What are some motives that a villain might have to destabilize a region? Specifically, this villain is a mage that has been hinted at to the party, but the party hasn't directly met them yet. The party has explored one city that's a sort of neutral city-state, sort of how Switzerland operated during the World Wars. They are about to reach another city next session that's another independent city-state, but this one is commerce themed. What motivations might an evil Wizard/Sorcerer have for destabilizing the region? The party isn't high enough level to be facing some BBEG that threatens the whole world, but they're level five so they should start receiving quests with higher stakes than goblins threatening a village or clearing out a nest of Kobolds that attack trade caravans.
I have plenty of time to figure it out before introducing the villain to the party, but I'm having trouble figuring out a motivation for their goal(chaos/destabilization of the region). Without a solid motivation, their actions just feel random and I have a harder time tying them into the plot or making a believable villain.
Some thoughts I've had are that maybe the villain benefits from the chaos somehow. The realm is still reeling from a massive war. Perhaps the powerful magics and constant death fuels some sort of ritual?
Or maybe they have some weird belief like conflict strengthens the region and peace creates stagnation or something. However, if I went with some ideology or philosophy then there would have to be tangible benefits to back up their stance, otherwise the party can just dismiss them as crazy. I feel that's just as bad as them doing things for no reason. The villain's belief has to be technically correct, even if it's morally reprehensible. Results of the villain's actions should support their (twisted) worldview in a way the players can easily see is what I'm trying to say.
The villain could also be necromancer-themed. We're playing in a completely homebrewed setting and one of the PCs found this book, similar to the Book of Vile Darkness. They started learning spells from it and I hinted that the owner of the book will be hunting the PC down and trying to get it back. So it could be a necromancer who's trying to achieve lichdom or something sinister involving necromancy to tie off that loose thread. I just feel that it would be sort of trite to have yet another necromancer/lich as a villain.
I also wouldn't mind somehow tying the fey into it, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Picture this, you are a powerful mage whose powerful tome of dark spells was stolen by a mighty warrior during the most recent conflict. once the war ended, the thief faded into the background, impossible to find. so what do you do? you work to destabilize the region, in the hopes that causing a war will cause the warrior to resurface, allowing you to reclaim your lost tome of forbidden power, so you can bring your dark master back to the material plane, a sinister unseelie archfey.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Having fun? I would hope so. Lets see how much fun you're having after the lich starts dipping into it's 1/day spell slots.
Yes I'm aware my username is completely awful, just do your best to ignore it.
It’s tough to say without knowing the details of the setting. One place to start could be a backstory for the villian. Were they in the winning or losing side in the recent war, for example? Is there some unfinished business there? Besides that, the generic classics are, they want to control the region themselves and destabilizing it is step one (though I usually say power should not be the end unto itself, they should want the power to then wield it, which would be the real motivation); they are a member of a cult trying to raise some ancient evil it it will be easier if the area is unstable, since folks won’t notice the missing people taken for human sacrifices; the current ruler of the region wronged them in the past and they want revenge.
And you can always mix and match those entries from above.
For me villains tend to break down into a couple of categories and those alter motivations entirely. Please note, no one villain type is objectively better it is kinda subjective. There are endless debates online about whether villains even need motivations. It really all comes down to a stylistic choice.
1 - Big Bad Evil Guy This is the stereotypical cartoonish villain. They're evil. They don't need a reason and their villainy is clear. While I make light of this there are real world analogues to people who are just plain evil for the sake of it. They do, say and think evil things and there is no reason behind it. Motivationally speaking these folks just are evil and everything they do is evil. (Personally, I find this the most boring type of villain as a writer, but also the easiest to run as a DM). These villains won't just attack a character until they're unconscious, they'll keep hitting until the character is dead. This type of villain wants to destabilise the region to just increase their power or because they are oh so evil that it's the only way to do more evil stuff.
2 - Chaos agents People who thrive off the chaos. Often we'll see people point at Heath Ledger's Joker characterisation for this. He's doing things because he does them, he derives some form of pleasure from them. This is tricky to get right if you're not sensitive to real world health issues however. The motivation often being that the villain feels 'driven' to do the things they are doing. This person wants to see the fall of the region because it would be fun, or chaos would ensue. This is the type of person sitting at home making bets that the economy is going to crash and burn because chaos will ensue.
3 - Sympathetic Villains We could be talking Anne Rice vampires, or we could be talking many modern villains here. They're doing evil things because of a sad backstory. Maybe their child was taken by the king to serve as a maid in the castle. We could also kind of fit anti-heroes like Robin Hood in this bracket. In my experience they're best used when you want to present a compelling reason for the party to switch sides and join the 'villain'. This type of villain broadly doesn't want the region to collapse, but the only way to see justice done is to destabilise the region. Stealing the kingdom's goods, gold, or trade supplies means that the kingdom starts becoming too poor to pay its army and guards. The fewer guards the easier to rescue the person who was taken. Often sympathetic villains are doing something because it really is the only way.
4 - Villain in the eye of the beholder These are the folks who don't see themselves as evil. We're talking politicians here. We all know what we're talking about, people who really believe that their philosophy is the right way forward. There are people out there who really do believe that good things trickle down and that high tides lift all boats. So they do stuff in the name of pursuing these ideas. They are not to themselves, nor to their followers villains. However, to those who are forced to needlessly suffer as a result of the actions and policies of these villains that is what they are - villains. It's worth saying as a caveat here though that the line is pretty narrow. In the real world protectionism happened in the EU when in the name of protecting EU farmers, certain trade mechanisms were implemented. We all know how it's gone with a certain large western nation in more recent times though.
5 - The Saviours This one has a warning for those who have concerns about imperialism.
These villains do things in the name of saving people from themselves. Empires send armies into other nations...for reasons. Religions send missionaries. When we put ourselves into the position of those to whom the armies, missionaries and traders are being sent...well postcolonialism is a legitimate field of study for a reason. On a more local scale, this might be as simple as a universal tax. So a local king decides that everyone must pay the same amount in tax 'because that's fair'. However, it's been a harsh weather year for the farmers and so the harvests have been very poor. They can't afford the tax and many have their property seized, or are forced into the army, or are thrown in a dungeon somewhere. The king sees themselves as a saviour and protector of equality, but misses the nuance of who is being hurt by their actions. This one as I say though is tricky because real world analogues make it problematic to play with. All sorts of people in the real world have suffered because of people who think they are saving others. Bizarrely, revolutionaries also can fall into this category depending on the perspective of the party.
6 - Lack of Empathy, Sympathy, or Conscience This one is also slightly tricky to get right, but we all know that there are people out there without empathy. Sadly many end up in C-Suite positions in the real world, others end up in prison. These people know what they're doing is disliked, wrong or even evil, but simply do not care. They may even derive a joy from their actions and how others are affected. Often these villains can rationalise their actions really well - 'all I'm doing is building a successful business, it's not my fault that means that people are suffering'.
7 - I didn't mean to be evil Kinda like saviours, these villains honestly never intended to be evil. Unfortunately, everything they've done has caused harm or caused other people to suffer. Scientists are great vehicles for this type of Villain. Oppenheimer didn't intend to be evil. Alfred Nobel undoubtedly didn't intend to be seen as evil, yet his inventions allowed for devastating impacts. In fiction, Dr. Frankenstein and his creation Adam. In a TTRPG we might see this kind of villain as a king who started out to be well meaning, but who has been forced into a course of action that is the least worst of all possibilities. They're confiscating grain to store in vast barns, recruiting and training young commoners to be in the city guard, and heavily taxing anything they can. The populace begins to hate the King seeing them as greedy. However, the king knows something that the population don't - an enemy army intends to invade, and will do so during the coming harsh winter. He's training soldiers and stockpiling goods so that his people get to live. The king didn't mean to be evil but by stockpiling grain people have begun to starve and a black market formed which made shortages worse.
These are far from the only potential motives, but as you can see many overlap and 'unintended consequences' are the big theme of many villains with more sympathetic motivations. Likewise you don't always need a motive. It will depend on your audience. Some audiences need a motive. Often these are the types of people who believe that no-one is evil, things just happened to them. Some audiences however, prefer the escapism of not needing a motive behind their evil moustache twirling villain.
There were many common folks as well as the wealthy that held stock. When the market crashed everyone took a loss. The losses were devastating for risk takers, Common folk and the less prepared. Wealth individuals, on the other hand, panicked less. As a result they could buy "deals" from folks who were in a panic or just broke.
Remember the COVID 19 closings. Large corporations laid off employees and shuttered unprofitable locations while small businesses were unable to weather the storm and had to close completely. The larger corporations were able to consolidate and regroup so that those having fire sales were easy to scoop up at a discount.
Perhaps the BBEG wants to make an acquisition that would only happen in the chaos of the destabilization. Causing that event when s/he is prepared puts them in a position of power. Rescuing the establishment, or portions of it, could pay dividends in land, favors, items or GP.
Maybe they are seeking a seat on the city council or the favor of an influential but overextended family. Or perhaps the classic - someone's hand in marriage. All of these can be a reason, or a part of a reason for their actions.
I had a Mage as a villain and their motivation was a pure pursuit of knowledge. It's just that after a certain point they needed to turn to summoning extraplanar beings to gain the knowledge he was looking for, and to do that he needed expensive spell components (namely silver and gems), and the fastest way to do that was to hire a hobgoblin mercenary army to raid a region and plunder the components for himself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What are some motives that a villain might have to destabilize a region? Specifically, this villain is a mage that has been hinted at to the party, but the party hasn't directly met them yet. The party has explored one city that's a sort of neutral city-state, sort of how Switzerland operated during the World Wars. They are about to reach another city next session that's another independent city-state, but this one is commerce themed. What motivations might an evil Wizard/Sorcerer have for destabilizing the region? The party isn't high enough level to be facing some BBEG that threatens the whole world, but they're level five so they should start receiving quests with higher stakes than goblins threatening a village or clearing out a nest of Kobolds that attack trade caravans.
I have plenty of time to figure it out before introducing the villain to the party, but I'm having trouble figuring out a motivation for their goal(chaos/destabilization of the region). Without a solid motivation, their actions just feel random and I have a harder time tying them into the plot or making a believable villain.
Some thoughts I've had are that maybe the villain benefits from the chaos somehow. The realm is still reeling from a massive war. Perhaps the powerful magics and constant death fuels some sort of ritual?
Or maybe they have some weird belief like conflict strengthens the region and peace creates stagnation or something. However, if I went with some ideology or philosophy then there would have to be tangible benefits to back up their stance, otherwise the party can just dismiss them as crazy. I feel that's just as bad as them doing things for no reason. The villain's belief has to be technically correct, even if it's morally reprehensible. Results of the villain's actions should support their (twisted) worldview in a way the players can easily see is what I'm trying to say.
The villain could also be necromancer-themed. We're playing in a completely homebrewed setting and one of the PCs found this book, similar to the Book of Vile Darkness. They started learning spells from it and I hinted that the owner of the book will be hunting the PC down and trying to get it back. So it could be a necromancer who's trying to achieve lichdom or something sinister involving necromancy to tie off that loose thread. I just feel that it would be sort of trite to have yet another necromancer/lich as a villain.
I also wouldn't mind somehow tying the fey into it, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Any and all input is appreciated, thanks!
I have Darkvision, by the way.
Picture this, you are a powerful mage whose powerful tome of dark spells was stolen by a mighty warrior during the most recent conflict. once the war ended, the thief faded into the background, impossible to find. so what do you do? you work to destabilize the region, in the hopes that causing a war will cause the warrior to resurface, allowing you to reclaim your lost tome of forbidden power, so you can bring your dark master back to the material plane, a sinister unseelie archfey.
Having fun? I would hope so. Lets see how much fun you're having after the lich starts dipping into it's 1/day spell slots.
Yes I'm aware my username is completely awful, just do your best to ignore it.
It’s tough to say without knowing the details of the setting. One place to start could be a backstory for the villian. Were they in the winning or losing side in the recent war, for example? Is there some unfinished business there?
Besides that, the generic classics are, they want to control the region themselves and destabilizing it is step one (though I usually say power should not be the end unto itself, they should want the power to then wield it, which would be the real motivation); they are a member of a cult trying to raise some ancient evil it it will be easier if the area is unstable, since folks won’t notice the missing people taken for human sacrifices; the current ruler of the region wronged them in the past and they want revenge.
And you can always mix and match those entries from above.
A destabilized region can bring more "power" and personal wealth to one in charge. A destabilized region can make it easier to maintain power as well.
For me villains tend to break down into a couple of categories and those alter motivations entirely. Please note, no one villain type is objectively better it is kinda subjective. There are endless debates online about whether villains even need motivations. It really all comes down to a stylistic choice.
1 - Big Bad Evil Guy
This is the stereotypical cartoonish villain. They're evil. They don't need a reason and their villainy is clear. While I make light of this there are real world analogues to people who are just plain evil for the sake of it. They do, say and think evil things and there is no reason behind it. Motivationally speaking these folks just are evil and everything they do is evil. (Personally, I find this the most boring type of villain as a writer, but also the easiest to run as a DM). These villains won't just attack a character until they're unconscious, they'll keep hitting until the character is dead. This type of villain wants to destabilise the region to just increase their power or because they are oh so evil that it's the only way to do more evil stuff.
2 - Chaos agents
People who thrive off the chaos. Often we'll see people point at Heath Ledger's Joker characterisation for this. He's doing things because he does them, he derives some form of pleasure from them. This is tricky to get right if you're not sensitive to real world health issues however. The motivation often being that the villain feels 'driven' to do the things they are doing. This person wants to see the fall of the region because it would be fun, or chaos would ensue. This is the type of person sitting at home making bets that the economy is going to crash and burn because chaos will ensue.
3 - Sympathetic Villains
We could be talking Anne Rice vampires, or we could be talking many modern villains here. They're doing evil things because of a sad backstory. Maybe their child was taken by the king to serve as a maid in the castle. We could also kind of fit anti-heroes like Robin Hood in this bracket. In my experience they're best used when you want to present a compelling reason for the party to switch sides and join the 'villain'. This type of villain broadly doesn't want the region to collapse, but the only way to see justice done is to destabilise the region. Stealing the kingdom's goods, gold, or trade supplies means that the kingdom starts becoming too poor to pay its army and guards. The fewer guards the easier to rescue the person who was taken. Often sympathetic villains are doing something because it really is the only way.
4 - Villain in the eye of the beholder
These are the folks who don't see themselves as evil. We're talking politicians here. We all know what we're talking about, people who really believe that their philosophy is the right way forward. There are people out there who really do believe that good things trickle down and that high tides lift all boats. So they do stuff in the name of pursuing these ideas. They are not to themselves, nor to their followers villains. However, to those who are forced to needlessly suffer as a result of the actions and policies of these villains that is what they are - villains. It's worth saying as a caveat here though that the line is pretty narrow. In the real world protectionism happened in the EU when in the name of protecting EU farmers, certain trade mechanisms were implemented. We all know how it's gone with a certain large western nation in more recent times though.
5 - The Saviours
This one has a warning for those who have concerns about imperialism.
These villains do things in the name of saving people from themselves. Empires send armies into other nations...for reasons. Religions send missionaries. When we put ourselves into the position of those to whom the armies, missionaries and traders are being sent...well postcolonialism is a legitimate field of study for a reason. On a more local scale, this might be as simple as a universal tax. So a local king decides that everyone must pay the same amount in tax 'because that's fair'. However, it's been a harsh weather year for the farmers and so the harvests have been very poor. They can't afford the tax and many have their property seized, or are forced into the army, or are thrown in a dungeon somewhere. The king sees themselves as a saviour and protector of equality, but misses the nuance of who is being hurt by their actions. This one as I say though is tricky because real world analogues make it problematic to play with. All sorts of people in the real world have suffered because of people who think they are saving others. Bizarrely, revolutionaries also can fall into this category depending on the perspective of the party.
6 - Lack of Empathy, Sympathy, or Conscience
This one is also slightly tricky to get right, but we all know that there are people out there without empathy. Sadly many end up in C-Suite positions in the real world, others end up in prison. These people know what they're doing is disliked, wrong or even evil, but simply do not care. They may even derive a joy from their actions and how others are affected. Often these villains can rationalise their actions really well - 'all I'm doing is building a successful business, it's not my fault that means that people are suffering'.
7 - I didn't mean to be evil
Kinda like saviours, these villains honestly never intended to be evil. Unfortunately, everything they've done has caused harm or caused other people to suffer. Scientists are great vehicles for this type of Villain. Oppenheimer didn't intend to be evil. Alfred Nobel undoubtedly didn't intend to be seen as evil, yet his inventions allowed for devastating impacts. In fiction, Dr. Frankenstein and his creation Adam. In a TTRPG we might see this kind of villain as a king who started out to be well meaning, but who has been forced into a course of action that is the least worst of all possibilities. They're confiscating grain to store in vast barns, recruiting and training young commoners to be in the city guard, and heavily taxing anything they can. The populace begins to hate the King seeing them as greedy. However, the king knows something that the population don't - an enemy army intends to invade, and will do so during the coming harsh winter. He's training soldiers and stockpiling goods so that his people get to live. The king didn't mean to be evil but by stockpiling grain people have begun to starve and a black market formed which made shortages worse.
These are far from the only potential motives, but as you can see many overlap and 'unintended consequences' are the big theme of many villains with more sympathetic motivations. Likewise you don't always need a motive. It will depend on your audience. Some audiences need a motive. Often these are the types of people who believe that no-one is evil, things just happened to them. Some audiences however, prefer the escapism of not needing a motive behind their evil moustache twirling villain.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Think of the 1929 stock market crash.
There were many common folks as well as the wealthy that held stock. When the market crashed everyone took a loss. The losses were devastating for risk takers, Common folk and the less prepared. Wealth individuals, on the other hand, panicked less. As a result they could buy "deals" from folks who were in a panic or just broke.
Remember the COVID 19 closings. Large corporations laid off employees and shuttered unprofitable locations while small businesses were unable to weather the storm and had to close completely. The larger corporations were able to consolidate and regroup so that those having fire sales were easy to scoop up at a discount.
Perhaps the BBEG wants to make an acquisition that would only happen in the chaos of the destabilization. Causing that event when s/he is prepared puts them in a position of power. Rescuing the establishment, or portions of it, could pay dividends in land, favors, items or GP.
Maybe they are seeking a seat on the city council or the favor of an influential but overextended family. Or perhaps the classic - someone's hand in marriage. All of these can be a reason, or a part of a reason for their actions.
Happy Adventuring.
I had a Mage as a villain and their motivation was a pure pursuit of knowledge. It's just that after a certain point they needed to turn to summoning extraplanar beings to gain the knowledge he was looking for, and to do that he needed expensive spell components (namely silver and gems), and the fastest way to do that was to hire a hobgoblin mercenary army to raid a region and plunder the components for himself.