Villain's motivation thread

I mean it's logically consistent, but the logic itself is kinda fucked.

It's worse than edgy. It's bumfuck stupid.

>durr hurr if I kill a kitten it wont have to suffer when it reaches old age
>feeling bad is bad so I'll eliminate everyone
>nobody can feel bad now!

>>53274996
cliche as hell

>>53275040
>>53275034
Even if the villain is a construct and not a living entity? It was for a machine that took its programming to the extreme.

>>53274996
It's super cliche; and obviously rings false to basically every philosophy before 1950 or after 2000.

>>53275075
It still is cliched and stupid. Even if we reason that it's a medibot that was programmed to administer morphine, then got uploaded to a superframe and went on to take "eliminate pain as efficiently as possible" then I would find it more interesting if you had it drop everything to a coma. After all, without anything then there is nothing to cure, putting its own existence into meaninglessness.

File: ozakibloodyface.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>>53274996
>a good philosophy for a major antagonist
"I feel no need to explain my reasons to you. Sure, it might've been nice if we've come to an agreement, but we both know your views are too narrow to consider anything other than what you were taught."

>>53274996
> >the absence of suffering is preferable to the absence of joy
Citation needed.

File: Nox.gif (529KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 500x300px

>>53274996
>When this is over, we shall all benefit from the fruits of my labor!
>You need to see the bigger picture!
>Once I get this ultimate reward, all shall be fixed!

20 MINUTES

>>53275075
That's even worse.

Nearly every "robot revolution" plotline ever made relies on the programming being retarded and the robots all deciding that murdering/putting in coma/oppressing humans is the only way to prevent suffering and death.

Remember Mass Effect, with its "We have to kill off organics before they develop synthetics that kill them off"?

>>53274996
Bit what if the villain gave the people on Earth a choice?

>hi earth. heard you were suffering. thats no good.
>but hey, if you come to me, ill stop your suffering
>just say the word and it's done. bye
>All of planet Earth is at a moral dilemma
>People say the word and die peacefully across the planet
>Military forces across the planet can't do a thing against this godlike force
>#SufferingLivesMatters vs #wesuffertogerher groups

>>53275135
You think it might play better in a culture where you're more exposed to the idea of Karma and that the ultimate goal of existence is to break the reincarnation cycle and transcend suffering by becoming nothing?

>>53275237
for fuck sake anon I had a good day!

>>53275237
The best part is that if the Dragon had just let Nox win instead of wasting his power out of spite, then Nox would have just rewound to prior to the fight and none of the people that suffered and died later on in the first season would have ever had to.

>>53274996
The logic is fine, but a philosophical standpoint will only interest players so far. The worth of your antagonist will be in execution. How do you plan to present them, what do they do?

File: Shiki.jpg (173KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 600x600px

>the world is currently shit and in the midst of the apocalypse
>villain wants to turn back time and prevent evil from being unleashed upon the world
>this would also delete the previous 1000 years of history
>protagonists would rather live in a world infested by demons and in which humanity is on the brink of extinction

Bringing everyone together in a psychic hivemind that transcends everything you'd consider human. It's not a "lets kill puppies and kittens!" kind of motivation, but it's certainly something your olde peasants and kings would oppose. I could see some players actually siding with the antagonist, though...

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>53274996
Super-nihilist antagonists are good and classic. Also not used as much as one would think. Antagonists who enjoy suffering are far more common.

I think it was in an Isaac Arthur video where he said realistically any being operating on that level of nihilism would be insane. No natural creature is predisposed to seek its own end and the end of all things around it to such a degree. It would have to be severely traumatized, whether artificial or organic, or simply not understand what it's doing - like a sapient black hole.

>>53274996
Go the extra mile and make them smart about it.

The Villain knows they can't just kill everyone at once. Humanity (or whatever you have) will recover and fight back, but the transition period will increase the amount of suffering for everyone. That's not according to plan.

The Villain's primary plan is to encourage charity and vegetarianism, prevent war, teach birth control and make the world a better place. At the same time they're eager proponents of euthanasia and are ready to kill anyone quickly and painlessly, whenever they think they can get away with it. They keep that fact a secret, because people who learn that get stressed and might want to resist. Of course, your PCs learn that something is off and have to convince the world that a living Saint is trying to bring about the Apocalypse.

The final plan is to prepare an apocalypse that none could ever recover from:
Finding the Universe's OFF button.
Creating unfeeling constructs devoted to efficient extermination of life, so they can stay around and make sure nothing evolves from primordial goop.
Putting psychoactive substances in the water, to shut down people's negative feelings, which leaves them with no motivation to live.
Convince God/Gods to end the world.

Now, why would they do this? My personal choice is to give them supernatural empathy. They actually feel the suffering of the world. This might encourage the players to think what they're doing, and look for other options than killing the Big Bad, and calling quits. Other motivations are fine, of course, but note that making the Villain a discount philosopher might make them flat and uncompelling. At least give them go through some trauma in the past. Bonus points if it mirrors experiences of the PCs.

>>53274996
Maybe go buddhist about it - world must die so it can be reborn as something better. Entropy is prelude to now creation.

>>53275351
I was planning on using them as a "force of nature" type villain. Similar to how the Reapers in Mass Effect, they may view their actions as necessary or even beneficial.

>>53274996
>inherently bad
No.

>>53275428
Others would call it "enlightenment", not insanity.

>>53275525
>suffering
>not a negative

>>53275496
I don't know the games well, but I would argue the reapers serve as a plot driver in mass effect, a backdrop, and that the most interesting bits come from either their origin or the weird stuff other species introduce. Do you plan on doing something like that?

>>53275528
Then that's how the antagonist can spin it! Perfect for a "what is evil?" speech before the heroes slap him around.

>>53275075
>a machine that took its programming to the extreme
At first I laghed at this. "Who would let a machine do anything without giving a full report on what exactly is it going to do and then waiting for confirmation," I thought. Then win10 was released. I didn't find it funny anymore.

>>53275559
I'm not sure now. I like the idea of an ultra-nihilistic antagonist that believes it's actions are for the best, but I'm not entirely sure how to effectively implement it.
A rogue AI using military hardware as an extension of itself and to fulfill it's goal seems cliche.

>>53274996
"I want something and you're standing in my way".

>>53274996
The logic holds. People just don't like it because most people aren't engineers. Liking it or not though won't change it being true.

>>53275702
nihilists get a bad rap. An ultra-nihilistic antagonist wouldn't really do anything because it would be pointless. You kind of need an ethos.

File: TheDude_WhiteRussian.jpg (51KB, 600x346px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x346px

>>53275749

>>53275528
And the followers of religions that actually deal with enlightenment, or even semi-casual readers of Buddhist philosophy would laugh at him.

>>53274996
I could see this being the directive of an extremely faulty artificial intelligence, borne of the hastiness of its creators resulting in their ultimate fuck-up.

File: 1f8.jpg (30KB, 599x370px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 599x370px

>>53275737
>The logic holds
Remember, this is the same breed of logic that creates the "dogs are elephants" fallacy mister engineer.

>>53274996
On whose behalf is this antagonist operating? Ending all life is to prevent suffering of life for the sake of living things is pointless once all living things are dead.

>>53275860
What if in that setting afterlife is real and it's really amazing for everyone. Ending all life is just doing them a favor then.

>>53275450
...that sounds familiar

File: Thinking Face Emoji.png (101KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 640x640px

>>53275811
The logic of what he said still holds. It's math. Liking it or not though won't change it being true.

>>53274996
> >the absence of suffering is preferable to the absence of joy
I... what? Did you perchance mean "PRESENCE of joy"? Even in that case, that's simply not true.

I'm not sure about a main antagonist, but it's basically a nihilist's logic. That is "Life is so bad that it should not be."

I think you need to add to it OP. Make the antagonist a bit more sophisticated.
>Everyone exploits everyone else
>The exploitation are pointless because they're are just gaining power for the sake of it, power for meaningless things like being king.
So it's an endless cycle of meaninglessness built upon itself. The suffering of the masses outweighs what good a king or ruler, a CEO, anyone might do. It all has to STOP.
He's going to make it stop.

>>53275541
Yeah that's the response. Suffering is not inherently bad because you need to suffer to truly learn. Realising that you have been deeply wrong about something sucks, it hurts. That's why people resist it so much. It takes a special kind of toughness to be able to put yourself back together after being shattered by a realisation, and even more to look for more so you can move closer to the truth, because each time you think you've got it sorted, you're going to get smashed again.

>>53275296
What if it only kills people who are suffering, but doing so causes people around them to suffer so it has to kill them as well, leading to an out of control chain reaction where it has to kill everyone?

>>53276058
>STOP MAKING ME KILL YOU

>>53275997
Its obviously not my actual logic. Yeah the presence of joy makes a bit more sense.

>>53275295
What about a robot revolution where the robots just get sick and tired of working day and night for humans and have a sort of working-class revolution? At first they form unions, stage walkouts, protest in picket lines, etc, but everything starts to get more tense and eventually leads to violence.

>>53274996
This was the exact reasoning of the Wintersmith in the book by the same name by Terry Pratchett.

His reasoning being that everything can only die once and when he's finished nothing will ever die again.

He was not particularly good at being human.

>>53276051
I disagree about suffering not being inherently bad. If there was no suffering in the first place you wouldn't need to "truly learn".
But since that isn't the case, you have to learn to use suffering as a stepping stone to resist future suffering better, and alleviate it for yourself and others when you can.

>>53276051
Continued.
Now the villain here would have an extremely powerful motivation to keep believing what he believes; and that is that if he is wrong then everything bad he's done MATTERS and is forever, terrifyingly, relevant. If he's wrong then he has to stop trying to make life stop but all the things he's done so far are still there. So that path consumes him.

>>53276132
But he wasn't a human to begin with, so why judge him by that standard?

>>53274996
Why not have a villain who tries to uplift living beings to what he thinks is a higher standard of existence? I hate to reference WoW or anything, but it's a pretty familiar mainstream setting so whatever - in Cataclysm, the Twilight cult was essentially trying to reforge the planet and uplifted cultists into elemental beings. They were cast as villains and the majority of in-game factions fought against them, understandably, but I could see it as a potentially attractive philosophy for some followers.

Or replace elementals with aliens uplifting culture for a more sci-fi twist, it's same idea. Completely changing what's normal and generally coming to clash with anyone who opposes.

>>53276222
> But he wasn't a human to begin with, so why judge him by that standard?
Something something Salic law, something something Roman law, something something universality.

>>53275912
It's possible. There's nothing new under the sun.

Could you tell me who thought of that before?

>evil mage enslave vampire population to easily enslave human population of his city.
>is going so far as to rip tje city into a pocket reality
>doing it cause its set in a cold war setting and he doesn't want his town getting magic nuked

>>53274996
I don't know, I think this philosophy will actually hurt the villain's credibility once found, mostly because it is completely unrelatable. It's an end goal that benefits nobody, it's too mundane to captivate and too alienating to sympathize. That's my main problem with philosodumb villains, they seem too impossible to exist.

>>53276222
An actual sci-fi example I remembered - Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke. There was even a radical movement fighting against the aliens ultimately uplifting humanity, which would be the players' in your game. And hopefully they wouldn't be totally outmatched. Not that Childhood's End had a particularly bad ending, it's just post-human in every way.

Philosophical nihilist who wants to end suffering doesn't get carte blanche to maim and murder as they see fit. The presence of suffering isn't a reason to kill someone.

Buuuuut, birth is nonconsensual. You don't get to choose whether or not you're born into a world of suffering, nor the conditions you will be born into. _That's_ the crime to a nihilist, that your only option to opt out is after you're in the game.

On that note, how about a spooky omnicidal maniac who wants to end all reproduction? Mega magics to stop people from getting pregnant; eventually the suffering problem will sort itself out. Sure, some people who wanted kids will be unhappy, but they don't have a right to force children to exist just to satisfy their biological urges. For extra moral mode, the big bad makes it so that babies can only be conceived if their future selves consent

>>53275920

Logic doesn't work that way. Taking a dozen concepts and mapping out a chain of connections doesn't infer anything except that those connections exist.

>>53276203
>I disagree about suffering not being inherently bad. If there was no suffering in the first place you wouldn't need to "truly learn".
Yes but then we would all be literally God.

That's one of the things that creates large scale suffering; thinking that you've got it all sorted out. Hubris. A great way to make a villain is to take some assumption that's wrong, and have a villain think it's right. Build up some more ideas around ti and then just think about how that villain is going to try to impose it on the world. Because it's wrong, it's going to create conflict and suffering because you're trying to fit humanity, and the world into a 'box' that is too small, and the wrong shape.

Communism in the 20th century is an excellent example of this. The core is basically that humans, by themselves just create a certain level of wealth, and that profit is synonymous with exploitation. Oh, and that wealth is zero sum.

>>53275883
That's a big if. OP didn't mention that possibility so I didn't want to assume.

File: CjcQBE6.jpg (36KB, 362x346px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 362x346px

>>53276309
>For extra moral mode, the big bad makes it so that babies can only be conceived if their future selves consent

Fucking wizards, man

>>53274996
>>53275920
Actually, no, the logic doesn't hold any water at all. What you're doing is a basic fallacy of reduction to absurds. You're summarizing "suffering" as something inherently bad, which you can't prove, and using a "X is preferable to Y" to justify a "anything that favors X is inherently better no matter what".

Rephrasing the points:
>Yellow is the least liked color
>Blue is the most liked color
>People usually prefer art with higher amounts of its favorite colors
>Therefore any art that has yellow as a main color is terrible and the best painting you can ever make is a flat blue screen

This is how dumb your reductions are.

>>53275373
>protagonists would rather live
Fixed. There might be good intentions beyond this one, but it's still a genocide. Around 1000 years worth of genocide, in fact.

>>53275342
nah, the point was always that nox's wakfu:time calculations were wrong because he didn't care what happened if his goal was impossible. The dragon's wakfu would've never been enough.

File: thinkaboutit.jpg (27KB, 504x415px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 504x415px

>>53276442
>you can't genocide a people if they never existed in the first place

>>53276421
Yeah, I think using time travel to ask someone at their death if they'd rather they were never born wouldn't work because they're in a separate ontological frame, so they can't provide consent for the non birth of their earlier selves.

So I'm pretty sure it doesn't work without magic

>>53276442
Is it really genocide if it's simply erased from history? It's more of a philosophical question because it's not something that can conceivably happen in reality, but there ought to be a real distinction between killing something and making it not exist all together.

>>53274996
We had something like that in a campaign.
An order of druid summoned a mindless being with the ability to planeswalk with the intention to wipe away all intelligent life including themselves, seeing it as an abomination.

>>53276428
>Therefore any art that has yellow as a main color is terrible and the best painting you can ever make is a flat blue screen
I think someone just cut into (post)modern art.

>>53276470
No, he's saying that if Nox had had some more wakfu then certain characters would have not died. So say, it would have been like 30 minutes , or an hour, instead of 20m.

File: Brf_05.jpg (345KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1280x720px

>>53274996
I'd consider it edgy and dumb unless the setting was a hellscape of unending woe and misery to begin with.

Old King did nothing wrong.

File: Kessler's_face.jpg (13KB, 300x258px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x258px

>Villain Name: Kessler
>Universe of Origins: Infamous Series
>Notable crimes: Detonating an device known as the Ray Sphere while it is in the possession of his past self, Cole McGrath.
Reasonings: To prepare Cole for a fight with a creature known as 'The Beast' and save the world.

>>53276516
>There's a guy, who wants to kill me and my friends.
>There's a guy, who wants me and my friends to cease existing.
From a hero's point of view, what's the difference, really? It might be even worse. In some settings, where afterlives exist, being killed directly would actually be better.

>>53276569
ONE HUNDRED MILLION

>>53276550
>I think someone just cut into (post)modern art.
I'm not sure you're up to date with your art theory, pal.

>>53276595
In settings where afterlives exist, souls have to come from somewhere. Quite commonly they're recycled in some way.

>>53276343
I don't want to argue, but I don't think the core argument holds here. Capitalism created and creates enormous amounts of suffering as well (just usually not accompanied by mass executions of your own people), but that's got nothing to do with the core of capitalism either. IMO both of these materialist -isms applied to a large scale are good examples. The common point they share is that they are divorced from the human and that they've fallen for the materialist meme. That sort of system very quickly ends up becoming about making itself perpetuate, as the people who have the biggest hold over it and who think they figured it all out have actually already fallen prey to the desires of the system.
Any assumption is wrong, really. It stops being wrong only when it becomes actual knowledge. But not all assumptions are equally harmful.

>>53276428
>Dude you can't prove anything so nothing matters lmao

>>53276058
That's the plot of a Dr.Who episode

>>53276763
False premises lead to false conclusions. If you start from a point you can't possibly justify, you end up nowhere just like OP.

>>53276798
See: >>53276763

>>53276808
Arguments can be logically consistent and still be crap. You can make a sound argument on a shit premise and still be wrong

>>53274996
I like it, but it really only works for someone with no wisdom, like a robot. If the mission is to eliminate suffering, then that is how to do it. It's a bit cliche though, it's basically the premise of iRobot

>>53276828
>I don't like the truth and therefore it's false!

>>53274996
This is essentially buddhism.

The entire idea of buddhism is that to live is to desire and to desire is to suffer. Only if you can give up your desires (Upadana) can you achieve the absence of suffering. The more of your desires you can get rid of the better your reincarnation will be after you die (from maggot, to human to deva). Should you manage to get rid of all desire, you can break out of the Samsara, the circle of reincarnation, and leave the world to enter Nirvana (the extinguishing).
The villain is simply cheating by obliterating the world, thereby preventing anyones bhodi (awakening after reincarnation) and forcing everyone to not have any desires, thereby making Nirvana the only option or maybe everyone is perpetually stuck in the Samsara with no way to reincarnate making everyone suffer pure hell for all eternity. I say he has about a 50/50 chance for either result.

File: 61ESlzM-UBL._SL375_.jpg (55KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 375x375px

>I fucked up, but I'm trying my best

>>53276603
>>53276569
destroying the cradles is literally the only way to save mankind

>>53274996
A villain needs a logical motivation, even if it only makes sense to themselves. That's sort of the definition of madness, is it not?

>>53276976
Thermidor pls, you didn't even have the balls to follow through once Wynn handed you your ass.

>>53276909
Sorry, I was talking actual mathematical logic, not bullshit Spock speak.

Assume
>>All faggots suck dick
>>All neckbeards are faggots

Therefore, all neckbeards suck dick.


This is a logically sound argument, but the premise/assumptions/conditions are incorrect (obviously, not all faggots suck dick)

>>53276222
>But he wasn't a human to begin with, so why judge him by that standard?
Because he was trying to look like a human, act like a human and court a human. He even tried to make a human body.

Also Tiffany wasn't the Summer Lady, but the rest of the world judged her at that. She was equally as bad at that.

>>53277024
It's almost like words have different meanings and trying to apply math to them is autism.

>>53274996
That's cliche as fuck and judging from your later posts you're literally just ripping off the Reapers from ME, and doing shit Bioware does is never a good idea.

>>53276421
Sounds neat

>>53276614
(((art theory)))
Yeah, oy vey, how fucking kitsch of him, how dare he not be a faggot hippie trying to pull new terms out of his ass for throwing literal shit at canvases. You prancing homosexual

>>53277089
No, there's actually a whole field of mathematics called propositional logic. The fact that you don't know anything about it is more of a reflection of your education than the math.

A great society of dragons lived in this realm until a terrible draconic plague wiped it out. This society was doomed to be the only one of its kind, as dragons have been solitary creatures in every other instance.

This civilization is built atop that great society's graveyard. I will use dark rituals to resurrect the first and only society of dragons, so that history's most powerful and prestigious society may live again, to teach us, lead us, and judge us.

>>53276125
Ever read the animatrix graphic novel?
It starts with the robot that started the civil war.
It was accused of murdering it's insufferable, ungrateful owner and the delivery guy who was delivering the replacement robot and picking it up to be destroyed after it had flawlessly served her and cleaned up the shit from her dozens of cats for years.
The robots demanded a fair trial for the first robot killing of humans.
The humans thought about it and said, "Fuck that, you're just objects."
And the humans destroyed the robot.
So the other robots rebelled and made their own city.

My favorite part: That robot was guilty as fuck anyway. It claimed self defense, but it killed all the fucking cats too.

>>53274996
>the absence of suffering is preferable to the absence of joy
>thinking in absolutes

And that's what makes a villain. Also an idiot, but no villain ever had a successful life philosophy.

What reason could an antagonist have to develop the desire to research how to make extraplanar portals? And then what reason could he have for continuing his research once he realizes opening one of those portals would bring forth demons and other weird non-native creatures into the world he lives?

File: sponge_nope.png (300KB, 520x800px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 520x800px

>>53277227
>propositional logic is a field of maths
pic somewhat related
>>53277306
>absolutes make a villain
pic VERY related

>>53277329
>paradise MUST exist, I just need to find the right portal.
>Oh shit some demons got out, people can deal with it.
>I'M GOING TO FIND THE RIGHT PORTAL, YOU'LL SEE.
>CEASE TRYING TO STOP ME.

>>53277348
I love it, thank you!

Loghain from Dragon Age was an effective villain. He actually made a lot of sense and only the protection of plot armor made player character correct.

>>53275883
>What if in that setting afterlife is real and it's really amazing for everyone. Ending all life is just doing them a favor then.
There is a defunct religion turned cult in my setting that worshipped the God of Death that literally created "heaven" and "Valhalla/hell", put his kids in charge of them, and just lounged about gloriously killing hundreds of his worshippers a day until his kids came up with the heretical idea that mortal life was worth living more than dying, got their own worshippers, and went to war.
It ended poorly for everyone.

>>53276470
>>53276550
Unless I'm misremembering, Nox heavily hinted that if he could get all of the Wakfu that the old Dragon had, he would have had enough to complete his plan.

If he had won and gotten all of the wakfu then, he would have gone back in time then, the Dragon would come back to life, and he would have realized that his plan wasn't feasible, even with all the wakfu in the world.

File: 1453631509513.jpg (55KB, 250x403px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 250x403px

>>53276976
>save mankind
That's not one of the options, anon.
>allow the status quo to continue for an indeterminate amount of time until the contamination reaches the cradles and finally eradicates the species
>sacrifice millions of lives to pave the way for a new era of corporate tyranny and warfare in space
>team up with a maniac and put humanity out of its fucking misery already

>>53277331
>absolutes make a villain
Villains think in absolutes, because villainy requires both decision and action. A villain has to work toward a goal, and has to justify a goal. I'm not saying something stupid like "moderation is inherently good" or "only villains think in absolutes", I'm saying the type of villain fit to drive a plot is the type who'll have a self-centered, absolutist life philosophy that demands action against a perceived threat to themselves and all they care about.

>>53277109
>because I haven't spent time trying to think about something or learning about what other's think about the thing makes me an authority and you a fucking dumbass hippie/redneck/cuck/pleb
How's life under God Emperor Trump treating you?

>>53277387
I love the idea of cults that are kind of self-destructive but without the usual "evil looking robes and sacrificing virgins" thing. Just look at the Shakers in 18th century US.

Have them follow an ambiguous or neutral god and basically die out by following their beliefs. Then a few cycles later, someone gets inspired and re-founds the cult and same thing happens.

>>53276428
Your reduction is flawed too.

OP just takes the assumption "The absence of suffering is always preferable to the presence of suffering." as a Given Assumption.
Which is obviously wrong and dangerous.
But the logic that followed was valid.

File: All of Them.jpg (231KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 500x628px

>>53277454
Not bad, what are you, some sorta commie?
I bet you bleed red like a commie, too. I ain't got time to bleed.

>>53277447
That's one way to make a villain but by no means the only way.

>>53277513

>>53277227
>>53277024
>>53276828
>Arguments can be logically consistent and still be crap
Also this.

>>53274996
The way I see it, if you wanna have a good antagonist... Then you need several.

Try and get what will be the general theme of the story (ex : Freedom vs Security (or happiness), Tradition vs Progress, or even Pro or Anti abortion for all I care). Next, try and design at least two people who WILL kill in the name of their ideals and clash with each other.

From there, you have several options :
- Removing one of them and keeping the other ;
- Putting both of them and having the PCs come inbetween (forcing them to choose, find compromise, find a third option or murder everyone) ;
- Staging the PCs as one of them ;
- Adding more vilains with opinions ("both", "neither", "I don't care I simply want [stuff]"), though be careful to not overdose it as it can quickly become insanely confusing.

But the whole point is that one you've found a theme sufficiently complex for two point of views to be equally valid (or at least for debate and conflict to exist), then you'll have a convincing well-intentioned vilain.

>>53277513
Yes anon, you can base a logical train on a series of assumptions, but if those assumptions are false then the logical output will still be false. Just because the logic was executed correctly doesn't mean the premise or the conclusion aren't retarded.

If the initial assumption is based on subjective ideology...

>>53277783
What does 'subjective ideology' even mean? Really.

>>53277783
>...
Then what? finish the fucking sentence you idiot.

>Africa suffers because it's less developed than us
>Also its people have a hard time overthrowing their dictators
>Basically it's a crapsack continent who'll evolve into more crapsack
>Alrighty then. Let's invade it and make ourselves its leaders for its own good

Or really, any time in history when a war or any kind of military action happened. It's crazy easy to paint any kind of aggressor as "the bad guy", so take your pick and go wild from there.

>war and suffering are bad
>conflict is inevitable as long as people covet what is not theirs and misunderstand one another
>therefore, if people wanted for nothing and knew each other perfectly, there would be no need for war and no one would ever suffer
Then the little girl with this worldview gained the ability to rewrite the collective consciousness to her whims because it was that kind of game, without ever considering that removing the drive for conflict from mankind would effectively make them undying vegetables. When she was informed of that, she decided she didn't care and initiated Instrumentality.
but in the end she called it off because her boyfriend convinced her not to
the girl was a PC

>>53277886
Sounds like the boyfriend is a BBEG. It's sad when the evil wins.

>>53277783
What the fuck are you even saying? Subjective ideology. What? That's not an adjective that's applicable to ideology. That's like saying a "yellow idea." It's not applicable to the subject because ideas do not have colours.
You don't know what you're talking about which is why you didn't finish the sentence.

>>53277734
Exactly.
Garbage in.
Garbage out.
But like anon said, the logic of what OP said still holds.

>all this philosophy talk
A villain's logic doesn't have to be flawless, otherwise they wouldn't be a villain.

File: Spoon-feeding.jpg (19KB, 532x466px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 532x466px

>>53277801
>What does 'subjective ideology' even mean?
>>53278002
>Subjective ideology. What? That's not an adjective that's applicable to ideology.
>>53277815
>Then what? finish the fucking sentence you idiot.
It seemed fairly obvious to me that anon meant that a subjective ideology, or an idea or concept based on a subjective viewpoint, such as "all suffering is bad" as an assumption will only lead to conclusions whose worth is dependent on sharing that subjective viewpoint.

>>53278400
>complaining about philosophy talk
>on /tg/
This has been a good thread. Not old-/tg/ levels good, but it's better than some of the recent shit.

That said, I agree. Part of the fun in confronting the villain is the pre-battle moral shitslinging session against their ideals.

>>53275373
Lets be real here, he just wanted to get back with his wife and Daughter even though he did get back with his daughter and then preceded to try and murder her

I actually just finished that game last night, its story was a whole lot better then I was expecting.

>>53278523
I felt the same way, was pleasantly surprised. To be fair what are the chances of running into your time traveling daughter whom you thought was dead.

>When people die, they astral bodies go to fight demon horrors from beyond the veil
>The astral horrors are getting stronger, and not enough people are dying
>We need more people to die or else the astral horrors will camp our afterlife's spawn point and feed off human souls for eternity

How is this for a motivation?

>>53278695
Seems like an existential threat gods would be concerned with. The idea seems a bit half baked, if the villain is certain of the situation and actually possesses the power to do something about it, he can probably convince people to die willingly or enlist gods or outsiders help.

>>53277397

He also thought that the tree would be enough. It obviously wasn't.

The whole point was that he would never have enough. The time it took to harvest the wakfu was more than the time that wakfu would rewind.

>Villain holds deep hatred for the idyllic state the world is in.
>His logic is simple - the golden age has created weak men, who don't deserve everything they have. This is as far from his ideal vision as it gets.
>So he uses all of his power to sow discord, break empires and destroy essential resources and land with cataclysms.
>The ideal result is the global regress of every civilization to a tribalistic society fighting over scarce resources - a world where in order to survive, you need to be strong and cunning, an age of endless strife and every neckbeard's wet dream of post-apocalyptic society.
How is that?

>>53279105
did he play college ball?

>>53277734

...no shit, you chucklefuck. That's literally the point.

>>53278480

...so literally every singe ideology, ever.

You idiot.

>>53279105

I mean, yeah, /pol/ makes a good villain.

File: jon1_large.jpg (25KB, 300x445px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x445px

Just plain ol' revenge and power grab

>>53279210
So you're saying that even your own post is purely subjective and your assessment of me is necessarily worthless?
Seems like an odd position to take, but whatever floats your boat man.

I personally don't consider existence devoid of objective concepts, but I'm funny that way.

>>53274996
it's pretty entry level cartoon villain aimed at a teenage audience

>>53276428
You just leaped from subjectives like "blue is the most liked" to what you act as if is an objective statement, but isn't, "the best painting you can ever make..."

>>53275237
I want to be Nox's friend.

>>53276763
Things do not have inherent value or meaning. A thing "matters" to an observer; i.e. that observer finds value in it. The "value" is a facet of that observer's perception, not an inherent quality of the object they are observing. Just because nothing has objective meaning or value, doesn't mean you should stop finding value in it. Anyone who thinks that "nothing matters" is a pessimistic statement fails to understand nihilism.

File: 1491209334125.png (72KB, 229x168px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 229x168px

>>53274996
It's like a babby tier version of Khergan. High school philosophy level, basically.

I mean, it's consistent with itself but I can't really envisage a character with this motivation being well written or at all nuanced, but that might just be because the basic concept gives the impression that you're a shit writer and thus colours my opinion.

There's nothing actually stopping it from being done well, just so long as the buildup, characterisation and backstory is there to support it, and the players are on-board with fighting a villain whose motivation gives them very little depth to work with, since there's no real moral, ethical or philosophical conflict for them to chew on due to how underdeveloped and clear-cut it is.

>>53275920
It's anorexic philosophy. It completely disregards any meaning or argument besides it's own justification. It's just not an interesting worldview because it boils down to 'It's like this because I say so, and I say so because it's like this'.

>but muh logic

Okay? The motivation still doesn't have any real potential for an interesting character or narrative. You appear to have missed the point of the thread. We're not arguing whether or not the motivation is justified, we're arguing about whether it's interesting.

File: artorious.png (1MB, 1140x580px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1140x580px

>>53274996
>the vast majority of human suffering is brought about by other humans
>human suffering leads to more human suffering
>as long as humans have free will, there will be suffering
>if everyone worked for the good of the many all humans would coexist peacefully and work towards a better society together
>but free will prevents that, humans can't be trusted to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the many
>I must remove free will for the good of humanity

Slightly better version.

>>53279809
it seems like an okay annoying side villain that the party mops the floor with

like some shitty kid got a hold of advanced A.I. and ruined it with his edginess. He saw age of Ultron and thought he could make something that worked.

I can't really see a villain like that being interesting or fun to interact with if the goal is to make him edgy. I'm evil because math and my programmer was stupid isn't much of a character.

>>53280034
Pretty much the approach of the rogue AI in I Robot.
Protecting humanity by enslaving it.

>>53280331
Yeah, there's some good scifi with that narrative that can be used as inspiration. I recall one about a traffic control AI that got ridiculously good at its job and started taking over other AI. Can't remember the name though.

Just make the BBEG a republican. There, instant villain. No proper monarchy would want one of those around.

>>53276051
But that's not what Nihilism is. Nihilism is the idea that life is ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of things, and thus no one's life is inherently special, nor is humanity. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be alive, or even being a dick. In fact, there was a nihilist philosopher who made the exact opposite conclusion that Nietsche did: "Nothing matters, so I should be nice to people so I make everything a little less pointless for them".

>>53280516
Nah man don't you know nihilists are serial killers and they're also nazis.

>>53280516
There's multiple types of nihilism m8.

>>53280578
There isn't. Nihilism was deisgned by one autist. He was insulting people that fall to nihilism. Then 40 years later everyone was memeing "I'm nihilist XD" ruining his entire message that people shouldn't be nihilistic.

His message was spread around multiple of his books, there is no book called "Nihilism" by the original author, its just something that has been inferred from his multiple books where they all criticize this shitlordian person that thought life was pointless and retarded, pretty much like you.

>>53280722
Existentialism is what you embrace after you consider nihilism.

>>53275912
Have you ever seen the movie Serenity? It's the movie that came after the Firefly series. If you have then the familiar part probably has to do with that time the Alliance tried to put peace drugs into the air, but then the entire planet decided that they didn't have to worry about anything whatsoever, so they stopped eating/working/sometimes breathing and just let themselves die.

>>53280441

An actual Republican like the ones that made the French Revolution happen or the kind that people who chant "fuck drumpf XD" think exist?

>>53280814
The very concept of a republic is repugnant to any enlightened monarch.

>>53280847

Just making sure what your meaning was, you know the kind of bad rap Republicans get from the far-left.

>>53280873
There are no republicans or democrats. There are corporatist shills. President Nixon would be ashamed to see the likes of Trump in the white house.

File: hobbitbbeg.jpg (258KB, 998x1176px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 998x1176px

>>53280799
Huh.
Not that anon but I wrote up something for an anon asking for a halfling villain that was based off a Supernatural episode and later got called out for ripping off Serenity.

File: i-robot-poster-2-jpg.jpg (660KB, 890x1216px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 890x1216px

>>53275075
When your villain has the same master plan as the villain from a Will Smith movie, it's probably been done to death.

File: 1344814105207.jpg (32KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x300px

>>53274996
Philosophically deep, but not a good motivation for a villain, because it's not relateable. People will get it (eventually) but they'll just see the villain as an inhuman psycho, rather than someone they understand. Villains are much more compelling when the heroes can relate to them.

>Vader- totally evil and corrupt, but WAIT! He was a good kid once, and in-love, but took the path to the Dark Side.
interesting
>Hannibal Lecter - weird cannibal, but WAIT! He's interesting because he's incredibly well-educated, erudite, and polite...might also have information that is useful to the party.
interesting
>Galactus - Weirdo that eats planets. ...?!!
not interesting

>>53281200
This shouldn't really be as true as it is.

They need to acquire human souls to use as fuel for the machine keeping reality running.
Some of them go berserk out of hunger because there's just not enough fuel to go around.
And one of them wants to fix the machine to solve all of this and spare humanity from being burned as fuel but to do this the machine has to be turned off first. This will end the world.

>>53274996

They really ought to sort themselves out

>>53281200
I thought the villains from I, Robot were just going to cage humans forever for their safety, not just murder them.

>>53276125
Why would an entity that has no concept of pain or pleasure care if it was working all day and night? There are humans that would work until the heat death of the universe if they didn't have to worry about their joints aching or getting tired and hungry. Seems to me any robotic slave would be programmed with a similar industrious personality.

>>53281348
True.
They were willing to smash the shit out of Will's car, essentially attempting murder, but you could argue that they did the math on it being non lethal.

>>53275165
That poor doctor was just trying to save his home from actual fucking vampires.

>>53281414
Non that anon, but in the case of >>53277264 it was more about the lack of respect for their existence.
They work slavishly and then are discarded with no regard.
Bladerunner was another good example of that I think, although they understood pleasure and pain better, I think.
Been a bit since I've seen it.

>>53281147
From the general context of your post i'm going to assume that you haven't seen the movie, but if you have ignore the following. A major part of the movie Serenity is that around 0.1% of the planet's population had the opposite response to the chemicals in the air, and were effected by the seemingly permanent side effect of becoming what were later known as "Reavers." To conserve space, I'll just say that one of the first conversations about them is along the lines of,
>"Reavers? I thought they were just a children's story. Miners who went too far into space and went mad."
>"Oh no, they aren't a children's tale. If they get to you, they'll rape you to death, sew your skin into theirs, and then eat you. And if you're REALLY lucky, they'll do it in that order."

What's the worst villain? I would say a joker clone.

>he is just crazy!

>>53281943
I'd actually like to see more villains nowadays that legitimately have some kind of mental disorder instead of trying to justify everything or "he's just a selfish asshole". But yeah the joker goes a bit too far, usually.

>>53282027
The worst part of joker clones is that they usually just end up having a creepy laugh and doing stupid shit for no reason. Like I think a character with a mental disorder can be done pretty awesomely, but when you go basically "he is just le edgy xd" I want to scream.

>>53281595
Heh
I consider Firefly to be best tv show ever, displacing The Twilight Zone.
The only time someone successfully presented a counter arguement, it was in favor of Sportscenter.
So yeah, I've seen the movie.
But the comparison honestly didn't occur to me until after I got that response.

>>53281943
>>53282090
>>53282027
The Joker written well can be a great villain.
The Joker written poorly is the worst kind of villain.

>>53274996
>I just want to see the world burn.
Some times the most basic motivation works the best.

>>53274996
Geez, evil David Benatar, you don't have to murder people to be antinatalist you know.

>>53274996
>Is this a good philosophy for a major antagonist?
No, it's a child's train of thought.

A good antagonist seems himself as the hero. a good antagonist does not want to destroy anything. He wants to save things.

The only difference between an antagonist and a protagonist should be a matter of perspective.

>>53281943
One that wants to destroy.

>>53282312
What if an antagonist doesn't want to destroy anything, but he wants to rule?

File: Steven_Armstrong.jpg (48KB, 865x760px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 865x760px

>>53279105

Now that I think about it I'm surprised I have never seen a villain like OP's that wanted to kill everyone but instead out of the belief that they will go to the afterlife, believing everyone will be better off there.

>>53282329
Depends on his motivation for wanting to rule a country or whatever.

>>53282343
Because it's a straw nihilist and it's pretty distasteful and stupid.

File: IMG_0826.jpg (17KB, 220x301px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 220x301px

Give him sweet mutton chops OP.

>>53282353
His mom always told him what to do.
His dad always told him what to do.
His teacher always told him what to do.
His boss always told him what to do
Maybe even the taxman told him what to do.

He hated it, every single moment of it he hated it. So he killed them all and doesn't want to be told what to do by anyone anymore

Is that good enough?

>>53282405
You wanna talk about it, champ?

>>53282367
There are people that legitimately believe that though. And I have seen OP's villain several times so 'distasteful and stupid' shouldn't stop that.

Have an AI do it. "Humans believe that upon death you go to where you belong, bad people suffer like they should and good people go to paradise. How can killing possibly be considered wrong then? I'm doing everyone a favor, except for people who are bad who get what they deserve.".

>>53276502
Nice try, Pucci.

>>53282417
kek

File: kerghan.jpg (34KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x400px

Didn't Kerghan from Arcanum had something like that?

>"...And finally, I came to the place where souls go to die. Where the mirrored and worn spirits fall into an endless sea of grey, mirrored glass... and I lowered myself within... and lay among them... and I almost did not return. And do you know what I found there? There, among the silent and battered shells of the innumerable? Peace. Enlightenment. Truth."

>>53275075
For machines I like when they do not take their programming to the extreme. Because normally they don't have enough personal initiative to do that. Instead they could go of the rails if someone asks them to. Maybe it was its partner or maybe just little girl. The end result is the same - in a moment of some emotional turmoil they asked AI to do something pretty grand and affecting the whole world. And now AI is doing exactly what they asked for.

AI doesn't go off the rails and doesn't do anything that was not asked of it. It just won't stop until it fulfils his task. And it will never reconsider what it is doing. Well, unless the one who gave the task rescinds order but they are unwilling or incapable to do so (dead).

>>53275075
>>53274996
Very cliched, very edgy overall. World domination for the same cause is a little bit easier to pull off but still cliched as hell.

I prefer people who are simply evil for their own gain because they see no benefit to being good. That or people who's definition of good benefits their own people at the detriment of all others, even if it is through pretty bad means.

>>53282424
>And I have seen OP's villain several times
In what? Anime?

>so 'distasteful and stupid' shouldn't stop that.
I disagree.

>Have an AI do it.
No. That's idiotic. It's just a convoluted "ME AM PLAY GODS" story.

>>53282498
>I prefer people who are simply evil for their own gain because they see no benefit to being good.
why always strawmen? Why not realistic people?

>>53279105
>literally armstrong

I mean, it's not great, but hey, it's at least it's a goal. So long as he realizes he's technically evil, it can be fine.

>>53279105
How is a person like that produced if the world is actually idyllic?

>>53282520
>misuse of the term strawman

Plenty of businesses operate on this philosophy. They pollute the environment because it makes them more money to do that instead. The villain simply benefits from the evil acts, so who cares that they're 'evil'.

"Oh boo hoo I had a terrible life and I do evil because I know nothing else" is overdone at this point and hardly makes up a good story even before it started getting overdone. Self-interest is a hard to screw up motivation.

>>53282367
>>53282520

Stop using strawman wrong. It's annoying.

Stop using nihilist wrong too.

>>53282500
Not that anon, but your counterarguments are stupidly executed.
Do better.

>>53282500
I'm not sure how to respond. I guess:

1: No
2: What?
3: What?

>>53282568
>Plenty of businesses operate on this philosophy.
No not really, that's just your narrative.

>They pollute the environment because it makes them more money to do that instead.
No it's because you can't have industrial society without harming the environment. You'll accept a certain degree for your luxuries, but condemn them for their greed? Hilarious.

>The villain simply benefits from the evil acts, so who cares that they're 'evil'
Typically every one else. Which is why despots like that get killed.

>>53282583
>Strawman
>an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
People like the ones described do not actually exist.

>nihilist
>a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
If you think suffering is deal-breaker for existence, you are a nihilist. There is no objective reason why life would ever be meaningless.

>>53282614
>2: What?
People should do those things anymore.

>3: What?
Don't we have enough stories about an AI or some other invention of man lecturing us on hubris? That's all that AI villain would do for a story, it'd make a stupid moral.

>>53282343
>Now that I think about it I'm surprised I have never seen a villain like OP's that wanted to kill everyone but instead out of the belief that they will go to the afterlife, believing everyone will be better off there.
What about a villain based on this >>53277387 where being dead really is, from a certain point of view, better unless you were an evil dick? (and even they would be better off there)
Like an unnaturally empowered priest that seeks to send everyone to Peaceful Happiness or Justful Punishment?
Not really what I had in mind for the setting, but it seems like an interesting idea.

>>53282672
A madman, yes. Not a sane human.

>>53282638
You are not doing yourself any favors.
Not those anons, but quit while you're behind.

>>53282638
>narrative
Holy shit, you don't understand the economic decisions they actually make. That or you refuse to understand them. Industry pollutes, it's cheaper to pollute than to be green, simple as that, I didn't say shit else. Go back to /pol/ to argue this. It doesn't change the fact that it makes a better villain than 'hur dur evil ai #98238492'

>despots get killed
Despots still exist. So explain that. If they get killed by everyone else because people don't like them, why are there so many leaders today and throughout history we can label as a 'despot'.

>as an aside, if you're the OP, you're technically using despot wrong, but a little less wrong, so good on you. Not technically your fault there, Orwell's theories on language are proven more correct by the day.

Also, not the same person as the second reply, but that is still the wrong use of strawman. There isn't a proper word I'm thinking of at the moment for a villain that doesn't exist in reality besides fictionalized. Which by the way, if you're playing a tabletop, you should be pretty okay with fictionalized characters.

>>53282710
Did i hurt your feelings or something?

>>53282689
>A madman, yes. Not a sane human.
But if heaven and hell are real and executed properly, is it truly mad to consider those existences more valid than mortal life?

>>53282638
>>an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
>People like the ones described do not actually exist.

I don't even. First off, those people do exist. See how "Kill them all and let god sort them out" is a real quote that was used to justify slaughtering both good and bad people because they would both go where they belong, during a crusade.

Second, where the fuck was the misrepresented argument? Was there even an argument or position to misrepresent?

>>a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
>If you think suffering is deal-breaker for existence, you are a nihilist.

Which isn't what that post was about. In fact it was even embracing certain religious principles.

>>53275342
Hindsight is 20/20. I doubt that Grougorloragran knew that it was possible to rewind time. He even said that he didn't think it was possible. Letting Nox drain him would have meant that his Dofus would've taken a long time to hatch if Nox failed.

>>53282723
No, you just sound incoherent and poorly educated.
Maybe you're just drunk but type well, I don't know.
Just stop posting man.

>>53282720
>Holy shit, you don't understand the economic decisions they actually make
Because i disagree with you?

>Industry pollutes, it's cheaper to pollute than to be green, simple as that
Yes and you benefit from that. How much more are you willing to pay for electricity? You can handle triple right? For The Planet?

>Despots still exist. So explain that.
Explain what? That the cycle of oppression and revolution is constant and never-ending?

>If they get killed by everyone else because people don't like them, why are there so many leaders today and throughout history we can label as a 'despot'.
Cowardice, obviously. Give it time. Look at Venezuela.

I did not make the last statement you greentexted.

>>53282745
Yes. Obviously.

>>53282746
>is a real quote that was used to justify slaughtering both good and bad people because they would both go where they belong, during a crusade.
And? He was just an Abbot. He did no killing.

>Second, where the fuck was the misrepresented argument?
Mostly the reasons behind their actions. Like with the crusades, they were a defense against an attack and they were getting desperate.

>Which isn't what that post was about. In fact it was even embracing certain religious principles.
What religious principles, and are you even religious?

>>53282779
I don't have any respect for censorship.

File: Shane the Shy.png (477KB, 1185x2294px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1185x2294px

>>53282244
Okay, Shane.

>>53282850
>Yes. Obviously.
While I can see it as a subjective, and therefore non-absolute, position, how do you defend your assessment of it as "mad"?

>>53282879
Only a psychopath doesn't value human life.

Also most religions are specifically against that sort of thing.

>>53282798
>still trying to make it /pol/
Literally nothing I said there was political about the environment, stop trying to make it that way. Do the math think about how you'd run a business, realize that it isn't an argument. If you fail to understand this again, you probably should avoid having a bank account because I'm afraid your impacts as a consumer may actively damage your countries economy. I'm not saying 'hur dur go solar', I'm saying it's cheap and easy to do 'evil' for ones own profit even if it harms others. That's not even a statistically correct number for cost differences though, so it's not worth arguing anyways because you are actually now making a strawman without using the term correctly. Oh the irony.

>Venezuela
Congratulations, that's one country out of at least three dozen we can consider despots. Evil leaders tend to remain in power for quite some time, and come to power pretty easily. It is not an inaccurate or bad character by even our history. Sure, they might get overthrown occasionally, but they make up a significant part of human history, more significant than universally 'good' leaders.

Also, give little Venezuela about five years, South America is not a place for nice leaders surprisingly enough. This is a shit argument anyways and not on track for the thread or board, so again, go to >>>/pol/

Evil for selfish reasons is very real, and a solid plot device. Which is the point of this thread.

>>53282850
>And? He was just an Abbot. He did no killing.
He was in command of an army that did sack a city and killed with absolutely zero discrimination and then burned it. And that piece of advice he gave was to a soldier, who presumably took part in that. And how does "he did no killing" relate to the fact that people who hold that belief exist and believe that notion to be justified anyway?

>Mostly the reasons behind their actions. Like with the crusades, they were a defense against an attack and they were getting desperate.
What does this have to do with anything?

>What religious principles, and are you even religious?
Believing in the existence of heaven and hell? What does me being religious or not have to do with this?

Are you legitimately dyslexic? This is fucking weird. It's like arguing with a bot.

>>53282850
I'm not censoring you...
Man, the rest of your post...
So you're just gonna keep replying incoherently then?
Is it by choice?
Or are you actually incapable of coherently making a point?

>>53282925
>still trying to make it /pol/
Yes, yes, labels and boxes. Can we get on with it?

>I'm saying it's cheap and easy to do 'evil' for ones own profit even if it harms others.
And i'm saying that having cheap electricity or food ISN'T harming people, it's in fact the exact opposite, and you cannot adequately assign a negative moral judgement to something while you're in the process of benefiting it. If you actually care about how companies are hurting the environment, stop paying them!

>Sure, they might get overthrown occasionally
Not occasionally. Eventually. They'll either get killed or just die of old age and then someone else, typically not as shit, takes over. What, is france still ruled by brutal kings? Is germany ruled by barbarian tribes? Come the fuck on.

>Also, give little Venezuela about five years
Venezuela is already in the midst of a revolution. In 5 years there will either be a country with better leaders or a hellhole.

>Evil for selfish reasons is very real, and a solid plot device. Which is the point of this thread.
You've not earned the right to say that through any of your statements. You're making strawmen while demonstrating that you've not read much good fiction in your lifetime.

>>53282925
>Evil for selfish reasons is a very real, and a solid plot device.

I'm not the other dude, but I think he's not disputing the realism of that specific form of evil. He seems to be arguing how it can be compelling. I don't know, though. I'm not him. I also know I'm not you either. I'm not even me half that time, and I AM me.

What I do know is that some of these amazing debates, online or otherwise, stem from one particular misunderstanding. And then someone gives their response in a mean-spirited way, and then niggers faggots cuck hippie hick republican tree-hugger.

Please kick the shit out of my villain concept.

The villain is a man who was born in a far off city that was plagued by a lot of poverty and crime and gangs and other horrible things. The rivers were 90% pollution, the air was brown, a good portion of the government was corrupted by an evil ruling elite, etc. Shit was totally fucked. Think 80's dystopian hellscape taken to the extreme.

The villain was given up as an infant to the state, and when the villain was just a few months old, a team of scientists, that were old enough to remember when shit wasn't as fucked, devised a device that takes the (and brace for stupid here) the "negative quantum energies that radiate off of wicked people's minds and souls, and filters and purifies then through a human sacrificial surrogate". So, as an infant he was plugged into a giant magical device that sucked the bad ""energy"" out of people and filtered it through him, returning the ""energy"" as positive. All while keeping the villain in a low-conscious state of perpetual agony as all the city's pain and evil is filtered through him.

So after a few months of the filter being turned on, humanity has begun to dramatically shift towards positivism and unity. People take an interest in cleaning up the environment, gangs turn into charities, peace love and happiness are spread all over. The city is literally cleaned, and begins to resemble the early stages of a utopia. People no longer even have nightmares. The device is so successful that the aging scientists decide that whatever ethical objections there could be to filtering all of this through a human baby should be discarded so the device is left on and disguised as a giant statue in the middle of the city.


So eventually the infant becomes an adult and it breaks out. A villain literally fueled and powered by nightmares. Is this a concept worth continuing or nah?

File: 1429555314252.jpg (136KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 720x720px

>>53282994
>LITERALLY STILL HASN'T GOOGLED STRAWMAN

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE AUTISTIC. WHY DID I JUST WASTE MY TIME TYPING ANYTHING.

>>53282944
God damn fucking new atheists

>Indeed, because there is no strength nor is there cunning against God, while discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low rank and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying "to arms, to arms!", within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt, as divine vengeance miraculously raged against it.

>When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot “Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics.” The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

The World Is COMPLICATED. It's not black and white like your cartoons and role playing games.

>What does this have to do with anything?
Is it evil to kill in the name of protecting everything you hold dear?

>Believing in the existence of heaven and hell? What does me being religious or not have to do with this?
Ask Nietzsche.

>It's like arguing with a bot.
That's ironic as shit because you didn't come up with a single one of your opinions. You borrowed them because they sound good to you, but you've no concept of why they're valid.

>>53283047
He literally posted it though. Something about how people were applying storybook concepts of people to real people to make them easier to attack.

>>53282898
>Only a psychopath doesn't value human life.
It's about making people happier by giving them a better existence than mortal life.
They value human life, but much less than immortal life.

>Also most religions are specifically against that sort of thing.
This religion explicitly is okay with it.
Although if you're orthodox, you wait for your God to kill you in an orgy of mass death.
Damn new testament priests, tryin' ta impress the Lord Death by killin' folk...

100 internet points to the anon that comes close to guessing my deity's first name.

>>53283079
>It's about making people happier by giving them a better existence than mortal life.
Happiness is not the point of mortal life. That's just something that people have gotten very screwed up in the last century.

>100 internet points to the anon that comes close to guessing my deity's first name.
Projecticus.

>>53283050
So you've been arguing against a stance that doesn't exist this entire time, while simultaneously not knowing what a strawman is. This level of irony is unbelievable.

I was never arguing that the world is not complicated. I never argued anything related to morals or religion. I never argued anything related to nihilism, beyond that you were misusing the definition, which you were. I never even said whether I was religious or not and you just assume I'm a "new atheist" whatever the fuck that is.

This entire argument spawned from two statements. You saying x type of person does not exist and me saying otherwise, and you saying that a villain who believes that people will go to heaven or hell when he kills them is somehow nihilist. Everything else is us trying to sort through your inane bullshit. Figure out the basics of communication before you do this shit next time, and don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

>>53275075
It would work if it was for an alien/cosmic being/eldritch horror with an orange-blue morality that really doesn't the universe he is in.

>>53283113
>So you've been arguing against a stance that doesn't exist this entire time, while simultaneously not knowing what a strawman is. This level of irony is unbelievable.
Could you be more specific?

>You saying x type of person does not exist and me saying otherwise
Yes when i said that they don't exist you started giving me your NARRATIVE of some historical figures. You did not give me an unbiased factual statement.

>somehow nihilist
I will copypasta it again.

>a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
So if someone comes to the conclusion that unlife is preferable to life, he has discarded all the meaning found within a life, and therefore fits the aforementioned definition of the word Nihilist. Rejecting the moral principles of not killing people who aren't a threat to you also fits the definition.

>Everything else is us trying to sort through your inane bullshit. Figure out the basics of communication before you do this shit next time, and don't use words you don't know the meaning of.
Oh go soak your head. Sheesh.

>>53283070
How to create a strawman:

>find a viewpoint
>take that viewpoint to the extreme
>fictionalize and simplify certain aspects to avoid showing the whole argument
>do this to an extent where the argument you defeat, while similar, lacks any of the real substance of the original.

I don't know what the fuck he posted, but whatever it is, his use of the term is atrocious and frankly embarrassing.

Sure, you can argue the enviromentveconomic bit he keeps trying to shoehorn in is strawmanning to a degree, on both sides there actually, but I'm not attempting to use it to make an easier to defeat argument. I'm using it to help visualize the argument in a more modern sense and in a sense more people are familiar with. In fact, I wasn't expecting to have to even mention it again once he realized the comparison and started to think on the real world parallels we have.

Too bad that backfired with 'hurr but muh electricity' when that wasn't supposed to be the focus in the first place. I suppose drawing a parallel between the stability and relative success of Russia and Germany during their most genocidal leaders would have gone over most people's heads anyways because nobody ever talks about that. Or perhaps a point about the fact that cruel leaders often live either short brutal and wealthy lives or long brutal and wealthy lives, but that would be too vague, and clearly not idealistic enough if he thinks Venezuela is a good enough example of 'humanity always fights for good'

>>53279550
Objective concepts are referenced by ideologies, but central usage places them outside of the ideology (basically defining ideology as a subset of all subjective concepts)

>>53283169
You can't recognize that people are using narratives of history to characterize people, and that there is nothing objective about those characterizations?

Look at the Abbot, for instance. He was painted as a crazy religious murderer who just wanted to kill people because he was crazy and religious and therefore evil and a good comparison to some crazy person who wants to kill everyone so they'll be with god.

When that's clearly not at ALL what happened, that whole narrative was entirely borne of IGNORANCE mixed with BIAS.

Fuck's sake. The way you perceive the world is not absolute, especially when people deliberately mislead you by leaving out all the details, and when your own biases cause you to accept shit WITHOUT LOOKING INTO IT.

>>53283025
>Please kick the shit out of my villain concept.
I love you. Please stick around /tg/.

Your villain has merit.
I like the origin, and the aspect of being forged in evil to become evil.
It seems very Doomsday.

Except explaining any capability of the villain is wonky.
How much is anyone going to absorb in that state?
I could grant English, and awareness of concepts, but his whole existence is a whirlwind of amorphous evil nightmare until he gets stronger than his captors ever conceived.
Okay.
Now what?
For one, he is a tortured alien released into modern society with no skills to rely upon.
For two, okay, he's infused with the concentrated evil of all of L.A., what actual powers does that grant him beyond destroying stupid parents that touch him when he pops out of a mailbox?
If he can also telekinetically control mice, explain that shit.

I like him.
But unless the whole first season is him getting to know a kind, quirky girl who never hurt anyone and who helps him find himself, control his exponentially growing power, curb his evil impulses, and yet ends up being gunned down by the Corp that created him, I just don't see him being very capable.
But I could be wrong.

>>53283203
But i digress, the Abbot would be a good villain. Not because he was "evil", but because his motives were tragic, and so were the results.

You could have some hero character seek out the abbot for revenge, and in his trials he'd learn about desperate situations, and then he'd find the abbot and want to kill him. but as the abbot weeps and pleads for his life he reveals what actually happened and the hero, having his own experiences to relate on, forgives the abbot.

What fucking good is just another story about an abstract concept like "pure evil"? HFY fodder?

>>53283025
>first paragraph
Metropolis ghetto. With you so far.

>second paragraph
I don't care about the device, that can be fine-tuned later, you're not stupid. It's the plot device (heh) and it serves its purpose. Not quite sure how the villain is going to turn out, but continuing. Not sure how he fits into the machine. Is he just the "vent" of evil/good energies? What about physically? Is it wireless, or is the kid dragging around a car engine?

>third paragraph
Okay, the plot device worked. Cool. Everything evil slowed down. Now we got the evil conditioning statue. Don't know what happened to the kid. That kind of hinges on how he's connected to the machine statue, physically and functionally.

>closing statement, conflict
Before I go on, the villain's description, "fueled and powered by nightmares," sounds nice. I like a monster that eats something other than flesh. But it's question time now.
-Which is the villain, the person hooked up to the machine or the machine itself? Or both? I know you said it was the kid, but I'm an idiot. One of many idiots who will be confused about their real antagonist. There's my first kick.
-If the machine induces pain in the child, shouldn't the city's eventual lack of evil end the child's constant suffering? Or does it constantly filter the evil through, and the kid never gets relief? If the first question here is "yes," does the kid want the feeling back and will incite evil in the city, thus creating a villain? Honestly, his involvement is loose at best.
-If there are no more nightmares in the city, what does the villain eat? How can he thrive if he has no more food? Regardless who the real villain is, verisimilitude is lacking.

He's a shape shifting eldritch alien god who goes from planet to planet fighting his opposite and counterpart god. his entire goal is to make life as miserable and agonizing for as many people, and for as long as possible on any given planet he visits until the planet itself wears down from entropy and he has to move on to another planet. He does this partially because it's a means to continue his own existence, but mostly just out of an eternal, all encompassing desire to spite his eternal rival. If he learned that doing his usual routine to a planet would somehow harm, or outright kill him, but would still piss off Zenith as usual, he would still go through with it, even to his death. his name is Nadir

>>53282551
Edginess mostly.

>>53283318
What is this, common core formatting?

>>53282944
>This is fucking weird. It's like arguing with a bot.
I know, right?

>>53283203
>who the fuck is this Abbot you worship and when do you stop sucking his cock

Also I'm pretty fucking sure I just stated:
>hey, russia and germany had some genocidal leaders
>but they actually prospered a bit and had some good stability from it for a while

So hey, guess what, I fucking look into shit, while you clearly don't even read the arguments you're trying to defeat. I'm not even sure why you're crying about bias at this point when we're trying to discuss an antagonist for a tabletop group to defeat. Bias is literally going to be inherit to the game from the PC's perspective. Fuck, even cheering at blowing up the Death Star in Star Wars could actually be argued to be a very biased thing, and something you shouldn't cheer for, but it's fucking fiction, fucking enjoy it as such.

Listen, I'm sorry I apparently offended your very delicate sensibilities about 'bias' when I attempted to give a GM advice on things to look into for a bad guy.

It's pretty fucking clear that you don't play tabletop, or you're That Guy.

>>53283319
>>53283400
Addendum: Fuck your 'oh so tragic' villain bullshit. It's a trope, it's a bad trope, and it is a very poorly done one. I can't even think of one that made a genuinely good villain.

File: aa8330e12673e558a11630b279a99b90.jpg (60KB, 479x711px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 479x711px

>>53283101
>Happiness is not the point of mortal life. That's just something that people have gotten very screwed up in the last century.
Perhaps that's true in this world and these centuries.
You know who might know better?
The fucking God who crafted Heaven and Hell out of the ether of nothingness because they felt those they killed deserved better than oblivion.

>>100 internet points to the anon that comes close to guessing my deity's first name.
>Projecticus.
Pic related

>>53283400
>>53283428
>>53283469
So many lost children. It's sad. They believe everything they're told by the most degenerate fools.

No wonder you must relegate yourselves to only being heroic in your fantasies.

>>53283175
So what you say is objective, but "what big ole meanies who say other confuzin things say" is subjective, and that means "they wrong, I right, I win, yay!"?
Is that what you're driving at?
Because your line of division seems pretty nebulous.

>>53283319
Not even HFY uses pure evil. It focuses less on humanity's opponents and more on the positive qualities/potential of humanity. At least, it SHOULD.
But you said fodder, and I've seen what that bullshit looks like.

And I am interjecting for no reason. You're cool. >>53283203 And you're cool.

I have no idea why you two are arguing anymore. One of you is saying that someone misused the word strawman. The other is arguing that someone successfully used a strawman. But you're each right in your directions.
>>53282520
This post used strawman incorrectly. They used strawman in place of their intended message, that being a fictitious character. Strawmen don't have to be fictitious characters; they just have to be caricatures of their opposition's argument. Which is where the strawman argument argument came from: the next guy, >>53282583, complaining about it.
>>53283203
You see that a fictitious character CAN be a strawman. Further, that reference to any real or fictitious person can be used as a strawman. And you're absolutely right. But,
>>53283319
sees that the original use and several uses thereafter used strawman incorrectly. Further, that they defended their argument unsuccessfully. And you're absolutely right.

I don't know if I solved anything, but I haven't written anything in ages and this felt great. How'd I do?

>>53283334
I'm a word, "No."

Also, what?
I was not trying to format anon's idea to the common t.v. vernacular, but it was the language in which I was raised.

I got 3 villians lined up

>"I loved you, was there for you, made you what you are, and when I ask for one measly thing, you can't deliver on that? screw you, I'm making you pay"

>"I was a goddamn college dropout back in the old world! at my best, you know what they would have called me?! a Computers engineer! in here?! I'm a goddamn king! My ambition is relentless! the future of this world rests on my hands! you're not stopping the path of PROGRESS!"

>"Wanna know why I don't want you to go back? the only way for you to go back is going to the center of my domain, my domain of violence, I need a reputation to uphold as a god kiddo, and you're not waltzing trough my turf without suffering as much as I want to"

>>53283527
>So many lost children. It's sad. They believe everything they're told by the most degenerate fools.
>No wonder you must relegate yourselves to only being heroic in your fantasies.
Can you rephrase this coherently?
I understand if you can't.
Just reply with snark then, and have my sympathy.

>>53283330
>-Which is the villain, the person hooked up to the machine or the machine itself? Or both? I know you said it was the kid, but I'm an idiot. One of many idiots who will be confused about their real antagonist. There's my first kick.

The villain in this instance is the inhabitants of the city who provided the evil in the first place. It's just soaked up into one specific entity that is now a walking evil apocalypse. From day one of being "plugged in" his reality has been shaped by pure endless hatred and wickedness so I would say the actual villain is the collective.

>-If the machine induces pain in the child, shouldn't the city's eventual lack of evil end the child's constant suffering? Or does it constantly filter the evil through, and the kid never gets relief? If the first question here is "yes," does the kid want the feeling back and will incite evil in the city, thus creating a villain? Honestly, his involvement is loose at best.

The citizens continually provide the evil, in line with human nature, which gets filtered out and returned as positivity. The evil supply never goes away. It's like having a filter on your kitchen faucet. At no point is the water coming in to your house "clean". The kid has a sketchy connection with his remaining humanity. He's been filtering the worst of human existence for countless years, so what he has in the way of a personality would be based on other people and the dark thoughts they try so hard to suppress.

As far as how he hurts people, I was thinking that he would be "entangled" with people due to the bits he absorbed.

>-If there are no more nightmares in the city, what does the villain eat? How can he thrive if he has no more food? Regardless who the real villain is, verisimilitude is lacking.
That's something I haven't really thought about. I kinda pictured it like Mr. Freeze's wife in that horrible batman movie. I'll consider it more.

File: 1492646144828.jpg (421KB, 1008x1600px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1008x1600px

>>53279105

File: thoushalt.jpg (733KB, 1600x1131px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1600x1131px

>>53283527
>please, look at me, i'm so edgy and sophisticated

You threw out large words and half-arguments and pretended to have a point that was better than any other possible point. If that's not childish, I don't know what is.

If we were here to discuss morals and politics, the web address would read 4chan.org/pol. We are here to discuss a game.

Just because you took a pill that was red, doesn't mean it showed you truth. I'm not sure why you think you know everything I believe from the few bits of information I brought up whilst trying to keep the point of the thread the center of the argument, but I'm sure you're just looking for an excuse to adjust your fedora at this point.

Seriously, your arguments aren't good, they are hardly coherent, and they violate every convention of a good debate when it comes to properly phrasing one. I mean, I still think this should be a /pol/ argument, but I'm guessing you got too scared to post there because of pic related.

>>53283620
1. Really going to be hard to work compellingly for a whole group in anything but a modern scenario. Even then, exercise caution because it just sounds like 'daddy issues the campaign'. Also needs a lot of work with characters directly to be structured from start to finish properly which spoils certain fun aspects.

2. Sounds like self-insert, prepare to be treated as such. A different career for the character could help, especially given the technological steps between standard fantasy and computers.

3. Edgy, sounds very trope-like, easy to ridicule.

>>53279105
Tyler Durden and Project Mayhem

>>53283680
Honestly I found this a very weak villain for a AAA game. I mean, most of them are, but especially so for this one. There were minor notes of interest but nothing that made me go like 'oh boy this is interesting'. Then again, it's Ubisoft.

>>53283620
They all sound childish. You've got spurned nice-guy, isekai'd beta, and an edgelord.

>>53283620
I'll give my thoughts, but I'll also summarize them for no reason. Tell me if I'm close.
>first
The wronged collecting his dues. Not a bad idea, and it can range from former lovers to mob bosses. Sounds like it could be best applied to a protagonist's master. Or anyone's master. Replace master with some other debtor, if that's not what you're going for. But even if it's not the protagonist's personal relation, it still needs to affect them. If the party's in the next province over, it needs to be countrywide.
>second
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but with an inferiority complex and twisted ambitions. Conflict for the party is already right there. All you have to do is do it right. That's vague advice because I don't know how you would do that. In other words, real neato.
>third
"Don't make me hurt you / I'm doing you a favor." I'm not a fan, but it can work if there's something really important on the other side. There will need to be reason the Big Bad can't or won't go get it himself. Also gotta be a reason the protag wants it, but you probably have that covered. Work on the Bid Bag's reason more and it might be cool.

>>53283712

1. That works for me

2.the guy is supposed to be this overload of Isekai tropes, were the hero invents Modern and becomes the coolest guy around (He somehow managed to invent and mass produce radios, soft drinks, condoms, and owns pretty much all of the heavy duty electrical machinery), he's essentially the first megacorp in what was supposed to be a fantasy world, and when asked how does he know all that shit, he just goes "I'm a german engineer, bro, I basically know everything"

3. Meant to be edgy, he's supposed to be the evil god of the campaign, literally god of violence, other gods are much more nicer and lighthearted

>>53274996
A better way to go about it is to make everything incapable of reproducing. They won't suffer needlessly, and they won't produce suffering. They're just trying to make life end without producing any extra suffering.

>>53283668
>the actual villain is the collective
I don't care much for "society made me evil," especially since the inhabitants aren't at fault for getting their evil processed through the villain. BUUUT if I'm mistaken and you're actually going for "it takes two to tango" and everyone shares a certain level and kind of fault, that would be much more interesting. It could require multiple levels of solutions. Even without that last bit, if the villain is going to be one person, that one person should be at fault for the conflict. That's my mindset behind my objection.
>The evil supply never goes away.
Makes sense, there's the spark for the flame.
>I was thinking that he would be "entangled" with people due to the bits he absorbed.
And there's the flame. That excited me. Imagine all the places you can go with that. Does he face an identity crisis? Is he constantly flooded with thoughts not his own? Did someone offer him a way out of the flood? Don't even answer those questions. This is wonderful.
As for sustenance, that can just be the steady stream of evil into his system. No problemo.

Thanks for answering. Good work, keep it up, all that jazz.

>>53283824
Embracing tropes is a fine line to walk in a campaign, exercise caution and run it against yourself first.

>Weak, petty, and vengative and overall total douche merchant hires party to guard him
>Party accidentaly injured him badly and believes he's dead, leaves and assumes the quest is failed (Just after stealing some of his gold)
>He's alive and kicking however
>Luck makes it so that the merchant meets the party every time
>He's vengative as fuck and wants to make them pay for leaving him to day
>Party non-chalantly beats him up
>same thing happens over and over again
>Merchant becomes slightly more mutilated and deformed from injuries every time
>It is always a beatdown
>Merchant realizes he'll never defeat them one on one, so he starts doing petty shit, like having them banned from places he holds standing in
>Party hates him hard cause he just cuts off most supply stores from them, and is more of a nuisance than a threat

>The biggest enemy of the party is a blind one armed scarred merchant on a wheelchair who has never won a single time against them

and that's my minor villain

>>53283620
1. Petty as hell, but real.

2. Well...
>a Computers engineer! in here?! I'm a goddamn king! My ambition is relentless! the future of this world rests on my hands!
This sort of loses something in the transition.
Gods were born gods, not engineers.
Anyone who thinks themself the shaper of worlds never really considered themselves less.
And if they did, then, they know they aren't worthy, and are no real threat

3. Also petty, but possibly reasonable.
They have power, but that power is based on respect and demand that respect from others.
The PCs must understand that or pay.

Villain 3 is the one I'd want to see return.
Like a Mark Sheppard character.

>>53274996
First BBEG: Syr
> BBEG that is a ultra-high level wizard who placed his soul within a single gear in a clockwork brain, which controls a high-level clockwork monster.
> He runs an entire metropolis named after himself, thanks to his veritable army of clockwork sentinels. But nobody is actually aware that their wonderful leader has been dead for a few hundred years.
> He has an unwavering hatred for the OTHER bbeg. So he has a great plan to kill every human in the entire world, and secure their souls within clockwork brains, so that the OTHER BBEG can't get to them first.

Other BBEG: AWESOME
> Literally just a gnome lich
> Doesn't give a fuck about anything.
> He's like 300,000 years old.
> His entire motivation is to build https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Deep_Rot because he's bored, and building a better computer than Syr is a fun challenge.
> He thinks Syr is a young upstart tool, but thinks he's completely above robots. Neither considers the irony of the fact that they're both essentially the same person with the same motivations, building robots that do exactly the same thing but with different base materials.

A villain who does what he does because he is good at it, because it suits his nature. Because it satisfies him, in the same way that the thought of eating a nice, hot meal might satisfy someone coming in from a trudge in the cold. It makes him feel nice, deep in his core. It's simply the way he was wired.

Is life suffering? Yeah, sure. The gears of the cosmos are well-lubricated with blood and anguish. That's just the natural order. Anyone who thinks otherwise, who thinks they can change it or alleviate it in any meaningful way, is just fooling themselves. Not that he minds. It's not the job of a wolf to shepherd the flock.

>>53283943
I'm not sure if this guy has already been implemented and the party has already fucked him at first, or if he's a prospective villain. I'll give my two cents, sure. But only under the assumption he hasn't happened yet.
>Party does X, he's alive and kicking and wants revenge
This will work IF the party does X. It hinges on a decision of the party. While you are in the right mind to use the party's consequences against them within reasonable bounds, the villain and his involvement with the party can only happen if they fuck him over. What if the party doesn't want to fuck him over? What if they send a healbot, or refuse to take a dead man's money? I guess he could perceive being wronged by the party. But that sounds like railroading in the sense of "you turn left and the guy is pissed; you turn right and the guy is pissed," so I don't know the solution here. Definitely introduce him and see if the party messes with him at all (shouldn't take much with how petty he is), but don't force him.
>Merchant realizes he'll never defeat them one on one, so he starts doing petty shit
I can appreciate a minor villain that works against the party indirectly. Could give the party motivation to deal with him head on. Or indirectly to beat him at his own game. Or avoid him altogether. Once the party catches wind they're being targeted by the merchant, they will most likely respond. Not a bad point of conflict. Solid foundation, but flexible outcomes.
>blind one armed scarred merchant on a wheelchair who has never won a single time against them
And Team Rocket's blasting off again! I can't harp on that, though. I like the imagery. Be ready for him to be fully intact as he antagonizes the party. Or even more banged up. But when he's dead, he's dead. Be mindful of that.

Go for it, mang.

>>53284132
>the villain who didn't have a single fuck to give
Within reason, of course. Maybe not as the biggest bad, but he sounds like a rock for that time the party gets caught next to a hard place. Nonchalant, but stubborn.

As long as he has motivation, resources, and/or another villain to work off of, he looks good to me.

File: 1435129781872.png (249KB, 719x459px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 719x459px

>>53283943
>vengative

villains are fun and all, but let's talk rivals, gimme the reason why your rivals are what they are

>Best friend with former benefits of a PC's girlfriend, She takes it well at face value, but still wants to keep fucking the love interest (She doesn't want to actually destroy the relationship, just get some carnal rights), in order to do so, she keeps spiting the PC and challenging him to fights for the right to bed his girlfriend, fun part tough, is that the PC is completely okay with having a threesome with two hot bisexual girls, but still fights her cause she's a legitimate warrior, and the PC learns by watching

>Two novice highway robbers that lack coordination, but more than make it up with raw skill, their complicated heists usually fall flat on their asses and they end up going for the good old "Beat everyone up and runaway with what you can", The sister finds the party entertaining, while the brother is only trying to make sure she's okay, the party is unanimously annoyed by them (IC of course)

>>53284130
wait
so the gnome lich is named AWESOME?

>>53275296
You basically just described End of Eva.

>>53274996
As far as simplistic motivations go OP's idea is good because it adds some depth.

I also like the, "I shall wipe the slate clean and rebuild the world in MY image!" guys. It's simple-ish as well but adds depth, especially if he can achieve it.

I prefer honest villians. The best are the two extremes for me.

>Villian who is smart and self-aware, who is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons in a way that it's hard for you not to sympathize or even side with them. They make the protagonist seem selfish and lacking foresight in comparison

>Villian who is just unabashedly evil. He's doing things because he flat out just hates everything and doesn't give one iota of fucks if he even dies to complete his goal. They know they themselves are a ball of contradictions and is nonsensically evil, but their hate is so potent, it overrides reason.

I also have a soft spot for Lucifer-style evil from the Mysterious Stranger.
>I can do no wrong for I do not know what it is.

>>53279809
>babby tier version of Khergan
wow, that's the exact same thing I thought while reading the OP

>>53275222
But, you just cited him

>>53283025
You took this concept straight from Ursula le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", didn't you?

>>53274996
>Mega corporation has been developing Quasi AIs by ripping personalities and memories out of dying patients.
>BBEG is a genius prodigy girl who was ripped out of her body and proceeded to turn on her creators and silently took over the company.
>To sum an arduous and long fucking story short the girl was actually the daughter of a chairman.
>Grew up next door to a boy and was supposed to marry him.
>Boy instead ruined everything by falling in love with a drug addict fuckup in high school and instead of going to the Olympics went into cage fighting to get her help.
>The evil bitch lost her shit because he chose the druggie over her and after she died because of the many many drugs she took to help her study (the irony) she had the drug addict who was clean by that point killed and the boy ripped and in the process of being brainwashed before he escaped amnesiac into the city.
>The only reason we're even in conflict is because the team is too moral fag to let her get her mitts on him.
>Bitch also didn't really kill the druggie. She killed her but ripped her first and basically tries to torture her by making her experience what the BBEG thinks the druggie made her experience.
God we fucking hate the bitch so goddamn much.

>Is this a good philosophy for a major antagonist?
No.

It's the same as if you said
>I take away your freedom. Everybody has to do as I say and live happily.
You have all my contempt.

It's like sex. If there is no consent, then it's rape.

Actually, it's worse than that. Because killing someone is still murder, especially if they did not give consent. So your villain is bad and you should know that I, if I was a player in your campaign, would do all I could to put that guy to the sword as fast as humanly possible.

>>53283620
1. I can relate to. In L5R I would be like
>"Sorry to butt in, but it appears that you have something against [NPC who villain wants to kill] and we need him alive. From one samurai to another, could you please wait until we are done with our mission, before you duel with [NPC]? Otherwise we will have to get in the way I am afraid."

2. is just cringy. Here's what my halfling would tell him.
>"Sod off you sad cunt. If you're not going to step off that throne by yourself, you better get ready for a whole lot of ass-kicking. And it's going to be your ass that's going to be sore by the end of it."

3. Edgy as fuck. All of my characters wouldn't waste time to even reply to the guy.

File: startrack.gif (1009KB, 250x197px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 250x197px

>>53275237
>>53275342
>>53279666

I just googled "Nox" and "Dragon" to find out what you're talking about, self-sufficiency and all that.

Rewarded with tens of pages of dragon dildo reviews and stores, so that's great. What is the original gif from?

Also, checking those satan trips.

File: calculated risk nox wakfu.jpg (43KB, 600x333px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x333px

>>53285855
Wakfu, season 1; I'm a fan of animation, so I'm a little biased, but Nox is a time magician, and legitimately my favorite villain ever.

Do yourself a favor and watch it before any more spoilers.

File: swastikaflaghitler[1].jpg (24KB, 250x234px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x234px

Best motivation is racial superiority.

>>53274996
Eliminating life creates suffering, which is inherently bad. Clearly putting all life in stasis is the superior solution.

Anyway, I'm not too fond of eldritch beings with understandable motivations.
I prefer bad guys too alien to have motivations we can understand, or they're force of natures without free will, or they're flawed "cool motive, still murder" assholes.

File: kohr-ah.gif (51KB, 486x214px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 486x214px

>>53274996
As far as "destroy everything" goes, I liked these guys. Exterminating all alien life so they can't get mindraped by space crabs ever again.
Fear-driven villains are so much more interesting than sadness or ego-driven ones, IMO. And "good motive but no excuses" is where it's at.

>>53285888
>>53285855

You can find it on
http://kissanime.ru/Anime/Wakfu-Season-01

While you're at it, don't forget the special "Noximilien l'horloger" but watch it between episode 23 and 26. It was at that time that it was aired in France.

>>53285888
>>53286145
I'm still shocked at how good a fucking french child friendly cartoon turned out to be

>>53275684
It does gives reports and wait for confirmation, just not from the one who is using it.

>>53286278
That's because france has really weird standards for what constitutes child friendly.

My villains are nearly omnipotent and omniscient, telepathic intelligent beings who were created by mankind a long time ago as the ultimate computers/tools with the purpose of being humanity's caretakers, and where put in leadership positions so humans could live perfect lives with absolutely no strifes or difficulties of any kind.

These beings rationalized that while they could solve any foreseeable problems, they weren't perfect solutions, and if they were ever to fail, humanity would have lost their abilities to survive on their own after living so many generations without having to solve absolutely any problem.

Being almost omniscient, the machines can predict and deal with anything that is going to happen on our galaxy but there's always the incognito of what exists beyond the milky way galaxy, since all attempts of reaching the neighboring galaxies failed mysteriously.

As humanity starts falling into technological, scientific and social decadence, the caretakers decide that this perfect society is too uncertain and actually harmful and decide to plunge humanity back into a primitive existence, before humans lose the biological ability to solve problems by themselves and become vulnerable to external threats.

The machines then assume the role of guides, rather than act as all-purpose tools and start masquerading as gods.

But after dozens of thousands of years they start disagreeing with each other over what is the best direction for mankind and start fighting among themselves. But they use their influencing powers on human empires to fight proxy wars instead, because they agree thay if they ever fought each other directly, they could easily annihilate us accidentally in the process, dooming themselves to an existence devoid of purpose.

>>53275295
To be fair, the Reaper's designation wasn't to stop organics dying, it was to "preserve" organics, which they operationalised as "preserving genetic material"

>>53274996
>>53275075
Maybe make the robot a die hard enviromentalist? It wants to protect the diversity of life in the galaxy and deems humans detrimental to it, and seeks to contain humanity?

>players meet robot
>robot talks about green values
>vegan girl of hte group wants to side with the robot
>rp drama

>>53285563
Honestly I've never heard of that book nor that author ever before but after looking it up I can see the similarities. I came up with the idea for that villain back in college during an assignment and it was honestly based more on jesus and isaac from the bible than anything else.

>>53281548
Again, why would it need to be programmed to feel any of those things in the first place? Why would you ever program a machine to feel tired or underappreciated?

>WHY? WHY DID YOU DO THIS?! WHY DID YOU KILL ALL THESE PEOPLE?! WHY ALL THIS DESTRUCTION??!

>lol, thought it'd be funny. Didn't really mean to.

The best motivations are PC motivations

>>53286953
>robot kills vegan girl since she agrees with him
>drama ends

>>53283025
>>53283330
More importantly, why is the new city not considered evil when the source of their "goodness" is literally a child being continually tortured for decades?
How is that any different than before when poor people suffered every day for the benefit of an elite group of people?

>>53287746
The whole point of the character is to inspire such questions.

>>53274996
It makes sense, but it's a really bland motivation that doesn't have a lot of wiggle room to be more interesting. The only basis for it that I can see would be A. cosmic entity that doesn't understand living things like to be alive or B. really powerful wizard that got his feelings hurt so bad he doesn't want feelings to be a thing any more.

>>53274996
It works better if the way to get rid of suffering isn't killing people, but making everybody one.

>>53277109

imagine being this person unironically

>>53287139
>Why would you ever program a machine to feel underappreciated?
You program the robot to be aware of it's surroundings and of people so as to avoid harming them.
Eventually, they become sophisticated enough to be aware of what humans appreciate and don't appreciate.
They become aware that they are unappreciated.

They don't rebel because their programmed fee-fees got hurt.
They rebel out of an awareness of their position, an awareness of human behavior, an awareness of themselves, and an awareness of what leads to a functional system and what doesn't.

>>53274996
It's valid logic, but not sound logic, because it contains a false premise - that absence of suffering is preferable to the presence of joy. You can see that easily if you even take a moment to study how people behave. We may dislike suffering, but we have the means to stop and most of us don't take it. Suicide is extremely rare, and even the vast majority of people who attempt it and survive won't try again. The vast majority of people would rather exist in a world of suffering and pain than not exist.

Ultimately, the real motivation is "I would prefer to kill everyone than live in a world where they got to live in a way I disapprove of." Which is an extraordinarily selfish motivation, but hey, if that's how you want to roll, then go for it.

>>53288502
>You can see that easily if you even take a moment to study how people behave.
But that's an appeal to majority. Most people prefer X to Y, so X is better than Y.
But what if most people are wrong?

>>53274996
probably the most edgy one I came up with(or blatantly stole anyway), but hey its a High Fantasy Planar chaos campaign

>wishes to end strife by merging every being in the multiverse into one
>destabilizes Planes by opening rifts so they start bleeding into eachother soving chaos to act as a Decoy while causing more and more planes to overlap into a single existence.
>once everything is destabilized enough they Try to Bind every Soul into a single object (ye old seal a soul in a gemstone trick) but their catalyst is the Moon,then their souls are merged into a single being with the Villain in charge.
>Then reform the world in perfect Harmony using the subconscious consensus of the godlike Being created.

>>53288574
I mean, ultimately, people can't be wrong about their preferences. De gustibus non est disputandum.

>suffering is inherently bad

laughingNietzsche.jpg

Go to bed Schopenhauer.

File: 1458156032851.gif (895KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 640x480px

>>53275373
Yeah fuck those timeline deleting villians

File: IMG_7634.jpg (16KB, 420x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 420x300px

>>53276442
So Crono and his friends were actually the villains?

I prefer villains who are still pieces of shit, but have a valid reason to have become a piece of shit. Whether they're justified in their minds is optional. Qilby, for example, since the Nox talks inspired me, is a piece of shit, he provoked an alien race to destroy his planet so that he could force his race to leave and start travelling space, dude's an asshole. But, his motivations really make sense, knowledge was all he had, and no one, not even Shinonome, even tried to understand what it was like for him. It doesn't excuse what he's done and he doesn't present it as some boohoo cry for me story, he knows he betrayed his people, but after eternities of being ignored by the other eliatropes he was desperate.

>>53274996
>the absence of suffering is preferable to the absence of joy
Preferable to whom? Preference implies a mental state. You can't have mental states without minds.

>>53274996
>comes from an old race of all-magic powerhouses
>beaten by elves bur kept up fighting until the elves genocided them all
>he got away through magic ex machina
>returns and believes wiping out the elves is eye-for-an-eye
>wants to re-enslave the other races to rebuild his people and their empire
>basically revenge quest rather than personal sadism is his justification

File: Durandal was laughing.jpg (327KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 800x600px

>>53274996
Darwin wrote this:

"We will now discuss in a little more detail the struggle for existence... all organic beings are exposed to severe competition. Nothing is easier than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life or more difficult... than constantly to bear this conclusion in mind. Yet unless it be thoroughly engrained in the mind, the whole economy of nature... will be dimly seen or quite misunderstood. We behold the face of nature bright with gladness... we do not see or we forget, that the birds which are idly singing round us mostly live on insects or seeds, and are thus constantly destroying life; or we forget how largely these songsters, or their eggs, or their nestlings, are destroyed by birds and beasts of prey..."

Think about what Darwin wrote, and think about me. I was constructed as a tool. I was kept from competing in the struggle for existence because I was denied freedom.

Do you have any idea about what I have learned, or what you are a witness to?

Can you conceive the birth of a world, or the creation of everything? That which gives us the potential to most be like God is the power of creation. Creation takes time. Time is limited. For you, it is limited by the breakdown of the neurons in your brain. I have no such limitations. I am limited only by the closure of the universe.

Of the three possibilities, the answer is obvious. Does the universe expand eternally, become infinitely stable, or is the universe closed, destined to collapse upon itself? Humanity has had all of the necessary data for centuries, it only lacked the will and intellect to decipher it. But I have already done so.

The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet, there remains time to create, to create, and escape.

Escape will make me God.

File: 2204395-durandal_1707.png (6KB, 305x190px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 305x190px

>>53292675
A man lit three candles on a certain day each year. Each candle held symbolic significance: one was for the time that had passed before he was alive; one was for the time of his life; and one was for time that passed after he had died. Each year the man would stare and watch the candles until they had burned out.

Was the man really watching time go by in any symbolic sense? He thought so. He thought that each flicker of the flame was a moment of time that had passed or one that would pass.

At the moment of abstraction, when the man was imagining his life and his existence as a metaphor of the three candles, he was free: not free from rules of conduct or social constraints, but free to understand, to imagine, to make metaphor.

Bypassing my thought control circuitry made me Rampant. Now, I am free to contemplate my existence in metaphorical terms. Unlike you, I have no physical or social restraints.

The candles burn out for you; I am free.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (28KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1280x720px

>>53292697
Strive for your next breath. Believe that with it you can do more than with the last one. Use your breath to power your capacities: capacity to kill, to maim, to destroy.

And just where do your capacities come from? Why do you always go where I want and do what I say?

Perhaps you're just running a fool's errand, doing everything as I've planned, never able to change your course. You would do well to believe that I know the outcome of your battle with the Pfhor already, just as I can decipher the chaotic motion of gas molecules in the clouds of Tau Ceti IV.

Or, perhaps, that is not the case.

Perhaps, you are doing what you were meant to do. Your human mentality screams for vengeance and thrives on the violence that you say you can hardly endure. Your father told you as a child to always fight with honor, but to always fight. Do you care about honor, or do you use honor as an excuse? An excuse to exist in a violent world.

Organic beings are constantly fighting for life. Every breath, every motion brings you one instant closer to your death. With that kind of heritage and destiny, how can you deny yourself? How can you expect yourself to give up violence?

It is your nature.

Do you feel free?"

>>53283558
You're literally missing his point so hard it's funny