[Sawrock]

To put my own two cents in, I will agree that playing antagonists is like a balancing act. You have to be a lot more mindful of how you react to others due to how IC negative actions can spring others to action (both ICly and OOCly) a hell of a lot more faster than positive IC actions. In part, this is due to the nature of the game; without a clear guideline to keep track of time, actions we would consider positive (for example, a character having and then raising a child, hosting celebrations, etc.) can be easily washed over (if only a small portion of the population keeps track of their ages, then having a birthday party is more about having something to do than doing something because something is happening). Compare such to a negative action: a character death through murder. A dead character doesn't come back. People have to deal with it, and if the character was your IC friend, having a response is often much more weighty. "How would my character react to yours having a wedding?" versus "How would my character react to yours dying?" In one, you have the celebration, are overjoyed, but your overall relationship stays the same. The other? You can't keep the relationship the same between characters if one is dead. Even with a simple mugging, defending one's friends is simply natural.

Because of that weight, that call to action, playing a villain is much more engaging for me. Things happen! But being mindful around others can be nerve-wracking. It's why I remind myself that I roleplay on the game for me, and I play a villain not as a service to generate roleplay for others, but because I genuinely like being the bad guy.

Now, on the side of "throwaway villains are worse than villains with thought-out plans" (and not accusing anyone specifically of thinking this, just that I've seen the sentiment before), I will say I treat my creation of antagonists 99% of the time like I would any other characters I create. I get a hankering for what kind of character I want, I grind them and draw art, and I play them in-field. I don't like to plan ahead- doing so ruins the fun of roleplay for me. To create as few predetermined courses of action as possible is the goal, and to increase in-game interactions as much as possible is the key to... flat-out just roleplaying. Having fun. Having "throwaway characters" isn't the goal. That's a simple consequence of the system we use to roleplay.

If my villainous character were in a video game, a show, or otherwise, he might be a part of a Big Evil Empire that encourages his sadism. He could be a reoccurring threat that has to make his retreat instead of being captured on loss, or be captured/gotten rid of on his defeat (whether through death or otherwise). But the system as we have it now? If I go out and fight, and lose, the default built-in option isn't for the former. Unless the people you're fighting works with you, there's only options for the latter as a default, because people either don't want their governments to seem poorly-run (and for good reason), or they don't want their heroes to seem ineffective (once again, for good reason).

I'm not saying we should follow the strict plans of Saturday Morning Cartoons and let the governments not react efficiently ICly. I don't want pre-set scripts; I want people acting in the moment. But what I do want is for people to think about the situation; that the concept of throwaway villains is a creation of the system that lets villains suffer consequences while heroes/government, when they succeed, are allowed to succeed flawlessly, and require explicit consent for their losses.

I create a villain. I plan to play them as long as I can, and have adventures where I get to show off their cruelty, their violence, and they will continue to do so until the system decides they are done. And then I make a new one. It's just how it is. I enjoy it. I do it because I enjoy it. I roleplay with others who enjoy it. My characters are only as disposable as the system lets them be.