Other than Frida Kahlo, on what unconventional historical figures could you base a BBEG on?

Fuck, that bitch is a villain in a game I play.
Almost fed my character to a kraken.

Almost all Mexicans leader could be BBEG
Santa Anna: He made a funeral for his leg that he lost when he was fighting the french, and during the Mexico-USA war after his exile he appeared with countless of slaves and villagers to fight the Americans, he could have won a battle but he retreated (funny thing is that more men died on the way home than on the battle itself)
Diaz Ordaz: He ordered the mass murder of students just so he could have the Olympics without any problem.
Luis Echeverria: He tried to kill another president and he made far right students beat the shit out of leftist students.
Salinas: He was elected on very shady circumstances and all the things he did left Mexico on the ruin (like privatizing the oil and banks)

A good campaign is al about the BBEG's lieutenants.
But yeah I once ran a campaign where my BBEG was based on Gizel Godwin from Suikoden 5, so he wasn't exactly a military but a politician. The guy they faced multiple times on the battlefield was a carbon copy of Rommel.

Einstein?

It's been done.

OTHER than Frida Kahlo? I dunno... there's so few choices.

Philipp Lenard?
Harald Sigurdsson?
Ned Ludd?

Elizabeth Bathory
Nikola Tesla
Josef Menegle

Literally any of them.

literally?

Ghandi

Literally. Some just take more imagination.

Jeanne Hatchette, maybe launches a genocidal war against those goddamn dirty Burgundians.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Hachette

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg

How the hell was Frida Kahlo evil?

>Nikola Tesla as a villain.

Fuck off, Edison.

He did build (or was rumoured that he build) a number of doomsday weapons. Maybe more of a BBEGs mad scientist than the BBEG himself, though.

It's all about perspective.

Tesla was a monster, Edison was an upstanding gentleman.
Nevermind that time he murdered an elephant with electricity.

Robert Liston was a surgeon known as "The Fastest Knife in the West" and could amputate an entire leg in under two minutes.

That said, his speed had downsides - one day, while amputating a limb, he also accidentially amputated his assistant's fingers while the poor man was holding down the patient.

In his mad cutting frenzy, he also slashed an elderly gentleman who was observing the proceedings. The old man was so frightened that he had a heart attack and died on the spot.

Also, both the patient whose leg had been cut off, and the assistant who'd lost his fingers both died of gangrene.

Robert Liston is the only man who has performed surgery in which 300% of the people being operated on died.

He was the French Minister of Finance from 1665 to 1683 under the rule of King Louis XIV and achieved a reputation for his work of improving the state of French manufacturing and bringing the economy back from the brink of bankruptcy.

He also made child labour mandatory for all children over the age of six.

Wagner

Benjamin Franklin. He wasn't allowed to draft the Declaration of independence. The other founding fathers were worried he would hide a joke in it. Or were they worried about Franklin hiding something else within the document?

Damn. That is an impressive level of incompetence.

>Salinas fallacy
Go home chairo

>Monobrow.
Do we really have to explain..?

Leopold II, Prince of Belgium.

Look up the history of 'Congo Free State'.

Either Rasputin or Gandhi as Tanks

The Founding Fathers work pretty well.

Lawful Evil slavers and warlords who team up to claim a whole continent for themselves when their parent empire temporarily stopped blowing cash up their ass.

Any BBEG based on Leopold II would be unrealistically evil.

>Tesla says I'm a cunt
>I know! I'll electrocute an elephant with the AC power lines he proposed to demonstrate how unsafe they are despite him having made me a small fortune through his work
>that'll prove I'm not a cunt for sure!

>Bathory
>Mengele
>unconventional BBEGs
They're probably somewhere like second and third place after Hitler as inspiring BBEGs.

He was pretty goddamn competent, actually. This was before anesthesia, speed mattered. Wasn't a single surgeon who didn't lose patients to gangrene either. I mean, shame on the assistant though, but let's not judge a man's life work on one lethal accident.

>secessionist rebels
>Lawful
dafuq

What do you think secessionists want to do? Anarchy? They want to move the power of government and the legitimate use of force from across the ocean/over the river/over the mountains to their own land. Not much else.

Not wanting anarchy doesn't make you Lawful. Obeying the law even when it doesn't favour you makes you lawful. Obeying the law when it favours you and breaking it when it doesn't is Neutral.

Anne Frank
>Darkened Grudge-esque manifestation of evil and suffering, crawling from all and anywhere the light cannot touch, more of a true neutral force of nature than a real evil character.

Brian Blessed
>Barbarian Warlord who ventures to far foreign places just to punch the snot out of the local indiginous beasts and infamous nobles.

Oliver Cromwell
>Captain no-fun-allowed who literally stole christmas.

He was king then. though the state did not support him

Neutral evil is the alignment of psychopaths though. The sort of people who stab children because clearly not enough children have been stabbed last tuesday.

...

>Cromwell
>unconventional BBEG
Not to the Irish he wasn't.

Neutral Evil is the alignment of Evil beings who don't make a point out of either obeying or disobeying laws. That's what Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic is: Lawful makes a point of obeying rules, Neutral doesn't make a point of either obeying or disobeying rules, Chaotic makes a point of disobeying rules. No alignment implies psychopathy.

Oh? we're being unconventional?
uhhhh..

Jim Henson
>EVERYTHING IS A FUCKING PUPPET, YOU'RE RUSED.

Wesley mother fucking Willis.

François Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc.

If you're neutral evil and a law that mandates that kids need to be stabbed on tuesdays until a target number of stabs has been achieved exists, then you will occasionally step out and stab some. Not always, but occasionally.

Meanwhile, Lawful Neutral does it every Tuesday.

What? No. If you were to apply that description accurately to any alignment, it would be Stupid Evil or some non-existent alignment. The alignment it most closely represents is Chaotic Evil.

Neutral Evil is 'personal gain at any and all costs'.

IRL no, but imagine the shit that crazy fucker would do as a BBEG

They broke off from the Empire to put the profits of trade and tax into their own hands, and hooked idealists along with them, and formed a new nation. That's lawful evil in any book.

From my own country

>Robert the Bruce
Ramp up the interpretation he was fighting for power instead of Scottish Freedom. Lures rivals into places considered neutral ground, like churces, then brutally murders them.

>William Wallace
Potray him as a Terrorist

>Duke of Sutherland
Not that unconventional, but removing people from the land rather than going full genocide is uncommon for antagonists.

Breaking off from the Empire was against the law, which means it can't be lawful, but they didn't break the law "just because". They did it out of idealism or self-interest. That makes it Neutral.

Capital L Law is the elemental force of Order in the universe, not just mortal regulations.

You can still be Lawful without being lawful.

Lower case lawful is non-elemental conduct which is in accordance with elemental Lawful. The former is defined by the latter.

you have to be a special kind of fucking retarded to actually believe that the Lawful alignment type means that said person never breaks laws

this is Veeky Forums tho . . .

A person who is Lawful is someone who predominantly obeys the laws as a matter of principle. A person who obeys or breaks them out of convenience is Neutral.

Salvador Dali
>talented painter
>eccentric weirdo
>friend of dictators
>premature ejaculator
>had a pet ocelot
>had a dumb mustache

>>premature ejaculator
The fiend!

Diego Rivera

George Washington was a slaveowner who only fought for the 'rights' of smugglers and people who wanted to steal more land from the Native Americans. He betrayed his countrymen, both his fellow Englishmen back in the British Isles and those who had settled in the Americas, after he was denied recognition for his (grossly incompetent) service in the Seven Years War (much like Benedict Arnold in fact, who also switched sides because he couldn't get a promotion). Most of the popular opposition to Britain in the colonies came from those who had profited form the sea trade which had been evading customs duties for years (i.e. Boston), and those who wanted to settle west of the Appalachians (and slaughter the natives there, an act which had been forbidden by the government in London because they didn't want another war). Even so, this only amounted to about a third of the colonial population who fully supported the revolution - and that was the Founding Fathers' own estimate.

Yet despite this lack of widespread support the embittered former militia leader decided to start a war in the name of 'the people', and a bloody conflict erupted which turned brother against brother, father against son. Just because of his hatred for the people who had (rightly) mocked him for his inept leadership. Of course, being incompetent he couldn't actually win the war by himself, so he enlisted the aid of the autocratic monarchies of France and Spain against the parliamentary British to kill even more of his countrymen. In the end, Britain was crippled its people - a people who shared a common language, culture, and values - permanently divided. All so one vain old man (even the other Founding Fathers admitted he was pretty vain) could have his revenge.

|And the slaveholders got their 'democracy' - which wasn't really much of an accomplishment because they had already purged anyone who disagreed with them (a sizeable chunk of the American population had to flee to Canada after the war)

We're gonna build a wall. A great big wall. A big wall all around Mordor. And Gondor is gonna pay for it. Believe me. The Steward of Gondor says he won't pay for it? He's gonna pay for it. I promise you this. No more Hobbits sneaking in, folks. Not anymore. They have to go back to the Shire. Last time I checked, the book was called "There AND BACK AGAIN", okay? Well, it's time for that last part: it's time to go back again, little Hobbits.

oh, and not content with their treachery against their own people, the revolutionaries then stabbed their former allies in the back, refusing to pay France back the money they had borrowed to finance the war, and then invading and conquering Spanish Florida. Their treachery also discredited all the progressives in England who had fought to give the Americans more representation before the war, and set back the political fight for greater democracy in England for decades.

The money they borrowed and refused to pay back led to the bloody French revolution, and over two decades of war which ripped Europe apart.

>that moment when you realise the bad guys won the Revolutionary War, and if they had been stopped a stable and progressive British Empire would have had global hegemony, and brought peace and individual rights to the world without the need for the upheavals and atrocities of the French Revolution, Russian revolution, and Nazism. And slavery in America would have ended decades before it actually did, and there would have been no American Civil War

well from the point of view of Sauron and the orcs, that a pretty good idea. The Hobbits were a complete disaster for them and led to the complete destruction of their country.

Also cuckold and presumably sodomite (there was plenty of ... tension between him and Garcia Lorca).

Britain plz go.
You lost.
You lost all the wars, all the time.
Have fun w/ your Brexit. That's, like, another terrible British meal, right?

>Postmaster General of the colonies.
>Potential spymaster, possibly involved in triple-agent dealings and land-snatching in both Europe and America.
>Friends with members of the Hellfire Club.
>Dead bodies found buried under his London house.
Just based on the rumors about him alone, there's a lot to work from.

Why do Ameriburgers act like the Founding Fathers were so holy when they were a bunch of dicks?

>a hoe moved up to be in control of lots of junks
you could say that nothing changed after all

I wonder which flag would show at the top of this post?

Cecil "Lemme just start the Boer wars because I'm greedy fuck and help SA apartheid party come to power despite not actually giving a single fuck about racial segregation and up till this point actually treat my black employees equally because the national party promised to support my hostile take over of Boer territories" Rhodes

...

If you look past his scientific achievements, Benjamin Franklin was a complete asshole. He was sent to London before the war to make the Americans case for greater political representation, and then spent most of his time attending scientific symposia and generally hobnobbing with the London elite. If he had done his job there might very well not have been a war - the government had no objection to American demands in principle, they just didn't fully understand what their demands were. Parliament kept treating it like a financial dispute long after it had moved onto a general protest about the relationship between the colonies and Britain, and hence all their efforts at conciliation (by restructuring trade rules so Americans still had to pay taxes, but got cheaper goods overall) were pointless.

Then once the war had started, Franklin was sent to France to make the American case to the French. And once again, he did very little actual work petitioning the French government, and a lot of socialising in scientific circles. Oh, and fucking every whore who came within reach. In fact, the Americans actually had to send someone over to France to chaperone Franklin and make him tone down his man-slutting and, you know, do some actual work.

Franklin also disowned his son because he supported the British

...

Fucking hell, this again...

Someone who is Lawful:
>Has a Code, or set of rigid or semi-rigid personal tenets
>Follows this Code, even (especially) when doing so is inconvenient
>Has difficulty making exceptions to or following plans and actions in conflict with this Code

Most people - not all, mind, but most - have in their Code a basic understanding of 'Try not to break the law (unless you really, really need to).

Chaotic isn't 'Fuck Teh Lawzors!!', and Lawful isn't 'I Am The Law'. It's how strongly you hold yourself to your Code, or whether you prefer to be more personally flexible.

Son of a -bitch- will you fuckers please read the fucking PHB sometime.

The united states purchased florida you stupid jackass. If you're gonna twist history to tell a narrative at least do it right.

>because I made a pro-British post and a faggot is a bundle of wood in Britain
well I suppose at least you put some thought into your insult

no they didn't. They purchased Louisiana. Florida they simply stole

Florida was annexed in much the same way as Texas - a bunch of border-hopping Americans started entering the territory illegally, and when they'd finally reached critical mass rebelled and defeated the Spanish garrison. Then they declared an 'independent republic'. The US annexed it after three months, over Spain's objections but there wasn't much they could do about it.

Wrong
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams–Onís_Treaty

>"Stable and progressive" British empire
>Global hegemony
>Good

>mfw people still believe masonic lies

half-right. The US took northern FLorida in the manner I described, then bullied spain into 'selling' them the rest. And by selling, I don't mean that America actually paid Spain anything for Florida itself, as you'd have seen if you actually bothered to read the article you linked. The government just agreed to pay off US citizens who had made legal claims against Spain - in effect it was just America giving money to America.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams–Onís_Treaty#Details_of_the_treaty
>The U.S. did not pay Spain for Florida, but instead agreed to pay the legal claims of American citizens against Spain, to a maximum of $5 million, under Article 11

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

You barely even need to change anything.

Britain was the most progressive country in the world throughout the 18th century, and a vehicle for spreading that progressivism (they gave safe haven to Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire when they fell afoul of their own, autocratic, governments). It was only after the American and French revolutions, which were a bloody mess and discredited a lot of liberal thinkers in England, that Britain became more reactionary.

And Britain's global hegemony keep the peace globally for 99 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars. Imagine how much longer that peace would have lasted if Britain had been able to bring Americans industry and manpower to bear against Germany in 1914.

>If this one historical variable was otherwise, we'd be living in a paradise right now!
>Ignoring the fact that history is a mess of humans being fallible, selfish idiots

We'd have found plenty of other stupid crap to fight over, don't you worry.

Sure, the money never went to spain, but it alleviated spanish debts, so how is that any different than giving them money and them paying the debts themselves? It's not like american citizens and the american government are the same thing. Plus, in your interpretation of history, you're ignoring the fact that the US had yet to become a major world power. You're telling me that some American settlers overwhelmed the spanish garrison and conquered spanish lands, and the spanish just let it happen? The spanish could have crushed the settlers if they wanted to keep florida. Instead they signed a treaty. It's not like the US strongarmed them into it, since they weren't influential or powerful enough to do that yet.
Also, in the article which you selectively read for stuff that supported you
>Florida had become a burden to Spain, which could not afford to send settlers or garrisons.

The treaty was accepted by the spanish, and it actually relieved tensions between the spanish and Americans and allowed the US to diminish its military. There was no hostile militant takeover, as you seem to want everyone to believe.

>Robert Liston is the only man who has performed surgery in which 300% of the people being operated on died.
10/10

underrated

>Oliver Cromwell
>Captain no-fun-allowed who literally stole christmas.

>You're telling me that some American settlers overwhelmed the spanish garrison and conquered spanish lands, and the spanish just let it happen?
>The spanish could have crushed the settlers if they wanted to keep florida.
in 1810, when the Americans invaded, Spain was under occupation by Napoleon Bonaparte's France. And after that experience their global power-projection was greatly diminished.

jesus christ, I know you're an American but if you're that historically ignorant you might want to avoid starting arguments over this kind of thing.

>There was no hostile militant takeover, as you seem to want everyone to believe.
what would you call American settlers attacking the Spanish garrison, and Madison then sending in troops to secure the territory for America?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Florida

>Florida had become a burden to Spain, which could not afford to send settlers or garrisons.
yeah - it was a burden because of the cost of defence - which wouldn't have been a problem if they didn't have to defend it from invading Americans. If Spain didn't want Florida why did they resist American attempts to purchase it for so long?

>who don't make a point out of either obeying or disobeying laws
No, it's not what Neutral is about. Obeissance to rules and laws isn't generally what the Chaos-Lawful axis as well. It's all about having a code of conduct (an internal one) and/or respecting it.

>Spain was unwilling to invest further in Florida, encroached on by American settlers
>encroached on by American settlers

>American General Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida. He attacked and captured forts, such as the so-called "Negro Fort" (an abandoned British fort manned by escaped slaves and Native Americans), in Florida that he thought were assisting the raids into American territory.
Right.

>And Britain's global hegemony keep the peace globally for 99 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars.

Where, exactly? Certainly not Europe, America, Africa, or Asia...

I plan to include an exaggerated Marcus Garvey in my Edge of the Empire campaign as an anti-imperial industrialist, using non-human rights as a cover for his scummy business practices in his rush to expand his illicit trade network.
I also hope to include Zizek, but I'm not sure how. Inquisitor? Rebel?