Tutorial So You Want To Write...

Grey

Dialectical Hermeticist
So You Want To Write… is a series of short, informal essays meant to help you hone your roleplaying and writing skills. Bookmark this post to stay up to date on the newest entries. These will be focused on genres and aesthetics in roleplaying, explaining why you might use, say, vampires, and giving tips on how to do so.

They may seem prescriptive, but really, they're just primers. If you want to do the complete opposite of what I suggest here, absolutely do so - and let me have a look!

The next installment will be on Politics


  • So You Want To Write... An Antagonist

    antagonist anˈtaɡ(ə)nɪst/noun
    1.a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.



    Your players are usually our protagonists. They’re the viewpoint characters, they’re following the plot. They are, frequently, more reactive than proactive. Things happen, your players react - and even if you’ve managed to get a party that is pursuing their own goals, you need to direct and draw them together as things go on, or drive home the consequences of their actions. You need a catalyst for the ongoing plot, a foil, a reflection.


    Victor von Doom. Raymond Tusk. Charles Vane. Grendel’s Mother...
    You need your antagonist.

    It’s All About Motive

    Your antagonist shouldn’t be inchoate evil, and if they are, they’re not really the antagonist - they’re the stakes, the backdrop behind your real antagonist. Your antagonist needs to be, to some degree, relatable. Someone you can learn to hate or even respect. It’s important to emphasize their motive, the reason they oppose your protagonists. Motive is built on something you should already have in place - setting.
    A character, any character, can have their motives broken into three categories; Need, Want, and Greed.

    Need is something you require to live - food, water, shelter, medicine, security. Is your race of ghostly revenant knights dependant on magical Dust to survive? That’s still food, as defined by elements of your setting. This is most common in monstrous antagonists, like the Alien, but if your RP is set in a post-apocalyptic desert, who knows what some people will do for a glass of water? Needs are some of the most simple, relatable motives, really. Helpfully, this is a conflict you can potentially resolve without violence.

    Greed is about going to unreasonable lengths to get something you want for yourself. Power, wealth, revenge. These lead to more nuanced antagonists, of varying degrees of sympathy. Wealth is nice and easy, and never overlook it as a motive just because it’s so straightforward. It needn’t be wealth, necessarily, just the things that wealth affords. It’s vital, however, that the antagonist is a well-developed character if this is their motive. Revenge is likewise straight to the point, and importantly a point you can direct right at the players - your super-powered brawl killed my son! Power is the trickiest one, because there are so many kinds of power to wield. On a small scale, does your antagonist want power of their spouse? The company they work for? Do they want power in society, or to take the throne? What they want to do with the power isn’t necessarily the focus, here - it helps clarify your themes, add some more personality, but it’s not what this antagonist is about.

    Want is nebulous. It feels like a need, but it isn’t, really. Ideology, love, justice, entertainment.
    One of the main things that separates a Greed and a Want is altruism - your antagonist might want justice for their friends. They might want to perform a great deed for their love. They may be acting in accordance with their faith. They can be pursuing wealth, but they’re doing it to pay off their brother’s gambling debts. They might be seeking to execute a murderer, but only because that killer escaped after sentencing. They could be trying to seize the throne, but only to honour the memory of their lost love by reforming the law. The post-apocalyptic warlord is raiding your settlement, but only because his minions will turn on him when they get bored. An Inquisitor might ruthlessly slaughter all Magi, but only because he feels his faith demands it.

    A Note on Mental Illness
    Being ‘crazy’ is not a motive. Your antagonist’s mental illness is not motive - it’s an exacerbating factor, a catalyst, a cause for sympathy. The vigilante killing petty criminals and some bystanders isn’t doing it because he’s delusional; he’s doing it because he truly believes those people were possessed by demons and he’s doing the right thing. People can only suspend their disbelief so far, before something becomes unrealistic - and you don’t want to look like a lazy writer who can’t do basic research, do you?

    The Three Heads
    There are three kinds of antagonist - incidental, organizational, and vital. Incidental antagonists are monsters-of-the-week. They’re the pirate captain you’re competing for a prize with. They’re the boxer between you and the title match. They’re the emperor’s finest generals. They aren’t the real antagonist, but pop up to cover arcs of the story and raise the stakes. They tend to be emergent; they rise up according to what the players are doing. This is a really, really good way to make the consequences of their actions clear to the players. They can also be used as breadcrumbs to lead players onto plot threads.
    Vital antagonists are your Sephiroth, your Sauron, your Emperor Palpatine (or, technically, Darth Vader). They kick-start the plot as a result of their motivations. They do something in an effort to fulfill their goals, and as a consequences draw the players into the plot. They need to endure for the duration of the story; they’re the counterpart to your protagonists that reinforces the themes of the narrative. Their defeat is a statement.
    Organizational antagonists can be both incidental and vital. They tend to churn out minions and lieutenants, smaller antagonists leading up the defeat of the head honcho or just dissolution of the whole organization. The party can come into conflict with the organization by accident and innocence, or ambition, but rarely malice. If you’re a pirate crew, you didn’t plan to make the Imperial navy your enemy. If you’re an ordinary mortal, you had no idea what terrible designs The God-Machine had for you before you unwittingly disrupted them. If you’re a modest trade cartel, your battle of wits with the East Empire Company is just business.


    How To Use Your Antagonist
    This ties into the three heads, above. Your Vital Antagonist has kicked off the plot. The players will need to learn about them, track them down, and generally engage with your plot. This gives you room for foreshadowing and world-building. Now the party will come into conflict with some Incidental Antagonists - a monster on the road, the guards at a seedy flophouse, the dark prophet’s chosen warrior, the obstinate magistrate, the greedy corporation in need of their services. You need to show the characters the consequences of the antagonist’s actions, drip-feed clues about motive, and very importantly have the antagonist pursue their agenda. The antagonist should always been trying to achieve their goals, whether the party knows it or not, whether they can stop them or not. The results will ripple out to the players, one way or another.


    How To Balance Your Antagonist

    The players have to win in the end, right?
    Well, not necessarily.

    There are a number of ways to deal with antagonists. You can negotiate, you can stall, you can imprison, you can kill… sometimes violence isn’t the answer. Sometimes defeat means friendship. It’s easiest to resolve motives of Need without bloodshed. That can win you allies, too, which can be useful to fight against bigger antagonists. Greed can likewise be resolved without violence, sometimes - maybe you can pay the antagonist off, or convince them it’s not worth their while. Even disrupting their plans can be enough; a setback so huge they lose the will to carry on, or are too distracted to be a problem.
    Wants, especially ideological wants, are much harder. Justice, love, entertainment - you can resolve those with things like proof, or empathy, or diplomacy. If an antagonist believes that all Elves must die, or that the sky will fall if the sacrifices end, or that vaccines cause autism, you can’t really argue with them.
    Organizational antagonists present an interesting option whereby you can knock out the source of their power; no one has to die, necessarily, but they can be reduced, made impotent. Alternatively, the organizational antagonist is The God-Machine, it’s Cthulhu, it’s the dread entity behind the cult - in which case, victory might be survival.
    Remember what I said, about making a statement?

    If you defeat the antagonist with violence, you’re saying this problem can only be resolved by force.
    If you defeat the antagonist with diplomacy, you’re saying this problem can be resolved peacefully.
    If you lose, you’re saying this problem is too big, too hard, or the people who think opposing it to be good are wrong.

    When it comes to Needs, you’re making statements about good and evil.
    When it comes to Greed, you’re making statements about right and wrong.
    When it comes to Want, you’re making statements about people.

    You decide what that means.


 
Last edited:
I have some other deadlines of which to be mindful, but a Politics entry is in the works.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top