What do your villains want?


AkuTenshiiZero

 

Posted

My favorite villain I have is an old Hickman's Villain's thread character named Witchdoctor Seuss. His motivation is more insanity and Xenophobia than Evil. I change the bio from time to time from its original state trying to get something like a cross between a Dark Graphic Novel and a Children's Book...

Once upon a time in Paragon City
There was a doctor quite wise and quite witty

His friend were all gathered, quite a social affair
everyone he would care about was standing right there

The town was undergoing a Rikti Invasion
Which I heard has happened on more than one occasion

The doctor and his friend partied without a care
then were captured and dragged off to the Rikti Lair

The doctor heard his friend screaming one by one
his medical mind noted their experiments were not done

They connected a probe and they sampled his brain
no anathesia no tylenol just massive waves of pain

What was this poor fractured mind supposed to do
When the brain started thinking Mg'awd Gr'rakk Mu Cthul'hu

The Rikti have never once magic detected
When the dead rose, bit and clawed it was all unexpected

The doctor gyred and gimboled as his friends followed his lead
They went to the next lair and watched the Rikti all bleed

Meanwhile in Paragon City the Heros were praised
No Rikti? O Frabjuos Day! The town was amazed

Meanwhile under town the Doctor continued his merrymaking
Rikti Pinata's from the ceiling all his friends just kept breaking

Now the newspapers say the Heroes made the Rikti fail
But how come not a single Rikti rests in our jails?

When the Zig Warden was asked if the escapees were back yet
He remembers something terrible and starts a slow sweat

For his mind has seen, it can't unsee, yes it has seen
The yellow beamish smile from the man in cell thirteen


(I have notes about the pictures to go with this but not really wanting to ruin peoples sleep)


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post
People don't spontaneously go "I'm going to save the world from villains!" It's an ideal, yes, but it's also not a very realistic or human one.
Well, that's assuming that motivation was spontaneously generated, and by a human hero. Suppose we're talking about someone who's lived a long life, tried many different things and finally decided that someone simply has to do the right thing? Take, for instance, Shen Shao Shi, my old martial arts master. He learned all the Martial Arts he could, lived until he was 150, ascended to the afterlife, learned all he could there, and then simply returned 600 years after the fact to share his wisdom with the world and use his knowledge and skill to protect those who can't protect themselves. At this point, he's neither human nor precisely young, and his motivation is born out of contemplation, ideology and conviction.

That's kind of what I mean, I'm not specifically arguing. I get that "He's a hero, that's what he does!" is a cop-out excuse... But isn't it only a cop-out excuse when you use it as such? When a person has thought about it, slept on it and walked the path of life and still feels like simply doing the right thing because that's what he's chosen... Is that still a cop-out? Honest question here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post
I don't quite know what you mean by the last question, though XD Clarify?
What I'm saying is that while it's not exactly sophisticated, heroes who do good because it's the right thing to do are still acceptable as serious characters. Again, not precisely deep or developed ones, but you can see them show up in a serious story without taking much away from the tone. And you can even have them lecture people about being good and pure and taking pride in protecting the weak. They do it because it's right.

Now turn that around, and what's a villain who does it "because it's wrong?" That's a Saturday morning cartoon villain who sings about how evil he is, he hates puppies, kittens and the smiles on babie's faces, his ultimate weakness is laughter and he cackles when he's surrounded by sadness and suffering. Essentially, Robbie Rotten.

So why is that? Why are we so much more willing to accept that someone would be a hero because he likes good, but so much more difficult to take a villain seriously who's a villain because he likes evil?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
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.

 

Posted

Hmmm...

Soulcatcher - somewhere between Misguided Idealism and Revenge. She is a Netherworld echo of heroine Andrea Blake, found in the Netherworld by another villain who used forbidden blood magic to trap her in a body. She has most of Andrea's memories up until the age of seventeen (when Andrea first died and returned to the mortal realm). But she still has much of Andrea's personality and moral code, which is slowly starting to drive her insane. She is dimly aware that there is more of her 'soul' somewhere in the world, and she wants it back.

Dissoulution - Misguided Idealism, Revenge, and Higher Purpose. She was fifteen when the Rikti invaded, and was told she was too young to be of any use. Bitter at being denied her right to fight and die for the world she loved, she let herself be captured by the Rikti, stole some of their technology, and escaped. She has now nearly perfected a virus targeting Rikti DNA that will destroy them utterly - and anyone with Rikti DNA is also a potential victim (Timothy Raymond, Angus McQueen, the Lost, etc). She doesn't care. Her only goal is to eradicate the threat to her world. And if the heroes aren't up to the job... she is.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite


Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)

 

Posted

The reason why it is acceptable to be a baseless hero but not a baseless villain is because villainy runs against the morale gradient in society, and thus need to have some manner of propulsion to get them going in that direction.

It's like this in real life. The few times that I've been put on the spot IRL to save someone, no one ever stopped and said "Hey, why is that guy climbing through rubble? What is his intrinsic and deeply moving motivation to do so?". They just rolled with it. If I were to grab a baseball bat and start smashing everyone's cars, they'll definitely wonder what is wrong with me. It is so easy to be nice because no one hates you for it. To be mean or "villainous" means going against standards and performing actions in direct contrast to the negative consequences that come from them. You usually need an explanation for not following the path of least resistance.

Now, something I think is important is not just what is present to motivate a villain to villainy, but what is absent from motivating them away from villainy. Morale abhors a vacuum, so something can pull someone toward evil just because it wasn't there. The real life example is sociopaths, who are often completely devoid of the empathy that prevents most people from doing things to hurt others.

The fictional example is in Vespila (and Nazka, but not as important ATM). As part of the "Bartholomew's Legacy" gag that I have running, I have more than one toon that is a descendent of Adrian Bartholomew. The other is a hero named The Obsidian Gales, and a key difference between Gale and Ves is that Gale had loving parents who still raised him as their own. Because of this, he developed meaningful relationships with people, and ergo seeks to protect people instead of dominating them.



TPN trial guide video / MoM trial guide video / DD trial guide video / BAF trial guide video
/ Lambda trial guide video / Keyes trial guide video / Magisterium trial guide video / Underground trial guide

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Well, that's assuming that motivation was spontaneously generated, and by a human hero. Suppose we're talking about someone who's lived a long life, tried many different things and finally decided that someone simply has to do the right thing? Take, for instance, Shen Shao Shi, my old martial arts master. He learned all the Martial Arts he could, lived until he was 150, ascended to the afterlife, learned all he could there, and then simply returned 600 years after the fact to share his wisdom with the world and use his knowledge and skill to protect those who can't protect themselves. At this point, he's neither human nor precisely young, and his motivation is born out of contemplation, ideology and conviction.

That's kind of what I mean, I'm not specifically arguing. I get that "He's a hero, that's what he does!" is a cop-out excuse... But isn't it only a cop-out excuse when you use it as such? When a person has thought about it, slept on it and walked the path of life and still feels like simply doing the right thing because that's what he's chosen... Is that still a cop-out? Honest question here.
Even then, that guy didn't just wake up, find he had powers, and go be a hero. He's an ancient master, whose goal is to teach others. It's because he has done all the stuff in the past that makes it...I guess an 'informed' goal, or a realistic goal. It's the sort of thing you look at and go 'Yes, I understand why he's chosen that kind of heroic path'.
Hope that makes sense XD



Quote:
What I'm saying is that while it's not exactly sophisticated, heroes who do good because it's the right thing to do are still acceptable as serious characters. Again, not precisely deep or developed ones, but you can see them show up in a serious story without taking much away from the tone. And you can even have them lecture people about being good and pure and taking pride in protecting the weak. They do it because it's right.

Now turn that around, and what's a villain who does it "because it's wrong?" That's a Saturday morning cartoon villain who sings about how evil he is, he hates puppies, kittens and the smiles on babie's faces, his ultimate weakness is laughter and he cackles when he's surrounded by sadness and suffering. Essentially, Robbie Rotten.

So why is that? Why are we so much more willing to accept that someone would be a hero because he likes good, but so much more difficult to take a villain seriously who's a villain because he likes evil?
Personally I wouldn't take either seriously, but that's because I'm a jaded and cynical pile of scrap and devious circuitry
I guess....pretty much what Arachnid said, t'be honest.


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

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
The reason why it is acceptable to be a baseless hero but not a baseless villain is because villainy runs against the morale gradient in society, and thus need to have some manner of propulsion to get them going in that direction.
That's assuming you exist in a society that holds high morals values. I honestly can't say how it is in the US, never having lived there, but I myself live in a society with extremely LOW moral values, populated primarily by cynics, hypocrites and outright crooks. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but I ride a cap a lot, and I'm a chatty guy, so I get to see a very broad cross-section of society, and it's rarely entirely pretty.

Real life social commentary aside, would being a villain just because that's how you do things come off as unnatural in a society which does not value morality? The Rogue Isles really does seem like the kind of place where, if you can commit a crime and get away with it, you're viewed as a success even if that crime was very amoral. Yeah, you killed a man for his possessions, but he'd have killed you for yours if you'd have fallen asleep first. Yeah, you robbed a bank, but it was stocked with a criminal's dirty money made by extorting the weak, so who cares? Yeah, you released a virus and depopulated a whole island town, but who cares? It's survival of the fittest, baby!

If we're talking about being shaped by nurture as opposed to nature, then wouldn't growing up in an environment where evil is A-OK as long as it's not happening to you make one who does evil because it's evil justified? Or am I giving more context than just that by defining the environment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
Now, something I think is important is not just what is present to motivate a villain to villainy, but what is absent from motivating them away from villainy. Morale abhors a vacuum, so something can pull someone toward evil just because it wasn't there. The real life example is sociopaths, who are often completely devoid of the empathy that prevents most people from doing things to hurt others.
Not necessarily, not always, at least. You seem to be arguing from the perspective that people are good unless something happens to make them evil, either by its presence or absence, but I just don't see things like this. I personally believe that good and evil are more often a matter of choice. Not literally the choice between good and evil, but rather the choice in which action to take in a given morality-charged situation. That's why I dislike insane and misunderstood villains as a concept - because then that choice is taken away from them. They didn't choose to be evil, someone or something else made them evil, and they can therefore be fixed.

I remember a biology documentary from many years ago that had a line I remember to this day: "We evolved a big brain with which to make decisions." When we're talking about what makes one a hero and another a villain, I always like to believe it comes down to decisions. A person was given the choice between being right and wrong, and he simply chose wrong for whatever reasons felt compelling to him. What I'm saying is that neither a person's nature nor a person's nurture need to be "damaged" in some way to turn that person evil. Morality is not physical law, it is simply a reflection on how we live our lives.

As such, I don't really believe an external force needs to be present to propel one into villainy. It's quite possible that a fully-functional person brought up in a good environment might still simply feel that he doesn't want to play by the rules. That, then, would make him a villain, and a villain without excuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post
Even then, that guy didn't just wake up, find he had powers, and go be a hero. He's an ancient master, whose goal is to teach others. It's because he has done all the stuff in the past that makes it...I guess an 'informed' goal, or a realistic goal. It's the sort of thing you look at and go 'Yes, I understand why he's chosen that kind of heroic path'.
Hope that makes sense XD
Essentially, what you're saying is "context." Being a hero because it's right in itself is not the problem, but rather being that without establishing why that is. OK, if that's what you're saying, then I agree. It's all a question of presentation


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
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.

 

Posted

The Arachnos Commander, when first introduced in 2005, believed that the world needed to evolve. He believed that we could reach a Utopia, only after a cataclysm brought on by heroes and villains waging the mother of all wars.

The only problem was that he felt the heroes were slacking in trying to eradicate the evilness of the world. Rather than them taking action, they would try to solve things diplomatically and find peace. But trying to find peace takes time. Time the Commander felt was being wasted. He believed that we needed a Utopia now. He joined the ranks of Arachnos, believing that Lord Recluse could ignite the fire that would create this cataclysm.

But in 2009, the Arachnos Commander was killed by his protege. His remains were laid to rest in a newly discovered dimension, per order of his Will. But, this new world was filled with power and a familiar enemy that had evolved... Nictus. He was reborn into an Evolved Nictus. But with this rebirth, he lost most of what made him the person he was. The only thing that remained was the belief in a Utopia, except it now ranged across all dimensions.

For the next two years, he, and his Evolved Nictus brethren, battled across the dimensions and wiped out civilizations that refused to be a part of his Utopia. He eventually found that the next dimension the Evolved Nictus were planning on conquoring was our own. He decided that he would make the journey back to Earth alone, convinced he could make us join the Utopia he was creating. If not, then Earth would have to meet the same fate as the countless dimension he had visited.

So, I would have to say that he follows both his Misguided Ideals as well as believing that he serves a Higher Purpose.


pohsyb: so of all people you must be most excited about the veats
Arachnos Commander: actually, I am
pohsyb: I mean you kinda were one already anyways ^_^
Arachnos Commander:

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Essentially, what you're saying is "context." Being a hero because it's right in itself is not the problem, but rather being that without establishing why that is. OK, if that's what you're saying, then I agree. It's all a question of presentation
Pretty much. And that goes for the first part of the post, too; a man who steals and kills just to stay alive in a hostile environment like the Rogue Isles isn't necessarily evil.

A man who live in comfort in Paragon but non-the-less chooses to prey on those weaker than him and to steal and take for himself? That's a villain. Sure, there are broader definitions within that too; a guy who steals from the rich and well off and keeps it for himself is more of a Rogue. But a guy who steals everything and kills anyone who gets in his way? That's a full on villain. Not a very imaginative one, sure, but a villain.


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

 

Posted

Most of my 'Villains' are actually more vigilantes/rogues than true villains. I keep my vigilantes as "rogues" just so they remain based in the Rogue isles, rather than just visiting. Most of my bad guys are defined by their weaknesses- that one flaw that keeps them from rising to true heroism.


Partizan sees himself as something of a champion of the little people. I like the idea of otherwise heroic characters put under the overwhelming pressure of trying to survive in the Rogue Isles. He's a claws stalker- no real powers of his own so he doesn't have the luxury of "fighting nice." He uses disguise and deception to get close enough to "cull" the worst from Arachnos. He strives to protect "the weaker" at all costs and has built up a powerful little network to support his cause. As he's risen in power, though, some of the "weaker" underneath him have started to prey upon each other, forcing him to sometimes use intimidation, force, and even lethal measures to make these people live within his rules. He once hated Marshall Brass for "deluding himself into believing he could use the power of Arachnos to protect the people." Now he hates Brass even more... because in Brass he sees a reflection of himself.

Michio is a young man haunted by his personal failings. He looks back on his life and the places where he came up short in doing the right thing. Partially transformed by the Rikti, he was freed from "the shift" but found he'd rather not BE who he was before. He doesn't admit remembering his past, and in that way, escapes his failings. When Arachnos gave him the chance to be someone else- to turn his back entirely on those failings- he took it. Initially reveling in the lifestyle Arachnos offered, he's gradually started to question it and has finally come to learn where true strength lies. He's just feels too powerless to change the path he finds himself or try to recover the life he abandoned.

Russian Blue is a product of Genengineering, born and raised in the lab- used as a test subject. Through her telepathy she learned from her captors- and learned to see the world as they saw her... with indifferent, cold, and cynical eyes. Eventually, she mastered their thoughts and reversed roles, rewriting minds, forcing them to perform experiments on one another, playing with them like bloody puppets. The media called the lab "a torture chamber of unspeakable horror" and its discovery made her an international outlaw. She's survived in the less lawful states like the Rogue Isles surrounded by the darker souls of the world. Sickened by what she's seen in the minds of man, she's blocked herself from reading the surface thoughts of those around her- and in doing so, failed to ever witness other aspects of humanity. Thus, she's never learned hope, charity, or empathy.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
That's assuming you exist in a society that holds high morals values. I honestly can't say how it is in the US, never having lived there, but I myself live in a society with extremely LOW moral values, populated primarily by cynics, hypocrites and outright crooks. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but I ride a cap a lot, and I'm a chatty guy, so I get to see a very broad cross-section of society, and it's rarely entirely pretty.

Real life social commentary aside, would being a villain just because that's how you do things come off as unnatural in a society which does not value morality? The Rogue Isles really does seem like the kind of place where, if you can commit a crime and get away with it, you're viewed as a success even if that crime was very amoral. Yeah, you killed a man for his possessions, but he'd have killed you for yours if you'd have fallen asleep first. Yeah, you robbed a bank, but it was stocked with a criminal's dirty money made by extorting the weak, so who cares? Yeah, you released a virus and depopulated a whole island town, but who cares? It's survival of the fittest, baby!

If we're talking about being shaped by nurture as opposed to nature, then wouldn't growing up in an environment where evil is A-OK as long as it's not happening to you make one who does evil because it's evil justified? Or am I giving more context than just that by defining the environment?
No, it is not assuming that. The interesting thing about morals is that everyone seems to know about them, even when living in an area with low morals. You might be able to blame this on globalization, or the idea that people universally do not like to be hurt. But that is beside the point; every civilization has itself a set of cultural expectations that it expects others to behave in. These expectations are not all explicitly taught; many are inherited through frequent observation while growing up. This is done through the same pattern recognition that is used to associate behaviors with their respective meaning. With the general expectations set, people behave around these expectations, much as how they behave around the idea that the Earth's gravity not abruptly ceasing to function. To find someone who behaves different from these expectations is automatically deviant in that society.

The deviancy needs some excuse for its existence, whatever it may be. The deviancy within any culture is roughly equivalent to a mathematical operation producing a different result than what is normal; an illogical outcome in society. Though a series of near limitless factors culminating to the whole of any individual, there is some sort of significant alteration, whether clear or unapparent, that ultimately contributes to deviancy. Applying this to the comic book universe, the superhero is the logical outcome and villains the illogical because the comic book universe assumes that the everyman is not an evil man.

As to whether or not culture is absolutely arbitrary, I staunchly hold the position that no, it is not. Merely existing, any individual has a series of needs that are necessary to fulfill, and desires that want to be fulfilled. All actions taken therefore are ultimately done in respect to these needs and desires. Society progresses in a manner to maximize these needs and desires, causing culture to move in a particular direction. The greatest way to obtain nearly any goal is through cooperation and interaction with other people, and their function is dependent on their well being. Altruism is profitable to everyone in the long run, so it is encouraged.

These desires are not evenly weighed by every individual, however. This causes confusion in society, causing the word "irrational" to be thrown around when their actions are just operating by a different rationale. The rogue isles operate under a different rationale, and strangely one that is in a constant and aware contrast to other rationales. This contrast implies a dependency, and thus the rogue isles are closer to a subculture than a regular functioning one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Not necessarily, not always, at least. You seem to be arguing from the perspective that people are good unless something happens to make them evil, either by its presence or absence, but I just don't see things like this. I personally believe that good and evil are more often a matter of choice. Not literally the choice between good and evil, but rather the choice in which action to take in a given morality-charged situation. That's why I dislike insane and misunderstood villains as a concept - because then that choice is taken away from them. They didn't choose to be evil, someone or something else made them evil, and they can therefore be fixed.

I remember a biology documentary from many years ago that had a line I remember to this day: "We evolved a big brain with which to make decisions." When we're talking about what makes one a hero and another a villain, I always like to believe it comes down to decisions. A person was given the choice between being right and wrong, and he simply chose wrong for whatever reasons felt compelling to him. What I'm saying is that neither a person's nature nor a person's nurture need to be "damaged" in some way to turn that person evil. Morality is not physical law, it is simply a reflection on how we live our lives.

As such, I don't really believe an external force needs to be present to propel one into villainy. It's quite possible that a fully-functional person brought up in a good environment might still simply feel that he doesn't want to play by the rules. That, then, would make him a villain, and a villain without excuse.
My actual position is that people are all objectively evil (even me), and the lack of good instruction causes these tendencies to not be curbed. But, regarding societal rules everyone is neutral until developed. It is then that they are either good or evil. The majority end up "good", or at least trying to be.

Some of the inspiration for the "villainous by absence" methodology comes from a few medical examples involving individuals who didn't experience the physical sensation of pain. They were scarred and injured because they lacked the pain to tell them not to preform some self-harming action. From chewing their own tongue off to burning their hands by grabbing hot light bulbs, what we deem as common sense is gone because that negative feedback we are so used to was absent. Likewise, one of the strongest factors causing one to conform to culture's rules is the consequences for when you don't conform. If you have parents that punish you, if you get socially ostracized, or if you've ever been nearly hit by a car, there is SOMETHING there to encourage you away from running out into the middle of the street randomly, and often for a logical reason like not becoming a stain on the concrete.

Agency is always present in the outcome of an individual, but agency is dependent on choices being realistic and present. To warp back on needs and desires again, there are many reasons why someone would deviate from the norm with no apparent explanation as to why. It could be a strong sense of pride, entitlement, individualism driving that person to refuse to conform by fulfilling these desires in lieu of comfort or acceptance. It could be a particular idea that, when heavily exaggerated beyond normal levels, creates a conflict with the other practices and ideals in that same society. It could be that a general discomfort due to a lack of fulfillment causes a disdain for the system which hasn't provided for that individual. So, if we assume that someone decides they aren't playing by an environments rules: then what? Do they play by another environments rules? If so, then why did they pick that environment? Do they play by their own rules? If so, why did they choose those rules as their own? For any answer to the previous, it is necessary that the choice be made possible by some shared information or some experience or some line of reasoning upon the system yet thoroughly contingent on that same system.

We aren't gods. Our agency, however apparent, is nonetheless heavily dependent on other things.



TPN trial guide video / MoM trial guide video / DD trial guide video / BAF trial guide video
/ Lambda trial guide video / Keyes trial guide video / Magisterium trial guide video / Underground trial guide

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
The interesting thing about morals is that everyone seems to know about them, even when living in an area with low morals. You might be able to blame this on globalization, or the idea that people universally do not like to be hurt. But that is beside the point; every civilization has itself a set of cultural expectations that it expects others to behave in. These expectations are not all explicitly taught; many are inherited through frequent observation while growing up. This is done through the same pattern recognition that is used to associate behaviors with their respective meaning. With the general expectations set, people behave around these expectations, much as how they behave around the idea that the Earth's gravity not abruptly ceasing to function. To find someone who behaves different from these expectations is automatically deviant in that society.
Every society has morals, yes. Not every society has YOUR morals. I feel confident enough in saying you have not lived in Eastern Europe long enough, but I can tell you that we now live the legacy of a totalitarian, corrupt state which taught people that rules are for losers and laws are there to get in your way, creating an entire generation... An entire society, even, which does not respect any form of legality unless it is explicitly forced to comply to it and overseen in the process. And that's not just us. The entire former Soviet block is in much the same situation after decades of being ruled by a Communist government where everything was free and no-one cared if you embezzled.

While I don't want to raise the spectre of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, let's look at software piracy. We all know it's wrong. We're all pretty sure it's illegal. Yet do you have any idea how hart it's been to pitch actually BUYING games to people around here? I tell my friends I bought City of Heroes and I pay $15 a month for it and their eyes turn into dinner plates. I tell them about this great game I bought on Steam, and they tell me I'm stupid and I could have gotten it off a torrent for free. I have a neighbour who's considerably richer than me - you know, big house, wide-screen TV, multiple computers, nice car, etc. But heaven forbid he spend $6 on Steam to get a decent game for his son. Why would he, if his son can just torrent the thing for free. "No-one wants to spend money," he says and... Yeah, I agree. No-one wants to spend money for the sake of spending money. But spending money for products is how the creation of those products gets funded. SOMEONE has to pay for it, and it makes sense for that someone to be the people using it.

But no, because laws here don't mean anything unless you get caught. Hell, you have no idea how hard it's been to expunge illegal software out of my workplace. We own Windows 7, we own MicroSoft Office, we own the software we need, yet time after time I see computers with pirated software on it. Why? "Eh, I didn't want to bother so I pirated it." People like that send me up the wall, and I've campaigned like hell, twisted people's arms and insisted we at the very least use the legal software we already ******* own!

And that's just today in real life. That's ignoring the history of the world, as well as the history of different peoples across it. The history of human sacrifice which was fundamental to the culture of a lot of the native American empires that existed before the New World was colonised, the history of slavery which drove not just Colonial America, but also the Greek and Roman worlds, as well as plenty of other historic nations, not least of which being part of my own history. And what about the history of feminism and women's place in society?

Every society has morals, but those morals are not always concurrent with contemporary Catholic American ideals of truth, justice and the American way. And I'm not saying that as a dis against the US, far from it. The classic super hero is pretty much entirely your invention, because only in America can a man dedicate his life to fighting crime and the forces of evil and actually be taken seriously. The reason American comic books are comparatively less popular outside the US and possibly Western Europe is because that kind of moral high ground simply doesn't exist all over the world. It's not "innate" to people to believe in this kind of idealism, and being in the Eastern end of Europe, I know a thing or two about how that doesn't exist around here. Occasionally, you'll see a person trying to stick to his ideals, but this being a crapsack world, he'll usually be proven wrong and publicly humiliated for it. Because around here, bad guys win, and if you want to win too, you have to do what they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
As to whether or not culture is absolutely arbitrary, I staunchly hold the position that no, it is not. Merely existing, any individual has a series of needs that are necessary to fulfill, and desires that want to be fulfilled. All actions taken therefore are ultimately done in respect to these needs and desires. Society progresses in a manner to maximize these needs and desires, causing culture to move in a particular direction. The greatest way to obtain nearly any goal is through cooperation and interaction with other people, and their function is dependent on their well being. Altruism is profitable to everyone in the long run, so it is encouraged.
No, it is not. Altruism is almost never profitable in an actual real life setting. The easiest way to fulfil your needs is to live on the backs of other people who do your work for you, it's to take from other people who've done the honest work. Altruism may be the path to success in a society that's good and honest, but most societies aren't, that much I know for a fact. In fact, morality, altruism and high ideals are probably the least effective way to satisfy your needs, per chance one of those isn't doing the right thing, and I've yet to meet another person who truly needed that in his life.

It's the Freakshow lifestyle - total anarchy and complete freedom to do whatever they want in words, but in actual fact, they still subsist on the production and support of ordered, rule-bound society. A world made up entirely of Freakshow cannot work, obviously, but they don't want a world made entirely of Freakshow. They want a world made up of weak people who can work and create the stuff that the Freakshow need, which they can then steal and live a life of endless raves and boundless fun. Any utopia built on the notion that everyone will want to do his part and everyone should be rewarded with what he needs is doomed to fail. That's essentially Communism in a nutshell, and I know first hand how well that worked. I've seen the system in action - when people are trusted to do their best, they don't do anything at all. When people are rewarded irrespective of how well they do, they don't do anything at all.

A world built around altruism does not work, because most people are not altruistic. Once you've tried to live your life in altruism and seen that take you up **** creek, if you'll pardon my language, you start to realise that the world works a lot better when it's based on managed greed. Altruism is a motivation for only a very select few, because it generally fails to satisfy needs. Greed, by contrast, is a powerful driving force because it gives the satisfaction of a person's need a particular cost, which pays for that person's support by the rest of society. It's not ideal, no, but that's how the world works where I live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
My actual position is that people are all objectively evil (even me), and the lack of good instruction causes these tendencies to not be curbed. But, regarding societal rules everyone is neutral until developed. It is then that they are either good or evil. The majority end up "good", or at least trying to be.
That... Is not even remotely close to my experience, I'm afraid. I know a fair few people and I have to deal with many on a daily basis through my teaching profession, and I've not seen many people actually trying to be good, let alone succeeding in it. Maybe we just live in different worlds, you and I, but I've never felt that most or even many people at all turn out good. They do if they have a strong example, which I try to be, but they don't in this society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
Likewise, one of the strongest factors causing one to conform to culture's rules is the consequences for when you don't conform. If you have parents that punish you, if you get socially ostracized, or if you've ever been nearly hit by a car, there is SOMETHING there to encourage you away from running out into the middle of the street randomly, and often for a logical reason like not becoming a stain on the concrete.
That's assuming your culture's rules aspire to be good and idealistic. And yes, that IS an assumption. Not every culture has such high ideals in its popular mind. This is actually one of the prevailing problems of Eastern Europe these days - the completely ROTTEN mentality of people in general. I'm coming on 30 some time soon, and the spoiled brats I went to school with are now raising kids, and they're raising them in the same arrogant, self-entitled, rotten way in which they grew up. Because when mom and dad treat other people like dirt and always look for legal loop holes, then what are the kids supposed to grow up as?

You seem to treat your brand of morality as somehow universal and constant, and I simply disagree with this. "Morality" might always be present, but what it means differs across time and across the world. It is entirely possible for a person to grow up embracing the morality of his community and still end up a villain. Imagine someone growing up in 4chan or the WoW forums.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
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.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Every society has morals, yes. Not every society has YOUR morals. I feel confident enough in saying you have not lived in Eastern Europe long enough, but I can tell you that we now live the legacy of a totalitarian, corrupt state which taught people that rules are for losers and laws are there to get in your way, creating an entire generation... An entire society, even, which does not respect any form of legality unless it is explicitly forced to comply to it and overseen in the process. And that's not just us. The entire former Soviet block is in much the same situation after decades of being ruled by a Communist government where everything was free and no-one cared if you embezzled.

While I don't want to raise the spectre of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, let's look at software piracy. We all know it's wrong. We're all pretty sure it's illegal. Yet do you have any idea how hart it's been to pitch actually BUYING games to people around here? I tell my friends I bought City of Heroes and I pay $15 a month for it and their eyes turn into dinner plates. I tell them about this great game I bought on Steam, and they tell me I'm stupid and I could have gotten it off a torrent for free. I have a neighbour who's considerably richer than me - you know, big house, wide-screen TV, multiple computers, nice car, etc. But heaven forbid he spend $6 on Steam to get a decent game for his son. Why would he, if his son can just torrent the thing for free. "No-one wants to spend money," he says and... Yeah, I agree. No-one wants to spend money for the sake of spending money. But spending money for products is how the creation of those products gets funded. SOMEONE has to pay for it, and it makes sense for that someone to be the people using it.

But no, because laws here don't mean anything unless you get caught. Hell, you have no idea how hard it's been to expunge illegal software out of my workplace. We own Windows 7, we own MicroSoft Office, we own the software we need, yet time after time I see computers with pirated software on it. Why? "Eh, I didn't want to bother so I pirated it." People like that send me up the wall, and I've campaigned like hell, twisted people's arms and insisted we at the very least use the legal software we already ******* own!

And that's just today in real life. That's ignoring the history of the world, as well as the history of different peoples across it. The history of human sacrifice which was fundamental to the culture of a lot of the native American empires that existed before the New World was colonised, the history of slavery which drove not just Colonial America, but also the Greek and Roman worlds, as well as plenty of other historic nations, not least of which being part of my own history. And what about the history of feminism and women's place in society?

Every society has morals, but those morals are not always concurrent with contemporary Catholic American ideals of truth, justice and the American way. And I'm not saying that as a dis against the US, far from it. The classic super hero is pretty much entirely your invention, because only in America can a man dedicate his life to fighting crime and the forces of evil and actually be taken seriously. The reason American comic books are comparatively less popular outside the US and possibly Western Europe is because that kind of moral high ground simply doesn't exist all over the world. It's not "innate" to people to believe in this kind of idealism, and being in the Eastern end of Europe, I know a thing or two about how that doesn't exist around here. Occasionally, you'll see a person trying to stick to his ideals, but this being a crapsack world, he'll usually be proven wrong and publicly humiliated for it. Because around here, bad guys win, and if you want to win too, you have to do what they do.
Never said they were my morals, or that they had to be my morals (which isn't contemporary Catholic American. Guess again). Regardless, culture works in the ways that it does. Even in states of complete anarchy where gangland rules take over, those gangs function upon the basis of support and mutual self-preservation, and from there can form a series of complex markings and rituals. But I digress: if we are talking about the superhero and supervillain world, taking the fundamentals of that system and then saying it is incorrect when juxtaposed to some society in the real world is outright paradoxical. Either we are talking about a world where people don rubber outfits and shoot lasers from their eyes, or we are not.

People do not believe that software piracy is wrong. If you ever ask them about it, they'll give a doctoral thesis to justify their actions as correct. It is a common psychological principle known as dissonance resolution; a mind dislikes its own contradictions, and so it works to resolve those contradictions through various methods. One of those methods is altering ideology around their actions, causing a mindset that always justifies actions after the fact This isn't just excuses; this is an entire perception shift to resolve personal conflict. They truly believe they have done no evil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
No, it is not. Altruism is almost never profitable in an actual real life setting. The easiest way to fulfil your needs is to live on the backs of other people who do your work for you, it's to take from other people who've done the honest work. Altruism may be the path to success in a society that's good and honest, but most societies aren't, that much I know for a fact. In fact, morality, altruism and high ideals are probably the least effective way to satisfy your needs, per chance one of those isn't doing the right thing, and I've yet to meet another person who truly needed that in his life.

It's the Freakshow lifestyle - total anarchy and complete freedom to do whatever they want in words, but in actual fact, they still subsist on the production and support of ordered, rule-bound society. A world made up entirely of Freakshow cannot work, obviously, but they don't want a world made entirely of Freakshow. They want a world made up of weak people who can work and create the stuff that the Freakshow need, which they can then steal and live a life of endless raves and boundless fun. Any utopia built on the notion that everyone will want to do his part and everyone should be rewarded with what he needs is doomed to fail. That's essentially Communism in a nutshell, and I know first hand how well that worked. I've seen the system in action - when people are trusted to do their best, they don't do anything at all. When people are rewarded irrespective of how well they do, they don't do anything at all.

A world built around altruism does not work, because most people are not altruistic. Once you've tried to live your life in altruism and seen that take you up **** creek, if you'll pardon my language, you start to realise that the world works a lot better when it's based on managed greed. Altruism is a motivation for only a very select few, because it generally fails to satisfy needs. Greed, by contrast, is a powerful driving force because it gives the satisfaction of a person's need a particular cost, which pays for that person's support by the rest of society. It's not ideal, no, but that's how the world works where I live.
Altruism is almost always profitable in a real life setting because through cooperation and support it is easier to achieve goals than if you are by yourself. This is fundamental to trade, sustenance, technological development, and general societal growth. It is a necessary aspect of any group consisting of two ore more people. Even while growing up in the Ghetto of Sin City, where gangs would kill each other at a moments notice, something that can always be seen is the support of individuals within those groups. They fought to protect each other, they steal for each others' benefits, they taught each other for both personal and other's benefits, and they performed actions to earn the respect of others who would gladly give that respect if unsaid action deserved it. Even in our prisons it is an important facet of society. Even amongst animals and single-celled organisms, an altruistic system survives better than a non-altruistic system.

Expand this to the marcoverse, and social darwinism becomes applicable. Societies where individuals do not support each other have a habit of declining and dying. Hence, what happened to communism (a system where altruism is mandated and assumed as infrastructure instead of being a byproduct, to list one of the many problems). A more recent example is how wealth and corruption in the U.S. is causing worldwide economic collapse. A rule that can be applied to history (and biology and anthropology and sociology and psychology) is that people go with what works. When we look at all of the atrocities through time that aren't around anymore, you must never forget that they aren't around anymore. Slavory in the U.S. is abolished, women's rights are on the rise, minority rights are on the rise, the world as a whole is becoming richer, quality of life is improving greatly on a global scale, the world population is becoming more intelligent. The sum of the world as a whole is on the rise.

Now, if you want to make the case that your society is a negative pocket that is rotting away due to an inability to function, then that is acceptable. Of course, it is also possible that you are being overly cynical.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
That... Is not even remotely close to my experience, I'm afraid. I know a fair few people and I have to deal with many on a daily basis through my teaching profession, and I've not seen many people actually trying to be good, let alone succeeding in it. Maybe we just live in different worlds, you and I, but I've never felt that most or even many people at all turn out good. They do if they have a strong example, which I try to be, but they don't in this society.
Ironic, I've also had a job teaching people. Anyway, the whole "trying to be good" is in respect to a cultures expectations. Even in the ghetto where I grew up, 99% of the time the gangs were just hanging out and talking smack, or fixing one of their guy's trucks or something like that. Also see dissonance resolution above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
That's assuming your culture's rules aspire to be good and idealistic. And yes, that IS an assumption. Not every culture has such high ideals in its popular mind. This is actually one of the prevailing problems of Eastern Europe these days - the completely ROTTEN mentality of people in general. I'm coming on 30 some time soon, and the spoiled brats I went to school with are now raising kids, and they're raising them in the same arrogant, self-entitled, rotten way in which they grew up. Because when mom and dad treat other people like dirt and always look for legal loop holes, then what are the kids supposed to grow up as?

You seem to treat your brand of morality as somehow universal and constant, and I simply disagree with this. "Morality" might always be present, but what it means differs across time and across the world. It is entirely possible for a person to grow up embracing the morality of his community and still end up a villain. Imagine someone growing up in 4chan or the WoW forums.
It does not necessitate that the culture requires you to be good and idealistic. It is conformity vs. nonconformity in regards to expectations. Hell, the example I gave is about not being hit by a friggen bus; that is quite morally neutral. Now, to get on with the broadness of morality, various studies on cultures have shown that, despite all of their weirdness that is in each of them, there are a surprisingly large list of cultural universalities that are applicable to each society. There are quite a few of them, and these rules exist in societies that are completely isolated and have no contact with each other. Because this happens, it is a very safe assumption that these facets are inspired by factors that are universally present in humanity.

EDITFigured I'd include this: It is impossible for a culture to not be idealistic because not having ideals and being "real" is itself an ideal, much as to how valuing personal pursuance of goals is a moral)

It is impossible for someone to grow up embracing the morality of their environment and be the villain of that environment, because this would necessitate that the simple majority of people in that environment are villains, and thus by moral relativity are not villainous.

But alas, I am at a disadvantage here. Your whole case is dependent on some unknown culture where everyone is super-evil, and without access to this culture it is impossible for me to argue that you are incorrect about it. So long as you argue "No, I'm an exception", I cannot win unless I drag this exception onto an operating table or pull some BS moves. But regardless of this tangential discussion (City of heroes takes place in a fictional city in Rhode Island, U.S.A., not outhouse, East European Nation), I have my made point quite clearly regarding explanation via absence for villains, and how baseless heroes are acceptable since heroism is the default "normal" for society in general, exceptions extant or not. So I don't know what your problem is anymore.



TPN trial guide video / MoM trial guide video / DD trial guide video / BAF trial guide video
/ Lambda trial guide video / Keyes trial guide video / Magisterium trial guide video / Underground trial guide

 

Posted

My two latest creations

Very Manly Mummy is a mummy with a human half brother. He struggles with trying to decide if he is a man or a mummy. He will start off as a hero and then slowly becomes an evil villain after much agonizing and singing.

Mummy of a Man is a human whose brother is a mummy. He starts off trying to dress like a mummy and being a mummy villain. As time goes on he will finally embrace his humanity afer much agonizing and singing. He will start as a villain and then work towards being a vigilante

Am I a man ... or am I a mummy? If I'm a mummy then I'm a very manly mummy....


 

Posted

Here's mine: Death Revolution, Dark/dark brute

In death, there is nothingness and silence. But because there was nothing, there was a void, one that waited to be filled. The void sought power to fill its emptiness and thus, was attracted to the strongest power of all: life.

The void siphoned life from any living creature, man or beast, until a form emerged from its dark consumption. Under the cloak of darkness, she awoke. Memories of the lives of those that fed the her hunger flashed through her mind. She licked her lips, as if to taste their final movements of oblivion. Eager to taste it again, she caught the first man who crossed her path and watched him die slowly in under her death shroud. More followed. Somehow, it was not enough to capture her victims in the binds of her midnight grasp and watch them die. She wanted to see them struggle, to fight for their lives. So she sought stronger prey. Unaware of her own mortality, she fought carelessly until the first jolt of pain lanced through her body. Instead of anger or fear, she felt a wild exhilaration. More, she must feel more.

Soon, she began to encounter more enemies known as Arachnos. Many wolfspiders fell to her shadow punches, so drones and mechanical spiders were sent to fight her. Since machines lacked a soul, she learned how to draw upon their energy source to heal herself. One particularly large group managed to overcome her, but by reaching into their nearby souls or power, she managed to revive herself. After several dozen or so Arachnos littered the ground around her, a ghostly woman appeared and motioned the rest of the group to fall back. She attacked this phantom lady and was surprised to be restrained by a storm of screaming souls that bound her limbs. Her eyes followed the path of the souls to the arm of her opponent.

The lady's voice rang cold in her ears. "Little one, your rampage is causing too much inconvenience and must end. If you think you can't be stopped, I will simply trap you in an armored crate and drop it in the nearest lava pit. You will have no one to siphon life from. I can easily do that."

She glared in defiance at those pale pupiless eyes. Those eyes seem to bore into her soul. "However, I have been watching you. Every time you fall, you rise again with hunger in your eyes. Why rise to fight and fall again and again in a revolution of death?"

The fey lady paused as if waiting for a reply. When none came, she crossed her arms and cocked her head to the side thoughtfully. "There is no doubt that you are strong, but are you strong enough to master this hunger or will you let it master you? If your brain has a glimmer of intelligence, then come with me, for I have traveled the paths of life and death. Arachnos will give you opportunities to sate this hunger and perhaps, you will discover what it is you truly seek."

With an elegant wave of her hand, the lady dismissed the souls trapping her limbs and she fell to the ground. Then the lady turned away and spoke, "Follow if you choose."

She got up and followed to live, seeking to die.


 

Posted

I play most of my villains as what amount to metahuman thugs who are finding their way up the ladder as freelance "muscle". This achieve several things for me. First, it fits for me the game mechanics of starting at level 1 with dinky powers. It bugs me when I see characters who are "Zog the God of Darkness" who's level 8, unless he actually has a description that explains why he's level 8, fighting security guards and dudes with baseball bats. Second, it clashes less with the narrative of the Rogue Isles, which mostly treats you as a meta-lackey anyway. More importantly, I actually envision most of their personalities very much as how the game depicts the "Rogue" alignment, as opposed to thoroughly evil/ruthless villains, and I think that fits well with the "gun for hire" characterization, which then also works decently as a lackey to Arachnos, no matter how transiently.

As they grow in power and become Incarnates, I see them seeking power for its own sake, not so much because they want to use that power to master others, but because sufficient power equals freedom from interference by most authority (heroic or villainous). They can do what they want, and most of them wouldn't bother a lot of other people with what they want.

I have one exception: a Dominator who has visions of taking over the world with his psychic powers. He was once much more powerful, but was defeated by a team of heroes and lost much of his power when defeated. Leveling represents returning to previous heights for him. I love this character's story, but honestly, I have trouble explaining why he would ever be in a SG or join a team. His story says he has a singular focus on making a perfect world in his own image which demands that he view everyone as his inferior, even if they are more powerful than he is. Frankly, if he had his way, he's one of those characters that villains would help heroes put down, because he's a threat to them all.


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
Never said they were my morals, or that they had to be my morals (which isn't contemporary Catholic American. Guess again). Regardless, culture works in the ways that it does. Even in states of complete anarchy where gangland rules take over, those gangs function upon the basis of support and mutual self-preservation, and from there can form a series of complex markings and rituals.
You need to spend a couple of decades here, then. We have plenty of self-deprecating jokes around here. Ones like "Our cauldron in hell doesn't need to be guarded, because every time one person tries to climb out, another person pulls them back in." or "It's not important that that I succeed, it's important that my neighbour fails." around here. I couldn't begin to tell you where this rotten mentality comes from or what fostered it, but I can tell you for a fact that it very much reflects my contemporary society. And no, that's not an ideal. It's a society in which specific people may be decent, but most people are malicious, vindictive, jealous ******** for no real reason that I can determine.

You know, you can talk about dictatorships or oppressive states, but at least there it's a few people oppressing the many, a few people that are bad against many who are good. What I'm talking about is a whole society of people who spend half our time backstabbing our neighbours and half our time shaking our heads at our plight, a plight which is entirely our own fault to begin with. I don't know where you grew up and I don't want to tell you what it's like, so long as you extend me the same courtesy of not telling me you know what my society is like better than I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Arachnid View Post
If we are talking about the superhero and supervillain world, taking the fundamentals of that system and then saying it is incorrect when juxtaposed to some society in the real world is outright paradoxical. Either we are talking about a world where people don rubber outfits and shoot lasers from their eyes, or we are not.
You're the one who brought up how real societies behave to counter my example of a theoretical malicious, amoral society. That's why we're arguing this in the first place. Ignoring the fact that super heroes aren't complete unfounded unrealistic fiction, if we're taking the stance that real life doesn't matter, then you really have no leg to stand on to tell me the society I've constructed for my villain to grow up can't exist because people always have morals and ideals and any villain has to be a deviation. If we're not basing an argument on real life, then that society is what I say it is, because that's pure fiction, I'm the author of it, and I can depict it as whatever I want to, even if it disagrees with rational notions of society. If we're ignoring the real world, then anything goes and there's no argument.

The larger argument here is whether people are born good and naturally strive to be good as you suggest, or whether they're born evil and strive to be evil unless prevented from doing so, which has been my own experience with people I've interacted with. If you want to ignore the real world, then that's fine by me, but if we do, then you really can't argue against my vision of an evil world which breeds villains who are evil because that's what they were brought up to be by the society they grew up in. You don't have to like it, mind you, but that kills your argument dead. Either we argue about things are in he real world - and we clearly see things differently - or we argue fiction, and there are no facts in fiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
It bugs me when I see characters who are "Zog the God of Darkness" who's level 8, unless he actually has a description that explains why he's level 8, fighting security guards and dudes with baseball bats.
That's one of the tricks you learn pretty early on when you develop the habit of writing cosmic horrors for characters time and again as I have for quite some time. It's very easy to write characters of immense power and unbridled ambition, but it's not so easy to explain why they actually aren't all-powerful from level 1. There isn't quite an art to doing it, but it's still tricky. I feel inspired to give a few more examples, actually.

Vox, my necromancer, was once immensely powerful, enough to shape the world around him. Then he got killed and left dead for 10 000 years. He returned to life somewhat recently, and he's been rebuilding his power since. I forget what I wrote him as wishing for, but I believe eternal life for himself was it.

Kragoss is probably my most powerful villain by far, wielder of a perversion of the power of Creation which destroys everything it touches and reduces it to literal nothing. He's not all-powerful now because shortly before the start of his story, he got his *** handed to him by the awakening power of the true heir of Creation. His power scattered across the cosmos and now said heir is drawing it away from him and to herself, so Kragoss has to start all over, pretty much.

Cedric is a monstrously powerful villain who draws on the power of many worlds that he's conquered, but he's not all-powerful here. See, our Primal Earth is so mired in portal fudge that coming here sapped much of his power and broke his link to his empire, so Cedric's been looking for alternate power sources.

That sort of thing. It's not too hard to come up with a decent explanation, but it can be hard to realise you really should have one


Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
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.