I've never been the bad guy in a RP until recently, and I must say I am enjoying it.

My character has, thus far, conspired to use dynamite to block off the exit (so the allies cannot escape), poisoned the food they will soon feast on to demoralize/fatigue their troops, and made dozens of backdeals that - when the time comes - will demolish the player-alliances. And no one knows it's me.

Life is good.

I enjoy playing a bad guy as a secondary character, making everyone's lives miserable. I will still play a good guy as a primary as I want to be a hero at the end.

They will know it's you if they read this thread.

They'll know it's him when he posts...he means the character.

I thought the same thing though when I read it. >.>

Admittedly, the bad guy is fun.... provided A) you don't have to play ONLY the bad guy and B) your antiheroes/neutral characters aren't assumed to be villains because they're not 100% moral and because it's you playing them.

For a first-timer, though, you sound quite competent. Congrats. There are players out there who aspire to the level you speak of.

There is no good or bad. Only moral relativity.

I usually find myself playing the "good guys" but playing the "bad guy" definitely sounds fun lol

I don't like the words "good" and "bad" to describe it, but I do enjoy using more antagonist characters at times. It's also really hard to do, I think, but it's awesome when y'can do it well.

"Bad Guys" can be much more fun to play, but you have to let go of morals, which is quite hard to do sometimes. Even when what you're doing is not real, and has no bearing on anything what so ever. It's quite interesting really.

Ever played a game, where you get certain moral choices? You know, A) Give the kid back his bike B)Trade the bike back for the kid's hat C) Punch the kid, run off with his bike.

You have to keep hitting that C option over and over. Sometimes doing that just feels wrong though, even though you know it's a game.

Get what I'm sayin'?

I look on the bad guy as a fun option to play as. You're entire goal is to contrast with the 'heroes' in such a way as to scare them. You give a vibe that's hard to put on a name on, but everyone can tell it's just different.

I like doing it alot, as it gives me a chance to push the heroes, and get some development. It also establishes 'what' are they fighting against, the ideals of the villain define what they are opposed to.

The villain of course has many different shades if he's a good villain. It's got to be a complex problem the heroes face, or anyone could solve it. Head of that problem must be a complex character, who makes the heroes ask questions.

I myself like playing as a henchman if my character ends up on the side of the antagonists. It's good being a common "bad guy."

I wish I could play an antagonist in such a swift manner. I'm not quite at that cunning though.

I frequently gravitate towards the more antiheroic types of character It's usually those who side with villainous factions on the promise from said villains that their personal (sometimes nobler) intentions would ultimately be satisfied by their involvement. Such as one character I sided with a faction bent on pretty much wrecking the omniverse in return for the return of documents hinting to the fate/whereabouts of an estranged/missing relative. Of course, I ran that one with the intention of my character betraying/sabotaging the villains once he got what he needed back from them, and thus helping to thwart their plans.

"Bad Guys" can be much more fun to play, but you have to let go of morals, which is quite hard to do sometimes. Even when what you're doing is not real, and has no bearing on anything what so ever. It's quite interesting really.

Ever played a game, where you get certain moral choices? You know, A) Give the kid back his bike B)Trade the bike back for the kid's hat C) Punch the kid, run off with his bike.

You have to keep hitting that C option over and over. Sometimes doing that just feels wrong though, even though you know it's a game.

Get what I'm sayin'?

I don't think you necessarily have to let go of morals, your bad guy can just have their own moral code. A villain needn't be pure evil to be a villain, they just have to go about achieving a goal in the ethically wrong manner. I think the best villains are those who have some ambiguity to them. They don't always do what we might call the "wrong" thing, and their ultimate goals can even be something that a reasonable person might agree is necessary--they are relatable. Those are also the scariest villains, because then you start to see that *anyone* has potential to be a villain.

Let me give you an example from a story idea I've had for some time, but never actually written. This character, Daycan Myru. Without getting into to much detail, his people were betrayed by the king of the fictional land, Laranya, ages ago in the setting. He's now the last of his kind. His ultimate goal is to restore his people and retake the land that was promised to his people. The king at the time, however, renigged on his promise, and slaughtered Daycan's people. Daycan ends up awakening a powerful demonic-like entity to throw the land into chaos--basically causing a giant war, so in the confusion he can retake the lands that belong to him. He also intends to destroy the evil entity himself.

One can hardly blame Daycan for wanting to retake what was promised to him, to do right by his people. But he's going about it in a very nasty way. Yet he also intends to destroy this evil being that was in the world in the first place. Granted, he awoke it, but he's also going to end it, or try to anyway.

I think villains that aren't just pure black and white are the most fun to play. They seem more human, they have their own moral code of sorts, and you can still be the bad guy! Look at Anakin Skywalker's story, that's another prime example :)

I've never been the bad guy in a RP until recently, and I must say I am enjoying it.

My character has, thus far, conspired to use dynamite to block off the exit (so the allies cannot escape), poisoned the food they will soon feast on to demoralize/fatigue their troops, and made dozens of backdeals that - when the time comes - will demolish the player-alliances. And no one knows it's me.

Life is good.

Easiest way is to rationalize their actions until their morality goes off the deep-end, then keep going into super-villain territory.

Such has resulted in characters that will sit idly by to listen to the hero's sob-story origin, then proceed to beat their skull into a urinal.

This sometimes results in a mind-screw when you discover that despite your best efforts, your villain is the most heroic and identifiable character in the RP. (which is like calling the Joker a hero for the same reasons as Red Hood)
-Example: if an alliance is so flim-flam, that a single person making a few back-deals can tear it apart, is really just a huge lie to keep people calm. Best to break the illusion before it's too late.

There's a difference between being "evil" and "eeeeeviiiil"; the latter is quite insane in concept, as how many people (short of those truly mad) do things because "I'm evil and this is what evil people do." I've heard it best explained as everyone is the hero of their own story, which is both fair enough and accurate enough. Most stereotyped villains have no motives really but evil, or their motives are so transparent and phony that they are just hollow excuses to not come across as two-dimensional.

The awesome, great villains?

As stated before, the "good" bad guy - or really, the antagonist done well - has a valid reason and purpose for what it is they do, or have rationalized it in a way within their mind. For some, their conclusion might be illogical, making the villain's thought process flawed or showing signs of obvious mental illness. Others? Others are that grey area, wherein they might just be right. They might actually be the "good" guy. Some might skirt being more obvious in that realm by making what I would call as "decidedly evil actions".

It isn't often, for example, that a heroic ideal is to kill the "bad" guy. A lot of morality teaches (most) society to provide mercy or grace on someone and while it isn't always followed through, a lot of notable characters flat out refuse to kill a villain on moral grounds alone - for better and worse, no less.

But the "villain"? You can name any number of reasons or come up with conclusions as to why the character does what he or she does. If done well they're not a villain so much anymore as just the "antagonist". They're not really the "bad" guy per say, but certainly aren't on the side of the (often) obvious "heroes" and or protagonists.

That said, do I love the antagonist? Absolutely. My favorite archetype to write for is the non-heroic antihero whose goals are morally ambiguous as to if they're actually right or wrong. It feels the most natural and credible. Certainly more so than "eeeeeviiiil!". As an added note on this portion, it strikes - myself at least - as most "evil" when a character who truly is ambiguous does terrible, horrible things but rationalizes it to the point they accept it and then gleefully employ it. Sadly, that is fairly common in the real world too.

I have a tendency to make my bad guys to fall into the orange/gray morality. Even with that they can be true bastards