Villainous Competition XVIII: This is Heresy

[The Viscount]

Keep in mind that, in order to be build-legal, any class with Cleric-type alignment restrictions (must be within one step of deity's alignment) can only worship a Neutral deity. However, not all classes with divine flavor - or without, for that matter - have that restriction.

Just throwing that out there, because I'd hate to see a good idea get penalized for missing any relevant alignment restrictions.

Well I suppose one might lean on setting-specific rules to sidestep this issue, though that raises the question of whether judges would judge it along rules for that setting.

[Tiri]

It might result in an Elegance penalty.

[GrayDeath]

Well, phew. If it had been the Two Headed or Ooze one I would have drawn a blank, but this....I can work with this. :D

Oh yes, ( although I expect a third+ of the builds to follow one specific meme^^) me likes.

[Troacctid]

If you're using worship rules from one setting to worship a deity from a different setting, I'd probably penalize your Elegance. Use the rules for the setting you're in. Mixing and matching is inelegant.

I don't remember any builds being penalized in this competition for overreliance on a specific item. I don't see much issue with it, either. Iron Chef frowns upon it because it requires some amount of DM cooperation, but in this contest, you are the DM and you get to choose the character's items, so, whatever. What would earn a penalty from me would be if your villain is supposed to be a badass but is really only powerful because she's tricked out with overpowered gear that would be just as good on a Commoner of the same CR.

[Strigon]

I don't remember any builds being penalized in this competition for overreliance on a specific item. I don't see much issue with it, either.
...
What would earn a penalty from me would be if your villain is supposed to be a badass but is really only powerful because she's tricked out with overpowered gear that would be just as good on a Commoner of the same CR.

I agree with this reasoning in principle, but I'm not sure it should be applied to this competition; people have avoided using items for so long, I'd hate to see a great build with no items be outperformed by a decent build with one or two items to accentuate it.
It's true that I don't think it's explicitly stated anywhere, but one should always be careful when adding or removing something that's been around for so long, even if it was only implicitly.

[Troacctid]

The important thing is that, like many aspects of a build presentation, gear is optional—not required, but not forbidden. An entry without gear is assumed to have access to whatever generic items are appropriate, and should never suffer a penalty as a result.

[LordOfCain]

Huh, what's with the new limit of 2 villains per participant?

[Doctor Awkward]

I agree with this reasoning in principle, but I'm not sure it should be applied to this competition; people have avoided using items for so long, I'd hate to see a great build with no items be outperformed by a decent build with one or two items to accentuate it.
It's true that I don't think it's explicitly stated anywhere, but one should always be careful when adding or removing something that's been around for so long, even if it was only implicitly.

You know, this sentiment, along with the events that transpired in the previous contest has inspired me to share a little story my favorite philosophy professor shared with us the second day of class during a discussion regarding how human beings react to the concept of tradition:

Before Hawaii was one of the 50 of the United States, they had a system of strict religious tenants that governed almost every aspect of life, known as the "kapu". It roughly translates to English as "taboo". They were not laws, per say, but rather an extensive list of customs regarding everything from which types of food you can eat and when, how you behave in front of the king (including not coming into contact with his toenail clippings), the idea that men and women could not eat food together, and so on.

This system persisted until a monarchy came about that ruled the kingdom of islands from 1810 through 1893. One of them, born Liholiho, was to sit on the throne as King Kamehameha II. One of his stated edicts was that he was going to abolish the kapu. A huge number of priests and citizens railed against this. They claimed it would send the entire kingdom spiraling into anarchic destruction. But he was the king, and his word as absolute. He ascended the throne in 1819, and six months later, during and event called 'Ai Noa, the taboo was no more.


And then nothing happened.


...That's the end of the story.



Now the point of the story isn't to sway people in regards to any particular tradition one way or another. It's simply to point out that the way things usually go is that an idea will start with someone as a stated belief. If that belief gets repeated often enough that more people start to ascribe to it, then that belief becomes commonly held. When a commonly held belief sticks around long enough, it becomes a tradition. And eventually as that tradition is passed through the ages, it becomes right.

And the moment it becomes right, everything else becomes wrong. And it becomes so firmly ingrained in the minds of the people who adhere to it, they don't even stop to think about why.

[Strigon]

[Snip]

Perhaps you misunderstand (or, alternatively, perhaps I do); I don't think allowing items would harm the competition as a whole - I'm in favour of giving builds equipment, in general.
But I think that, if we do switch, it should be done at the very beginning of a round; building a villain that is meant to function fine with only basic or generic gear is very different to building a villain that can use specific items to augment its abilities.

My concern is that, if we don't make it very clear from the beginning that items are now 100%, indisputably allowed, then inevitably there will be some builds who didn't give a list of gear and so must be assumed to have generic gear. These builds will be going up against competitors who have specific items tailored to their fighting style, and thus - through no fault of their own - will be at a disadvantage.

The only ways I can think to solve this problem, once it has arisen, is to either have the judges assume the disadvantaged builds gain useful items - in which case the build's power level will only be increased by whatever the judge thinks should be given, rather than what the competitor was able to come up with - or you can have the judges ignore the specific items, in which case why bother having them?



Add to that the... volatility... of recent rounds, and I don't think now is the time to change this particular rule.

[Xaroth]

If you're using worship rules from one setting to worship a deity from a different setting, I'd probably penalize your Elegance. Use the rules for the setting you're in. Mixing and matching is inelegant.

Worship rules?

...I didn't know there were worship rules. Whoops. Is there anything in particular I should really know about them?

Also, are lengthy backstories welcome? Naturally, within spoiler tags, of course.

[Strigon]

Worship rules?

...I didn't know there were worship rules. Whoops. Is there anything in particular I should really know about them?

Also, are lengthy backstories welcome? Naturally, within spoiler tags, of course.

Well fleshed-out villains that aren't just a bundle of stats are always helpful in building a competitive entry. I don't think lengthy backstories are frowned upon; in truth, they usually are a mark of a lovingly-crafted build, and those are always fun to read!
Now, of course, you should only make it as long as it needs to be; unnecessary details that just pad out the length don't help anyone, and while they can't directly affect your score, I doubt the judges will be happy to read 12 pages of filler for a page and a half of backstory

Make it as long as it needs to be, and not much longer.

[Xaroth]

Well fleshed-out villains that aren't just a bundle of stats are always helpful in building a competitive entry. I don't think lengthy backstories are frowned upon; in truth, they usually are a mark of a lovingly-crafted build, and those are always fun to read!
Now, of course, you should only make it as long as it needs to be; unnecessary details that just pad out the length don't help anyone, and while they can't directly affect your score, I doubt the judges will be happy to read 12 pages of filler for a page and a half of backstory

Make it as long as it needs to be, and not much longer.

That's fair. I would probably be better writing it as a tale from the past rather than a third person adventure as it was happening, in that event.

[Troacctid]

Perhaps you misunderstand (or, alternatively, perhaps I do); I don't think allowing items would harm the competition as a whole - I'm in favour of giving builds equipment, in general.
But I think that, if we do switch, it should be done at the very beginning of a round; building a villain that is meant to function fine with only basic or generic gear is very different to building a villain that can use specific items to augment its abilities.

My concern is that, if we don't make it very clear from the beginning that items are now 100%, indisputably allowed, then inevitably there will be some builds who didn't give a list of gear and so must be assumed to have generic gear. These builds will be going up against competitors who have specific items tailored to their fighting style, and thus - through no fault of their own - will be at a disadvantage.

The only ways I can think to solve this problem, once it has arisen, is to either have the judges assume the disadvantaged builds gain useful items - in which case the build's power level will only be increased by whatever the judge thinks should be given, rather than what the competitor was able to come up with - or you can have the judges ignore the specific items, in which case why bother having them?



Add to that the... volatility... of recent rounds, and I don't think now is the time to change this particular rule.

It's really not as big a deal as you're making it out to be. There are a lot of things competitors could do that would improve their scores that they already don't do. Are people really going to do extra work putting together a gear section even though it probably won't offer a meaningful power boost and might even hurt you on thematic cohesion if the judge thinks the gear doesn't mesh well with your standard combat tactics? I certainly wouldn't if I were writing up an entry.

Not all entries follow the same format. It's been like that in every round (except for XIII, where they actually did all follow the same format, but that doesn't count). As a judge, you take that into account in whatever way you feel is best.

Personally, if I were to change one thing about how most people present their builds, I'd have them choose their CR spotlights more carefully. A lot of builds lately have been doing a weird thing where they kind of assume the players will fight the villain once at CR 5, and then they'll come back at CR 10, and then they'll come back again at CR 15, etc. Which isn't actually how Big Bads normally work! Usually they start at a higher level than the party, and the party has to level up to get strong enough to face them. If it doesn't make sense to encounter your villain at CR 5 and have them level up along with the party...then don't present your build that way! You're only required to present one spotlight, according to the contest rules. It's good to present suggested lower-level encounters too, or offer a general outline of how the campaign might progress, but it's totally fine if the lower levels don't involve fighting the villain directly. And it's also totally fine to use lower CRs to present an adaptation of the villain that you could use in a lower-level campaign without assuming that they will come back later after they're initially defeated. Contestants have done this in past rounds (and I've done it in every round I entered), and I'm pretty sure nobody ever got penalized for it, but people have gotten penalized for presenting a villain as a recurring threat when that didn't make sense with their story. I know they've gotten penalized for it because I was the one penalizing them.

Anyway, that's Troacctid's Villainous Tip of the Week.

Worship rules?

...I didn't know there were worship rules. Whoops. Is there anything in particular I should really know about them?

Depends on the setting. Eberron and the Forgotten Realms have very different cosmologies, for example. But if you aren't placing your character explicitly within a specific setting (for example, by taking one of the setting-specific prestige classes from Faiths and Pantheons), then you probably don't need to worry about it.

Also, are lengthy backstories welcome? Naturally, within spoiler tags, of course.

Yes, although you tend to get diminishing returns on them—quality is more important than quantity. Personally, I like fluff to be useful for the DM running the character, so in my opinion, backstory should always inform the character's motivations and personality in the present day. Also, your entry needs to fit in a single post, IIRC, so if you use too many characters, you will run out of room for the crunch.

[Xaroth]

It's really not as big a deal as you're making it out to be. There are a lot of things competitors could do that would improve their scores that they already don't do. Are people really going to do extra work putting together a gear section even though it probably won't offer a meaningful power boost and might even hurt you on thematic cohesion if the judge thinks the gear doesn't mesh well with your standard combat tactics? I certainly wouldn't if I were writing up an entry.

Not all entries follow the same format. It's been like that in every round (except for XIII, where they actually did all follow the same format, but that doesn't count). As a judge, you take that into account in whatever way you feel is best.

Personally, if I were to change one thing about how most people present their builds, I'd have them choose their CR spotlights more carefully. A lot of builds lately have been doing a weird thing where they kind of assume the players will fight the villain once at CR 5, and then they'll come back at CR 10, and then they'll come back again at CR 15, etc. Which isn't actually how Big Bads normally work! Usually they start at a higher level than the party, and the party has to level up to get strong enough to face them. If it doesn't make sense to encounter your villain at CR 5 and have them level up along with the party...then don't present your build that way! You're only required to present one spotlight, according to the contest rules. It's good to present suggested lower-level encounters too, or offer a general outline of how the campaign might progress, but it's totally fine if the lower levels don't involve fighting the villain directly. And it's also totally fine to use lower CRs to present an adaptation of the villain that you could use in a lower-level campaign without assuming that they will come back later after they're initially defeated. Contestants have done this in past rounds (and I've done it in every round I entered), and I'm pretty sure nobody ever got penalized for it, but people have gotten penalized for presenting a villain as a recurring threat when that didn't make sense with their story. I know they've gotten penalized for it because I was the one penalizing them.

Anyway, that's Troacctid's Villainous Tip of the Week.

Goddamn. Duly noted, I hadn't even considered that.

Depends on the setting. Eberron and the Forgotten Realms have very different cosmologies, for example. But if you aren't placing your character explicitly within a specific setting (for example, by taking one of the setting-specific prestige classes from Faiths and Pantheons), then you probably don't need to worry about it.

Well, I don't really have anything in particular in mind yet, but I guess that rules out those classes.

Yes, although you tend to get diminishing returns on them—quality is more important than quantity. Personally, I like fluff to be useful for the DM running the character, so in my opinion, backstory should always inform the character's motivations and personality in the present day. Also, your entry needs to fit in a single post, IIRC, so if you use too many characters, you will run out of room for the crunch.

Ah, fair enough. Would the backstory count as an entry, though? If you decided to put it as its own thing, for people to read if they so wish.

Also, you said it's required to fit into a single post. Does this mean you're allowed to post your villain into the thread?

[Strigon]

Also, you said it's required to fit into a single post. Does this mean you're allowed to post your villain into the thread?

That's a big no-no. Or, at least, it's a pretty significant no-no, as people seem to take anonimity of builds quite seriously here.
PM the chairman - our own ever-patient Thurbane, in this case - exactly how you want him to post it. He will copy and paste it and, as is made very clear in the first post, will not go through the hassle of spell checking it, or making corrections. Understandably, since that would be a ton of work with so many builds.


Also, @Troacctid, you might be right. In fact, I'd say you probably are, but I'm still one to err on the side of caution. Fairness is important, and I don't think anyone would deny that choosing your own magic items is a significant advantage.

[Thurbane]

Huh, what's with the new limit of 2 villains per participant?

There have been some noncerns raised that if there is a literal flood of entries, woth entrant posting 3 or more each, judges would be scared off.

I'm trialling the two-per-entrant suggestion this round to see how it goes.

On the subject of gear: I agree with the sentiment others have raised. There is nothing wrong with suggesting items for a build or even making them a central part of the entry, but it's up to individual judges to apply any penalties they think might apply for over reliance on items, or bonuses if they think it's a brilliant use of an item.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

There have been some noncerns raised that if there is a literal flood of entries, woth entrant posting 3 or more each, judges would be scared off.

I'm trialling the two-per-entrant suggestion this round to see how it goes.

On the subject of gear: I agree with the sentiment others have raised. There is nothing wrong with suggesting items for a build or even making them a central part of the entry, but it's up to individual judges to apply any penalties they think might apply for over reliance on items, or bonuses if they think it's a brilliant use of an item.

what if we sent 2 in as you say, and then stub some more build at the end.

the main point of this comp is to have fun, for everybody. The method stated above gives the competitors a chance to show off there builds(no matter if they are judged or not) and the judges only have 2 per person to judge, making it a lot easier (and honestly less time consuming) letting the do what they want.

Also if we do what is above, you could say that players are allowed to give feed back to each other about only those non-judged builds, then there will be less open comments on how the judge does his part and less bickering all together.

On the subject of gear: What you are saying is that giving your entries magic items is fine, but if you use more commonly know magic items trickes, judges are allowed to take points of Originality or something like that, right?

Also (because i haven't said it) THANK YOU FOR BEING CHAIRMAN THURBANE!!

[Aka-chan]

Hmm, I've got an idea that I think is interesting. Let's see if I get around to actually building it...

[Muggins]

what if we sent 2 in as you say, and then stub some more build at the end.

the main point of this comp is to have fun, for everybody. The method stated above gives the competitors a chance to show off there builds(no matter if they are judged or not) and the judges only have 2 per person to judge, making it a lot easier (and honestly less time consuming) letting the do what they want.

Also if we do what is above, you could say that players are allowed to give feed back to each other about only those non-judged builds, then there will be less open comments on how the judge does his part and less bickering all together.

If you have a stub then you should post it in the thread yourself after the reveal. We already do this, both in Iron Chef and Villainous Competition. If you're not submitting something to be judged by the judges, you leave it and post it while judges work on their scores and while the contestant twiddle their thumbs.

Like what this guy did, if you want a recent example.

[Thurbane]

Absolutely: more than happy for people to post stubs after the first reveal.

[Tiri]

I don't remember any builds being penalized in this competition for overreliance on a specific item. I don't see much issue with it, either. Iron Chef frowns upon it because it requires some amount of DM cooperation, but in this contest, you are the DM and you get to choose the character's items, so, whatever. What would earn a penalty from me would be if your villain is supposed to be a badass but is really only powerful because she's tricked out with overpowered gear that would be just as good on a Commoner of the same CR.

Just to clarify, I was referring to how, in VC XVI, the Azer build was initially penalised by a judge for reliance on the equipment listed in the entry.

Later, it was clarified that the equipment was just a suggestion and not strictly necessary to the build, so said judge increased the score.

I can't remember exactly who the judge in question was, but I distinctly remember it happening.

[D&DPrinceTandem]

When i found this it made me laugh so hard because of what this round is.

[Technetium43]

Phew, that sure was a thing. I managed to produce a build in one day in some sort of bizarre fugue state. Inspiration just struck, I guess.

Also, I think this is my first time writing something that actually managed to make me genuinely uncomfortable while writing it, which I figure is a success as far as this contest is concerned.

[Inevitability]

When i found this it made me laugh so hard because of what this round is.

I'm currently running a PbP game where one of the characters has literally that as his theme song.

[Tiri]

Phew, that sure was a thing. I managed to produce a build in one day in some sort of bizarre fugue state. Inspiration just struck, I guess.

Also, I think this is my first time writing something that actually managed to make me genuinely uncomfortable while writing it, which I figure is a success as far as this contest is concerned.

Good for you. I've never managed to make myself feel uncomfortable while writing villain entries.

For purposes of this competition, the Living Greyhawk Deities pdf is an official source.

Does this mean that Living Greyhawk Deities is the only official source for this competition, or that it is not normally official and is being treated as such for the competition?

[Muggins]

Does this mean that Living Greyhawk Deities is the only official source for this competition, or that it is not normally official and is being treated as such for the competition?

The latter, I'd wager, since otherwise we'd have no way of making builds. We've had similar exceptions before.

[Buufreak]

Hokay! Finally getting a chance to sit down and type on something bigger than a cellphone. Now, I usually type erratically, so if I seem all over the place, just roll with it, but I am going to try to explain in the best way possible how I will be doing the judgments.

First and foremost, I love a good debate, and if you want to dispute anything on a score that has been submitted by you, feel free to explain everything. I see it as a learning experience. However, please keep it to your own builds; I don't really feel up to defending my judgment against the entire peanut gallery.

Second, I want to try and be fair to everyone, and remain impartial in all manners. As such, from the time I start scoring until the time this contest ends, I am going to avoid every other post possible, other than disputes directed towards me. This is to ensure that I am not being swayed in any fashion by either the banter of the participants/spectators nor the scores and disputes posted by other judges. By doing this, I hope to be as fair as possible to not only the competitors, but also myself and the other judges.

Edit: This means the argument of "so and so gave me this score for this reason" is entirely invalid to me.

With those things in mind, lets cover the criteria:

Originality - Does the build stand out against the crowd? Is it a concept that is well known and has been poked at thousands of times before? Is it another Drow Ranger? These are the general things I will be looking at for originality, and this applies not only to concept, but also build as well.

Elegance - Does the character as a whole have a sense of mechanical flow? Has it tried to shoehorn in every possible thing to make it shine? Does it make sense, without having to use 10 dips? Elegance is all about a level breakdown that makes sense, to me, and as such I want these builds to hold together without 10 rolls of duct tape.

As a side note, on the topic of the item argument, I won't be docking anything for seeing items. I recognize them as a suggestion, not a need. If your entire build DOES teeter off the use of item(s), and is only mechanically sound based on said item(s), elegance might see a bit of docking. Nothing major, but be aware that the possibility stands.

Competence/Power - We all know the shenanigans a wizard 20 can pull off, so I might split a few hairs here. I want to look more at competence than anything: Does the villain do what he is intended to do? Can he accomplish any actual villainy as presented? I'm not going to slam someone for being straight marshal/mundane when put up against a caster if the point you were going for was to be capable without magic.

Memorability - This is something I always look forward to in any build. Does it wow me? Will I remember this character tomorrow? A week from now? Month? Year? Is this going to be the next character that I am always telling my gaming circle about, because of just how cool he/she/it is? This is the wow factor, through and through, and I think it all comes down to just how much the concept can jump off the page. To quote a friend's build, anyone can make an old insane wizard, but his was senile beyond age to the point his familiar had died, but he believes the empty turtle shell is still his friend, and "pissing of Sheldon" resulted in it being mage handed in your general direction with a comical Mario Bros sound effect. For me, memorability is the little things, the subtle nuances that brings a character to life.

So that's it. I hope I covered everything in enough depth. If you have any questions, I am all ears for now, I won't be exiling myself until the official reveal comes out.

Happy builds, and to all may we have a good clean competition!

[Tiri]

The latter, I'd wager, since otherwise we'd have no way of making builds. We've had similar exceptions before.

I think you misunderstood me. I was asking whether or not Living Greyhawk is the only source we're allowed to get our deities from, since there are other official books with deities in them.

[Technetium43]

I think you misunderstood me. I was asking whether or not Living Greyhawk is the only source we're allowed to get our deities from, since there are other official books with deities in them.

No. It's in addition to the other sources, not the only source. All it does is define extra domains for existing Greyhawk deities, basically.

[Tiri]

No. It's in addition to the other sources, not the only source. All it does is define extra domains for existing Greyhawk deities, basically.

Well, I was actually asking the Chairman, since different non-Chairman people could have differing opinions on the subject, as you and Muggins seem to.

Thanks, though.