|
Post by snake on Jul 31, 2006 13:03:50 GMT -4
Now when I said completely for villain's sake, I didn't mean they don't have reasons for being a villain, or other things akin to that. But where is the self interest here? Its all tossed into some giant ideological lot with the Brotherhood. Where is that guy who goes "You know, I'm better then you are, and by the way, I would most definately like to take, well, just about everything you own to better my own life, dreadfully sorry. Really. Well, I'm actually not, but nothing personal regardless " That is why Roderick Kingsley will always be the best Spider-Man villain, but I digress from such a point.
|
|
|
Post by Hank McCoy on Jul 31, 2006 16:20:00 GMT -4
Arguing the purity of any particular brand of villainy is not an off limits discussion...but I'm pretty sure it doesn't do much to help the central issue. Namely: how to get stalled or never started characters into a place where people will RP with you.
In order for the kind of character you're describing to work in this kind of setting, you have to have accomplices willing to a) be constantly fooled by the villainy on display by your character, b) be subordinate to your character, and/or c) be willing to be your character's victim on a regular basis.
Doesn't matter if you're playing Adam Akimov, Roderick Kingsley, Doctor Doom or Hannibal Lecter...the fact is that if you want to play them in a game like this chances are most people are going to say "Yeah, okay....you're E-vil. Now go over there and be E-vil by yourself." because without some kind of compelling connection...i.e. flip-sides of a singular argument, family relationships, oops-you-fooled me once but never again, etc...it just isn't that much fun listening to the monologues or being beaten (or eaten) all the time. That means pre-plotting, understanding of who's doing what and which character wins this time....all kinds of stuff. Accomplices, like I said. The other alternative is to tell everyone and then there really isn't any reason to play it out.
That's why I must respectfully disagree on the use of the word "best" in relation to Roderick Kingsley. To me...the best villain would not be "most purely evil" or even "most effectively evil". It would be "most compelling to read". That makes Harry Osborn kick Kingsley's butt in my book simply on the grounds that I'd be way more excited to see that confrontation again than the Kingsley one. In fact...I remember specific lines from Harry's tenure as the Goblin and a couple of times he scared the living snot out of me. I have all of the Kingsley issues (at least the original ones) as well and I'd have trouble relating specific plot points other than the spectacular trickery involving Ned Leeds. (Was it really trickery, or did they just change their minds at the last minute? I've never been completely satisfied about that.)
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Pryde on Jul 31, 2006 17:27:23 GMT -4
Guess I better say something before I show up in my skivvies, huh? ;D
I really don’t know what to say that hasn’t been said. Different methods work for different people. Personally, I took the “blank slate” approach when I first picked up Kitty. I didn’t want to have to follow in the footsteps of anyone before me, I wanted to write my own history, and I didn’t want any existing ties. When I first started playing her, Kitty wasn’t a character I really had much exposure to, so it was more about defining my idea of her while keeping her personality as true to canon as I could without all the baggage, you know?
This worked for Kitty ‘cause she’s an outgoing person, unlike Piotr. But like Beast said, Pete sweetie, it’s never too late to fix what you feel was a mistake. What also made it work was the perfect plot for her introduction. Her first big thread, Catastrophe, still remains one of my favourites. That was more about good timing and luck, though, than anything else. Had I pulled the “showing up on the doorstep, what now?” thing, I’m certain it wouldn’t have been nearly as easy to fall into my groove.
None of that was probably any help to anyone, as it was more just a telling of my story than advice. All I can say is don’t be scared to PM people (we don’t bite unless asked or provoked) but at the same time you can’t rely on others to do all the work for you. They can’t define your character, only you can. They can assist by interacting with them, but ultimately you have to have a direction in the first place.
Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Hank McCoy on Jul 31, 2006 17:45:01 GMT -4
They can’t define your character, only you can. They can assist by interacting with them, but ultimately you have to have a direction in the first place. Great point...and a great way of drawing the distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Callie on Jul 31, 2006 18:10:43 GMT -4
funny you should mention Hannibal Lecter, Beast, I'm about 3/4 of the way through Silence of the Lambs right now. Damn good book, and he's a fascinating character, now he really is (in that book anyway) a villain for villainy's sake - he makes things difficult because it's fun - take away his pawns to play with and what are you left with? A bloody intelligent mind, that's for sure, but nothing interesting.
Maybe, if you want to play a more 'evil' character, the trick is not to play all your cards in the same hand, play it nice to begin with, ingratiate yourself. A villain for villainy's sake is not going to get far without intelligence - random fighting and destruction is going to get noticed and there is going to be action taken. It could be a brilliant, in depth and much-played character - if only you take the time to build up.
|
|
|
Post by piotr on Jul 31, 2006 18:10:44 GMT -4
Guess I better say something before I show up in my skivvies, huh? ;D To tell the truth, I did almost vote for you to appear when Henry PM'd me. This worked for Kitty ‘cause she’s an outgoing person, unlike Piotr. But like Beast said, Pete sweetie, it’s never too late to fix what you feel was a mistake. Good point, both from you and Beast, but I'm really not seriously considering that at this point. There's always that option, and I may pull it out as a plot point some time in the distant future, but for now I think I can live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Panthera on Jul 31, 2006 18:12:39 GMT -4
I'm learning to keep my mouth shut before I stick my foot in it again and just sit here admiring Hank's artwork. Bamf is just adorable. I want a plushie. >>
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Pryde on Jul 31, 2006 18:21:53 GMT -4
Guess I should be happy that was an "almost", huh? Though now I'm curious who you did vote for... ;D
Sapphire, it wouldn't be a discussion if we all kept our mouths shut.
|
|
|
Post by piotr on Jul 31, 2006 18:26:13 GMT -4
Guess I should be happy that was an "almost", huh? Though now I'm curious who you did vote for... ;D As Beast said in not so many words, I wasn't able to choose between all the beautiful ladies lurking around. You're all just so hot. Too hot.
|
|
|
Post by Hank McCoy on Jul 31, 2006 19:17:20 GMT -4
Too hot, indeed. Luckily, we have a pool.
|
|
|
Post by Christine MacTaggart on Jul 31, 2006 19:20:38 GMT -4
that's a nice shot of Kitty
|
|
|
Post by piotr on Jul 31, 2006 19:23:10 GMT -4
So, Beast, I guess I'll arrive sometime tomorrow to begin my job as your personal slave in an entirely futile attempt to repay you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Pryde on Jul 31, 2006 19:26:04 GMT -4
Eek! *hides*
|
|
|
Post by Callie on Jul 31, 2006 19:28:44 GMT -4
aww, don't hide, you look nice
|
|
|
Post by piotr on Jul 31, 2006 19:30:14 GMT -4
Hey, at least he didn't have you phasing through the floor and leaving your bikini behind. (hint hint Beast)
|
|