The Uncommon BBEG - Not so bad, not so evil

[green slime]

The paladin dictator? Perhaps a Champion from Monte's Arcana Unearthed with a cause of Law and Order or Peace.

It does not matter if the leader of the land is a paladin or not. What matters is that he is perceived as a paladin by the a majority of the liberated masses who have been freed from the eternal chain of petty warring between barons.

 

[devilish]

My friend, Lou, had an interesting, unexpected session, as DM, when
characters went the way of "paladin dictator," and created their
own BBGG/BBEG.

They were in a small new mining town that was having trouble
with marauders. The PCs came in to help set up law and order
in this 1 horse town. The mayor was this friendly, helpful, happy-go-lucky
figure in the town . He also was a raging alcoholic, but didn't hurt a fly.

Then the PCs got it in their head that to help the town, they would
Purify all the alcohol in town into water.

The nice mayor wasn't so nice anymore -- and as the shakes
set in, he started to become more of hinderance than help.
I wouldn't be surprised if my friend is setting him up to be
the next BBEG.

Wasn't in his original design plan of the town
*at all* but the PCs made a new enemy from a formerly good
person.

-D

 

[DrNilesCrane]

NPC's that block or distract the party from achieving their goals simply because they are too self absorbed, or are greedy, or are following there own agenda can be great fun. They help bring the world to life showing that the PC way is not the only way. (My little old lady who was just trying to walk to the next town to visit her sister generated 2 hours of roleplay as the party felt obliged help her).

But I suddenly thought, what if the BBEG isn't bad or evil. What if he/she/it is simply trying achieve certain goals (see the thread linked above) that come across as evil. Not an original thought by any means but it got me wondering if other DM's have used a BNG (big neutral guy) or a BGG (big good guy) in their campaign as the opposition for the PC's.

I've used the BNG often and the BGG occasionally in my current campaign. For example, the party interacted with a BNG, "Mayor Flannery" numerous times: a terribly obese halfling mayor / crimelord, who found the presence of fairly powerful PCs to be quite useful...he often provided the party information they needed, but they quickly learned that while they might get what they wanted, Flannery made sure to profit as well. Party never really got the better of him, but their interactions were always fun.

I'm personally not a fan of black hat, cookie cutter villians or the absolute view of evil that is built into the game with the alignment system.

 

[barsoomcore]

Did the party have a lot of trouble deciding on the best course of action? Were they 'good' or simply seeking to survive the whole situation? I suspect with my own players that they may become paralysed with indecision unless come clear roleplay motivations for the characters were in place (which my group tends to let slide).

They were frustrated and anxious and worried -- and it was definitely the most exciting, edge-of-your-seat gaming I've ever run. People couldn't wait to get back to the game. It was all we talked about -- in lineups for movies, at parties, people would just talk about what was going to happen and what should they do and all that.

People who weren't even IN the game were talking about the game -- I started getting emails from total strangers who were friends of players and had heard about what was going on and were desperate for news. It was pretty crazy.

Barsoom's high point, I think. It's never been quite the same since. But it was just while writing posts in this thread that I realised that the REASON it was so exciting was because the party didn't know who to trust or which course of action was the "right" one. That tension, that anxiety, is what made the game so exciting for everyone.

When you know what the proper course of action is, all your decisions are tactical ones. There's no moral decisions to make, and so there's no emotional risk.

You can make a bad tactical decision and shrug it off as a mistake. But if you make a moral decision that you are later uncomfortable with -- that's a whole other kind of failure, one that speaks to your very nature and your self-image. You're taking a real risk with such a decision, and you are therefore much more invested in the outcome of the decision.

 

[hong]

So now we have this incredibly powerful sorcerer trying to destroy this insane goddess he's created, we have this secret order trying to overthrow him, and we have an insane vampire goddess trying to destroy the incredibly powerful sorcerer who created her. Oh and the secret order is devoted to destroying gods and goddesses, so they're after the insane goddess, too.

Who's the bad guy here? Well, pretty much everyone, obviously. So when the party gets involved (as the various factions and sub-factions are trying to get them to help), they need to make REAL choices as to who they're going to support. Is their pity for the insane woman enough to make them take her side against the sadistic sorcerer? Do they trust the secret society enough to join with them? Can they swallow their disgust with the sorcerer enough to strike down the insane goddess?

The solution is to kill them all, obviously. More XP that way.

 

[barsoomcore]

More stuff, too.