The Bad Get Polling!

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
The point where your evil actions outweigh your good intentions is when the line is crossed into villainhood

Well, now we're back to definitions again. Does villain mean "antagonist" or does villain mean "evil character"? The creator of this poll clearly meant the former, and there's no reason to insist that that's a false definition.

[Nioca]

My definition of villain, for the sake of this poll, is someone that the party, not the player, can view as evil. Whether their view is accurate is another subject entirely.

 

Remember, in this case, it's how the party views the situation. If you were out in the wilderness, cold, exhuasted, and wounded, your opinion of a villain would be different then sitting nice, safe, and warm at your own home.

[Dintiradan]

To expand on Kel's point, good villains actually do stuff. The party should interact with the villain, whether directly or through foreshadowing, lackeys, reading private writings (Myst, anyone?), etc. Seeing the resulting carnage sometimes works too.

 

A villain who you never hear about until you meet him at the end is useless. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to beat my head against the wall for an hour because I was stupid enough to make a scenario which has that sort of villain.

 

EDIT: Gah. Here I go posting, thinking that the topic is still on one page. I'll leave my incoherent rambling up anyway.

 

Though I must state that by Emperor T.'s definition of villain, the best villain would be someone who causes the maximum amount of harm to the maximum amount of people in the shortest span of time. Somehow, I don't think that a villain whose character is defined by running around with an Uzi spraying bullets in a crowd would be a good villain. Evil, probably. But very little depth.

Quote:

The Silent Assassin believes that even the most powerful Evil Overlord must have some sort of soul...

Or maybe I'm confusing him with Ghandi again.

I have a whole collection of them, actually.

 

--------------------

People think that I must be a very strange person. This is not correct. I have the heart of a small boy. It is in a glass jar on my desk.

- Robert Bloch (often quoted by Stephen King)

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Nioca:

 

Quote:

My definition of villain, for the sake of this poll, is someone that the party, not the player, can view as evil. Whether their view is accurate is another subject entirely.

That's not the entire definition, though. The party actually had to meet the character before they were counted as a villian. Otherwise, Lord Volpe should have been on the poll.

 

Because Dikiyoba's party sure thought that Lord Volpe was evil after visiting with all the poor, starving peasants.

[aka Ravenwing]

Tullegolar said this a lot of posts ago, but it caught my attention.

 

Quote:

A villain is: someone who is willing to harm innocents to advance their own agenda.

What is that saying, then, about the U.S. in WWII? Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You'd better believe innocent people died in those attacks. More, I'd say, than non-innocent people. Does that make the bombers villains? Or perhaps the authorities that ordered the attacks?

[Belial]

partially off-topic, but since you guys are talking about bad guys in general anyway..

 

Gladiator 's version of Commodus is one of my favourite movie antagonists (or villains, it's your pick, really). Give me an enemy like him in, and I'll promise to rate the scenario at least 4.2 on CSR!

 

To the eyes of people around him, he seems to be selfish, cruel and careless. Commodus, on the other hand, sees himself only trying to prove himself to others, and trying to help them (by, at times any means necessary). And oooooh, he's sensitive, lonely and fragile too! He has a family, he commands an empire, and in the end he dies in a dramatical battle against one of his sworn enemies!

 

Grrrreat.

 

Okay, Maximus only meets him briefly in the beginning, and again only in the end portion of the film, but they have a long history behind them, they've practically been like brothers in their childhood, and so forth. Besides, Commodus isn't even aware that Maximus is alive. So I guess it's okay he doesn't much interact with him in the middle.

 

Discuss.

[The Loquacious Lord Grimm]

Skeleton_Archer: No.

 

Emperor Tullegolar: Calm down.

 

Dintiradan: Awesome. We need to compare specimens sometime.

 

I have to hold with Nioca on this one in that while the antagonist can be a villain and while an evil person can be a villain, the antagonist can still be villainous without being evil; and likewise, an antagoinist can still be evil without being villainous.

 

You can be a bad guy without being a villain.

 

In my personal line of thought, I don't really think that you can be villainous without being antagonistic. Merely because in my experience, a villain makes quite the show of being antagonistic...

 

But antagoinism is not enough...

Perhaps, in some way, we subconsciously come to admire our foe, for one of many reasons. Perhaps dedication, intelligence, humanity, cleverness, creativity, or one of many other attributes can take hold of our attention, and make us slightly sorry to see our foe go...

 

--------------------

The Silent Assassin only ever once went on a hunger strike.

And that was because I refused to go grocery shopping until he reassembled the refrigerator.

[Belial]

Well okay, okay. 4.5! And that's my final offer.

[Emperor Tullegolar]

Quote:

Originally written by *i:
I still consider Stalker a villain if you agree with the Empire side.

Ah, but then you no longer sympathize with him! The fact that you sympathize with him is the only reason people have given for why he is a good villain.

Quote:

Originally written by Nioca:
My definition of villain, for the sake of this poll, is someone that the party, not the player, can view as evil.

There you have it. Stalker is crappy at being evil, yet he won. That is why I challenge people's opinions.

Quote:

Originally written by Dintiradan:
by Emperor T.'s definition of villain, the best villain would be someone who causes the maximum amount of harm to the maximum amount of people in the shortest span of time.

It seems someone finally hit me with a reasonable argument. Very well, I shall add another element to my definition. A good villain is someone who causes harm to innocents to advance their own agenda, and does it with the greatest amount of style.

Quote:

Originally written by Nemesis:
Does that make the bombers villains?

Uh... yes! Who ever said the United States was the angel of world politics? I personally have not forgiven them for using the bomb, and I am surprised Japan has.

Quote:

Originally written by Lenar, Inc.:
the antagonist can still be villainous without being evil

This is rarely the case. As for BoA scenarios, it is never the case.

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Quote:

Originally argued by ET:
It seems someone finally hit me with a reasonable argument

OMG! Are we supposed to be arguing? About opinions and polls? I am deeply apologetic. I thought we exchanging visions on villany. Please, carry on your argument. I'll not interfere.

Quote:

Originally phoned in by ET:
I personally have not forgiven them for using the bomb

Wow. That does explain quite a bit.

[Ash Lael]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
There you have it. Stalker is crappy at being evil, yet he won. That is why I challenge people's opinions.

Stalker isn't crappy at being evil. He massacres towns.

What makes him a comparitively complex character is the fact that he does this in the name of a greater good, and seems to actually believe his own rhetoric. He simply is okay with killing innocent people as long as he's killing his enemies at the same time. It's an understandable, though abhorrent, point of view. That makes him a fairly decent villain. Personally, I voted for him simply because of the lack of any real competition.

For reference, my favourite villain (or antagonist) of all time is Javert from Les Miserables. If you want to berate people for liking villains who aren't fundamentally malicious people, I'm a big target here.

[*i]

Quote:

Ah, but then you no longer sympathize with him! The fact that you sympathize with him is the only reason people have given for why he is a good villain.

What? I don't understand what you mean here. If I choose, as a player, to take the mindset of someone who dislikes the tyranny of the Empire, I would definitely have sympathy for Stalker.

You see, as part of a Role Playing Game, we can take the mindset of someone in the game and divorce ourselves from our personal convictions.

Quote:

Uh... yes! Who ever said the United States was the angel of world politics? I personally have not forgiven them for using the bomb, and I am surprised Japan has.

And exactly how were you personally harmed by this such that you have something to forgive?

[Emperor Tullegolar]

Ash Lael: Stalker massacres town. Singular. And it was a sloppy job, too. As for Javert, I believe he was, too, malicious. He went out of his way to ruin a man that had reformed his life. He was evil, and I have no qualms about calling him a villain.

 

*i: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you choose the Empires point of view, Stalker is a villain, but not a very good one, little more than a common rogue, in fact. If you choose a rebel point of view, you have sympathy for him, and thus you diminish his villain status and make him more of a hero. Your trying to put these two together, which is possible, but if you do that, your going to weaken both points of view, making him neither a good villain or hero.

 

The Bomb: As an American, the bomb is a black mark on my record. I am harmed by being looked at by the rest of the world as a member of the nation that used it, and thus that is why I harbor enmity. Not that this is any of your business...

[*i]

Quote:

*i: You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you choose the Empires point of view, Stalker is a villain, but not a very good one, little more than a common rogue, in fact. If you choose a rebel point of view, you have sympathy for him, and thus you diminish his villain status and make him more of a hero. Your trying to put these two together, which is possible, but if you do that, your going to weaken both points of view, making him neither a good villain or hero.

I don't think they both weaken each other, they add to each other. Looking at it from both perspectives enhances Stalker. Taking a sum of the two views like they were numbers on the same axis makes little sense. The fact that some people can view him as a hero makes him a better villain/antagonist in my mind. The reason, he's more human and believeable.

Quote:

The Bomb: As an American, the bomb is a black mark on my record. I am harmed by being looked at by the rest of the world as a member of the nation that used it, and thus that is why I harbor enmity. Not that this is any of your business...

You were the one to bring the matter up. How can one debate if he/she does not understand your views?

[Masked Man of Inscrutability]

I'm going to call this one game, set and match for *I, Thuryl, et al.

 

Emp, you sure like to argue like a sophist - something I somewhat admire. However, I find myself inclined to agree that great villains (or antagonists, if you prefer) are fully fleshed out characters with understandable, if flawed, motivations.

 

Someone on these boards pointed out that a good RPG should be like a good novel with crossword puzzles (tactical combat). So I prefer my villains to be those whom would entertain me if I were reading about them.

 

Z

 

EDIT: Typos

[John S]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
The Bomb: As an American, the bomb is a black mark on my record. I am harmed by being looked at by the rest of the world as a member of the nation that used it, and thus that is why I harbor enmity. Not that this is any of your business...

If you honestly feel that this is a personal issue, then I won't try to force you to elaborate any further. However, I want to press this issue.

The President of the United States of America is an elected leader, not a representative. The actions of the President reflect on the American people only indirectly. As for other military leaders, like generals, the American opinion has almost no bearing on their decisions or power. And since most of the members of Spidweb are young-to-college age males, I'm going to assume that you weren't alive during World War II; ergo, you could have done nothing to stop the bomb. So why is it a "black mark" specifically to you?

[Emperor Tullegolar]

I never said a villain couldn't be fleshed out and have a personality, in fact, that can only enhance them. You all forget the matter at hand, however. Why Stalker, what makes him so much better than the other choices? He was not so fleshed out, he remains mysterious until you meet him towards the end, at which point all you hear his generic "save the peasants" argument. What makes him so special?

 

Edit: Alorael: Maybe it doesn't, it's just how I feel . I tend to take a historical perspective when I look at the world today. When I see a country, I see it's entire history, not just it's current situation. This is important when looking at things such as the Middle East situation. Crusades, anyone? We were not alive when they happened, yet we continue to pay for them.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Zorro:
Someone on these boards pointed out that a good RPG should be like a good novel with crossword puzzles (tactical combat).

That was me, but I was quoting a famous essay about interactive fiction.

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
You all forget the matter at hand, however. Why Stalker, what makes him so much better than the other choices?

And you forget that not all of us voted for Stalker.

Stalker is okay as a political figure representing his side, but as an actual character... eh. We only see him from one angle, which is that of the leader of the rebellion. Even as an ally, he exists basically to hand the party orders rather than to be a character in his own right. Overall I'd say Stalker's fairly weakly-characterised for a major figure, but the setting picks up enough of the slack to make the scenario's plot as a whole decent. (Decent, not great, mind you; it's basically a simple story about a rebellion with one or two not-all-that-surprising twists.)

For an example of good characterisation in SW games, I'd direct you to Vibius, the commander of Shadow Valley Fort, from Nethergate. The party sees him in his capacity as commander, but they also get to see a human side to him, what with the gay sex and the stomach cancer and all. (Of course, you only get to see that side of him as the Romans, since the Celts only meet him in order to kill him off. This is one reason why former allies of the party make good antagonists -- apart from the fact that betrayal always helps to spice up a story, it lets you see what kind of person the character is from more than one angle.)

[Emperor Tullegolar]

Quote:

Originally written by Thuryl:
And you forget that not all of us voted for Stalker.

Give me a break, didn't I already say this to you?

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
I assumed you voted for Stalker. Since you didn't, I really don't know why we're arguing anymore.

I also said this back on page one:

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
Do the twelve that voted for him care to explain?

Don't act like your the only person I'm talking to. That aside, I'm glad you agree with me that Stalker is a weak character. Aren't you disapointed he won the best villain poll?

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
That aside, I'm glad you agree with me that Stalker is a weak character. Aren't you disapointed he won the best villain poll?

I'm disappointed that BoA doesn't have better villains to choose from.

[Kelandon]

Quote:

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:
Aren't you disapointed he won the best villain poll?

Have you said who your pick was? Stalker may not be the best villain ever written, but BoA doesn't have many particularly good villains, as Thuryl said.

[Smoo]

He voted for Rentar.

[Nioca]

I'd imagine he voted for Spiegelbrecher, Jaen, The Immortal, Nathaganth, and Rentar-Ihrno.

 

I've kept thinking that I missed a villain, but I couldn't remember which scenario. I just realized that I forgot Crescent Valley.

[aka Ravenwing]

Quote:

Originally from Emperor Tullegolar:

Uh... yes! Who ever said the United States was the angel of world politics? I personally have not forgiven them for using the bomb, and I am surprised Japan has.

That makes the bombers evil? They were just acting on orders. Ever seen "A Few Good Men"? Similar story. When someone in the armed forces gets ordered to do something, even if they think it's immoral, they still have to do it, or it raises all kinds of hell for them personally. In cases like that, it's lose-lose for them.

In fact, that's pretty much how it is in war. Plenty of soldiers don't want to fight, but some country goals require it. So they act on orders from the powers that be, in order to expediate the process of achieving those goals. The orders are to go out and kill other soldiers, who, in turn, also don't really want to fight.

I guess that I'm just defending the nameless soldiers who get blamed for attacks. I'm saying if you're going to call someone a villain for killing the innocent, make sure you're blaming the right people.

That said, sometimes the leaders themselves have to take drastic measures in order to get the attention of (or perhaps pound some sense into) the enemies of their cause. Hence, we have attacks on the innocent. Is it a good thing? No. Does it make them evil? Not necessarily. In fact, I'll go so far as to make a conjecture, that when the President and any other authorities involved gave the order to bomb Hiroshima, they had to live with a guilty conscience for a long time afterward, possibly until their deaths.

What's all this got to do with the topic? Well it's simple. When Stalker attacked the innocent civilians, he was trying to get attention. The presence of "that fool Machrone" proves how well it worked.

[Lilith]

Quote:

Originally written by Nemesis:
In fact, that's pretty much how it is in war. Plenty of soldiers don't want to fight, but some country goals require it. So they act on orders from the powers that be, in order to expediate the process of achieving those goals. The orders are to go out and kill other soldiers, who, in turn, also don't really want to fight.

I guess that I'm just defending the nameless soldiers who get blamed for attacks. I'm saying if you're going to call someone a villain for killing the innocent, make sure you're blaming the right people.

On the other hand, unless they were conscripted, the soldiers made a choice to become soldiers in the first place, knowing that doing so might mean they were required to kill people.

[Masked Man of Inscrutability]

Quote:

Originally written by Nemesis:
That makes the bombers evil? They were just acting on orders. Ever seen "A Few Good Men"? Similar story. When someone in the armed forces gets ordered to do something, even if they think it's immoral, they still have to do it, or it raises all kinds of hell for them personally. In cases like that, it's lose-lose for them.

Okay, let me stop you right there.

When you take the oath to join the Marine Corp, you take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your CO, not the CiC, not the JCoS. Your oath is the the Supreme Law of the Land.

One of the first things you learn in the Corp is that you are EXPECTED to disregard any illegal order. This is serious stuff - following orders is no defense from prosecution. And military justice allows for a much wider array of punishments than civilian courts.

If we presume that the Hiroshima bomber pilot knew what he was doing, then he followed an illegal order (a war crime no less!) and deserves to be hanged. The legal standard is crystal clear on this point. Why it wasn't followed is a matter for political and legal theorists to debate. But the standard is clear.

Z

[Nioca]

Another example is the Abu-Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. Despite the ability to refuse an order, the people are scared of what would happen next.

[*i]

Quote:

If we presume that the Hiroshima bomber pilot knew what he was doing, then he followed an illegal order (a war crime no less!) and deserves to be hanged. The legal standard is crystal clear on this point. Why it wasn't followed is a matter for political and legal theorists to debate. But the standard is clear.

The legality of the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki are on fiarly firm ground. It's a difficult situation considering the situation of total war (civilians were trained to fight in an invasion too so the lines between civilain and soldier are a bit gray here).

There are no easy choices in war, but it came down to lots lost on both sides, or lots lost on theirs. It is quite likely the bombings saved lives in the long run. Add this with the fact that the US was fighting back from a defensive war (Pearl Harbor) against an enemy that refused to surrender and wanted to continue fighting.

One could argue the morality a lot of ways. I doubt there were many good choices to end the war within the mindsets of the people fighting it.

[Kelandon]

The alternative to dropping the bomb — continuing island hopping — was not exactly going to be a picnic. Read up on Iwo Jima. I shudder to think what would've happened if American forces had to do the same thing on Honshu as they did on Iwo Jima.

 

It's worth bearing in mind, too, that the Japanese were a generation or two removed from the most intense medieval honor society ever to exist. Surrender was far, far worse than death.

 

Back on topic, Rentar? A good villain? In BoA?! Rentar was not the greatest character to begin with, and her only appearance has been in UV!

[Sudanna]

-X- sees potential in this topic. Specifically, -X- sees that potential of this topic to blossom in to a multi-topic, severely confusing, war of ideals and opinions that will tear apart the forums as we know it and instigate a massive war of Dikiyobian proportions.

 

-X- will be watching with this with all the intensity of a fluffy turtle watching -X- devour it alive.

[Lazarus.]

-X-: in your 14 posts today I have yet to see a useful contribution. Saying "This is a nice arguement" isn't necessary.

 

And if you're really as obsessed with Diki's fanfic as you're making out to be, then keep it to that thread.

 

(Ok, back on topic a bit. I agree with Thuryl and co., Stalker isn't a great villain, but he's reasonably well developed and probably deserving of a top 5 spot.)

[Sudanna]

In the purpose of satisfying CERTAIN PEOPLE -X- will contribute to this argument. -X- voted for all of the villains in the Bahssikava/Exodus scenarios, and another one that he forgets. -X- says that he recognizes Stalkers inherent villain-e-ness, but doesn't think that he's the best of them all. -X- says that he knows Dalaghant lacked depth somewhat, because that part of the scenario he considered rushed, but -X- sometimes makes up background stories for villains that lack feeling. -X- can envision the countless centuries that Dalaghant sat through during his stay at the Vanhatai labratory, directing undead to do the same thing over and over again, never having the need to speak, conducting sacrifices over and over until the meaning drained out of them, but not stopping because he knew, that when his god was free, he would punish him if he deserted.

 

There. -X- hopes that he made you happy.

[aka Ravenwing]

-Disregard-

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by -X-:
-X- voted for all of the villains in the Bahssikava/Exodus scenarios

Ack. Galthrax was just as underdeveloped as Kharprev and Rentar.

(I still want to know who voted for Kharprev)

[Sudanna]

-X- agrees with Esphesos that Galthrax was severely under-developed. -X- voted for him because, in his book, the slith scenarios always come out on top.

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by -X-:
-X- voted for him because, in his book, the slith scenarios always come out on top.

Pardon me for asking, but exactly why do you choose to hold this particularly uninformed opinion? I don't really understand the flawed logic which you seem hellbent on using. Please explain.

[Sudanna]

-X- says that you are instigating another forum-war, but he will reply anyway. -X- simply likes slith. -X- very much enjoys the two scenarios because they bring further depth to slith as a race. -X- is also unclear on whether or not a actually voted for Galthrax. -X- says that he made his vote at about 1:30 AM last night, and things are looking foggy. -X- only knows that four of his votes went to the slith scenario villains. If -X- did vote for Galthrax, then -X- will wait for you to reply to this post to get an argument from his bag of them in the other room.

[Nioca]

Except this is a poll for best villain, not which scenarios you think were good. And yes, Galthrax was in Bahssikava.

 

And no, I will NOT start a poll for best scenario.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Ephesos (look closely at how I spelled his name, -X-):

 

Quote:

(I still want to know who voted for Kharprev)

Wouldn't it be terrible if someone had intended to vote for another villain and voted for Kharprev by accident?

 

Originally by Nioca:

 

Quote:

And no, I will NOT start a poll for best scenario.

Dikiyoba should hope not. That's what the Lyceum is for.

[aka Ravenwing]

The following is just for the sake of making a point. I have otherwise no intention of talking in the third person perspective.

 

START 3RD PERSON RANT

 

Here's what Nemesis thinks. Nemesis thinks that -X- should let Dikiyoba be Dikiyoba and stop trying to repeatedly kiss up. Nemesis also thinks -X- should remain silent until he/she has something to say that's worth saying.

 

END 3RD PERSON RANT

 

No offense, Dikiyoba. I respect you. But honestly. Worshippers?

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Nemesis:

 

Quote:

No offense, Dikiyoba. I respect you. But honestly. Worshippers?

That's not an entirely fair statement. It makes it sound like I have some sort of control over -X-. I don't.

 

But don't worry. Dikiyoba wasn't offended by the rant.

[aka Ravenwing]

Quote:

Originally written by Ghost of Diknyoba:
Originally by Nemesis:

Quote:

No offense, Dikiyoba. I respect you. But honestly. Worshippers?

That's not an entirely fair statement. It makes it sound like I have some sort of control over -X-. I don't.

But don't worry. Dikiyoba wasn't offended by the rant.

Well, it wasn't intended for it to sound like that, but I can see where you're coming from. Basically what I'm saying is that while imitation can be flattering, it's almost invariably at least twice as annoying.

[Emperor Tullegolar]

Quote:

Originally written by Ghost of Diknyoba:
[it makes it sound like I have some sort of control over -X-.

Hmm, but maybe you do. Give him an order and see what happens!

[Enraged Slith]

Quote:

Wouldn't it be terrible if someone had intended to vote for another villain and voted for Kharprev by accident?

I wanted to vote for Kharprev, but ended up voting for Rentar by accident.

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by Enraged Slith:
I wanted to vote for Kharprev, but ended up voting for Rentar by accident.

Ouch. I'm kind of offended by that one.

[aka Ravenwing]

Hmm… agree. That hurts, slith. And it didn't even happen to me!

[Sudanna]

Dikiyoba has no control over -X-. -X- merely likes Dikiyoba's style (whatever it is). -X- will also say anything that he thinks is worth saying.

[*i]

Quote:

-X- will also say anything that he thinks is worth saying.

Oh really now? Let's see what DC says about that...

[Imban]

I voted for Kharprev because I liked (making fun of) his old name.

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by Imban:
I voted for Kharprev because I liked (making fun of) his old name.

Eventually, people will forget that. I'm sure of it.

(flees)