"Love to Hate" versus "Hate to Hate"

[rounser]

A strong impression from the "How to Ruin a Campaign" thread:

Some villains are ones that players love to hate, and add to the enjoyment of the game, whereas other villains are such that players don't even enjoy loathing them, and detract from the enjoyment of the game.

This has got me thinking about traits which make a villain fall into either category. In general, I think that a "love to hate" villain needs to have one or more semi-positive traits, such as:

Charismatic, authoritative and noble
Roguish, a scoundrel and a con man
Possessed of a palpable sense of class and cool
Charming, dapper and witty
Mysterious and interesting
Possessed of an utterly alien, inhuman psychology
Having a memorable schtick (such as being surrounded by cats)
Romantic themes (e.g. doomed, betrayed or vengeful)
Skilled and a complete professional (e.g. general or assassin)
Have at least some motivations which players can relate to

...all of which seems to boil down to "being worthy of the player's respect", or "being memorably cool in at least one respect". Note that these aren't mutually exclusive of villainous traits:

A schemer of many Machiavellian plots
Cruel, either sadistically or coldly
Morally flawed
Loathed and feared
A traitor and betrayer
Cowardly and contemptible
Greedy and selfish
Domineering and bullying

And a "hate to hate", poor villain might draw too much from the following list:

Annoying
Uncool
Unromantic
One-dimensional
Overused
Overpowered
Underdeveloped
Sick to the point of gratuitousness
Uninteresting and dull

...but most of all, I think a "hate-to-hate" villain might suffer from a lack of redeeming features. Perhaps it is important to build the essence of appeal into a villain as much as hate, and that a good villain needs to be used in a way that strikes an accord between overexposure, and not enough exposure.

A recent thread by Psion pointed out that bit part villains tend to become favoured "love-to-hate" villains moreso than the "big bad" in the background, and it seemed that this was purely because of the nature of the bit part villain's interactions with the PCs....which leads to another theory: A villain's impact is defined more through how they act directly towards the PCs than any other trait. Perhaps a "hate-to-hate" villain is simply the victim of misuse by the DM.

Thoughts, experiences?

 

[evildm]

I'd once read that the key to the most chilling villain is some sort of familiarity. Something with which the reader (or in this case, the players) could relate to the villain, and realize the humanity of their opponent. Just my 2 cents.

 

[rounser]

I'd once read that the key to the most chilling villain is some sort of familiarity. Something with which the reader (or in this case, the players) could relate to the villain, and realize the humanity of their opponent.

Good point - but as the 2E Complete Book of Villains points out, you don't want to make your villain too familiar (i.e. to the point of becoming sympathetic) either, otherwise you risk "watering down" the villainy. When kicking butt for goodness, it's difficult to get that righteous fervour going if the "despicable factor" of a villain is infringed upon too much by justifiable motivations or good intentions. Familiar in tune, but morally bankrupt in actions and well deserving of comeuppance nonetheless.

Striking the balance between familiarity and alienation would probably be one of the trickier parts of designing villainy, I guess...

 

[Crothian]

The best villian I had betrayed the PCs. Before that they were friends and considered him a good ally. They hated him for months. It was all they ever talked about, in game and out. I'd get e-mails in the miffle of the week asking if this was the week of the final showdown. The characters would talk to each other in game about how they were going to bring him to justice and what evidence they had to support their case. He wasn't supposed to be this big of a villian, the big badass villian they weren't as interested in. Wierd the way things turn out.

 

[Mouseferatu]

These are all very good points, but I think there's one distinction that, in an RPG, is more important than all of them.

Do the players feel that their actions are having some success in thwarting the villain, even if they can't tackle him head on?

A villain whom the heroes aren't tough enough to beat, but who they're slowly but steadily working toward defeating, is likely to be come a love-to-hate. A villain too tough for them to beat who constantly shows up, destroys all their plans, kicks their butts, and seems immune to any of their efforts no matter how creative will become a hate-to-hate.

In other words...

*Takes breath in preparation for controversy*

Someone who's a good DM will probably create mostly love-to-hate villains, though even the best DMs screw up occasionally.

Someone who's not a good DM will probably create mostly hate-to-hate villains, though even the worst DMs strike gold occasionally.

I really think it has more to do with the DM than the actual villain, at least to an extent.

Now, I don't mean that every villain created by a good DM should be seriously cool, or worthy of respect. I just mean that any villain created by a good DM shouldn't annoy the players so much that they'd rather abandon the campaign than face him again.

 

[rounser]

The best villian I had betrayed the PCs. Before that they were friends and considered him a good ally. They hated him for months.

What was the nature of his betrayal?

While on the topic - there is a good example of the emotional impact of a good betrayal story behind the following link to a character on the Wizards site:
Character Closeup: Orion's Menagerie

I've been chewing over an idea for a betrayal villain in the form of an old, retired sea captain (Nbod of Nbod's Room under another name, ties into that adventure) who has brought up, sponsored and mentored one of the PCs from the beginning after his father died. The dirty little secret is that the good captain murdered the PC's father, and only looks after him to soothe his conscience at betraying his best friend. This will only come to light after somehow after many adventures. I'm not sure whether to turn the captain into a villain or a sympathetic character in light of this.

As it is, this is a straightforward and predictable setup - one that can be guessed at from a mile off, so I'm open to any suggestions to twist this particular plot further...

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Yeah, it's wierd. I have a villain in one campaign that is very charismatic, authoritarian, greedy for magic, wealth, power, and prestige, and has plans to become a god. He is a great evil champion, and has duped the players more than once. He has decieved them. He has robbed them. He has humiliated them. He has snatched victory from their grasp. He has laughed at them, and enjoyed watching them squirm. He has manipulated them. There have been times where the evil villain has had them at his mercy--they were weak from being crushed by one of his rivals. Instead of killing them, he healed them. He hid them, so that they would live. He reminds them of his generosity whenever they have met since, rubbing it in how kind and merciful he has been. Still, he has slaughtered entire cities, and enslaved millions of people. Ultimately, he seeks to become an all-powerful tyrant that would crush all that the players hold dear.

And yet, one of the females in the party has had a long, passionate affair with the evil villain. The party has been helped by him on occasion. The party admires his brilliance, his sense of style, and his sense of humour. The party sometimes remain in awe at his grand, sweeping dreams and fantastic visions of the kind of society that he wants to bring to the world. The party respects his prowess with magic, and in combat. The evil villain can lay waste when he really wants to! It's strange though--the party has said that they really like the evil villain, even though they know he is an evil bastard who dreams of world dominion!

There has been one time where the evil villain was ambushed by a group of enemies, and wickedly tortured. He was skinned alive, and whipped nine ways to sunday, and left chained, near death.

The party actually rescued the evil villain! They recovered him, and nursed him back to health, before they helped him find his mutant, six-legged elephant, and they made sure he was at full strength before letting him head out in the direction of his kingdom. The party discussed all kinds of things with him, and even invited him to attend some noble parties with them, where they were hobnobbing with the elite. They cackled with glee at the evil villain's sarcastic wit in talking with the arrogant nobles, and his absolute sense of regal grace, charm, and restrained power. They cheered for him, and had a blast having him at these parties! Eventually, he recovered from his wounds, and he was ready to return to his kingdom.

It was great. It's very interesting watching the players play out different relationships with different villains. There are other villains, though, that the party blow-torches in a heartbeat without a flicker! They offer no quarter whatesoever to some of these wicked people, and yet, with this super-powerful evil villain, they have acted almost like wanna-be henchmen and friends with him! Well, and obviously, one of the female characters has an entirely different relationship with the evil villain. It's also wierd because the women will chat together about the villain, and they all seem to share an admiration for the woman who has a thing going with him. They all think the evil villain is very sexy, and charming.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[rounser]

Do the players feel that their actions are having some success in thwarting the villain, even if they can't tackle him head on?

Would a villain who is continually thwarted become a Keystone Cop, "Next time Gadget, next time!"-type though, with all bark and no bite? This is one of the main failings recognised among the 2E novel era FR villains - they were defeated at the end of every book, and became paper tigers of the toothless variety.

I've noted in the past that one of the FR series that I admire the most is the first Moonshae Trilogy, because the villains in that make nasty conquests and inroads until hope is almost gone. As a reader, I found myself despairing that the hero's position was irretrievable, and lamenting the destruction of so many innocents - even the spirit and health of the land itself. These were villains with teeth who drew a lot of blood to boot - they had done their job, and presented a blank canvas for true heroics. Doesn't a formidable villain set the stage for heroics?

Perhaps it has to work both ways to best effect - the villain(s) should suffer setbacks and be thwarted by the PCs where appropriate, but also make inroads nonetheless - doing enough palpable damage such that the PCs begin to feel the panic - unless the PCs are absolutely stellar in their performance and meet every move with a counter move.

A villain whom the heroes aren't tough enough to beat, but who they're slowly but steadily working toward defeating, is likely to be come a love-to-hate. A villain too tough for them to beat who constantly shows up, destroys all their plans, kicks their butts, and seems immune to any of their efforts no matter how creative will become a hate-to-hate.

Yup. In fact, you could even have the villain grow in levels at the same rate as the PCs, so he/she/it is always at the right bathwater temperature for a challenging (but not overpowering) fight, one way or another.

I really think it has more to do with the DM than the actual villain, at least to an extent.

Again, I agree. A villains' effectiveness is defined by their actions and impact upon the PCs, which is determined by how they are used. That implies timing, frequency of encounter, presentation, dialogue, plotting etc. - and they're all hallmarks of good DMing skills.

Also, a "hands-on" villain who interacts with the PCs (especially if he/she/it wrongs them) is more likely to end up a love-to-hate villain than a behind-the-scenes big bad designed as an end of campaign threat. This is all covered by Psion's quite insightful bit villains thread:
Bit villains hijack the campaign!
Some nice anecdotes there, some of which seem based on DMs stumbling across situations that hit player "vengeance" nerves to a degree that they found surprising - or didn't expect/intend.

 

[rounser]

They offer no quarter whatesoever to some of these wicked people, and yet, with this super-powerful evil villain, they have acted almost like wanna-be henchmen and friends with him!

He made groupies of the PCs? Doesn't sound like they loathe him much...! Nevertheless, it sounds like theres no small amount of depth and contradiction to the nature of the relationship between the PCs and this villain, though, making him a boon to the campaign.

This character sounds a bit like some accounts of Hitler to me. Despite what he stands for, people want to follow him and like him because of his force of personality. One of the most effective and dangerous kinds of villains, I suppose...

 

[Mark]

I prefer to create villains for lower levels that are easier to identify and less sympathetic, moving toward the opposite as the campaign builds.

IMO, your typical bully or ruthless killer makes for a good nemesis while the players are sorting out the definitions of their character's personality traits. Once they've begun to define the parameters by which they make their moral and ethical choices, I prefer for villains' morality and ethical standards to become more ambiguous in the villain's eyes, and therefore present harder choices when bringing such a foe to justice.

To use a pop culture example (that most on these boards will know), how truly evil is the king in Dragonslayer (or the story on which it is based) who has held the lottery to choose a sacrifice, omitting the name of his own daughter from the choosing? For years he assumed that sooner or later the dragon would perish and thus save his own daughter and curtail the mass killing of the people of his kingdom. Surely, his shortcut leaves something to be desired, but his choices (and he does have two) seem largely unselfish.

Another common example is the Jean Valjean of Les Miserables. One cannot deny that he is, under the law, a thief (twice over, eventually). If a PC in a similar scenario is in the position of Valjerre (sp?) do they have an easy time reaching a satisfying conclusion to the adventure of bringing Valjean to justice? Perhaps not, but it becomes a better game for the gray lines that divide the field, IMO.

Quite frankly, black and white scenarios have been done to death (literally) and CRPGs are full of two dimensional bad guys and bosses. At my table, I want to present situations where there are no easy answers and the characters grow because of the degrees by which they measure their own decisions, not because they pushed one of two buttons and some candy dropped out of a shoot.

To answer the question, neither (in the long term). "Love to hate" and "hate to hate" are far too clear cut to be challenging. Even the villain that you love to hate is still a villain and needs to be brought down in full. IMO, villains that you neither love nor hate, but have aspects with which you can identify become the ultimate foe that needs defeating. It is in vanquishing them that we conquer the demons within ourselves.

Just my thoughts, as it were...