[Sawrock]

I knew exactly what you meant and still completely disagree. A short list of villains who do work without trying to justify their actions:

Bowser from Mario (he openly claims he’s a bad guy and loves to roughhouse; he’s basically a bandit king (or known as Demon Lord Bowser in the east)

Frieza from Dragon Ball Z (completely selfish and prideful, yet people love him for his higher-than-thou attitude (as opposed to holier-than-thou))

Ryuk from Death Note (could be considered more of a trickster but to be frank he toys with people’s lives for fun, and simply just that)

King K Rool from Donkey Kong Country (leader of his kremlings through sheer strength, wants to eat the Kong’s banana hoard even though he hates the taste of bananas simply to deny them their bananas)

Giovanni from Pokémon (simple and effective: mob boss who takes what he wants because he can)

All of these characters have depth, but none of them justify their evil actions- they’re rotten because they are, and thus as you put it, cartoonishly evil. They’re still great because they’re still characters with plans and hopes and dreams... just ones that are self-awareingly selfish.

[FatherCrixius]

I can see one or two of them in that regard, I suppose it matters more on what type of villain you want to be.

A more serious villain, such as frieza (and the only one from that list I am really familiar with) would not 'justify' their actions in a sense, but characterised them through toriyama's hatred of japanese real estate agents, and one of the few well written and serious cartoonish evil I can think of. Not sure what makes me fond of him, because I can recall only a few character traits strongly. By comparison, Buu was a terrible villain, and I do not know why.

Cartoonish evil definitely feels more at home with the jokey saturday morning villains like those you listed from nintendo. They don't really have 'depth' as a villain, and all of their depth comes from being otherwise likeable recurring titular villains, getting development across the series. Bowser is a good character, but I wouldn't call him a good villain. It could just be me, but it feels more like a cop out for villains to 'Be Evil' because it lacks that human nuance that can truly make a villain relatable and more importantly comparable to real figures, that they exist for more reason than just to give the hero something to do.

You don't see so much of the former on SL.

[Sawrock]

Being relatable and having depth are two different things. Being relatable is a matter of the audience understanding the situation through their own experiences and comparisons. Having depth is a consistency formed through good writing establishing a character through multiple scenarios. I’d hardly say the devils and demons are poor characters in D&D; they’re alignment- locked and thus extremely unrelatable- and this doesn’t extend as a result of the alignment system either. The devil of many fables is unchangeably evil, as the true fae are simply with orange and blue morality. Even on a more human scale with characters like that of serial killers (who can be simply born wrong) people find them interesting as characters due to their consistent characterization.

[Shujin]

Well where to start with this. Sawrock and Snake have said the most of what I am thinking, and ham pointed out what I hate about Antags/Storyline events. I guess I try to retell it with my own words, and see if you can find anything of value in my perspective. Everyone has their own comfort zone and what they like/want with such. Ahem.

1.) Genres?

I can personally give you the tip, to stick to what you are comfortable with. Are you a big fan of Horror stories and can write it well? Go for it. Are you more for lighthearted comedy? do that! Can you write deep intertwining and crossraoding stories with twist? Rock it. 
Rule of thumb from personal experience is, that if you tell a story, you always write it better if its something you enjoy yourself than something you are unfamiliar with and try to push yourself into to fullfill expectations. You probably have better chances to light the fire in people, with something you are passionate about yourself. Just be careful to not get TOO passionate about it, as that can often lead to frustration. It can get espcially bad when you have a bad week in IRL, that you might react in a way you didn't mean to, or overly snappy. I think no one of us, is fully immune to it, so its always a good idea to step back and do something else, till the initial frustration calmed and you can think a bit more rational about something and analyze what went wrong where and where you could have improved/could structure it to give better hints for people (Espically important if you do puzzles, I can tell you...People much rather Unga Bunga stuff here, and their base solution to any riddle is smack it.)

You do yourself a favor by doing scenes you feel comfortable with, and enjoy it.

2.) What would I like to see in a Villian/Antag? What do I think is viable?

I mostly agree with Snake and Sawrock here.



I think there are two Archetypes of Antags that you can play in SL2 most effectively.



Lighthearted Throwaway:

not deeply thought out, but consistent type. Sawrock plays good ones of this type (not saying they lack depth, they are just not Batmans Joker level of depth or try to change the world, they just DO things). SL2 as a whole with its lighthearted nature is more 'receptive' of these as it needs no bigger plotting and can just be winged and people who like it can interact with it while others can entirely ignore it. The downside is that you will never really satisfy desires to reach bigger goals and you more or less set yourself up to lose (which can be fun in itself).

Pros/Cons:

+Always at the ready, able to join a RP.

+Fun and interactive RP that can include basically everyone.

+low stakes, usually. Mostly for the not Antags leading in a bit less frustration when done right and do not just stomp on new players with Overpowered synergy teams.

-+ The lighthearted nature of these opens up comedic relief routes, which are a matter of taste. Nothing is fun when overdone.

-+Easily replaceable. Comes with the sidetaste of feeling less imapctful for it though.

-You basically set yourself up to lose. It can be received very bad as well, if you are not careful around certain players/Do behave in a trolly way that people do not take you serious.
-You will very unlikely create anything lasting on the world, outside of little rumors and people maybe talking about about you,  but usually you are brushed off.(demoralizing)

Event Villians:
Villans that have a clear motivation, clear goals, mayhaps rooted with existing characters stories, or otherwise characters that are created to play a specific theme, or enhance one specific Player/groups story a bit. They are technically able to leave some ripples in the world, but they too aren't meant to be fully fleshed out characters. They are a tool for a cause, a narrative device.
Pros/Cons:
+Has bigger impact on personal storylines, and have some room of excuse for existing.
+Usually have an easier time to get Eventmin assistance.
-+Its very difficult to consistently play them, and they can only show up at certain points and their 'Screen time' for such is low, which can cause problems with wirting the character in a believable way, or in a reasonable timeframe before they overstay their welcome.
-Because of that, they are basically not interactable and everyone who isn't catered to, is basically forced to watch or feel useless even if they try. 
-These Storylines have fake Stakes. Everyone pretends that they do, sometimes players decide to throw in a character death willingly to have some impact, but in reality, they are gone against till they are defeated, Heros WILL win in the end.
-Character Deaths that are thrown out in these events too often, become not important at some point cause of how low effort most of those characters are to be replaced, or they are only thrown away in the first place because the person got bored of them, giving these events a weird side effect. Thats an SL2 problem though, caused by the Alt-mentality. 
-Because such events take more effort to set up, and most of such has to happen out of sight for players a disconnect can happen, making the plotline feel not thought out or the villian halfassed, because he lacked the proper chance to develop along normal character.
-SL2 Community generally treats Villians bad, unless they are played by their friends for them. 

Both of these types are commonly played Antags. I see why they exist, and a balance between them is probably more desirable, with the lighthearted nature being far easier executed. If you start as Antag? I suggest starting with that type. It helps you get a feel for the community as well, from an Antag perspective, which is vastly different than from a normal char perspective. Unfortunately, I do not see real player Antags be able to be reasonably played. Our playerbase is a bit too small for that, or too clique/open to treat such fairly. Maybe also just to competitive and spotlight hugging too, that such stories are hard to develop. Its also hard to relay the whole proper story/motivation of your character, without looking like a clown of an Antag that is basically just an openly Vampire character, but with openly villian...Which no good Antag would be. Otherwise, you risk sending yourself to a timeout box with no RP, since all RP is centered around Sigrogana.

Here is also where I disagree with Snake, because more realistically? If you start being a villain in another place, chances are much higher that you are just entirely ignored rather than spread the RP around. People will NOT leave their comfort zone that easily. SL2 handholding created a very comfortable safety bubble, and you are usually better off planning with smaller groups of like-minded. I do not like this, but I think its the unfortunate reality.

3.) What would make me play an Antag? What do I like about playing one?

Lets start with what I like. To me the idea of conflict, based on a moral opposition is interesting. Putting yourself into a shoes of another perspective and Argue from that, and see how it collides with others.
What I like and find likable in Antagonistic inclined characters is...That they are real characters, maybe with flawed Believes, morally grey view? Maybe just extreme in their thoughts but feeling like they actually do the better.
Thats how I try to write Shiva atleast. She is meant to openly confront people, question them, challenge them in their beliefs. She is not meant to make friends, but she has very firm, deeply rooted believes that have formed from her upbringing and the characters she interacted with shapeing her into.
Generally? Like any other character, characters with FLAWS are super interesting. They do not have to be evil for the sake of it, they could very much be Heroic, or Anti-heroes. Willing to make sacrifices. The most interesting Villians for me have always been those that once they are faced, and confronted with their reasoning make me think. "Well...He actually has a point, he might actually be right!". And I hate it if Videogames do not give me the choice to actually stop it and see THEIR ending >=O 

Sometimes the mere concept of Hero and Antag, completely vanishes. Its just Characters that firmly believe in things and clash based on that, with none of them truly in the right or wrong, yet passionate about it and invested, and for them high stakes. It doesn't have to be the fate of the world, the fate of princess or whatever...Sometimes the well portrayed pride and determination is the best. It makes them relatable. And they stick in memory not because they were overly strong, or disney villiany. But just because somewhere in the back of your head you think, that they might be in the right, even if you disagreed with the methods used. These are things I try to keep in mind when I write an Character thats meant to clash with others. Its important to make them believeable, have a logic code they use, and to not overly make them edgy for the sake of it. Sasuke Uchiha style is lame as fuck.


Now, what would make me want to play one?
Most importantly? Fairness. If I work out a real character, if I bet their life and put it on the line, then I expect to have a realistic chance to acheive what they want to acheive. No railroading and automatically losing at some point. Risks and rewards. The chances do not have to be in your favor, but if your planning is good, the plot decent and you don't simply want to storm the capital by force, then I expect that there is a chance greater than 0.000001%.

Usually what prevents that is the gank mentallity and the desire to "win" the plot, even and stop it before it really rolls out. Sometimes allowing people to wind up a bit and engage them in a less deal sealing manner, can be great RP and meaningful development for both sides.

I'd like to know that there is a chance for my character to win, they are just as much a character as anyone else. Of course I am fine with lighthearted throwaway characters to be railroaded into defeat/death, but not if I use actual real characters. The game doesn't really distinguish between such,which I blame alt mentallity/broken character progression for. So if the game doesn't give that by default? I would like it if progression could be earned in ways like this, cause we all know your usual battle set up will be 1 versus 12, even if you have a team.

Outside of that? obviously, having actual realistic chances to RP at all. The moment you are not on perfect terms with Sirgogana ICly, you can basically kiss all RP that isn't in discord bye bye. You will be starved for it and are at peoples mercy. And I have honestly no idea how to change this aspect. We are simply a too small community/too selective or afraid or unwilling to leave safety zones. I am no different from that too. I too rather sit in my discords and RP with people there, rather than having to deal with the overly broken PVP and people try harding it or griefing.

In the end I am playing mainly an "Antag" character, not becasue they are Evil, but because I like the philosophy between people and have always alot of fun when I see other characters with unique perspectives (even if rarely) over the usual overly good inclinded characters, that are often unrealistically so, and more often than not ignore the lore of the very continent they frequent on. The EMPORER, rules an empire. An empire is most commonly created by conquest and with the history of Sirgogana and Onigan war we can assume that Sigrogana is no different.

What would make me play an Antagonistic character? If I could explore these Stories and theories and develope/explore the vague story, with creative plottiwsts or alter the fate of this very stale world a little.  That would be worth sacrificing a character for, possibly. And at the same time would give everyone chances to devleope characters outsid eof the well behaved little sheeps that believe every word they are told. Such storylines would be my jam, and it would expand on the world itself. Feeling like I am actually part of the games world.

I ended up writing a lot, so digest it as you see fit. It is MY opinion. There are many more ways to play a good villian, or even consider one. I am simply trying to give you input from my perspective especially regarding SL2, and anything of what I said helps you? Cool! if not? feel free to entirely ignore it, I am by no means the guru of RP. I just have experience with more Longterm RPs that have a much bigger focus on Worldbuilding, and miss that with SL2, as many other RPers that I have seen leave the game over the years.

[Balor]

I was intending on abstaining from speaking in this thread as I feel that I may offend some of the people here, however since we're in the process of discussing antags, I would like to take this time to apologize. To absolutely fucking nobody. Because we don't want our villains to apologize. Heels are at their best when they're allowed to be heels.

Villains and Heroes: Antags are bringers of change in narratives, either they are cataclysmic entities made solely to kick a protagonist in the ass and wake them up. Telling them that their starting village is under attack and this great evil needs to be defeated or else the world will end. These antags are our forces of nature. Big faceless and two dimensional universal threats and concepts that you don't want at your doorstep. Easily written and often times forced to pin tragedy and character where none is needed. People don't need reason to find the giant firedemon bad, it's burning down villages that's all the reason you need. Simple and effective though plain.

Then there are my favorite Antags, the rival, the Vergil, the Blonde and Red Bayonetta, the palette swap version of your protagonist that is just oozing style. These are characters built to juxtapose the protagonist, and often times are the more memorable villains in the stories. Everyone knows who Vergil is, everyone knows Jetstream Sam, and Senator Armstrong. Because they oppose your protagonists ideals and character. They are made to act as rivals to your very soul.

These are two of the biggest villain archetypes, sometimes you can fold the sympathetic villain into either or, but at the base. All Antags fall under these two simple blueprints. They are either personifications of universal evil like Frieza was a metaphor for capitalist greed invading Japanese society during their recessions in the early 90's and late 80's. Or are dark reflections of our Heroes, such as Spike Spiegel vs Cowboy Andy or Vicious.

Where do we take them in SL2?:

SL2 Villains either try to hard, or have no proper Heroes they can effectively play off in order to move the characters forward. Often times during my first few months when an antagonist or a grand villain was brought to my attention ICly it never felt much like they mattered or that the clout was earned. The medium isn't suitable for villains on the scale of Force of Natures as they either don't feel earned, or they have existed long enough that people tell you what they've done. And tell you they are a big deal. When the truth is, they /were/ a big deal.

I also find that the gank culture of the server lends itself to shutting down antags before they can ever properly foster the personal connections needed to be persistent and intimate threats to their given heroes.

Which leads to my desire that if I were to play an antag, or to have an antag to my characters. That they are made by close friends who have an understanding of what my character is, and the pacing I desire from our conflict. And if I am to have global antagonists? Then things like the Dullahan event ran by Appo last month would be the peak of my experience with public crisis. As it was a problem that was birth from one of the games universally well known hotspots of evil Mallus.

TLDR: SL2 suits itself more towards personal antags made to challenge the individual rather than forces of nature-esque villains made to terrorize entire continents. And I would personally prefer hunting my own boogeyman. Than a shared boogeyman.

[Jerry]

Most of the time, a villain is someone who's pursuing a goal that inconveniences others but for whatever reason, that doesn't stop them from pursuing it. Maybe they're justifying it to themselves somehow, rationalizing that it has to be done for the greater good of their goal- or throwing morality away entirely as a hindrance hammered into everyone at a young age to maintain a status quo that benefits the people already in charge. Or something like that. They have views and goals that run contrary to most people, so by popular opinion, they earn the label of villain.

But that's just public validation. Everyone's a villain to someone, or to be less melodramatic about it, everyone has the potential to be an antagonist to everyone else. Even if you played a saintly nun that wouldn't dream of harming anyone, always quick to apologize, and the first to offer their help to those in need, someone's going to find your existence offensive to their views on the world. That works in the opposite direction too, if you're aiming to be a villain, not everyone is going to end up recognizing what you're doing as a legitimate problem by their standards and ethics.

Some people are too edgy to care that you've kidnapped someone's kid and plan to sacrifice them to your dark god, some people are too emotionally numbed to give a hoot that you've got blackmail material or a hostage to use against them- (on some level, they might be waving it away because hey, OOC, the stakes are pretty low, there's no way anyone's going to lose their character from their inaction, someone will eventually take care of you even if they don't play ball), and some people are too radical in their views and opinions, so if you try to say, set explosive powder kegs in key positions around a major political building to goad them into submission, they may end up hailing you as a hero and urge you to blow the place up to teach the ruling class a lesson. You can't please (or upset) everyone. You can't force it, either. That leads to desperation, trying to wrangle people into corrals based on what you expect or want from them, getting upset about how little control you have and how easily it all comes tumbling down when someone decides to call your villainous bluffs, daring you to kill the hostage, or encouraging you to try blowing those bombs. They know you can't. Sigrogana Legends is a Saturday morning cartoon show; Everything has to go back to the way it was at the start of the episode for next week's episode. There can be personal consequences if you have a few people willing to bite that bullet, but I guess that's my point, scale.

The more people you involve, the more you have to worry about. You have some people who either don't have the time or patience to engage with something beyond a surface level who will show up only to big scenes for that low-investment high of getting to save the day like the heroes they love to watch, or people that just can't find it in themselves to get invested for whatever reason and who get very sarcastic and snarky about everything that happens when the context of the scene says lives are on the line. Far too cool- (or empty)- to care. Or maybe they just don't value the lives on the line, and aren't being particularly subtle about their indifference. They'll still make being antagonistic much harder for you. Suck the wind out of your sails, or pressure you to assert yourself as a villain with heckling, or try to stomp you down real quick with a dog-pile the second you're within reach or accept that first innocuous invitation to spar. I don't mean to discourage you or anyone else from playing a villain, I just think that before you romanticize the concept of being this sort of villain or that sort of villain, you should consider how big of a villain you have the patience and resources to be. You benefit greatly from having friends and supporters to play complimentary roles, as minions or heroic fall-guys to legitimize the threat you present, or other handy narrative supporting roles.

Try to keep in communication with the game's staff if you feel something you're doing or attempting to do may have narrative consequences beyond making one or two characters unhappy with you, and the event admins are happy to support you so long as it's all above board. Heck, keep in contact OOC with some of the people playing the opposing heroes even if it's going to be a long term thing. Don't go sharing spoilers or details or inviting them to stop you (unless it's contextually appropriate like a written letter of challenge you prepared in character or something), but foster a friendly relationship with them. Some times, it's easy to forget that it's all just fun and games at the end of the day, and people can get very heated about losses or perceived sleights. If people start to hate you OOC, then they may end up making trouble for you OOC in the hopes of getting back at you, and while you can report that sort of things to admins, it's better to just keep things friendly in the spirit of everyone having fun. Take Wreck-It-Ralph to heart, just because you're a "bad guy", doesn't mean you're a bad guy. (Or that you have to be one OOC, anyhow.)

Try to have fun with it too. This may all sound like doom and gloom cynic talk, but I really only intend for it to be practical advice and words of caution. If things get sour, they have a higher chance of getting sour again in the future, it quickly becomes a slippery slope and you'll find more and more of your days ending on a sour note. Everyone's here to have fun, you're no exception. If you plan to play a villain, or just "some jerk out to show low-born trash their place in the world", whatever your motivations or goals, remember to mind other people's (OOC) thoughts and feelings and to speak up if things are getting too personal or heated (OOC). If you're looking to engage with a villain, try to remember that they're not actually a horrible child-killing cannibal or whatever, they're playing a role and hamming things up. They aren't trying to cheat you or trouble you (OOC, at least), and you can politely inform them OOC if something's bothering you. (You can inform them IC too, but that'll probably just make them monologue, or let loose a villainous laugh, or something.)
Sorry if this counts as derailing the thread, I just wanted to offer practical advice.

To be more on topic, I have a hard time seeing villains as anything other than "people with controversial opinions and desires". Short of them being an alien creature with no concept or understanding of right and wrong, I imagine most villains know they're doing something wrong in their more lucid moments but like most people, will quickly sink right back into blissful self-delusion if it begins to hurt or write it off as a completely unimportant observation if it doesn't bring on any guilt. Bowser knows what he's doing is wrong, and he's shown to feel guilty about it a handful of times, but he's also very unhappy with the status quo. He's lonely, and the status quo perpetuates that. He thinks he won't be lonely if he can have Peach. Failing that, he's developed a weird antagonistic bromance with Mario, and he finds he's not lonely when he's fighting Mario to steal or keep Peach- or competing with him in a sports game, or teaming up with him in an RPG. His motivation isn't exactly two-dimensional as loneliness is complicated, it's incredibly human, a simple desire that gets twisted up and toxic as it goes unsatisfied. Like people turning to cannibalism if they get hungry enough, it's a simple need but it can become very, very twisted if it gets ignored. Then once they've done it, they can't undo it. The memory of having committed that taboo is going to haunt them until they develop coping mechanisms of some kind. They'll have sleepless nights when they remember what they did, until they make some kind of peace with it. Which usually means embracing it, and taking it to the extreme after the memories have tortured them enough. "It only hurts because I think I'm a human, because I think I'm normal. Clearly, I'm not, or I wouldn't have done it in the first place. So if I'm not human, if I'm not normal, I must be a monster, a villain, a horrible wicked thing. I'll feel better if I embrace it, and act as one of my kind should..." That colors their behavior from then on, and the guilt is slowly burnt away as they numb themselves to those first memories by making many, many more- and often times far worse ones. Not that they usually recognize that as why they don't feel guilty about it anymore.

Genetics, abuse, neglect, or the wrong kinds of lessons growing up too. Unless it's a cold, unfeeling machine that's decided to kill people for some cold, logical reason, villains are usually the heroes of their own story trying to get by and win their happiness with the hand they've been dealt, even if it means fighting the whole world. As I see it, anyhow. A rebel thinks he's fighting for his homeland with the same kind of stubborn conviction as a soldier on the opposite end of the battlefield believing the same about his own fighting. Freeza probably thought he was doing the universe a huge favor by taming the saiyans, and civilizing entire worlds by bringing them under his rule. Egotistical, sure- but his family was pretty competitive, and prideful. That was probably just the norm for him growing up, constantly proving and maintaining your constant superiority. I guess what I'm getting at is that you don't have to be a villain that sets out to be a villain. You could just be really dedicated to your work, or your heritage, or some noble goal that "just so happens to involve some sacrifices and cruelty along the way". The ends justify the means. Or you could be someone with an appetite that went unsatisfied for a little too long, that's gone off the deep-end. Like I said, everyone has the potential to be an antagonist to everyone else. Everyone's a villain to someone.