This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Open RP Q&A
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
Villains on this board, more often than not, don't work out sad to say. It's a problem, and though we've tried different ways to remedy it (villains winning Eternal, Morec's arena thing, etc), they rarely work out in the end.
I'd like to think that Silvia works... >.>
Post by
Adamsm
Villains on this board, more often than not, don't work out sad to say. It's a problem, and though we've tried different ways to remedy it (villains winning Eternal, Morec's arena thing, etc), they rarely work out in the end.Yeah it's hard for the 'heroes' to actually let the villains win sometime...
On an unrelated note, did OZ ever get his book published? I remember him mentioning there was interested parties, but it trailed off from there.
No idea, but you can ask in the RB in Randomness next time he posts somewhere...actually, he may have a thread there about his book already that you could bump up.
Post by
oneforthemoney
I meant arc villains with clear and menacing goals in the RP. Sivia mostly drifts, I found.
EDIT: What is lRB in Randomness?
Post by
Atik
I meant arc villains with clear and menacing goals in the RP. Silvia mostly drifts, I found.
True, but I think that is
why
she works...
She isn't out to destroy the world, or anything like that. She is just a sexy, backstabbing, manipulative *!@#$ who likes to run around and rape people for her own pleasure...
It's small and simple, yet still makes her undeniably a villain...
*shrug* Just my own personnal take on what makes villains good. I think I've mentioned it before...
Post by
Adamsm
EDIT: What is lRB in Randomness?
Recycle Bin, Off-Topic; should go now, since Oz just posted.
As for Siliva, she jumps around too much, and is more of an anti-hero then anything else.
Edit: Or a Chaotic Neutral.
Post by
oneforthemoney
I meant arc villains with clear and menacing goals in the RP. Silvia mostly drifts, I found.
True, but I think that is
why
she works...
She isn't out to destroy the world, or anything like that. She is just a sexy, backstabbing, manipulative *!@#$ who likes to run around and rape people for her own pleasure...
It's small and simple, yet still makes her undeniably a villain...
*shrug* Just my own personnal take on what makes villains good. I think I've mentioned it before...
Well, yes, I'm hardly saying she isn't a good villain. She is. Rather, I think she works because there's other villains which draw greater attention, as they are more immediately menacing and have more influence on the plot as a whole. Silvia works best against individuals, where her influence can be greater, and she can primarily get away with that because the real focus is on the larger threat. She works, but not as the sort of villain which makes an RP.
EDIT: What is lRB in Randomness?
Recycle Bin, Off-Topic; should go now, since Oz just posted.
Wow, what are the odds.
I must be magic!
Post by
Aimsyr
I like Silvia a lot actually, she's a good character in my opinion and I enjoy reading her exploits
Good in the sense of being well made that is, not innately kindly/benevolent :P
Not really a
true
villain either though, as someone said above she drifts a lot.
As Light and I agreed upon, it's easiest seriously flawed 'heroes' work anyway. What I mean by the latter is characters who work for the greater good, but will achieve that 'greater good' by any means no matter how cruel, or characters who have a twisted view of what the 'greater good' actually is.
Other than that, drifters who are not truly good nor evil or insane-evil characters are generally easier to pull off successfully than sane evil characters imo.
Post by
470415
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
I honestly do my best to never just kill anyones character out of hand(only made that mistake once, but luckily Morec could fix it) or 'plot' to kill them without permission(the whole Snowmane thing was a lot of discussion with Skree on MSN).
Post by
Skreeran
I honestly do my best to never just kill anyones character out of hand(only made that mistake once, but luckily Morec could fix it) or 'plot' to kill them without permission(the whole Snowmane thing was a lot of discussion with Skree on MSN).Still wish I could have gone ahead with the whole Snowmane thing. I had some interesting ideas for her.
Post by
Adamsm
Aye, wish you could have as well.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Because people aren't going to let you kill off their characters randomly.
It's not necessarily killing characters that is the issue. The heroes can survive from beginning to end and the RP can still be great. The problem crops up as people rarely are willing to have their characters lose if it matters, and it always matters. The same rule applies to villains. Fights generally go in the heroes favour regardless of circumstance, and the villains are forced to retreat or just die, which undermines their effectiveness, and since the person playing the villain knows whenever they attack the heroes they are going to lose, they don't want to play the villain anymore.
Post by
Adamsm
There's also been times where those playing the villain finally pull off something they've been working at for a few dozen posts....and within three posts, everything they did is completely undone, with no effects except to them.
Post by
Morec0
Has anyone tried to inform the Wowhead staff about the problem with the forums? I still can't acess them unless I go to the PTR site.
And I might consider trying to get back into Dark Secrets - anything I should take into consideration?
Post by
470415
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Better to write a villain knowing they'll fall (and make the most of it) then have a villain that you have to cop-out g-mode to keep alive because you don't want them to die.Yeah but what happens if you make that villain....then the first time they go up against the heroes, they are expected to die, just 'because' they are the villain: That isn't any fun either.
Post by
Atik
I mean, in the end, if the villains win, what's the point? The world goes to pot and you either start another struggle, with a Resistance vs. Overlords, which either has the 'good guys' win (and we start at the beginning with a new villain) or they lose... and... well, everything is still craptastic.
Which isn't
always
a bad thing... (Most notably, an affably evil or lawful evil villain winning would leave the world much less crapsack-y)
But yeah, the good guys don't really retreat. You can notice it in just about ANY fiction. The only time the heroes retreat, no matter how badly they're losing, is when it really doesn't matter (If they're already on the villain's turf, and aren't losing anything, for example.)
The villain makes the plot. They're the ones who are usually up for retreating, as they aren't as concerned with being pushed back.
Out of curiosity... has anyone ever really tried a villain who thinks they're the good guy?
And Morec: I don't think anyone else has that problem....
Post by
Morec0
Because people aren't going to let you kill off their characters randomly.
It's not necessarily killing characters that is the issue. The heroes can survive from beginning to end and the RP can still be great. The problem crops up as people rarely are willing to have their characters lose if it matters, and it always matters. The same rule applies to villains. Fights generally go in the heroes favour regardless of circumstance, and the villains are forced to retreat or just die, which undermines their effectiveness, and since the person playing the villain knows whenever they attack the heroes they are going to lose, they don't want to play the villain anymore.
And it's hard to have a hero 'lose' without them sacrificing. You have to understand that unless your villain is dealing with a bunch of anti-heroes that don't actually care beans about what they're fighting for, they aren't going to just bail like a villain might. For a 'good' character (alignment wise, instead of like neutral) it'll most likely always be that fight to death.
Writing a good roleplay does take a lot of compromise, and usually will end with the villain's inevitable fall. You've got to remember that good-triumphs is sort of a ingrained nature that's a little hard to circumvent when you're writing. Better to write a villain knowing they'll fall (and make the most of it) then have a villain that you have to cop-out g-mode to keep alive because you don't want them to die.
I mean, in the end, if the villains win, what's the point? The world goes to pot and you either start
another
struggle, with a Resistance vs. Overlords, which either has the 'good guys' win (and we start at the beginning with a new villain) or they lose... and... well, everything is still craptastic.
It's a little bit of perspective... and the fact that I don't think any of what I just wrote makes a lick of sense.
Of course that depends on the villain's motives; world domination your idea holds sound, but if it is just money or personal power without the intent of using either to dominate the world then heroes losing is less catastrophic.
The victory also depends on the ranking of the villains plans; if they're just getting started then them winning wil further their goals but wont be a game over for freedom like it would be if they were within the final stages of their plans.
Like you said; it takes a lot of compromise.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Because people aren't going to let you kill off their characters randomly.
It's not necessarily killing characters that is the issue. The heroes can survive from beginning to end and the RP can still be great. The problem crops up as people rarely are willing to have their characters lose if it matters, and it always matters. The same rule applies to villains. Fights generally go in the heroes favour regardless of circumstance, and the villains are forced to retreat or just die, which undermines their effectiveness, and since the person playing the villain knows whenever they attack the heroes they are going to lose, they don't want to play the villain anymore.
And it's hard to have a hero 'lose' without them sacrificing. You have to understand that unless your villain is dealing with a bunch of anti-heroes that don't actually care beans about what they're fighting for, they aren't going to just bail like a villain might. For a 'good' character (alignment wise, instead of like neutral) it'll most likely always be that fight to death.
Writing a good roleplay does take a lot of compromise, and usually will end with the villain's inevitable fall. You've got to remember that good-triumphs is sort of a ingrained nature that's a little hard to circumvent when you're writing. Better to write a villain knowing they'll fall (and make the most of it) then have a villain that you have to cop-out g-mode to keep alive because you don't want them to die.
I mean, in the end, if the villains win, what's the point? The world goes to pot and you either start
another
struggle, with a Resistance vs. Overlords, which either has the 'good guys' win (and we start at the beginning with a new villain) or they lose... and... well, everything is still craptastic.
It's a little bit of perspective... and the fact that I don't think any of what I just wrote makes a lick of sense.
Exactly, that is exactly it. The villain losing in the end is a foregone conclusion, people want good to triumph, evil to fall, and a possibility of a sequel if the story was sufficient. But the villain has to be able to
challenge
the heroes. Heroes have to be willing to retreat, double for anti-heroes, to show that the enemy they face poses a threat. The villain can lose the war, but it will never be a war if he cannot even win the battles necessary to make it so.
And that is the key element that this board lacks for villains. The heroes are never willing to lose those skirmishes, they are always stronger than the bad guy and beat him soundly, throwing out random quips and insults to their strength while doing so, and that just makes the villain look pathetic and victory hollow. Even the compromise doesn't always work, as the heroes tend to group and an agreement between two people falls apart.
For instance, recall Adamsm's nobody and heartless in Eternal recruiting Hyper's heartless, only to be soundly destroyed regardless of all his strength and minions by the heroes group, making Hyper turning into the heartless pointless and moot with no real repercussions save Adamsm losing dragons, giants, and having to retreat. It took a collective decision that the RP should end for the antagonist to win a direct confrontation once, and we saw how that turned out.
EDIT:
Out of curiosity... has anyone ever really tried a villain who thinks they're the good guy?
Joxans skirted this but was a quite unlikeable and monstrous going about it.
Post by
Adamsm
It took a collective decision that the RP should end for the antagonist to win a direct confrontation once, and we saw how that turned out.
Yarp; butt monkey status for the 'winners' of the previous RP when they ended up in the Redux universe.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.