Supervillain Psych Lims: The Reboot

[Marcus Impudite]

Since the original thread has gone so far off course it's not even funny, perhaps it would be best if we start again fresh, whatta ya say?

In the villain write ups (especially mystical bad guys) I often see psych lims like "Irredeamably Evil". So how is that limitating? How can that be used against a character like a "Code of Honor"? Do you have NNDs with the defence being "having a spark of goodness in your soul"? Do you bait traps with puppies hoping your evil target will go out of his/her way to kick it? Do you raid a morgue to bait the cannabil you're trying to capture? If a "Casual Killer" is holding hostages, how is it hazardous to the villain? I was under the impression psych lims are meant to impeed a character but I don't see how that works with evil ones.

[Hugh Neilson]

Casual killer?

"OK, they're down. What now?"

"Question the prisoners."

"Ummm..."

"You DID leave one alive to question this time, right?"

You mention a casual killer holding hostages. How long will he have hostages? Once they're dead, he doesn't have an advantage he can leverage, he has a lot of heroes that much more determined to bring him down.

Irredeemably Evil?

What's that old story about the scorpion who persuades another animal to swim it across the river? Of course I won't sting you - then we'd both drown. But sting it he does, in the middle of the river. Why? "I'm a scorpion. It's my nature."

I also liked the comment from the first thread that the "irredeemably evil" have great difficulty understanding selfless/heroic motives.

There are examples in the source material of such characters preferring death to being saved by the Heroes. That's fairly disadvantageous.

Try building up a trusting and loyal cadre of allies when you are an "Irredeemably Evil" "Casual Killer" who murders your allies if they displease you. How loyal are your remaining lackeys when you're not close enough to intimidate them?

Like any other psych lim, these dictate the acts these characters will take. How often will that affect them? How severely? That determines the value.

[Wanderer]

Casual killer?

"OK, they're down. What now?"

"Question the prisoners."

"Ummm..."

"You DID leave one alive to question this time, right?"

You mention a casual killer holding hostages. How long will he have hostages? Once they're dead, he doesn't have an advantage he can leverage, he has a lot of heroes that much more determined to bring him down.

Good remarks, even if I have to remark that such a strong difficulty to abstain from killing, even if when it's definitely advantageous (hostages, questioning) better fits Psych Lims like "Likes to Kill", "Kills for Fun" and "Bloodlust". Casual Killer by itself is more of the "I have no ethical or psychological qualms whatsoever gainst killing, so if I have any reason to, and no reason not to, I will" e.g. "hey @$$%&£? you marred my car. I'm suing you ! Oh, will you ? BLAM". The cold-blooded operative that methodically terminates all his targets, yet is perfectly capable of keeping some enemy alive if needed for questioning is a Casual Killer also.

[Jhamin]

I think that Casual Killer also tends to make you enemies you might not have had otherwise. Killing people when it isn't called for, or when they are not directly involved in a situation tends to steel your enemies in ways that you do not want.

One of the really great recent examples of a causal killer is the Operative from Serenity.

>>Minor Spoilers<< - - - What is the statute of limitations on a Spoiler anyway?


























Tasked with catching the Tams he makes a play. When it fails and the Firefly crew gets away he proceeds to kill everyone they have every had good relations with. Just to prove the point that they will not be hiding. I don't know that the Operative even considered taking another route.


From the point of view of the Crew (read: The PCs) It was one thing to be hunted by the Alliance, but quite another to be hunted by this sicko.
I got the impression that there is no way the crew would have braved Reaver space without the murder of all their friends to drive them. And we all know that that was exactly the opposite of what the Operative was tasked with accomplishing.

[Marcus Impudite]

Okay, in the orignial thread (before things went south there) it was said by many that a villain with Irredeamably Evil (Very Common, Total) suffered from "blind spots" in his thinking because of his total commitment to The Darkside™. Working from that line of reasoning, what Psychological Limitation (or possibly lack thereof) will qualify one to be a card-carrying member of the venerable I'm-Evil-Not-Stupid Club?

[Enforcer84]

Okay, in the orignial thread (before things went south there) it was said by many that a villain with Irredeamably Evil (Very Common, Total) suffered from "blind spots" in his thinking because of his total commitment to The Darkside™. Working from that line of reasoning, what Psychological Limitation (or possibly lack thereof) will qualify one to be a card-carrying member of the venerable I'm-Evil-Not-Stupid Club?

It depends. I mean a guy can be a megalomaniac without being "irredemably evil" so he won't suffer those "blind spots", but he'll have others. That's why their limitations. The guy with the 10 pt Greedy Disad is probably willing to break the law for money, he's not however, going to throw down with Dr. Destroyer over a $1.87. Though perhaps a guy with a 25 pt greedy limitation might.

[Vanguard00]

Hannibal Lector is "Irredeemably Evil". He can be a perfect gentleman, cultured even, but he'll turn on you eventually. He'll always turn on you.

Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) from "Reservoir Dogs" is a "Casual Killer" (with a "bloodlust" Psych Lim, to boot). He doesn't have to kill everyone around him and can actually get along with folks much of the time. But he'll easily find reasons to pop you in the head with a .45. And if he has time, a little gratuitous torture wouldn't go amiss. It's not that he likes killing, it's just that there isn't much he likes better.

[OddHat]

Okay, in the orignial thread (before things went south there) it was said by many that a villain with Irredeamably Evil (Very Common, Total) suffered from "blind spots" in his thinking because of his total commitment to The Darkside™. Working from that line of reasoning, what Psychological Limitation (or possibly lack thereof) will qualify one to be a card-carrying member of the venerable I'm-Evil-Not-Stupid Club?

Greedy, Meglomania, Sadist, Low Empathy, Poor Impulse Control, any of them at the moderate level. An "Evil but not stupid" character doesn't need to have Evil on his sheet at all, particularly if it doesn't limit him.

If the GM wants Evil on the sheet, frequency and severity are the guides. Evil has a lot of overlap with other psych limits; some of the following examples reflect that.

Don Magnus, crime boss and occultist, is Evil (uncommon). He can build good relationships, turn on the charm, convince people he's a nice guy, even do the right thing once in a while. Still, he likes to be cruel, to bully, to cheat and exploit, to see others in pain. Once in a while, he lets himself go, but he's not a cartoon villain. He can also recognize a good man when he sees one, and might try to cultivate a few alliances with good people.

Devin Bleak is Evil (common). He doesn't bother to keep the lid on his temper, or to hide his contempt for the "sheep" around him. He acts like an angry teenager or early twenty-something wanabe bad ***, which may impress similar personality types, but also reduces his ability to make the kind of alliances or earn the trust he needs to make progress. He might function in his own gang or crime family well enough, but he's not going to become anything much in the non-criminal world. He still understands the idea of trustworthy friends, but he probably doesn't have many.

Sandro Tuscini is Evil (Very Common). He rarely hides his nature, treating everyone around him with as much contempt as he can get away with. He has few or no allies, and no friends. He might be able to hold on to a few gang members weak minded enough to follow after him, but that's it. He has trouble understanding any motivation other than immediate personal gain.

Add Strong or Total to any of the above and you'll make life much harder for the character.

Evil (Common, Strong) will sometimes engage in acts of petty spite and cruelty even if they know that it's not in their best interests. He might rob his own trusted underling, beat his wife or girlfriend, or otherwise plant seeds that lead to his downfall even when he can see it's a bad move. He might explain a plan that will cause the death of his lieutenant's mother right in front of the man, and not expect the lieutenant to try to do anything about it.

Evil (Very Common, Total). He's barely able to function over the long term in any kind of group. He might kill his own underlings for fun or to make a point. Rape and torture are a way to kill time in the evening, and if it upsets his own followers, all the better. He'd much rather cause his foes pain than kill them.

[concord]

Greedy, Meglomania, Sadist, Low Empathy, Poor Impulse Control, any of them at the moderate level. An "Evil but not stupid" character doesn't need to have Evil on his sheet at all, particularly if it doesn't limit him.

- Much Snipped -

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to OddHat again.

Excellent Post...

[death tribble]

It is also worth looking at archetypes in literature.
Ozymandias in the Watchmen for example who kills a lot of people just to draw everyone in the world together. He also kills his subordinates who are party to the plan.
Then in Star Wars (New Hope) look at how Tarkin and Vader behave. They are both evil but smart and they expect the subordinates to do their job. And you never see Vader giving a hard time to the troopers. The officers on the other hand.
You can then use Disads to apply these behaviours to the villains you want to use. And it is easier with the GM playing all the bad guys to co-ordinate what they are doing as opposed to players all of whom have views on the best way to accomplish the scenarios goals. That is if you are using something like the Stormtroopers and Vader where you don't have Casual Killer but you would have an Honour Disad.

[Wanderer]

That is if you are using something like the Stormtroopers and Vader where you don't have Casual Killer but you would have an Honour Disad.

I disagree. IMO Vader is a typical example of a "functional" villain that has Casual Killer but not the "evil" psych lims above. Vader is not a sadist, to him killing is a tool, he has something like "Tyrannical but fair" ruler, plus Casual Killer. the latter is the "I don't qualm about killing" that earmarks the person as lacking any ethical or psychological barriers to the act of killing per se (the other psych lim define how and when the character deems right to kill). It is a disadvantage because people who lack it find a casual killer frightening and creepy, not because they are moved to kill when it's not advantageous. The latter happens when the character has other psych foibles that create a difficulty to self-control, see long-term and enlightened self-interest, and create an urge to kill (e.g. for fun or pleasure).

It is questionable whether Vader would have Honorable. He is seen to cheat and renege deals without too much qualms, so if he has, it is Moderate at the very most.

A typical fictional character that would have Casual Killer, Honorable, and "tyrannical but fair" mindset, and no "evil" psych lim would be Doctor Doom. He will gladly kill those who fail or hamper him, but he despises violence without a good pragmatic reason, he acts fair to those who deserve his respect (even if he will gladly take advantage of fools), and if he has given his word to you, he will cross the length and breadth of Hell twice to be true to it.


IMO there are three types of Psych Lims "villains" might have: dysfunctional ones (like evil or sadist), "pragmatic" ones (like casual killer or ruthless) and good ones (like honorable). The value of the first is that they both give a social penalty and can be made advantage of, or move the character to act against its own best self-interest, the second at most give a social penalty (for friendly interactions, but may actually give a bonus fro intimidation), the third can made advangew of by an enemy.

Characters like Vader and Doom have 2 and/or 3, but not 1. Typically this makes the difference between downright villains that "we love to dispatch" and are typically despised, and anti-heroes and sympathetic villains that many may like, "love to see again", or root for, or at least respect. There is "petty" evil and not. In a RPG sense, some villains are easy PC material, and some are not.

[MCMaenza]

I just want to chime in saying this is a great discussion. When I'm writing or GMing, I like to get inside my villains' heads as much as possible to really flesh them out. So, good Psych. Lims can go a long way to setting up some fun personalities.

[Marcus Impudite]

Okay, how would you all run a villain with a Psych. lim like this:

Victorian Notions Of The "Gentleman Villain" (Common, Moderate)

[OddHat]

Okay, how would you all run a villain with a Psych. lim like this:

Victorian Notions Of The "Gentleman Villain" (Common, Moderate)

I think he'd act a lot like Moriarty. Discuss philosophy a bit with his foes, allow a foe he was confident he'd beat to take a breather or pick up a fallen weapon, captiure a female foe and possibly put her in peril or even kill her but never violate her, keep his word so long as he was sure he'd get out on top, throw it all away if it was the only way to win.

[Steve]

Okay, how would you all run a villain with a Psych. lim like this:

Victorian Notions Of The "Gentleman Villain" (Common, Moderate)

In my view, a "Gentleman Villain" has style and likely a sense of honor and fair play, and he's probably also quite well-spoken. A couple of examples from pop culture might be Senor Senor Sr. from the Disney cartoon Kim Possible, and Khan Noonian Singh (both played by Ricardo Montalban).

Some of James Bond's villains can be this way as well.