How do I make a great villain

>Wouldn't the Orcs oppose this too on general principle?

No. Orcs don't strike me as caring much about anything.

>Also, would someone who wanted to exterminate all other fantasy races also be villainous in your book?

Yes. But extermination of other races is generally from some extension of ego which OP wished to avoid.
Self genociding cucks have no ego to speak of from what I can tell.

Make him a normal likeable guy who is just easily deluded and misguided af?

>How do I make a villain that isn't just a greedy egoist

Ideology. Humans are prepared to do horrible things in its name.

Give him traits aside form greedy egoism, obviously. There's nothing wrong with a villain being a greedy egoist, but any character who can be accurately described in two words is obviously a shallow cardboard cutout. A great villain doesn't have to be some original and unusual motivation, he just has to be fleshed out, like any other character. Make your villain a greedy egoist who has a soft spot for person A, who really dislikes thing B, whose shriveled remains of conscience will start making noise when limit C is crossed, who spends his free time occupied by his hobbies (which are?), who is romantically or at least sexually invovled with someone (how much affection is there), who is cold and calculating planner or maybe instead an impulsive improviser, who is pretty short-tempered or maybe instead calm and collected, and so on. Have him be a greedy egoist if you want, jost don't have that be all there is to him. On the other hand, whatever other motivation or defining trait you could come up with lead to a shitty, one-dimensional villain if there's nothing else to his character.

Actually, the best villain ive seen was done by naruto.

It was Sasori. You quickly became to realise that while all the others learnt skills just to protect themselves and save their lives, he was the only one that learnt skills just for the academic attainment. Placing him much higher.

My favorite villain was a bureaucrat who didn't even know the players existed. He was just a massive bitter asshat who signed forms.

All depends on the tone you want to set, I would imagine.
Some examples I've used or plan to use in my campaigns;
>Lawful Warlord
Country was in political upheaval, this guy used his noble house and position to unify some people and set his sights on killing or bringing into line all the other noble houses squabbling over scraps of land. Was generally lawful neutral but got possessed by an evil spirit (accidental consequence from the party I didn't expect, but ran with) and went somewhat insane in his zealotry but nonetheless keeping somewhat solidly lawful evil.

>Silent Manipulator
A quiet but commanding presence from day 1, this guy recruited 5 other villains who could be seen as BBEGs in their own right to conduct a ritual that would be rumoured to "doom the world" (later it would reveal to drain nearly 70% of the planets living souls as energy). This ritual would take a year to complete, the time limit being an important point. The trope here is the good ol' "villain is fighting a greater evil", complete with this character going through several timelines and failing so many times he no longer sees a possible solution that is heroic in any regard and has long since decided to resort to necessary evil. The greater threat is a cosmic entity that would not just devour the entire planet, but erase it from space and time- and each time the silent manipulator fails it "arrives" sooner, the campaign taking place at the point where it could very well be the final chance at victory.

going overboard with revenge is a classic choice. don't target it at the players, just something that is slightly inconvenient to remove and causes the villain to decide to just declare war on the entire world. if you've seen black sails, captain flint is a pretty good example.

>No. Orcs don't strike me as caring much about anything.
that's where you're wrong. orcs are authoritarian fundies who are required to follow countless autistic rules of the local chief, the warboss and his liutenants and probably some dickass gods as well. they can't actually manage half of that so they just go WAAGH and start fighting instead. knowing that to be inevitable, their leadership is quick to direct them at any external enemy they can make.

On a side note: red panels is over :(

>translating einzige as ego
>ishysddt

That was orochimaru.

Sasori learned puppetry for art and dead parents.

Good. /pol/ shit belongs in the trash.

Reminder that he got away with anything and is a Lich now, best boy always wins

He doesn't see the vast majority of people as people, and has a particular goal he wants completed, even at the cost of his own life or the lives of billions if need be.

You have to go back.

GG one of the best posts

Give them subjectively legitimate reasons such as protecting their realm/people/family
Then there is genuine desire for destruction and causing misery, oftenly comes across as cheesy, but can be chilling if done right

give him a gun

Redpanels isn't even /pol/ shit, it's just normie-tier conservative political incorrectness.

Not that there's much difference; all partisan politics a shit.

make it a coalition of 4 or so different people motivated by stereotypes (greed, revenge,political ideology, philosophical ideology), give them all charming humanizing quirks, and a decent background to justify themselves. then ram them into the players ata well paced level to show the stark differences between the villains.

> How do I make a villain that isn't just a greedy egoist

Take the motives and actions of an PC and turn it into an NPC. Would look crazy if there was an orc warrior killing hundreds of human invaders, but a human warrior killing hundreds of orc invaders looks fine.

Also look at historical "villains". I won't name them but you can guess the who I am talking about for the last hundred years. What they did was not evil in their minds or for ego, but for a cause.

Even a "simple" greedy egoist can be great if done right. I'd love to see a villain who's totally amoral, disregards all societal constructs such as morality, responsibility, love, and society itself, seeking to cleanse his mind of false reality and live in the world as it is, not in the world as he has been taught to perceive it.

Be in a post apocalyptic setting kill and kidnap children and put them in a soup and market it off as beef and you'll be rolling in profit

See, now that's thinking on your feet!
I like you, pal. You're hired.

Wow the logic in this is fucking stupid.

The post, the comic or the ideology ?

The comic. Not taking any stances on idealogy, or politics, just pointing out the stupidity of that comics logic. What fallacy would that be? Feels like Strawman, but there might be something more on the nose.

Meant for

Mmmhhh, a villain who stole the whatever of life to heal his waifu/sister/crusch/loved one but without the whatever of life the world die, and he refuse to let his waifu die so the party have to stop him. You got your villain who do it for love.

>just a greedy egoist
you make them a competent greedy egoist

This. Some history's biggest villains were greedy egoists, that alone doesn't make them shallow (from a writing standpoint).

I'm sick of people thinking that the villain has to be Ozymandias or some shit to be "deep"

You're mixing up hero and villain with protagonist and antagonist.

Who is rothbard?

Also poor ayn rand, im sure you didnt think your work would be chiefly consumed by high school juniors

I have something like this, but she's not exactly doing it consciously.
The setting involves an internal self-balancing situation where the beliefs of mortals shape how much which gods are allowed by the head of the pantheon to act on the setting. Her deal is that she's a goddess of chaos and fundamentally doesn't understand why she, who is objectively one of the most powerful forces in the setting, can't act freely on the plane while mortals for the most part are allowed to do so- she has to have her actions towards the Material Plane supported by a mortal's belief, while they can act of their own accord and do not require anyone's approval to, say, kill, though they face the consequences of doing so, obviously.
She sees human morals and laws as a form of individual expression rather than obligation to a person or higher ideal, which is why she doesn't hold herself to them. Her rationalization for this position is that when you act, it comes down to what YOU believe in, rather than what someone else has told you you should believe in- it's why so many people choke up major decisions, because they're balancing how they'll be punished for acting out of order for what they really believe.
So she acts exactly how she wishes. A LOT of people really don't want what she wants.

Shane the Sky or Dwayne The Rock Johnson

I know so sad :(

...

It's okay user, I understood who you meant.

Although I'm not sure opening with a massive spoiler is the best way to introduce someone to him.

That second one is literally the plot to the first infamous game

>On a side note: red panels is over :(
Why?
Didn't read all of them, but I read some of the newer ones and like them.

Some of them weren't very funny, but it was nice to know that the left didn't have a monopoly on satire.

Surprised no one posted this

but the darkspawn/ blight are a force of nature rather than actually evil - so shouldnt they be mid tier?

I don't really agree with the negative connotations of the lower tiers. Especially the "Meh tier" as Hannibal and The Joker are both compelling characters despite their weak or poorly thought out motivation.

If anything, this chart proves that a villain's motivation isn't the sole thing that makes them compelling.

Yeah, any of the motivations on the chart can work but also fail it depends on the writer.

Make a villain who knows he is committing horrible atrocities but justifying it as for the sake of the greater good/nation/organization.
Lots of real life example such as ISIS or the CIA.

I can only agree, and just want to add one thing.

Nobody's the villain of their own story (with a few exceptions). Take The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood. He's a lawman who's opposed to Robin Hood simply because Hood is an outlaw and breaks the law. Sure, he's also often portrayed as a scum of a human being, but in his mind, he has law and right on his side.
You can look at almost any villain and figure out their point of view. Hell, even Emperor Palpatine, who was an evil son of a bitch and probably a sociopath or something, still believed that he should rule not because he was eeevil, but because he was obviously the best ruler, as he'd provide luxury and resources for the most important person in the Empire: himself.

>replies with /pol/ shit

Fuck off. I hope antifa beats your shit when you're shopping for groceries. A knife in the back preferred.

Isn't this kind off leaning towards the trolley problem? Can one take a life to maximize the happiness (or survival) of many others? Also, sorry for mentioning the trolley problem...

>The Joker is a compelling character
DAMAGED

Stirner would be a good villain though.

...

You need to either make them relatable, or understandable. Doesn't need to be both, but you need one.

Give them goals that make sense, and have them pursue those goals in a pro-active fashion, but make sure it doesn't feel like you favour the character.

As well as providing regular conflict, there should also be some implied internal conflict, even if it's only slight. It makes them more complex as a character. Even if they operate on absolutes, they might be conflicted about some other thing, irrelevant to the main plotline.

Pick one or two personality traits and play them up when the party talks to them. Nobody remembers a complex person, but a complex person who is also flamboyant and dresses in a coat of peacock feathers, or gets angry and starts headbutting walls, will stick out in the minds of your audience.

There are so many iterations of the Joker at this point that you can't really say that. Ledger's Joker was compelling. Leto's Joker was garbage.

>Who is rothbard?

Murray Rothbard, founding thinker of Anarcho-Capitalism.

Make him an altruistic egoist.

>Also, sorry for mentioning the trolley problem
the trolley problem is the best problem

>"For the Greater Good" is the most cruel phrase ever uttered.
It's also the most kind phrase ever uttered. Not every "for the greater good" templar is inherrently evil.

>Elder god tier
But that's bad writing. A villain isn't a villain if his reasoning is better than that of the heroes, that would make him a tragic hero and the heroes the true villains. A villain should be above all detestable or intimidating, even if you are at the same time forced to admire him.

That's the problem with American comics in my opinion. When the characters have already outlived the first generation of readers, they're bound to become inrecognizable parodies of themselves. And this will only continue because the American comic book industry hates innovation.

>Veidt
>Good motives
For fuck's sake /v/!
Some one please post the version of this pic with Nox instead of Veidt

>"A villain isn't a villain if his reasoning is better than that of the heroes"

I posted that chart, didn't make it, but I take issue with that idea. Namely because reasoning and means are two entirely different things. Also, key word "Arguably". There should be room for doubt

>How do I make a great villain
I will never stop shilling the Complete Book of Villains.

It is hands down the best character development tool I've ever seen.
It does not matter what system you are using or if you're making a villain, NPC, or PC.
Find it, use it, love it.

got a PDF?

I created a villain whose end-game is to wipe out humanity through several generations of genetic modification, until the final product has a natural disinclination towards inter-species conflict (the world having been destroyed once by nukes already).

His end game is to wipe out humanity. He is evil. But he's doing it without killing a single person (theoretically. In actual fact, many people have died either trying to stop him, or as a result of him taking the resources he needs to go through with the plan). Is he a hero, or a villain?

>Uses (from what I can derive from the context) non-intrusive genetic manipulation
>Seeks to transform humanity into the "next stage" where inter-species conflict is discouraged
>He only "wipes out" humanity in the same way the Homo Erectus has been "wiped out"
>The only ones who died were the ones trying to stop him
Sounds like a hero. The only way I could see him as a villain is if you add a generous serving of hubris. Shit like trying to defy the gods by correcting their 'mistakes' but only making things worse in the process.

>/v/

I needed this meme combo thanks user

One way to make a good villain is to have the party work for them and then find out how all the jobs he has them and others do fit together in his grand scheme.

>His end game is to wipe out humanity. He is evil.

only if your definition of 'good' is 'humanity' for some dumb reason

In which case 'evolution' is also evil because eventually it will result in humans changing into something else

Also sounds like a less violent Zoldyke from Blue Submarine No. 6

>Nobody's the villain of their own story

This. This so much

>wants to wipe out humanity with genetic modification
Is your villain the Qu

A good villain for a hero campaign is one that has logical motivations, but a malevolence and clear intent to harm. Let's say an Orc Warboss that seeks to wipe out humanity because our rapid expansion is going to push them out of any good land, so he uses the natural bad blood to rally a WAAAAAAGH against humanity.

A good villain in a tragic campaign will be someone with a logical and sound plan, but one that has to hurt the protagonists or something connected to them for it to work. A plan that had good intentions, but in a "Sacrifice few for the benefit of many" way. Let's say an Elf plans to save his people by increasing the fertility of their women, which can only be done by sapping the fertility of another group. So after a year of stillborns/failed attempts to have kids in various border towns, the panicked leadership sends a group of adventurers in to find the reason why.

And a good villain for a regular campaign is one that has logical reasoning from their own point of view, but illogical reasoning from the parties. Say, a human lich who believes he must stay alive to guide the world into a golden age of magic. Makes sense to him, as he sees himself as a messianic figure, but to his victims, he seems like a monster.

I do, but it's:
1. Not on this device
2. Too big to upload to Veeky Forums.

It can be found though.

>A good villain for a hero campaign is one that has logical motivations, but a malevolence and clear intent to harm.
I've always enjoyed "victim of past successes", myself.

Warlord gathers warband, became powerful to take revenge for his slaughtered family. Destroys the mercenary company that kills him. This gets him a black mark by the kingdom, and they put an open bounty on him. Unwilling to surrender his men, he goes and takes down part of the army and signs up with a foreign nation who promises to support him.

With foreign support warlord carves out piece of land for himself but them foreign nation recalls him and orders him to fight on the front lines in suicide missions, which he refuses - foreign nation just wants to grab the land he conquered.

Both sides turn on him, but he has a stronger army and both sides are still fighting each other. In order to survive he searches for something to tip the balance of power and finds a powerful artifact that wreaks terrible destruction, and he is going to use it on both countries because otherwise he's going to lose everything he holds dear.

What do you mean, he could have just walked away? Don't be insane, who would walk away from his men, or all that power?!

Depends on your players and your campaign. Great villains are not all cut from the same cloth.

So what's the campaign and what kind of players do you have?

Valuing one person's happiness over another's is not utilitarianism. This comic is stupid.

Here's a different version of the villain tier list. I think it works a little better.

The master was a good villain. Bonus points for being able to prove to him that he was mistaken and have him give up in a way that makes sense.

Found the triggered leftist

You could eliminate elder god tier all together by just replacing "villain" with "antagonist." High tier covers the same territory.

>one
Not defending the comic or philosophy, but you can't count.

When I was writing him, I had the Master in mind as one of many sources of inspiration, very true.

>Living to see your grandchildren be almost total alien from you, unable to meaningfully communicate in many ways, and knowing that gap will only widen as what it means to be human is lost
>Not going to the ends of the earth to protect the natural evolutionary time line of humanity
>Allowing a single mad man to dictate the future of your children, and their children, and their children

His philopshy is rational and reasonable, which is what attracted followers. He knew what he was doing was evil, and sort of pulled a reverse hitler in that he made sure all roads pointed to him as being responsible for all this horrible shit.

Interesting that you picked up on that. Hubris was very much a theme. Well founded hubris, but still. He fucked up suprisingly often, letting some truly bad shit escape to hunt and feed. There were a lot of sacrificial lambs on the research front, too. The only thing that kept him afloat was the excellent PR generated by advances made from research done on said lambs.

kys

>Living to see your grandchildren be almost total alien from you, unable to meaningfully communicate in many ways, and knowing that gap will only widen as what it means to be human is lost
'what it means to be human' pffft
what it means to be human is to be able to breed with other humans. All other definitions exist for the sake of defining ingroups and outgroups and exploiting tribalism for social power. 'Oh clutch me pearls that behavior is INHUMAN, let's crucify those inhuman fuckers!'

>Not going to the ends of the earth to protect the natural evolutionary time line of humanity
The distinction between natural and unnatural is purely arbitrary. Do you believe in some christian notion of predestination?

>blah blah he's mad!!!
Oh yeah 'cause historical rulers are all such sane, benevolent leaders and without this one single mad man humanity will enter a utopia in which rude dudes never ever exploit these hypothetical children. This guy at least is trying to reduce the violence inherent in the system at the base line.

tbqh famalama based on what you've said in this thread I don't think there's really much of a reason to call this guy a 'villain' beyond your own kneejerk response stemming from whatever ideology you serve. And certainly there's no reason that he'd 'know' what he was doing was evil unless his backstory involves being a self-loathing christian scientist with a guilty conscience who thinks he's serving/forsaking god's plan.

Watchmen was a mistake.

Go fuck your toaster, transhumanist.

go drink a dr. pepper and take a nap

Yeah, take it down a couple notches, Bucko.

This is amazing. 40 pages in and I don't regret reading any of them. dnd.rem.uz/Advanced D&D (unsorted)/AD&D 2E - Accessory - DMGR6 - The Complete Book of Villains.pdf

Orcs are Negan.