Memorable cRPG villain

[Faarbaute]

 

[Heroic Liberator]

if he actually loved Ferelden so much he would have stepped aside rather than start a bloody civil war that would ensure there would be no unity and weaken Ferelden as a whole.

The civil war wouldn't have been too long nor too bloody were it not for the PC's actions tipping the balance of power against Loghain. And he was certainly the most competent to lead as a wartime leader for Ferelden.

He was an opportunistic usurper.

Lolno. At most he was paranoid in fearing that Cailan's actions would lead Ferelden back under Orlesian rule. Then again, the lore itself does give some credence to that line of reasoning too.

But anyhow, enough Loghain apologia from me. I like him as a tragic figure and that's that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Blutwurstritter]

His reasoning is of little importance. [...] He called the shots and his shots misfired, that's on him.

Then we're not talking about competence. He made the right choice at Ostagar with the information he had available while Cailan did not. The fact that the rational decision which Loghain had taken was not - with hindsight - a good decision doesn't speak of the man's incompetence, but simply of bad luck given that his decision was intellectually sound in the circumstances in which it was taken. The good outcome that would have ensured were he to have sided with Cailan would've instead made him a lucky, yet incompetent strategist since such a choice would've been rooted either in blind obedience to an incompetent king (which would've made him a traitor to Ferelden to which his foremost loyalty lies) or to the same sort of overvaluing of the Grey Wardens that Cailan did. And he could not have known more about the Grey Wardens since Cailan gave them a pass simply because he was vainglorious, not taking the Darkspawn threat seriously and caring more about the legend of the Wardens rather than their actual capabilities. You can't blame a man for not having more information when gathering that information wasn't his job (nor was it possible to gather it when his superior cockblocked his efforts to further scrutinize the Wardens).

Lets take a look at his other great efforts. [...] Leaving the facts aside that he wanted to assassinate you and has proven himself to be a traitor at the very beginning. Not exactly the person that I would want to have my back.

All of them due to the meddling of the player character. And the player character is pretty much a Mary Sue, something that we as gamers tend to overlook since it makes for a good hero's journey type of story despite the obscene amount of luck that the PC has throughout it in being the right man at the right place & time to fuck up Loghain's plans (among other things). Had the Warden been just another story NPC, he would've been either long dead or just faded into obscurity after Ostagar.

His value as asset is also low since you have to swap him, which leaves you pretty much as well of as before.

An experienced champion is objectively the better choice over an unexperienced (and undisciplined) templar. And since the PC proved his worth over him, that makes Loghain the most loyal companion given that he now acknowledges that the fate of Ferelden depends on your continued success as leader of the Grey Wardens.

Why assume that he made the right choices without any results as proof for it ? One can only speculate that he would have achieved his goals without the player character while I know that he failed at those things as I played the game. My judgement is entirely based on things that happened in the game. At no point did Loghains actions and results speak for his competence and I don't use speculations about what could have been as basis for my judgement call. I see no reason to have confidence in him just because he could done great things hypothetically when in-game "reality" proofs the opposite. Why assume that his choices are reasonable ? He has no results to show for it. Admittedly, the choices might appear reasonable on a first glance but that alone does not make them a good choice nor is it enough to claim competence in my opinion. Lets take the very beginning. We cannot not know that the Dark Spawn threat could not have been defeated if he hadn't pulled out. We also don't know if it hadn't been for the best if he had saved the king to forge an alliance. Everything about the possible outcomes are speculations while the betrayal that happened is not. We must be using very different scales in measuring competence or have very different notions for the term, since mine tip very clearly to incompetent.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Loghain has to resort to slavery to even fund the civil war and it's one of the major reasons everyone turns against him at the landsmeet. He cares about Ferelden that much that he lets foreigners come and capture slaves there. Just such a caring guy.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Why assume that his choices are reasonable ? He has no results to show for it.

Because the reasonability of a choice lies in the thought process behind it and not in an outcome that cannot be predicted.

We cannot not know that the Dark Spawn threat could not have been defeated if he hadn't pulled out.

And you somehow think that it's more reasonable to risk losing the entire army in one battle against a foe whose capabilities you haven't yet properly ascertained rather than ordering a strategic retreat?

Spoiler

• Wynne: I was at Ostagar. I witnessed Cailan's murder.
• Loghain: Such loyalty.
• Wynne: What is that supposed to mean?
• Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.
• Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!
• Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.
• Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!
• Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried, regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes of the Circle.
• Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.
• Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.
• Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

We also don't know if it hadn't been for the best if he had saved the king to forge an alliance.

If you mean an alliance to Orlais, he was opposed to that on ideological grounds. So just like the issue of whether regicide is justified from the perspective of a Fereldan patriot or not, it's a matter of personal value judgements.

Spoiler

• Loghain: In a single vow, Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an emperor.
• Wynne: And what of peace? Would it not bring us that, at least?
• Loghain: Peace? I would have thought your age might have granted more wisdom, madam. Peace just means fighting someone else's enemies in someone else's war for someone else's reasons.

We must be using very different scales in measuring competence or have very different notions for the term, since mine tip very clearly to incompetent.

As I see it, you measure competence in luck which makes the whole concept pointless since then you can only judge competence after the fact. If someone wins big by sinking a lot of money in playing slots at a casino, is he more financially competent than someone who invests his money in a business which doesn't prove successful? I'd say not.

 

[VHS9000]

Brother Poquelin from Icewind Dale is really sinister figure behind the scenes till the very end of game. Then you get this nice twist with narrator in final cutscene.

Also the Black Wolf have my favourite line ever perfectly played with bitterness yet with pride:

If it is evil that you seek, then you need look no further. I stand here before you.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Also, not the final antagonist but the "former" and legendary arena champion from Underrail makes a great villain, not only he has the style going for him but his delightfully devious!

Spoiler

He poses as a fan and gives you advices until you get to fight the champion but he killed him first and you get to fight the former champion, aka your "fan".
Nice plot twist.

It was the best thing about Underrail Arena fights because they're all over in one turn, maybe not the first ones when you're not a gladiator because there is so many "trash mobs" creatures to clean-up.
But then, all the 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 2 fights are over before they even begin.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Why assume that his choices are reasonable ? He has no results to show for it.

Because the reasonability of a choice lies in the thought process behind it and not in an outcome that cannot be predicted.

We cannot not know that the Dark Spawn threat could not have been defeated if he hadn't pulled out.

And you somehow think that it's more reasonable to risk losing the entire army in one battle against a foe whose capabilities you haven't yet properly ascertained rather than ordering a strategic retreat?

Spoiler

• Wynne: I was at Ostagar. I witnessed Cailan's murder.
• Loghain: Such loyalty.
• Wynne: What is that supposed to mean?
• Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.
• Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!
• Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.
• Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!
• Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried, regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes of the Circle.
• Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.
• Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.
• Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

We also don't know if it hadn't been for the best if he had saved the king to forge an alliance.

If you mean an alliance to Orlais, he was opposed to that on ideological grounds. So just like the issue of whether regicide is justified from the perspective of a Fereldan patriot or not, it's a matter of personal value judgements.

Spoiler

• Loghain: In a single vow, Orlais would claim all that they could never win by war! And what would Ferelden gain? Our fool of a king could strut about and call himself an emperor.
• Wynne: And what of peace? Would it not bring us that, at least?
• Loghain: Peace? I would have thought your age might have granted more wisdom, madam. Peace just means fighting someone else's enemies in someone else's war for someone else's reasons.

We must be using very different scales in measuring competence or have very different notions for the term, since mine tip very clearly to incompetent.

As I see it, you measure competence in luck which makes the whole concept pointless since then you can only judge competence after the fact. If someone wins big by sinking a lot of money in playing slots at a casino, is he more financially competent than someone who invests his money in a business which doesn't prove successful? I'd say not.

My assumption is that properly reasoned, competent decisions should lead on average to desirable results. This does not imply that every desired result is due to proper reasoning or competence (your casino example). The averaging over many decision/outcome pairs minimizes the possibility that one is perfectly competent and yet at the same time always unlucky, having only negative results. It is of course not entirely impossible but rather unlikely. So Loghain is either the unluckiest man alive or incompetent. The number of negative results is enough for me to deem him incompetent. Loghains decisions are also based on emotions and personal prejudice which again are not exactly harbingers of competent decision making. The pool of possible decisions that Loghain could have made is also very large. He could have for example, pulled back before the king rushed in. Or he could have staged a coup-de-etat capturing the king. There are many more option. But I have no interest to spent more time on all the hypothetical scenarios. Even without doing so, I see no good reason to exclude the possibility of a better decision available to him. I find it hard to believe that his decisions were the competent ones given that all of his decisions lead to dire results. He rather seems to be making calls based on his bias and prejudice while at the same time being not competent enough to make them work.

 

[Reinhardt]

Killed this fag in my one and only palythrough of dragon age. Cuck was not even stronk. His henchwommyn was much better fighter.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

My assumption is that properly reasoned, competent decisions should lead on average to desirable results. This does not imply that every desired result is due to proper reasoning or competence (your casino example). The averaging over many decision/outcome pairs minimizes the possibility that one is perfectly competent and yet at the same time always unlucky, having only negative results. It is of course not entirely impossible but rather unlikely. So Loghain is either the unluckiest man alive or incompetent.

And that's because you are discounting his prior proof of competence pertaining to the Fereldan war against Orlais. He is acknowledged in the game as having been a great commander who led a bunch of peasants to victory against Orlesian cavaliers.

As far as I'm concerned, the only debatable choice is that of the retreat. Everything after that is due to the PC being the PC and thus being shaped by narrative constraints as an opponent that Loghain simply cannot defeat (a.i. it's not that he made bad choices, but that there could have been no good choices from a meta point of view given that he was going against the PC). And once you do defeat him, he does acknowledge the superiority of the PC and falls in line for the good of the realm.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

My assumption is that properly reasoned, competent decisions should lead on average to desirable results. This does not imply that every desired result is due to proper reasoning or competence (your casino example). The averaging over many decision/outcome pairs minimizes the possibility that one is perfectly competent and yet at the same time always unlucky, having only negative results. It is of course not entirely impossible but rather unlikely. So Loghain is either the unluckiest man alive or incompetent.

And that's because you are discounting his prior proof of competence pertaining to the Fereldan war against Orlais. He is acknowledged in the game as having been a great commander who led a bunch of peasants to victory against Orlesian cavaliers.

As far as I'm concerned, the only debatable choice is that of the retreat. Everything after that is due to the PC being the PC and thus being shaped by narrative constraints as an opponent that Loghain simply cannot defeat (a.i. it's not that he made bad choices, but that there could have been no good choices from a meta point of view given that he was going against the PC). And once you do defeat him, he does acknowledge the superiority of the PC and falls in line for the good of the realm.

It's no wonder that our conclusions are so contrary then. While I see no reason to include positive "off-screen" cases, you omit what I consider negatives. I rest my case.

 

[Erebus]

These two :

Spoiler

A man of taste would have put the numbers on her thighs.

The most common theme seems to be screentime. Villains that show up near the end are utterly forgettable. Villains that menace you throughout your adventure make you hate them and therefore remember them,

Timing and screentime aren't everything, but they're very important. Irenicus is the perfect example : right from the start, the PC is given reasons to hate and fear him, and afterwards, we see him quite a few times (but not so frequently that meeting him would lose its impact).

Turning up several times is not enough, the villain should also be shown to be active. There's nothing more boring than a villain who seems to spend most of his time sitting on his ass or plotting in a super-vague way that'll never result in anything interesting.

 

[Old One]

Sebastian LeCroix. Never trust a guy with an X in his name.

Honestly though, I'd probably vote for the guard who punches you in the face at the beginning of Gothic I. I spent the entire first half of the game trying to find him so I could get revenge. How many villains have that kind of personal impact on the player?

 

[karnak]

I don't know why people still bother with these kind of debates.
It's long been established and defined that the most terrible and vicious RPG villain of all times is the Codex itself !

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

 

[distant]

Sebastian LeCroix. Never trust a guy with an X in his name.

I mean he was memorable as a smarmy dipshit that was fun to fuck over in the end, also I really enjoyed the malk jester prince dialogue with Strauss so he might actually apply.

 

[purupuru]

I never cared much for Irenicus. They gave you good reasons to hate him but no reason for him to hate you (who you are does not matter to him at all, only what you are), and I prefer the relationship to work both ways for a personal grudge like this, which is why I consider Sarevok a better villain despite the limited screen time.

 

[Adidas-Clichèd Cringe]

The Master, Gaunter O'Dimm, Kreia and Queen Deidranna come to mind first.

Also, talking of video game villains in general, that fucking werewolf in Ecstatica that keeps ambushing and beating the shit out of you in the village. My childhood nemesis:

Spoiler

 

[0wca]

Todd Howard: Destroyer of braincells and gameplay mechanics

Second.

 

[Cryomancer]

Only I mentioned Mr Blue Nipples from M&M IV?

Some more memorable villains >

• The Tarrasque" : Dark Sun : Wake of ravager
• Strahd from Ravenloft : Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession
• Sodalis : NWN1 HotU
• Xanatar : EotB1

The final boss of Dark Sun : Wake of Ravager

 

[Zlaja]

Nym from Icewind Dale gets my vote of being an absolute shitstain of a character.

Spoiler

He's the one responsible for turning the Dwarves and Elves onto each other.

Anyone responsible for a genocide of Dwarves is a hero in my book.

For me the end game was somewhat ruined by the very poor level/dungeon design of the final areas.
But I loved the sense of ambiguity about the whole story line.

Personally, I love the ambiguity of the reason why octavius put me on ignore.

 

[Maxie]

villains exist to look at their hp bars diminish, not to be memorized (and certainly not to be revered)

 

[Storyfag]

In no particular order:

Sebastian LaCroix
Jacques de Aldersberg
Gaunter o'Dim
Kreia
Sarevok
Irenicus

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Sebastian LaCroix

You're gonna have to explain this one to me.

Jacques de Aldersberg

Man I totally forgot that kid.

 

[Storyfag]

Sebastian LaCroix

You're gonna have to explain this one to me.

Only Kreia has more interactions with you throughout the game than he does.