Back to RPG Index
|
|
© 1998-2001 Dru
Pagliassotti
All rights reserved.
How to Run a Good Bad Guy
Part 2
Return to first part of this article
 Scum of the
Earth or Tragic Antihero? Is the villain redeemable or irredeemable?
Does the villain "just need killin'," or can s/he be convinced
of the evil of his or her ways? Some villains—demons and devils,
for example—may be evil because they were created evil and have
no free will to change their alignment. I don't find those kinds of villains
to be worthy of archvillain status, though. Too shallow, too unidimensional.
For example, take a look at TSR's AD&D novels. All of the most interesting
villains in them are multifaceted characters with complex histories—Lord
Soth, Raistlin, Strahd. They all had reasons for becoming villains. That's
the kind of archvillain you want.
To decide whether or
not your villain is redeemable, you must first determine the villain's
motivation. Why is the villain doing whatever s/he's doing? There are
three classic motivations for villainy: culture, psychology/history, and
misguided ideals. All three motivations can lead to the villain either
being scum of the earth or a tragic antihero, depending on the villain's
personality. However, you'll find that it's harder to hate somebody whose
motivations you understand (I, for example, instantly forgave The Smoking
Man for his crimes in X-Files as soon as I learned he was a frustrated
novelist). As a result, it's always a nice touch if the DM manages to
reveal the archvillain's motivations to the characters before The Final
Showdown. Try to avoid those longwinded James-Bond-movie diatribes from
the villain, though. Leave the cheap theatrics for the minor villains.
Far better if the characters learn the archvillain's motives from the
archvillain's spouse, child, parent, ex-lover, best friend, mentor, trusted
servant, or personal diary. Archvillains should never whine or seek to
explain themselves to others. Archvillains have confidence. They're cool.
They don't ask permission to be evil.
Culture.
This is a pretty uncommon motivation, but it can provide an interesting
ethical twist to the game. This villain comes from a culture or has a
personal background that provides good reasons for doing what is considered
criminal in the player characters' cultures. White Wolf's Vampire: The
Masquerade campaign is a perfect example; in that game, the vampire characters
may not have chosen to be vampires, and they may being doing all they
can to promote good, but like it or not, they have to drink blood to survive
and they have to obey the rules of the Masquerade or be hunted down and
killed. They're victims of circumstance; victims of their natures; and
victims of the vampiric culture. As
another example, a villain might come from a culture where all elves have
sworn their souls to evil, and it's considered a good and holy act to
kill the pointy-eared little demon-worshippers. But now the villain has
come to the player characters' culture and is still killing elves, not
realizing that the elves in this land have never made such an unholy pact.
The villain's not intrinsically evil—just misinformed or unable
to break out of his or her cultural assumptions. Culture can also be blamed
for a villain's racism, sexism, or other forms of prejudice. Good players
should realize that they may be able to change the villain's cultural
beliefs without resorting to violence—whether it works or not will
depend on their powers of persuasion and the DM's plans for the villain.
Psychology/History.
We all know enough pseudoFreudian cliches to come up with psychological
motivations for villainy. These motivations tend to be a little gritty,
though, and the DM should make sure to find one that won't offend the
players. The villain was abandoned as a child, abused in a series of foster
homes, finally found a "family" in the local street gangs, and
the rest is history. The villain was molested by her father and has grown
up hating all men, especially those in positions of authority. The villain
suffered a series of terrible life crises, turned to drugs for comfort,
and now commits crimes to support the habit. The villain was mocked as
a child for being (choose your minority social category of preference—race,
gender, religion, sexual preference, physical difference from the norm)
and now seeks to prove he's just as good or better than anybody else.
The villain had trained for years to become a paladin (a cleric, a mage,
a fighter) but, when it came down to the crunch, failed to live up to
her ideals—and, as a result, has abandoned them completely. There
are thousands of possibilities here.
The DM may need to decide
whether such a psychologically motivated villain can be "cured"
of his or her social maladjustment by magic. I feel that it's ridiculous
to argue that villains who are motivated by past mishaps in their life
are insane, but if there's a high-level priest with a Cure Insanity in
the party, a thoughtful DM may want to decide where "sanity"
ends and "insanity" begins before the question comes up in the
game.
Misguided Ideals:
In this case, the villain is completely convinced that what s/he's doing
will better the world—that the ends justify the means, no matter
how terrible the means may be. In this category can be found the villain
who says "no woman has ever started a war in this realm, so I'm going
to kill all the male heirs to the throne until they have to put a woman
in the seat of power" ... the grown-up survivor of abuse who murders
abusive parents and takes in their abused children, promising the kids
that they'll never be hurt again ... the vigilante who will kill any number
of innocent bystanders to take out that single corrupt king ... the drug
smuggler who channels all proceeds into the campaign funds of some politician
s/he feels will really make a difference if elected. Misguided villains
may or may not be able to be reasoned with, and good characters may feel
some qualms about killing them out of hand.
After you determine
the villain's motivation, you have to decide whether the character can
be convinced of the error of his or her ways. Keep
your decision loose—the characters' actions are likely to affect
the villain's attitude. Cold, callous characters may make the formerly
redeemable villain irredeemable; reasonable, sympathetic characters may
make the irredeemable villain do a little soul-searching. You should have
an idea of how you'd like the adventure to play out (e.g., the characters
finally kill the villain, the characters convince the villain of the error
of her ways, characters and villain both team up at the last minute to
save the city/kingdom/world against a greater evil), but you should always
remain flexible.
I find redeemable villains
to be the most interesting to roleplay, but over the course of five or
six campaigns, I've thrown in one or two archvillains who were just bad
to the bone. A DM shouldn't become predictable, after all! However, if
I decide to make a villain redeemable, and drop plenty of hints to the
players that the villain isn't completely heartless or evil, and the players
don't try to negotiate with the villain ... well, then I'm afraid I start
docking experience points. In my opinion—and in my games—there's
far more merit in redeeming the bad guys than in killing them.
The Riddler
or Keyser Soze?: After figuring out the villain's motivations
and likelihood of redemption, you probably already have an idea of the
villain's personality. Still, there are a few considerations remaining.
For example, does the villain have a trademark, like The Riddler, or is
the villain known for being untraceable, like Keyser Soze from the movie
The Usual Suspects?
(continued on next page)
originally written June 13, 1998
Back to top of page
|
