Discussion: RPing an Ambiguously Evil Villain

Lately, I've been playing an Electric Melee/WP Brute named Damon B. McCoy. His background is that he's the semi-identical evil twin cousin of one of my most favorite characters. (In fact, Simon McCoy is the only one of my heroes I've actually posted a story about here so far: Dark Genesis ).

Simon's main theme is that he never took a codename to fight crime as he wanted the citizens of Paragon City to see that you didn't need to be a super hero to stand up for what's right.

Unfortunately for Damon McCoy, though, he was a virtual identical twin of his cousin. Thinking that studying Damon might enable them to learn the secret of Simon's powers, Crey kidnapped Damon and subjected him to the usual round of inhumane experiments.

Damon's mutation activated during the torture and he used his newfound powers to escape, causing a considerable amount of damage and mayhem in the process. Arrested and sentenced to the Zig, he was taken to the Rogue Isles as one of Recluse's Destined Ones.

Damon blames Simon for the torture that he experienced, and he intends to make his heroic cousin pay. He's also not a big fan of Crey and would definitely like to pay back some of his pain-- with interest-- to Countess Crey. He's also an adrenalin junkie and thrives on battle.

The thing is, I don't consider him fully evil. I tend to think of him as Chaotic Neutral, leaning towards evil in the sense that he doesn't stop to think about the harm his actions are causing. He is capable of killing someone-- in fact, he's actually done so; his first kill recently occurred during the Darrin Wade arc-- but there are things that he will not do.

For instance, I made sure to avoid the Peter Themari and Dmitri Krylov arcs as those were things that Damon would definitely not do.

During Marshall Brass's arc, he didn't try to stop the broadcast.

However, he just started Diviner Maros ... and for the first time he's done something that he would consider to be evil. His actions have caused definite harm to innocents.

(At first, I thought it would be entirely in character for Damon to tell Maros to stick his divinations where the sun doesn't shine, but then I decided that Damon is likely to take the omen of his impending death seriously and will work with Maros to ensure his own existence.)

Still, I am enjoying the challenge of playing a character who's right on the edge.

For the rest of you ... when you play a villain, how much thought do you put into his or her personality? Do they think of themselves as villains? Do they hesitate before they do something morally reprehensible?

How much ambiguity do you like in your evil?

---

My COX Fanfiction:


Blue's Assembled Story Links

Oh, I can assure you with the utmost certainty, although relatively few of my villains are outright evil, not a single one of the characters that I enjoy playing regularly is in any way ignorant to the fact that they are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal at the time.

---

I actually put a lot of thought into my villains. There's one in particular who is definitely a challenge for me to RP...

[quick segue here]

One of my heroes, Andrea Blake, is a Dark/Psi defender. While born a psychic, she gained her dark powers when she was gunned down by some gang members during her early tenure as a street vigilante. Dying and returning to life, she came back with darkness powers... but she'd left part of herself in the Netherworld. And every time she dies, she's inadverently left more of her soul behind.

Cut to the villaingroup that's the antithesis of her SG, and one of their members, who also has ties to the Netherworld, finds this piece of Andrea's soul. And through blood magic and twisted science, puts that fragment of Andrea's soul into another body that's physically the clone of Andrea. Then they christened her Soulcatcher.

And now the villains are nurturing her to be like them, even though she still has much of Andrea's original fun-loving, heroic personality. Soulcatcher isn't malicious, vengeful, angry, or twisted like most of the Nova Dominion. But she still craves the same adrenaline thrills that Andrea does, so while she might not take missions or arcs that clash with her moral precepts, if she thinks it'll be fun, she'll do them.

Case in point - beat the crap out of Swan and a bunch of Longbow. While Soulcatcher had a few weird moments during the fight, she remembers Longbow being stuffy and judgmental, and so had no qualms smacking them around.

So yeah, so ambiguity in villains is a good thing.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite

---

Well.

I have three characters so far who could loosely be defined as ambiguously evil.

Mechanomorphic, for example, is a terrorist. He bombs crap and steals from the government whilst killing manys of innocents. However, deep down he's just a good 'ol boy who would like nothing more than to sit down at a nice bar and sing all night. Not that he can do that anymore. Being a terrorist puts a bit of a crimp in that sort of lifestyle. He tries to act very jolly most of the time, but underneath he really is sad. He anonymously donates to charities world-wide, mostly with stolen cash.

The point with him is, he knows he's evil. He regrets his choices and actions, but he knows there is no going back at this point, and he has decided simply to make the best of his current lot in life. Needless to say, he will not go out of his way to purposely hurt people unless it somehow DIRECTLY furthers his immediate goals. Otherwise its just a senseless waste of human life. So on the outside he's psychotic murderer/terrorist. On the inside, he's a guilt-wracked and sorrowful person. His actions may not be ambiguous, but his portrayl makes it seem so.

Then we have Egregore Device. He is a freelance mercenary. He will do ANYTHING as long as it pays the bills. Including slaughtering helpless citizens. He has no real moral codes, but it should be pointed out that he will not act unless he is employed. Depending on who is employer is, he can be a force of Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. Thus it all balances out, murdering and spilling blood one day whilst healing and saving the entire world the next. The only reason he isn't true nuetral is because he does it all for money/misc. So he aligns slightly more as Nuetral Evil, but the point is he is not anymore picky about being good as he is about being bad.

Finally, there's Plate Knuckle. While technically a 'good guy,' he does a lot of underhanded actions in order to get the job done. While he always tries to preserve human life, protect the innocent, save the human race and generally just be a nice guy, sometimes he has to bend the rules in order to make sure the world keeps spinning. Up to and including some pretty dispicable actions. He defaults to chaotic good-He has good intentions but well...The road to hell and all of that.

What makes all these characters AMBIGUOUSLY evil rather than outright evil is that I always write them in such a way that makes them come off as laid-back and as sensible as any normal hero. Heck, I bet over half the people in the RP forum still think Egregore Device is a hero. *snerk*

I find that when trying to instill a sense of Ambiguity, have the character either question their own actions and possibly regret them or come up with an excuse, claiming that there are some lines that they cannot cross.

---

My villains are caricatures. I can't really get seriously into the villain mindset. There's nothing ambiguous about them. They are unabashedly evil and self-serving and marginally insane or at least sociopathic.

---

My villains have a broad spectrum. All my characters do, from insane to mercenary to do-gooder. I have some that their motives would be unknown and others who are almost blatant with the alignment. My characters are a blended sort and I like that.

---

Self-Proclaimed Number one Fanboi of the RP Forums and it's writers.

Me: How about "Zeus, The Pimp God"?

A friend: It'd be too hard to dress him up like a bull

My problem with Longbow - They're marginally villainous themselves. They're the most arrogant, self-important "heroes" ever, and they demonstrate over and over that they believe that the end justifies the means.

Pounding the snot out of someone who's in your face daring you to do it, isn't really evil.

Ms. Liberty is one step away from becoming Lord Recluse, and she doesn't even realize it.

---

Actually Slick, I liken Longbow to being more the anti-Arachnos.

Arachnos is the over-ruling body of the Rogue Isles. They make and enforce the laws... But they do very little of either. Arachnos is really a large band of bullies, brought together with the lie of "making the world a better place through force." There is a hint of a code of honor that exists (something keeps the Arbiters above the squables), but it's largely ignored by everybody.

Essentially, there are probably about 5% "True Believers" in Arachnos (and that number might be inflated). They hold themselves above the "Survival of the Fittest" mantra because they've made it, they're in Arachnos, they're on the winning team (in the Rogue Isles). The rest, however, use Arachnos to fulfill their own sadistic desires.

Longbow's the opposite end of the spectrum. Most of them are good, honest, hard-working people. However, there is a small percentage (I'd say between 15% and 20%) that are as you describe, Slick, conniving snots with cold hearts and are in it for money, power, or (most frightening) sadistic kicks.

Most of these delinquents fall under the "Agent Wilder" school of thought, that you can do or use whatever you'd like to undermine Arachnos. Mind you, they're not trying to uplift the people of the Etoile Isles or enforce global law (they're probably the ones who got Longbow the all-clear to use flamethrowers, which are illegal under the Geneva Convention). However, they are still a small part of the greater whole of Longbow (which is largely run by people like Agent G or Sefu Tendaji [R.I.P.]), and Longbow is trying hard to set the right example.

Now, the Ms. Liberty thing... I don't think she's as much like Recluse as you say. However, I will agree that she needs to take a closer look at her personal army and take more responsibility for it. She's a general of a PMO (in this case, Private Military Organization, as their endeavors are non-profit), and she's been a terrible general. She's obsessed more with her own personal battles with costumed super villains than the actions of those under her command. She hasn't realized that a general's responsibility lies with her troops, not with her own personal war.

----------

Ambiguously evil... Hm... It's hard to explain this, but... Do you have a friend who consistently make the decision that you just know is going to cause problems for other people? It's also never for anything righteous, he just wants what he wants (the culprit is almost always male), and gets it as soon as he can, no matter who gets hurt because of it, no matter how inadvertently or directly.

However, there's a catch. He's never done wrong to you. He's your friend (likely one of few), and he wouldn't do anything to hurt that relationship. In fact, he's friendly, funny, and a decent person to be around... So long as you don't have to watch how he interacts with other people.

I like to think "Ambiguously Evil" is "the Jerk." He's got friends, family, and they all love him. But everybody else in the world can't stand him.

Case in Point: Peter Griffin. Everything he sets his mind to is detrimental to everybody else, yet his friends and family still stick with him. The rest of the world, if they were aware of him for any period of time longer than the show indicates, would try to execute him (preferably from up close, with something dull and rusty), the way that giant rooster keeps trying to do.

---

My Stories

Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.

[ QUOTE ]
Sefu Tendaji [R.I.P.]

[/ QUOTE ]

What!? When did that happen?

---

One of the sadder moments of the Dark WAtcher arcs. Tendaji was one of the few decent sorts we've seen in Longbow.

See, this is my problem with Longbow (sorry for the threadjack!) The arrogant thugs aren't all in the Rogue Isles. A lot of them are in King's Row, where they're as likely to beat a criminal into a coma as arrest him.

Likewise, the "good" Longbow agents are STILL basically arrogant fanatics who think that Longbow is the only organization with any brains or clue and that the world would be a much better place if everyone else would just butt out and let them run things.

The fact that this attitude appears to be a reflection of Ms. Liberty's attitudes is just an indication that she's hiring and training people who agree with her world view.

I'm exaggerating by comparing her to Stefan Richter, but at the same time, I'm not really sure it's that much of an exaggeration. All it would take is one traumatic, disillusioning event, and Ms. Liberty would become Ms. Havok and Longbow would be an enemy army, conveniently trained to think of itself as entitled to do whatever they feel is neccesary to save the world from itself.

IMO, saying
[ QUOTE ]
She's obsessed more with her own personal battles with costumed super villains than the actions of those under her command. She hasn't realized that a general's responsibility lies with her troops, not with her own personal war

[/ QUOTE ]

is basically saying that she's JUST LIKE Stefan Richter. The only difference is that she's embraced the example of Marcus Cole (for now) whereas Stefan utterly rejected it. Statesman could still reel her in if she gets too extreme. For now.

More frightening, perhaps, is the idea that someone less noble than Tendaji might become her trusted lieutenant and take Longbow into Evil territory and tear it away from her before she even realizes it's happening.

---

I've never been much of a person for half-evils or "I'm that one member of my race who's secretly a good guy." It was an overly common cliche years ago when I played EverQuest, and Drizzt Do'Urden hasn't helped matters any. Damn white-haired pretty boy that he is.

On the other hand, though, I'm not especially enamored with caricatures. They aren't realistic, and they certainly aren't ever going to succeed in taking over the world; they're basically too evil for it, and any practicality takes back seat to any puppy kicking.

So, I realize it's a bit of a line to straddle, but when I load up City of Villains, I try to make villains that are villains. Evil, undoubtedly, and I make no apologies for that. For me, the greatest villains are the ones who are entirely evil, but are sympathetic anyways.

---

Also, Statesman is an [censored].

---

I remember when I first started playing COH my namesake toon had a crush on Ms. Liberty ...

Who knew that there was a real Ginger Grant behind her Marry Anne exterior?

---

My COX Fanfiction:


Blue's Assembled Story Links

[ QUOTE ]
I remember when I first started playing COH my namesake toon had a crush on Ms. Liberty ...

Who knew that there was a real Ginger Grant behind her Marry Anne exterior?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had been drinking a coke it would be all over my computer screen right now.

---

All of my villains are "ambiguously" evil to some degree. One isn't even evil so much as simply a naturally destructive fire/dark elemental outside of her natural environment.

Really I look at my villains as a case of "let's be realistic about humans getting superpowers." While there are exceptions, we are by nature a selfish species. Give those selfish people immense powers over their fellow humans and you know more than not they'll turn out to be villains, even if they're not going around kicking puppies all the time.

---

Most of my villains are ambiguously evil, to greater or lesser degrees.

Dame Demolition - she's motivated by money, and by revenge. She needs the former to keep her cybernetic systems in top form, and the latter is what keeps her going when most would have just given up and settled for being invalids. That said, she won't kill 'innocents'... but there are very few she regards as truly innocent.

Daisy Chain - extremely honor-bound, yet as a kunoichi, she is a slave to duty. If that means taking down a squad of Longbow or a patrolman in the wrong place, she'll do so. As a mindwashed former slave, the concept of 'right and wrong' has taken a back seat to obedience.

Baroness Samedi - quasi-religious, motivated by a 'higher calling' than the usual petty concerns over money or power. She does what she does because Papa Legba has dictated it. She doesn't derive pleasure from killing, but "death is necessary".

Betty Highside - thrillseeker. She's in it for the adrenaline rush. Granted, she's gotten a bit harder, and performs jobs that are 'distasteful'... but there's still that thrill of going up against lousy odds and coming back alive.

---

"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."

so far the easiest one to RP, was designed that way actually. I decided to take all the things I as a player like to do in the game. and make a character who would also do that, thus my semi anarchist psychotic hatter was born. Yes he is evil, he knows it, he does not really care. He follows the "If I want it, I will take it" philosophy. kind of cliche, but give him a sense of humor, and almost suicidal bravery (lots of face plants and failed pvp battles that I enjoyed anyways) and a few limits, no killing without a pretty good reason, etc.

of course this makes him a tad more simple sounding than he is. but you get the idea

---

Does not always detect CoH

Sure, I play an ambiguous villain all the time - my fire/rad controller.

Oh, wait...

Seriously, though, I play ambiguous characters. I've never managed to get into the mimdset of a do-gooder who is so noble it hurts to even look at him and behold the halo. I think my nicest characters are a somewhat childish, egotistic social butterfly, and a time traveller teenager who is essentially something of a curious thrill-seeker.

Most of the characters I play and prefer are ambiguous gray-area types. Some of them, regardless of whether they were created redside or blueside, have a sufficient sence of social responsibility to save the world - others don't. Some of them - most of them - are cynical, and highly practically-minded individuals, who care about getting the job done, and don't necessarily rush to retrieve every old lady's purse. They're good enough, in their own way - and they are also bad enough, in their own way.

I think my favourite villain (played by my husband, not me) is a person who constantly wavers on the thin line between being utterly selfless and completelly noble-spirited, and committing terrible atrocities. A person whose good intentions are always a razor's edge away from the quick road to the deepest hell.

Thinking about it, that's pretty much where my heroes stand.

And, incidentally, I believe my main hero would cooperate with Maros; not so much to prevent her own death, as to help him set about a chain of events that ultimately leads to good things. I don't think Maros can be considered a fully "evil" contact. Very much ruthless, yes, but someone with so long a view of things probably has a hard time retaining interest in some sort of personal gain.

---

Cynics of the world, unite!

Taking Care of the Multiverse

I had a long comment here, but I'm going to scrap it and ask "What do you think 'ambiguity' means?" That's really the heart of my own opinions on the topic.

Despite what BlueBattler seems to be implying in his OP, I don't see "Kicks other people's puppies but cherishes his own" as ambiguous. The serial killer who donates $1,000 to build a homeless shelter is not ambiguous, he's complex. His villainy is unquestionable, immoral, and repulsive.

Michael Corleone was a wonderfully complex villain with noble goals, but he was still a villain. The nobility of his goals (depending on whether you're talking novel canon or film canon) is directly related to how sympathetic you are to him personally and his Family. To those on the receiving end of his violence and criminal behavior, his villainy is entirely unambiguous.

---

There's a Blueside Arc in the 40s where a hero journeys to Hydraworld and discovers that the Hyrda are sentient creatures that are essentially kidnapped by the Rikti and brought to our world. To do this, a hero must first defeat enough Hydra to obtain a sample of the Hydra gunk that facilitates communication.

In the eyes of the Hydra, the hero is a ruthless invader who attacks without warning or cause. Does that make him a villain?

Up until the time that Damon did Diviner Maros' arc, the worst that he had done so far was rob banks in Paragon and commit wanton acts of destruction. True, he defeated many Longbow and PPD, but in a city where the Medical Technology exists to instantly return someone to full health after being on the very brink of death, just how evil is it to beat up people who attack you with a flamethrower on sight?

Damon doesn't really think of himself as a villain. But with Maros, he wound up realizing that he's done a truly evil thing. That definitely gave him pause.

I fully intend him to go into the RWZ and do the arcs there when he's eligible. He's perfectly willing to save a life and doing so makes him feel good about himself.

On the other hand, he's going to be in for a rude awakening when he does Westin Phipps ...

So ... perhaps a valid question is: at what point does selfishness, thoughtlessness, and violence become evil?

What does everyone think about Dexter Morgan ?

Is he ambiguously evil? What about his adoptive father who raised him?

---

My COX Fanfiction:


Blue's Assembled Story Links

[ QUOTE ]

Michael Corleone was a wonderfully complex villain with noble goals, but he was still a villain. The nobility of his goals (depending on whether you're talking novel canon or film canon) is directly related to how sympathetic you are to him personally and his Family. To those on the receiving end of his violence and criminal behavior, his villainy is entirely unambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

We-ell.. I wouldn't define Michael Corleone as a villain. I sure wouldn't call him a hero.. But then, that's the beauty of it; outside of comic realm, these definitions oftentimes fail. The point, I think, and one of the things that makes that movie so great, was that he was an ambiguous human being.

---

Cynics of the world, unite!

Taking Care of the Multiverse

Dexter Morgan's an antihero, plain and simple. His adoptive father was also a borderline psychotic (he was probably at the edge when he realized what Dexter was) when he saw this opportunity to essentially "make a comic book hero."

The difference between a hero and an antihero in comic books is the difference between Superman and the Punisher. Superman resorts to killing only if there is absolutely no recourse. Punisher resorts to killing immediately but draws the line at certain things (no kids, for instance, and he's only going after too-far-gone criminals, not purse snatchers).

---

My Stories

Look at that. A full-grown woman pulling off pigtails. Her crazy is off the charts.