ID:265199
 Jan 4 2003, 5:20 am
|
|
I need ideas for a bad guy in my new game. So far I have that his name is Minorion and he is a reincarnated form of Minotaur. What I wanna know is what kind of bad guy Byond would want. So give me your opinions on what s/he should be. Thank You!
| |
|
Jan 4 2003, 9:18 am
|
|
Gughunter
 |
Make him the leader of a small, impoverished nation, who solicits money from other countries to feed his people, but then spends it all on himself. There are plenty of real-life examples to work from!
|
A Bad Guy who is only doing the bad thing because he thinks that's what's right. He is honestly a good person inside. He has a wife, three children, and two pets, and he loves them all. He doesn't embezzle funds, he doesn't lavish the wealth of the organisation on himself, and he treats all of his underlings with respect and dignity.
If players had any heart at all, they'd certainly find it difficult to kill this person. | |
Not really, especially if he was mentioning phrases such as "I'm deeply sorry for this, but I can't change the law" or "Please understand that I bear no animosity for you; I'm only doing my job".
| |
If players had any heart at all, they'd certainly find it difficult to kill this person. Being down right evil I'd have no problem taking him out if the price is right :). | |
Then at near death. "I have wondeful children, a loving wife want to see the pictures. This is us at this very loving family reunion when my wife said she never wanted to lose me."
I would back off in 5 seconds. Actually make it if you kill him you feel extreme guilt that reverberates in your mind (constant spamming of You feel remorse for ...) until you remake your character or save the person you just got. That would be really funny. =] | |
Spuzzum wrote:
A Bad Guy who is only doing the bad thing because he thinks that's what's right. He is honestly a good person inside. He has a wife, three children, and two pets, and he loves them all. He doesn't embezzle funds, he doesn't lavish the wealth of the organisation on himself, and he treats all of his underlings with respect and dignity. Such people would have difficulty operating in a criminal environment. It's hard to convince decent people to break the law even on the best of days, and either the underlings or the bad guy would eventually end up working with thugs. Thugs would have difficulty respecting such a man's power, and would probably have to be taught periodic object lessons in order to keep them from tearing the organization apart. Such is the way of crooks. A person whose only motives were ultimately from a twisted morality would have trouble dealing with those kinds of people. However if you take out the "because he thinks that's what's right" part, much of what you described could be a mob boss. Although treating "all" underlings with dignity is going a bit far, there's definitely a sense that they're part of the family. The wealth of the organization would definitely spread to everyone by varying degrees, though it would still concentrate at the top. The boss may or may not think of themselves as a good person. But then, look at all the things that would be condoned by such a person in the pursuit of maintaining their organization, and whether they love their pets really becomes irrelevant. The "bad things" would include killing other people who had pets and kids and wives and loved their own families. Then look at cult leaders like the wacko who ran that Heaven's Gate cult, who convinced his entire group to commit mass suicide in 1997. Bad things done because he thought they were right. A man who no doubt held great love and respect and dignity for his followers. But he was insane, and he drove a lot of troubled people to their deaths. Someone who believes they're a good person isn't necessarily a good person. Lummox JR | |
I never mentioned anything about a criminal environment. =)
I'm speaking of more of a military sense. For example, the general who is tearing up your land is only doing so because that is what he was told to do. To defy his leader would mean death, so he chooses blind obedience. Sure, that's a capital error in judgement, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world who wouldn't do the same. It's something a player could relate to, and if they could relate to it, they'd feel bad if they ended its existence. | |
This looks like a good opening for one of my very favorite Simpsons songs...
Scorpio! He'll sting you with his dreams of power and wealth. Beware of Scorpio! His twisted twin obsessions are his plot to rule the world, and his employees' health. He'll welcome you into his lair like the nobleman welcomes his guest, With free dental care and a stock plan that helps you invest. But beware of his generous pensions, plus three weeks' paid vacation each year, And on Fridays the lunchroom serves hot dogs and burgers and beer. He loves German beer! | |
Spuzzum wrote:
I never mentioned anything about a criminal environment. =) I don't think any general chooses "blind" obedience. Someone in that position would at least have some idea of what their leader was thinking, and would decide either to agree with it or disagree, and then whether to go along with their edict or not. Those are two separate choices, though. Sure, that's a capital error in judgement, but you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone else in the world who wouldn't do the same. It's something a player could relate to, and if they could relate to it, they'd feel bad if they ended its existence. I think you're looking at a general the wrong way, applying instead the model of a conscript soldier. It's easier to feel for a conscript soldier, who's dragged into the army by forces beyond his control and must obey. Sometimes it's still necessary to shoot at them, however, particularly if they're shooting at you. In Desert Storm a lot of these guys surrendered, though, and they got treated well and eventually released. But to decide to surrender they basically had to believe that 1) we'd kill them if pressed to, and 2) we'd treat them decently if they gave up. A general is a much different story, though. They're drawn mostly by choice up the ranks, and usually only survive in a cruel regime if they're loyal not just in deed but in thought to their leader. Unlike a conscript soldier a lot of what they become was avoidable. That doesn't mean the general should necessarily be shot if he's willing to give himself up, although I wouldn't trust him a whole lot. Then of course there are people like the Nazi SS, who we discussed recently. They believed they were doing the right thing too, and I'm sure they had families and such that they loved. And I'd put a bullet in one of those dirtbags without hesitation. Lummox JR | |
Exadv1 wrote:
Then at near death. "I have wondeful children, a loving wife want to see the pictures. This is us at this very loving family reunion when my wife said she never wanted to lose me." "You should have thought of that before you had that informant stuffed into a trash can." Actions have consequences, including killing the bad guy. But the bad guy, particularly a leader, becomes one by choice. He sustains his power by evil deeds even if he believes they're absolutely right, but that doesn't mean he's any less culpable for what he does. Lummox JR | |
Just something to add to that. If you arent willing to shoot the enemy without hesitation you have no business being in the army. My dad got out of the navy becuase he said he wasnt able to do this(although, im not sure when he would have occasion to do it, he was a nuclear engineer on an aircraft carrier.)
| |
Someone who believes they're a good person isn't necessarily a good person. Ain't that the truth! Which is really funny if you stop to think that most people consider themselves 'good'.... Anyway, I've always been kind of fond of sympathetic 'bad guys'. One of my favorite RPG campaigns revolved around the hunt for a ruthless usurper who constantly formented revolt in a prosperous kingdom. He left whole villages in ashes, children wounded and screaming. The players learned to hate him. Eventually they cornered him and captured him. They demanded explanations for his evil. And so he gave it. He told of the corruption that left people starving in the streets well wealthy feasted, that sentenced innocents to death because they couldn't afford defense, of property and lives confiscated simply because they could be. He was sorry people had died, had suffered, but that was the only way that people would see what was going on. Orphans were made by generals blindly sending imperial soldiers into ambush. At least he fought on the front lines with his men, unlike the cowardly aristocracy who hid behind the lives of their soldiers and starving masses. Imagine the look on the players' faces whenever they realized that evry word they said was true. Classic lesser of two evils scenario. Good stuff. -James | |
That was, in a nutshell, what I was trying to describe. Different perspectives -- Terrorists don't think the Americans are killing terrorists, they think they are killing Muslims. Americans don't think they're killing Muslims, they think they're killing terrorists. Both are right, but the degree of correctness depends on your beliefs.
| |
I think the most compelling "bad guy" I've seen in a game had to be the two Ur-Quan in Star Control 2. Basically, the Ur-Quan were a predator race. When they could travel through space, they joined a group of sentient space-travellers. While in this group, one scout found an evil race called the Dnyarri, who possesed psychic powers, and the Dnyarri immediately dominated the galaxy. The one race that they couldn't use their powers on, a race of non-organic lifeforms (the Taalo), they ordered the Ur-Quan to destroy. These were their only friends (being solitary predators at heart). This, of course, really twisted them up. The Ur-Quan, the Dnyarri's favorite race, were split into two different sub-races, one was green, and one was black. The Kzer-za and the Kohr-ah, respectively. Eventually, the Dnyarri were destroyed. The Kzer-za and the Kohr-ah, really, really pissed off at the series of events, each went on to try and dominate the universe in their own way. The kzer-za dominated races, and either enlisted them to fight for them, or trapped them on their worlds with "slave shields." The Kohr-ah, on the other hand, went around "cleansing" the universe, destroying every other form of life. And, of course, because of their comflicting views, the Kzer-za and the Kohr-ah fight each other as well.
The point is, the "bad guys" have a perfectly understandable purpose: they were twisted by years of domination, and in order to protect themselves, they want to make sure it could never happen again. Long story short, I think the best enemy is an enemy with a good back-story. No run-of-the-mill evil magicians trying to destroy the world/galaxy/universe/dimension for me! | |
I think the Metal Gear Solid series does a good job of that. I feel bad after killing some of the bosses. That helps you get into the game more.
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
I think the Metal Gear Solid series does a good job of that. I feel bad after killing some of the bosses. That helps you get into the game more. Yeah, me too. They're bad all around, and they're your enemy, but that doesn't mean they aren't people. I don't really think MGS2 did a good job of that, myself. The encounters in MGS2 seemed far more... contrived. Spoiler, if you're one of the few people who have been living in a cave (under a rock) and haven't played MGS yet (what's wrong with you?!): (<font color=black>Seriously, I almost cried when that resounding gunshot echoed over the arctic wastes after Sniper Wolf's final encounter. I tend to be a player who will do whatever it takes to end someone's suffering quickly (i.e. if I shoot someone in the leg, I'll make sure to finish the job before I shoot someone else -- it's them or me, but that doesn't mean I have to be barbaric about it), but ending someone's suffering while they're laying helpless on the ground, riddled with bulletholes... that just hurt.</font>) | |