Taking 20 Podcast - Ep 180 - Let Villains Be Villains

Episode Date: June 18, 2023

There is something refreshing about not having to worry about nuance about the big bad's plans or fighting to find a reason for their actions.  Sometimes, when you're designing an adventure, it's fun to just let the big bad be bad.  In this episode, I encourage you to throw caution to the wind and give you reasons why a villain could be an irredeemable monster. #dmtips #dnd #pathfinder #gmtips #orc   Resources: Trope Talk:  Pure Evil  https://youtu.be/1-XprjlATEo Trope Talk:  Faustian Bargain  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEKVHXRXRiw The Literary Mercenary:  http://nealflitherland.blogspot.com/2021/04/not-every-villain-needs-or-deserves.html

This week on the Taking 20 Podcast. Thank you so much for listening to the Taking 20 podcast, episode 180, continuing the Back to Basics series, this time all about those dastardly villains. I want to thank this week's sponsor, Highlighters. You know, Highlighters really do help you find the important parts of text. Mark my words. Do you know of a good potential partner or sponsor for this podcast? I'm always interested in speaking with like-minded people who want to spread the tabletop hobby.

If you're interested in speaking with me or know someone who would be, send me their contact information to feedback at taking20podcast.com and I'll reach out to them. I love to network and appreciate any contacts you could send my way. I want to start this episode off with a warning. Nothing about this episode is intended to reflect on anything that happens on earth. The concept of an evil that is beyond help, beyond salvation, and beyond redemption runs directly counter to a number of very popular religions practiced on this planet. I have no intention of getting into debates like, would God redeem Satan if he truly repented, because this ain't that kind of podcast. Nothing in this or any other episode, for that matter,

is intended to align with or contradict the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, or any other holy text. Each one presents different ideas of redemption, and if you want to know more about one or more religions, I encourage you to do so, just not using this podcast. Much love to you all. On to the episode proper. The representation of antagonists, big bads, and villains has undergone significant changes throughout the years. In modern stories, there's a tendency towards redeemable villains. They are misguided, or ignorant, or self-righteous, or experience some trauma that made them what they are.

But that hasn't been the way villains have been portrayed for all time. Part of this is an evolution of storytelling in general. In some ancient literature, evil was generally portrayed as dumb, and human beings could generally get one over on the devil, Satan, a demon, or other personification of evil. The reasons are numerous, and most of them tie back to the fact that many literary works were connected to religious texts and stories, so it was important to make sure good won out in the end. In those older stories, good was shown to win out because evil was weaker. God cast out Satan, and Satan could not tempt Jesus into sinning because good was portrayed as better and stronger. There is a story from ancient Persia

where the god of time, having created the universe, sees harmony all around him, but feels there's something very important missing, so he prays for a son for a thousand years and becomes pregnant. When he realizes he's achieved his heart's desire, he's suddenly very conscious of how fragile balance is. And because of his concerns and lamentations, the son he's carrying divides into two beings, one good, one evil. Distraught, he brings the human race into being so they can fight alongside the good child and stop the evil child from taking control of everything. Advancing the clock a little bit from the beginning of time, when I was a kid and moving pictures were brand new and called

Nickelodeons, okay I'm not that old, but in 1980s cartoons, evil characters were laughably evil, unapologetically evil, and redemption stories were extremely rare. See, for example, Darth Vader in the first two Star Wars movies, Cobra Commander from G.I. Joe, Count Olaf from A Series of Unfortunate Events, Rasputin from Anastasia, Scar from The Lion King, Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmatians. They were simply evil, and little or nothing is given about their backstory to explain how they came to be laughably, comically evil. They're simply evil. And in general, we watchers just accepted that as face value.

They're evil. The end. Only in recent years has there been a tendency towards making villains understandable, relatable even. They're given complex backstories that lead the viewer or reader to understand why the antagonists are the way they are. The villains are given understandable motivation. Thanos, for example, is given a reason he wants to wipe out half of all population. Voldemort had, frankly, a pretty shitty childhood as portrayed, and that's why he had a foundation of hatred.

The Joker has had multiple origin stories throughout the years, but the most recent movie focused on a series of traumas, mental health issues, and marginalization by society. When faced with trials and tribulations, villains made morally questionable choices, even if they did it for the right reasons. To quote the Punisher, and you could make an argument whether or not he's a villain or an anti-hero, when he's talking to the Daredevil, you're one bad day away from being me. And in that series, you see what happens to his family and why the Punisher chooses to take the actions that he does.

There are two very good videos I'm going to link in the resources for this episode that explore the nature of evil in literature and the Faustian bargain. These videos are from a web series called Trope Talk by Overly Sarcastic Productions. Go watch them and check out their channel. They make amazing content. Back to my topic. It's very de rigueur to shy away from evil for evil's sake in modern books, movies, and yes, even RPGs. One of the key takeaways from a lot of modern stories is that good and evil are a matter of perspective. From one perspective, Thanos was a monster whose actions could have killed trillions. From Thanos' perspective, he was trying

to prevent the long, slow suffering of starvation. In Star Wars, the Rebel Alliance is fighting to throw off the shackles of the evil Empire. But from the Empire's perspective, the Rebels are terrorists and throwing the galaxy into disharmony. I have no problems with this concept, by the way, nor do I have any problems with villains that are redeemable. Heck, one of my favorite bits of Galarian lore are the stories of... and Nocticula. Jeremy's editing note, by the way. Nocticula. Jeremy's editing note, by the way.

I realized that by naming the first character, it was a weapons-grade spoiler for one of the Pathfinder adventure paths, so that name's going to stay hidden for now. Sorry about that. Including Nocticula is a minor spoiler for an adventure path, but this spoiler is all over every Pathfinder wiki I could find, cited on multiple pages. If you don't know what I'm talking about, and you want to avoid a teeny-tiny spoiler for for the Pathfinder Adventure Path Return of the Rune Lords,

skip ahead about 10 seconds. Nocticula was a former demon lord in Succubus who was able to overcome her evil nature and become a non-evil deity called the Redeemer Queen, and is frankly one of my favorite stories from that adventure path. You've probably heard me say it dozens of times on this podcast that villains are more interesting to me when big bads come with a believable motivation. Reclaiming their family name, taking control from an incompetent leader by any means necessary, avenging the loss of a loved one,

trying to escape fate, greed brought on by suffering when they're young, or any of a hundred other stories you could go find on TVTropes.org. Jeremy's editing note number two. As an aside, if you go to TVTropes.org, start reading, and lose five hours of your day, and get fired from your job, that's your fault. While it is a wonderful source for ideas for adventurers and villains and heroes, While it is a wonderful source for ideas for adventures and villains and heroes,

please consider that this is a warning that TVTropes.org is a dangerous quagmire of interesting reading that can suck hours out of your life. And no, I haven't gone there today because I have a podcast episode to write and I can't lose myself right now. Or maybe... Okay, I'm continuing this episode 35 minutes later because I got lost on TV tropes. I have no willpower whatsoever. In this episode, I'm going to completely counter some of my previous advice. While I love me some good villain stories and redemption arcs, giving the heroes the opportunity to choose whether to kill the big bad or spare them, and hopefully start them on the road to redemption, is fantastic, but should all adventures that you write and games that you run

include redeemable villains? I'm gonna have to say no. Sometimes you need to make a villain who has crossed the moral event horizon and is forever lost in their evil... evilness. Yeah, you heard me. There's a problem with redeemable villains. It becomes morally gray whether or not your hero should kill them, imprison them, vanquish them in some way, or take them out, to lack of a better term. What if Obi-Wan had slain Vader before Return of the Jedi? What if Thor had killed Loki in New York? What if Captain America had killed the Winter Soldier? All of them certainly had good reasons to do so, but chose not to, leading to the redemption of a formerly evil character.

If every villain is redeemable, it opens up doubt in your players' minds, even if it's just a seed of it. Was it right to kill that war priest or chieftain or general? Should we have taken the harder road and tried to lead them to see the light and maybe turn back to good or maybe at least away from their current evil plans? So I think at least some of your villains, even if they're just lieutenants or big bads or any antagonists that you want to throw at the players, maybe have them never display an iota of mercy or grace or likability.

Don't reveal anything about a tragic backstory or reasons they are why they are. Play them as completely horrible individuals that the PCs have every right to take whatever actions they need to against them. I call this 80s cartoon series villains. Evil for the sake of evil and completely irredeemable. Playing a character like that, it can actually be hard to figure out how to do so. Sure, you can give the big bad a horrible habit every morning like they eat a live kitten, but there are complex questions that I want to encourage you to think about before you roll out evil McEvilson onto the battlefield. What would make someone or something completely irredeemable? Why would a big bad refuse forgiveness if it was offered? Well, it's possible that they just don't want it.

They're unrepentant, they are evil, they like evil, and have no intention of being anything but evil for the rest of their days. If the party or the townsfolk or the corporation that's the focus of their rage extended an olive branch, the big bad would take it, set it on fire, and throw it right back in their faces. Maybe the reason for their offered redemption doesn't make sense to the villain, or even worse, doesn't make sense to the heroes or players. In Batman v Superman, it's hard to call either hero a bad guy, quote unquote, but they were attempting to defeat each other, and suddenly, because they have moms with the same fucking first name,

all is forgiven? That still makes no sense. In Game of Thrones, you could argue that Jaime Lannister had the beginnings of a redemption arc, but at the end, with those last two trash seasons we got, he reverted back to his old ways. I guess the only reason for his apparent introspection was that he had his sword hand cut off. I'm going to stop talking about Game of Thrones so I don't give you a 30-minute long rant about how that series ended. Talk about fumbling at the goal line. Anyway, I'm also still trying to

figure out the reasons for Kylo Ren's redemption in episodes 7 through 9. He's an antagonistic asshole for two and a half movies, and then all of a sudden the last hour he suddenly isn't? Nah. I'd rather he stayed an unrepentant monster the entire trilogy. These redemption arcs were weak, not well received, or written very poorly, and that makes them, frankly, unsatisfying and probably would have been better off not even included. Any redemption for these characters would have been better left completely out of the story of the films, the series, the stories, etc.

They actually suffered for their inclusion. There may be no redemption to the villain because they know they don't deserve it. They know they're evil. They've accepted that they're evil and maybe even lament it a little bit. My favorite example of this was the operative from the movie Serenity, played by the amazing Choatel Ejiofor. He has one of my favorite quotes in a movie chock full of amazing quotes. When talking about creating a world without sin, the operative states, I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there. I'm a monster.

What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done. What a magnificent villain. Cold, calculated, understanding of the evil that he's doing and its ramifications, but chooses to do so anyway. The very definition of a necessary evil, one where redemption isn't an option, and it doesn't even make sense when it's offered. Maybe there's no redemption art for your villain because the big bad is corrupted past the point of redemption. They are so consumed by evil, their selfish ambitions, the corrupting influence, that they could not be redeemed, no matter what the PCs or the world does to try to bring them back. To use a term from earlier, they have crossed what's called the moral event horizon

and there is no coming back. Grand Moff Tarkin promised not to destroy Alderaan if Leia told him where the rebel base was. She told him, and he destroyed the planet anyway. You could argue that he was just following orders, but this man gave the order to kill a planet full of people that he didn't have to. That is probably corrupted past the point of redemption. It's possible that the big bad is controlled by external forces that would keep them from redemption. Think of things like a big bad who's possessed by an evil spirit or ghost or some otherworldly entity. Or maybe their evil actions were the bargain they made with their patron for this additional power that they wield.

Finally, there's the chance that the world, the population, the good deities, or even the heroes themselves wouldn't give redemption to the big bad even if they asked for it. This is the only one I'm going to caution my DMs about. This is a situation that has the greatest chance of making one or more of your players very uncomfortable. So I'd recommend shying away from this one unless you have a very mature gaming group, because it does run counter to modern religions. Suppose you've decided to embrace a villain

that is simply monstrous and not morally gray at all. There are a number of advantages to using a completely irredeemable villain. It simplifies your game, first off. You don't have to worry about showing the villain's softer side or come up with the complex reasons they've become what they are and why they're doing what they're doing. They're evil. The PCs are good. It's a steel cage death match and only one group's going to come out on top. Let's pass out the steel folding chairs and get to suplexing. Are suplexes still a thing in wrestling? I haven't watched wrestling since the days of Hulk Hogan and Junkyard Dog and Hacksaw Jim Duggan, like that era. Another advantage to a truly villainous villain is that you can let loose your monstrous side. Just to clarify, I mean that you can show the villain's monstrous side as

the GM. Now is not the time to start hooking your players up to car batteries. That's illegal, and you'll go to jail. What I mean is you can have the big bad throw off the conventions of normal society and just act in their own self-interest regardless of who it hurts in the game world. Not in the real world, in the game world. Another reason why it makes it easier is you can give your PCs something to truly fear. Showing a big bad who is willing to do reprehensible things without showing a bit of remorse can really drive the fear the characters would legitimately feel. The big bad is burning people in their homes, you know, like someone who is completely evil. They are contracting out for people to destroy entire streets of a city

because they're completely evil. They are willing to do anything and everything to accomplish what they want. Sure, you could wrap up the story, by the way, where the big bad feels repercussions for their actions. But I have to admit, there's something great about seeing someone or something who's a rampaging asshole get what they deserve. I realize that this isn't a very nice opinion, but in RPGs, it can be very satisfying to see the demon banished back to the abyss, the cult leader slain by the very creatures that he summoned to destroy the town. Roads made safe again as the bandit leader falls to the ground with zero hit points. To my GM friends out there who are starting to put pieces together for an adventure, I want to encourage you to consider making your big bads and or their lieutenants evil.

Not evil with a purpose. Not evil with a tragic backstory. Not evil with an explanation. I'm talking irredeemably evil. Comic book evil. Kick newborn puppies evil. Willing to set themselves on fire if it burns their enemies evil. So evil that their actions would make you ill if you actually saw it play out in person. Don't wuss out in the end and have them snap out of it and see the errors of their waves like Denethor. Have them curse the names of the PCs as they die, never regretting the harm that they've done

and the hurt that they've caused. And their only regret is they don't get to live on to do more evil and cause more harm. Keep it simple, show how monstrous they are, and I bet you and your players would have fun doing it. If you haven't already, please take a moment to like, rate, and review the podcast wherever you found it. It only takes a few minutes, and it really does help promote the podcast to others. Tune in next week when we're going to have another entry in the Monster Series, because it's been a few weeks.

This time focusing on some classic ambush predators like the Piercer, the Cloaker, the Lurker, and when you put them together, it kind of sounds like a law firm. Have you been injured in an underground dungeon? The experts at Roper, Piercer, Cloaker, and Lurker probably caused your injury and will hurt you again if you call them. But give us a call. But before I go,

I want to thank this week's sponsor, Highlighters. It is so handy when a giant wall of text in a book has the important bits already highlighted. It's like those words are saying, yellow. This has been episode 180, encouraging you to let your villains be villains. My name is Jeremy Shelley, and I hope that your next game is your best game. The Taking 20 Podcast is a Publishing Cube Media Production.

Copyright 2023. References to game system content are copyrighted by their respective publishers.