if you plan on roleplaying any kind of morally depraved character outside of a Disney villain or the Big Bad Evil Guy of a D&D campaign. In the latter settings, it's perfectly fine to be flat in their evilness because in those cases the villains aren't characters, they're simply plot devices disguised as characters used solely to encourage the growth of the hero and thus their depth is unessential.

 

In RP, however, you want your villainous character to be seen as a person. You want them to be as interesting as they are unlikeable, you want other players to be fascinated by this huge douchebag, you want to give them reasons to continually involve their characters with yours.

 

And to do that, your character needs to have depth.

[Verad]

Depth is absolutely critical if you plan on roleplaying any kind of morally depraved character outside of a Disney villain or the Big Bad Evil Guy of a D&D campaign. In the latter settings, it's perfectly fine to be flat in their evilness because in those cases the villains aren't characters, they're simply plot devices disguised as characters used solely to encourage the growth of the hero and thus their depth is unessential.

 

In RP, however, you want your villainous character to be seen as a person. You want them to be as interesting as they are unlikeable, you want other players to be fascinated by this huge douchebag, you want to give them reasons to continually involve their characters with yours.

 

And to do that, your character needs to have depth.

 

Depth is death - especially, ironically, if the character is not meant to be killed off. Having that redeemable quality, even if you do not capitalize on it, will cause players to expect that the character will show growth in that direction. Failure to do so can and will lead to angry players because they will feel like they are not having an impact on your own character's behavior.

[Imo]

There's one elephant in the room that needs to be addressed here: most of the time, the default assumption is that in the end, the bad guys will lose. Therefore, if you want to play a villain, you have to be ready for your character to lose. What's more, this is not a courtesy that will be necessarily shared by your opponents! Some of them may be willing to lose, but most won't. You might have some successes on the way, but unless you're a harmless or funny villain, most hero-type characters will expect to beat you in the end.

 

You have to accept this. If you don't, you should reconsider playing a villain.

[Nero]

Depth is absolutely critical if you plan on roleplaying any kind of morally depraved character outside of a Disney villain or the Big Bad Evil Guy of a D&D campaign. In the latter settings, it's perfectly fine to be flat in their evilness because in those cases the villains aren't characters, they're simply plot devices disguised as characters used solely to encourage the growth of the hero and thus their depth is unessential.

 

In RP, however, you want your villainous character to be seen as a person. You want them to be as interesting as they are unlikeable, you want other players to be fascinated by this huge douchebag, you want to give them reasons to continually involve their characters with yours.

 

And to do that, your character needs to have depth.

 

Depth is death - especially, ironically, if the character is not meant to be killed off. Having that redeemable quality, even if you do not capitalize on it, will cause players to expect that the character will show growth in that direction. Failure to do so can and will lead to angry players because they will feel like they are not having an impact on your own character's behavior.

 

This is a rather deplorable state of affairs we've found ourselves in then, isn't it? A collaborative writing community wherein a villain with depth is potentially seen as a detriment because of players who seek gratification in conflict resolution as opposed to seeking narrative complexity. In all fairness that's something of a false dichotomy, but I personally have never been frustrated by a lack of impact so long as it was justified as to why a character didn't or doesn't change.

 

Certain players will expect growth, true, but growth and the expectation thereof is heavily dependent on context and on whom you are roleplaying with and what kind of story it's intended to be. In that vein, the concept of depth is not applicable to all situations.

[Darien Cadell]

There's one elephant in the room that needs to be addressed here: most of the time, the default assumption is that in the end, the bad guys will lose. Therefore, if you want to play a villain, you have to be ready for your character to lose. What's more, this is not a courtesy that will be necessarily shared by your opponents! Some of them may be willing to lose, but most won't. You might have some successes on the way, but unless you're a harmless or funny villain, most hero-type characters will expect to beat you in the end.

 

You have to accept this. If you don't, you should reconsider playing a villain.

 

I walked into my initial mustache twirling escapades expecting to and happy to lose in almost every situation, not even necessarily assuming comedy, just playing up the sheer claws-to-the-wall tenacity of "I'll get you next time." My best villain moments were losses.

 

When losing stopped being fun was usually a sign the character had played itself out for me.

 

A villain who wants to win all or even most of their encounters is likely going to be a frustrated and frustrating character all around.

[K'hatos]

As possibly the record holder for possessor of most PC souls on the server, I feel like I should add my two gil.

 

A lot of good discussion, and some points I hadn't considered before.  First and foremost, when assuming the role of antagonist it is important to establish clear lines of communication so that all parties involved feel comfortable and are having a good time.  Find out what everyone is looking for in an interaction, and make sure that people are comfortable with the darkened corridors down which a villain can sometimes lead.  I learned early on to set up rules and expectations at the get go, it save a lot of frustration down the line.  I've run into more god modding heroes of light who think they should win by default than I have god modding baddies.

 

People like playing the hero.  The sense of doing right, and having people thank you for it is intoxicating.  And more often than not, people just like to get along.  I think that's why most tend to shy away from characters who they think won't fit in.  Villains are outcasts by nature.  Their mode of thinking runs counter to society at large, and that friction is the source of conflict.  Someone mentioned it earlier, that a good villain needs to believe that they're doing right, and I agree.  In their minds, the heroes are foolishly resisting a plainly obvious truth.

 

Constructing a decent villain character isn't any harder or easier than constructing a hero character, it just takes a different kind of player.

[Grott]

Someone mentioned it earlier, that a good villain needs to believe that they're doing right, and I agree.  In their minds, the heroes are foolishly resisting a plainly obvious truth.

 

That seems like a misconception to me. Not every villain has to think they're doing the right thing to be a complex and likable character. I'm not talking one-dimensional psycho villains either. Those are the worst.

 

Here's an example: Magneto

 

Magneto, when written by certain writers, knows he's being a bad person. He knows he has the power to do great things, and he really would like to, but he accepts what he does as a necessity of the world he lives in. It doesn't change the fact that he is conscious of his own wrong-doing.

 

You could argue "He still thinks he's doing right" but that's not necessarily true. He thinks he's doing what is required of him, as a man with the power he has. It doesn't make it right, and he knows that. He was a Holocaust survivor and he is fully aware of the horror of killing innocents. But he has done it.

 

The entire argument of "your villain has to believe he or she is doing right" is an over-simplification that has been around for far too long. Your villain can absolutely be conscious of his or her own evil, and still be human. Not all villains are delusional.

 

Another example: Captain Nemo

 

Nemo is tricky as he is both a hero and villain in his own story. He sinks ships of sailors he doesn't know, and who physically can not harm him, because they wave the British flag. He feels awful about it. He knows it isn't right. But he's too far down the rabbit hole to turn back. He's both a man of science and a creature of emotion and it stirs deep conflict within him.

 

Making a believable character is a complicated matter, and filling them with tropes harms their RP potential and the potential for RP around you.

 

Edit: Ozymandias, another villain who knows they're doing great evil. There's a big difference, that people seem to ignore, between a character who believes they're doing the right thing and a character who believes they're doing the wrong thing but are somehow validated. The subtlety lies in how they handle it. And I don't mean screaming "What have I done?!"

 

Don't follow simple steps that sound "deep" to create an idea. Use your imagination. It's how good stories are told.

[Mercurias]

The biggest problems i encounter when playing a villain are the following:

 

Players who want to be the main hero - Y'know what? This isn't a problem outright if you're in a roleplay where there is one protagonist, but the vast, vast majority of the time, it's one villain versus a large army of good guys. I'm fine with your protagonist having a personal stake in carving my villain up, and it can amuse me to yank that chain in order to drive heroes up the wall, but please don't, as the player of a protagonist, demand that you have a greater right to my bad guy OOC or that you have a special privilege to affect the outcome of my roleplay.

 

Players forgetting that Villain PCs are still PCs, with all the rights that entails - When I play a villain, it's as a player character who is evil, but put emphasis on PLAYER CHARACTER. You do not get to make a decision on how my character is going to end up without my consent any more than I have any right to your character. If you get uppity, then you don't get a bad guy. I'm always happy to work with players, but given the way any good villain is dogpiled by players looking to take him or her down, I have to play my part very, very carefully. You do not get to decide that you harm my character without my consent. You do not get to decide that you kill my character. Going Super Saiyan Godmode in roleplay will result in my villain withdrawing and you no longer having a villain. I have that choice, and I'm going to stay with it.

 

Players getting upset that they can't kill me a third of the way, halfway, two thirds of the way, etc., through a full story arc - This is a 'Your Mileage May Vary" thing, but I personally prefer large and involved arcs to have an element of OOC communication in them so that at least some guiding players can know what a scene is about if it's plot-significant. When I'm a villain opening up a whole new arc that's been planned for weeks, you do not get to sneak up behind my villain and stab him or her in the back. At this point, the only thing you're doing is causing a fight scene and causing the roleplay to stretch out while you're either put on the floor so the scene can continue or I have to deal with OOC drama because you've decided you want to take out the Big Bad in the first act. Again, you don't get to kill my character without my consent any more than I can kill off yours. If you get upset and call me a godmoder at this point, you're going to no longer have a villain until you wisen up.

 

Players who insist that they are as tough/strong/powerful as the villain solo - Look, I'm not going to tell you how to roleplay your character, but in order for a villain to survive longer than about ten seconds in MMO RP, he or she either needs to be hilariously well protected or be several steps above the protagonists in terms of ability just to keep breathing. I've tried to play weak, scheming villains before. They get taken out at range by Raiton in broad daylight even if that results in the bomb in the orphanage blowing up, because then Raiton Guy will somehow either force that to stop or call the villain a monster and be done with it. In order to keep a survivable villain, my bad guys are going to be at least a notch above your ilvl 9000 Monk/Ninja/DRG armed with a transforming Ascian-slaying Blade of Light. That's just the way it needs to be, and the less silly your character's assumed combat ability is, the less silly I have to make my bad guy's. 

 

Basically what I'm saying is that my biggest problem playing a good villain is other people - When left to my own devices, I will play baddies who are varying levels of inhuman monster and usually be sending tells to people apologizing and explaining how I'm not really actually this horrible of a person IRL and that I feel really bad for turning that kitten into a living bomb which set someone's baby on fire. My biggest problem is having to deal with heroes who don't understand or feel the need to extend courtesy to the villains whose actions drive the story that gives the heroes stuff to do.

 

____________________________________________

 

From an IC perspective, I honestly have no qualms playing characters who are bad, because you know what? Some people out there are just plain jerks who believe that they matter more than someone else. 

 

I had a villain, Ryad, who was a complete thug of a Thaumaturge. He cared more about feeling powerful and taking whatever he felt like than he did anything else. The only thing he respected was a power greater than his. He was a vicious, cruel-minded predator, and he died a dog's death during our current arc when I decided that our heroes needed a win that came in the form of a body bag.

 

I had no qualms at all playing Ryad because he was the kind of person with absolutely no redeeming values. I would have enjoyed the chance to see someone try, just because it would backfire with literal fire.

 

He THREW A LALAFELL AT SOMEONE. WHAT A JERK!

 

That being said, I honestly found that playing a Thaumaturge was just not conducive to villain roleplay without going so overpowered that it went into Black Mage territory. I got lore-blocked from him performing his basic survival functions because of the sheer number of people who went at him aiming for a kill, and since he wasn't plot-essential, he died.

 

Villains aren't hard to play, even the worst and puppy-kickingest. The hard part for me is keeping them alive long enough for them to BE evil. That limits the sorts of villains I'm able to play.

[Emberhair]

This was a really interesting read Mercurias! Thanks for posting it. I can totally understand from a similar, but not so similar, experience.

 

I remember at one point i was doing basic bad guy RP in the quicksand with random PCs. Of course my character was a jerk to them but he is in fact all talk and no bite. So the person i was confronting stood up to me and therefore my PC buckled because he is a coward at heart. 

 

This is fine.

 

Just then, some random joined up with the person opposing me. He must have been doing his noble duty to defend the weak (even though I made absolutely made sure my character was in an inferior position in the confrontation).

 

Also fine, whatever.

 

By the end though, I had an entire legion of good guy PCs getting involved in the quicksand, at my throat and wanting my blood. In rp I ran away yelling that "my father will hear about this!" snobby duke's brat that he is.

 

This, in my eyes, was not ok. It demonstrates just how desperately PCs need some conflict and someone to hate in their RP seeing as EVERYONE wanted a slice of the action. Either that, or they took the golden goose opportunity to solidify themselves as a just and noble warrior of light. I completely understand that noble peace keeping heroes meeting other peace keeping heroes must make for dull RP. I mean, how is there ANY strife in the world if everyone is a bloody saint? But it shocked me just how ready everyone was to jump on an antagonist (however feeble and boyish) just because he was slightly "bad". 

 

In fact, the real monsters here are the PCs that threatened him. I made it very clear that my character was just an arrogant boy who acted tougher than he actually was. Someone who always relied on mommy and daddy. Yet these "heroes" were ready to tear out the organs of a boy who simply had an attitude problem. So to those roleplaying heroes, think before you act or you might be the monster yourself.

 

This links to your point about gang mentality. You said it yourself, its usually 1 antagonist against a group of heroes. Very rarely is it the other way around. This demonstrates that while we do often get the worse end of the stick, antagonists of any sort are in dire need by other PCs even if they're aware of it or not. So much so that they would gut a young boy just for the excuse of having one. Surely the heroic thing to do would be to understand he's a child, inexperienced of the world and in definite trouble within the quicksand? Really, these protagonists are more blood thirsty than the villains a lot of the time. Which is probably why they godmode in your RPs so much, especially when in a group mentality.

[Hyrist]

Mercurias,

 

 

I wanted to respond to you frankly because there's a major systemic flaw in the way you are approaching villainy in roleplay. This is coming from someone who's actively play antagonist characters and fully intends to continue to do so in FFXIV (I actually have one, just haven't been able to play it due to time constraints) The fundamental problem is this.:

 

 

 

Villain PCs are still PCs, with all the rights that entails

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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. 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. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

As a storyteller, you can control factors as to the strength and numbers of the Law enforcement as they enter the fray, and organize your villain's escape in a means that is believable. Conversely, if you're working UNDER a storyteller, you're going to have to work with them weather or not your character escapes and how. We'll digress on the matter of persecution.

 

Playing a Villain 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 protagonists to the forefront of your consideration. To be a roaming villain 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.

 

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.

[Mercurias]

You said it yourself, its usually 1 antagonist against a group of heroes. Very rarely is it the other way around. This demonstrates that while we do often get the worse end of the stick, antagonists of any sort are in dire need by other PCs even if they're aware of it or not. So much so that they would gut a young boy just for the excuse of having one. Surely the heroic thing to do would be to understand he's a child, inexperienced of the world and in definite trouble within the quicksand? Really, these protagonists are more blood thirsty than the villains a lot of the time. Which is probably why they godmode in your RPs so much, especially when in a group mentality.

 

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.

[K'hatos]

Someone mentioned it earlier, that a good villain needs to believe that they're doing right, and I agree.  In their minds, the heroes are foolishly resisting a plainly obvious truth.

 

That seems like a misconception to me. Not every villain has to think they're doing the right thing to be a complex and likable character. I'm not talking one-dimensional psycho villains either. Those are the worst.

 

Here's an example: Magneto

 

Magneto, when written by certain writers, knows he's being a bad person. He knows he has the power to do great things, and he really would like to, but he accepts what he does as a necessity of the world he lives in. It doesn't change the fact that he is conscious of his own wrong-doing.

 

You could argue "He still thinks he's doing right" but that's not necessarily true. He thinks he's doing what is required of him, as a man with the power he has. It doesn't make it right, and he knows that. He was a Holocaust survivor and he is fully aware of the horror of killing innocents. But he has done it.

 

 

 

If the villain thinks what they are doing is a necessity, then they are taking what they perceive to be the correct course of action, and therefor are justified in doing so.

[Hyrist]

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.

[Telluride]

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.

[Imo]

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.

 

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.

[Mercurias]

 

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. 

 

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!

 

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. 

 

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.

 

 

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. 

 

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!

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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.

[Darien Cadell]

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.

[Aduu Avagnar]

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.