|
Alright, here's a quick quiz. Have you ever liked a villain in an RPG? More than the
heroes? Have you ever actually rooted for the villain?
I'm thinking that a surprisingly large number of you could nod your head affirmatively to
two, or even all three questions. Ever since RPG villainy graduated from simply trying to
take over and/or destroy the world with no overriding purpose, their causes, personalities,
and the circumstances that surround their actions have made them quite the captivating sort.
Why? Because within every villain is a secret. Each villain is, in their own way, a
mystery that we want to discover. Their very existence sets up questions; questions we
want the answers to.
It used to be that the heroes and heroines of RPGs clashed with those whose plans, if they
reached fulfillment, would spell rotten times for the world in a very obvious way. Like
Sauron from "The Lord of the Rings," these villains embodied a very black-and-white
moral sensibility. There was seldom a question about what was good and what was evil.
Shining princes, beautiful oracles, and white steeds were good; loathsome creatures, dark
fens and bogs, and cruel, brute weapons were obvious staples of evil. It could be said
that evil, in this form, colored the appearance. Orcs look nasty because they are
nasty.
Eventually, though, villains branched out and gave us the many flavors we continue to
enjoy today: treachery, deception, misguided motives, needless violence, and all the rest.
And with that step up came a major change in how we can regard villainy. Instead of
simply villains, there are villains and antagonists. An antagonist is the foil to a
protagonist - they are anyone who substantially opposes the main party, who blocks the
way or resists their forward progress. "Antagonist" is a more encompassing term than
"villain;" most villains are by their very nature antagonists, but being an antagonist
doesn't necessarily make a character a villain.
A well-known example would be FFVII's Turks. The Turks are the very essence
of the "antagonist" - they're at odds with the party and show up multiple times to impede
their progress, but it's not personal. The Turks may not like Cloud and company, but
there's no real animosity either - it's simply their job. Their motives aren't malicious; the
reasons the two groups clash are simply differences of opinion and priority. In some
cases, antagonists who undergo a revelation or shift of viewpoint end up working
with the main characters, because their objective is furthered by aiding rather
than hindering the party. Often these reformed antagonists become the much-beloved
anti-hero type in the party, having changed their allegiance but not their sometimes-
callous work ethic.
Villains are a bit more slippery to classify, since how does one determine the point at
which an antagonist becomes villain material? In many cases, the title of 'villain' is
generally granted on the story's main antagonist or group of antagonists. In general, the
villain is one who is unpenitent; one who believes in their own actions all the way to the
bitter end. Perhaps they curse you with their dying breath, or maybe they turn out to be
the last boss, but inevitably the 'villain' is he or she whose machinations vex you till the
last. "Villain" may also be the title which sets apart those antagonists who are truly
"evil," and not just opposed to the cast for other reasons. With a real villain, there's often
a true malicious impulse, the result of which would benefit no one. Often, these kinds of
villains carry a fatalistic or illogical bent that can seem rather annoying. Evil without
thought is nearly implausible, so it stands to reason that even the most evil, loathsome
villain would see that their plan ended up benefiting them in some way. For as
catastrophic as his plan would have been, FFVII's villain Sephiroth would have clearly
benefited from it. That clearly-demonstrated, self-oriented thinking that would allow us
to - at the very least - comprehend where a villain is coming from reasoning-wise is
strangely absent in such characters as FFVI's Kefka or FFX's Seymour. Instead, one is
left scratching their head, thinking "...but what would they get out of it?"
Perhaps villains of this sort are simply misguided, or just insane, but... if they are, then
are they really capable of "evil?"
It seems that things swing one way or the other, though - as where before there was an
overabundance of destructive evil villains, it now seems as though many villains have
their own side of the story to tell, as it were, and that their actions should be judged in
light of that information. There are many antagonistic forces who, in opposing your
party, genuinely believe they are doing the right thing. Some learn the error of their
ways, some never do, and some have the player wondering if they are really in
the right. There are some games, such as Xenogears, Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete,
and Suikoden III, in which the intriguing nature of the antagonists led me to question
whether they were truly evil, or even whether my party was going about things the right
way. That's perhaps the most significant advancement time has garnered on RPG
antagonists and villains - they have become characters every bit as fully nuanced as the
main cast.
Lunar: Silver Star Story's poster villain, the Magic Emperor, actually had many qualities
of an antagonist and very little of the true malice or destructive impulses that are often
associated with villains. In addition, his goal was not about self-fulfillment or self-gain,
but he stuck as a villain because his idealistic clash with the party could not be resolved
without his defeat. I've found that that's what many of the best antagonists (or villains)
are - much more than simpletons who want to kill or destroy for the heck of it, or to
bathe the world in neverending darkness, but not quite so agreeable that you'd sit down to
tea with them and wonder why you were really fighting in the first place.
Are these kinds of portrayals really beneficial, though? Shouldn't the mark of a well-handled villain be to arouse anger and inspire real hatred from both the characters and the
player? Are these quasi-villainous antagonists of today simply wafflers who don't garner
the kind of spite that really makes a player yearn to finally hack into them? It could be
true - with some "villains" of today, the acts they commit don't strike close enough to
home, or are far enough removed from them that the hate doesn't fall where it should.
When villainous characters inspire great swells of fandom, one has to wonder if they're
successfully fulfilling their full role as villains. Not that every villain needs to go around
murdering people close to the main character or burning kingdoms just because they feel
like it, but the mark of a well-handled villain is to inspire real spite, but then later cause
me to realize how skillful that character must have been played in order to evoke those
emotions. And in that respect, villains who are simply opposed to the main characters on
the ideological level often fail to garner that kind of spite. Perhaps there's the need for a
physical component of opposition. Sometimes it's because there's not enough
potential for animosity there in the first place. Sometimes it's because the workings of a
villain's mind are so out-there that we can't believe that anybody would actually think like
that.
There will always be a place for eccentricity and eclectic flair in the villains and
antagonists of RPGs - that's one reason they're often appreciated by players, after all.
But I think that a way to make the oppositional forces of RPGs a better-handled lot is to
increase their "humanity" (and I use this word in the general sense, to refer to any manner
of race that may populate the myriad worlds in which we adventure). Each who would
claim the title "villain" or "antagonist" certainly has connections to the world around
them. They must have a reason for their goals, and perhaps sometimes they question
what they're doing. We should be able to at least partially understand villains, even if we
do not agree with them. If we cannot, they become little more than an arbitrary force to
be stopped simply because that's what the game needs, not worthy of our ponderances (or
perhaps even our empathy). When the events of an RPG's story are moved by or in
response to an antagonistic force (as they often are), that force needs development at least
comparable to the main cast. After all, are they not the prime movers of the game's
sphere of events? How many heroes would have gone on to live a normal life had not the
actions of some fell foe galvanized them into being heroes?
It seems like we've swung from one extreme to another, going from basic, garden-variety
evil overlords to grey-area antagonists whose motives can be explained away until they
bear little culpability for their actions and/or one wonders if there's any solid reason to
oppose them. Different stories will try for different effects and themes, and may want a
specific kind of enemy to complement that overall effect. Thus, I think we'll continue to
see quite a variety. This is good - even if I like some kinds of villains more than others,
I'd probably get tired of seeing my favorite kinds pop up in every game, especially since
that might constrict what the story was able to believably have take place. But regardless
of the type of foe we encounter, there are certain things that always seem to bespeak
quality. Interesting motives, thought-provoking dialogue, revealing interaction with other
characters, cool designs, and at least some adherence to reason could hardly be
construed as anything but good qualities in any character, and especially those of the
villainous sort. And when those qualities are met together in a villain or antagonist, the
result can be wondrously captivating; turning even simple stories into powerful struggles,
moral quandaries, and fuel for driving adventures to their completion.
A lot rests on the shoulders of villains and antagonists; enough that we sometimes (with
good reason) often view them more critically and hold them to higher standards than even
party characters. A villainous force that truly "does it all" - and does it well - leaves a
lasting impression on gamers, and raises the bar for the future. And in my mind, that's a
good thing. I'd rather go toe-to-toe with a worthy, intelligent adversary whose line of
reasoning held up to scrutiny than some fop with a random desire to kill people or
envelop the world in some random darkness. Because in the end, despite being at the
opposite side of the playing field, antagonists and villains are just as much 'people' as any
main cast member, and we should expect at least as much from them as we do from the
hero or heroine. After all, they may be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given
a good turn.
|
RSS feed
iTunes