Villians and a Overall Game

[asajosh]

Grand stuff man, grand

I like to make my own settlements for players to run around in. Start them off somewhere familiar (in a book) and ultimately try to steer them somewhere home made. You can feel free to make a changes on the fly and when the players' actions make changes to the area, they feel like they have a part in molding their setting.

Plus, reoccuring villains are great stuff! I had a jicer follow a party around to try and get revenge on a PC (killed the NPC's brother). NPC had connections and a little money so for a few sessions the group was always wondering if this was him after them this time, or just a coinicidence. Muwahaha!

[KillWatch]

1 What are the vampires goals?, Who is he? How does he operate?
Is he just out to carve a nitch out of the territory for himself?
Does he want to perform some blood ritual that requires several sentient beings blood to complete?
is he rash and unthinking? is he a brilliant strategist? Is he a newb who is testing his abilities?is he super arrogant due to his long history?
Does he over kill everything? Paranoid? does he send in spies/agents to scout opposition? does he begin bribing towns folk for information and assistance?
Does he have a class?, does he have interests? Hobbies? Does he have a sense of honor? Is he a self hating vamp?

After you figure that out the rest writes itself?
Who is he
What can he do
What does he want to do
How would he do it

This can be a one night stand or a long series of games with encounters involving his spies, false leads, Puppets, slaves, agents, assassinations, bribery, secrets etc

[Nightmaster]

Good thing you posted Dude.


I just feel sorry that Palladium Books dindt have followed those advices.

The majority of the villians in the books dont have very detailed objectives, needs, quirks and principally, they dont have any weakness at all.

That really make those villians that PB have placed in the books a thing that really spoil the setting...

[Marcethus]

That is because most of the villians in PB games are meant to be modified by the GM to fit them into his story. The GM is supposed to give them all that stuff to make them fit into his storyline seemlessly.

[Nightmaster]

Sorry but that is a lame excuse. Principally in the Rifts setting.

Take a look at the Palladium Fantasy books. There you can find lots of major villians but they are far more consistent because they have quirks and weakness.

The GM of each game can change the villians of course but that is not a excuse for the writer of a book to make every major villian in the book a Deus Ex Machine entity.

Take a look at Emperor Prosek, Desmond Bradford, Zazshan and others.

No single flaw, quirk, weakness or anything related. They are always perfect and that is what spoil the setting.

[Killer Cyborg]

[quote="Nightmaster"Take a look at Emperor Prosek, Desmond Bradford, Zazshan and others.

No single flaw, quirk, weakness or anything related. They are always perfect and that is what spoil the setting. [/quote]


???
I'd hardly call Prosek "perfect".
Bradford is mad as a hatter.
Don't know who Zazshan is.

[Nightmaster]

Take a look at Emperor Prosek, Desmond Bradford, Zazshan and others.

No single flaw, quirk, weakness or anything related. They are always perfect and that is what spoil the setting.

???
I'd hardly call Prosek "perfect".
Bradford is mad as a hatter.
Don't know who Zazshan is.

One can be mad and at the same time an major villian, one dont invalidate the other.

The problem is that all of the major villians of the Rifts setting dont have "weak spots" that could be used by the PCs or even groups that are contrary to those villians.

A good exemple of how major villians must need flaws or weakness could be draw from the Lord of The Rings books. Sauron is the greater villian of the entire setting and yet he have a weak spot: The One Ring. He have lost that ring and that is the entire weakness of him. The bearer of the ring can use the One Ring to control/bind him if he/she wish, and if the One Ring is destroyed it will destroy Sauron. A great weakness not? Principally if you stop to think that outside of that Sauron on the setting is almost unstopable.

Of course I am not saying that all major villains of the Rifts setting must have weakness of the same level as Sauron in the books had, just that those villains do have some sort of weakness.

PS: Zazshan is the true name of the Alien Intelligence that appear as Merlin in Rifts England.

[Rallan]

The most important thing to remember when you're making a recurring villian is that PCs will kill everything and take its stuff, and players will cry foul when you do the sort of dice-fudging and railroading and flat-out twinkery that you'll have to do if you want your villian to survive a combat encounter. So if you're going to introduce a Big Bad who'll be popping up again and again to torment the heroes while he gradually swings his dastardly plan into motion, what you don't want to do is have the heroes meet him face to face after they've realised that he's evil. Good Rifts examples of this are Karl Prosek and Lord Splynncryth (good luck getting anywhere near them without an army), ARCHIE III and the Angel of Death (even if the PCs know about these villians, nobody has a clue where either of them have built their secret underground lairs), or the more villianous characters in the inner circle of Reid's Rangers (blowing away Planktal-Nekton or Doc Reid in the middle of an armed Rangers camp is suicide, and its very easy to keep your villian of choice out of the PCs' reach by forever having him be away on expeditions).

Plus as long as your players aren't a bunch of unimaginative combat monkeys and they actually show signs of giving a rat's ass about character interaction, you don't have to limit yourself to making every session a combat mission. Getting evidence to prove that someone's a badass, political intrigue to blunt the villian's influence in Town X, tough moral decisions because the villian holds an NPC's life in his hands, the sudden appearance of a new threat that can only be defeated with the villian's help, misguided but basically good people who don't realise the guy they're following is the villian. There's oodles of things you can throw at any group of decent roleplayers that'll challenge them without you having to fall back to the default "attack the base, beat the henchmen, showdown with the boss" formula.

[Shorty Lickens]

Lots of really good advice here already but I think I'll throw in my views.

(I get lots of tips from Roleplayingtips.com).


The best villians are the ones that initially remain hidden and slowly get revealed by player actions or because the villian wants to reveal themselves. They usually have several layers of generals and liutenants between them and the grunts the PC's normally see in encounters.

Also, the really good ones usually escape punishment and live to confront them over and over again throughout a long campaign.

Khan was a good nemesis for Kirk because he had a personal vendetta and had been forgotten for many years.

Keyser Soze was a good nemesis for Detective Coulon (Coulion?) because he relied on deception and mystery and always used underlings to do his dirty work. He maintained his dangerous aura by never getting directly involved and even making his henchmen believe they were working for someone else.

In Final Fantasy 2 (american SNES) we initially think the King is just going bad but then we discover its actually Golbez who is controlling him.
Much later we discover that its really Zemus (or Zeromus) who is controlling Golbez.

Layers of deception usually make a villian more memorable, because they seem more dangerous and untouchable. Having the PC's slowly work their way through the layers makes for a better experience than the villian suddenly appearing in the field or on the street and attacking them, no matter how powerful he is.

Al Capone was a perfect example of this as well. Hired guns on the street never got to see him and only senior men got to talk directly with Frank Nitti.
Admiral Kirk had to slowly figure out who was causing all the commotion and only towards the end did he find out who and why.

[Nightmaster]

The most important thing to remember when you're making a recurring villian is that PCs will kill everything and take its stuff, and players will cry foul when you do the sort of dice-fudging and railroading and flat-out twinkery that you'll have to do if you want your villian to survive a combat encounter. So if you're going to introduce a Big Bad who'll be popping up again and again to torment the heroes while he gradually swings his dastardly plan into motion, what you don't want to do is have the heroes meet him face to face after they've realised that he's evil. Good Rifts examples of this are Karl Prosek and Lord Splynncryth (good luck getting anywhere near them without an army), ARCHIE III and the Angel of Death (even if the PCs know about these villians, nobody has a clue where either of them have built their secret underground lairs), or the more villianous characters in the inner circle of Reid's Rangers (blowing away Planktal-Nekton or Doc Reid in the middle of an armed Rangers camp is suicide, and its very easy to keep your villian of choice out of the PCs' reach by forever having him be away on expeditions).

Plus as long as your players aren't a bunch of unimaginative combat monkeys and they actually show signs of giving a rat's ass about character interaction, you don't have to limit yourself to making every session a combat mission. Getting evidence to prove that someone's a badass, political intrigue to blunt the villian's influence in Town X, tough moral decisions because the villian holds an NPC's life in his hands, the sudden appearance of a new threat that can only be defeated with the villian's help, misguided but basically good people who don't realise the guy they're following is the villian. There's oodles of things you can throw at any group of decent roleplayers that'll challenge them without you having to fall back to the default "attack the base, beat the henchmen, showdown with the boss" formula.

And when does I have said that I want that? I have said that major villians in the Rifts setting must have some sort of weak spot. Be that weak spot a person, a psicological issue or even oposition in the form of a contrary group.

I never said that those weakness must be related to combat and direct confrontation with the PCs.

The problem is that every major villain or antagonist in the entire Rifts setting is a Deus Ex Machine entity. They are perfect, flawless, dont make mistakes, dont have oposition in their area that could put then in an unstable situation and etc etc...

Making a long story short: They are unstoppable.

Lets just take a look at the CS for example.

The villians here are not the nation or the people but Emperor Prosek and his lackeys. Well they dont have oposition inside the nation, no torn loyalities that could be used, nothing.

If you take a look at the FQ book you will find that the leaders of FQ are not better than Prosek but they do not have a 100% controled political situation in their nation. If the CS had at least something like that, then it would be much better, but the way the books portrait it, Emperor Prosek have a 100% loyality from the people, no political oposition and nothing that could be used to make him even blink a eye. Very sad...

[Rallan]

You sorta missed my point: in an RPG, villians are a little bit too stoppable. Just ask any GM who's tried to arrange a dramatic confrontation with between the PCs and the villian and then had his campaign derailed when they shot him without provocation instead of listening to him. Basically if he's not a supernatural intelligence or some other twinkishly unkillable being, he will be toast the moment he comes within line of sight of the PCs.

The whole idea is to keep the mastermind at a distance, and have the PCs succeed or fail based on whether or not they manage to thwart his cunning schemes. He's untouchable (for now), but his plans and his followers are fair game. And there's plenty of room for weaknesses in there in the form of plans that didn't take everything into account, sloppy or incompetent henchmen, moments of remorse or pity, the sudden appearance of unexpected foes and rivals, overly ambitious schemes or daring gambles that don't quite work out, traitors and repentant ex-henchmen, and so on and so forth. All perfectly valid ways to give the show that things can actually go wrong for the baddy and avoid giving the impression that the plot is gonna be railroaded until they can finally kill him.

Just for the love of God don't let the PCs anywhere near your favourite villian until they've earned it, because then the only way to keep him alive for longer than it takes to say "But you weren't supposed to blow him up! Now what am I gonna do for the rest of the campaign?" is to blatantly railroad the whole scene.

[verdilak]

You sorta missed my point: in an RPG, villians are a little bit too stoppable. Just ask any GM who's tried to arrange a dramatic confrontation with between the PCs and the villian and then had his campaign derailed when they shot him without provocation instead of listening to him. Basically if he's not a supernatural intelligence or some other twinkishly unkillable being, he will be toast the moment he comes within line of sight of the PCs.

The whole idea is to keep the mastermind at a distance, and have the PCs succeed or fail based on whether or not they manage to thwart his cunning schemes. He's untouchable (for now), but his plans and his followers are fair game. And there's plenty of room for weaknesses in there in the form of plans that didn't take everything into account, sloppy or incompetent henchmen, moments of remorse or pity, the sudden appearance of unexpected foes and rivals, overly ambitious schemes or daring gambles that don't quite work out, traitors and repentant ex-henchmen, and so on and so forth. All perfectly valid ways to give the show that things can actually go wrong for the baddy and avoid giving the impression that the plot is gonna be railroaded until they can finally kill him.

Just for the love of God don't let the PCs anywhere near your favourite villian until they've earned it, because then the only way to keep him alive for longer than it takes to say "But you weren't supposed to blow him up! Now what am I gonna do for the rest of the campaign?" is to blatantly railroad the whole scene.

I'm sorry, the best, and easiest way to fix the game, so to speak, when they kill off the main bad guy, is to have someone else who has been controlling the bad guy, maybe that whiney little kid from the last town, who just so happens to be a major psychic and can only control this guy in his sleep, and the kid thinks it's all just a dream, which means that if the guy is dea, maybe he rises from the dead do to this kid's mental dream power, or the kid takes over another guy.

Or, forget the kid and make it someone else. Preferably, in my mind, is the make the mastermind a friend of the PC's. Or someone they dont want to hurt, but thats just me.

[demos606]

I've long since solved that problem with my villians - I use an obscene amount of 'Jeckyl and Hyde' and 'Palpatine' types. It's always so much fun to watch the players realize that the person they were going to for advice and help is the very person they've been trying to catch/defeat.

[Rallan]

You sorta missed my point: in an RPG, villians are a little bit too stoppable. Just ask any GM who's tried to arrange a dramatic confrontation with between the PCs and the villian and then had his campaign derailed when they shot him without provocation instead of listening to him. Basically if he's not a supernatural intelligence or some other twinkishly unkillable being, he will be toast the moment he comes within line of sight of the PCs.

The whole idea is to keep the mastermind at a distance, and have the PCs succeed or fail based on whether or not they manage to thwart his cunning schemes. He's untouchable (for now), but his plans and his followers are fair game. And there's plenty of room for weaknesses in there in the form of plans that didn't take everything into account, sloppy or incompetent henchmen, moments of remorse or pity, the sudden appearance of unexpected foes and rivals, overly ambitious schemes or daring gambles that don't quite work out, traitors and repentant ex-henchmen, and so on and so forth. All perfectly valid ways to give the show that things can actually go wrong for the baddy and avoid giving the impression that the plot is gonna be railroaded until they can finally kill him.

Just for the love of God don't let the PCs anywhere near your favourite villian until they've earned it, because then the only way to keep him alive for longer than it takes to say "But you weren't supposed to blow him up! Now what am I gonna do for the rest of the campaign?" is to blatantly railroad the whole scene.

I'm sorry, the best, and easiest way to fix the game, so to speak, when they kill off the main bad guy, is to have someone else who has been controlling the bad guy, maybe that whiney little kid from the last town, who just so happens to be a major psychic and can only control this guy in his sleep, and the kid thinks it's all just a dream, which means that if the guy is dea, maybe he rises from the dead do to this kid's mental dream power, or the kid takes over another guy.

Or, forget the kid and make it someone else. Preferably, in my mind, is the make the mastermind a friend of the PC's. Or someone they dont want to hurt, but thats just me.

Yeah but there's only so many times you can shift the goalposts like that, especially if there was no foreshadowing to make it seem like you'd planned it that way all along, before it starts to look suspiciously like a cheap trick. "Oh so he was secretly controlled by a psychic all along. Like how the last boss we killed was secretly the lover of a master vampire, and the one before that was being blackmailed by an evil cult, and the one before that was an android controlled by extra-dimensional invaders..." GMing may be largely about railroading your players onto the right storyline, but the important thing is to make sure the players don't see the rails. There's always a chance the goodies will encounter (or unmask) the baddy and bump him off before the end of the storyline, and if you don't have another storyline planned you're obviously gonna need a way to keep things going, but the less often the PCs are in the same room as him the less likely this is of happening before its supposed to.

It's just one of those annoying areas where RPGs don't do a good job of matching genre conventions. There's always a convenient reason why Batman doesn't just blow the Joker or the Penguin away, you can always rely on Superman to take the moral high ground and not murder Lex Luthor whenever he feels like it, and any action movie hero worth his salt will do the "Gimme your hand!" routine when the baddy is dangling from a precipice, but RPG Player Characters tend to be a tad more cold-bloodedly pragmatic, and you just can't trust 'em to spend five minutes alone with any remotely important NPC

[SkyeFyre]

The problem is that every major villain or antagonist in the entire Rifts setting is a Deus Ex Machine entity. They are perfect, flawless, dont make mistakes, dont have oposition in their area that could put then in an unstable situation and etc etc...

Not every major villan. Most yes, every no. I think that is actually why I love Archie. He has that human feel to him. He fears for his life, he is terrified of death. He hates the Splugorth to no end. He's curious which can get him into trouble. We saw what happened when he got curious about magic. Now he wants to stay well away from it. He loves imaginative ideas and people.

He has goals. He is slowly building himself up and positioning himself to take North America as well as wanting to deal with the Spluggies. Why? Because he tried to save humanity and got frustrated with his failure.

You're right basically though. The books don't detail the other villans to quite the same degree. Maybe that's why Archie will always be a fan favorite. He's the underdog who thinks he can do something but really is just outclassed. He makes mistakes and isn't perfect. He always ponders his own humanity and is curious enough for him to take risks.

[Nightmaster]

You sorta missed my point: in an RPG, villians are a little bit too stoppable. Just ask any GM who's tried to arrange a dramatic confrontation with between the PCs and the villian and then had his campaign derailed when they shot him without provocation instead of listening to him. Basically if he's not a supernatural intelligence or some other twinkishly unkillable being, he will be toast the moment he comes within line of sight of the PCs.

Its is you that missed my point.

Who said that I (or any GM worth its salt) would make a direct confrontation between lets say Emperor Prosek and the PCs? That sort of confrontation would only ocurr in the final part of a entire campaign (if that ocurr of course) and even then it would be more easy for the GM to make the villain escape and the PCs deal with his guard while he escapes.

The weakness that I am talking about are weakness that would make the villians not fail proof at everything they do. Weakness that would make then more believable.

The whole idea is to keep the mastermind at a distance, and have the PCs succeed or fail based on whether or not they manage to thwart his cunning schemes. He's untouchable (for now), but his plans and his followers are fair game. And there's plenty of room for weaknesses in there in the form of plans that didn't take everything into account, sloppy or incompetent henchmen, moments of remorse or pity, the sudden appearance of unexpected foes and rivals, overly ambitious schemes or daring gambles that don't quite work out, traitors and repentant ex-henchmen, and so on and so forth. All perfectly valid ways to give the show that things can actually go wrong for the baddy and avoid giving the impression that the plot is gonna be railroaded until they can finally kill him.

I never said the contrary. My objections are that major villians in the Rifts setting dont have weakness at all. I am not talking about combat related weakness but overall weakness. Let me exemplify.

Desmond Bradford of the Lone Star Complex.
He dont make mistakes.
He dont have oposition either at the Complex or outside (even Joseph II cant do a thing against him).
His lackeys are 100% loyal to him or dont have second guesses at the orders they receive.
Even the only one that is against what Bradford do in the Complex cant do a thing thanks for a cortex bomb and the fact that he is not allowed to step out of the secret level in the complex he lives.

In sum, Bradford cant be touched either physicaly or politically and his plans never backfire or go wrong and that is a caracteristic that all major villians of the Rifts setting have in commom.

Just for the love of God don't let the PCs anywhere near your favourite villian until they've earned it, because then the only way to keep him alive for longer than it takes to say "But you weren't supposed to blow him up! Now what am I gonna do for the rest of the campaign?" is to blatantly railroad the whole scene.

Who said I wish that?

[Nightmaster]

The problem is that every major villain or antagonist in the entire Rifts setting is a Deus Ex Machine entity. They are perfect, flawless, dont make mistakes, dont have oposition in their area that could put then in an unstable situation and etc etc...

Not every major villan. Most yes, every no. I think that is actually why I love Archie. He has that human feel to him. He fears for his life, he is terrified of death. He hates the Splugorth to no end. He's curious which can get him into trouble. We saw what happened when he got curious about magic. Now he wants to stay well away from it. He loves imaginative ideas and people.

He has goals. He is slowly building himself up and positioning himself to take North America as well as wanting to deal with the Spluggies. Why? Because he tried to save humanity and got frustrated with his failure.

You're right basically though. The books don't detail the other villans to quite the same degree. Maybe that's why Archie will always be a fan favorite. He's the underdog who thinks he can do something but really is just outclassed. He makes mistakes and isn't perfect. He always ponders his own humanity and is curious enough for him to take risks.

Thanks finally someone have see what I am talking about.

Yes ARCHIE 3 is a good example of how a major villian must be writed and I stand corrected.

I also must include in the list of well writed villians Splyncrith. He is uber powerful, have a stagering army but he also knows that he cant hold Rifts Earth even if he wish so. He also have some quirks, like being amused by the politics of the nations and factions of Rifts Earth. In that light I would not dare call him a "villian" because he is never making schemes or plans for domination. Ruthless, cruel? yes he is but then all Splugorth are this way towards lesser races.

[DocS]

Villains must also be tailored to the party. The folks at PB do not know what the parties are, or what the campaigns are. So they write generic villains... It is up to the GM to tailor the villains to the party! I've seen too many GM's who set up a campaign, and *then* ask for character generation while telling you nothing about what the campaign will be. And then, surprise, the characters are poorly suited and the villains seem bland. When the villains and characters are made double-blind, you inevitably get disconnect.

A *Good* villain is one that The Party feels... direct connection to.

Either what the villain is or what the villain is doing makes a unique connection to The Party's abilities and wants. If using pre-existing villains, use the ones most suitable for the characters in the party. And play up elements that compliment the party. But to counterbalance the party, you have to consider what the party *is*.

I'll use ARCHIE-3 as an example. He's a good general villain. However different aspects of him can be played differently. If the party is filled with scholars and adventureres, you play *up* the Cyberworks angle, ARCHIE isn't just a nasty bad guy, he's also every Rogue Scholar's/Rogue scientists dream! HE has access to history and information that they would kill for! Us that, use the impetus of ARCHIE-3 to be the search for some legendary information source, like the Library of Congress. Play up spying, infiltration, and the informarion angle. This is an intrigue Archie-3.

However, if your party is instead a bunch of butkickers. Library of Congress... does anyone care? You got juicers, crazies, power armor guys, *they* are not going to be interested in the cyberworks angle, play it down. Instead play *up* the legions of henchmen! This brings the party in with a Robot attack. Play up the endless disposable armies fo cybernetic drones which archie uses. This is the 'Combat' ARCHIE-3.

If the party has a lot of Magic, ARCHIE-3 is again, run differently. Play up the 'magic vs technology' angle. YOu could have a lot of fun since ARCHIE is, essentially, an Alien Intelligence, just a technological one.

Don't just think of 'the villain', think of 'how would *this* villain be compelling to *these* characters'. Start doing that, and the villains start writing themselves.

Another aspect is not to be afraid if the party gets an easy victory. Villains are infinitely disposable. Did they beat the last one easily? So? They knocked the guy down, they feel good, and you can learn from that. This goes to villain tempo. Another thing most GM's don't use. Most folks talk as if *every* adventure should be challenging, every villain difficult, and every combat a fight for their lives. And this is a marvelous way to get a jaded party who doesn't care about one thing more than another, after all, *everything* is fight for your life, how does one rack up tension?

Learn from the easy vics what the party can and can't do, then design the next villains accordingly. Again, it involves watching the party and tailoring things to them.

The GM where every adventure is an utter exercise in intellectual fortitude.... is frustrating. The GM where some things are easy, and some thing are hard... and some things are medium.... is brilliant.

[Marcethus]

You sorta missed my point: in an RPG, villians are a little bit too stoppable. Just ask any GM who's tried to arrange a dramatic confrontation with between the PCs and the villian and then had his campaign derailed when they shot him without provocation instead of listening to him. Basically if he's not a supernatural intelligence or some other twinkishly unkillable being, he will be toast the moment he comes within line of sight of the PCs.

Its is you that missed my point.

Who said that I (or any GM worth its salt) would make a direct confrontation between lets say Emperor Prosek and the PCs? That sort of confrontation would only ocurr in the final part of a entire campaign (if that ocurr of course) and even then it would be more easy for the GM to make the villain escape and the PCs deal with his guard while he escapes.

The weakness that I am talking about are weakness that would make the villians not fail proof at everything they do. Weakness that would make then more believable.

The whole idea is to keep the mastermind at a distance, and have the PCs succeed or fail based on whether or not they manage to thwart his cunning schemes. He's untouchable (for now), but his plans and his followers are fair game. And there's plenty of room for weaknesses in there in the form of plans that didn't take everything into account, sloppy or incompetent henchmen, moments of remorse or pity, the sudden appearance of unexpected foes and rivals, overly ambitious schemes or daring gambles that don't quite work out, traitors and repentant ex-henchmen, and so on and so forth. All perfectly valid ways to give the show that things can actually go wrong for the baddy and avoid giving the impression that the plot is gonna be railroaded until they can finally kill him.

I never said the contrary. My objections are that major villians in the Rifts setting dont have weakness at all. I am not talking about combat related weakness but overall weakness. Let me exemplify.

Desmond Bradford of the Lone Star Complex.
He dont make mistakes.
He dont have oposition either at the Complex or outside (even Joseph II cant do a thing against him).
His lackeys are 100% loyal to him or dont have second guesses at the orders they receive.
Even the only one that is against what Bradford do in the Complex cant do a thing thanks for a cortex bomb and the fact that he is not allowed to step out of the secret level in the complex he lives.

In sum, Bradford cant be touched either physicaly or politically and his plans never backfire or go wrong and that is a caracteristic that all major villians of the Rifts setting have in commom.

Just for the love of God don't let the PCs anywhere near your favourite villian until they've earned it, because then the only way to keep him alive for longer than it takes to say "But you weren't supposed to blow him up! Now what am I gonna do for the rest of the campaign?" is to blatantly railroad the whole scene.

Who said I wish that?

Uh I think you need to reread your Lonestar book. Doctor Desmond Bradford has many flaws. He is a megolomaniac who thinks of himself as a god and that all humans are lesser beings, if they don't see things like him he will do what he has to do to get them removed or use them for experiments. This could lead to problems if it was ever brought to the attention of the Emporer. Also he underestimates those he uses. AKA if he manipulates the player party during one of his schemes they might go and do something he didn't expect them to do derailing his plan in the interim. While most of those he surrounds himself with are utterly loyal there are a few that are in the LSC that aren't loyal to him. Such as those he keeps prisoner and forced to work in section 357 (Again read your Lonestar book and you will know what I am talking about.) Also He has a few political enemies, Joseph Prosek II being most notable, and as such you could have your player party working for him (he would disguise himself most likely and his known to go outside of chitown on occasion as is mention in the Vanguard book) to investigate and find evidence against Doctor Bradford. The players then have to find a way to get that information. Hence comes in Bradfords weaknesses. He is conducting illegal experiments and releasing them. Maybe the players track evidence to an area where he commonly releases them. Then upon arrival of the Locations they see evidence of CS Vehicle tracks or some such. Well you get the point.

It is up to the GM to work what weaknesses a villan has to his advantage to weave it into a good story.

[Nightmaster]

I have since the start of that tread and you forget one thing: All of those points have been summed up in my previous post.

The only LSC personnel there that is not loyal to him , Dr Frederick Alexander, cannot leave the secret level he resides, have a cortex bomb implanted and is supposed dead to the rest of the world. He cant do a thing against Bradford unless the PCs get thenselves there, what is most unlikely. Of course if the PCs are bring there for experimentation they are most likely in for the rest of their entire lifes thanks for the security on the entire complex.

He is a megolomaniac who thinks of himself as a god and that all humans are lesser beings, if they don't see things like him he will do what he has to do to get them removed or use them for experiments. This could lead to problems if it was ever brought to the attention of the Emporer.

That is the main problem. The only way for that to occurr is for someone from inside the complex that work into those secret projects to leak that information. Again unlikely thanks to the fact that the only person that want to do so is neutralized by a cortex bomb, isolation inside the deeps of the complex and the fact that no one outsides know that he exist (to all records in the CS the good Dr Alexander is dead by 13 years now).

While most of those he surrounds himself with are utterly loyal there are a few that are in the LSC that aren't loyal to him. Such as those he keeps prisoner and forced to work in section 357 (Again read your Lonestar book and you will know what I am talking about.)

I know what you are talking about and Dr Ammanda Santiago is loyal to Bradford, she just wish to know what have mold Bradford personality into what it is today. Of course a person like Bradford would not like the idea of being cloned (making a copy of a God? that is heresy!!! )

Also He has a few political enemies, Joseph Prosek II being most notable, and as such you could have your player party working for him (he would disguise himself most likely and his known to go outside of chitown on occasion as is mention in the Vanguard book) to investigate and find evidence against Doctor Bradford.

I find Joseph II as lacking the means to really dig into Bradord secrets at all. Any "spy" that he could even try to infiltrate the complex as a new employer would be scrutinized and watched by Bradford, and while the spy could get to work in the complex, he will never be presented at level 357 or the secret level that exist down there where Bradford lackeys do their illegal projects. All in all Joseph II dont have the means to caught Bradford.

The players then have to find a way to get that information. Hence comes in Bradfords weaknesses. He is conducting illegal experiments and releasing them. Maybe the players track evidence to an area where he commonly releases them. Then upon arrival of the Locations they see evidence of CS Vehicle tracks or some such. Well you get the point.

Yes I got the point but you lost mine.

Yes it is a good way to start an entire campaign but several things go against it.

The first and most important is the fact that such droping operations are done my elite loyal soldiers like Major Claval. In those situations finding CS vehicles tracks are not really anything special since the CS patrol a lot the territories of Texas in S&D missions against D-bees and the Pecos Raiders so finding tracks of CS vehicles is not proof of anything at all.

The only proof possible would come if the players by accident (or destiny) witness the droping and manages to survive to tell the tale, and even then they would not really understood what was going on there. Joseph II could manage to piece the clues together but only if that info got into his ears.

PS: I dont have the Vanguard book.

[Nightmaster]

In my opinion, villians like Bradford and Proesk are never really meant to do battle with PC's. To me, the PC's should never really even know what is going on in those upper echilons of power in the CS/Atlantis/NGR/etc, but they should feel the EFFECTS of what is going on there.

In my mind, the perfection villian for a game is reactionary. They have a set plan in motion on what they wish to acomplish and those darn kids..er...PC's come along and mangle some part of it.

Someone like Bradford is hardly going to endanger his position at Lone Star. He probably isn't going to even put his generals at risk. In all likely hood, he'd pass the buck along to some lowly officer with either a intelligence gathering request or a seek and destroy order.

In turn, I'd create the officer who is supposed to spy/kill the PC's and decide how effective he was, personal biasis, ambition, that sort of stuff and set him up as the primary villian for the PC's. With a formation that varies in size with the power level of the PC's, you could make that officer last a good long while in making the PC's lives uncomfortable or even scary.

To me, Bradford et al is a static villian who is currently filling in a power/plot vacum and removing him is going to take a great deal of creative improvising on my part ot put something in his place. It's better to keep him there and have the PC's combat underlings without direct in game knowledge of who is really in command.

As for weaknesses, I can see a huge weakness for Bradford built right into Lone Star. What if those PC's come upon the clone plotline and then used the clone to gain acess to Lone Star? If you were looking for a weakness for Bradford, he against himself would be a great story.

Agree with all points but the problem is that once you create major villians, even ones like Prosek or Bradford, you must put limitations to what they can do or not.

Also when you create those villians you must create some sort of weakness or antagonists for that villians too that would be more than simple nuisances or foot notes. Those things would make the villian more believeable and colorfull.

The PCs in the game would at best be nuisances even if the entire party is composed of 15th level characters.

By the way, Bradford clones could be used against him but never to gain entrance to the Lone Star Complex. Remember that they dont exist to the CS, they dont have access codes or even knowledge of the LSC infrastructure. Like the book have said the best one can achieve is a confrontation between Bradford and one of his clones and even then after a large siege laid against the entire complex. Not something likely to occurr if you take a look at Lone Star defenses and the fact that the CS could in a matter of hours deploy entire divisions into CS Lone Star to relieve the complex from the siege.

[Nightmaster]

You're also the GM. Create weaknesses if you don't like it.

Yes I am the GM and I can do as I see fit, but sometimes some NPC limits/weakness must be placed by the writer of the book. That is the problem with NPCs on the Rifts setting, they dont have limits/weakness or more precisely, they dont have reasonable limits/weakness designed by the author of the book.

One final note about Bradford and Lone Star.

Vampire Kingdoms book - Mr. Grey Matter. that's all I've got to say.

One final note about Mr. Grey Matter:
His access codes are outdated to say the least. See his entry on the book. At best he can create false IDs or Pass to frontier CS outposts/cities.

[Nightmaster]

Out of curiosity, what kind of weaknesses would have written in?

*blatantly hopes for some ideas to rip off*

That depends.

In the case of the CS for example, Emperor Prosek political dominance would have to be reduced.

An oposition party in the politics of the CS would be some good weakness for Emperor Prosek and his lackeys, much like Free Quebec that have oposition parties in the internal political scenario. Also a sort of underground militant group inside the CS that fights for changes in the internal policies of the nation would be another good weakness that could make the CS more believable.

Desmond Bradford would be a mastermind in the Lone Star Complex but several NPCs that work on the complex that are not loyal to him and that he cant simple make disappear must exist so that his position is not 100% secure. Some of those NPCs could even be top scientists that work on the most important experiments in the GED section of the LSC, some of then close friends of the "deceased" Dr. Frederick Alexander and that alone would be dangerous to Bradford if those "friends" got even a single suspicion on the death of Dr. Frederick.

Those two examples would be good to create the feeling that those great villians are not all powerfull. From it an GM can create entire campaigns centered around those ideas and never really get close to defeat the villians.

Those are just some ideas for weakness and ankward positions to fresh out two of the major villians of the Rifts setting. I have other ideas for other villians as well.

[Nightmaster]

I agree with you about Bradford. It wouldn't hurt to put a few more disgruntled scientists in his mix that he wouldn't have total control over. But, I see that as something that is easily written in without too much disruption with the idea of Lone Star. It would take, say, a Principled Rouge Scientist to move them past disgruntled into secret rebellion. I think that gives the PC's a small opening to exploit that wouldn't turn into anything without their interference.

Yes but you know that sometimes things like that must be already presented in the books. Sometimes the author of the book must create those sort of things. If not the amount of time that will take for people to create those sort of things is a lot. When one writes a Rpg book one must place all possible details like that to make the text interessing at the same time that it dont becomes boring.

As for the opposing party, that one is difficult to pull off because of how much the CS was modeled after the Nazi's. Hitler wielded an extreme amount of power as a dictator, as the nature of a dictator is want to do. He is dangerous because he is so powerful and he is so powerful because he is not stupid enough to let political opposition flourish.

Yes it is difficult to pull off this if one is trying to keep the status quo of the CS as it was writed into the books.

The idea is to rewrite of parts of the CS political structure. Emperor Prosek grip on the political scenario of the CS would not be 100%. More like 70% and that is still a lot of power to conduct the nation but, and that is a great "but", he would still have to bow to a senate or ssometing similar on the political scene. In that situation Emperor Prosek would be forced sometime to negotiate to get something done in the CS as a whole. That same circunstance would allow for dissidents to exist inside the CS.

Of course that opositional party will not composed of people like Erin Tarn, they will be politicians. They would be Human supremacist politicians, but that dont mean that they will not have their own desires and political aspirations or that they will agree with everything that Emperor Prosek says. Maybe they do have some different vision for the CS than the one Emperor Prosek wish to build, or maybe they are just trying to make the CS more like the NGR or Free Quebec. The reasons for the oposition are too many to elaborate.

[Rallan]

Out of curiosity, what kind of weaknesses would have written in?

*blatantly hopes for some ideas to rip off*

That depends.

In the case of the CS for example, Emperor Prosek political dominance would have to be reduced.

An oposition party in the politics of the CS would be some good weakness for Emperor Prosek and his lackeys, much like Free Quebec that have oposition parties in the internal political scenario. Also a sort of underground militant group inside the CS that fights for changes in the internal policies of the nation would be another good weakness that could make the CS more believable.

May as well just declare that Prosek's an alright guy and the CS is a fair society then. The whole point of the Coalition is (or was, before they decided to make it kewl for the fans in the Tolkeen story arc) that it's a nasty business. It's a totalitarian state where the people are kept in ignorance, where bigotry and xenophobia are used to artificially create a sense of unity and purpose, and where the government is a stone-cold badass military regime ruled with an iron fist. There'll be an underground (the Rogue Scholar and Scientist classes in the core book sorta implied that resistance from the little guys was supposed to be a key theme of the game, even if that idea got lost in the giant robots of later books), but the only open opposition figures will be the traitors you see in show trials on CS television. And there's nothing particularly unbelievable about that, because what we fail to remember as priveleged kiddies of the west is that the vast majority of the population throughout recorded history has lived under the reign of opressive tyrants.

Plus if we make the CS less dictatorial and more enlightened, what we gain in a more realistic CS we'd lose in the overall setting. The idea that man's best hope of survival rested in an empire ran by total jerks was a nifty dichotomy, and one of the few moral grey areas in the game. Everything that's happened since to either make the CS less mean or make humans in the rest of the setting more secure has eroded what used to be a nifty premise.

Plus I don't think villians on the level of Bradford or Prosek should really be hobbled. Bradford directs the most modern research facility in North America and is one of the most powerful administrators in the Coalition States, and Prosek is the dictator who runs one of the most powerful empires on Rifts Earth. They're supposed to be beyond the reach of the typical adventuring party, because they influence the plot on a level that's out of a PC's league. Villians should be on an appropriate scale for the players, and if the players aren't at the stage where they're routinely saving the world and changing the course of nations, then folks like Prosek shouldn't be the main antagonist of their storyline. It'll be the CS governor of the local town, the captain of the local outpost, the intelligence agent who's been subtly manipulating the PCs to suit his own agenda, they're the sort of CS baddies a typical party should be striving against. They shouldn't be routinely treading on the toes of Mr Prosek himself unless you're running a campaign that's going to significantly alter the whole North American setting.

Y'know, sort of like how Indiana Jones fights nazis morning noon and night, but the writers didn't throw common sense to the wind and make Adolf Hitler his main antagonist.

[oni no won]

Nightmaster, I have to disagree with your assessment that major villains are invincible; that major villains are not fully given a well rounded personality.

The problem is that you think like an inflexible GM, making any excuse to keep them alive. You only see the facade these characters portray and therefore dismiss their weaknesses by claiming they're not really weaknesses.

Let's use Dr Bradford for example. You keep claiming that he has all these contingencies in place that keeps him in power. Yet when other posters point out to you some of the cracks in his contingency plans, you just dismiss it by saying things like Joseph II isn't smart enought to infiltrate or that the scientists would explode if they were to cross the good doctor.

These "cracks" can be exploited by the GM if he plans to have his players take the good doctor down. Just cause you deem the players incapable of exploiting Dr. Bradford's weaknesses doesn't mean that other GMs see it that way. There is a lot of misdirection and misinformation in the cat and mouse game that Dr Bradford, Joseph II, and his father play against each other. Each have their secrets that if it got out would be their downfall. For Dr. Bradford, it is the illegal or nonsanctioned experiments he performs. Emperor Prosek has a "don't tell, don't know" (I can't rmember the phrase correctly) policy towards Dr. Bradford. Once someone successfully infiltrates and discovers his illegal activities, Emperor Prosek will have no recourse but to remove Dr. Bradford from his position.

Which brings me to one of Emperor Prosek's weakness. He thinks he can control everything. Yet, one of the most powerful CS state succeeded from him, the war with Tolkeen has made some CS soldiers question their beliefs that they were brought up on, and outside forces are constantly threatening his hold on power.

One of the things I like about RIFTS is how alive the authors make their NPCs. The descriptions are done well enough to roleplay them effectively. You get what motivates them. What their quarks are. Sure the authors will want to make their major NPCs seem infallible but they also give enough space for the individual GM to exploit.

If you want to see truly invincible NPCs, you have to look no further then Deadlands. The designer even claimed that he did not want these major NPCs to be effected by players. RIFTS has no such notions.

[Rallan]

Nightmaster, I have to disagree with your assessment that major villains are invincible; that major villains are not fully given a well rounded personality.

I'm afraid this is Rifts we're talking here. It's safe to assume that the major villians aren't given a well rounded personality

[oni no won]

Nightmaster, I have to disagree with your assessment that major villains are invincible; that major villains are not fully given a well rounded personality.

I'm afraid this is Rifts we're talking here. It's safe to assume that the
major villians aren't given a well rounded personality

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think one of Palldium's biggest strength is their story telling and characterization. Each major NPC is given disposition and description which reveals a lot about how they act and fit in the overall scheme of things. That, along with their game stats give a pretty good picture of the character.

Not really sure what you meant by this is RIFTS we are talking about. Many RPGs have major villains that'll be very difficult to kill. RIFTS is no exception. Yet, RIFTS' major NPCs seem more human (or third dimensional). They have their strengths and their fallacies.

[Rallan]

Nightmaster, I have to disagree with your assessment that major villains are invincible; that major villains are not fully given a well rounded personality.

I'm afraid this is Rifts we're talking here. It's safe to assume that the
major villians aren't given a well rounded personality

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think one of Palldium's biggest strength is their story telling and characterization. Each major NPC is given disposition and description which reveals a lot about how they act and fit in the overall scheme of things. That, along with their game stats give a pretty good picture of the character.

Not really sure what you meant by this is RIFTS we are talking about. Many RPGs have major villains that'll be very difficult to kill. RIFTS is no exception. Yet, RIFTS' major NPCs seem more human (or third dimensional). They have their strengths and their fallacies.

Oh Rifts has its moments (Reid's Rangers are a cheesy idea, but the whole hidden evil within theme made it hella useful), but by and large Rifts NPCs and storylines are just cartoonish caricatures of villiandom. I mean let's be honest here folks, Rifts isn't a game people play for its subtle complexities and nuanced character development

[Nightmaster]

Nightmaster, I have to disagree with your assessment that major villains are invincible; that major villains are not fully given a well rounded personality.

The problem is that you think like an inflexible GM, making any excuse to keep them alive. You only see the facade these characters portray and therefore dismiss their weaknesses by claiming they're not really weaknesses.

Actually you are welcome do disagree.

Inflexible GM? me? my god...

If anything I wish to kill those NPCs... by canon. The problem is that there is nothing in canon that can do that to those major villians. There is always a excuse described in the books for those villians not having problems or even oposition. That is the lame thing.

Let's use Dr Bradford for example. You keep claiming that he has all these contingencies in place that keeps him in power. Yet when other posters point out to you some of the cracks in his contingency plans, you just dismiss it by saying things like Joseph II isn't smart enought to infiltrate or that the scientists would explode if they were to cross the good doctor.

These "cracks" can be exploited by the GM if he plans to have his players take the good doctor down. Just cause you deem the players incapable of exploiting Dr. Bradford's weaknesses doesn't mean that other GMs see it that way. There is a lot of misdirection and misinformation in the cat and mouse game that Dr Bradford, Joseph II, and his father play against each other. Each have their secrets that if it got out would be their downfall. For Dr. Bradford, it is the illegal or nonsanctioned experiments he performs. Emperor Prosek has a "don't tell, don't know" (I can't rmember the phrase correctly) policy towards Dr. Bradford. Once someone successfully infiltrates and discovers his illegal activities, Emperor Prosek will have no recourse but to remove Dr. Bradford from his position.

I dont dismiss the other posters points at all. I know those "cracks" do exist in the book, but if you stop to think a bit about then you will see that those cracks in reality dont pose any treat to Bradford position at all.

The first crack that is good Dr Frederick cannot even step out of his secret level without his skull bomb killing him. He cant send mensages to no one because the level where he lives and work dont have comunication with the rest of the complex so he cant contact the outside world through radio or even "internet" relays to try to warn someone. Summing up: for a "crack" in Bradford's armor good Dr. Frederick is really ridiculous.

The second crack that is Dr. Santiago clone operation would never really affect Bradford, at most it will make him furious. The reason is that the personal work of Dr Santiago is not related to the illegal projects Bradford does and so Bradford is officially the victim of a "mad" scientist. The fact that Dr. Santiago works too on the illegal projects that Bradford does would be easyly covered by him and even her because cloning Bradford could be a crime but its not one that would send her to a hang and on the other hand her illegal work on human beings for sure would send her to the grave. Summing up: This crack is not even worth been called that because the one that could betray Bradford have as much to losse if the truth get out. Again not a weakness at all.

Dr Bradford defenses described in the Lone Star book are impenetrable by Joseph II agents. The reason is the administrative structure of the Lone Star Complex.

All scientific personnel that are transfered to LSC are scrutinized by Bradford. In fact its he who choose who will work on the LSC labs, after all he is the Head administrator of the entire complex. Also the scientists that work on the GED levels are chossed by him or need his approval to work there (to see the level of confidence Emperor Prosek have on him).

Even if Joseph manages to recruit a scientist to enter the Lone Star Complex as his spy and Emperor Prosek forces this scientist on Bradford, the things he could manage to discolver would be the things that Bradford would allow him to find. In that situation Bradford would be always suspicious of the scientist (he was forced to accept him) and he could place that scientist on the dark of everything he does.

Joseph II dont have the capacity so far (as Emperor he could but that is a thing to the far future)to infiltrate a spy into the Lone Star Complex that could leak the info he needs to remove Bradford from there. Most probably he have other spies here but they are most low clearance personnel or members of the military presented at the complex that Bradford is always aware of (impossible to miss the guys clad in uniforms or armor).

[Nightmaster]

Continuing my previous post (problems when posting so only half of my post appeared )

There is a lot of misdirection and misinformation in the cat and mouse game that Dr Bradford, Joseph II, and his father play against each other. Each have their secrets that if it got out would be their downfall. For Dr. Bradford, it is the illegal or nonsanctioned experiments he performs. Emperor Prosek has a "don't tell, don't know" (I can't rmember the phrase correctly) policy towards Dr. Bradford. Once someone successfully infiltrates and discovers his illegal activities, Emperor Prosek will have no recourse but to remove Dr. Bradford from his position.

Which brings me to one of Emperor Prosek's weakness. He thinks he can control everything. Yet, one of the most powerful CS state succeeded from him, the war with Tolkeen has made some CS soldiers question their beliefs that they were brought up on, and outside forces are constantly threatening his hold on power.

Game of cat and mouse between those three? If most between Bradford and Joseph II. Emperor Prosek dont have suspicious towards his son and his best friend to make those sort of games you are talking about.

As for the policy that Emperor Prosek have on Bradford let me tell you something: he does that to everything!

Remember SoT book 2. There is clearly stated that Prosek knows that General Drogue will make the death camps and he dindt care. He only care is the image of the CS get tarnished in the process. The reason for that is because the CS get more allies and members by selling the image of rightfully good, enlighted and honored nation of humans against the monsters from the Rifts.

Places like small kingdoms over North America would never accept the CS as their new leader if they know that the CS uses those type of tricks to win. The NGR would never accept a full alliance if they get remembered by the CS of the horror that their forefathers unleashed on the world (the Death Camps). Those sort of things is what make Emperor Prosek do that sort of policy of "Dont tell, dont know".

And who said that Emperor Prosek dont control everything in the CS? He dont have political oposition inside the CS. Outside the CS he dont have effective military oposition. Even Free Quebec dont wish to fight the CS (ridiculous in my opinion but that is a matter for another tread).

Also the conflict with Free Quebec was foretold back on the old SB1 when the CS introduced the Skelebots and the C-212 Variable Laser Rifle. It was not a surprise to him after all that Free Quebec decided to break from the CS (they never really bowed to the CS main policies towards a lot of things).

As for the soldiers coming back from the Tolkeen front, well they could be starting to not believe everything the CS propaganda says but they will only be a treat if they numbers are high.

Based on the Aftermath book there was not that much "Full Citizens" soldiers that got killed on the Tolkeen front. The great majority (more than 70%) were wannabe citizens from the Burbs that got an armor and a rifle to fight there. I know that this is a lot of bulldrek based on the way things were described in the CWC book but Siembieda dindt wish to get the CS kicked in the groin so he wrote that thing out. Again not really a problem to the CS because a very small percentage of full brainwashed citizens got to the Tolkeen front and lived to tell the history.

Maybe players are supposed to fail once in a while.

Bradford didn't get where he is by being stupid. He's been very careful to put himself in a position of power that is difficult to topple him from. Maybe the characters could go up against him and be thwarted. Over and Over.

In fact, why not let them try to figure out how to get rid of him? Players can be amazingly inventive and see a crack that you missed or that you unintentionally created through RP that can be exploited. Or, they can fail in their quest to get rid of him and have to move on to another quest.

A good option but one that can make the players of any GM frustrated and pissed. From all time that I remember, players never like to lose. They can not appear frustrated and pissed but they are.

I have had all sort of party members over the years and almost all of then dindt like when the villian NPC handle their butts to then, either in a physical or mental way.

However that is not to say that a GM must give your players what they want. I make that really clear to then every time I am the GM. In fact those that are familiar to me know that they need to carve out the adventure. I never make the story come dancing to then and siting in their laps waiting to be picked. . If they dont do something or seek something, based on the background of the characters and the previous adventures, they dont get anything.

What I wish in fact is that the NPCs presented in the books have weakness or "cracks" like you guys are saying, but those cracks need to be effective ones. They dont need to be obvious but they must exist and must be a serious treat to the villian NPC.

[Rallan]

Continuing my previous post (problems when posting so only half of my post appeared )

There is a lot of misdirection and misinformation in the cat and mouse game that Dr Bradford, Joseph II, and his father play against each other. Each have their secrets that if it got out would be their downfall. For Dr. Bradford, it is the illegal or nonsanctioned experiments he performs. Emperor Prosek has a "don't tell, don't know" (I can't rmember the phrase correctly) policy towards Dr. Bradford. Once someone successfully infiltrates and discovers his illegal activities, Emperor Prosek will have no recourse but to remove Dr. Bradford from his position.

Which brings me to one of Emperor Prosek's weakness. He thinks he can control everything. Yet, one of the most powerful CS state succeeded from him, the war with Tolkeen has made some CS soldiers question their beliefs that they were brought up on, and outside forces are constantly threatening his hold on power.

Game of cat and mouse between those three? If most between Bradford and Joseph II. Emperor Prosek dont have suspicious towards his son and his best friend to make those sort of games you are talking about.

As for the policy that Emperor Prosek have on Bradford let me tell you something: he does that to everything!

Remember SoT book 2. There is clearly stated that Prosek knows that General Drogue will make the death camps and he dindt care. He only care is the image of the CS get tarnished in the process. The reason for that is because the CS get more allies and members by selling the image of rightfully good, enlighted and honored nation of humans against the monsters from the Rifts.

I was always under the impression that the real reason they didn't build death camps during SoT is because KS told Bill Coffin to scrap that idea on the grounds that it would upset the Coalition States fanboys too much

Places like small kingdoms over North America would never accept the CS as their new leader if they know that the CS uses those type of tricks to win. The NGR would never accept a full alliance if they get remembered by the CS of the horror that their forefathers unleashed on the world (the Death Camps). Those sort of things is what make Emperor Prosek do that sort of policy of "Dont tell, dont know".

Bit late for the NGR. The reason virtually no D-Bees live in the NGR's borders or are recognised as citizens today is because about a hundred years ago they rounded up almost everyone who wasn't a human and expelled them unarmed beyond the Republic's borders and left at the mercy of the marauding Gargoyle Empire. The NGR might not be aggressively trying to cleanse the land of every non-human critter they can find, but that one moment in their history puts 'em streets ahead of any other human power on the planet in terms of genocide (or would the term be xenocide? ).