Thinking some more about it, I think the biggest challenge is the specific case of the player, rather than how a villian in general is created.

Playing a villian is a tricky task to design in the manner you're talking about because of the view of the player. Im not sure it would be possible to have a player develop into a villian in the same way as they can develop into a hero and still have a fun play experience.

The problem is the difference between the player's values and the character's values. Basically, it seems to me that the situation falls under two cases, neither of which seem to be what you are aiming towards. Either:

1. The player is lead down the path of a villian, where the game carefully directs their value system to be different to that of others around them so that they are doing what they feel they have to, but not what others see as being good.
The problem with this is that, if accomplished successfully, the player is basically a villian without realising it; they are simply following their own goals, and it would require a lot of effort for them not to become disillusioned or resentful when other players/characters react unfavourably to their goals.
This is true to a villian (in fact probably an important factor in the growth from "bad guy" to "head villian")... but it is not fun for the player.

2. The player's values are not guided, only those of their character. Thus the player can enjoy the chance to be evil without being resentful of opposition, because they know they are doing "evil". However, this also doesnt really fit the sort of causal development that you are aiming at, because rather than a player following values, it becomes more about the player being evil for its own sake in order for the experience to be fun and rewarding.

Something of a digression, though.

Thankfully, I did manage to come up with an on-topic point :P
That of the opposition to the values of the villian breeding resentment and conflict, and thus growing the villian to stray even further from "normal" values and further into villiany.

That's true, and it's why playing an evil character in RPGs seems wrong to me; most RPGs these days only have evil implemented as the moustache-twirling black cape villain variety, rather than the opposing moral viewpoint type.

But once again I'm probably misinterpreting what I want; sorry, I'm in the middle of the design and the nature of the game is rather hard to explain at the moment. For now, the best way to explain it is the player will not be in direct control of this particular hero/villain, but can influence their choices. Think of it as an NPC that is in the process of becoming a hero, but could become a villain if pushed the wrong way.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Thankfully, I did manage to come up with an on-topic point :P
That of the opposition to the values of the villian breeding resentment and conflict, and thus growing the villian to stray even further from "normal" values and further into villiany.

That's a good point; the misunderstood character turning to the villain archetype to "show" everyone the correct way of thinking. A lot of really good villain characters fit this mould. This means I'll have to have some way of modelling philosophical beliefs of NPCs in my game, but that's something I've been thinking about. If a character has a different set of beliefs from the rest of society, then they are likely to either become a hero (and teach by example) or a villain (and teach by force). That's a good addition to the game, although possibly a bit tricky to implement in a freeform way.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
I'm in the middle of the design and the nature of the game is rather hard to explain at the moment. For now, the best way to explain it is the player will not be in direct control of this particular hero/villain, but can influence their choices. Think of it as an NPC that is in the process of becoming a hero, but could become a villain if pushed the wrong way.

I see what you mean now, and so I'll revise my above opinion that it would be prohibitively difficult...

Perhaps an analogy might be a more story-based (as opposed to a direct cause and effect interaction basis) equivalent of the Black&White pet, where it is a semi-autonomous agent with its own internal state, but linked directly to the player's input. (Or perhaps not)


I can also now see how your question differs from the answers... you are not so much interested in the cause and effect as the process or factors which differentiate the path to different effects.
In that case, Id say its the character's inherent personality traits which will be of key importance - their ability to empathise with other people (and therefore feel bad for hurting them), their willpower and pride (which would prevent them giving up on the "normal" value system), their inherent pettiness (which will determine how much importance they give to the results of any particular event), and their tendancy to overreact or over-value a situation (which will lead to greater effect in the other areas).

By no means a complete list, simply a few thoughts which came to mind while trying to elaborate.

(OT - I finally remembered to get around to fixing my login so I can actually post with a name. Yay :P)

Quote: Original post by caffiene
I can also now see how your question differs from the answers... you are not so much interested in the cause and effect as the process or factors which differentiate the path to different effects.

Yes, that's exactly it; the character traits (or elements of chance) that lead someone to picking the path of villainy over the path of heroism.

Quote:
In that case, Id say its the character's inherent personality traits which will be of key importance - their ability to empathise with other people (and therefore feel bad for hurting them), their willpower and pride (which would prevent them giving up on the "normal" value system), their inherent pettiness (which will determine how much importance they give to the results of any particular event), and their tendancy to overreact or over-value a situation (which will lead to greater effect in the other areas).

By no means a complete list, simply a few thoughts which came to mind while trying to elaborate.

That's a pretty good starting list; I guess I had a few of those ideas floating around in my subconscious but was having difficulty putting them down in words (that's the value of the forums; discussing ideas with people helps formalise what you're thinking as well as suggest new ideas). A lot of those things might be hard to model properly, but I like the idea of including empathy as a basis character trait. I guess I'll make it so that the previous experiences of the character will heavily impact which choice they'll make; a character who cares about a lot of friends is much more likely to be a hero than one who is frequently bullied by his neighbours.

By the way, has anyone got a good term for a character archetype that could refer to both a hero and a villain? It's just a bit clunky referring to hero/villains all the time, and they have too many similarities as archetypes to consider them separately.

Might I suggest "Tagonist"? It sounds really silly...
just thought of dropping the Pro/An off of Protagonist/Antagonist.

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Might I suggest "Tagonist"? It sounds really silly...
just thought of dropping the Pro/An off of Protagonist/Antagonist.

It's a bit silly, I agree. I've had a search for literary terms though, and "principal" sounds like it works here, as in a leading actor in a play.

I've also found out that "protagonist" really only refers to the first leading actor (I should have guessed from the "pro-" prefix meaning one.) Technically the other leading actors are given terms like "deuteragonist" and "tritagonist" for the 2nd and 3rd leading actors. I'll just find which Greek terms I like and build some new words out of them for my own brand of terminology.

I can think of some causes of evil behaviour:

Sociopath: Completely lacking in empathy, the trait is inate, and sociopaths tend to be quite charismatic; perhaps because they can lie and not feel any guilt. They say what they need to get what they want, and are often very calculating.

Victim: This person has been victimized and no longer trusts others, they see everyone as a potential enemy, and as such do not emphasize with them and may even delight in the misery of others. A victim sees the world as a competition which they refuse to lose again. This trait will probably result from some kind of traumatic experience. This can also apply to what in "Fight Club" was referred to as an "oxford-cloth psycho," a nice guy who finished last one too many times and turns to evil as a result.

Perpetual Martyr: This person feels that the world is out to get them, and that anything bad that happens to them is the result of external factors. They will usuallly attribute bad results to either luck, money, or some vague conspiracy.

Vietnam Complex: This person is willing to "blow up a village to save it" a person who has good intentions, but executes them with either severe ruthlessness, or in a way that is extreme. This is probably the most interesting villian, in that you can show how a series of good-natured compromises produces unspeakable evil in the end, all the while with the villian proclaiming he's a hero.

Bully/Sadist: This person derives feelings of power from the suffering of others. He lacks empathy not because of mental defect, but because he fails to understand the concept. A bully has a strong Insider/Outsider mentality, he can be very kind to his mother, then turn around and torture animals, or harm others.

It really comes down to empathy, all catagories are either lacking in, or actively supress any feelings of empathy for other people. In the "Vietnam Complex" scenario they dehumanize their enemy, thinking of them as charlies or tangos, in the Martyr and Victim parts they try to project blame on others and in that sense dehumanize them. Then with the Bully and Sociopath they either have no empathy or don't quite understand it.

Also, I'd say protagonist is the best way to describe the hero/villain, assuming there's only one.

That's a good shortlist, Horatius83. Simplifying your categories a bit, and from what other people have added (and my own opinions, of course), that narrows it down to the following villain types:

- Lack of Empathy/Amorality: whether due to mental defect or upbringing; the villain has a diminished or total lack of care of the suffering of others or no moral code to hold them back (the Sociopath, Bully and Sadist fall into this category)

- Avenging Victim: the character has had some traumatic experience or setback, and is now out seeking revenge (the Victim, Perpetual Martyr and Repressed Idealist fall into this category, although the Idealist might also fall in the third categoy)

- Conflicting Ideals: the villain is operating on a different (and more extreme) set of ideology to the heroes (the Vietnam Complex is this type)

I think this is enough for me to get started on for my game design, thanks everyone!

Quote: Original post by Horatius83
Also, I'd say protagonist is the best way to describe the hero/villain, assuming there's only one.

That's the problem, there's lots of heroes and villains in many stories (and my design). While usually there's a leading hero, sometimes in RPGs it's hard to know who the single lead protagonist is.