Nothing. Most of the time, guys are just tricked into thinking they are good because they find them hot yet on an objective level they do not match up to males.
>big breasts >goth aesthetic >magic powers >daddy issues >an army of dangerous minions, the more psychotic their loyalty the better >that one scary as frick beta orbiter who will unleash all of his rage over being unable to frick the villainess on your heroes. Probably wears a skull mask or has horrific scars, may have lost his junk and be more machine than man >a cool fortress or tower >the slim possibility that you might be able to frick her so good she forgets her evil ambitions
The same thing that makes any villain good. The players having a reason for their characters to fricking care. And yet 90% of DMs fail at this for some reason.
I dunno, if DMs keep kidnapping/killing things I care about I might just stop caring. I mean, I'll still pretend to care for the sake of the group but, y'know, I saw it coming.
>it's the majority I have to consider
of course. That's what I'm doing as well.
Just keep in mind not to over do it.
Like some GM anon who really, really wanted to kill the nunnery the players were helping, training, protecting, etc and everyone was calling him an idiot.
>The same thing that makes any villain good. The players having a reason for their characters to fricking care. And yet 90% of DMs fail at this for some reason.
this is literally marvel capeshit tier writing, and is precisely why players are so often loathe to get invested in the world or characters or anyone who's not either a PC or a class feature (animal companion, familiar, summon, etc) because they're so exhausted with midwit DMs thinking they're clever for digging through backstories or the party's list of friends for a sacrificial lamb because they're too lazy to do prep that week.
you're not clever. it's not entertaining. it actively ruins engagement and interest when every single fricking time this shit happens. it's one thing to introduce actual consequences and the world reacting to their actions (you guys TPK'd/lost the fight and ran away and the dragon burned down the city as a result, etc) but I'm so unbelievably tired of people pretending this shit is good DMing. This is literally a pavlovian training program to turn your PCs into uninterested murderhobos and gruff vagabond mercenaries.
>meet cute little halfling apprentice girl >jfc it's the fifth one this campaign after the DM ran out of backstory relatives to kill >just cut to the chase and murder her before the DM can waste your time with more magical teleporting kidnap bandits that only ever show up whenever your back is turned
Didn't really think that one through, didja?
Traumatic experience or something? The anon never said that it should be abused or that you should always use stuff like it in order to motivate players and direct them, nor did the original source state as much. But one absolute fact is that sometimes players do need an active reason to work against antagonistic forces that isn't "well I'm a hero and he's a villain so we are naturally at odds." and part of that is using the things they are actively invested in to help motivate them.
For the example of the potion selling NPC, the fact that it's some defenseless girl is in fact one of the least important things about the example, it's that the PC's know about her personally and the players are obviously invested enough in her that she is frequently visited. They care about her and so she is something that can be utilized in order to create plot-hooks and set up the PC's relationship to whatever antagonist you are trying to prop up.
You could replace her with just about anything, an item, an idea, an organization or a town. Cherishing things and protecting those things from those that seek to hurt it is a hallmark of most heroic fantasies and understanding how to use that element of that fantasy to your advantage in order to help make your prep center around the party and the things they have shown interest in is important. I'm sorry for whatever negative experiences you've all had with DM's misusing this skill in order to torch backstory npc's but I can assure you it was the DM's shittiness, not this.
Of course, the DM should also do their best to assure that regardless of what they plan that they put player agency at the forefront. DM's shouldn't use this to kill off cherished NPC's but to instead help light a fire under the party's ass occasionally and force them into action. Kidnapping, theft, the threat of violence or a sizable decrease in their quality of life could be fine motivations for the PC's to kick someone's ass.
>Cherishing things and protecting those things from those that seek to hurt it
Protecting them would be killing bandits who are attempting to kidnap or steal from you, in the given example (and even what you're saying here) you are taking it as a matter of course that player agency is irrelevant and they'll get kidnapped no matter what, which is exactly the sort of behavior people despise and is what trains people to be murder hobos. You're not """""lighting a fire under their ass"""", you're teaching them that the world doesn't actually matter and characters only exist as tools for the GM to invoke forced drama.
If you want to do a 7 Samurai scenario where the PCs learn a bunch of bandits are gonna attack the village and them knowing some of the townsfolk is motivation for them to aid the defense instead of walking away, awesome, that's great, that's a proactive motivation showing them their actions matter and can change the outcomes of what happens. Saying "oh btw lol ninjas kidnapped all the villagers in the night and now you gotta run to the dungeon while they're being raped and tortured to death, better hurry up before they die!" you just encourage them to roll their eyes and play edgelords. And of course when the inverse happens, when the GM has a favorite npc they want players to care about, they will often be offended or upset when people disregard them entirely or are even hostile to them.
You make so many awkward assumptions about both my examples and the original guy that it's hard to assume that you're arguing in good faith and not just wordlessly admitting that you had a traumatic experience with a GM and are projecting those insecurities onto others. Even your examples are so inane that it's hard to assume you've ever ran a game before. I literally state very specifically that GM's should assure that player agency is at the forefront when thinking about this. Meaning even if you planned a kidnapping and the players could realistically engage with the scenario and prevent it from happening or here about it via proximity or contacts, then you should make way for that to occur. But if players cannot realistically be everywhere around the world and it is all but assured that something would happen to an NPC or something without their immediate intervention then you as the DM should not feel locked from doing that, that's not being a shitter, that's just life, that's showing them that the world exists even when the player-characters are not present.
What YOU are teaching them when you always make sure that nothing bad can ever happen offscreen to anyone's comfort character is that the world is effectively frozen the moment they leave an area or turn their back to something and that consequences or events can only ever be very direct and centered around them like it's some sort of videogame world. That doesn't sound very engaging and in fact could just as easily lead to the murderhobo behavior you seem to be so frightened of. Stick to playing video games if that's what you want.
>The same thing that makes any villain good. The players having a reason for their characters to fricking care. And yet 90% of DMs fail at this for some reason.
this is literally marvel capeshit tier writing, and is precisely why players are so often loathe to get invested in the world or characters or anyone who's not either a PC or a class feature (animal companion, familiar, summon, etc) because they're so exhausted with midwit DMs thinking they're clever for digging through backstories or the party's list of friends for a sacrificial lamb because they're too lazy to do prep that week.
you're not clever. it's not entertaining. it actively ruins engagement and interest when every single fricking time this shit happens. it's one thing to introduce actual consequences and the world reacting to their actions (you guys TPK'd/lost the fight and ran away and the dragon burned down the city as a result, etc) but I'm so unbelievably tired of people pretending this shit is good DMing. This is literally a pavlovian training program to turn your PCs into uninterested murderhobos and gruff vagabond mercenaries.
>meet cute little halfling apprentice girl >jfc it's the fifth one this campaign after the DM ran out of backstory relatives to kill >just cut to the chase and murder her before the DM can waste your time with more magical teleporting kidnap bandits that only ever show up whenever your back is turned
Didn't really think that one through, didja?
She even has >that one scary as frick beta orbiter who will unleash all of his rage over being unable to frick the villainess on your heroes. Probably wears a skull mask or has horrific scars, may have lost his junk and be more machine than man
Yes I meant Malekith. It was a joke.
Also just cause they boned doesn't mean she can't keep the thirst trap going if she doesn't let him smash more often than she does.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Malekith isn’t her orbiter though. He’s her son. The most disturbing thing about their relationship aside from the incest is despite their weird fricked up relationship she seems to genuinely want Malekith to succeed and become the Phoenix King.
>Having done nothing wrong.
Just reminded me of Kuvira. >when you're so right the shows creators have to remember you're supposed to be the villain half way through the season and throw a half baked concentration plot line at you that is immediately forgot about an episode later
I love how the show was basically pro-fash propaganda by showing that Fascism is the most sensible and reasonable system of governance unless it specifically decides to attack major population centers with giant robots.
That's only S2. S1 is extremely frustrating. Could've been easily salvaged by a french writer though, competent butthole princesses are a common character in their comics.
Maybe you should consider just rubbing one out before trying to give your spank material, I mean villainess, a personality and motive.
Might be good to, um, “get it out of your system” before you go gaming as well. I suspect you might end up having a blue balls-induced flip-out when the player’s choose to mercilessly murder the BBEG if you don’t.
Sex Appeal, inability for introspection, & a victim complex.
They need to be hot, always think everyone else is the problem, & never realize the impact of their actions until afterwards, which quickly gets justified by victim complex
When I make a female villain I usually choose one kind of attribute and turn it up to 11. If she's a crazy psychopath she's going to be really crazy, If she's a violent warrior she's going to be a rage tard etc... I almost always make them attractive because evil + good looks is always just a good combo for even male villains. The only time I make them ugly is when I typically make them the seductress type villain or a magic type.
> What makes a cool villainess?
DM. In my current campaign the main BBEG happened to be
a villainess. Player adore her despite the fact it is an old power crazed whitch that nearly killed half of them. I just play her as flamboyant and DMPC as possible.
She shows up as a cute girl who one of the players wife’s then she slowly fricks with his head with her bullshit and makes him a castrated dog who exists to serve her and live in torment while slowly losing contact with everyone he knows… to her enjoyment.
Dystopian tyranny as opposed to traditional tyranny. Make her justify her evil through comparison to more 'hard' evil while her rule is utterly kleptocratic and degenerate.
Dangerous, hot, unhinged and with just a hint of sympathy in their backstory so you understand why they ended up this way but that doesn't excuse the harm they have done.
A lot of proto-feminist literature made great villainesses (villainessi?) by having them subvert some norm. Make a Cleopatra-type character. She’s physically beautiful, probably *literally* stunning due to some enchantment she has cast on her. But at the same time, make her extremely cunning. Have her get the best of people by playing into their expectation that she’s some dumb broad who got to her position by sleeping around. Then pull the rug out from under your players when they play right into her plan. Something that makes them realize “oh shit, this character is waaaay deeper than we anticipated!”
When I heard OP say great, I thought he meant “iconic”, and I suggested that type of character because they will most likely pull some cool twist on a party that underestimates her. If she succeeds in tricking them, she’ll instantly turn into a much more complex character in the eyes of the PCs. It’s memorable to get tricked by a smarter character, especially if they played to your arrogance.
This sort of thing was iconic because it served as a sort of commentary on how society underestimated women, often to their detriment. There are cases from the late 1700’s where women would get away with actual murder because men thought that they couldn’t feel bloodlust. Lesbians were often ignored throughout history, even in homophobic cultures. (Look up Boston marriage). Look up Sherlock Holmes and a Scandal in Bohemia. It’s the quintessential “woman pulls one over on a guy by playing to his arrogance and misogyny” story.
Nothing. Most of the time, guys are just tricked into thinking they are good because they find them hot yet on an objective level they do not match up to males.
Her willingness to /ss/.
>Her willingness to /ss/.
curious choice
>big breasts
>goth aesthetic
>magic powers
>daddy issues
>an army of dangerous minions, the more psychotic their loyalty the better
>that one scary as frick beta orbiter who will unleash all of his rage over being unable to frick the villainess on your heroes. Probably wears a skull mask or has horrific scars, may have lost his junk and be more machine than man
>a cool fortress or tower
>the slim possibility that you might be able to frick her so good she forgets her evil ambitions
Why big breasts specifically and not a big ass or both breasts and ass?
Big breasts automatically come with big ass and goes without saying. Big breasts no ass is just pathetic.
This. Big breasts and no ass is almost nonexistent anyway
Sidious with breasts, got it.
Aside from the villainess part, was your intention to describe my last character almost in entirety? Only thing missing was magic powers.
No, I was actually describing my current character. She's technically not a villainess either, but that's only because nobody has crossed her yet.
>AI generated garbage
How did you look at this melted candle and think “good enough.”?
Nobody thinks your imaginary girlfriend is cool, stop trying to force it.
hyuge fricking milkers
Huge breasts
The same thing that makes any villain good. The players having a reason for their characters to fricking care. And yet 90% of DMs fail at this for some reason.
I dunno, if DMs keep kidnapping/killing things I care about I might just stop caring. I mean, I'll still pretend to care for the sake of the group but, y'know, I saw it coming.
I mean, as long as you pretend that's fine
You're only a small part of the group, it's the majority I have to consider.
>it's the majority I have to consider
of course. That's what I'm doing as well.
Just keep in mind not to over do it.
Like some GM anon who really, really wanted to kill the nunnery the players were helping, training, protecting, etc and everyone was calling him an idiot.
Traumatic experience or something? The anon never said that it should be abused or that you should always use stuff like it in order to motivate players and direct them, nor did the original source state as much. But one absolute fact is that sometimes players do need an active reason to work against antagonistic forces that isn't "well I'm a hero and he's a villain so we are naturally at odds." and part of that is using the things they are actively invested in to help motivate them.
For the example of the potion selling NPC, the fact that it's some defenseless girl is in fact one of the least important things about the example, it's that the PC's know about her personally and the players are obviously invested enough in her that she is frequently visited. They care about her and so she is something that can be utilized in order to create plot-hooks and set up the PC's relationship to whatever antagonist you are trying to prop up.
You could replace her with just about anything, an item, an idea, an organization or a town. Cherishing things and protecting those things from those that seek to hurt it is a hallmark of most heroic fantasies and understanding how to use that element of that fantasy to your advantage in order to help make your prep center around the party and the things they have shown interest in is important. I'm sorry for whatever negative experiences you've all had with DM's misusing this skill in order to torch backstory npc's but I can assure you it was the DM's shittiness, not this.
Of course, the DM should also do their best to assure that regardless of what they plan that they put player agency at the forefront. DM's shouldn't use this to kill off cherished NPC's but to instead help light a fire under the party's ass occasionally and force them into action. Kidnapping, theft, the threat of violence or a sizable decrease in their quality of life could be fine motivations for the PC's to kick someone's ass.
>Cherishing things and protecting those things from those that seek to hurt it
Protecting them would be killing bandits who are attempting to kidnap or steal from you, in the given example (and even what you're saying here) you are taking it as a matter of course that player agency is irrelevant and they'll get kidnapped no matter what, which is exactly the sort of behavior people despise and is what trains people to be murder hobos. You're not """""lighting a fire under their ass"""", you're teaching them that the world doesn't actually matter and characters only exist as tools for the GM to invoke forced drama.
If you want to do a 7 Samurai scenario where the PCs learn a bunch of bandits are gonna attack the village and them knowing some of the townsfolk is motivation for them to aid the defense instead of walking away, awesome, that's great, that's a proactive motivation showing them their actions matter and can change the outcomes of what happens. Saying "oh btw lol ninjas kidnapped all the villagers in the night and now you gotta run to the dungeon while they're being raped and tortured to death, better hurry up before they die!" you just encourage them to roll their eyes and play edgelords. And of course when the inverse happens, when the GM has a favorite npc they want players to care about, they will often be offended or upset when people disregard them entirely or are even hostile to them.
You make so many awkward assumptions about both my examples and the original guy that it's hard to assume that you're arguing in good faith and not just wordlessly admitting that you had a traumatic experience with a GM and are projecting those insecurities onto others. Even your examples are so inane that it's hard to assume you've ever ran a game before. I literally state very specifically that GM's should assure that player agency is at the forefront when thinking about this. Meaning even if you planned a kidnapping and the players could realistically engage with the scenario and prevent it from happening or here about it via proximity or contacts, then you should make way for that to occur. But if players cannot realistically be everywhere around the world and it is all but assured that something would happen to an NPC or something without their immediate intervention then you as the DM should not feel locked from doing that, that's not being a shitter, that's just life, that's showing them that the world exists even when the player-characters are not present.
What YOU are teaching them when you always make sure that nothing bad can ever happen offscreen to anyone's comfort character is that the world is effectively frozen the moment they leave an area or turn their back to something and that consequences or events can only ever be very direct and centered around them like it's some sort of videogame world. That doesn't sound very engaging and in fact could just as easily lead to the murderhobo behavior you seem to be so frightened of. Stick to playing video games if that's what you want.
>The same thing that makes any villain good. The players having a reason for their characters to fricking care. And yet 90% of DMs fail at this for some reason.
this is literally marvel capeshit tier writing, and is precisely why players are so often loathe to get invested in the world or characters or anyone who's not either a PC or a class feature (animal companion, familiar, summon, etc) because they're so exhausted with midwit DMs thinking they're clever for digging through backstories or the party's list of friends for a sacrificial lamb because they're too lazy to do prep that week.
you're not clever. it's not entertaining. it actively ruins engagement and interest when every single fricking time this shit happens. it's one thing to introduce actual consequences and the world reacting to their actions (you guys TPK'd/lost the fight and ran away and the dragon burned down the city as a result, etc) but I'm so unbelievably tired of people pretending this shit is good DMing. This is literally a pavlovian training program to turn your PCs into uninterested murderhobos and gruff vagabond mercenaries.
>meet cute little halfling apprentice girl
>jfc it's the fifth one this campaign after the DM ran out of backstory relatives to kill
>just cut to the chase and murder her before the DM can waste your time with more magical teleporting kidnap bandits that only ever show up whenever your back is turned
Didn't really think that one through, didja?
Mammaries of unusual(ly large) size.
Huge slappers
Doing nothing wrong.
Homura, no!
Pointy ears.
Magic.
Big boobs.
Having done nothing wrong.
Morathi?
Not quite the M I had in mind.
She even has
>that one scary as frick beta orbiter who will unleash all of his rage over being unable to frick the villainess on your heroes. Probably wears a skull mask or has horrific scars, may have lost his junk and be more machine than man
No she doesent? Even if you stretch to the heavens and decide Malekith is somehow fitting some of those, they boned.
Yes I meant Malekith. It was a joke.
Also just cause they boned doesn't mean she can't keep the thirst trap going if she doesn't let him smash more often than she does.
Malekith isn’t her orbiter though. He’s her son. The most disturbing thing about their relationship aside from the incest is despite their weird fricked up relationship she seems to genuinely want Malekith to succeed and become the Phoenix King.
>Having done nothing wrong.
Just reminded me of Kuvira.
>when you're so right the shows creators have to remember you're supposed to be the villain half way through the season and throw a half baked concentration plot line at you that is immediately forgot about an episode later
I love how the show was basically pro-fash propaganda by showing that Fascism is the most sensible and reasonable system of governance unless it specifically decides to attack major population centers with giant robots.
Sigh.
Guess I gotta watch it now.
That's only S2. S1 is extremely frustrating. Could've been easily salvaged by a french writer though, competent butthole princesses are a common character in their comics.
The same things that make a cool villain, except replace the penis with a vegana so it’s a villainess.
And what makes a good villain? make them an unapologetic, selfish jackass.
This isn’t hard people.
>make them an unapologetic, selfish jackass.
But that's just women in general
No, everyone’s just like that around you specifically, because you’re just that unpleasant to be around.
Oh, it's hard alright. It's distractingly hard
Maybe you should consider just rubbing one out before trying to give your spank material, I mean villainess, a personality and motive.
Might be good to, um, “get it out of your system” before you go gaming as well. I suspect you might end up having a blue balls-induced flip-out when the player’s choose to mercilessly murder the BBEG if you don’t.
You don't double up? Need at least 3 wanks before I stop being horny
I edge for a long while so it builds up and it's one and done.
Clears the mind.
>And what makes a good villain?
Big boobs.
You porn-addled terminally-online autists and your obsession with outlandish, grotesquely massive breasts
A waist-to-hip ratio like a broomstick balancing on a shelving unit is clearly the gentleman's choice
breasts: civilised countries plus india, china, egypt
Ass: africa, the middle east, latin america, and mutted USA
What do you know. I guess Argentina is white.
disdain and lack of caring
genuine sociopathy
actually competent and level headed
strongly manipulative and/or seductive
sleek beauty/elegance
Sex Appeal, inability for introspection, & a victim complex.
They need to be hot, always think everyone else is the problem, & never realize the impact of their actions until afterwards, which quickly gets justified by victim complex
You are literally describing every other woman.
That's the joke, moron.
>victim complex
absolute 0% cool
A big pair of powerful orbs
When I make a female villain I usually choose one kind of attribute and turn it up to 11. If she's a crazy psychopath she's going to be really crazy, If she's a violent warrior she's going to be a rage tard etc... I almost always make them attractive because evil + good looks is always just a good combo for even male villains. The only time I make them ugly is when I typically make them the seductress type villain or a magic type.
> What makes a cool villainess?
DM. In my current campaign the main BBEG happened to be
a villainess. Player adore her despite the fact it is an old power crazed whitch that nearly killed half of them. I just play her as flamboyant and DMPC as possible.
Not asking the same fricking question bi-weekly is a good start. It reassures people that the villain(ess) isn't moronic nor suffers from dementia
She shows up as a cute girl who one of the players wife’s then she slowly fricks with his head with her bullshit and makes him a castrated dog who exists to serve her and live in torment while slowly losing contact with everyone he knows… to her enjoyment.
You guys ever just literally worship Tamamo-no-Mae sometimes? Maybe once every month for me.
Dystopian tyranny as opposed to traditional tyranny. Make her justify her evil through comparison to more 'hard' evil while her rule is utterly kleptocratic and degenerate.
Huge badonkers and the absolute certainty that she is invulnerable to the wiener (is actually extremely weak to the wiener)
I also agree with most of the replies ITT
PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP
GET REDEEMED GET REDEEMED GET REDEEMED
Should I commission a villainess?
Yes, a bodacious one preferably
Any tips/specifications you recommend I give the artist?
Make her stature belie her villainy.
Women can't be cool. Villainesses only exist to reward your players with some guilt-free rape if they've been good lately and deserve a treat.
ryona
As a victim or a perpetrator?
Dangerous, hot, unhinged and with just a hint of sympathy in their backstory so you understand why they ended up this way but that doesn't excuse the harm they have done.
wrong picture
Women can't be cool.
A lot of proto-feminist literature made great villainesses (villainessi?) by having them subvert some norm. Make a Cleopatra-type character. She’s physically beautiful, probably *literally* stunning due to some enchantment she has cast on her. But at the same time, make her extremely cunning. Have her get the best of people by playing into their expectation that she’s some dumb broad who got to her position by sleeping around. Then pull the rug out from under your players when they play right into her plan. Something that makes them realize “oh shit, this character is waaaay deeper than we anticipated!”
>A lot of proto-feminist literature made great villainesses (villainessi?) by having them subvert some norm
And this is great how?
When I heard OP say great, I thought he meant “iconic”, and I suggested that type of character because they will most likely pull some cool twist on a party that underestimates her. If she succeeds in tricking them, she’ll instantly turn into a much more complex character in the eyes of the PCs. It’s memorable to get tricked by a smarter character, especially if they played to your arrogance.
This sort of thing was iconic because it served as a sort of commentary on how society underestimated women, often to their detriment. There are cases from the late 1700’s where women would get away with actual murder because men thought that they couldn’t feel bloodlust. Lesbians were often ignored throughout history, even in homophobic cultures. (Look up Boston marriage). Look up Sherlock Holmes and a Scandal in Bohemia. It’s the quintessential “woman pulls one over on a guy by playing to his arrogance and misogyny” story.
You don't play games.
>Tamomo-No-Mae escaped her ancient stone prison at basically the same moment that WW3 started
So, /x/ was right all along?
Wait'll you see what comes next.