an observation

[amorax_kaka]

first of all in Illarion, there were practically no evil guys, now, there are evil dudes popping up all over the place, where did this come from, I'm not upset, quite the contrary in fact.

[Irania]

It happens.

[Poots]

There was a big complaint about the lack of villains. I don't see too many villains now anyways. I think we still need more powerful villains but that's the type of thing that takes time

[Shadows]

Trust me, there is a VERY dark underworld if you search. It all adds to the depth of the game.

[Llama]

Quoting Drathe (IG)> Oh we get many liches around here, almost one a week

-

However i dont see anything bad about it, trouble doesn'ty come, it only comes if you go look for it

[Markous]

first of all in Illarion, there were practically no evil guys

There always were, you just joined in a phase where there were non. I've seen much darker times in the last three years.

[Quinasa]

MUCH darker times. Its good to have periods of peacefulness, for when something dark and dangerous comes again we'll be able to look back on the peace and know what we're striving for.

[Arameh]

I think the game still lack of bad characters,like bandits and assassins and such.But that is because the disadvantages of being one are much highter than the advantages.Like for examples,bandits,if you are a bandit you usually cant go in city so there is no depots and killing peoples usually is useless since its easier to flee than to chase someone.If we could add bandit camps and make a system that gives us the possibility to run faster or slower,like heavy armors slow down and agility makes us run faster etc.Now if you chase someone he just have to push the directional key and you will never catch him.Having bandits would make very good RP since it would make warriors more useful,peoples would hire bodyguards and things like that,now mercenaries have about no jobs to do.Thats my advice.

[Bloodhearte]

I'll be happy if Illarion is 100% villain characters for all I care.

There's always way too many characters who pretend to be neutral (but "fite 3vil to teh c0r3") and exist solely as glory-seekers.

[Nalzaxx]

Dont worry Bloodhearte, we all know you were the most badass villain ever!

[Bloodhearte]

I was 2nd most bad after Darlok in 2003. Konstantin took 1st in 2004, and everybody was lame in 2005. By today's standards, I'd be pretty average if I was able to play. 'Cause I did stuff that people these days would beat me for...you know, logging out as soon as I wasn't seen, "stacking" magic blue fires, jumping from rooftops to attack unsuspecting hobbits behind buildings, getting permy killed...then revived...then permy killed...acting like BH could summon mummies when he couldn't.

The List of Naughty Things goes on brother.

[Korwin]

To you I say 'Andrew Horton', although I'm not sure if that counts, because the player was sort of... insane.

I maintain that a great deal of the respect gained for Darlok as a villian was simply due to the fact he was an excellent fighter, and had the friendly demons to do his bidding.

[Dyluck]

Wow I never knew you thought Andrew Horton was that good of a bad guy, Korwin. Back in the days, people were saying how LDS was such a great bad guy, but I always thought he was overrated. But then again every villian I saw over the years was overrated. There weren't many openly evil characters so any one that appeared seemed novel and refreshing to people, as is how human nature tends to be, and automatically thought to be a good roleplayer. There's been a fad for playing bad guys since a long time already, but somehow people were still under the impression that "there isn't enough bad guys" for the longest time. I guess maybe a lot of villians didn't last very long. In any case, I've always felt there was more than enough bad guys the last few years, and I get already that impression just from hanging around ooc boards, so there can only be even more bad guys I'm unaware of. 1 Baddie for every 30 Goodie seems plenty.

[Athian]

silly people. come on honestly, you think those, people who are spotlighted as warriors or good and juctice actually give a danm. everyone is out to best serve there own interests. only when ones own interests are misalligned with the Interests of many many other people are you labelled a villian. Do you know how many innocent people get killed by your so called hero's? anyone who keeps the hero villian role in simple black and white, is not getting the full enjoyment of oue rp universe.

[Korwin]

I need to add that I didn't think the player of Andrew Horton was a good roleplayer, nor did I like his character. However, he was the first person and/or character that you just really wanted to stab in the face.

[Aegohl]

I find it a bit sad that in Illarion a villain is someone who is evil, evil, evil, and then some more evil. He better worship Moshran, because Chergans are pussies. And he better be excellent with the sword... or maybe be able to shoot fire out his rump!

I find that when I get around to playing villains, they're more moralistic than my heroes or greys. They could, in fact, on some level be heroes, and often cross the border into anti-heroism, time and time again. The fact that no one includes characters like this when they do the villain talk doesn't necessarily suprise me, but it definately saddens me.

As far as I'm concerned, the best villain would get a hero's burial, with guards, paladins, and other goodniks shedding tears.

In that way, I would say Galim is a good villain. Galim a villain? Sure. He was a great antagonizing force getting in the way of people's goals, I would say. Aristeaus is a great villain. Moirear Sian was a great villain.

Keep your eyes on some up-and-comers. I'm not quite entirely in the belief that Stephen Rothman is a hero. If he's a villain, god bless that guy, he's doing good.

Villains don't have to be the opposite of heroes. In fact, it's usually quite the contrary. While heroes chase down villains, villains are more likely to chase down eachother due to competition. They only have to be the antagonist. They have to stop you dead in your tracks. They have to create conflict that you, you, and you have to solve.

Edit: I hadn't read what Athian said, but he puts it well, also.

[Korwin]

Not to be malicious, but I think Athian needs to retype his post when he's not drunk, or otherwise inhibited by environmental factors. Not for the content, but how it's typed seems a bit off.

Now, when I refer to 'evil' I don't mean universal badness, I don't think that exists. I refer to an act of which I believe is very negative, or against my morals, but it's clunky to say, or type, and 'evil' is easier.

That's one of the failing points of language, a word like villain will mean a wide variety of things to different people. I'm viewing a villain as a person who consistently acts against my moral code, and I believe you should view a villain as someone who acts against yours. A hero does the opposite, things like helping the poor (Unless you're not a big fan of that).

So as far as I'm concerned, unless you yourself have no moral code at all, there are such things as villains, and heroes. Now, I'll also agree with you that there are places in-between, characters that have certain qualities of either villains or heroes. However, although these are good characters, given that they're more realistic, they're poor villains. To me, saying 'Joe Rufflestump' is a good character, and that he is a good villain are two different things. A good villain will be someone who goes exceptionally strongly against my code of ethics, a good character is one who has motivations, specific beliefs, interesting traits, and so forth.

The fact that no one includes characters like this when they do the villain talk doesn't necessarily surprise me, but it definitely saddens me.

The reason these characters are neglected from 'best villains' is because they're not. If you have a character that is abusive to his mother, he may be better character, but he won't be a better villain than someone who tortures humans and eats live puppies.

As far as I'm concerned, the best villain would get a hero's burial, with guards, paladins, and other goodniks shedding tears.

I don't think this speaks for anything except the characters popularity, not his level of villainy. Now, if he had used deception to hide his evil acts, then I'd call him a Villain. However, if, as a player, I've never heard of his evil acts, I can hardly declare how he was a great villain, because I wasn't aware of his exploits.

In that way, I would say Galim is a good villain. Galim a villain? Sure. He was a great antagonizing force getting in the way of people's goals, I would say.

I'd agree, under the assumption he prevented people from reaching their goals out of spite, or he was selfish and focused solely on his own goals.

They only have to be the antagonist. They have to stop you dead in your tracks. They have to create conflict that you, you, and you have to solve.

This is an example of where language is restricting. I'd say an antagonist can be a villain, or a hero. If someone stops me from enjoying my human rights, I'd call him a villain. If someone else stops that a person from killing my family, I'd call him a hero.

[Dyluck]

I need to add that I didn't think the player of Andrew Horton was a good roleplayer, nor did I like his character. However, he was the first person and/or character that you just really wanted to stab in the face.

You didn't want to stab Sean in the face? He would be hurt if he read this.

I find that when I get around to playing villains, they're more moralistic than my heroes or greys. They could, in fact, on some level be heroes, and often cross the border into anti-heroism, time and time again. The fact that no one includes characters like this when they do the villain talk doesn't necessarily suprise me, but it definately saddens me.

As far as I'm concerned, the best villain would get a hero's burial, with guards, paladins, and other goodniks shedding tears.

In that way, I would say Galim is a good villain. Galim a villain? Sure. He was a great antagonizing force getting in the way of people's goals, I would say. Aristeaus is a great villain. Moirear Sian was a great villain.

Hey, what do you mean nobody mentions that during the villian talk? I do it all the time. I'm sure many Movement members or rebels to Lyrenzia didnt' think they were "evil", but they sure probably thought some of Dyluck, Tialdin, Grey Rose and Town Guards etc were "evil", and vice versa. Who gets the hero's burial and villian's burial there, who knows? It's simply a matter of "conflict" in many cases. The way I put it, quoting myself:

the word "conflict" isn't always synonymous with evil, villains, or even bad guys. Some of the best, sustainable, and less artificially induced conflicts can often be found between people or groups with completely good intentions.

A lot of times people confuse the idea of "conflict" and "bad guys" as being the one and the same when in fact what they are thinking or talking about is only one of those ideas. Korwin's last post illustrates the idea that there are well played antagonists in conflicts which are not necessarily appropriate to be labled as a "villian". In any such discussions, it would be useful to realize and clarify whether one might be focusing on "conflict/antagonists" or actual "universal-type villians", as both categorizations have their own merits and uses in these types of discussions.

[Misjbar]

Also quite peculiar, some "villains" call themselves evil, while instead they aren't. They are just acting to their own morals, and someone with opposite morals and the likes thinks they are evil, but they themselves are not supposed to feel evil. Ofcourse from your own point of view (as a player) you think your character is evil, but never ever must the character think he is evil. The character itself finds the Grey Rose evil, or the likes atleast.

That was always my opinion around being morally the opposite.

[Ghorn]

In that way, I would say Galim is a good villain. Galim a villain? Sure. He was a great antagonizing force getting in the way of people's goals, I would say.

Thx pal, I tried my best .

I think Galim was one of the most hated characters ingame. I remember how he HELPED John, captain of the guard, to send Karmane to the cross. he just helped, and didn't even killed him.

But the next days over a dozen peoples wanted his head, and every villian on the isle was after him

[Korwin]

Ofcourse from your own point of view (as a player) you think your character is evil, but never ever must the character think he is evil.

I don't think this always holds true. An evil character will always do what he believes to be the best option, but he may realize it's an evil act.

In a society I think there are certain things that are so widely believed, everyone believes they're wrong, although they might choose to ignore that. I believe someone who murders their spouse for money knows what they're doing is wrong, but will still do it. In fact, in our weird court system, if someone doesn't realize what he or she has done is wrong, they might be considered innocent by reason of insanity.

Of course, then there are the other cases. Take the following example in which the perpetrator might believe he is doing an evil act, or he may believe he is doing the right thing.

There is a group that wants to overthrow what they believe to be a corrupt government. One of their members is captured by the government, and is set to be executed. In retaliation, the group captures a military officer, and threatens to execute him if the revolutionary is not released. The government executes the revolutionary, and Mr. Smith, a revolutionary, executes the military officer in retribution. Mr. Smith believed the military officer deserved that fate, and so he has no qualms.

Take the same example, except Mr. Fletcher has the task of executing the military officer. Mr. Fletcher believes that murder is wrong, regardless of the cause. Mr. Fletcher tolerates the murders committed by the revolutionaries only because they are necessary to attain an end. Still believing that murder is wrong, Mr. Fletcher is forced to execute the military officer to maintain the vow, which his group made.

Simply, I believe you can know something you do is wrong, commit the act, still believe it is evil, and thus consider yourself a villain.

[Bloodhearte]

Well of course you can keep emphasizing the "shades of grey" point people, but that's just common sense. Nobody, in my eyes, is defined a villain if they're battling another party who has a contrary view. I would define a villain as an individual who is masochistic, enjoys killing/hurting people, who takes the role of a necromancer, or some other personality or attribute that makes him a serious Freak compared to ordinary people.

[Gishmel]

I would define a villain as an individual who is masochistic, enjoys killing/hurting people, who takes the role of a necromancer, or some other personality or attribute that makes him a serious Freak compared to ordinary people.

Maby some are like that but isent there a line between villain and insane?

[Shandariel el Lysanthrai]

Its called "dressing stile"

A villian is an insane wearing good clothes

[Gishmel]

Its called "dressing stile"

A villian is an insane wearing good clothes

Tell that to a lich.

[King Cobra]

A lich is not evil, it is in it's nature to be aggresive. Please reasearch these things before making comments such as that.

[Japheth]

Liches in Illarion are the unholy creations of dark forces such as Moshran. It is most certainly in their nature to be evil for the sake of it.

[Liles]

Zing.

Who is that King Cobra anyway?

[King Cobra]

'Evil' suggests it has it's own motives. A Lich is merely acting off it's owners will. Therefore it is 'programmed' if you will. A sharply dressed evil villan is very different to a zombie like creature such as a Lich. Zombies can not be described as evil.

[Liles]

Ding ding ding, Round two