Is it anti-climactic for players if the villain is remorseful

>>54980413
If the players were the ones who showed him the error of his ways, it can probably be pretty satisfying

Depends on the players

File: ertwyuiolkjndbgvfxdrtysujdfhgf.jpg (85KB, 634x763px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 634x763px

>>54980413
I'd say it's more satisfying than when you found the faggot loser committed suicide before you could get to him.

File: Unsure Urizen.png (2MB, 1021x993px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1021x993px

>>54980413
Ehhh, like so many things I'd say it depends on how you play your cards. If you play it like "THEY WERE GOOD ALL ALONG, GOTCHA" the party would easily get annoyed at being kept in the dark the whole time and then being told they were wrong for doing what was rational given what they knew. If the party has been trying to solve things diplomatically, then it's right either to play it as killing them is a tragedy, or to allow them to be redeemed, either by giving up their ways after all their plans have failed, or even giving the party a quest to solve the reason why the villain was evil to begin with. Like "I am doing this because my Lord commands it," so the quest would be proving that the Lord is totally evil himself to win the trust of the villain. Course, if the party really likes the villain, then that wouldn't mean that they should be redeemable necessarily - that just means that the party likes the character as a villain, and letting them do something clever (and not contrived) to escape and be villainous again would be cool. Sorry if I can't give a straight answer but really you need to play things by ear if you want to make a villain with an arc that is entertaining the part you are GM'ing for.
Pictured here is either one of the guys who would actually think OP picture was a villain who could be redeemed, or a tragic villain depending on how Warped your perspective is.

it depends heavily on the campaign. if there's a well-established moral conflict, it's satisfying for the players to conquer his body and soul. if there isn't and it's just a dominance fight, letting him snivel can hurt his big bad-ness.

File: 557736_422637897752228_201900393159314_1897599_1199028185_n.jpg (47KB, 585x340px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 585x340px

>>54980413
It'd only be anti-climatic if it was handled poorly: there's been no evidence of this, no real development in the villain, or the way he's been presented completely contradicts the reveal.

Basically, make sure it isn't some asspull 'plot twist' designed to get a cheap emotional conflict out of the players or even worse, try to turn the moral tables on them. That will just annoy the hell out of them.

You also gotta be careful not to take it too far the other direction: don't spend so much effort trying to flesh out the antagonist that he overshadows the players themselves, leaving their adventure as an afterthought meant to prop this guy up.

Just keep it simple. Don't try to play it up too much for drama's sake.

Only if it prevents the climax. Here are some examples of how it could happen without preventing the climax:
- Players have already fought the climatic battle. They won, but the villain isn't dead. Now the villain shows remorse.

- Villain shows remorse. Players don't believe him, so still attack and the climatic battle still happens.

- Villain shows remorse. Players believe him. Climatic battle is against something other than the villains forces.

>>54980413

Depends entirely on the build.