Antagonists are not easy to come up with. Notice I didn't say villains. Villains are evil for evil's sake and all that, complete with a mustache twirl or two. Villains are a subset of antagonist, at least in my mind. So if you're going to do a villain you should be able to create antagonists; I'll be writing on how to make villains next week, which use a similar process to when I make antagonists, but there are a few notable tweaks that we'll cover in that article. Antagonists are simply characters that are opposed to the players and their goals. They do not have to be "evil", nor should they be unless necessary. They might do things that are evil, but ultimately antagonists need only be opposition. If anything, I find that compelling antagonists live in a fleshed out setting, have a simple and sympathetic need which impacts the players, evidence of the problem not having a ready solution, and then ensuring the antagonist's plans affect your player characters in ways that they cannot ignore.
So the first question that I think needs to be answered is why have more antagonists than just outright villains? This is something I've been thinking about lately, a lot. Antagonists can be more varied, for the simple reason that they are only opposed to the players. You can (and should) have morally good antagonists, with honor and strong internal compasses, who oppose the players, because of their own internal goodness. You should have antagonists of every moral persuasion anyway, but throwing genuinely good people that the players like at them leads to incredibly good drama. And then at that point an actual villain becomes that much more unique and special, because creatures that actively glorify in evil are extremely rare, and need to be used sparingly.
The other reason why I try to prefer antagonists in my games is because the answers become much more difficult to navigate. If someone has a legitimate beef with the system that you live in, a system that creates order and stability, is it really right to destroy the system for their sake? Do you really have what it takes to weather the storms of social change, should it come to that? The players may find themselves hating the fact that they are opposing a particular group, and that's really not a bad thing, particularly in DnD, where murderhobos are the norm. So I usually prefer antagonists because of the questions that they raise. So, for instance, don't have the goblins go after a town because they're evil, have the goblins go after the town because they're starving to death and the humans won't give them food. Can you convince the goblins to back off long enough to get food for them? They're not hungry, they're starving. They may not be that noble, or even rational (hunger has a way of doing that). Can you convince the townsfolk to give the food necessary to get these goblins to survive (don't forget that the townsfolk may have legitimate concerns about the goblins).
If any of that actually interests you, read on!
Setting is the first key to a good antagonist. We'll have to do that in a different post, but you need to make sure that your setting is something that generates a response from the players. The setting needs to have hooks built into that get a reaction from the players, both good and bad. Obviously, make sure that no lines for the players are crossed, but there needs to be something in the setting that upsets the players, no matter how minor it may be.
Got something?
Good.
Take that thing that upsets the players and have it be key into making the antagonist what he is.
If slavery is something in your world and your players have an especial problem with it, make damn well sure the antagonist was an especially cruelly mistreated slave. Feel that twinge? That's good. That's a sign that you sympathize with the dude. And you should. You're playing him. He's one of your characters. Take that twinge, and stoke it. Whatever it takes to make that twinge into heartbreak, do it. If the antagonist comes from a place of pain there is a greater chance of him lasting longer, mostly because you'll be trying very deliberately to keep him alive.
Do. Not. Be. Stupid. About the above paragraph. Everybody has limits. Respect yours. If you accidentally push yourself too far (and that is easy to do) walk it back. Find something that is a little less painful, or at lot. I can't tell you what those limits are, but if you don't know what they are tread lightly, at least at first. You're here to play a part, not to put yourself in a mental ward. I've been there and contrary to popular belief the cookies were not worth it.
Now that the antagonist has a righteous issue with the setting, you need to have that issue generate a need. This should not be a complex need, and it should probably be more than a little emotional. This doesn't mean the antagonist should be emotional, just that what he wants needs to be grounded in something basic, primal, human. Weave this need into everything the character does. And then work out the practical stuff that the antagonist needs in order to realize his goal. So, to continue with the slavery thing, that person wants to free his parents. Oh, but wait! His parents are slaves to the king. Who just happens to be a jerk. So in order to free his parents the antagonist has to overthrow the government. That means he needs a revolution. That means riots, propaganda wars, and destabilizing whole regions and trying to make the king look bad in the process. Or maybe he's just out for assassinating the king, could be he has a successor in mind.
Of course the next thing is to make sure that all this affects the players' characters. When in doubt as to how to do this make it personal: kidnap or injure loved ones, burn homes to the ground, corrupt allies, whatever it takes to make this guy be hated by the players. Make sure not to antagonize your players, but you had better antagonize their characters. Whatever it takes, do it. It doesn't even have to be something the antagonist does directly, but it could be something indirectly linked to him. While it's bad that the antagonist hurts someone the PCs love, isn't it just a tad bit more tragic to have that person be injured as side result? Sometimes the most heartbreaking things are when it's really nobody's fault, even if the player characters are not so understanding.
Antagonists are some of the most fun a GM can have. You can make problems that the players need to take a moment to stop and think about, which can be a lot of fun. So make sure to key the antagonists into the setting in a way that the players don't like, make sure his needs are simple and primal and sympathetic, while still opposed to the players, and then make sure the players can't avoid this guy. Make sure to respect all the boundaries involved (yours included) and you should get pretty far with what I've outlined.
No comments:
Post a Comment