Who is everyone's favorite villain

[Fyraltari]

Looks more like flawed Andi vs Evil Andi.

[Jasdoif]

Looks more like flawed Andi vs Evil Andi.

The Flevandi Contingency? Whoever wins, Bandana gets a (bigger) headache?

[Fyraltari]

The Flevandi Contingency? Whoever wins, Bandana gets a (bigger) headache?

fyraltari not get pun.

[Jasdoif]

Looks more like flawed Andi vs Evil Andi.

The Flevandi Contingency? Whoever wins, Bandana gets a (bigger) headache?

fyraltari not get pun.

Not a pun....The "aw" in "flawed", the "ev" in "Evil", and "an" in "Andi" all looked similar enough that mashing all three words together amused me. (I am easily amused.)

[Snails]

What I found particularly compelling about Tarquin is that he is a villain with motivations that allowed the theoretical possibility of being an ally for the Order. Of course, that was not to be. But it was not to be because of how he sought to achieve his own goals, not directly because he was evil and ideologically inclined to pound the good guys.

As a bonus, he was a villain that cast an interesting light on the ongoing villain Nale. I never actually cared for Nale. Their relationship was magnificently horrifying. In the end, I felt sorry for Nale. Mind you, I good clean murdering is better than Nale deserved. Yet...somehow...he did not deserve what he got.

[warmachine]

Redcloak. A tragic figure making a very, very risky alliance to fix a cosmic injustice and sacrificing much in the process but he's dangerously smart and effective. He's the one to be scared of. Worse, be scared he might succeed in his plans.

[KorvinStarmast]

Oh, are we doing Misunderstood Andi vs. Bad Bandana again?

No. And for the record, I was pro Bandana for that discussion, and remain pro Bandana. I think Rich did well with that little personal growth bit.

Not sure who "we" is but I was squarely in the "Andi is wrong" camp during the mutiny discussions, and do not have any change in position about that. What I am objecting to is "villain" as a characterization. I think it overstates her character flaws. I agree that antagonist (from low level insubordination to panic/mutiny) is a good characterization. She does not achieve villainy. But Andi was wrong, particularly in the situation they were in, to quite literally throw a wrench in the works.
Try not to attribute to Malice that which can be ascribed to Stupidity.
(or ignorance, or raw incompetence).

To put this in real life terms: when people are put under stress or pressure, they sometimes break, and sometimes that breaking is in unpredictable and bizarre ways. (Informed by some years of very stressful situations in the service that I won't go into here ....)

Andi broke. If you go back a few hundred strips, one day Haley broke when the treasure all went away. Rich used the same vehicle, but obviously different details and levels of severity.

[2D8HP]

Oh, are we doing Misunderstood Andi vs. Bad Bandana again?

I really like Bandana/Beatrice.

Really, really like her.

She:

Wears a duster.

Speaks "cowboy:.

Is tan.

Captains a FREAKIN' PIRATE AIRSHIP!

Is just generally BADASS!!!

(Damn, I want to see a live action "Adventures of Bandana"),

....but, I'll cop to rememberimg feeling a lot blue collar solidarity with Andi/Andromeda:

...I know if I was on the crew of the Mechane and Bandana executed Andi/Andromeda now, my loyalty to and respect for Bandana would be replaced with fear.

As a reader I like Bandana, but if she kills Andi now (however much she deserves it), I won't....

I'm in "Engineering" at my job of five years, and I'm very much a "tunnel vision engineer".

When people ask where's such-and-such court or investigators office is my typical (and true) response is, "Sorry, I only know where the restrooms and shutoff valves are".

Being very Andromeda-like myself I can very easily imagine Andi being too blinkered to know that aspect of the Mechane....

...As for the Andromeda vs. Beatrix debate, Bandana is right, Andi is wrong...

....but despite that I really do sympathise with her...

[SPOILER=Some Nods]

Character	Nods	Commentary
Andi aka Andromeda	2 nods	strike a blow for wrench wielding classes Andi!
... Angel Who Points out that The Control Weather Spell Doesn't Actually Do That	0 nods
Banjo	0 nods
Beatrix aka Bandana Secundus	3 nods	cool coat!

...

I kinda feel like Andi is who I am, and Bandana is who I'd like to be.

.....and Bandana hands the wrench to Andi.

That's class.

Andi's no hero, but I don't think a villain either.

[bc56]

As a one-off thing, Banjulhu

[hamishspence]

Andi's no hero, but I don't think a villain either.

If Miko can be a Villain in Paladin Blues despite being LG (The Giant's terminology for her) - can't Andi?

[Fyraltari]

If Miko can be a Villain in Paladin Blues despite being LG (The Giant's terminology for her) - can't Andi?

Andi did not kill any supporting characters.

[hamishspence]

Neither did Miko as of the end of Paladin Blues - it was only in War & XPs that she killed the first major supporting character,

Andi didn't kill Bandanna - but that may have been luck on her part - the blow bringing Andi to exactly 0 hit points.

[Onyavar]

Andi didn't kill Bandanna - but that may have been luck on her part - the blow bringing Andi to exactly 0 hit points.

Bandana wasn't at zero points, right? I thought there were other game mechanics that allow you to render people unconscious?

Sure, they have to be fancy feats that Andi most likely didn't take, but I consider her blow to Bandanas head a lucky untrained (and unintended) skillcheck. Hadn't she been lucky, Bandana would likely have turned around, subdued her and arrested her.

[hamishspence]

If a person has already taken a lot of "regular lethal damage" and has only a few hit points left, then a deliberately nonlethal blow with "the flat of the sword" or "the butt end of the club" can render them unconscious with no risk of "bleeding out".

But Bandana as I recall, never took any damage in the encounter, lethal or nonlethal, until the Andi incident - no red hatch marks or slash marks.

There's no Skill for Knocking Out, or special function of Strength Check for Knocking out, in 3.5 as far as I can tell.

[Kish]

Andi did not kill any supporting characters.

It is through no virtue of her own that she didn't kill all the supporting characters on the ship, including herself.

Miko was a villain long before she killed Shojo, as hamishspence points out, and after as well; it seems odd and arbitrary to point to "she killed Shojo" as the single marker of villainy.

[Peelee]

If a person has already taken a lot of "regular lethal damage" and has only a few hit points left, then a deliberately nonlethal blow with "the flat of the sword" or "the butt end of the club" can render them unconscious with no risk of "bleeding out".

But Bandana as I recall, never took any damage in the encounter, lethal or nonlethal, until the Andi incident - no red hatch marks or slash marks.

There's no Skill for Knocking Out, or special function of Strength Check for Knocking out, in 3.5 as far as I can tell.

Imean, you could call it a coup de grace that dealt subdual damage instead of lethal. It's pretty iffy, but a decent enough way to have that make sense by the rules barring any better explanation.

[hamishspence]

Or Andi's a rogue with lots of ranks in Knowledge: Engineering, and used Sneak Attack.

It's a wrench, not a Sap - thus, shouldn't do nonlethal damage by default - it should require extra effort (-4 To Hit) to deliver non-lethal damage with it (and wouldn't be eligible for Nonlethal Sneak Attack).

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm

Imean, you could call it a coup de grace that dealt subdual damage instead of lethal.

Coup De Grace requires opponent to be helpless - not just "caught by surprise":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

[Lord Torath]

It is through no virtue of her own that she didn't kill all the supporting characters on the ship, including herself.

Miko was a villain long before she killed Shojo, as hamishspence points out, and after as well; it seems odd and arbitrary to point to "she killed Shojo" as the single marker of villainy.

Was she a villain? Did she have villainous plans and desires? Or was she merely an antagonist? I would argue the latter for both Miko and Andromeda. Miko wanted to protect and serve her people. She saw conspiracy and evil everywhere, and she was full of self-delusion and willful ignorance, but she had no over-arching evil plans that I'm aware of.

I suppose it depends on how you want to define "villain". In my book, neither Miko nor Andi qualify.

[hamishspence]

I suppose it depends on how you want to define "villain". In my book, neither Miko nor Andi qualify.

Exemplars of Evil (despite the name) goes into some detail on Villains - one of the options is "The Nonevil Villain" - example given - a person who believes execution is always wrong - and thus, sneaks into prisons and breaks prisoners out regardless of their crimes.

Despite their nonevil motivation "mercy" - "compassion" - etc - the character is considered a Villain by the book.

The Giant also uses the term "Villain" for some non-evil antagonists:

You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

As I recently referenced in the comic, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and Javert went quite a bit further in the wrong direction than just "doing nothing." He supported and enforced an unjust set of laws even above and beyond what was required of him. He tricked his way into the good graces of the students with a plan designed to lead to their deaths. When Fantine dies and Javert confronts Valjean, and Valjean says he must take care of Cosette, Javert could have said, "I'll make sure the girl is taken care of if you turn yourself in." He didn't. He didn't care whether she lived or died when he easily could have without compromising his duty. The idea of mercy is so incompatible to his mindset that when he finds himself having displayed it, his only solution is to commit suicide because his world doesn't make sense anymore. When you get to the point that the idea of mercy is incomprehensible to you? You're a villain.

While the alignment system is very useful for playing the game, it is not the be-all and end-all of analysis. As you say, there is no alignment in Hugo's work. We declare Javert to be Lawful Neutral after-the-fact, but that doesn't absolve the character of his villainous aspects. It just means we did the math and found that he fits in Box A slightly better than Box B. The fact is, the very idea of being "Neutral" with regards to Good and Evil is a D&D invention; it does not exist in most literature. In Hugo's eyes, Javert is Evil by virtue of repeatedly choosing not to be Good when given multiple opportunities. He is an antagonist who represents a moral position the author holds as being contemptible; thus, he is a villain.

[Kish]

Was she a villain? Did she have villainous plans and desires? Or was she merely an antagonist? I would argue the latter for both Miko and Andromeda. Miko wanted to protect and serve her people. She saw conspiracy and evil everywhere, and she was full of self-delusion and willful ignorance, but she had no over-arching evil plans that I'm aware of.

Neither does Xykon. He's just following along with Redcloak's evil plan.

And Redcloak "wants to protect and serve his people" in the same way Miko did (which is to say, in both cases, beneath the lip service to noble causes is a whole lot of I AM SO GREAT ME ME ME ONLY I CAN DO IT).

If the difference between Miko and a villain is "she doesn't have a plan," that seems more like a Lawful vs. Chaotic distinction than a Good vs. Evil one. Would that make Gin-jun a villain in your view then?

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

He had an evil plan, and whether his technical alignment changed at some point or not, he definitely had the same alignment as Miko written on his character sheet at the beginning of the confrontation O-Chul had with him over that plan.

[Lord Torath]

Neither does Xykon. He's just following along with Redcloak's evil plan.

And Redcloak "wants to protect and serve his people" in the same way Miko did (which is to say, in both cases, beneath the lip service to noble causes is a whole lot of I AM SO GREAT ME ME ME ONLY I CAN DO IT).

If the difference between Miko and a villain is "she doesn't have a plan," that seems more like a Lawful vs. Chaotic distinction than a Good vs. Evil one. Would that make Gin-jun a villain in your view then?

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

He had an evil plan, and whether his technical alignment changed at some point or not, he definitely had the same alignment as Miko written on his character sheet at the beginning of the confrontation O-Chul had with him over that plan.

Kill every hobgoblin until I find the Crimson Mantle does strike me as a rather villainous plan, so yeah, I'd consider Gin-jun a villain. Red Cloak is happy (okay, maybe not happy, but okay) to destroy the entire world in the pursuit of his goal. So, yeah, villainous. Xykon may be following Redcloak's plan, but without Redcloak, he'd still be out (assuming he still became a lich) doing evil for the sake of kicks and giggles. His villainous plan is just to hurt people because he finds it funny.

However, if you want to use the quoted definition, then I'll agree that Miko could be a villain.

[Fyraltari]

Neither did Miko as of the end of Paladin Blues - it was only in War & XPs that she killed the first major supporting character

True. I misread you. She was only an antagonist during that book.

It is through no virtue of her own that she didn't kill all the supporting characters on the ship, including herself.

Incompetence isnot villainous. Especially when it is trying to prevent deaths. Tell me do you call Bandana villainous for "killing" these crew members. Or do you recognize that the villains here are the one that actually kill people?

Miko was a villain long before she killed Shojo, as hamishspence points out, and after as well; it seems odd and arbitrary to point to "she killed Shojo" as the single marker of villainy.

Yes, how arbitrary of me to single out the moment she went from "rude, judgmental overzealous police officer whose actions still upholds law and good" to "murderer of the defensless" as a marker of villainy.

Miko up until her kingslaying and Andi as of now are antagonists, their actions impede the protagonists, however as long as they don't do anything actually evil*, they are not villains. Miko became a villain, Andi hasn't and probably never will as I doubt the Mechane will figure as heavily in the comic again.

*Don't get me wrong, Miko was still Good after taht because she still did a lot of good, she honestly thought she was in the right and there were special circumstances (the personnal betrayal, mostly).

[KorvinStarmast]

Incompetence is not villainous. Especially when it is trying to prevent deaths. Tell me do you call Bandana villainous for "killing" these crew members. Or do you recognize that the villains here are the one that actually kill people?

Yes, how arbitrary of me to single out the moment she went from "rude, judgmental overzealous police officer whose actions still upholds law and good" to "murderer of the defensless" as a marker of villainy.

In support of this line of reasoning, I'll again ask that folks not presume malice where incompetence or sheer ignorance is in operation.

We also seem to be getting an OoTS unique definition of the term "villain" from Rich, thanks to a quote cited a few posts above this one.(thank you hamishspence).

[Thurulian]

Greg is pretty funny so i like him alot, but i think Xykon and Tarquin are my favorites, both of them are comedic and carefree, not to mention extremely arrogant but most great villains are. If i had to choose i would definitely go with Xykon, he makes you kinda like him because he is sortof silly at times but he is still super evil. Also on a side note has anyone noticed how similar Xykon looked to Tarquin when he was human??

[Kish]

Yes, how arbitrary of me to single out the moment she went from "rude, judgmental overzealous police officer whose actions still upholds law and good" to "murderer of the defensless" as a marker of villainy.

If you think that's the first time she stabbed someone who was helpless at the time, Roy might disagree.

(Yes, she didn't kill him, since her Smite Evil didn't work and Durkon talked her out of trying again. So, if you take a strictly consequentialist view, killing Shojo may be the first time she actually killed someone who was defenseless; I find it unlikely, as well as morally weightless if we agree that she's been trying to do things like that ever since she was introduced, but I can't prove it's not the case.)

[D.One]

In support of this line of reasoning, I'll again ask that folks not presume malice where incompetence or sheer ignorance is in operation.

We also seem to be getting an OoTS unique definition of the term "villain" from Rich, thanks to a quote cited a few posts above this one.(thank you hamishspence).

By Giant's definition, Miko is clearly a villain. Andy... I don't know. Her part, her intent, her characterization... maybe from Bandana's point of view she could be a minor villain, but even so her shenanigans lasted so little that I'd put her more in the box of temporary antagonist/minor anoyance.

And from the Order's PoV, they almost did not notice the whole thing, after all it lasted for 12 strips, during a fierce battle against frost giants...

[Fyraltari]

If you think that's the first time she stabbed someone who was helpless at the time, Roy might disagree.

(Yes, she didn't kill him, since her Smite Evil didn't work and Durkon talked her out of trying again. So, if you take a strictly consequentialist view, killing Shojo may be the first time she actually killed someone who was defenseless; I find it unlikely, as well as morally weightless if we agree that she's been trying to do things like that ever since she was introduced, but I can't prove it's not the case.)

There's a difference between striking an unarmed octogenarian with NPC classes in the middle of your capital and striking a (seemingly confirmed) evil mid-to-high level adventurer who has repeatedly refused to surrender, is involved with threatening reality itself, left a path of destruction behind him and is surrounded by his five mid-to-high level allies who are all at most temporarily inconvenienced in the middle of nowhere. Adventurers are deceitful, he could have had a trick up his bag. Combine that with the (already quite questionnable) judge-jury-executionner side of the paladins.

It was callous of her to open up with a "surrender or die" and speaks badly of her but it wasn't evil per se.

[Liquor Box]

I like several of the villains, but the main villain is still my favourite - Xykon.

Importantly, Xykon is hilarious. But more importantly he has the aura of being near invincible for the OotS. The last two times when he clashed with the order he gave a beat down to Varsuvious (despite V being powered by the souls of the most powerful magic-users ever), and killed Roy without effort. If the order were to come across him now, it is genuinely unclear how they would defeat him in a stand up fight (a MitD betrayal or something similar probably being necessary).

The likes of Tarquin and Redcloak are probably higher level than the OotS, but I don;t think they have the same air of invincibility. In a final battle you could see the Order simply getting the better of them - see for example V defeating Lauren Shattersmith. They were both good for their roles, mini-boss, and lieutenant to the big bad, but there's a reason that Xykon is the main boss of the game.

[TRH]

If you think that's the first time she stabbed someone who was helpless at the time, Roy might disagree.

(Yes, she didn't kill him, since her Smite Evil didn't work and Durkon talked her out of trying again. So, if you take a strictly consequentialist view, killing Shojo may be the first time she actually killed someone who was defenseless; I find it unlikely, as well as morally weightless if we agree that she's been trying to do things like that ever since she was introduced, but I can't prove it's not the case.)

Well, seeing how that was the moment that the gods revoked her powers, and not before, it's hard to argue that it was morally weightless. Or, to put it another way, it appears not everyone agrees with your analysis.

[Kish]

Really? If you think it's hard to argue that the opinions of the OotS gods are morally weightless, your perception of them couldn't be more different than mine.

(To clarify, because Fyraltari used "wasn't evil per se" in a way that suggests, unless I'm misreading it, treating "villain" and "evil" as synonymous: My position, and Rich's from what he's said, is that Miko was always a villain, in the same way that Inspector Javert is a villain in Les Miserables--separate from whether either can be accurately described as evil at every, or indeed any, point.)