(Villains only) How evil do YOU want to be, really?

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

It shouldn't necessarily 'suck'. But there should be a difference in the feel between heroism and villainy. If both games rewarded you with the same feeling of accomplishment and adulation, the situation would be even worse (IMHO) than it is now: Redside would be nothing more than blueside with a goatee.

The basic difference between heroes and villains in most stories is that heroes defend the status quo and villains attack it. There are exceptions, but by and large hero stories aren't about bending the world to your will and changing how everything works for the better: they are about fixing the problems created by the villains. Even in Star Wars: a New Hope, where the heroes are 'the rebellion', they are trying to re-establish the good old days from before the Empire, etc.

So when I think of a successful villain, I think of people like...

Lord Recluse: Possibly the most successful villain in all of fiction. He has his own country, similar to Doctor Doom, but because he has strengthened its' defenses by inviting us invincible player characters to live there, he has to constantly be on the lookout for the one Destined to literally hand him his own head, in addition to fomenting dissension among the ranks of his own organization because if he doesn't, they will betray him because they are villains! If you are a successful villain, it's because you have a hold over other succussful villains, and because they are villains, they will not be satisfied with that. I count him as even more successful than Doom because he employs thousands of top rank villains (instead of just some robots and quaint European villagers). Also: no Squirrel Girl.

Countess Crey: a successful businessperson who employs many legitimate people who probably don't even suspect them of villainy, similar to Lex Luthor. If she were not a villain, she would be making legit money hand over fist with her advanced tech. But she's a villain, so she is up to her elbows in illegal cloning, corporate double dealings (to the point of graverobbing and violation of Vanguard authority), etc. If she were not doing these things that subject her to the continual interference of spandex-wearing dogooders (and rival villains such as ourselves), she would not be a villain (and probably be making much less money). It's a little like Doctor Evil from the Austim Powers movies. If he didn't have evil henchmen (necessary for his evil doings), he would not suffer betrayal at every turn and need that button for opening the trap door over the fire pit.

The Emperor: Declared Emperor? Yep. Hunted down and killed every member of the only organization that could oppose his powers? Yep. Ensured his power by seeing to it that the one person who he empowered as his legacy was emotionally and physically crippled so as to be dependent on him ? Yep. Had a plan for trading that person out for a better model before they could challenge him? Yep.

To be a successful villain in a game, one wants to get by with the day-to-day schemes/missions/scenarios and beat up 'good guys', but we have that now (although we could do with a LOT more missions that put us up against teams of heroes that feel more like the Teen Titans or Young Warriors instead of fighting what is essentially S.H.I.E.L.D or the Green Arrow Corps all of the time).

What I want from this game is indeed more recognition of my accomplishments (in the form of altered dialogue from npcs) and more of a feel of choosing my own goals.

For instance, what if you could start an SF though a dialogue tree that gave you choices:
"<villain name>, the mission you sent me on to investigate the Circle of Thorns has borne fruit! I have a wealth of information for you. Which do you wish to hear about first?
- The Seal of World Destruction?
- The Amulet of Everybody Do What I Say?
- The Gem of Infinite Wealth?"

...and go from there. Even if the means of pursuing each of those goals were very similar (but not identical, that would feel cheap), it would enable me to choose a different goal for my character Dame Fatale than my character The RastaNefarian.

Even if my character went through the SF, and opened the Seal of World Destruction, obviously the world isn't instantly destroyed. However, I can still succeed: I can unleash some AV that could potentially destroy the world, only to find out it can't destroy the world until The Stars Are Right (not this millenium), or it won't obey until I make it fear me (oops I guess I hit it too hard), or even have it reward me with a rendered cutscene of the Freedom Phalanx destroying it in battle (and a badge, kthnxplzbai).

Do villainy, then sit back on one's laurels with no underhanded henchmen seeking to supplant us, former allies seeking revenge or rival organizations infiltrating our ranks?

What you are describing, dear sir, is retirement.

The closest I can think of to a purely successful villain with no drawbacks would be Tyrant/Emperor Cole, since he is looked upon in the lore as being grey morality (and that may be about to change) or Ozymandias from Watchmen (and tell me even he doesn't have room for a bit of paranoia).

Does Westin Phipps get mad at you if you do that? Or do they assume that other Arachnos agents managed to capture her anyway?

If heroes can have closure without drawbacks to it, then so can villains. Furthermore, I happen to disagree with your view of what villainous life is like. Yes, Recluse has to be ever-vigilant... Because he had the bright idea to dump all of the Zig into his front yard. But Countess Crey faces no such downsides. Sure, she's a criminal, but so what? With every judge that matters in her pocket and her own police force, who cares? Yeah, heroes are a problem, but aren't they always? That's basically what they do. But look at her dealings and you'll realise that the vast majority of her problems come not from the inherent suckitude of evilnessnessness, but rather from the inherent coolness of good and justice.

Think about it this way - in a world without super heroes, Countess Crey would be completely and utterly untouchable. She doesn't face danger from within, she doesn't have to worry about traitors... OK, she gets the odd one here and there, but Crey are quick to dispose of those. Basically, there is nothing inherent in and of her status quo that poses a danger to her. The danger comes from the outside, from the forces of GOOD.

If we are ever given closure to our villains, I don't want it to come with a dozen caveats, such as constant betrayals, misery, unhappiness, rotten luck and so forth. If I am ever given closure as a villain, then I want it to be just as satisfying as if I were given closure as a hero. Not the next best thing, not the least horrible outcome. Something that ends up with me feeling proud of myself for having achieved it. Time After Time qualifies, because it is an utterly unmitigated success. Lots of things go wrong along the way, but right at the end, you have beaten everybody, you have shown the world how strong you are, you have suffered no permanent damage and you are trading NOTHING off for that victory.

I cannot accept that villains should be more miserable than heroes as a general practice, especially when you compare people like Spider-Man, a hero who's life keeps finding new ways to suck, to Dr. Doom, a villain who wins even when he loses.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I essentially agree.

I'm not saying that the most successful villain should have more strings attached than the suckiest hero (not saying Spidey sucks, but you get my point).

I'm just saying that even in victory, villainy should feel villainous.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'closure'.

I'm just saying that if you are the type of villain who has minions, then by definition your minions are evil, which means by definition they are eventually going to try to destoy/conquer/rob the world themselves, which almost certainly means betraying you: the game should acknowledge that. It's part of the fun of being a bad guy.

Of course, if you aren't the type to have minions, then you just have to deal with all of Arachnos, Crey, Nemesis, and everyone else trying to keep you from conquering/destroying the world or robbing them by yourself. This should not be handwaved away.

IMHO, It's part of the fun. It's part of why one chooses to play a villain in the first place.

Succeed as a hero, and you get a ticker-tape parade, and the Key to the City from the Mayor. Kids wear kid versions of your costume. Your name is brought up in schools and households a role model.

Succeed as a villain, and you get to lounge on a throne with a slave girl chained at your feet...but if I were you, I'd have someone taste that victory goblet of red wine.

It's not a downside, it's part of the point.

Perhaps this might illustrate it better:

If I am playing the Nazis in a real time strategy game, I should have just as much of a chance to win as the Allies.

But if I am playing the Red Skull in a Marvel game, part of the expected and desired experience is to get my face punched by Captain America. And even if I win at the end, my reward is to create a dystopia...not a utopia, but a dystopia.

If I am not trying to make the world a worse place (indirectly for myself as well) then I am not playing a villain. Maybe an antihero, or a Dark Hero.

Sure, my character may beleive she intends to create a utopia, but, if she were right, she wouldn't be a villain.

...or would she? Kind of brings us back to Ozymandias...

Thank you. This is another reason the Do It Yourself Laser Moon Base arc is a great example of how to write a villain arc. Not only does it build you up, but it is a form of total camp villainy.

I talked about how I want "misguided morality" or redeeming qualities, which is what every good antivillain has, but also important is the ability to do silly things like that. That's not what everybody wants, but where is the option to do things like build ridiculous plot devices that will bring you TOTAL POWER even though it makes no sense that they would?

Otherwise, if you win, you just win at being a jerk, which is not what I want. Whoever actually wrote that Phipps dreck disturbs me as a person, to be honest.

This is actually another way that the i17 arc is good. An army of clones is like the pinnacle of camp villainous goals.

And, even when you 'lose' you still sort of win.

Bank + [Walk] = Win

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

The rumor is that it was actually parts of an early draft of Jack's autobiography that he decided to sneak into the game.

Haha. I actually meant cartoon in more of a caricature/unbelievable-as-real sense.

I have blonde hair and blue eyes and that last one kinda creeps me out a bit...

Sam,

Have you ever run "Nobody Gets It!" from Arbiter Leery? If so, whata re your thoughts? If not, I'd recommend it for you.

You're confusing mortality with ambition. You can be evil and unambitious, evil and ambitious, or not-evil and ambitious. They're all very different things.

Most PC villains are evil and ambitious - they want something, and will use just about any means to get it.

Most henchmen (and should be contacts) are evil and unambitious - they are content with their lot in life/salary/ability, but have no moral qualms restricting their actions, and are thus perfectly willing to serve the evil and ambitious.

Not-evil and ambitious is a common sight in the real world; people that want something, but have definite (and generally socially accepted) lines they will not cross to get it.

It is by no means necessary for an evil overlord's underlings to be both evil and ambitious - the minions from the aptly titled Overlord would be an excellent example. So lot as there's burning and looting to do, they're happy to deliver the spoils to the Overlord.

Why on earth would anyone want camp villainy, or camp anything, in the game?

Because camp is awesome. Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.

Because other people like things that you don't like?

Becuase campy stuff can be fun.

And it doesn't hurt to have a little fun in a game.

Obviously it can go to far- but serious stuff can go too far as well, and lose a sense of joy. (And yes, villains can feel joy.)

You make a good point.

Of course I'm not saying that it's impossible to write a beleivable story or scenario where a villain wins with no strings. I'm just saying it isn't as much fun, even if I'm playing the villain.

The occaisonal win with no strings is fine and fun, but the ultimate win for evil with no strings?

Have you read 1984? Do I have to post spoiler warnings before saying it is relevant to the topic? Let's just say that while I think it is an awesome classic, 'fun' is not on the list of adjectives.

Because it's a basic part of comics

"The Dark knight" is an awesome movie, but it's still a guy dressed up as a bat fighting an evil clown

A key theme of 1984 was the banality of evil. Villains may be evil, but banal they are not.

Real world awful boring villainy: police state, militarism, suppression of artists and intellectuals.
Comic book villainy: Minions in stylish themed outfits, clone army, zeppelins, death rays.

I don't think anyone here wants to be a dreary villain. Arachnos is occasionally comic book, but the Rogue Isles overall is more frequently dreary. I'd prefer to be in on schemes where I ally with ancient Romans, space aliens, and secret Nazis to capture superheroes and use them to power ancient Roman giant robots. Oh, wait, we have to stop that.

While I am stopping that I am also helping myself to great heaping fistfuls of the wealth of ancient Rome.

To answer this question, no he's not mad at you. He's sad that he doesn't get to watch Arachnos break her mind, and he's put out that he can't put what's left of her on display as Haven House's "receptionist". However, he points out that her school in the Isles is ruined and 'that's what's important'.

Exactly. Arachnos has too much of the real world, banal, vile evil, rather than comic book fun camp villainy. I absolutely HATE banal evil, but like camp evil.

There's also the fact that anarchofascist is even more nonsensical than communazi, and there is a constant indecision about which Arachnos is. Sometimes they are anarchist who openly promote whatever happens to be evil, while other times they're fascists who use propaganda to try to make themselves sound like the good guys. Neither is particularly effective.

Going back to the idea of classes of villain, there are generally these types:

Henchmen, Overlords, Misguided Antivillains, and Psychos

Each can be serious or camp or balanced.

Arachnos only works remotely well with henchmen or psychos, though not particularly well with either, and only dark non-camp ones at that. It's written to work with an archetype (agent of evil government) that's very rare in any comic book style setting. Usually such agents are either generic rather than themed major characters, or another supervillain archetype that simply works with them.

You know, for someone who's usually always on the ball, how did you manage to let THAT go so far over your head? Seriously, dude, camp value is half the fun of this game. The fact that I can look at something patently stupid like walking plants fighting a marching band in another dimension or mobsters having a firefight with aliens or secret underwater bases that hold alien technology and take it completely seriously is the very reason I love City of Heroes.

Camp value? You bet! I'd take something awesome over something reasonable any day of the week. It's why I watch anime and follow the Nostalgia Critic's reviews and why I avoid the news and reality shows like the plague.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Heh... I wish I could have said it as well

The bane of any game that has you play a villain is when you start injecting morality into it. Games like Prototype and Hulk: Ultimate Destruction and, yes, even Evil Genius, are fun not because you are EVIL, but they are fun because they are FUN. Once you start trying to punish the player for being evil and trying to make him feel the emptiness of villainy, you lose your audience. Well, you get to keep the self-loathing depressives, but that's besides the point.

Camp has its value because it takes refuge in audacity. It takes themes that would normally be very unpleasant and makes them FUN by sidestepping the morally questionable issues and focusing on the AWESOME issues. So, villainy isn't about the brutality of a police state, the mass murders of genocide, the book burnings of censors and so forth, but is instead about flying aircraft carriers, faceless goons with laser rifles, implausible and impractical death rays, tunnels to the centre of the earth and aliens who want to destroy all humans, as it were.

If I'm going to be playing the bad guy, I want the game to be fun, not an accusatory lesson in the folly of real-life evil.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.