ITT

He fucked the princess specifically because he was aspiring to become a king.

Because fucking a princess is way worse than literally becoming a demon, murdering all your comrades, raping what's her face, fucking up Guts' eye, arm, and dooming him to the skeleton knight fate, etc.

>He fucked the princess specifically because he was aspiring to become a king.
Except he knew that would sabotage his chances, where he could have just waited a few months and gotten engaged to her when the King has no heirs

How would it sabotage his chances? He guarantees the princess is even more enamored with him and is now damaged goods no longer usable for political marriages, AND sires a bastard heir/legitimizes his claim.

The king could literally "lolnope" marry off the princess against her wishes and cockblock his route to the throne.

>dooming him to the skeleton knight fate
>Doomed to become a badass immortal warrior
Ohhh noooooo

>The king could literally "lolnope" marry off the princess against her wishes and cockblock his route to the throne.
Unless princess and commoners are 100% enamored with him and he gets the court on his side which he was well on his way to do.

>the opinions of peasants and the woman matter in medieval political marriages

Are you fucking stupid? Yeah there's a risk of revolt but there's no way in hell it's even close to a 100% way to prevent it.

>I sacrifice

>what if YOU were the villain all along!

First, you need morally ambiguous (but not outright evil) PCs.

>now damaged goods no longer usable for political marriages
And it's time to say goodbye to his claim to the throne too. He and princess would be political bankrupts by that point while king and potential suitors would be pissed.

If being a huge, deluded, egomaniacal douchebag that ruins everyone's day is not considered doing something wrong, I don't know what is.

Are we talking about them being sinless? Like they didnt wrong anyone? Or that their motives where never for an unjust cause?
Like for instance, the "villian" was tasked with saving the world from an destruction that no one would know about but him, but in order to fufill it, he would have to destroy like a great king who was running a cult or some shit that was summoning the oncoming destruction. But the party wouldnt find out till they stop he "villian".

I enjoy the villain in the main campaign I run.

>BBEG is the main deity of humans: God of light, healing, protection, good will etc etc.
>He is secretly killing the other gods in order to become the One True God

>Started as a street urchin with nothing
>He worked hard, slowly rising as a heroic adventurer
>Eventually gather relics and power
>Ascends to become a God
>Starts evil plan of becoming the One True God
>He started from literally nothing to rise into a major diety

>fuck the princess lifeless
Wait, he fucked the Princess to death? I must've missed that. I just thought Griffith threw some good dick and fucked her to sleep.

You don't, you stupid cunt.

griffith did everything in order to line things up perfectly for the world to be saved from the demon-muslims, had he acted any differently this thing would not have been able to be stopped

I might have to learn how as I have a couple of characters who might be conspiring to do some retarded evil level shit for self-gain.

Oh yeah that guy.

Didn't he get his ass beat in the span of 3-4 pages? Kinda forgettable to be honest user.

The only problem was doing it where he could get caught. Had he'd been able to carry her off to a neutral ground away from her father's eyes and waited it out He'd been fine. Course that would cry of kidnapping. But really in the medieval age it's all about who's left standing to tell the tale. He got caught. He got fucked.

Truly Griffith was aware of the God Hand and Skeleton Knight making a weird behelit sword that could slice open the dimensions.
Definitely.

>Evil campaign/party

Alternatively
>Being an edgelord in general

my players basicly became desperado because the president wanted to ban PMCs.
the president, on the other hand wanted to do so because he wanted to have a monopoly on military organisations, even though he wouldnt have created more wars to line his own pockets

A villain has to do something wrong, otherwise they aren't a villain. The trick is that they don't have to realise that what they are doing is wrong, or attempt to rationalise it as being for a greater cause.

Sauron is a good example of such a villain. His intention was, at least in the beginning, to improve the world and was therefore easily led astray by the lure of power as a means of accomplishing it. And eventually, attaining more power became the end itself.

Frollo is also a good example, at least in Disney's version of the Hunchback, as he is an undeniably evil man who attempts to justify himself as being a faithful servant of God at the same time as he sometimes appears to feel shame and doubt the goodness of his actions.

>griffith did everything in order to line things up perfectly for the world to be saved from the demon-muslims
I see it rather this way: Griffith used the demon muslims as opportunity to become the hero and create his kingdom he always wanted.

Well post rebirth he knew Skully wouldn't miss a chance to try killing him with the dimension sword.

>Falconia is one big dinner plate of humans for the God Hand to feast upon
Of course, nothing wrong

Griffith's central problem was that he was a huge sociopathic asshole who never once thought about anyone except himself and saw all people around him as either his property or obstacles to be destroyed on the path to his ludicrous fantasies of Godhood.

The question isn't what Griffith did wrong, it's what Griffith did right. Did he ever ONCE do a single thing that was not utterly self-serving? Ask yourself this and realize that the answer is no. He never once showed a single act of selflessness or kindness that was not a calculated effort to give himself dominion over more human beings.

He never had virtues. He was always a monster.

Kings were not nearly as despotic in medieval as Europe as you seem to think they were.

I was about to mention Griffith's homolust towards Guts, but then I realized that saving Guts was more or less self serving act for Grittith too.
He wanted Gutts, so of course Griffith didn't let him die.

>being selfish and crushing weaker people doesn't contribute to society
what is social darwinism? people like Griffith have to exist so the world doesn't end up full of useless assfucks like you and that's not even touching on the fact that everything he did was in his nature. could behaving naturally really be called "wrong"?

Yes it definitely can be.

wrong by what definition? by the moral code that you, user, personally subscribe to maybe, but how does that make it objectively wrong? if he's not gone out of his way to be evil, its just how he is wired, technically that is as objectively right as someone can be

For starters, make sure your players are observant and invested enough to care about doing the actually right thing as opposed to the obvious, and that they can follow through. You must always create a game within the limits of your players.

Second, there's quite a bit of literature on the subject. Do your research and you will see the common themes, the patterns, as well as the individual differences between the stories. Then you will have enough experience to create a similar story.

But he didn't crush weaker people. He built the strongest, best, most capable mercenary unit in the world out of the strongest, best people, and then murdered them all.

Griffith did the OPPOSITE of weeding out the weak, he killed everyone competent he had ever met and then set about herding weak and easily influenced people into his hawk kingdom.

if he was able to murder them then they are, by definition, weaker. do you legitimately not understand that very basic concept?
And by herding all these easily influenced people together he has created an insanely powerful kingdom that can cull weaker kingdoms

Taking care of the competition.

To be fair though, that wasn't his original intent. While he most certainly didn't surround himself with the best of the best to exalt them, but rather because doing so gave him the best chance at attaining his kingdom, he only decided to sacrifice them once his dream had been completely shattered.

He was always a greedy sociopath, however, which was also the reason everything came crashing down when Guts left him.

>people discuss manga/anime villains
>out of nowhere comes a wild objectivist defending the character of one of the worst and biggest villains ever produced in Japanese media

Of course, those faggots ALWAYS show up. They go beyond the >griffithsu diddo nothingu wrongku and actually believe the meme.

In regards to Griffith, it's important to realise that Griffith and Guts are the same, just opposite sides of the coin. Both are nearly superhuman warriors, scarred by difficult youths and rape. Of course, Guts' life had been fucking pain all the way up to joining the Band of the Hawks, when he finally managed to get out of the cycle of suffering (until the you-know-what that is) and became like a normal human being, he was free from the memories of his youth. Griffith worked through the suffering and pain and he triumphed over it, but he never got rid of the psychological trauma he accumulated in his youth. Griffith remained damaged.

Of course, after the you-know-what, Guts' entire world was destroyed, he lost everything and everyone he cared for, except for Casca (partially) and his willingness to swing his sword, and he didn't just relapse back into his pre-Band of Hawks days... he became worse and sunk even deeper.

Skull Knight is the spirit leftovers of the pseudo-Roman Emperor of the world who wore the Berserker Armour that Guts wears now. Skull Knight is a struggler just like Guts, which means he exists/existed outside causality, outside the omniscience of the Hand/God.

The Kushan Emperor being defeated so easily was a fluke, something that neither Femto nor Skull Knight had expected.

>defending griffith this fucking hard

wew lad

This entire post is exactly how I imagine people who believe they are intelligent but really have no fucking clue what they're talking about thoughts sound like.

Except he plans on killing everyone in that insanely powerful kingdom as well

And? It would just be another culling of the weak. The world is a better place for it, life goes on, and the natural cycle repeats. This is what whiteknights and faggots call "wrong".

>hurr durr you a dum
>doesn't say why the post is dumb

Sure. You're the intelligent person here, contributing to the discussion.

>Defending a man who is trying to turn the human race into dinner for his four buddies

>literally defending a demon who is going to fucking reduce humanity to a fraction of its population in one massive civilization ending slaughter on apocalyptic scales

Ten years of being on Veeky Forums have told me one thing.
The only thing that proves you're a retard better than an ad hominem or baseless accusation is turning it around and using it as an ad hominem yourself, then acting all smug about it as if only you could ever do it.

All I did was make a statement on an anonymous iraqi glass-blowing website. Kinda funny you got so angry about. Actually, the fact that I was able to manipulate your emotions like that is really making me aroused.

>implying the human race is worth defending
If you're not able to defend yourself from the apex predator, you will eventually be wiped out. This does improve the gene pool of the environment you inhabit. As teenage girls say, sucks to suck.

Truly your basic, freshman grasp on ethics and philosophy is astounding, How many wiki articles have you read in your bedroom that gave you this enlightened world view?

>pls explain why im retarded
>no you are retarded because you ask me why you're retarded

That's not a reason.

Easiest way is to always have the villain only be the villain because it's the lesser of two evils.

Pic related, from Fable 3. Raises taxes, enforces harsh laws, treats people poorly - but only in order to get the kingdom ready for a horrific monster that'll kill everyone if he doesn't.

He was a dick about it, and after you take over, you can do it better, but he did make the right choices.

Jokes on you; I just want the (You). Did you see how I orchestrated that? It was so perfect. I just memed the same meme everyone here memes, but I put it out there so gently you couldn't resist.
It's like asking a slut what her sign is. It's a horrible line, of course, but she can't help but to roll her eyes and answer anyway. And that's all you need. Once she responds you both know she will be yours. The door is open.
And in that same way, you are now mine. I have you and your (You) and there is no way for you to change that. You have been dominated, used, and soon will be discarded.
But you knew this would be the case when you responded. It's the silly game we play here. We pretend we're actually conversing but it's all really just a ridiculous dance. One partner leads, the other follows, and neither has truly gained nor lost anything.
We carry on, and we know we'll do it again and again. Probably not with the same partner, but that's ok. It's the thrill of the hunt that keeps us coming back. The thrill of hunting and, if we're being honest, the thrill of the vulnerability of being hunted.
Thanks for dancing with me, user.

Ganishka could've been an awesome villain. The buildup was amazing, and his confrontation with Locus and the other apostle knights was one of the most awesome moments of the series.

...and then somebody decided to rush things. The Daka, demon-soldiers supposedly strong enough to take on apostles, suddendly start dropping like regular mooks. And not just against elite apostles like Locus, but even against regular mortals, what the fuck. And everything just went down the drain after that.

I mean, after the confrontation with Locus, Ganishka's forces just lose every single battle. Griffith steamrolls them. It doesn't even feel like they're seriously resisting. Even Ganishka's demonically corrupted monsters drop like flies. And the story just sticks to everything that's happening in Midland - all we get to see of Ganishka's homeland are a few glimpses in the flashback of his own backstory. And that flashback lasts, what? One or two pages?

I mean, so much wasted potential...

...

You're the cringiest user I've ever seen here, and that's saying a lot.

He engineered a situation in which the demon muslim felt he had to become that thing (a sort of demon squared) to begin with, all so he can cut him open to bring magic back or some shit.

>the elf king tells guts to go to the land of kushan
>they get on the boat again
>the boat again
>the boat
>boat

>>ITT
>>Villains who did nothing wrong
Pic related
I used the pic from the show for a reason.

>How do you pull this off in a campaign?
A villain is just at odds with the heroes.
Good and Bad are subjective.
To pull off a decent "villain did nothing wrong" scenario you need at least two things:
A goal the players will agree is worth someone sacrificing for.
A villain who takes no action that does not directly and competently serve that goal.

If your goal is to keep control of, and thereby save, the last remnants of humanity in a world full of violence and assholes, you need to constantly and intelligently subjugate everyone, gather the strong, and use their strength for your own ends. Any moment of hesitation or weakness leaves room for doubt and debate.

Does anyone really care? As a PC, I'm not really interested in the motivation of the villain so much as the fact that he's the villain. I'm playing this game to go through a plot arc and kill something, so this guy is going to have to take it in the shorts regardless of whether Daddy didn't love him enough.

Well he could have just blacksmithed his way to all the money needed in an hour or two without upsetting anyone. He was just a lazy prick.

I don't get the "griffith did nothing wrong" meme. He was a sociopathic ladder climber who sold out his brothers in arms and directly attacked his two best friends for no other reason than jealousy.

I can understand the same meme applied to Sauron, who was arguably just an enemy fighting a long war through guile; and whose followers were unsavory (Melkor's fault). But held virtues of loyalty to his master, bravery, and benevolence to those who worshipped him as Mairon

Top tier edge. Go ahead and cull yourself faggot.

>what is social darwinism?

An erroneous concept touted by retards who don't realize it doesn't work and will never work.

This. The basic building blocks of civilisation are trust and cooperation. Competition is healthy to some degree, but harmful past a certain threshold.

Actually it goes deeper. They're the building blocks of basic simian intelligence.

All smart monkeys and apes have some basic understanding of trust and cooperation.

Social darwinism is retarded because the concept goes explicitly against EVERYTHING that got us humans the big brains we have today.

Also, people are so fucking stupid, they take the idea of survival of the fittest to mean "survival of the strongest". No, survival of the fittest just means survival of the fittest within the respective context of the environment.

It could mean the strongest, or the fastest, or the smartest, or the most populous, or the sneakiest, or the most cowardly, etc. etc. etc.

sounds like a player character

or worse, a DMPC

You do it all time with your murderhobos PCs.

I agree almost...

Rick is pulling off almost the same level of control of his people through less "evil" means. He doesn't kill people for shock effect in front of said person's friends, and he doesn't actively revel in his asshole nature.

Negan does both of these things. I would argue that Negan is more of an asshole than necessary to keep control of his position, if Rick could do the same thing through shear beastmode and stoic silent glances.

The other user is right, sounds like a DMPC. Would hate that villain in my campaign.

Hawk, go back to /a/, nobody wants you here.

The theory on why he violated Casca and, by proxy, Guts, is that he was essentially reasserting his control over the only two people in his life that managed to break away from his control.

Guts and Casca stopped living for Griffith's goals and started living for one another. Griffith was no longer the center point in their lives.

The second he had the power to do so he reasserted what he viewed as his rightful position by violating and humiliating both of them.

How often has Rick had to fight to get people to listen?
How often did people die because they didn't?
Negan's last kill being a perfect example.
Is Negan more of an asshole than necessary?
Probably.
Is he ever an asshole unnecessarily?
I don't think so.
Most of the time he swaggers to keep people in their place, test them, and gauge their reaction.
Rick keeps respect and power by doing what's necessary as decent and humanely as possible.
Negan keeps respect and power by being the baddest asshole there is and making certain you know it.

Ricks way let's him sleep at night, but Negan's is cleaner. Until he isn't the baddest asshole there is anymore, that is. That's why he is constantly keeping others down.

...

I think you're splitting hairs because you have a boner for a psychological archetype.

The thread is bad guys who did nothing wrong. In a world where both rick and negan are "bad guys", negan is easily identifiable as the one who is bad and does things the "wrong" way according to human fucking rights. But seeing how subjective ALL of this thread is, including your rationalization for why you want negan to buttfuck you, this will be the last response you get from me.

That's something a cuck would say there OP

Accidentally starts a berserk thread

Get thee behind me S/a/tan!

You seem angry.
Knock that off, you're being silly.

Listen, he did "nothing wrong" because he made no mistakes.
Nothing he did worked against his goal.
Rick has made mistakes, a bit.
Rick has been wrong.

In the long game, my money is still on Rick, protagonist or no.
Being right and on top is just being on top.
Being wrong is learning.

>Villains who did nothing wrong

If you want to pull this off you need to define what the laws and social moires of the both the setting and the nation/state that the campaign takes place in.
For instance, 300 years ago owning a slave would not have been legally or morally wrong. Beating your wife/children would have been perfectly acceptable if they mouthed off etc.
You can then establish an external threat whose actions or goals would be viewed as morally/legally wrong not just by the PCs but also the villains.
Then seed hints/clues that suggest two alternate methods of confronting and overcoming the external threat, your villain may then adopt whichever method the PCs do not, pitting them against one another. Neither group is "wrong" for interfering with the other since they have good reason to believe themselves to be right.

If you break it down far enough I think there's a valid argument that Rick may be worse than Negan, appearances to the contrary.
Negan built a functional settlement, that functional settlement co-exists with another functional settlement, peacefully or not.
On the other hand Rick has never really built a "functional" settlement nor has his group ever managed to coexist with other settlements they encounter.
Whenever Rick and company show up everything goes sideways and everyone not with Rick usually ends up losing everything.

>300 years ago owning a slave would not have been legally or morally wrong.
Depends on where in the world you were. Most of Europe, if not all of it, had laws prohibing owning slaves since something like the 13th century. But those laws weren't considered to pertain to overseas colonies, and more importantly were only considered to mean 'slaves of European descent'. By the time European monarchs felt like they should try to fix that little loophole there were already many very rich slave owners living in their colonies whom they didn't want to upset.

I hate that revenge is somehow seen as a hackneyed cliche even though it's been fervently avoided in fiction for exactly that reason.

You killed the Knight's wife who was an evil witch you were justified in killing, and the knight swears eternal vengeance upon you.

BAM, instant antagonist, fill in details as appropriate.

Nevermind that the influence of Arab culture and their opinions on slavery and the worth of human lives had already infected the way of thinking in the colonies.

It's also not meant to be applied on the individual level. "Survival of the fittest" applies to POPULATIONS. Early humanity was able to eventually flourish because we were the most fit for survival, and not through individual strength but through our capacity to cooperate on both day-to-day survival and large projects no one person could complete.

...

made even better when you consider that the death star was meant to be used against the Yuuzhan Vong

>EU
Nope.

I have a bad guy now who is hunting the PC's. I made up a race of corrupted High Elves who were enslaved by a Naga and lived in Shadowfell. They managed to open a portal into the material realm and began to wage war against some of the mortal factions.

The PC's were given the option of using a disease known as "Feybane" which was highly destructive and managed to sneak into the Fortress City the "Pale Orcs", as I called them, inhabited.

The brutality the Pale Orcs committed was atrocious but the PC's responded by poisoning the Pale Orcs food supplies with the Feybane disease which ultimately began killing their species off in huge numbers.

Now, one of the few remaining Pale Orcs named Sarost is hunting them seeking vengeance for his people.

In this way they aren't exactly "evil" in the traditional sense, they was many complex factors surrounding their existence and motivations. So now, the PC's have to deal with their own morality in facing him. Looking forward to that boss fight.

Political campaign. The villain isn't necessarily evil, but something about their culture or the habits of their people make them harmful or maybe even deadly to outsiders. The less human they are and the harder it is to communicate with them, the better.

Make a bizarre race from some area humans don't typically settle in. Underwater, underground, space, whatever. They don't speak any known languages and aren't inherently evil, but they don't realize that player races are intelligent. The first contact the players have with them involves a small group of 4-6 exterminating the shit out of a town in a highly efficient manner. From the player's perspective, these are terrible monsters that must be stopped. From the monster's perspective, they just noticed something like five beehives outside their front door and called the pest exterminators to remove them. They never fight in armies, don't express empathy (for the same reason we wouldn't to a wild boar), and seem almost emotionless when killing, and do so quickly and with little provocation. Within their own society, though, they are lawful good through and through. It's just that they don't realize you aren't an animal, and don't have enough contact with normal races to ever have cause to suspect.

The game was really retarded though. You couldnt just tell everyone (or even a select few) that some monster that consumes all life was coming for them in a year

Did the Party hesitate at all? or did they never question genocide. If you play it right you should be able to guilt trip them and have it constantly hang over their heads