Keeping Bad Guys Bad

Player: "I don't know if I want to fight this guy or join him!"

Moral complexity is very interesting and thought-provoking when implemented in story-telling of any medium. However, it can lead to problems in gaming when it muddles the goals of the campaign and causes players to argue. This article is based on the assumption that your party is not comprised of murderhobos, but that topic is worthy of an entire entry itself (which I will address at a later point in time.)

Shades of Gray Morality

When it comes to tabletop RPGs, characters that are morally ambiguous and have complex motives must be implemented sparingly and carefully. Most enemies serve as cut-and-dry antagonists to the player characters. The rank and file of enemies in your game should have clear motives and intentions. This is a facet of the game that has been a staple since every edition of Dungeons and Dragons, where characters have a quite literal set moral alignments that define their behavior as good, evil, or neutral. While an enemy does not have to be evil-aligned to be a threat, they do have to have some malicious intent in order for the encounter to be satisfying.

Even if you do have some deliciously evil villain, remember that the players will need to see some kind of proof of their villainy in order to really care about their defeat. Nobody wants to be the actual antagonist of the story, causing trouble and making the game world a worse place. As long as the players see it that way it will affect their enjoyment of the game, regardless of your actual intentions.

A cool guy with charisma and a taste for world-ending destruction

Remember to show, don't tell. Show signs of what might happen if your villains succeed. Show signs of past evils and their consequences. Above all, keep your bad guys menacing and malevolent. If your villains are tyrannical, they should be seen threatening and oppressing the populace. If they are murderous, then they won't accept any negotiation before they attack. Above all, the players should have a reason to oppose them that anyone could agree upon.

While this may seem obvious, you won't believe the number of times that I have seen groups choose to avoid confrontation because they didn't see any reason to oppose the campaign's main antagonists. Even if they did take action, they would often feel like the heel rather than hero. When there is no clear reason to oppose the so-called villains, the game becomes murkier and the players become indecisive. As fascinating as this may sound, I can assure you it is not. It only causes the game to grind to a halt as the players become discomforted by the question of moral relativity. If you want to ponder the complexities of ethical ambiguity, a tabletop action game isn't the best format to use.

Introducing Moral Complexity

There is a way to implement these complexities without messing up the game, of course. My favorite instances of this are characters who are capable of redemption. Bad guys who can be reasoned with are a great way to encourage the players to sometimes seek diplomatic solutions to their problems. The important thing to remember is that these characters do not need to crop up so frequently that their entire cause seems to be composed of misguided individuals. If the players start trying to save every goblin guard they encounter, your campaign is going to cease to be an action game.

Another kind of nuanced character is the bad guy with good intentions. This is harder to pull off, because this is the one that most commonly derails a campaign. The more your players sympathize with a character, the more likely they are to support them. What you must always keep in mind is that you must show the terrible consequences of the antagonist's actions clearly and compellingly. A sympathetic villain is still a villain and must be stopped at any cost. Their actions have consequences even if they don't realize it, and their actions are inarguably wrong. If your villainous scheme is justifiable from a reasonable ethical perspective, you can bet your bottom dollar that your players are going to argue about whether or not to intervene. In a best case scenario, some of your player characters have to compromise and still regret the actions the group takes. In the worst case the party splits or your campaign falls apart.

This will not be a problem as long as you remember to provide a good reason that the 'bad' guy has to be stopped. People will suffer, the world's safety will be threatened... an objectively bad result that must be prevented. Keep this end goal in mind, and make sure it is something the players would care about it. For more neutrally aligned characters, you might resort to a more personal threat, a scenario that would endanger something important to them.

A satisfying conclusion to a redemptive story

Of course these principles should work the other way around, too. You could have an ally of the team who is not entirely good, or perhaps even evil. This is just a matter of making sure that their evilness is inconsequential to the player. As long as the character doesn't cause overt harm with their wickedness, there is a chance that your party will be willing to work with them towards a common goal. In any case, attempting to force a collaboration between characters of opposing principles is a risky proposition. Keep in mind that it is an unusual case, and be prepared in case it does not acutally work.

Conflict Can be a Good Thing

Disagreement between player characters is just fine and makes for compelling story-telling! I do not advocate a play style of characters who always get along and agree. My advice is intended to avoid situations of irreconcilable differences between characters, scenarios which affect the group as a whole. There may be plenty of times that characters don't see eye to eye or have rivalries with one another, and that's okay. There are even instances where a character's conflict with the party results in the player choosing to have his character leave the team and rolls up a new one. As long as it is in character and no player feelings are hurt, that's totally cool.

Conflict is the spice of good storytelling! Don't be afraid to go there, but just remember not to set up moral quandaries to confound the team unless you and your players are prepared for such a scenario. If that's what your game is all about, more power to ya, but inform your players clearly and specifically ahead of time and plan for it. As with all rules in tabletop, you're free to ignore any of these recommendations as long as you have an alternate plan, clear communication, and consent of your group. Make a game that your players enjoy, that they can find common ground upon. And above all, enjoy your games!

Happy ventures!