Grey morals from the other side

[Asmor]

Picture a random villain taking a hostage in your game.

If you're anything like me, you wouldn't have the villain think twice about killing the hostage(s) if he thought it was the best option.

Yet, if you think about it, just because someone's breaking the law, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually capable of taking a life, never mind comfortable with it. If the PCs call his bluff and break down the bank door, the hostage taker may well chicken out and surrender.

So am I alone here in that when I picture a random bad guy, he's thoroughly bad? Just to clarify, I'm talking about someone entirely intended to be an antagonist, not someone the PCs are supposed to "redeem" or some such. An actual bad guy.

Do your bad guys have limits on what they're willing to do?

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I try to reserve pure, untempered evil for demons, devils and yugoloths. People, for the most part, are just people, and have motivations and limits. Hannibal Lector is among the most vicious and vile killers alive in Silence of the Lambs, killing without remorse whenever it serves his interests, but when he kills, he has a motive. Dexter Morgan from the TV show "Dexter" has a code he follows as he carves up killers wrapped in plastic wrap--and he'd never touch his sister or his girlfriend. Even fully evil characters who show up bright red on the Paladin's detect evil-ometer have people they love, causes they believe in, and limits they won't push past.

Or, to put it in another perspective, if every evil Tom, evil Dick, and evil Harry is willing to kill any innocent at all without provocation, it's hard to paint supernatural evils as significantly more evil.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Hella Tellah is right.

 

[sinecure]

Agree. Tellah got it in one.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I agree with Tellah and would go one step further in saying that the more human and sympathetic your villain is, the better the game. There are usually more RP opportunities and moral quandaries with bad guys who have motivations/personalities with which the players can empathise.

 

[the Jester]

Picture a random villain taking a hostage in your game.

If you're anything like me, you wouldn't have the villain think twice about killing the hostage(s) if he thought it was the best option.

Yet, if you think about it, just because someone's breaking the law, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually capable of taking a life, never mind comfortable with it. If the PCs call his bluff and break down the bank door, the hostage taker may well chicken out and surrender.

So am I alone here in that when I picture a random bad guy, he's thoroughly bad? Just to clarify, I'm talking about someone entirely intended to be an antagonist, not someone the PCs are supposed to "redeem" or some such. An actual bad guy.

Do your bad guys have limits on what they're willing to do?

Absolutely they do! I don't like to use simple "cookie cutter" villains who are out to commit evil for evil's sake. A lot of the bad guys imc know when they are busted, and would rather be jailed than killed.

Of course, a lot of the "villains" imc are not evil; they might even be good, for that matter. I believe in complex conflicts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IME, unless you're talking about someone who is evil to the core, someone who is "evil" typically has some kind of redeeming value. Otherwise, they couldn't operate within the confines of society for very long.

IOW, those willing to kill at will are usually ill.

 

[prosfilaes]

So am I alone here in that when I picture a random bad guy, he's thoroughly bad?

It makes playing easier sometimes. It helps with the "wander around, kill some sentient creatures because they have green skin and fangs and we don't, and take their stuff" (OOTS #13) syndrome; if they're bad and I mean really bad, we can throw fireballs and sleep spells at them and coup-de-grace any unconscious without worry. "They aren't really all that bad" makes for all these moral dilemmas that sometimes aren't the most fun at the table.

There's a big difference between a game where the Nazis are all eeeevil, and where you're fighting Germans caught up in something larger than themselves because the Treaty of Versailles really sucked and he may not agree with the Nazis on everything but they are the legitimate government of Germany and look what they've done for Germans... The latter may be more realistic, but the first can frequently be a lot more fun.

 

[mmadsen]

Do your bad guys have limits on what they're willing to do?

Indeed, killing someone in cold blood is so unpleasant that many villains prefer to prepare an elaborate contraption to kill the heroes once they have left.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'd say a good old death trap is still "cold blood," pretty much by definition. But it is a classic.

As a victim of such I'd be disgusted by the wimpy, squeamishness of the villain and say so loudly, daring them to do the dirty work up close and personal. Have lost a couple of characters that way.