The plight of villainy.

[Piken]

I can agree with Grak, as I have enough crap in my life, I love the good guys winning. BUT. I -also- like the good guys having to go through A LOT of hardship to get there. Sacrifice, change, development. It's why I'm very partial to war RP. It encourages a lot of development, assuming people respond realistically. >.>;;

I also agree that it can be a lot of fun to have the bad guys 'win' and even have power of something, since, like someone else said, it makes the 'good guys' victory even more glorified.

Also, something to note.. and this is in my own opinion, for the most part evil not always equal = I AM EVIL PURSUN I KILL ALL. I find those very unrealistic. The best villains, I think, are the ones who are absolutely convinced that what they're doing is right. Getting in the mind of that.. How can you stop someone who's so insane(or rather, so incredibly sane) that they are unable to be changed from their own beliefs? They won't accept anything else. Of course, to some, that may just mean.. kill them. But I have to say, Batman is a PERFECT example of this type of thing. Especially when it comes to Batman vs. Joker. Joker does all in his power to try and break Batman and be killed by him, and while that would do the world so much good, that would mean Batman's whole world has finally been broken and he won't have it. It's the psychology of it all! It's beautiful!

..Of course. I just went on my own little rant there. Apologies. Not everyone really looks at things in the ways of psychology, but yeah.. To each their own? :P

[Psycho]

It depends on what kind of stories that you like, I suppose. I tend to find real life depressing enough that I don't need bad guys winning in my fiction as well.

In the end, Warcraft isn't a grimdark setting. It's pretty optimistic. It's also a setting where all of the villains act like they could have come from a Saturday morning cartoon. In such a setting, it feels...wrong to me to have the bad guys ultimately win, it just runs counter to the very idea and optimism of the setting.

Now, if this were Warhammer, where even the "good guys" are massive pricks and the bad guys actually have a point, then maybe it'd feel more natural...

In any event, my perspective is that the protagonists should win every story...though note that "protagonist" and "hero" aren't necessarily the same thing. PCs in general are the protagonists of the story, and this creates an issue in player versus player plots with heroes and villains both played by players. It's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid such plots (the other reason being just how uncomfortable I can get with what some of CotH's villains actually do. Honestly, I don't think I could stand to be around folks like Sangreala or Marianna as just hearing about some of the stuff they do second-hand makes my skin crawl. Not that that's a shot at them...as I said, I just prefer optimism in my fiction.)

This is a great example.

Honestly, I don't think I could stand to be around folks like Sangreala or Marianna as just hearing about some of the stuff they do second-hand makes my skin crawl. Not that that's a shot at them...as I said, I just prefer optimism in my fiction.)

This made me giggle with pride.

[Cressy]

I think the hard part of playing a villain is that everyone sees it so black and white. Villians are only this and heroes are only this. Sometimes, it is nice to have people that have morals weigh in as well. Why are heroes so easy to strike without thinking of anything else?

Anyways. . .

I forgot where I was going...

[Piken]

I think the hard part of playing a villain is that everyone sees it so black and white. Villians are only this and heroes are only this. Sometimes, it is nice to have people that have morals weigh in as well. Why are heroes so easy to strike without thinking of anything else?

Anyways. . .

I forgot where I was going...

Agreed. There is a lot of grey area that people seem to forget sometimes. :/

[LostStranger]

Moving away from villainous motivation and modus operandi...

...I'd like to return to the storytelling standpoint...

...and jump wildly to the conclusion that there is lament on how gung-ho and single-mindedly determined the "heroes" are in eradicating potential threats.

While it's true that some on the side of justice are overzealous to the point of bat$&@%...

Why would you leave your lovingly crafted doombringer in a position to be prematurely butchered?

Be ready to throw down crazed crusaders, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

In a world of free will, the protagonists can and may very well do anything.

Spoiler:

Either bestow obvious protection when they commence dramatic monologue, or imply the presence of nefarious traps with your visual descriptions.

If they try for your life anyways and don't have something supremely clever to counter what should be a fresh crate of whoopass, then such is an apposite occasion to punish the weakminded fools and make examples.

Report distasteful metagaming and godmoding. Be aware of the scene developing around you at all times. Don't be afraid to run; cowardice is a virtue when you're the antagonist.

If your villains has brains, plan and plan again and plan for failure too.

If your villain has brawn, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? DESTROY THEM ALL.

---

---

...What I mean to write is...

Remember that you have a share of responsibility in this collaborative experience.

If the heroes are violent, and you are driving the plot as a villain, compensate and maybe even use their violence against them in dramatic ways.

Make things fun for everyone, including yourself.

If no one is taking the initiative to do that, why does that include you?

[DaveM]

If I were to express it in the form of a story-builiding algorithm, I'd say that in a hero-villain conflict that is ideally meant to last duration X, the following odds would exist in the case of an ultimate confrontation.


At the beginning of the story 30% odds for the hero, 70% villain.

Halfway through to X, 50%/50%.

And even at the end, 70% hero odds, 30% villain odds.


That way, the hero is always taking a risk, a likely fatal one if prematurely.


Then again, absolutely true that gray is best after you get your fill of saturday-morning-ers. I highly empathise with all of my villains, and all of them could be casted as dark heroes in the right context. (Even when villainous, they still understand themselves as dark heroes.)

[Kage]

If I were to express it in the form of a story-builiding algorithm, I'd say that in a hero-villain conflict that is ideally meant to last duration X, the following odds would exist in the case of an ultimate confrontation.


At the beginning of the story 30% odds for the hero, 70% villain.

Halfway through to X, 50%/50%.

And even at the end, 70% hero odds, 30% villain odds.


That way, the hero is always taking a risk, a likely fatal one if prematurely.

This is a good chart indeed.

But anyway, I agree, the hero should always win in the end. But to not allow a villain any sort of major victory makes the story dull and boring on this villain side. Wheres the fun in being a villain who's bent on doing something evil, whether it be something small (Such as robbing a nobles house.) or something large. (Taking over a city.) Mind you I'm not yelling "Let's capture Orgimmar and kill all them orcs!" But what I'm saying is allow something smaller, allow some sort of bad guy to win something.

(Mind you this next thing is based of the fact I haven't found any lore on what happened after the fall on the Lich King and the start of the cataclysm.) And why not have something huge? It's not like we do much with the lore now anyway, we really can't. And who's to say there wasn't some power hungry madman going about and causing others to join his cause. Or a powerful group of something (No idea, kinda ranting now) decides to recruit tenfold, forming their own little army and lay siege to some city, only to be defeated in the end and everything goes back to normal.

Anyway, I play Krest, a somewhat over trusting Paladin good guy, but I do want to see the villains be.. Well more. Even if it's something as silly as a random attack on passer-by's on a road. (Speaking of which, why isn't there highway-men?) But yes, I'm done with my little rant thing now. ^^

[Holynexus]

200th post! Blood for the blood god!

Well...I indeed prefer not playing too many villains, and my "evil" characters are more evil-leaning or simply careless, than murderers or what not. ^.^ But having said that, I feel and love how some Villains behave here (cough Marianna cough) and while not fond of boiling in a pit of lava, I think it's a pretty good thing to have Villains shine from time to time ^^

I also can take Marianna more seriously than, I don't know. Voldemort? Candlejack? A more tangible villain for a more glorious adventure to stop them.

Unless the villain is a pony. Then he rules the w-

[Xigo]

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've found a majority of CotH's villains to be boring. They're handed everything on a platter and kill people on a whim. They don't feel like people. They don't feel evil. They just feel like total jerks with power.

I dunno. Maybe it's that I've never gotten an emotional attachment to these villains. But the only reason I particuarly care about their existance is the fact that they bring other more interesting characters together, whether against or with them.

And I don't see why it particuarly matters if a villain wins or loses, so long as the RP is fun.

[Holynexus]

Yes, that's the matter Xigo, chaotic evil is hard to play. :| I'm having a hard trouble making Alanya less "jerk" and more "greedy" and more "fel-addict" and overall be a downfallen evil woman rather than a golden Mary Sue of ebil.

[Kage]

Well now I want to make the sadistic bad guy.. Ah well, anyone else up to help me out?

[SachikoMaeda]

Tis why I love my Aendron. Lawful Evil makes quite a great villain. He guises imself as if he were helping others out of good, only to lie to them just to destroy their life. He's evil without everything handed over or people to kill for him.

He simply hates. It's his motivation and will more than likely be his downfall. Perhaps if I got him more involved with others.... But he tends to be so reclusive. I think maybe if he made it his prerogative to go out an intentionally do harm to more than the select few he decides to torment, he may make for a great villain.

[Nostra]

I'm late to the party, the summoning didn't go too well. . . I blame Cressy's incompetent chanting.

Anyway, a big problem with villains in Warcraft is that, just like Grakor said, it's a very optimistic, sword and sorcery and high fantasy style setting. The heroes are all Real Heroes, all the villains are Real Villains (with a few exceptions from back in WC3) and if you're not kicking the dog you're not doing it right. Evil for evils sakes seems to be the name of the game and it's something that really shines through as much in players as it does in the lore. That doesn't mean it is bad, but it does come with certain expectations on and from the heroes and villains, much like what's already been said villains run risk of being trampled before given a chance to grow as characters, and heroes often become little more than cardboard cut-outs spouting some platitudes as they go about their business vanquising the evil force threatening whatever.

Even worse is seeing good characters turn one-dimensional when put into situations with a obvious good-vs-evil theme, which happens more often than I like to think, this goes for both those on the dark and light side. Both sides easily become unreasonable (IC-wise), something I've often been guilty of, and forces the whole scene into that dark land of cliché from where nothing but abominable things come.

There's not really much that can be done, other than try to be aware of what's happening and to remember that your character doesn't have to follow the rules of confrontation outlined in Conan.

And when making a villain, being evil doesn't have to be the end goal. In fact, instead of making a villain, try making a character, and whether that character turns out to be a villain isn't important. RP can be a way to explore points of view you're not familiar with, playing a villain doesn't have to be about kicking dogs and slitting throats (even when you take a point of view to the extreme).

[Holynexus]

Yup, that. Being evil for being evil is pointless. Being evil for greed and comtempt for the lower classes (especially when you're born to commoners), being evil out of revenge or bitterness, being evil to feed one's addiction, or being evil out of intolerence is more interesting. It makes for less one-sided characters. ^^ Hey, I'm a normal person but there are groups of people out there I just strive to make life hell to! (if it makes sense) (and they have it coming)

Warcraft is high-fantasy but honeslty, it's not a reason to have dog kicking villains

[Kage]

Spoiler:

(and they have it coming)

Made me giggle. Power to yah!

Warcraft is high-fantasy but honeslty, it's not a reason to have dog kicking villains

Well dog kicking villains need to be wiped out entirely.. But yeah, they're are a lot of one dimensional hero's and villains, and sadly most of these are the hero's themselves. In a ratio, it's about 2 or 3 heros to 1 villain (From what I've seen). Although I do have a question. Based on the fact that we've gotten back the Isle for the blood elves and Heartgland, it's technically going along with the lore, correct?

Mind you I'm asking this based on the fact that I'll probably end up looking through the lore to find -something- in which the 'bad guys' win, and if I do, perhaps an event can be made?