With villains I believed there are 6 (possibly more) quintessential archetypes. The Tyrant, The Revolutionary, The Narcissist, The Hedonist, The Megalomaniac, The Darwinist. And these archetypes can and will mix, a narcissist darwinist can range from your typical arrogant noble to someone whose achievements have gone to their head.
My attitude with antagonist and villains is that villians have what I call a rubicon moment; an action they have taken that cannot be excused by any notion of morality, that goes beyond a tragic necessity of their goals but a conscious choice that took to fill their own desire. To demonstrate this Griffith from berserke rubicon was arguably when he chose to sacrificed the band of the hawk, a group of people who did everything to save him from imprisonment driven by complete loyalty to him that he sacrificed without regard for anything but his own desire for power. Yes he was tortured and mutilated from imprisonment but that was a consequences of a selfish decision brought out of his need to have guts
THIS is what I've wanted to see! It feels like true evil characters have faded quite a bit from media (but I might have confirmation bias). I'm happy to see you touch on this subject as I believe it to have far more depth than what we assume when we dismiss true evil as boring & uninspiring.
Yeah Evil is just as deep as the morally grey/moral complexity subjects so this definitely won't be the last you hear about it from me. There does seem (also could be confirmation bias on my end) to be a LOT of media looking to constantly muddy the waters and justify the Villain these days. Honestly seems like only the Horror genre is still unapologetically evil or showcasing it.
Hans Gruber from Die Hard is given no backstory, no motives beyond wishing to get rich and retire, and yet he is an utterly captivating villain, I don't need to be told anything about him, the writing and performance give everything that I need to know and nothing more.
I think this video also helps me clarify for myself how grey morality can work: when it makes the villain someone you can understand without ultimately excusing their actions. (And to give the heroes hard choices without undermining what the right thing to do is) But as you’ve pointed out, often the execution makes every side look just as bad and as a result make every victory seem hollow. Edit: and then I reach 4:30
I've been thinking about this lately, prompted by The Zone of Interest, a movie from last year. It's about Rudolph Hoess and his family's life. The movie could be described as quite boring, because not much is honestly happening. But through those mundane scenes of everyday life, you can see cracks in the facade and the horrible, horrible acts of pure evil those people have willingly chosen as their career. Spoiler below. There is a shocking scene, in which children are playing, and suddenly, screams are heard from beyond the wall in Auschwitz camp. "What's this?", asks Rudolph, matter of factly. "They were fighting for an apple", responds a guard. "Drown both in the river", Hoess responds without hesitation. Meanwhile, children are playing in the garden. It made me absolutely sick to my stomach and showed how day-to-day evil looks like. It can literally go by unnoticed if one does not wish to notice.
I think this true for good characters as well or generally for characters as well. It is really tireing how every damn hero, and person, unwilling to do anything. They always need someone to push them in one way or to an another. Modern characters a lot of times feel like pebbles on the side of the road.
I have a marquee in my game who owns the equivalent of the east Indiana trading company who seeks maximum profit, because it does good for her people, and horrors for all others.
Villains of circumstance often feel like pushovers. I mean, by definition they've been pushed this far because of things they don't think they have agency over. Like you said, a villain who does have a reason, but not a justification for their evil, gets to keep their agency and their charisma. That's the only way I see to truly challenge the virtues of the player characters, and their worldview. Specially if you make the world a grimdark place where maintaining good is a daily struggle.
Solid point. Evil with agency is the most terrifying thing. If it can be explained away, that can be interesting at times but it just doesn't have the same raw punch as in your face, domineering evil.
You left one useful thing out: Sometimes, to help emphasize the deliberate choice a villain makes to be evil, it's useful to have another NPC character present (or even a PC if you can manage it) that had a similar defining experience but deliberately chose NOT to be evil.
I'm a sucker for a proper magnificent bastard as Overly Sarcastic Productions calls them. The combination of pompousnes and hubris makes their ends lip smackingly sweet. Especially when the protagonists aren't even on the villain's radar til they're bashing down their door.
Great video. I think in the context of TTRPGs evil is also often explained by the Evil Gods that in some shape or form trick, seduce or dominate a feeble mind of a human. Humans often fall for it as god promises that elusive "power". In this instance, it feels like the villain of the campaign often ends up being nothing more than a henchman - a boss before the final boss. That also really cheapens their impact and identity as villains. Perhaps a good way to circumvent that is to get the human villain to denounce the evil god when he feels like the players may emerge victorious to try and find power elsewhere. Or to fake a redemption arc to save their own skin. Still, not the easiest thing to pull off, I guess. The other common trope is evil that comes from the clash of species: like ogres eating humans not because they're evil, but because to them we're chicken. Their societies are often portrayed as violent and brutal, so it's kinda difficult to elevate one of them as "truly" evil. That may pose quite a challenge. In the society where everyone embraces evil, how do you make a memorable villain without resorting to giving them the biggest stick/throne/hat?
A hilarious example of a villain who was not a product of their environment is Jack Horner. We constantly see that he had countless opportunities to change his ways but he chose evil every time. It's so funny and exagerated but it works so well.
Maybe a good way to include something close to "grey morality" while still keeping the weight of choice is to have a hero, or at least "good" character, and a villain, with a similar background One chooses the right thing, the other chooses evil, but they had nearly identical circumstances. The difference lies in their perspectives, but how they arrived at that perspective has more personal weight when they are shown not to be purely the product of their circumstances.
I enjoy gray morality in fiction a lot, but thats probably because I love tragedy. I like fallen heroes and assholes who change into better people. I do agree that things get boring if its the same scenario over and over, and every grimdark hell-world needs moments of goodness or it doesnt work. Someone must stop an active villain, no matter the villain's reasons. Being able to grasp that things could have been different if only, gets that meloncholy pause you mention.
Great video! I think one of the reasons I liked Puss in Boots 2 very much is because the movie have 3 types of amazing villains: The redeemable one The force of nature And the absolute dickhead
Another banger. I love to point to the difference between Darth Vader and Kylo Ren. Vader's arc is so much more impactful because of how far he fell. Meanwhile Kylo is unforgettable cringe.
I'm still not sure where I'd place him in any of the "evil" boxes, since he's uncompromising and choosing evil deliberately, but his motivations are pretty complex
I think villains who have made themselves evil via choice are also a lot more fun. As opposed to having to evaluate everything to see how this person isn’t guilty, or what caused it. They present their own will as an obstacle, and that will can be as unhinged, goofy, and fun as you want. a lot of cartoon villains fall into this category. They simply are evil because they’ve decided to be evil and that makes them more fun as characters, and more dynamic as plot devices.
Nice. I think I suggested this in the comments under another video? In any case, really nice to see. Personally, I blame Marvel for the feeling that this isnt happening that much anymore in modern media. The way modern audiences look at villains borders on Hybristophilia. And there is always this need to explain confused with the want to justify actions that is being played into. It is truly disgusting sometimes. Also a word because you are linking Black Lodge Games: While they might have a point in that video, Im still not clicking. They have really weird worldviews and views on TTRPGs in general that seem hateful. Just to let you know, Im sure you can come to your own conclusions.
You can have a sympathetic villain, but at the end of the day, a sympathetic villain is a villain and villains are evil. A tragic past doesn't justify their villainy. Their motives shouldn't justify their evil acts. The failure to accept that fact is why the current crop of writers fail and why so many villains fall flat.
Again, this is another solid topic and presentation. I was wondering which direction you would take after the Morally Gray video. Even more so, it's true that EVIL is often oversimplified more than the MG. Given the penchant for sanitization in many modern pre-written modules or just avoiding subject matter, the opposition to characters in most fantasy games often seems to take the cookie-cutter approach or is just gloss on the surface. To some extent, I wonder if the alignment scheme is even being used as written in the new 5th ed PHB, where Neutral Evil is written as the "...alignment of those who are untroubled by the harm they cause as they pursue their desires." Murder hobo, anyone? As a direct look at the subject as it relates to D&D, the two books Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy have chapters on this subject as well. The one produced by Cogburn & Silcox, chp. 3, 6, & 7, discusses the aspects of evil from in-game and in the player's head POVs. While the one produced by Irwin and Robichaud has a good look at Menzoberranzan. Can we look forward to the subject of "Good" as a balance on the scales of what you have presented so far? After all, most RPGs tout the character as being or acting as a source of "good" in most games. If you feel like diving a bit deeper into the subject, you could look at "Understanding Evil-Why Evil Exists" by Charles Mathewes, Ph.D. The perspectives covered range from theological to philosophical to psychological. As always, keep turning these out, TRILL. You're doing great.
Appreciate the comment and the suggestions! Yeah I think Evil is actually pretty difficult to portray well in a lot of ways. It feels like, in the TTRPG hobby at least, that Evil is either way too tame and without conviction or it's over the top cartoonish and lacks seriousness. I know there's some examples that do it well but for the most part the lack of distinct and purposeful design is missing. There'll definitely be a "Good" video coming along soon to kinda round out the first part of the morality takes before I get into some more specific and ideally interesting for you all topics.
Another way you can go to the villain you use his backstory for World building the country is born in the politics of that country doesn't have to be an excuse but it could add more deaths
Problem is if you use the same thing all the time. Always better mix antagonist all the time. (And "antagonist" is the world.) Not all conflict must be good and evil. Even 2 good causes can have irreconcilable differences. And what is good and evil or what is worthy the price is mostly subjective. ( and for some self interest is most important "moral" value) Useing different stuff will make story fresh and keep players on guard.
Jonathan Maberry does some fine, truly evil villains. Problem is, I find that sort of thing boring. I don’t WANT to know how they justify flaying people alive and graping them to death. I end up skipping whole chapters of assholes being assholes. Because it’s BORING.
With villains I believed there are 6 (possibly more) quintessential archetypes. The Tyrant, The Revolutionary, The Narcissist, The Hedonist, The Megalomaniac, The Darwinist. And these archetypes can and will mix, a narcissist darwinist can range from your typical arrogant noble to someone whose achievements have gone to their head.
My attitude with antagonist and villains is that villians have what I call a rubicon moment; an action they have taken that cannot be excused by any notion of morality, that goes beyond a tragic necessity of their goals but a conscious choice that took to fill their own desire. To demonstrate this Griffith from berserke rubicon was arguably when he chose to sacrificed the band of the hawk, a group of people who did everything to save him from imprisonment driven by complete loyalty to him that he sacrificed without regard for anything but his own desire for power. Yes he was tortured and mutilated from imprisonment but that was a consequences of a selfish decision brought out of his need to have guts
THIS is what I've wanted to see! It feels like true evil characters have faded quite a bit from media (but I might have confirmation bias). I'm happy to see you touch on this subject as I believe it to have far more depth than what we assume when we dismiss true evil as boring & uninspiring.
Yeah Evil is just as deep as the morally grey/moral complexity subjects so this definitely won't be the last you hear about it from me. There does seem (also could be confirmation bias on my end) to be a LOT of media looking to constantly muddy the waters and justify the Villain these days. Honestly seems like only the Horror genre is still unapologetically evil or showcasing it.
@TrillTheDM
Oh definitely - especially with Art the Clown.
Great video and thank you for the shout-out man
Looking forward to Cults of Zahak! I really enjoyed the Shucked Oyster. Wishing you fellas a good run on this one
0:12 “He protected America is what he did! He was a brave American visionnaire! And in this house, Bill the Butcher is a hero! End of story.”
"No compromises. No apologies." eh? ;)
Hans Gruber from Die Hard is given no backstory, no motives beyond wishing to get rich and retire, and yet he is an utterly captivating villain, I don't need to be told anything about him, the writing and performance give everything that I need to know and nothing more.
I think this video also helps me clarify for myself how grey morality can work: when it makes the villain someone you can understand without ultimately excusing their actions. (And to give the heroes hard choices without undermining what the right thing to do is)
But as you’ve pointed out, often the execution makes every side look just as bad and as a result make every victory seem hollow.
Edit: and then I reach 4:30
I Love uncompromising evil.
Hell Yeah
Says the man with JC avatar pic (Jeebus Christmas btw.)
TOTAL GLOBAL. SATURATION!!!!
I've been thinking about this lately, prompted by The Zone of Interest, a movie from last year. It's about Rudolph Hoess and his family's life. The movie could be described as quite boring, because not much is honestly happening. But through those mundane scenes of everyday life, you can see cracks in the facade and the horrible, horrible acts of pure evil those people have willingly chosen as their career. Spoiler below.
There is a shocking scene, in which children are playing, and suddenly, screams are heard from beyond the wall in Auschwitz camp. "What's this?", asks Rudolph, matter of factly. "They were fighting for an apple", responds a guard. "Drown both in the river", Hoess responds without hesitation. Meanwhile, children are playing in the garden. It made me absolutely sick to my stomach and showed how day-to-day evil looks like. It can literally go by unnoticed if one does not wish to notice.
I think this true for good characters as well or generally for characters as well. It is really tireing how every damn hero, and person, unwilling to do anything. They always need someone to push them in one way or to an another. Modern characters a lot of times feel like pebbles on the side of the road.
Dude, this has got to be your best one yet… this has got me so exited to DM some smashing games ❤
Glad you enjoyed it! Hope the best for your games!
I have a marquee in my game who owns the equivalent of the east Indiana trading company who seeks maximum profit, because it does good for her people, and horrors for all others.
Villains of circumstance often feel like pushovers. I mean, by definition they've been pushed this far because of things they don't think they have agency over.
Like you said, a villain who does have a reason, but not a justification for their evil, gets to keep their agency and their charisma. That's the only way I see to truly challenge the virtues of the player characters, and their worldview. Specially if you make the world a grimdark place where maintaining good is a daily struggle.
Solid point. Evil with agency is the most terrifying thing. If it can be explained away, that can be interesting at times but it just doesn't have the same raw punch as in your face, domineering evil.
You left one useful thing out: Sometimes, to help emphasize the deliberate choice a villain makes to be evil, it's useful to have another NPC character present (or even a PC if you can manage it) that had a similar defining experience but deliberately chose NOT to be evil.
I think we have a misunderstanding that we need to be able to rationalize villains. Real horror and pure evil though is incomprehensible.
What a fantastic point on gray morality and mishandling it
I like this channel because this doesn’t just apply to just writing or games.
I'm a sucker for a proper magnificent bastard as Overly Sarcastic Productions calls them. The combination of pompousnes and hubris makes their ends lip smackingly sweet. Especially when the protagonists aren't even on the villain's radar til they're bashing down their door.
Great video. I think in the context of TTRPGs evil is also often explained by the Evil Gods that in some shape or form trick, seduce or dominate a feeble mind of a human. Humans often fall for it as god promises that elusive "power". In this instance, it feels like the villain of the campaign often ends up being nothing more than a henchman - a boss before the final boss. That also really cheapens their impact and identity as villains. Perhaps a good way to circumvent that is to get the human villain to denounce the evil god when he feels like the players may emerge victorious to try and find power elsewhere. Or to fake a redemption arc to save their own skin. Still, not the easiest thing to pull off, I guess.
The other common trope is evil that comes from the clash of species: like ogres eating humans not because they're evil, but because to them we're chicken. Their societies are often portrayed as violent and brutal, so it's kinda difficult to elevate one of them as "truly" evil. That may pose quite a challenge. In the society where everyone embraces evil, how do you make a memorable villain without resorting to giving them the biggest stick/throne/hat?
A hilarious example of a villain who was not a product of their environment is Jack Horner. We constantly see that he had countless opportunities to change his ways but he chose evil every time. It's so funny and exagerated but it works so well.
Very good video. Kirei Kotomine has entered the chat.
Maybe a good way to include something close to "grey morality" while still keeping the weight of choice is to have a hero, or at least "good" character, and a villain, with a similar background
One chooses the right thing, the other chooses evil, but they had nearly identical circumstances. The difference lies in their perspectives, but how they arrived at that perspective has more personal weight when they are shown not to be purely the product of their circumstances.
I enjoy gray morality in fiction a lot, but thats probably because I love tragedy. I like fallen heroes and assholes who change into better people. I do agree that things get boring if its the same scenario over and over, and every grimdark hell-world needs moments of goodness or it doesnt work.
Someone must stop an active villain, no matter the villain's reasons. Being able to grasp that things could have been different if only, gets that meloncholy pause you mention.
Great video!
I think one of the reasons I liked Puss in Boots 2 very much is because the movie have 3 types of amazing villains:
The redeemable one
The force of nature
And the absolute dickhead
Absolutely great material!!!
The villains with justification (rather than reasons) always make me think of moral relativism - which I don't want to play out.
Another banger. I love to point to the difference between Darth Vader and Kylo Ren. Vader's arc is so much more impactful because of how far he fell. Meanwhile Kylo is unforgettable cringe.
I'm going to have to defer to you on that lol I haven't watched any of the new star wars except for Rogue One. Vader is a great villain though!
@TrillTheDM Fair. It's not like you've missed anything of value, though.
@@Tora58 I liked S1 of The Mandalorian. But the other Disney movies? Mid at best.
@DarthRadical I walked out of Episode 8 and haven't touched Star Wars since.
@@Tora58I'd add Andor (more precisely first season, to futureproof my case) to list of things that were made well.
It's good to have variety. He's kind of hard to put into a neat category, but my favorite evil is probably Leto II
I'm still not sure where I'd place him in any of the "evil" boxes, since he's uncompromising and choosing evil deliberately, but his motivations are pretty complex
I think villains who have made themselves evil via choice are also a lot more fun. As opposed to having to evaluate everything to see how this person isn’t guilty, or what caused it. They present their own will as an obstacle, and that will can be as unhinged, goofy, and fun as you want.
a lot of cartoon villains fall into this category. They simply are evil because they’ve decided to be evil and that makes them more fun as characters, and more dynamic as plot devices.
Nice. I think I suggested this in the comments under another video? In any case, really nice to see.
Personally, I blame Marvel for the feeling that this isnt happening that much anymore in modern media. The way modern audiences look at villains borders on Hybristophilia. And there is always this need to explain confused with the want to justify actions that is being played into. It is truly disgusting sometimes.
Also a word because you are linking Black Lodge Games: While they might have a point in that video, Im still not clicking. They have really weird worldviews and views on TTRPGs in general that seem hateful. Just to let you know, Im sure you can come to your own conclusions.
There are good villains who are cogs in a system like Amon Goeth or Darth Vader for example
I agree, so long as the fact that they're a cog in the machine doesn't excuse the evil they commit.
You can have a sympathetic villain, but at the end of the day, a sympathetic villain is a villain and villains are evil. A tragic past doesn't justify their villainy. Their motives shouldn't justify their evil acts. The failure to accept that fact is why the current crop of writers fail and why so many villains fall flat.
Again, this is another solid topic and presentation. I was wondering which direction you would take after the Morally Gray video. Even more so, it's true that EVIL is often oversimplified more than the MG. Given the penchant for sanitization in many modern pre-written modules or just avoiding subject matter, the opposition to characters in most fantasy games often seems to take the cookie-cutter approach or is just gloss on the surface. To some extent, I wonder if the alignment scheme is even being used as written in the new 5th ed PHB, where Neutral Evil is written as the "...alignment of those who are untroubled by the harm they cause as they pursue their desires." Murder hobo, anyone? As a direct look at the subject as it relates to D&D, the two books Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy have chapters on this subject as well. The one produced by Cogburn & Silcox, chp. 3, 6, & 7, discusses the aspects of evil from in-game and in the player's head POVs. While the one produced by Irwin and Robichaud has a good look at Menzoberranzan.
Can we look forward to the subject of "Good" as a balance on the scales of what you have presented so far? After all, most RPGs tout the character as being or acting as a source of "good" in most games.
If you feel like diving a bit deeper into the subject, you could look at "Understanding Evil-Why Evil Exists" by Charles Mathewes, Ph.D. The perspectives covered range from theological to philosophical to psychological. As always, keep turning these out, TRILL. You're doing great.
Appreciate the comment and the suggestions!
Yeah I think Evil is actually pretty difficult to portray well in a lot of ways. It feels like, in the TTRPG hobby at least, that Evil is either way too tame and without conviction or it's over the top cartoonish and lacks seriousness. I know there's some examples that do it well but for the most part the lack of distinct and purposeful design is missing.
There'll definitely be a "Good" video coming along soon to kinda round out the first part of the morality takes before I get into some more specific and ideally interesting for you all topics.
Another way you can go to the villain you use his backstory for World building the country is born in the politics of that country doesn't have to be an excuse but it could add more deaths
Sometimes it's nice just to own stop rationalizing everything
Problem is if you use the same thing all the time.
Always better mix antagonist all the time. (And "antagonist" is the world.)
Not all conflict must be good and evil. Even 2 good causes can have irreconcilable differences. And what is good and evil or what is worthy the price is mostly subjective. ( and for some self interest is most important "moral" value)
Useing different stuff will make story fresh and keep players on guard.
Jonathan Maberry does some fine, truly evil villains.
Problem is, I find that sort of thing boring. I don’t WANT to know how they justify flaying people alive and graping them to death. I end up skipping whole chapters of assholes being assholes.
Because it’s BORING.