Play Bad Guys

Today I'd like to talk about a topic that's sometimes controversial, but is one that needs to be talked about: playing bad guys in games.

In the Play* series, I'm hoping to provide people with reasons to game and also talk about what gaming does for players. My focus is on tabletop roleplaying experiences, but it applies generally to the concept of play; from sports, to video games, to virtual reality and live action experiences.

---

So, let me start by defining the scope of what I mean when I say that people should play "bad guys" and adding an important caveat.

I'm not trying to justify anti-social play, which we see when there's controversy over video games like Hatred or murder simulators that don't necessarily have other redeeming value, or in tabletop roleplaying games where people play a character that backstabs, murders, and does other unsavoring things "because it's in character" and for little other reason.

Rather, I think that there's a merit in playing characters who are unpleasant, who reflect the Nemesis rather than the Hero, or commit actions that they have to justify intensely.

The reason for this is simple: the Hero's Journey, which most traditional protagonists follow, is a voyage of discovery.
However, other characters don't necessarily go down this path, but they can still illustrate important values about our lives.

The game Tyranny is a great example of this: the protagonist is a servant of an overlord who if not evil is certainly morally ambivalent with regards to the consequences of their actions. It forces the player to choose between a variety of circumstances and choices that always are tinged with moral ambiguity: if they overthrow Kyros (even if they can), will the next person in charge be any better?

The depth of choice and setting in Tyranny goes beyond what's expected because being a "bad guy" has consequences; the player needs to decide whether they are going to settle for the lesser evil and potentially make their life difficult, slide fully into depravity but by doing so cow others into submission, or choose to try to make the world a better place despite it going against everything else–and it being fruitless in the majority of instances.

This brings up one of the points of playing a satisfying villainous character: they have to be, to some extent, convinced of their actions, and not entirely monstrous. They may have moments where they cross the threshold of no return, but they're not mustache-twirling dog-kicking Saturday morning cartoon antagonists.

And this is where it's worth drawing a quick distinction: you want characters who are conflicted and deep, who have the ability to discern between right and wrong but decide that the ends justify the means.

You don't want to play a character who winds up like this:

Playing a bad guy isn't about being affable but doing bad things (and not thinking about how those things are bad).

If you're going to play a bad guy, the reason is that it lets you think outside the box and expand your horizons. You're not trying to sympathize with the devil, or play a henchman in some grand machine, you're examining ethics and morality. Think of the Inquisitors in Warhammer 40,000. They're positively terrifying with unbridled power, the secret police of any dystopian society amped up to 11.

But at the same time the decisions they make determine whether or not humanity sees another day. They fight against corruption and actual threats, but they do so in a way that is abhorrent and terrifying.

That's an interesting space to explore, and it's worth exploring. That's why you should play a bad guy once in a while: thinking about violations (especially well-intentioned ones) of your own moral and ethical code helps to understand precisely why morals and ethics are so important.