Kitsune9tails

You make a good point.

Of course I'm not saying that it's impossible to write a beleivable story or scenario where a villain wins with no strings. I'm just saying it isn't as much fun, even if I'm playing the villain.

The occaisonal win with no strings is fine and fun, but the ultimate win for evil with no strings?

Have you read 1984? Do I have to post spoiler warnings before saying it is relevant to the topic? Let's just say that while I think it is an awesome classic, 'fun' is not on the list of adjectives.

I essentially agree.

I'm not saying that the most successful villain should have more strings attached than the suckiest hero (not saying Spidey sucks, but you get my point).

I'm just saying that even in victory, villainy should feel villainous.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'closure'.

I'm just saying that if you are the type of villain who has minions, then by definition your minions are evil, which means by definition they are eventually going to try to destoy/conquer/rob the world themselves, which almost certainly means betraying you: the game should acknowledge that. It's part of the fun of being a bad guy.

Of course, if you aren't the type to have minions, then you just have to deal with all of Arachnos, Crey, Nemesis, and everyone else trying to keep you from conquering/destroying the world or robbing them by yourself. This should not be handwaved away.

IMHO, It's part of the fun. It's part of why one chooses to play a villain in the first place.

Succeed as a hero, and you get a ticker-tape parade, and the Key to the City from the Mayor. Kids wear kid versions of your costume. Your name is brought up in schools and households a role model.

Succeed as a villain, and you get to lounge on a throne with a slave girl chained at your feet...but if I were you, I'd have someone taste that victory goblet of red wine.

It's not a downside, it's part of the point.

Perhaps this might illustrate it better:

If I am playing the Nazis in a real time strategy game, I should have just as much of a chance to win as the Allies.

But if I am playing the Red Skull in a Marvel game, part of the expected and desired experience is to get my face punched by Captain America. And even if I win at the end, my reward is to create a dystopia...not a utopia, but a dystopia.

If I am not trying to make the world a worse place (indirectly for myself as well) then I am not playing a villain. Maybe an antihero, or a Dark Hero.

Sure, my character may beleive she intends to create a utopia, but, if she were right, she wouldn't be a villain.

...or would she? Kind of brings us back to Ozymandias...

It shouldn't necessarily 'suck'. But there should be a difference in the feel between heroism and villainy. If both games rewarded you with the same feeling of accomplishment and adulation, the situation would be even worse (IMHO) than it is now: Redside would be nothing more than blueside with a goatee.

The basic difference between heroes and villains in most stories is that heroes defend the status quo and villains attack it. There are exceptions, but by and large hero stories aren't about bending the world to your will and changing how everything works for the better: they are about fixing the problems created by the villains. Even in Star Wars: a New Hope, where the heroes are 'the rebellion', they are trying to re-establish the good old days from before the Empire, etc.

So when I think of a successful villain, I think of people like...

Lord Recluse: Possibly the most successful villain in all of fiction. He has his own country, similar to Doctor Doom, but because he has strengthened its' defenses by inviting us invincible player characters to live there, he has to constantly be on the lookout for the one Destined to literally hand him his own head, in addition to fomenting dissension among the ranks of his own organization because if he doesn't, they will betray him because they are villains! If you are a successful villain, it's because you have a hold over other succussful villains, and because they are villains, they will not be satisfied with that. I count him as even more successful than Doom because he employs thousands of top rank villains (instead of just some robots and quaint European villagers). Also: no Squirrel Girl.

Countess Crey: a successful businessperson who employs many legitimate people who probably don't even suspect them of villainy, similar to Lex Luthor. If she were not a villain, she would be making legit money hand over fist with her advanced tech. But she's a villain, so she is up to her elbows in illegal cloning, corporate double dealings (to the point of graverobbing and violation of Vanguard authority), etc. If she were not doing these things that subject her to the continual interference of spandex-wearing dogooders (and rival villains such as ourselves), she would not be a villain (and probably be making much less money). It's a little like Doctor Evil from the Austim Powers movies. If he didn't have evil henchmen (necessary for his evil doings), he would not suffer betrayal at every turn and need that button for opening the trap door over the fire pit.

The Emperor: Declared Emperor? Yep. Hunted down and killed every member of the only organization that could oppose his powers? Yep. Ensured his power by seeing to it that the one person who he empowered as his legacy was emotionally and physically crippled so as to be dependent on him ? Yep. Had a plan for trading that person out for a better model before they could challenge him? Yep.

To be a successful villain in a game, one wants to get by with the day-to-day schemes/missions/scenarios and beat up 'good guys', but we have that now (although we could do with a LOT more missions that put us up against teams of heroes that feel more like the Teen Titans or Young Warriors instead of fighting what is essentially S.H.I.E.L.D or the Green Arrow Corps all of the time).

What I want from this game is indeed more recognition of my accomplishments (in the form of altered dialogue from npcs) and more of a feel of choosing my own goals.

For instance, what if you could start an SF though a dialogue tree that gave you choices:
"<villain name>, the mission you sent me on to investigate the Circle of Thorns has borne fruit! I have a wealth of information for you. Which do you wish to hear about first?
- The Seal of World Destruction?
- The Amulet of Everybody Do What I Say?
- The Gem of Infinite Wealth?"

...and go from there. Even if the means of pursuing each of those goals were very similar (but not identical, that would feel cheap), it would enable me to choose a different goal for my character Dame Fatale than my character The RastaNefarian.

Even if my character went through the SF, and opened the Seal of World Destruction, obviously the world isn't instantly destroyed. However, I can still succeed: I can unleash some AV that could potentially destroy the world, only to find out it can't destroy the world until The Stars Are Right (not this millenium), or it won't obey until I make it fear me (oops I guess I hit it too hard), or even have it reward me with a rendered cutscene of the Freedom Phalanx destroying it in battle (and a badge, kthnxplzbai).

Do villainy, then sit back on one's laurels with no underhanded henchmen seeking to supplant us, former allies seeking revenge or rival organizations infiltrating our ranks?

What you are describing, dear sir, is retirement.

The closest I can think of to a purely successful villain with no drawbacks would be Tyrant/Emperor Cole, since he is looked upon in the lore as being grey morality (and that may be about to change) or Ozymandias from Watchmen (and tell me even he doesn't have room for a bit of paranoia).

True, but the the 'price' of villainy should still be evident: even successful villainy should be fraught with betrayal, domination and paranoia...but your character should get to do their fare share of the betraying dominating and terrorizing in a way that at least strives to create the illusion that you are doing things your way.

Only? No.

But having Contacts get more respectful would be a big step up; the more so if the degree was actually based on your accomplishments (levels, badges, 'contract bar', whatever).

I think the bigger thing is some sort of sub-system that allows you to actually feel proactive. Mayhem missions is a good step in this direction, but I'm thinking a sub-sytem based on SFs you can choose or even something based on crafting that would let you work towards some grand but ultimately unacheivable goal.

IMHO? Yes, exactly this.

Allow me to build a death laser only to have meddling heroes destroy it (even though I can beat them up because I have IOs or whatever).

Let me summon a Cosmic Horror from a Tome of Ancient Eldritch lore only to have to kill it myself when it decides to eat me first.

Let me channel the Universal Harmonics so that I have momentary omnipotence, only to lose it all because my finite mind can't handle it.

In short, let me be Doctor Doom/Luthor/Darth Vader if I choose, in addition to 'succeeding' at doing the existing jobs offered by Arachnos.

I would love to get hurled into a vat of lava in a cut scene, only to have the npc heroes go 'no one could survive that' while I escape through a hatch I had prepared for such an occaision.

The only trick is to do enough of such content so that there is plenty of variety. Not everyone is into building Giant Robots with each of their villain characters. But dammit, I certainly want to build one, even if it's just to have Statesman turn it into scrap metal with one mighty punch.

I agree, and the same goes for heroes as applied to the shared portion of the game world. Heroes don't stop Outcasts from spawning after they defeat Frostfire, after all.

But I think what people (especially redside players) want to see is a system that allows them to set a goal (and face it, for villains it usually boils down to destroy the world or rule the world...or at least retire in luxury with a harem), and take distinct steps toward it, even if they can't ultimately acheive it (although they could as alternate reality of some kind).

As a villain, you should be able to earn respect and fear by making specific acheivements (probably badges), and that earned respect should be reflected in how you are addressed/interacted with by certain npcs.

It would be grand if you could go through an SF and earn a badge that caused Crab Spiders to salute you or even flee you instead of aggro on you.

It would also be grand if I could go on an SF that allowed me to build a gigantic Orbital Death Laser, hold the world for ransom, and then have a group of npc heroes destroy the laser and confront me in my lair, which collapses during the attack, allowing me to escape to plot again.

Okay, I can see that. Hence the timing voodoo. Hmmmm...

Only in that they would have to decide whether to check for Scourge before or after the bonus damage from the Execute.

Would it break the balance of the power if the bonus damage were irresistable (and impervious to buffing/debuffing, enhancement, etc)?

1. Deliver damage. If target was unaffected, done. If not...
2. Check target's remaining hp; is it below (warning: arbitrary numbers; .8 hp x target level)? If not, done. If so...
3. Deliver Floaty text: "Executed!" Deliver unresistable hp damage equal to (1 x target level).

Obviously, there is some amount of damage that is too large and unbalancing and some amount that is too small and thus unappreciated (but still more than there is now), but I don't know if we would hit a 'happy medium' or 'uncanny valley' looking for it.

Also, something with enough regen might regen during the execution of the power? That should be rare enough to be acceptable?

I can imagine the fun some players would have trying to finish off Hamidon with an Executioner's Shot.

Makes sense, but the problem is that the current default level of villainy encompasses everything from rescuing people from demons to blinding innocent children (on the Vileness scale) and everything from making a few inf threatening people to destroying the world (on the Threat scale).

The thing is, it's all linked to (and rewarded through) gated content. I wonder if people would be willing to have a system where they were not able to get an intro to Westin Phipps until after they had earned enough 'mustache-twirling' points doing certain other missions.