Some people have a certain distaste for Dungeons and Dragons due to its "unrealistic quality". I do not intend to address them, since the entire point of the game, in my opinion, is to be unrealistic. Were it more real, it would then fail in its primary purpose.
However, never let it be said that I cannot allow for a certain measure of criticism. In this case, what I see is too many DM's running games with no adequate concept of Evil. This is understandable. Evil is by nature a shadowy force, less understood than experienced. However, this does not excuse the DM from error.
The answer, then, lies in using Evil properly. And to do that, one must first understand that PC's rarely, if ever, face Evil directly in its most raw form. That means that only a few, terribly rare human or demihuman villains will exhibit a truly foul presence upon the world. Ergo, the rest of them must have some traits that we consider "good". This is not hard to reconcile even if one foolishly insists that D&D has an absolute alignment system (it is, rather Objective, but too few understand the differences). After all, no human being is wholly evil, absolute or not. As the saying goes, "Mussolini made the trains run on time."
But how should one use this key idea? If no normal sentient villain (all non-monsters) can be characterized as wholly evil, how does this change the nature of the game? To illustrate, I shall indulge in an example wrought by a Lawful Evil character.
"Sans Morality"
LE Tiefling Rogue 6, Ranger 3
Member of the Special Police Command, Loyalty Officer, Thayan Patriotism Brigade. Rank: Captain. Worshipper of Kossuth.
As a Lawful Evil character, our Tiefling follows the laws of his society. He does not follow them perfectly, but he does follow the ones he knows matter. He won't kill someone unless he knows they are enemies of his country, which he knows is superior to those weak ones around it. His job is to hunt down traitors, escaped slaves, spies, and rebels. He is the son of a Thayan Red Wizardess, whose grandmother made certain pacts with certain fiends.
Sans is very brutal in his fury, and he eliminates "national enemies" with unnatural zeal. His superiors appreciate his talents, so long as they are kept in check. They are. However, despite being Lawful Evil, Sans is not a cold and inhuman being, nor is he filled with a constant bloodlust for mortal lives. Sans has a family. Granted, his is not the most loving of families. You will find very few happy people among the Mulan racial caste of Thay. Yet, for all that he doesn't get along with his parents, Sans would act in their interest. He would fight to protect them, quite fiercely. No one knows what would happen if he were ordered to eliminate his parents. Some people, however, would say this loyalty is merely familiarity or conditioning.
San's actions toward his Tiefling sister, however, cannot be easily explained away. Indeed, one can only state that they do love each other. They fight side by side, live side by side, and work side by side, even to the point of foolhardiness. Not only do they live together, but they feel a certain spiritual pain when the other is wounded or threatened. Hence, they stay together so as to always be able to protect one another. Anybody who slays one must be willing to die at the hands of the other.
What is this feeling? What is this loyalty? Can it merely be dismissed as some twisted sense of duty? No! Love is the answer. Here, in fact, is the most base of demihumans. Yet even they have a spark or goodness, that, if fed properly, could be fanned into fire equal to any force for evil. No one could force or trick Sans into becoming good. Yet by gently pressure acting upon the basic tie of holiness in all beings, he might be encouraged to choose to change his path.
This then, offers players another "way out" of scenarios. Even the most jaded of good characters will be less aggressive if they see another way to succeed instead of slaughter. If they take the battle to Sans and his sister and his hunters, no one could say that is wrong. How, if this is no lack of virtue, how much more holy would redeeming him be? A good character should jump at the chance. Or, if that is not currently possible, then perhaps mercy would be best. Does the party really need to kill their foes? This becomes an advantage for the DM, who may retain old villains to plague the party over a larger storyline.
This consideration also changes the way villains act. Often, DM's set up no logical system of behavior for Evil beings. However, A Chaotic Evil Ravager may still have some act so base or vile he would not do it. The characters may not see this; it is not always important. Yet using such things make villains seem realistic in a fashion they otherwise do not exhibit. This also has the ancillary effect or helping a DM ask why their villain is acting in a given way. Goons do not need a rationale beyond their immediate payment by a bigger villain, but major characters should have one. Essentially, Evil villains are not totally Evil, and they are rational beings, although not perfectly so.
Mostly. D&D, in fact, includes some that are not only totally Evil, they are the literal definition or Evil. Fiends present powerful, magical, and above all intelligent foes for you characters. Play them as such. Some, of course, will be the bound slaves of powerful spellcasters. They hate that. They are the ones who should be in charge! It is as if a bunch of ants shackled you and ordered you to kill their rivals. They will do their utmost to crush the weakling mortals who dare to challenge their power, be it the summoner or a party he's set the fiend against.
And when they have the upper hand Fiends are going to take out their fury on the weak and inferior mortals with a vengeance. And believe me, they get nasty. Mere death will not be enough to appease them. What happens when the Fighter finds that the man he was drinking with last night turns up dead... in the Fighter's hotel room? What if the Wizard finds he's been poisoned slowly over a period of months with a magical toxin that affects only him, and makes him unpredictable and bloodthirsty in combat, to the point of not caring who he Fireballs?
Fiends know that the place mortal adventurers are weak is not their bodies, but their hearts, minds, and souls. When a Fiends attack you finally, it should be after he's gone to some lengths to make you beg for death. That is how they savour the sweet taste of Evil.
Of course, there is a caveat for the Fiends. Above all else, there is one thing they simply cannot stand. It isn't good, exactly. Rather, it is a particular form of Good. They fear it. They can see it in the eyes of warrior who has stopped being afraid of them. This warrior knows the bastard's can make it costly, and the price all must pay is costly, but worth it to cleans the world of an Evil that will always be doing such things to someone, somewhere. At this point, the Fiends know there is nothing they can do but die. No matter what they fight back with, they cannot assault his soul, and that's where the real battle is.
Anything they try is mere puny retaliation, which will get them nowhere, and they know it.
They are likely not to even try, since it will only result in an even worse outcome. And that is why of all the things in the multiverse, the one that fiends fear the most is the mortal Paladin. From the Fiend's perspective, such beings have nothing to lose, and there is possible deterrent. They have no fear of Evil and only pity and wrath for those who spread it. They can try to fight; they may even win the battle. But they cannot win the war, and every dead paladin simply makes the forces of Good stronger. Every martyred hero inspires six more, every dead champion increases the brilliance of the higher planes. Need, the very nature of D&D implies that so long as the good people of the world stand strong, Evil literally cannot win. This has been a staple of modern fiction from Tolkein forward.
Ultimately, this leads to a definite examination of the nature of Evil itself. Defining Evil is hard, as I have stated, because by its nature it shuns discovery. Yet one can make some statements about Evil, which will be more or less accurate depending on the world and villain in question.
- Evil is the antithesis of Good. (Obviously)
- Evil is the corruption of a thing, system or idea into a form opposing its original purpose, which presumably was supposed to be good.
- Evil is in a state of disharmony with its surroundings in that it seeks to control, dominate, and rule others.
- Evil is the placing of a personal goal above the value of an individual, thereby treating them as if they were of no more value than an object.
These attributes are the quintessential characteristics of all fiends, regardless of the variant of their alignment. In creating a villain, use these principles to understand the nature of his, her or its Evil. Power and wealth are the classic motivations, and for good reason. Desire for such can be directly related to points (3) and (4) and often leads to point (2). This is also one reason why so few rulers are paladins, despite their personal power, link with a God or Gods, martial skill, and excellent leadership capabilities. Paladins rarely seek to rule, for they refuse to be bound by point (3) and understand the temptations of point (2).
In our previous example, "Sans Morality" is tainted by the Evil inherent in point (4). In taking the goals of the group over his own, he has gained no particular good, for Thay has a cruel, rapacious public morality. And as a result, he considers certain people to be nothing more than means to an end.
To create a good villain, one needs only a dastardly plot and a few gimmicks. The greatest villains demand much more. A great villain needs to be motivated in a fashion not only believable to the party, but motivated in a way characters find sympathetic. With Sans, here, the desire for order and glory dominate all else. Were the party to kill his sister, he would gain an additional motivation to avenge her death, finding justice, as he sees it, in her name. Would the party not do the same for their beloved siblings? When a villain can fight the party and they admire him for it, at least on an unspoken level, then you have a great villain.
In the end, a great villain is not judged not by the content of his plot, but by the content of his character.
