Quote:
You don't think doing|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
It doesn't work for a few fairly simple reasons.
The main one is most people just don't want to lose. The Heroes don't want to lose, the Villains don't want to lose. People say "Oh the heroes should lose now and then" but what they really mean is "My Villain shouldn't ever lose, he/she is that awesome". Even if everyone denies this, I think we can all agree that an open thread will have at least ONE of these people in it. And it only takes one... |
-Villain A tries something
-Hero A stops Villain A before they succeed.
-Villain B tries something
-Hero A stops Villain B before they succeed.
-and on and on
over and over is a little boring?
Sure the kind of RP I'm advocating takes a little cherry-picking of RPers and a lot of pre and post planning, but it... usually... saves a ton of headaches from all the problems one runs into with an open call open ended gathering.
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Quote:
Um... yeah...|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
I find the "Evil is subjective" argument ultimately a little ridiculous as it doesn't really further the conversation at all. There's things generally excepted as bad Murder, Theft, Slavery, **** and so on. While Good Acts generally involving helping people down on their luck or risking yourself for the good of others. After those it gets complicated and you have to take people's actions case by case, but to say there's no such thing as good or evil doesn't really help and rings a little hollow.
|
Victorian workhouses were considered good because they gave the people working in them a means to survive when they would otherwise be peniless vagrants. It was essentially slavery.
Slavery itself is now considered evil, but it was not a few years back and is not in some places even now.
Murder is an emotive term. Not only is it acceptable to kill people during war, but there are plenty of places were it is an acceptible punishment for some crimes.
Theft is fine when one state is attacking and taking possession of another.
Once upon a time, you'd go to Hell for eating meat on a Friday. Most people don't think that way now, but some think it's evil to eat any meat at all!
The entire point of Going Rogue is to give you an environment where the lines between good and evil are blurred.
Evil is not just subjective, it's enormously variable and ultimately the universe doesn't give a monkey's what we think is good or evil. So "being evil" is willingly doing things which the rest of society currently considers to be evil.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agonus
You don't think doing
-Villain A tries something -Hero A stops Villain A before they succeed. -Villain B tries something -Hero A stops Villain B before they succeed. -and on and on over and over is a little boring? |
Very.
Both sides have to have their successes and losses but that means that the people involved have to be willing to accept that. I'm beginning to think that this sort of thing couldn't be done in an open thread. It'd have to be by arrangement with willing roleplayers who were able to set aside any ego and enjoy the ride.
As for spoiling the outcome? Maybe not. Whenever I run plots, I always allow there to be windows of opportunities for the heroes to succeed if they choose a particular option. Sometimes they take them, sometimes they don't. If a villain tries to strike at the heroes and leaves a back door open then it's there for people to take advantage of.
Saying that there'd be no drama is like saying that Colombo was boring because you knew who did it right from the start. Sometimes the fun is in the journey.
@Dante EU - Union Roleplayer and Altisis Victim
The Militia: Union RP Supergroup - www.themilitia.org.uk
Quote:
After that we'll solve the Middle East, world hunger, and the global economy.|
Originally Posted by Dante
I'm beginning to think that this sort of thing couldn't be done in an open thread. It'd have to be by arrangement with willing roleplayers who were able to set aside any ego and enjoy the ride.
|
Should be easier.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
remember, the original meaning of the word "evil" is basically "unhealthy"
that's subjective from one species to another and one person to another
the modern definition is really just an extension of that
Thrythlind's Deviant Art Page
"Notice at the end, there: Arcanaville did the math and KICKED IT INTO EXISTENCE." - Ironik on the power of Arcanaville's math
Quote:
I actually find this is the case for the majority of all fiction in all genres.
|
Originally Posted by FloatingFatMan
It's nothing personal, I just hate the genre. I find it shallow, stupid, massively overdone, and to be quite honest, completely unoriginal. But if a vampire characters player wants to RP with me, that's totally fine. Just bring a non-vampire character.
|
Thrythlind's Deviant Art Page
"Notice at the end, there: Arcanaville did the math and KICKED IT INTO EXISTENCE." - Ironik on the power of Arcanaville's math
Quote:
Doh, I probably should have prefaced that with "In Western Society at the current time" And then added more context to my examples (Like Serial Killers in small communities, or sexual predators). If we're trying to get a world wide excepted definition of evil that spans the entire of history then obviously that's not going to happen.|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
Um... yeah...
*Points that go against what fans Said* Evil is not just subjective, it's enormously variable and ultimately the universe doesn't give a monkey's what we think is good or evil. So "being evil" is willingly doing things which the rest of society currently considers to be evil. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Agonus
You don't think doing
-Villain A tries something -Hero A stops Villain A before they succeed. -Villain B tries something -Hero A stops Villain B before they succeed. -and on and on over and over is a little boring? Sure the kind of RP I'm advocating takes a little cherry-picking of RPers and a lot of pre and post planning, but it... usually... saves a ton of headaches from all the problems one runs into with an open call open ended gathering. |
Would it be better if the Villains occasionally win? Well it depends what we mean by win. I'm not opposed to the villains winning small victories, it happens all the time in fact even if people don't want to accept that. But obviously they can't rule over Paragon, or kill my character without even asking me if I'd mind or destroy the world. I actually have done an Open thread where the Villains did win, they ripped off a truck and generally beat the Longbow who turned up to stop them senseless. Though it'd have been nice if they'd stopped off handedly killing Omy they got away with everything the wanted really, so that's a definite win.
Do I think it was better because the Villains won for a change? Eh, not really. Fact is plot is going to follow a rough formula no matter how open you leave it. Players don't like being screwed with because the person running the plot knows more and has greater creative control, unless they signed up to that sort of game!
People seem to have a hard time letting Evil have any victories.
Not so much NPC characters, because that's the point. I think what impressed me about the Union 'Operation: Escalation' Arachnos attack (despite it's horribly mauled running and conclusion which should never have happened...) was that it was a pretty solid point for Villains. Sure it was a phyrric victory for Heroes in that they stopped Recluse's Victory dimension from being slammed home into Primal Earth (obviously) but IC (for those who took part anyway) it was a pretty solid thrashing by the Krimzon Guard and allied Villains.
I dunno, maybe people think differently about that than I do? I never really got much feedback on that, mostly because I was too busy raging about how it effectively crashed before it even begun...but hey ho, it was an outing. Might try something better next time... 
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
I agree that it -is- about the journey, which is why I like the pre-determined fight outcome I mentioned earlier. And it keeps going back to fights because of conflict resolution, and more often than not, especially in a comic book type setting, the conflict is ultimately resolved by the hero fighting the villain. |
Originally Posted by Fanservice
...Actually no, but then I'm more interested in the journey than the destination as Dante said. I know Superman saves the world, but I read his comics because I want to read how and the trials and thoughts he goes through to do it. He might not save everyone along the way, there's sacrifices to be made and cool speeches to read. There's an awful lot of good stuff in there to be had but if all you're concerned with is who ultimately wins then yes it's a bit boring, but that's not what I'm concerned with so for me it isn't.
Would it be better if the Villains occasionally win? Well it depends what we mean by win. I'm not opposed to the villains winning small victories, it happens all the time in fact even if people don't want to accept that. But obviously they can't rule over Paragon, or kill my character without even asking me if I'd mind or destroy the world. I actually have done an Open thread where the Villains did win, they ripped off a truck and generally beat the Longbow who turned up to stop them senseless. Though it'd have been nice if they'd stopped off handedly killing Omy they got away with everything the wanted really, so that's a definite win. Do I think it was better because the Villains won for a change? Eh, not really. Fact is plot is going to follow a rough formula no matter how open you leave it. Players don't like being screwed with because the person running the plot knows more and has greater creative control, unless they signed up to that sort of game! |
But I look at the whole thing on a smaller scale, not every villain plot is world domination or mass genocide. Let's remove things like total world domination and PC death (at the hands of another PC) from the picture here. While the former isn't reasonable in terms of the game, I still don't see anything wrong in claiming that's what your character's goal is. Sure it'll never happen in-game, but so what? There are all kinds of things one -should- do to work towards that goal, and plenty of those are reasonable accomplishments in the relatively static CoH world. The latter, while it can be done, is just really tricky to do. But I digress. That aside, let's go back to the simpler accomplishments, and lemme explain what I mean when I refer to getting a "win" against a hero. We do seem to be on the same page here, mostly, anyway.
In my humble opinion, a villain needs to succeed in their goals once in a while to establish credibility. Generally this happens when a new villain debuts, a recentish example would be like Morlun beating the tar out of Spider-Man the first time they fought. Or back in the day when Sabretooth hunted down Wolverine wherever he was Wolverine's birthday and beat the hell out of him. It's not limited to fights though. Apocalypse has kidnapped various characters over the years to turn them into Horsemen. The Hand brainwashing Elektra. The Hood becoming the new kingpin of crime. Sinestro forming his own Corps. Various thief characters stealing whatever.
Stuff like that is what I meant by getting a "win." Being able to plan something, AND pull it off, either without a hero's involvement, or being able to succeed despite heroic interference. Maybe it's just some small thing that doesn't matter to the villain's goals like a destructive rampage. Maybe it's the 17th part of a 36 part plan that requires stealing some widget. But primarily it's the little things that advance the grand plot of "This is why this hero should stop this villain."
If a villain is thwarted too much, they're in danger of losing credibility to the point that there's no reason to take them as a threat to, well, anything. Then where's the tension in the story? Why bother? Let the police handle the villain. Like the Hand, and how it's even joked in-universe in Marvel that their ninjas are cannon fodder. Or Apocalypse, who preaches about survival of the fittest, but he's constantly getting his *** kicked. Or Catman, who became an overweight slob after getting utterly humiliated by some D list hero. (Until he became a pet character for Gail Simone and she turned him into an evil "badass" Steve Irwin.) Or, much as I hate to ever bring up the character, Dr. Light pre-Identity Crisis, where he was seen as a goofball that the Teen Titans could send their trainees after.
The way some people here talk, a villain shouldn't ever be able to succeed at anything, ever, no matter how small a thing it is. And that boggles my mind. I'm not looking to be unbeatable, I'm looking to give the hero a reason to come after me, and to keep coming after me. Or even reasons for me to want to go after the hero.
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
TL;DR
In answer to the original question, I have a good selection of down right evil characters. From the top of my head I can think of Eternal Dread, Doctor Fallout and Nyctophobia, who are all serial killers, know what they do is considered wrong and against the law and generally enjoy it. Thus, they would be considered evil, no two ways about it.
I have no gripe with playing dispicable characters. As far as i'm concerned, its a game. I wouldn't dr- .. I would do half of what my characters do, and thats the enjoyment/amusement factor. Maybe my way of RP'ing is different in that I project myself onto my characters, for example, Doctor Fallout being me if I could get away with murder, though with a side-helping of insanity.
Generally, I don't dumb down my evil characters, save Doc Fallout, but then again, thats only to gain trust to buy a nice house in Paragon. I just don't believe that any of my ludicrously evil characters, namely Eternal Dread, would ever stop being evil for any feasible reason.
I do admit that i don't see many 'kitten kicking evil' characters that often, but maybe i'm looking in the wrong place.
Would I like to see more 'puppy punching evil' characters? Well, yes and no. I'm not entirely bothered, though I get a bit edgy when the excuse for such characters is "They get bored on weekends so they kill entire blocks of civilians" *overexaggeration* I'm quite happy if anyone can back-up just about anything a character does with a decent enough excuse, if not, I'll be miffed but then I'll shrug and continue RP'ing.
I was doing some playthroughs of City of Heroes. Now they will serve as memories of a better time ...
Quote:
It boggles mine too, considering I haven't actually seen anyone say this.
|
Originally Posted by Agonus
The way some people here talk, a villain shouldn't ever be able to succeed at anything, ever, no matter how small a thing it is. And that boggles my mind.
|
Quote:
Which is, you have to admit, a very narrow, subjective viewpoint. |
Originally Posted by Fanservice
Doh, I probably should have prefaced that with "In Western Society at the current time" And then added more context to my examples (Like Serial Killers in small communities, or sexual predators).
|
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
the trouble is Villains do not win .. heck they dont even get the tittle roll in the comics they are just there to give the hero something the vent their angust on .. ok it would also be fair to say the heroes never get a complete victor , the Joker or Dr Doom always coems back, but they do get a points win and scupper the Villians plot.
When RP a villain around heroes i do off screen plots. None of my villains have major world take over plots, most just want to carve out a bit of space to live in, or in some cases just to carry on exsisting. I do assume my villains can win in their day to day busines ,be it robbing banks stealing magic tomes or what ever, beyond that i do not fell the need for them to be making a huge world take over move. For major plot lines like that i prefer to use a NPC vilain, or maybe a retired RP toon.
If we want villains to take over we would need more of a RvR setup that effects the wider game, which would need its own server and rule set.
Quote:
We're talking about Paragon City in the current year, it may be a narrow viewpoint but it's the one we're looking at.
|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
Which is, you have to admit, a very narrow, subjective viewpoint.
|
TBH Fans i dont see Paragon as a narrow point of view , given that we have Praet, Cim , Ourb, Rogue Isle , Protal corps worlds , WS and PB , Rikti , and more trans dimmensional characters that any where else , plus a large number of characters from different era's and cultures ..Paragon is a massive mix of views, opinions and tastes ..
Quote:
No ones arguing for Villains having world domination, though. Nor can Heroes save the wordl, because that is the games Status Quo.|
Originally Posted by Rock_Powerfist
the trouble is Villains do not win .. heck they dont even get the tittle roll in the comics they are just there to give the hero something the vent their angust on .. ok it would also be fair to say the heroes never get a complete victor , the Joker or Dr Doom always coems back, but they do get a points win and scupper the Villians plot.
When RP a villain around heroes i do off screen plots. None of my villains have major world take over plots, most just want to carve out a bit of space to live in, or in some cases just to carry on exsisting. I do assume my villains can win in their day to day busines ,be it robbing banks stealing magic tomes or what ever, beyond that i do not fell the need for them to be making a huge world take over move. For major plot lines like that i prefer to use a NPC vilain, or maybe a retired RP toon. If we want villains to take over we would need more of a RvR setup that effects the wider game, which would need its own server and rule set. |
It's the less grandiose things that Villains can and should be able to have a shot at 'winning' as it were. Stealing the Super Secret Serum from Longbow. Attacking Crey and vandalising a complex piece of new tech. Something as simple as robbing 5th International Bank.
Saying that the Heroes will always win those sorts of fights when both sides contain PC characters is both unrealistic and unfair, imo.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
But that's the problem. Soon as you set RP as something that can be "won" no one wants to lose. Deciding who gets to win should be done beforehand, else it's only going to lead to frayed tempers. How else do you decide the resolution? The better RP'er wins? Yeah I can see people swallowing that one easily.
The only other alternative is actual PvP, which people are adverse too due to it being horribly unbalanced.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
But that's the problem. Soon as you set RP as something that can be "won" no one wants to lose. Deciding who gets to win should be done beforehand, else it's only going to lead to frayed tempers. How else do you decide the resolution? The better RP'er wins? Yeah I can see people swallowing that one easily.
The only other alternative is actual PvP, which people are adverse too due to it being horribly unbalanced. |
I've seen dice rolls used to decide OOC who wins what in other games.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Quote:
I meant either pre-decided or GM'd, not leaving a plot hanging open. Because I agree with you, that will likely happen.|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
But that's the problem. Soon as you set RP as something that can be "won" no one wants to lose. Deciding who gets to win should be done beforehand, else it's only going to lead to frayed tempers. How else do you decide the resolution? The better RP'er wins? Yeah I can see people swallowing that one easily.
The only other alternative is actual PvP, which people are adverse too due to it being horribly unbalanced. |
What I mean is that, IC, Villains are as likely to achieve their goals as Heroes are to stop them, or something equal. *le shrug*
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
What are you doing with Tombstrider these days, anyway? |
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
I've seen dice rolls used to decide OOC who wins what in other games.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Waiting for some real life issues to stop hassling me.
If I were to write IC stuff, I'd certainly use it a cathartic experience, which would result in it being far too dark to post anyway.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Hope it clears up fast and satifactially(?) then man. Best of luck =]
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
>.>|
Originally Posted by Fanservice
It boggles mine too, considering I haven't actually seen anyone say this.
|
*cough*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rock_Powerfist
the trouble is Villains do not win ..
|
I was referring to what I've been told in-game though, not this thread.
Tales of Judgment. Also here, instead of that other place.
good luck D.B.B.
Ponders in how many villain missions / arcs do the Villains beat heroes , compared to beating other Villain groups ..?
Doom doesn't believe he's Evil, but then who does? Precious few villains revel in their evil, Loki would be one and boy does he revel, but the rest see it as allowable or necessary to do something. Doom is clearly a Villain though as painting him in a sympathetic light is practically impossible. The thing that makes Doom compelling is he COULD have been great. He could try cure cancer or advance science immeasurably (Which Reed Richards does do, even if the effects don't quite bleed over into the world), but a petty rivalry with Reed Richards has prevented him from ever doing it. He's got incredible potential, but wastes it on a vindictive grudge to prove to the world that Dr Doom is the genius, not Reed Richards.
I find the "Evil is subjective" argument ultimately a little ridiculous as it doesn't really further the conversation at all. There's things generally excepted as bad Murder, Theft, Slavery, **** and so on. While Good Acts generally involving helping people down on their luck or risking yourself for the good of others. After those it gets complicated and you have to take people's actions case by case, but to say there's no such thing as good or evil doesn't really help and rings a little hollow.