The Escapist has a good article up on Foozles; those Big Bad end bosses in the majority of RPGs. Certainly, there is a place for a Big Bad villain to serve as a strong antagonist in a narrative, but what can you do without one?
I’ve been writing an “alternate history” sort of book/series for a while now, sort of a mix of Steampunk ethos and Dinotopia with a fair dose of Norse-inspired whimsy. It’s not in any sort of publishable form as yet, but as I’ve been crafting the world and its history, I just haven’t been able to find a good place for a singular Big Bad. The scope of what I’m angling for is more political and sweeping than would be served justice by a single criminal mastermind. (It’s worth noting that Dinotopia is the single strongest influence in this project, and that excellent book is most about exploring an amazing world, not a Heroic Journey needing resolution.)
One alternate that I’ve toyed with is the sort of thing that Kirk dealt with in The Doomsday Machine; a totally nonsentient relic of a forgotten war. Of course, it would serve as a singular menace akin to a Big Bad, but it also has elements of a force of nature, in that it simply functions; there is no malicious deviant at the helm. Even so, that just isn’t terribly satisfying to me, and if I go that route, it’s going to be a wheel within a wheel. The notion of a singular Big Bad just seems too… simple to me. Too… neat of a solution to a world where factions and contentions aren’t merely black and white.
That doesn’t mean that it’s bad to have a clear singular enemy. Darth Vader has his fans, and in some ways, he really makes the movies. Simplicity isn’t a bad thing either, especially in a relatively straightforward morality tale.
So, singular iconic villains aren’t a sign of incompetence… they just aren’t the only way to create conflicts for heroes to overcome. In a lot of ways, heroes are made by a lot of little choices, not by the singular defeat of a true monster. Sometimes it’s the quiet moments that are the most important; the choices that don’t save the world, but define a soul.
The Escapist article floated the notion that games have indulged in Foozle hunting for a long time, and may yet for a long time. Perhaps games are too simple a storytelling medium to do much else… or perhaps our writers (and players) are too immature. Maybe the mainstream of games will always be a Foozle hunt (whether in the Big Bad mold or the “kill ten foozles” mole)… but I believe there’s a place for something a bit more subtle.
What if, in the end, it turned out the Big Bad was the Big Good, and we had been routing for the Bad guys all along?
Probably not as original as it seems to my pre-caffeine brain.
Rooting* for
I’d probably give up on the notion of a ‘hero’. Sure, someone who faces a bunch of big decisions throughout the book. But do you have to decide in advance he’s a hero? Sure maybe by the time you’ve finished the book he seems a hero – but just let that happen or not.
Equally does someone have to be a big ‘bad’? Or just another person facing big decisions, who’s own choice might clash hugely with the first guy?
Again, maybe by the time you’ve finished the book he’ll seem a villain. Or maybe a guy who was stuck in the wrong place, or whatever. Or maybe he’ll seem like the real hero by the end. Who knows.
Perhaps just ensure there are big choices to be made (typically ‘big’ hinges on how many lives are affected by it and in what ways) and leave the whole hero and villain thing to the wind/undecided.
I hate it when I find I’ve been doing tech support/routing for the bad guy all along… ;)
“leave the whole hero and villain thing to the wind/undecided”
Yeah, that’s probably a good way to handle things, especially to dodge oversermonizing.
Y’know, I don’t like playing for the Bad Guys… but it *can* make for a good story. Especially if there’s good reason for their activity, rather than mere psychosis.
Rooting, routing… both can be useful. :)
My favorite good guy/bad guy stories are when you get to the end, and no one has necessarily triumphed, and both sides are left wondering if they succeeded, while the “good” guys wonder if they were doing the right thing at all.
One of the things I really noticed in Guild Wars: Nightfall, is that by golly Servants of Abaddon (bigbadfoozle) get way more perks than those of the 5 gods (punyvirtuousfoozles)!
They get armies! Demons! Powerz! Shiny auras that do nothing! They get to dramatically invoke Abaddon! They get to come back after they die (no wait, players already do that…).
And what do the servants of the 5 gods get? Platitudes. -_-
If there was an OPTION to serve Abaddon instead of the 5 gods, you can bet where I’d be going!
…and maybe that’s one of the things that’s missing from the genre. Not that the big bad foozle is bad, but that you have no choice but to pit yourself against the big bad foozle.
It also raises the interesting philosophical question. If the ‘bad guys’ faction gets better gear, stats, everything, than the ‘good guys’, then people screaming about imbalance aside, (assuming this was done on pupose), how many players would still choose to be the ‘good guys’?
OMMMMM!
Nugget – If it’s WoW’s playerbase…0
LOL! Meanie!
>.> Besides I just said that I would have joined the baddies *cry*
Of course, stats weren’t in question (hey, it’s Guild Wars), but all the other cool peripherals… *drools*