The plight of villainy.

[Psycho]

Before anything, I'd like to clear that this isn't a rant. This is something which I felt the need to point out, so to say. To put to light a different spectrum of something found in the server, of which I found many times simply misunderstood or underestimated in its efforts given. As most of you have already guessed, the subject I'm here to discuss is villainy.

Yes, Villainy. With a capital V even! What would the world of fantasy and stories look without it? Why, how would Lord of the Rings look like without Sauron or his armies? How would Pokemon look without Team Rocket? How would Harry Potter look like without Voldemort? The list goes on and on for miles of text. But there is quite a difference. They are all fictional characters, while the Villains (With a capital V none the less!) of this server, are all players. And the players, unlike those fictional characters, are all quite very real and tangible.

And being the live tangible fleshy beings they are, they also come with the ups and downs of it. They, just like you, the Human Paladin or the Elven priest, can get upset and angered. But when they do, it's usually quite more distinct to trace upon then when a none-villain character does. A lot of people seem to take villains for granted, and such a thing I most reject. A villain's purpose is to eventually lose, that much is known. But has anyone ever taken into consideration how hard losing purposely is? Unlike the fictional characters mentioned above, the villain could well as be a hard worked upon figure with a great deal of development and work put into it. And yet some people seem to ignore that.

"But Psycho," you protest. "Villains should know that they're meant to fall!" You say, fists raised defensively.

This was no attack upon anyone, nor was this criticism. Yes, a Villain should be aware of the finale of the character. But at times, knowing the end in no ways makes it easier. Sometimes we grow attached to things. Sometimes we begin seeing them as more. If put in the right condition, filth becomes a pearl, after all. In the right hands, a chunk of metal becomes a masterful sword. And in the end, this is one of Villainy's most hardest quarrels. The knowledge that you, the Villain, in the end, is going to have to wave goodbye to your work, because that's what you made it for. You set it to fail. And that's quite harder then it seems. Don't believe me? Start building a house of cards, knowing in the end you'll smash it with a sledgehammer.

"Hmph!" You cross your arms angrily. "Atleast they should at least act in proper to the rules!" You add. And you're right, just like every player, so must the Villain obey by the rules.

But sometimes, the path of a villain is littered with the same obstacles. Only they're lit on fire. A lot more mistakes would be noted from the side of Villainy because of the path itself. Being a villain means you, as a character, are to become an icon of hatred, a bringer of harm to other characters. And that in-character hatred and anger seeps from time to time beyond that. More mistakes of the villain will be noticed simply because it is the mistakes of a character against your current character. Or because it may seem to give the villain an unfair edge over the 'hero' so to say (though in here, we're all heroes.) And sometimes, a number of people seem to simply be in a bad mood. Perhaps something has occurred in real life, or perhaps it was just a bad day. Either way, this leads to the tension existing.

To lay this post to rest, I simply say the following.

The world of villainy is one littered with sharp objects and painful obstacles. As villains, we are beaten and killed, and are eventually stepped on in order to make the heroes seem grander. But seeing the character progression we've made and the stories we've inspired makes it, to me at least, all worth while.

So maybe the next time you see a villain, give him a big thanks? It's a dirty job. But someone's gotta do it.

Thanks for reading.

[Zarquon]

Hear, hear!

[Caravan]

Excellently said, sweetpea!

On another note -- I think the true plight of villains is the lack of true heroes, rather than a "lesser of the two evils" or neutrality at its finest.

[c0rzilla]

On another note -- I think the true plight of villains is the lack of true heroes, rather than a "lesser of the two evils" or neutrality at its finest.

*Raises...hand?*

Hm. I have seen many (or three) an article on villainy, but none on fine, thought out heroism.

Perhaps I shall make that my project.

But, yes. Fine villains are always loved and needed.

[Aphetoros]

It's a dirty job. But someone's gotta do it.

Thanks for reading.

[Sol]

Agreed! Fantastically articulated post. Little do the do-gooders know that all these so-called 'evil guilds' are actually attempts by those poor, down-trodden villains to unionise and stand up for their rights.

[Jonoth]

Excellent article! And often a big problem with villainy isn't just the fall, but the speed and finality in which the fall seems to be arranged. It's the same problem with fighting in general, though to keep on topic, a good villain needs to be built up.

Take a WoW character like Illidan. His actions were considered questionable long before he became the entity he grew to be. For me, it would be much more satisfying and epic to defeat Illidan as the Lord of Outland than it would be to defeat him back when he was just an angsty sorcerer with a song in his heart for a certain priestess. And that's the issue. You have to let the villain reach his epic villainy heights before you take him down, one to give some degree of satisfaction to the player whom, as the OP stated, ultimately knows his character must eventually fall, and two because defeating the much more epic villain in turn will make your hero's victory that much more awesome in itself!

And also, defeat does not have to equal death. The return and continual thorn in the hero's side of the villain is what really makes rivalries become the stuff of legend. If Batman permanently took out the Joker, and Two-Face, and Catwoman, and all the villains that have caused him the most trouble, Gotham would be a better place sure, but you wouldn't keep picking up issues about Batman chasing down purse-snatchers and jaywalkers. Making an investment in a recurring villain is just as much of an investment in a hero as any other development.

[SachikoMaeda]

The thought of the villain falling has never quite been my favorite one. The whole concept of "GOOD PREVAILS HURRDURR" alone never quite a good one for me. I personally like a good tragedy. The kind where the hero ultimately fails and the "villain" makes it as top dog. Just my opinion. It never really happens, so I never participate in hero-villain plots. Just my two cents.

[Thoradin]

Needs more evil, CotH does. As well as letting Evil have a bit more of a free reign. Cause destruction here and there, pain and panic are the evildoer's weapons of course.

But I've always felt strongly about just once letting the bad guys win the trophy and then to let the unseemly band of heroes attempt to take said evil guy/gal out. Makes it better, as Jonoth said. Who says you can't just lock the evil guy/gal up for them to make their eventual escape? To set themselves up inside of a fiery secret volcano lair?

[Kage]

Oddly I think back to the original G.I. Joe. Lets face it, the Joe's always win. But Cobra does get the upper hand on multiple occasion. Look back to the Weather Dominator, the Joe's had captured Cobra Commander, only before the Dreadnoks busted him out. Then of course Cobra was able to hold the world hostage until the Joe's finally stopped them. I remember a post I had made a while ago where a large mass of people revolted against the rest of the races, forming an army and such to conquer the world. Now that was rather large and impractical, but they're could be a smaller version, and I mean why not? Why not have the Hero's loose? Why not have some city taken by a hostile group, or even multiple cities before the hero's pop in to stop them. Mind you I mean cities that neither the Alliance or Horde would care about, but the hero(s) would.

[Xigo]

The problem with most villains 'winning' is that it means a major alteration to the lore.

I recall someone's necromancer character ended up laying siege to Stormwind, and tearing it to shreds.

[Cressy]

....Nubstra's!

[Piroska]

The problem with most villains 'winning' is that it means a major alteration to the lore.

I recall someone's necromancer character ended up laying siege to Stormwind, and tearing it to shreds.

I think that part of the problem underlying why that happens is because people think that villainy and heroism have to happen on a grand scale. It doesn't.

Just like real life, little things can have very big impacts on an individual or group. You can achieve almost the same results within a small group and they tend to be far more believable and much more enjoyable.

[Binkleheimer]

Hey, if it happens, it happens.
I guess props to those that can pull it off?

Then again, that might explain a lot about the guards.

[Grakor456]

The thought of the villain falling has never quite been my favorite one. The whole concept of "GOOD PREVAILS HURRDURR" alone never quite a good one for me. I personally like a good tragedy. The kind where the hero ultimately fails and the "villain" makes it as top dog. Just my opinion. It never really happens, so I never participate in hero-villain plots. Just my two cents.

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.)