Absurd vocabulary? Check. Tendency to behave like he’s in complete control of the situation regardless of circumstances, usually talking down to the PCs in the process? Check. Psychological trauma inflicted on PCs and NPCs alike? Check.

But what was really odd was after they killed him. (Yes, after. He’s been dead for upwards of fifty sessions now.) I reintroduced him a while later, as a remnant of himself in the mind of his next incarnation. Since the group happens to like his next incarnation, and haven’t yet realized the extent to which he messes with things, they let him live. Scarier still, they like him. All of the players who’ve met him enjoy talking to him even when he’s winning the verbal sparring matches they get into (which is almost always), and the PCs’ reactions to him range from grudging admiration to almost wanting to emulate him.

Apparently whatever I did, I did right.

In order to really get at the good (evil) stuff and demonstrate their intelligence, I find it’s best to get them right under the players’ skin. Set them up as allies, then have them betray the PCs. By this I don’t mean just have them turn nasty. Have them turn nasty when the players have put valuable treasure or magic at their disposal.

It’s the arch-villain’s ability to forward plan and predict the PCs’ reactions that are the real demonstration of their brains.

Giving them a bit of jargon does help, though. No villain is complete unless he knows and uses the word ’stratagem’ and has at least five similes for ‘fool’. :)

I do like the vocab idea, Yax… give your villain that extra little something… like Professor Moriarty.

A campaign without a good villain will often lack drives and focus.

Adventuring to save whatever, is so much more gratifying when somebody was there trying to stop you, from achieving your goal.

His defeat becomes an automatic highlight of the campaign that the player will remember.