It's not a perfect match- the Lying Darkness wants to destroy everything because it regrets creating everything, while the Ebon Dragon... doesn't. On the other hand, we're already merrily butchering away at the settings to make them both fit, at least on the back end.
It's not a perfect match- the Lying Darkness wants to destroy everything because it regrets creating everything, while the Ebon Dragon... doesn't. On the other hand, we're already merrily butchering away at the settings to make them both fit, at least on the back end.
The Ebon Dragon doesn't have a Motivation, but he has an Urge: "Darken all of existence until Virtue and light cease to be, leaving blackened chaos upon which his will alone dictates possibility."
And what 'replacements', would these be, pray tell? A return to his existence in 1e? An actually poignant character that doesn't exist to turn the same shadowy mustache for eternity?
Personally I was never fond of how enamored Neph was of making his villains some shade of loser. The Neverborn were losers, the Yozis were losers, the Deathlords were losers, and the Ebon Dragon is the epitome of abject loserdom. They're powerful on paper but they're all written as such petty and small-minded pieces of crap that I can't help but remain unimpressed.
I like loser villains, possibly because I almost never find villains impressive. Loser villains ring true to me. And a good loser villain is not just powerful on paper, they're powerful in every way, and being unimpressive won't stop them from destroying everything you love.
And what 'replacements', would these be, pray tell? A return to his existence in 1e? An actually poignant character that doesn't exist to turn the same shadowy mustache for eternity?
The most common alternative seems to be basically the same, except without characteristics. People talk about things they think are bad, suggest they be removed, and offer nothing to replace them.
That's probably still better than going back to 1e, since from what I can tell the 1e Ebon Dragon wasn't so much a character as a footnote. People's attempts to expand on that footnote have not impressed me. Been a while since I read any, though, so please don't ask for details.
I'm not sure what purpose poignancy would serve here. The Ebon Dragon doesn't exist to twirl his mustache or to feel deep feelings. He exists to do things. To make things happen, to interact with PCs, to serve as the force behind various smaller NPCs. And to provide Charms, of course. The 2e Ebon Dragon does all that and does it well. His characterisation gives him a solid motivation (which he had in 1e as well, to be fair) and a methodology that's uniquely his (which was new). That's what I want out of a big villain NPC: a reason for them to make trouble and a different angle on trouble-making than the other villains offer. Makes for a nice bonus if they're easy to hate, which Eddie obviously is.
Plus, absolute anti-virtue makes for a pretty good Charmset.
I like loser villains, possibly because I almost never find villains impressive. Loser villains ring true to me. And a good loser villain is not just powerful on paper, they're powerful in every way, and being unimpressive won't stop them from destroying everything you love.
The most common alternative seems to be basically the same, except without characteristics. People talk about things they think are bad, suggest they be removed, and offer nothing to replace them.
That's probably still better than going back to 1e, since from what I can tell the 1e Ebon Dragon wasn't so much a character as a footnote. People's attempts to expand on that footnote have not impressed me. Been a while since I read any, though, so please don't ask for details.
I'm not sure what purpose poignancy would serve here. The Ebon Dragon doesn't exist to twirl his mustache or to feel deep feelings. He exists to do things. To make things happen, to interact with PCs, to serve as the force behind various smaller NPCs. And to provide Charms, of course. The 2e Ebon Dragon does all that and does it well. His characterisation gives him a solid motivation (which he had in 1e as well, to be fair) and a methodology that's uniquely his (which was new). That's what I want out of a big villain NPC: a reason for them to make trouble and a different angle on trouble-making than the other villains offer. Makes for a nice bonus if they're easy to hate, which Eddie obviously is.
Plus, absolute anti-virtue makes for a pretty good Charmset.
He wasn't originally a villain, was the thing. They just randomly made him one because Dark Snake = Top Evil. He was just some Yozi trying and failing to bust out, not the big bad, at least not more than the other Yozi. He was never Satan, he was a snake in love with shadows and fighting the doomed fight.
Personally I was never fond of how enamored Neph was of making his villains some shade of loser. The Neverborn were losers, the Yozis were losers, the Deathlords were losers, and the Ebon Dragon is the epitome of abject loserdom. They're powerful on paper but they're all written as such petty and small-minded pieces of crap that I can't help but remain unimpressed.
I'm growing more and more certain that I don't actually understand what people mean when they're saying "loser villain." Are they losers because they lost, or is it something else?
I'm growing more and more certain that I don't actually understand what people mean when they're saying "loser villain." Are they losers because they lost, or is it something else?
The other definition. Uncool, sucky, lame kind of loser.
Which I mean. Some villains can be losers. Saying all villains are losers makes me rapidly lose interest in having to treat losers seriously. Lacks gravitas.
I'm growing more and more certain that I don't actually understand what people mean when they're saying "loser villain." Are they losers because they lost, or is it something else?
He wasn't originally a villain, was the thing. They just randomly made him one because Dark Snake = Top Evil. He was just some Yozi trying and failing to bust out, not the big bad, at least not more than the other Yozi. He was never Satan, he was a snake in love with shadows and fighting the doomed fight.
Yes, and I think the change was an improvement, gameplay-wise.
Although maybe change isn't the right word. Because while he wasn't Satan, he wasn't not Satan, either. He was loosely-defined enough that the 2e version could grow out of the 1e version. I've got the Games of Divinity passage open right now, and the only part that stopped being true is the bit about his escape being impossible. And since it specifically says that "the Yozis have given him the task of breaking their durance, and his plans work always to free him from his cell" I can see why the 2e writers chose him as architect of the Reclamation.
I'm growing more and more certain that I don't actually understand what people mean when they're saying "loser villain." Are they losers because they lost, or is it something else?
Can't speak for others, but I mean a villain who's not impressive, admirable, or grand. A villain with loser-type flaws like pettiness, cowardice, and laziness.
I'm growing more and more certain that I don't actually understand what people mean when they're saying "loser villain." Are they losers because they lost, or is it something else?
No, being defeated and wanting revenge is a standard villain motivation. My objection is that the Yozis were literally written as spoiled children incensed at how unfair their circumstances are, that the Deathlords were more concerned with petty personal dramas than their own ambitions, and the Neverborn were not simply written as broken and obscene but petty and spiteful, with their grudges being the only reason they're so tormented in the first place.
Once or twice is fine. Not every villain needs to be a badass to be frightening, and a lot of bad people are defined by their personality flaws But this is a trend for almost every major antagonist, and it sort of got old and boring. They're more likely to undermine themselves than the PCs ever are, both because previous editions had them untouchable stat wise as far as the players were concerned, and simply because of their tendency to self harm and make awful choices.
Ravenloft's Dark Lords are also losers, but they still managed to come off as more compelling. The Dark Lords are characterized entirely by making terrible choices that leave them stuck in a hell of their own making. But even then, Strahd or Azalin always manage to still be more dangerous than pathetic, even if their own worst enemies are themselves, not the PCs. Meanwhile Malfeas is depicted as a mutilated nutjob who has been on a perpetual temper tantrum since the Primordial War.
My issue isn't the depiction itself, it can be cool and interesting to make a godlike entity utterly petty and human in terms of personality. My issue is in terms of the degree to which it is emphasized, and the proportion of characters that have these flaws.
And what 'replacements', would these be, pray tell? A return to his existence in 1e? An actually poignant character that doesn't exist to turn the same shadowy mustache for eternity?
Although maybe change isn't the right word. Because while he wasn't Satan, he wasn't not Satan, either. He was loosely-defined enough that the 2e version could grow out of the 1e version. I've got the Games of Divinity passage open right now, and the only part that stopped being true is the bit about his escape being impossible. And since it specifically says that "the Yozis have given him the task of breaking their durance, and his plans work always to free him from his cell" I can see why the 2e writers chose him as architect of the Reclamation.
I think it's worth quoting, for the thread, the passage in question.
Article:
The Ebon Dragon is the shadow of every creature that has ever lived.
At the edge of the dragon, the world dims, as insect shadows blur together and form an undifferentiated gray pall. As one moves into the dragon's flesh, black shadows appear. These shadows take on the shapes of humans, demons, spirits and things, and none have an obvious source. As one moves still further inward, the shadows fade to undifferentiated darkness. That darkness has a face.
If the Ebon Dragon crawls along the ground, he casts his shadows on the earth. When he flies atop the clouds, he dims them to black. When he flies through empty air, his shadows fall on the sky itself and darken all the world beneath.
The Demon City has no night, but on occasion, the Ebon Dragon passes under the sun. Then, the green light fades away. The stomach bottle bugs chirp. Demons, disquieted and unhappy, clear the streets. The things that hunt only in darkness stir beneath the stone and rise into the sky.
The Ebon Dragon is not a creature of the living world. Even before his imprisonment, he partook in the essence of the other side, of the things that follow life. He sipped from the hidden springs beneath the world where one should not drink and loved only those doomed to die and, of them, only those whose deaths would change the world.
He has claimed a new fiance, taken her captive within the shadows. He speaks not of the matter. But in the song of Erembour, who is among his souls, there is distress; for it may be that this consort will live.
The Ebon Dragon's nature is to test his prison. He does not trust the work of the gods to contain him, for he is that which they are not. Thus, the Yozis have given him the task of breaking their durance, and his plans work always to free him from his cell. This effort is doomed, but it may be that the Ebon Dragon may damn Creation along the way.
He's...well I mean firstly saying that he's a footnote when he gets a section by himself along with something like three subordinate souls is underselling it a bit. Honestly in 1e, at least here, he's portrayed as dangerous but not necessarily- not malicious exactly since there's the implication that he very much is, or at least relishes the tragedies of others, but not necessarily evil. He's not portrayed as fundamentally, inherently, wicked. Perverse sure, one of his main features is that he seeks forbidden knowledge and has transgressed the boundaries of life and death. Antagonistic absolutely, he's everything that the gods are not and threatens Creation with his mere existence (although it should be noted that it's sorta fundamental to Exalted that, setting aside Sol 'cause whoo boy that's a discussion in and of itself, the gods aren't all good or honorable or virtuous either so their opposite isn't guaranteed to be Literally Satan). But there's a kinda sympathy (empathy maybe?) in how he's described and how he's articulated as an almost conscious contrast to Malfeas and his Fetich, Ligier. The Ebon Dragon brings night to the world of endless day. He stains everything he touches with his darkness but that darkness is a home as well for different sorts of beings, rather than a negative. An absence of all life.
And it feels incomplete to take just this into account without also taking a look at some of his souls, most principally Erembour who's presented alongside him and is pretty obviously intended to zoom in as it were, on certain aspects of his personality. And man if calling the Ebon Dragon himself the embodiment of evil is pretty iffy then calling That Which Calls To The Shadows evil is an even bigger reach. She instills within people a melancholy love of the darkness and calls the creatures of Malfeas out to blind revel; some resist, some are drawn to her and die, and some are seduced by her music and live forever in the shadows. She opposes the designs of the tyrant Ligier (and Ligier is a lot of things, good and bad but he is indisputably a tyrant with an eye on a new order). She exists to celebrate the night for its own sake, for what it offers and allows people to be, and includes among her favored thieves and murders and the things that live in the caverns beneath the world. But also generals who hold their battles at night and lovers who keep their meetings in the dark and, indeed, is one of the best teachers in the arts of love in all of Malfeas.
Which, as a some total, implies that a not-insignificant part of the Ebon Dragon is wrapped up in love, in love of himself, in love of the darkness and the damned and the doomed. I mean if you're going to critique critiques of the guy for axing bad shit and recommending nothing (although honestly I'm not sure that's a great hill to die on, you could probably drop the Ebon Dragon tonguefucking a teenager and replace it with Literally Nothing and improve the character as a whole), man what about this aspect of him? Out of all the Yozi the Ebon Dragon is one of those most prone to a -admittedly deeply weird, incredibly fucked up- sense of Compassion.
He's pretty strongly defined honestly, sure it's not literally thousands of words but there's a fairly clear concept here and it is evocative, poignant and maybe you're not meant to interact with him directly but that's literally what Third and Second circles are for. In terms of, like, picking this apart I don't see how it's necessarily improved by "he wants to become God because of some weird metaphysical bullshit that will pretty much never be relevant to the individual character scale literally ever".
Can't speak for others, but I mean a villain who's not impressive, admirable, or grand. A villain with loser-type flaws like pettiness, cowardice, and laziness.
Villains are at their most useful when they're compelling, and if it's because they're flawed in very human ways that's absolutely workable but it's also, like, as an antagonist you still have to build threat y'know? Making the principal opponent an inherently useless, ineffectual thing can do a lot of damage to the central conflict of a narrative and trivialize the stakes because if it's just a stomp why care? Similarly saying that there shouldn't be anything impressive, admirable, or grand in a villain is pretty dramatically closing off option for yourself and killing off the potential for more complicated relationships with the heroes. Someone can be an absolutely awful person but still have traits that draw others to them and successes to their name and like...
'Cause, I mean, you could have the brilliant vizier who's also a coward, the warrior tyrant who's slothful and indolent, and the much beloved war hero who's still prone to petty cruelty. But saying that automatically makes them losers doesn't really gel for me.
Idk man. Honestly I don't think, in terms of definitions and for the sake of clarity and shit, that sweeping it all in the general bin labeled "losers" is that useful. From a writing or discussion standpoint.
Ravenloft's Dark Lords are also losers, but they still managed to come off as more compelling. The Dark Lords are characterized entirely by making terrible choices that leave them stuck in a hell of their own making. But even then, Strahd or Azalin always manage to still be more dangerous than pathetic, even if their own worst enemies are themselves, not the PCs. Meanwhile Malfeas is depicted as a mutilated nutjob who has been on a perpetual temper tantrum since the Primordial War.
While theyìre compelling viaalins on their own, the Dark Lords of Ravenloft benefit from being inserten in a setting that is about them exclusively. They are human villains, because they (like the horror movies/novels villains they're frequently based on) are written in a way that makes the players feel for them, even if they're enemies. There's tragedy in what they did to gain the attention of the Dark Powers and ending up trapped in the Mists.
The Yozi, by contrast, are the Titans imprisoned in Tartarus. They didn't start as flawed, relatable people that built their own personal hell. They're instead portrayed as creators that were cast down by their own creations, like in the Greek myth. They're basically backstory that was forced into an active role.
He wasn't originally a villain, was the thing. They just randomly made him one because Dark Snake = Top Evil. He was just some Yozi trying and failing to bust out, not the big bad, at least not more than the other Yozi. He was never Satan, he was a snake in love with shadows and fighting the doomed fight.
Well, yeah, not "any more than the other Yozi", but the other Yozi kind of also ARE big bads. I mean, the two hats available to Yozis are basically either "villain" or "backstory". So when they were pushed out of backstory, their villain hats were enhanced. Ebon Dragon actually got one of the best, I find, because it's memorable and lends itself to play, while I have yet to meet someone outside the internet who can remember what the fuck Swillin' is, her name, or why they should care.
While theyìre compelling viaalins on their own, the Dark Lords of Ravenloft benefit from being inserten in a setting that is about them exclusively. They are human villains, because they (like the horror movies/novels villains they're frequently based on) are written in a way that makes the players feel for them, even if they're enemies. There's tragedy in what they did to gain the attention of the Dark Powers and ending up trapped in the Mists.
The asterisk here is that in the original Ravenloft modules, you effectively couldn't interact with them in any meaningful way; any effort to try and alter or derail their personal loop gets immediately and vindictively shut down by the Dark Powers. Their realms are little more than dioramas to parade in front of the players - stagnant, hollow, and devoid of any reason to exist beyond providing entertainment for the sadistic horrors that govern Ravenloft.
The Dark Lords are excellent villains, but the setting handles their stories like a novel rather than something you're meant to interact with.
At least in Exalted, if/when you become invested in a particular Unquestionable, you can actually plot to elevate them (or cast them down) without being predestined to fail.
While theyìre compelling viaalins on their own, the Dark Lords of Ravenloft benefit from being inserten in a setting that is about them exclusively. They are human villains, because they (like the horror movies/novels villains they're frequently based on) are written in a way that makes the players feel for them, even if they're enemies. There's tragedy in what they did to gain the attention of the Dark Powers and ending up trapped in the Mists.
The Yozi, by contrast, are the Titans imprisoned in Tartarus. They didn't start as flawed, relatable people that built their own personal hell. They're instead portrayed as creators that were cast down by their own creations, like in the Greek myth. They're basically backstory that was forced into an active role.
Yeah, I think that's what makes them so wonky. The Yozis were set pieces and setting elements, never actual characters. And characterizing them as people suddenly is going to inevitably be wonky.
I'll still say that the Yozi writeups lacked any real nuance or subtlety, most of them are summarized as individual personality traits dialed up to 11. Which is great for easy charm design thematics but not so much actual characterization.
I mean if you're going to critique critiques of the guy for axing bad shit and recommending nothing (although honestly I'm not sure that's a great hill to die on, you could probably drop the Ebon Dragon tonguefucking a teenager and replace it with Literally Nothing and improve the character as a whole), man what about this aspect of him? Out of all the Yozi the Ebon Dragon is one of those most prone to a -admittedly deeply weird, incredibly fucked up- sense of Compassion.
I agree about Lillun's story, but I don't really see that as an Ebon Dragon problem. Lillun's storyline taints everyone it touches, from the Empress to Ebbie to random Essence 2 Infernals.
It's definitely true that the tone and emphasis of the portrayals are very different even if the facts are similar. And it is kind of shame that the compassion angle has fallen by the wayside. Maybe someone could take that angle and expand it into a good, game-able, Yozi.
But the Yozi we have/had is/was a good one. It did its job admirably well.
Villains are at their most useful when they're compelling, and if it's because they're flawed in very human ways that's absolutely workable but it's also, like, as an antagonist you still have to build threat y'know? Making the principal opponent an inherently useless, ineffectual thing can do a lot of damage to the central conflict of a narrative and trivialize the stakes because if it's just a stomp why care? Similarly saying that there shouldn't be anything impressive, admirable, or grand in a villain is pretty dramatically closing off option for yourself and killing off the potential for more complicated relationships with the heroes. Someone can be an absolutely awful person but still have traits that draw others to them and successes to their name and like...
'Cause, I mean, you could have the brilliant vizier who's also a coward, the warrior tyrant who's slothful and indolent, and the much beloved war hero who's still prone to petty cruelty. But saying that automatically makes them losers doesn't really gel for me.
Idk man. Honestly I don't think, in terms of definitions and for the sake of clarity and shit, that sweeping it all in the general bin labeled "losers" is that useful. From a writing or discussion standpoint.
I'm not advocating that every villain be a total loser. I actually like mixed bags like the one you describe. But I also like villains like the Ebon Dragon. Like I was saying before, variety's important.
That aside, I think we have a pretty significant miscommunication here. I don't want useless ineffectual villains. I don't think anyone does.
A villain can be incredibly effective without being admirable at all. One of the best villains I've run as a GM was 100% loser. But he was also enormously personally powerful, easily capable of curb-stomping anyone and everyone. He was both thoroughly loathsome and genuinely threatening. Made for some great gaming. Loser villains can work.
It's worth noting that the less loser-y 1e Dragon was actually doomed to failure, while the totally contemptible 2e Dragon had a fair shot at complete and total victory.
No, being defeated and wanting revenge is a standard villain motivation. My objection is that the Yozis were literally written as spoiled children incensed at how unfair their circumstances are, that the Deathlords were more concerned with petty personal dramas than their own ambitions, and the Neverborn were not simply written as broken and obscene but petty and spiteful, with their grudges being the only reason they're so tormented in the first place.
I'm with you on the Yozi and the Neverborn, but not the Deathlords. One of my pet peeves with them is that I feel that most of them do't focus enough on their petty personal dramas; they feel like Elder Abyssals, not Ghosts. The Eye and Seven Despairs is thus my favorite Deathlord, because he's so terrifyingly capable that he probably could have destroyed Creation already if he wasn't such a massive scrublord.
On a related-ish note, my standard for awesome villains with no sympathetic features or redeeming qualities is Demon King Chestra from Violinist of Hamelin. He is an unrepentant selfish monster, right down to his core, and he pulls it off with style. I love him.
I'm with you on the Yozi and the Neverborn, but not the Deathlords. One of my pet peeves with them is that I feel that most of them do't focus enough on their petty personal dramas; they feel like Elder Abyssals, not Ghosts. The Eye and Seven Despairs is thus my favorite Deathlord, because he's so terrifyingly capable that he probably could have destroyed Creation already if he wasn't such a massive scrublord.
On a related-ish note, my standard for awesome villains with no sympathetic features or redeeming qualities is Demon King Chestra from Violinist of Hamelin. He is an unrepentant selfish monster, right down to his core, and he pulls it off with style. I love him.
Well, I think that with the Deathlords, the issue is that their petty personal hangups were also their only actual weakness, and unlike the Yozis or the Neverborn they are an extant and physically present threat that can outright break down your door and beat you to death.
Honestly, if they can just nerf the Deathlords compared to 1E and 2E, and force them to act with some competence and tact because they can't just power through every problem by dint of their Essence, I'll be a happy camper.
