The Art of Playing a Good "Bad Guy"

[Black Canyon]

A post on another thread made me think a little more about how hard it is to play a villain well. I find it very difficult myself, as I struggle with my desire to be the "good guy". Even when I have determined my character to be one who is very self-serving and has little regard for others I end up selling out somehow. It seems like the key is believing strongly that your course of action is the right one, in spite of any evidence to the contrary. In fact, they probably never think of themselves as "bad guys" in any way.

Some of the more awesome characters in Cantr history have been villains of a sort, keeping in mind that it is never an all or nothing thing. It seems to me that good villains actually have to have redeeming qualities as well to be believable and to survive and be able to influence or to have power over others.

Any advice from successful villain players?

[Xander]

I think a bad guy is always best when they think they are the good guy, that they have been wronged, so I certainly agree with you. Also, in Cantr if you play a villain, you should be prepared to have your character face the consequences - no getting caught then just falling asleep.

[Doug R.]

I agree with both of you.

You can't fake villainy. I think a character that spawns and thinks, hey, I'm going to be a villain, is doomed from the start. There needs to be a compelling reason for the the villainy, a purpose. Unless you're a psychopath, I don't think anyone actually enjoys inflicting harm on others. There needs to be a driving force behind harmful behavior, be it revenge, coercion, or total belief in some kind of philosophy or religion.

The need for a reason behind it extends to the victims. If your victims sense there's a reason, then there's hope that they can break through the emotional armor and talk their way out (provided they live long enough to talk).

That's why newspawn villains are the worst (unless there's some backstory that most players don't even believe in)- there can't possibly be a good reason for it, so the other players just assume that the player of that character is being an ass to get their jollies, and kill on sight.

[Nathan89]

I have one of those. Not really bad..yet but I see your point. I hate crappy bad guys. Lets take The Pirate Stone Knight Adam. I met him with about 5 characters over the years. He was brutal yet completely pointless. Oh sure he was like Respect me or DIE! But he sucked. He was boring and bland.

The former leader of the Mac gregors same thing. Brutal but utterly boring without reason just enjoyed killing people. Same with Hunter Steele. I was in woodcamp when he showed up. He turned a nice quiet area into a warzone with out reason. No cause. And lets of course not forget the Blackrocks. They HAD a reason sure 6 years ago or so. But they are brutal because again respect or die. Honestly it gets super old. Its why I enjoyed Kendra Black and the Emerald Empire. They had reasons. They had a cause to be brutal and what not.

I like bad guys in this game. Sure a lot of people complain but at times this game is WAY to happy happy joy joy. But then how many people get killed without the least bit of RP. But 8 years and this game is still not boring at all.

[Black Canyon]

The former leader of the Mac gregors same thing. Brutal but utterly boring without reason just enjoyed killing people.

I'm guessing that you're not talking about Gregor MacGregor, because he was an awesome villain, I thought

[SumBum]

Part of the problem is that victims don't usually get to hear the reasons behind the "villain's" actions or their history. So, people assume that it is senseless killing without RP etc etc. And in the heat of things, no one is going to risk their own char's life or risk the target escaping by sitting around and emoting all of the battle scenes and so forth. Attack first, RP after....but any who die don't get to see all that aftermath.

It's also difficult to RP first because of the chance for missing an attack. I don't even like to emote an action before sparring because it's awkward to explain how you crack a waster against someone's shield then you follow-through with the mechanic and catch air.

[Nathan89]

I am taking about him. At times he was good but 9 times out of 10 it was stupid oh I am so great bow to me...Honestly though those three characters was the same player. But the only examples I can think of that most everyone knows. Though as I said Kendra is my favorite.

[kaloryfer]

driving force can be a kill count
and eating dead bodies

and Blood God does not care whose blood flows
it only matters that the blood flows

[Snickie]

<offtopic>

and Blood God does not care whose blood flows
it only matters that the blood flows

Red italics are for staff and forum moderator messages only.
</offtopic>


I'm too much of a goody two-shoes to play a villain, even a vengeful one.
Newspawn thieves annoy me.
Note thieves annoy me.
I totally dig the Blackrocks since I've seen both ends.
Yugo-characters/massacres bother me.

End of story.

[Cogliostro]

Disfigure your character's insides.

The word "villain" actually obscures what you have to do to create your character, since it is a very pointless prejudice-loaded term. A Villain is literally "someone from the village", i.e. a niggardly brute, a primitive dimwit, a savage. Same goes for the word "psychopath" which, being modern psychobabble, succeeds at explaining and denoting absolutely nothing definite.

Disfigure your character's reality, so that it is impossible for them to fit into ordinary society, whether they want to or not. Not just their fearsome name must be unwelcome, but the very core of who they are! Their entire story must be revolting to the refined, urbane, and moralistic crowd, and the existence of the evil person should serve to "painfully" highlight that which is taboo for everyone else. Then, you could make your character brave enough to challenge said societies, their mores, beliefs, unspoken contracts and assumptions. The game mechanics in Cantr are absolutely unsuited to those kinds of projects, because they consider evil as something that should be stamped out (almost like a terms of use violation) - but it can still be fun to die or get banned gloriously.

"Evil" is the name used for the audacious in this context, those who tread on terra incognita. If the "evil" personage succeeds,causing society's dominant views to change, watch as they are promptly renamed, and are now known as "heroic" or "pioneering leaders of a cause". The host society is in every instance behaving like a cheap whore; the motive for every action there is profit (praise, reputation, acceptance, getting along...) while the evildoer is frequently the only one whose motives are self-actuated, he or she acts on principle (their OWN principle, not what is force-fed to all), independent of any praise or blame.

That is why a satisfying evil personage cannot be created in fiction simply by trying to make yourself think caricatured, cartoony evil thoughts.

[Nathan89]

<offtopic>

and Blood God does not care whose blood flows
it only matters that the blood flows

Red italics are for staff and forum moderator messages only.
</offtopic>


I'm too much of a goody two-shoes to play a villain, even a vengeful one.
Newspawn thieves annoy me.
Note thieves annoy me.
I totally dig the Blackrocks since I've seen both ends.
Yugo-characters/massacres bother me.

End of story.

Oh sure Yugo was a moron but it worked. It cleaned house and opened the way for a lot more interesting groups to pop up. Besides the places that got butchered where badly run sleepy ruler places..And it made a lot more people step down from power or start to lead again.

But did the ends justify the means? No. Simple kidnapping or a single murder would have down that with a lot less mess or fuss. But at least there was a goal. Unlike any other group. IE The macgregors, stone knights,Blackrocks, ect ect they kill cause well why not. stone knights being known for it the most. Hence why they never go anyplace anymore. To many stone knights never came back and ended up in the dirt.

[Bowser]

But did the ends justify the means? No. Simple kidnapping or a single murder would have down that with a lot less mess or fuss. But at least there was a goal. Unlike any other group. IE The macgregors, stone knights,Blackrocks, ect ect they kill cause well why not. stone knights being known for it the most. Hence why they never go anyplace anymore. To many stone knights never came back and ended up in the dirt.

I started the Stone Knights and wanted to create a group that supported each other 100%. Even if you clan brother was wrong or said something stupid, he knew he had the entire clan to back him up. You enter Stone Knight territory, you did as they wished or you were sorry. You were polite and acknowledged their power, you could leave with all the resources you wanted. You had an attitude or insulted a Stone Knight, you got locked up or died. Crag Rock has no idea of his kill number but Crag doesn't care because if they aren't in the clan, they don't matter.

[Black Canyon]

Closed militaristic groups like the Stone Knights, the MacGregors, and the Blackrocks are an important aspect of the Cantr culture, in my opinion. The fact that some players get on the forums and rail against them demonstrates how effective and realistic they are for the player experience.

Several of my characters have had contact with the Stone Knights. Two are somewhat fearful and distrustful of them as a group, one is indifferent, and another sees them as the most honorable group of people she has ever met.

[prometheus]

I know I'm bumping an incredibly old topic, but I'm curious; where do truly, woven-in-the-cloth insane, psychopaths fit in? The ones that spawn broken or hateful or violent, but still RPed and not just "grab-and-go"?

[Alladinsane]

I forgot who said it, I just know it wasn't me.
Since we are going into a political season:

"Evil, when you are under its influence, is never seen as evil. It is viewed as an obligation, duty, or crusade"

(Not quoted exactly, I just don't remember it exactly).

=================
Found it:

Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.

Simone Weil (1909 - 1943),