Playing a villain can be both incredibly rewarding and equally tiring.
For my part, the most tiring parts where when my villain - my main character - did not have a concrete purpose and instead just drifted day to day in game. But when she did have such clarity of purpose, often encouraged through PC- or GM-driven quests that aligned with or against her personal story line, those were always the most enjoyable moments for me in game. It still thrills me to see a tense conflict play out, or to experience the culmination of weeks (or months or years..) of subtle machinations finally coming into play, often with unexpected consequences either for my character or for those she has interacted with.
I've had the great fortune of working with some truly amazing players of villains over the years. Among them, many shared a few key common ideals in playing that role.
The purpose of a villain is not to win. Instead, it is to provide a substantial obstacle for the heroes to overcome and, in doing so, experience a worthwhile sense of triumph when they finally do prevail.
Similarly, the primary role of a villain in a setting such as GS - which is, essentially, a perpetually evolving co-authored story written by hundreds of writers - is to form a realistic foil to the majority, and, in doing so, to provide the opportunity for individuals among that same majority to experience character growth through conflict and compromise, strife and (oh yes) sacrifice.
One of the most difficult aspects of playing a villain is to have it be believable. If being a villain is the singular defining trait of an individual character, then more often than not you (or others) will quickly grow tired of it, either seeking to avoid it or by simply not enjoying what interaction does take place. A villain is first and foremost an individual. Like every hero (or neutral party), a villain should have its own hopes and aspirations just as surely as it has shortcomings and fears.
Those hopes and fears, strengths and weaknesses, define the character. The manner in which they are carried out define the villain. And, in turn, it is that villain who defines the heroes who oppose it. It is the villain who offers the choices for how heroes can overcome adversity.
Does the hero use cunning or strength to overcome a direct threat? Will actions taken against the villain be moral or instead practical - and what will the consequences of each be? Or instead will the hero attempt to compromise - or even 'save' the villain from itself? Of course, there's also my favorite outcome - when a hero descends into questionable villainy, either by unfortunate circumstance or by conscious decision leading contrary to that same hero's ideals.
Several recent quest lines have given me an opportunity to reflect on the nature of playing a villain in GS. Those who know me are pretty well aware that the sympathetic villain is one of my favorite character types, and it is one that I truly love to play time and again. I like to think that my character is a believable villain (for those who recognize her as one). It is for that reason that I keep coming back to GS, and why I have focused primarily on that one character for a good fifteen years now.
With a decreased population, it can be even more difficult to adopt the role. It can be just as difficult to differentiate one type of villain from another, from the unrepentant open dissenter to the unnoticed voice that whispers from the shadows, be they literal or metaphorical.
I'm curious as to others' thoughts on the nature of villainy - and in particular the role of a villain in the current form of the game.
What makes a good villain?
What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game?
What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
- Overlord EK
>You now regard Eorgina with a warm demeanor.
HATESHI
PENNINGTONB1
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/08/2015 02:09 PM CDT
Great post!
>the most tiring parts where when my villain - my main character - did not have a concrete purpose and instead just drifted day to day in game.
This has always been a major problem for me. From time to time, I am able to initiate/get involved with player-driven RP which can sometimes develops into a few weeks of good times, but during the great majority for a villain, there isn't much to consider. I think if I were being evil all over the place, I'd just be annoying and people would get used to that sort of behavior and blow it off (and I'd just get banished from the towns I like to be around -- mechanical banishment pretty much just destroys/prevents all RP).
Said another way, and more in the spirit of this discussion: I like my villains to have a sense of scarcity and mystery surrounding them. The unknown, fear and doubt are to me important aspects of playing my style of evil-doer.
Part of the problem with scarcity, bringing us back 'round, is that my normal experience in-game is chock-full of not much to do but hunt. It's particularly tough when absolutely nothing happens for a prolonged period of time. That said, I don't think a villain must exclude him/herself from participating as a general member of society -- evil doers live lives like everybody else, but you know, only cooler. My main even interacts with the local populace and nobility, understanding that there is benefit to be gained from politics and from general social interaction. People even forget that he's not a good person, which always makes me laugh.
There are other options, too, to help fill the void of down-time. I have played lesser villains (a.k.a. a thief) which can be a pretty daily ritual and loads of fun, especially with partners in petty crime. I have so many great memories with my thief.
Enough about that, though.
>The purpose of a villain is not to win.
This is the one aspect of your post I disagree with, but only concerning the end result (winning/losing). I don't perceive my villains and their opponents as good or evil (i.e. in the traditional sense of good being 'right' and evil being 'wrong'), but rather as opposing viewpoints (i.e. both are 'right'). Personally, my characters play to win and assume everyone else is doing the same.
Other than that, you're absolutely correct about the experiential part of the interaction between the two (or more) players/groups. It's all about overcoming obstacles in a believable and meaningful way; creating new ways for characters to develop an even greater depth and complexity.
Concerning winning and losing, RP rarely develops completely to one result or the other, but rather a measure of both. Obviously, extremes like the end of the world can't happen, so I think those types of "wins/losses" aren't worth consideration.
>What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game?
I can speak from experience that, for the most part, mechanical combat/death does not make a fun experience for the losing party. I tend to tread very lightly with the mechanical stuff because like with mechanical banishment, a character is completely impotent when they're dead. For all intents and purposes, people should consider death as excluding the person from any participation (*in most cases*). That said, you don't have to take mechanical combat off the table; just remember that RP is about the experience and interaction, so if one person's not getting that, you're doing it wrong.
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
Entertain me.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I would guess that's it's just, for all sorts of terrible psychological reasons, it's the only thing that interests me. I have never once had the desire to play the traditional hero. It's sort of like playing out the dark side of my personality that I can't let out in real life.
~Brian, Sepher's player
>the most tiring parts where when my villain - my main character - did not have a concrete purpose and instead just drifted day to day in game.
This has always been a major problem for me. From time to time, I am able to initiate/get involved with player-driven RP which can sometimes develops into a few weeks of good times, but during the great majority for a villain, there isn't much to consider. I think if I were being evil all over the place, I'd just be annoying and people would get used to that sort of behavior and blow it off (and I'd just get banished from the towns I like to be around -- mechanical banishment pretty much just destroys/prevents all RP).
Said another way, and more in the spirit of this discussion: I like my villains to have a sense of scarcity and mystery surrounding them. The unknown, fear and doubt are to me important aspects of playing my style of evil-doer.
Part of the problem with scarcity, bringing us back 'round, is that my normal experience in-game is chock-full of not much to do but hunt. It's particularly tough when absolutely nothing happens for a prolonged period of time. That said, I don't think a villain must exclude him/herself from participating as a general member of society -- evil doers live lives like everybody else, but you know, only cooler. My main even interacts with the local populace and nobility, understanding that there is benefit to be gained from politics and from general social interaction. People even forget that he's not a good person, which always makes me laugh.
There are other options, too, to help fill the void of down-time. I have played lesser villains (a.k.a. a thief) which can be a pretty daily ritual and loads of fun, especially with partners in petty crime. I have so many great memories with my thief.
Enough about that, though.
>The purpose of a villain is not to win.
This is the one aspect of your post I disagree with, but only concerning the end result (winning/losing). I don't perceive my villains and their opponents as good or evil (i.e. in the traditional sense of good being 'right' and evil being 'wrong'), but rather as opposing viewpoints (i.e. both are 'right'). Personally, my characters play to win and assume everyone else is doing the same.
Other than that, you're absolutely correct about the experiential part of the interaction between the two (or more) players/groups. It's all about overcoming obstacles in a believable and meaningful way; creating new ways for characters to develop an even greater depth and complexity.
Concerning winning and losing, RP rarely develops completely to one result or the other, but rather a measure of both. Obviously, extremes like the end of the world can't happen, so I think those types of "wins/losses" aren't worth consideration.
>What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game?
I can speak from experience that, for the most part, mechanical combat/death does not make a fun experience for the losing party. I tend to tread very lightly with the mechanical stuff because like with mechanical banishment, a character is completely impotent when they're dead. For all intents and purposes, people should consider death as excluding the person from any participation (*in most cases*). That said, you don't have to take mechanical combat off the table; just remember that RP is about the experience and interaction, so if one person's not getting that, you're doing it wrong.
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
Entertain me.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I would guess that's it's just, for all sorts of terrible psychological reasons, it's the only thing that interests me. I have never once had the desire to play the traditional hero. It's sort of like playing out the dark side of my personality that I can't let out in real life.
~Brian, Sepher's player
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/09/2015 02:03 AM CDT
<This is the one aspect of your post I disagree with, but only concerning the end result (winning/losing). I don't perceive my villains and their opponents as good or evil (i.e. in the <traditional sense of good being 'right' and evil being 'wrong'), but rather as opposing viewpoints (i.e. both are 'right'). Personally, my characters play to win and assume everyone else is <doing the same.
The problem with this outlook is that most of the players you will interact with in GS are not purists. They tend not to understand what you're doing if you play a character this way. But perhaps you have a technique I lack?
In my experience playing not-so-nice characters (or any type of character, really!), it's important to demonstrate vulnerability in some way. It might be as simple as opting to trade words rather than swords with a much weaker character, when you might instead opt for the sword against an equal. It sends a signal to the other player that your intentions are to engage them in roleplay. As many players fail to sufficiently separate themselves from their characters, any assault on the character - even unkind words - may be perceived as an assault on the player. In that case, RP is DOA!
That isn't to say that your character shouldn't play to win. But it might not be a bad idea if, sometimes, you ensure that he loses despite his best efforts!
~Taverkin
The problem with this outlook is that most of the players you will interact with in GS are not purists. They tend not to understand what you're doing if you play a character this way. But perhaps you have a technique I lack?
In my experience playing not-so-nice characters (or any type of character, really!), it's important to demonstrate vulnerability in some way. It might be as simple as opting to trade words rather than swords with a much weaker character, when you might instead opt for the sword against an equal. It sends a signal to the other player that your intentions are to engage them in roleplay. As many players fail to sufficiently separate themselves from their characters, any assault on the character - even unkind words - may be perceived as an assault on the player. In that case, RP is DOA!
That isn't to say that your character shouldn't play to win. But it might not be a bad idea if, sometimes, you ensure that he loses despite his best efforts!
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/09/2015 02:27 AM CDT
<I would guess that's it's just, for all sorts of terrible psychological reasons, it's the only thing that interests me. I have never once had the desire to play the traditional hero. It's <sort of like playing out the dark side of my personality that I can't let out in real life.
That's interesting.
I play Tav as more or less unconditionally nice to pretty much anyone and everyone. Obviously, that isn't a trait I share with my character! But as I work in a customer service capacity where I have to be friendly and helpful as part of my job, the ability to do so on my own terms appeals to me. In fact, I think it's helped me in my work life! I've actually had coworkers ask me on several occasions how I'm able to put up with a particularly obnoxious customer!
I'm not about to tell them it's because I spend a lot of time in a text-based online roleplaying game, but I think there's something to that! I do employ similar strategies at times when dealing with customers as I do when dealing with other players. In both cases, regardless of how I may feel about the other person, it's not appropriate to let my feelings bleed through. I'm playing a character. And what happens to that character is not happening to me. So what's there to be upset about?
~Taverkin
That's interesting.
I play Tav as more or less unconditionally nice to pretty much anyone and everyone. Obviously, that isn't a trait I share with my character! But as I work in a customer service capacity where I have to be friendly and helpful as part of my job, the ability to do so on my own terms appeals to me. In fact, I think it's helped me in my work life! I've actually had coworkers ask me on several occasions how I'm able to put up with a particularly obnoxious customer!
I'm not about to tell them it's because I spend a lot of time in a text-based online roleplaying game, but I think there's something to that! I do employ similar strategies at times when dealing with customers as I do when dealing with other players. In both cases, regardless of how I may feel about the other person, it's not appropriate to let my feelings bleed through. I'm playing a character. And what happens to that character is not happening to me. So what's there to be upset about?
~Taverkin
PENNINGTONB1
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/09/2015 12:34 PM CDT
>The problem with this outlook is that most of the players you will interact with in GS are not purists. They tend not to understand what you're doing if you play a character this way. But perhaps you have a technique I lack?
I think this is simply a case of misunderstanding. When I say I play to win, I don't mean I'm going to instantly mechanically dominate another character, which I thought I explained fairly decently in responding to "what turns people off to a villain." I'm a fairly good judge of character in determining which players are open to roleplaying some type of conflict and of what their thresholds are. My goal is to create a fun and exciting experience for all involved, including myself. Killing people does not accomplish that.
Think of it in terms of literature: a story is not fun to read if there is no building action, suspense, character development, etc. Going straight for the climax is not what I'm about (giggity). There's a lot of fun to be had along the way.
When I say I play to win, I mean I have goals that I want to accomplish (which aren't always material) and I strive to make them happen within the above context.
But again, I learned years ago that combat typically doesn't make for a good experience all around, so I use it very sparsely. I think anyone who has had this sort of experience with me can back that up.
>In both cases, regardless of how I may feel about the other person, it's not appropriate to let my feelings bleed through.
I definitely don't let my feelings bleed through, either. Think of it terms of emotional reaction and deliberate behavior. When I say I like to play out the dark side of my personality, it is most certainly not to act out an emotional reaction. I am completely detached from the negative emotions aside from the excitement of pulling off something crazy or messed up. If my character is angry, I, the player, am absolutely not. However, because it's a part of me, it's easy to create realistic anger, or what have you, from my head.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
~Brian, Sepher's player
I think this is simply a case of misunderstanding. When I say I play to win, I don't mean I'm going to instantly mechanically dominate another character, which I thought I explained fairly decently in responding to "what turns people off to a villain." I'm a fairly good judge of character in determining which players are open to roleplaying some type of conflict and of what their thresholds are. My goal is to create a fun and exciting experience for all involved, including myself. Killing people does not accomplish that.
Think of it in terms of literature: a story is not fun to read if there is no building action, suspense, character development, etc. Going straight for the climax is not what I'm about (giggity). There's a lot of fun to be had along the way.
When I say I play to win, I mean I have goals that I want to accomplish (which aren't always material) and I strive to make them happen within the above context.
But again, I learned years ago that combat typically doesn't make for a good experience all around, so I use it very sparsely. I think anyone who has had this sort of experience with me can back that up.
>In both cases, regardless of how I may feel about the other person, it's not appropriate to let my feelings bleed through.
I definitely don't let my feelings bleed through, either. Think of it terms of emotional reaction and deliberate behavior. When I say I like to play out the dark side of my personality, it is most certainly not to act out an emotional reaction. I am completely detached from the negative emotions aside from the excitement of pulling off something crazy or messed up. If my character is angry, I, the player, am absolutely not. However, because it's a part of me, it's easy to create realistic anger, or what have you, from my head.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
~Brian, Sepher's player
JADZIABLUE
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/09/2015 01:55 PM CDT
>The purpose of a villain is not to win.
I think there's a lot of ways to interpret this statement. I think my viewpoint is... villains will win the battles, but they can't win the war. If the villain never wins a battle, there's no dramatic tension. But in a lot of our storyline contexts, the villains are working towards some apocalyptic scenario (IE - GSS, CiS, etc) that obviously can't succeed... for success is pretty much the end of the world, and thus the game. Of course, good and evil are far more black and white in those scenarios too.
On the other hand, with what's going on in the Landing now... no matter who wins in the end, from somebody's viewpoint, the villain will have won. Shades of grey.
>What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game?
I think it starts veering into the unrealistic AND unpleasant when a character's primary motivation is just to be bad for the sake of being bad. A villain shouldn't be a griefer in disguise. Have an actual goal for your character, and if they have to be bad to reach it... so be it. Being bad shouldn't be the purpose. (And I mean that for characters. Obviously if a player says, "I want to play a villain" that's fine. It's just important to spend time thinking on those details of goals and motivation.)
I think a certain degree of restraint is important too. This thread has covered some of the CvC/PvP aspects of it. Villainy is not immolating people because they looked at you funny. That's just being a jerk.
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
Entertain me by challenging her. Put her in a place where she doesn't know what to do.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I don't know if I do or not, truth be told. I just play Raelee. I think whether or not she qualifies as a villain depends on the state of current events and your own character's perspective. (In recent years, she's been very well behaved. I personally wouldn't put her in the villain bucket today, but there's times in the past where I would have.) As I'm writing this, I realize that most of her "bad" activity has been fairly quiet. I don't think it's had a very significant impact on too many players. Is impact on other people a qualifier for villainy?
Anyway... as to why I play whatever she is, when I rolled her up 12 years ago... I was fairly inspired by some other fictional characters and I wanted to try a character who wasn't invested in the idea of right and wrong, but instead elevated other philosophical ideals - ones that often came into conflict with the simple human condition. As to why that appealed to me? I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.
Signed,
Raelee and her Strings
>Speaking to Zyllah, Alyias says, "See? Raelee knows all."
I think there's a lot of ways to interpret this statement. I think my viewpoint is... villains will win the battles, but they can't win the war. If the villain never wins a battle, there's no dramatic tension. But in a lot of our storyline contexts, the villains are working towards some apocalyptic scenario (IE - GSS, CiS, etc) that obviously can't succeed... for success is pretty much the end of the world, and thus the game. Of course, good and evil are far more black and white in those scenarios too.
On the other hand, with what's going on in the Landing now... no matter who wins in the end, from somebody's viewpoint, the villain will have won. Shades of grey.
>What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game?
I think it starts veering into the unrealistic AND unpleasant when a character's primary motivation is just to be bad for the sake of being bad. A villain shouldn't be a griefer in disguise. Have an actual goal for your character, and if they have to be bad to reach it... so be it. Being bad shouldn't be the purpose. (And I mean that for characters. Obviously if a player says, "I want to play a villain" that's fine. It's just important to spend time thinking on those details of goals and motivation.)
I think a certain degree of restraint is important too. This thread has covered some of the CvC/PvP aspects of it. Villainy is not immolating people because they looked at you funny. That's just being a jerk.
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
Entertain me by challenging her. Put her in a place where she doesn't know what to do.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I don't know if I do or not, truth be told. I just play Raelee. I think whether or not she qualifies as a villain depends on the state of current events and your own character's perspective. (In recent years, she's been very well behaved. I personally wouldn't put her in the villain bucket today, but there's times in the past where I would have.) As I'm writing this, I realize that most of her "bad" activity has been fairly quiet. I don't think it's had a very significant impact on too many players. Is impact on other people a qualifier for villainy?
Anyway... as to why I play whatever she is, when I rolled her up 12 years ago... I was fairly inspired by some other fictional characters and I wanted to try a character who wasn't invested in the idea of right and wrong, but instead elevated other philosophical ideals - ones that often came into conflict with the simple human condition. As to why that appealed to me? I'm not sure I have a good answer for that.
Signed,
Raelee and her Strings
>Speaking to Zyllah, Alyias says, "See? Raelee knows all."
UBERWENCH
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/09/2015 03:11 PM CDT
Oh, what a fun thread!
Most of my favorite villains don't really see themselves as villainous -- that is, the players know and make a conscious choice to be the bad guys, but the characters feel entirely justified in their actions. Villainy, to me, is much more of a deliberate decision because it's so easy to go off the rails with it and just irritate people instead of playing the role of entertaining antagonist. You mention clarity of purpose, and I think that's important in both the IC and OOC sense. You don't necessarily want to let everyone in on the twists and turns of your character's villainous mind because it would remove all suspense, but you also want to be sure you aren't so subtle that you wind up doing something heinous like being IC chummy with someone for a couple of years just so you can knife that character in the back as your triumphant public heel turn. That would be lousy to do to someone without lots of warning.
I'll also agree that good villains need to be ready to lose. If you make war on the Turamzzyrian Empire or Ta'Vaalor or all of life on Elanthia, you as a player know you won't win. You aren't supposed to win. You'll probably face consequences too, so be ready for that from the start and create your place in the story with that end point in mind. Your character, of course, has no idea he or she can't win and should act like victory is imminent, but as a player, you've got to brace yourself to see your character's hopes dashed and figure out how he or she will move on after that. I'd also contend some hero types could learn how to "lose" gracefully as well because there will undoubtedly come times when your character's on the wrong side of events. It's always useful in theater to know how to take a fall without getting hurt, and that applies here too.
I like sympathetic villains a lot. If I can follow their logic and see why they have the goals they do or find something admirable in them even as I'm pushing against those goals, that's great. A villain with style, charm and a sense of humor? Even better. Subtlety is also good. I have a limited tolerance for mustache-twirling, hand-rubbing, and cackling.
Oh, boy, do I have some thoughts on this. My biggest pet peeve: Evil doesn't just mean "Whatever you people do, I'll do the opposite." That's not villainy; it's griefing or possibly a symptom of your character's underlying oppositional defiant disorder. It takes no creativity to oppose others' plans regardless of how much sense they make, and it only creates a two-dimensional caricature of a proper villain. Go home, Snidely Whiplash. You're boring.
Obviously, we all dislike the "villains" who kill a bunch of people randomly with no more explanation for their actions (or possibly a pasted bit of dialogue from a GM PC with <-- pointing to it), but the last person to do that hasn't really been around much. Still, if someone's thinking of doing that to gain villainous cred, no. Don't do that.
I tend to avoid some villainous types because I get the sense they're taking this very much to heart as players, and I don't want to get tangled up in that. While I'm not the model of complete detachment from my character's moods that some people are, I also want clear separation between IC and OOC. If someone gets angry IC and sends me an OOC message that it's all roleplay, that's great; I've had huge IC fights during which I was laughing OOC with my erstwhile "enemy." When someone gets angry IC and refuses to talk OOC or sends snippy little messages, on the other hand, I retreat from that person for a while. My character loves conflict in her world; I hate it in mine.
This is more of a gripe about a roleplay issue in general rather than one specific to villains, but it seems to be a little more common among antagonists: I don't like it when people make claims their characters can't back up. Bringing out a little level 3 alt and telling everyone to kowtow without establishing her bona fides is just bad roleplay. Using that alt and others as a means to justify what your main character does is worse. I could roll up a couple dozen characters to wander around town proclaiming Lylia as the fourth Faendryl Matriarch, but it wouldn't make it true in game terms, nor should other characters have to believe these 24 delusional people. That isn't villainous. It's comical, and while it's great to play a villain people laugh with, I'd guess few want to be laughed at.
Be interesting. Be entertaining. Be plausible as a character and not a caricature. Be logically consistent but not entirely predictable. Really, it's the same sort of roleplay I love to see from anyone, just in opposition to rather than alongside the hero types.
My character's alignment is pretty much Lawful Rashere, but I don't know that this makes her villainous. In the long run -- five centuries or so -- her plans are antithetical to the current Elanthian world order, but she rarely does anything particularly wicked day to day. (Well, there was that time she maimed a kid and killed his mother, but he's really much happier now with Surofee, I promise.) I find this notion of Lylia's working toward Faendryl dominion over all in the more distant future a really useful foil for how I play her today. Because it's such a distant and open-ended goal, I can rationalize a lot of what she does that's "good" as protective coloration or part of an overarching plan.
--- Lauren, Lylia's player
| What makes a good villain? |
Most of my favorite villains don't really see themselves as villainous -- that is, the players know and make a conscious choice to be the bad guys, but the characters feel entirely justified in their actions. Villainy, to me, is much more of a deliberate decision because it's so easy to go off the rails with it and just irritate people instead of playing the role of entertaining antagonist. You mention clarity of purpose, and I think that's important in both the IC and OOC sense. You don't necessarily want to let everyone in on the twists and turns of your character's villainous mind because it would remove all suspense, but you also want to be sure you aren't so subtle that you wind up doing something heinous like being IC chummy with someone for a couple of years just so you can knife that character in the back as your triumphant public heel turn. That would be lousy to do to someone without lots of warning.
I'll also agree that good villains need to be ready to lose. If you make war on the Turamzzyrian Empire or Ta'Vaalor or all of life on Elanthia, you as a player know you won't win. You aren't supposed to win. You'll probably face consequences too, so be ready for that from the start and create your place in the story with that end point in mind. Your character, of course, has no idea he or she can't win and should act like victory is imminent, but as a player, you've got to brace yourself to see your character's hopes dashed and figure out how he or she will move on after that. I'd also contend some hero types could learn how to "lose" gracefully as well because there will undoubtedly come times when your character's on the wrong side of events. It's always useful in theater to know how to take a fall without getting hurt, and that applies here too.
I like sympathetic villains a lot. If I can follow their logic and see why they have the goals they do or find something admirable in them even as I'm pushing against those goals, that's great. A villain with style, charm and a sense of humor? Even better. Subtlety is also good. I have a limited tolerance for mustache-twirling, hand-rubbing, and cackling.
| What makes a villain unrealistic - or unpleasant for you as a player to encounter in game? |
Oh, boy, do I have some thoughts on this. My biggest pet peeve: Evil doesn't just mean "Whatever you people do, I'll do the opposite." That's not villainy; it's griefing or possibly a symptom of your character's underlying oppositional defiant disorder. It takes no creativity to oppose others' plans regardless of how much sense they make, and it only creates a two-dimensional caricature of a proper villain. Go home, Snidely Whiplash. You're boring.
Obviously, we all dislike the "villains" who kill a bunch of people randomly with no more explanation for their actions (or possibly a pasted bit of dialogue from a GM PC with <-- pointing to it), but the last person to do that hasn't really been around much. Still, if someone's thinking of doing that to gain villainous cred, no. Don't do that.
I tend to avoid some villainous types because I get the sense they're taking this very much to heart as players, and I don't want to get tangled up in that. While I'm not the model of complete detachment from my character's moods that some people are, I also want clear separation between IC and OOC. If someone gets angry IC and sends me an OOC message that it's all roleplay, that's great; I've had huge IC fights during which I was laughing OOC with my erstwhile "enemy." When someone gets angry IC and refuses to talk OOC or sends snippy little messages, on the other hand, I retreat from that person for a while. My character loves conflict in her world; I hate it in mine.
This is more of a gripe about a roleplay issue in general rather than one specific to villains, but it seems to be a little more common among antagonists: I don't like it when people make claims their characters can't back up. Bringing out a little level 3 alt and telling everyone to kowtow without establishing her bona fides is just bad roleplay. Using that alt and others as a means to justify what your main character does is worse. I could roll up a couple dozen characters to wander around town proclaiming Lylia as the fourth Faendryl Matriarch, but it wouldn't make it true in game terms, nor should other characters have to believe these 24 delusional people. That isn't villainous. It's comical, and while it's great to play a villain people laugh with, I'd guess few want to be laughed at.
| What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character? |
Be interesting. Be entertaining. Be plausible as a character and not a caricature. Be logically consistent but not entirely predictable. Really, it's the same sort of roleplay I love to see from anyone, just in opposition to rather than alongside the hero types.
| And, for those who do, why do you play a villain? |
My character's alignment is pretty much Lawful Rashere, but I don't know that this makes her villainous. In the long run -- five centuries or so -- her plans are antithetical to the current Elanthian world order, but she rarely does anything particularly wicked day to day. (Well, there was that time she maimed a kid and killed his mother, but he's really much happier now with Surofee, I promise.) I find this notion of Lylia's working toward Faendryl dominion over all in the more distant future a really useful foil for how I play her today. Because it's such a distant and open-ended goal, I can rationalize a lot of what she does that's "good" as protective coloration or part of an overarching plan.
--- Lauren, Lylia's player
HATESHI
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/10/2015 02:54 AM CDT
Some excellent replies. Thank you everyone who has contributed.
>The purpose of a villain is not to win.--me
>I think there's a lot of ways to interpret this statement. I think my viewpoint is... villains will win the battles, but they can't win the war. If the villain never wins a battle, there's no dramatic tension. But in a lot of our storyline contexts, the villains are working towards some apocalyptic scenario (IE - GSS, CiS, etc) that obviously can't succeed... for success is pretty much the end of the world, and thus the game. Of course, good and evil are far more black and white in those scenarios too.--Raelee
Yeah.. that's actually more of what I meant with the original statement. I didn't mean that a villain should always lose, or that they should never have any lasting accomplishments (either personal or with significant impact upon others/the game). I just meant that in the end a villain should not ultimately prevail, with the rare exception of a storyline that did need to resolve in such a way that the heroes failed.
I definitely play my character to win her personal goals. Some are totally unreasonable or unattainable, and very fortunately those ones generally have such an extended timetable for completion that it's okay. I mean, really. If what Draezir and Morvule set up really comes to pass, and the world isn't destroyed already by then, then sometime in mid-6102 or so a bunch of extra-planar shadow entities that are something different and even greater than major demons will emerge in full (instead of in part) and devour most of western Elanthia. And, in the process, my character will finish the current partial physiological merge with them and either become part of the collective hive mind or some sort of ascended entity, depending on who you ask. (I'm sure there will be plenty of adventurers then to foil the attempt, of course.) But I don't expect to really be playing her in 987 years. Such is the life of playing an elven character with an elven lifespan. Likewise, she has smaller personal goals that I work toward with her: mechanical, specific items, a formal title that reflects the one bestowed on her in game over a decade ago, plus the more interesting goals associated with 'turning' or 'corrupting' other specific characters or locations to either become sympathetic toward or joined with her professed cause.
Back to the heart of what I had meant, however.. In playing a villain within the framework of any given story line (regardless as to whether the character is 'evil', 'good', or 'neutral' overall), when set up against the forces that are determined to be the 'heroes' then that villain should ultimately fail. Yes, the heroes should fail first (and repeatedly though not exclusively) before the finale, but in the end the heroes should triumph and the villain perish - or limp away to lick their wounds afterward.
That is, of course, assuming that there is intended to be an actual hero. Those stories where choosing sides is much more questionably heroic are likewise much more complex. They can be even more difficult to manage, but also have the potential to be incredibly engaging for their subtle nuances and questionable morality.
> You'll probably face consequences too, so be ready for that from the start and create your place in the story with that end point in mind. Your character, of course, has no idea he or she can't win and should act like victory is imminent, but as a player, you've got to brace yourself to see your character's hopes dashed and figure out how he or she will move on after that.--Lauren
I didn't really mention much about concrete consequences, but that is a really good point. (There was a ton of discussion during the GSS about what were 'reasonable' consequences for characters siding with the bad guys, and whether or not they should so far as to hinder game enjoyment.)
I fully support extreme consequences. Execution, imprisonment, and banishment should be on the table. NPCs should be (reasonably) informed if a specific person has been A Threat in the past, if it pertains to that NPC's background or field of interest, and act accordingly. Exclude that character from sensitive information sharing sessions, or from critical missions involving groups of adventurers. Disregard or discredit the character in front of others. Act with open skepticism or hostility toward that character. That said, I also don't think that consequences (or punishments) should be so extreme that they grievously or permanently limit how a person can play their character in game.
If, for example, a criminal organization were considered outlawed, then I would hope that the GM responsible for declaring that status would make also some sort of concession or accommodation for those characters involved in it. If those characters would be arrested immediately upon entry into town, then facilitate them to interact with the town's citizens in a different manner. Encourage RP in an area that is outside the jurisdiction of the constable system. Expand which rooms do not have justice active in them. Ensure that if the area has access limitations for mechanical needs (lockers, bank, stores to sell/buy items from, guilds including the AdG) that those who are not welcome are still able to reasonably roleplay within proximity without severely impacting that side of game mechanics. Wehnimer's and Solhaven both have caravansaries outside of them that provide most, if not all, services. Not all towns do, and some - like Teras, River's Rest, and Ta'Vaalor - have travel restrictions that make using town system mechanics difficult if not impossible if attempting to utilize those features in conjunction with being banished. If there's a long term event going on, don't punish people who want to linger in the area and knock out some casual hunting.
There's a building within the limits of Wehnimer's that has the justice status turned off inside it, for instance. That may have been an oversight, but given that it's also close to one of the entry points, it makes it a natural place where a character branded an outlaw could reasonably loiter around in and engage with others while still plausibly not flaunting their presence in the face of the law. I wish all towns had gathering places like Hearthstone - just outside of the jurisdiction but reasonably close and also a natural draw for everyone.
Permanent marking is another great option - and it could even be considered a 'reward' for those players who put forth effort in establishing a consistent, believable villain who aligned against the (questionably) lawful majority. One thing I really like about the recent quests in Wehnimer's is that several who acted against the Empire were branded with marks. That's a visible consequence to the character, a tangible quest reward to the player, and a reminder or springboard for anyone interacting with them (PC or NPC) that, hey, that person over there got caught doing something and probably shouldn't be trusted quite as much as someone else. Probably. Maybe. Heh.
There are also those aligned with various deities who received marks in the past (typically in conjunction with NPC recognition for the character's service, either in or outside of an established Order). Quite a few characters in service to the Lornon deities were among them. Some characters who received a Lornon mark weren't even willing followers, which added even more depth to their individual struggles and allowed them even greater opportunity to play out a conflicted stance with multiple sides (villains and heroes among them).
Answering two of my own questions that I really didn't touch on already in my original post..
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
For my main character, who in most circumstances I would consider villainous, it depends on the context.
If the two have interests that align, I want someone that is a three-dimensional character with unique (and realistic) goals that make working toward their mutual interest an engaging experience. Having an accomplice is incredibly rewarding. It helps me explore sides of my character that I can't always do with others of differing perspectives, because she typically won't let someone else in close or get to know what she is really like unless there is some measure of trust between them. Accomplices, associates, and even friends (perish the thought!) let her gradually build that trust and let me explore more personal or vulnerable sides of her.
If the two have interests that contradict, well, more's the better. Again, I want someone who is a three-dimensional character with unique/realistic goals. And I want to see how that person, in pursuit of those goals, helps create an engaging conflict that might range from casual verbal sparring to outright confrontation to even a deep rivalry or enmity. For those who end up being lasting rivals, of varying degrees of hostility, I also relish those rare moments where both sides either intentionally or not let down their guards just enough so that, even for a fleeting moment, there may be some amount of empathy between them. Lauren mentioned the sympathetic villain, and I wholeheartedly agree with her assessment of the archetype. Having such a character be a lasting rival adds even more layers of nuance to their every interaction.
Not only that, but it even lends greater credibility for those rare instances where two rivals may agree to - temporarily - work together toward an unexpected mutual goal.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I'm with Brian, here. I like playing a character who is very different from me. It's fascinating to me to put her in a situation where she can twist things to such a different moral or ethical perspective from my own. It's equally fascinating to me to see how events unfold after actually acting on (or speaking about) those same disparate perspectives. Developing a set of morals and ethics and then adhering to that system - not my own - really keeps me engaged with her.
One aspect of my character that is the most fun for me, as a player, to work with is to have her never actively utter a lie but instead attempt to deceive within the framework of telling selective truths. It's become a core aspect of her personality and it began as just something fun for me to do when I first rolled her up with the general concept of lawful/evil and based on a video game character. (Major points to anyone who ever successfully guesses the original character she was based on. She's quite different from the source at this point.) I just enjoyed the challenge of semantics within a text game so much that I kept running with it. Since then, I've been able to explain it as part of her personal philosophy - even in ironic service to the Lord of Lies. Unfortunately, I've found that after playing her for 15 years now that it's becoming more and more difficult for me to remember just what was said, and when, and to whom, so I (as a player) do slip up sometimes due to faulty memory. Oh well!
- Overlord EK
>You now regard Eorgina with a warm demeanor.
>The purpose of a villain is not to win.--me
>I think there's a lot of ways to interpret this statement. I think my viewpoint is... villains will win the battles, but they can't win the war. If the villain never wins a battle, there's no dramatic tension. But in a lot of our storyline contexts, the villains are working towards some apocalyptic scenario (IE - GSS, CiS, etc) that obviously can't succeed... for success is pretty much the end of the world, and thus the game. Of course, good and evil are far more black and white in those scenarios too.--Raelee
Yeah.. that's actually more of what I meant with the original statement. I didn't mean that a villain should always lose, or that they should never have any lasting accomplishments (either personal or with significant impact upon others/the game). I just meant that in the end a villain should not ultimately prevail, with the rare exception of a storyline that did need to resolve in such a way that the heroes failed.
I definitely play my character to win her personal goals. Some are totally unreasonable or unattainable, and very fortunately those ones generally have such an extended timetable for completion that it's okay. I mean, really. If what Draezir and Morvule set up really comes to pass, and the world isn't destroyed already by then, then sometime in mid-6102 or so a bunch of extra-planar shadow entities that are something different and even greater than major demons will emerge in full (instead of in part) and devour most of western Elanthia. And, in the process, my character will finish the current partial physiological merge with them and either become part of the collective hive mind or some sort of ascended entity, depending on who you ask. (I'm sure there will be plenty of adventurers then to foil the attempt, of course.) But I don't expect to really be playing her in 987 years. Such is the life of playing an elven character with an elven lifespan. Likewise, she has smaller personal goals that I work toward with her: mechanical, specific items, a formal title that reflects the one bestowed on her in game over a decade ago, plus the more interesting goals associated with 'turning' or 'corrupting' other specific characters or locations to either become sympathetic toward or joined with her professed cause.
Back to the heart of what I had meant, however.. In playing a villain within the framework of any given story line (regardless as to whether the character is 'evil', 'good', or 'neutral' overall), when set up against the forces that are determined to be the 'heroes' then that villain should ultimately fail. Yes, the heroes should fail first (and repeatedly though not exclusively) before the finale, but in the end the heroes should triumph and the villain perish - or limp away to lick their wounds afterward.
That is, of course, assuming that there is intended to be an actual hero. Those stories where choosing sides is much more questionably heroic are likewise much more complex. They can be even more difficult to manage, but also have the potential to be incredibly engaging for their subtle nuances and questionable morality.
> You'll probably face consequences too, so be ready for that from the start and create your place in the story with that end point in mind. Your character, of course, has no idea he or she can't win and should act like victory is imminent, but as a player, you've got to brace yourself to see your character's hopes dashed and figure out how he or she will move on after that.--Lauren
I didn't really mention much about concrete consequences, but that is a really good point. (There was a ton of discussion during the GSS about what were 'reasonable' consequences for characters siding with the bad guys, and whether or not they should so far as to hinder game enjoyment.)
I fully support extreme consequences. Execution, imprisonment, and banishment should be on the table. NPCs should be (reasonably) informed if a specific person has been A Threat in the past, if it pertains to that NPC's background or field of interest, and act accordingly. Exclude that character from sensitive information sharing sessions, or from critical missions involving groups of adventurers. Disregard or discredit the character in front of others. Act with open skepticism or hostility toward that character. That said, I also don't think that consequences (or punishments) should be so extreme that they grievously or permanently limit how a person can play their character in game.
If, for example, a criminal organization were considered outlawed, then I would hope that the GM responsible for declaring that status would make also some sort of concession or accommodation for those characters involved in it. If those characters would be arrested immediately upon entry into town, then facilitate them to interact with the town's citizens in a different manner. Encourage RP in an area that is outside the jurisdiction of the constable system. Expand which rooms do not have justice active in them. Ensure that if the area has access limitations for mechanical needs (lockers, bank, stores to sell/buy items from, guilds including the AdG) that those who are not welcome are still able to reasonably roleplay within proximity without severely impacting that side of game mechanics. Wehnimer's and Solhaven both have caravansaries outside of them that provide most, if not all, services. Not all towns do, and some - like Teras, River's Rest, and Ta'Vaalor - have travel restrictions that make using town system mechanics difficult if not impossible if attempting to utilize those features in conjunction with being banished. If there's a long term event going on, don't punish people who want to linger in the area and knock out some casual hunting.
There's a building within the limits of Wehnimer's that has the justice status turned off inside it, for instance. That may have been an oversight, but given that it's also close to one of the entry points, it makes it a natural place where a character branded an outlaw could reasonably loiter around in and engage with others while still plausibly not flaunting their presence in the face of the law. I wish all towns had gathering places like Hearthstone - just outside of the jurisdiction but reasonably close and also a natural draw for everyone.
Permanent marking is another great option - and it could even be considered a 'reward' for those players who put forth effort in establishing a consistent, believable villain who aligned against the (questionably) lawful majority. One thing I really like about the recent quests in Wehnimer's is that several who acted against the Empire were branded with marks. That's a visible consequence to the character, a tangible quest reward to the player, and a reminder or springboard for anyone interacting with them (PC or NPC) that, hey, that person over there got caught doing something and probably shouldn't be trusted quite as much as someone else. Probably. Maybe. Heh.
There are also those aligned with various deities who received marks in the past (typically in conjunction with NPC recognition for the character's service, either in or outside of an established Order). Quite a few characters in service to the Lornon deities were among them. Some characters who received a Lornon mark weren't even willing followers, which added even more depth to their individual struggles and allowed them even greater opportunity to play out a conflicted stance with multiple sides (villains and heroes among them).
Answering two of my own questions that I really didn't touch on already in my original post..
>What do you expect for a villain to do for you - or for your character?
For my main character, who in most circumstances I would consider villainous, it depends on the context.
If the two have interests that align, I want someone that is a three-dimensional character with unique (and realistic) goals that make working toward their mutual interest an engaging experience. Having an accomplice is incredibly rewarding. It helps me explore sides of my character that I can't always do with others of differing perspectives, because she typically won't let someone else in close or get to know what she is really like unless there is some measure of trust between them. Accomplices, associates, and even friends (perish the thought!) let her gradually build that trust and let me explore more personal or vulnerable sides of her.
If the two have interests that contradict, well, more's the better. Again, I want someone who is a three-dimensional character with unique/realistic goals. And I want to see how that person, in pursuit of those goals, helps create an engaging conflict that might range from casual verbal sparring to outright confrontation to even a deep rivalry or enmity. For those who end up being lasting rivals, of varying degrees of hostility, I also relish those rare moments where both sides either intentionally or not let down their guards just enough so that, even for a fleeting moment, there may be some amount of empathy between them. Lauren mentioned the sympathetic villain, and I wholeheartedly agree with her assessment of the archetype. Having such a character be a lasting rival adds even more layers of nuance to their every interaction.
Not only that, but it even lends greater credibility for those rare instances where two rivals may agree to - temporarily - work together toward an unexpected mutual goal.
>And, for those who do, why do you play a villain?
I'm with Brian, here. I like playing a character who is very different from me. It's fascinating to me to put her in a situation where she can twist things to such a different moral or ethical perspective from my own. It's equally fascinating to me to see how events unfold after actually acting on (or speaking about) those same disparate perspectives. Developing a set of morals and ethics and then adhering to that system - not my own - really keeps me engaged with her.
One aspect of my character that is the most fun for me, as a player, to work with is to have her never actively utter a lie but instead attempt to deceive within the framework of telling selective truths. It's become a core aspect of her personality and it began as just something fun for me to do when I first rolled her up with the general concept of lawful/evil and based on a video game character. (Major points to anyone who ever successfully guesses the original character she was based on. She's quite different from the source at this point.) I just enjoyed the challenge of semantics within a text game so much that I kept running with it. Since then, I've been able to explain it as part of her personal philosophy - even in ironic service to the Lord of Lies. Unfortunately, I've found that after playing her for 15 years now that it's becoming more and more difficult for me to remember just what was said, and when, and to whom, so I (as a player) do slip up sometimes due to faulty memory. Oh well!
- Overlord EK
>You now regard Eorgina with a warm demeanor.
MAZEIKISJ
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/10/2015 09:25 AM CDT
| I fully support extreme consequences. Execution, imprisonment, and banishment should be on the table. NPCs should be (reasonably) informed if a specific person has been A Threat in the past, if it pertains to that NPC's background or field of interest, and act accordingly. Exclude that character from sensitive information sharing sessions, or from critical missions involving groups of adventurers. Disregard or discredit the character in front of others. Act with open skepticism or hostility toward that character. That said, I also don't think that consequences (or punishments) should be so extreme that they grievously or permanently limit how a person can play their character in game. |
| -dat EK <3 |
I dunno man, people these days get real sensitive about being excluded or punished or otherwise facing consequences (see: roleplaying opportunities and character development) due to their IC choices. It ain't like our dangerous game of cat and also cat. #nothelpful
Otherwise, I kind of prefer to use the words antagonist and protagonist for the sake of semantics and perspective, because villain and hero kind of carry the whole good vs evil connotation, and that's generally subjective, whereas ant/pro is a little more objective and allows for a fair amount of role reversal/place swapping.
But when I do say 'a little more objective,' the whole ordeal is still a matter of perspective for the players involved- as an example, my character is an imperial knight, so in a general sense and character flaws aside, he'll always from my perspective be acting lawful good and with the best intentions. However, from other perspectives, he is most certainly not a protagonist, simply due to being a knight of the Turamzzyrian Empire. Save puppies and orphans from drowning, and it wasn't an act of altruism, it was evil imperial condescension etc etc
Then you have certain wildcard scenarios, such as the Talador Arc of Cross Into Shadows, where we come to role reversal- where the stage is primarily swapped and your standard actually lawful good characters don't find themselves in protagonist roles, because they are not only the extreme minority in that story arc but a pursued/beleaguered/reviled minority whose stance runs contrary to the general consensus, in one of CIS's many great moments of irony (where the 'protagonists' were all doing really horrible, deplorable and despicable things, and the 'antagonists' were actually the classic 'good guys,' oops).
So one really has to be ready for the two roles of antagonist and protagonist, while not only fluid, also carrying with them equal weight and responsibilities as a player while being a matter of perspective. Those responsibilities really just boil down to being fair and cool to the other players involved and treating the scenarios that play out as a fun stage production of give and take for an audience that can also get involved! rather than a life or death blood struggle competition between players. Otherwise I think you guys are covering the finer points of stuff in this thread.
-james, bristenn's player
| You think to yourself, "FFF-" |
| A giant white bunny hurls a powerful lightning bolt at you! |
| You evade the bolt by a hair! |
DMWCINCY
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/10/2015 10:33 AM CDT
Feeding more off the whole thread but reacting to brist point about ant/pro switching positions (which is a very good point)
i think some get hung up on if their PC is good or evil. I wouldnt even worry about it. Do what your character thinks is correct for the situation (within rules of the game). Dont do something the character wouldnt do just because its either good or bad but instead do it because your characters rp dictates the direction you go. Let your actions and reactions from others determine what title others will give your PC instead of setting a goal to be good or evil and working towards getting everyone to agree with that goal.
ZENDADA
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/10/2015 12:58 PM CDT
| Feeding more off the whole thread but reacting to brist point about ant/pro switching positions (which is a very good point) |
| i think some get hung up on if their PC is good or evil. I wouldnt even worry about it. Do what your character thinks is correct for the situation (within rules of the game). Dont do something the character wouldnt do just because its either good or bad but instead do it because your characters rp dictates the direction you go. Let your actions and reactions from others determine what title others will give your PC instead of setting a goal to be good or evil and working towards getting everyone to agree with that goal. |
| DMWCINCY |
This is an interesting point.
How many people go into character creation with an alignment in mind?
Most of my characters are fairly non-aligned which means they are more a representation of me the person being neutral-good. The only time I made a character with the intent to be socially controversial was my Vaalorian. The beauty of the Vaalorian story is that one can play a controversial character towards pretty much most everyone that is not a Vaalorian yet remain perfectly in line with other Vaalorians. This can be interpreted, at least in my mind, as a range between Lawful Good to Lawful Evil. Why I chose to play that kind of character was based on a time in my life that involved conflict and he was a way to express my frustration during that time.
Chad, player of a few
PENNINGTONB1
Re: On Adversity and Villainy
10/10/2015 05:38 PM CDT
>How many people go into character creation with an alignment in mind?
I didn't with most of my characters, and certainly not with Sepher. I started playing when I was around 16 years old and had no idea what the hell I wanted to do with him. That is, the concept of roleplaying was mostly foreign to me at the time, so I pretty much just screwed around with my friends.
I recall sitting in study hall in high school writing pages and pages of his backstory, probably close to a year after rolling him up. Prior to writing and likely what resulted in the effort, one of my IG friends at the time who played a snerty Luukosian, suggested that I might like being a follower of Mularos. At the time, I hadn't done any research into the Arkati, so I did a little reading and just pulled the trigger -- Sepher became a Mularosian, almost entirely cause someone said I should try it.
What sealed the deal for me was my first real roleplaying experience, which is still very embarrassingly documented on Delyorik's website (if it's still hosted). It was an entirely impromptu event involving Sepher attempting to sacrifice Sansil (a Koarite) to Mularos. I want to say it took place in the Icemule temple, and Delyorik was there, I think trying to prevent it from occurring. It turned out to be my christening into the world of roleplaying, much to the credit of the far more experienced players Sansil and Dely. Since then, I haven't been able to get enough. But seriously, don't go looking for it. I was a very poor writer and I think I managed to misspell every word I typed. LMAO!
The rest, as they say, is history. After that, Sepher had his own unique story which I've let developed very naturally since then. I couldn't be happier with how he's turned out.
~Brian, Sepher's player
I didn't with most of my characters, and certainly not with Sepher. I started playing when I was around 16 years old and had no idea what the hell I wanted to do with him. That is, the concept of roleplaying was mostly foreign to me at the time, so I pretty much just screwed around with my friends.
I recall sitting in study hall in high school writing pages and pages of his backstory, probably close to a year after rolling him up. Prior to writing and likely what resulted in the effort, one of my IG friends at the time who played a snerty Luukosian, suggested that I might like being a follower of Mularos. At the time, I hadn't done any research into the Arkati, so I did a little reading and just pulled the trigger -- Sepher became a Mularosian, almost entirely cause someone said I should try it.
What sealed the deal for me was my first real roleplaying experience, which is still very embarrassingly documented on Delyorik's website (if it's still hosted). It was an entirely impromptu event involving Sepher attempting to sacrifice Sansil (a Koarite) to Mularos. I want to say it took place in the Icemule temple, and Delyorik was there, I think trying to prevent it from occurring. It turned out to be my christening into the world of roleplaying, much to the credit of the far more experienced players Sansil and Dely. Since then, I haven't been able to get enough. But seriously, don't go looking for it. I was a very poor writer and I think I managed to misspell every word I typed. LMAO!
The rest, as they say, is history. After that, Sepher had his own unique story which I've let developed very naturally since then. I couldn't be happier with how he's turned out.
~Brian, Sepher's player
