The Main Character is the Villain?

[Griffin]

Something I've noticed throughout my written works is that I have a habit of making my MCs the "bad guys." They're not unusually cruel or manipulative. Their general personalities differ, but none of them are saints.

I'll give two examples.

One is a boy who is constantly bullied at school and feels like an outcast in his own home. At a young age, he develops an imaginary friend. This 'friend' exists well into the boy's late teens. Still feeling like a loser, the boy dives into fantasy and develops a hero complex. Towards the end, the boy's mother wishes to send him to psychiatric hospital to help him through his mental problems. Well, as it turns out, the imaginary friend is nothing more but part of the boy's schizophrenic delusion and the friend encourages the boy to "slay the beast" aka his mother. The boy is not evil by any means, but he cannot be considered a hero.

Another is an alternative Cinderella. She knows that a fairy godmother won't save her, so she must take matters into her hands. She first seduces a local merchant in order to acquire nice things, like dresses and jewelry. She eventually flirts and befriends numerous people to get what she wants and climbs her way to the prince while leaving a trail of broken hearts behind.

Sorry for the long nonsense, but my question is: if the MC wasn't really the good guy, would that be a major turnoff? They're not cliched villains who want to destroy the world because they can. I seem to be unable to make my MCs goody two-shoes. They're still human with obvious flaws. I'm just curious if bad guys for MCs is a turnoff or a good thing?

[T.Allen.Smith]

Well anything "can" work but you may have a hard time if readers can't identify with your MC.

A good anti-hero may be your best bet. Flawed heroes can be awesome characters & might satisfy the darkness you're looking for in a protagonist.

[RedMorningSky]

I think some of the best characters do some questionable things to reach their goals. That's what makes them interesting. If everyone does the right thing all of the time then it is likely that the character will be boring. I agree with T.Allen.Smith that like all things it needs to be done right, but for me it's definitely something I like to see in a main character. The most recent example I have read where the author uses this technique is David Anthony Durham in his Acacia series. Corinn does a ton of evil things like trying to have her sister in law and her child killed to protect her son as heir to the throne, but throughout the book we see how she became this way so as a reader I could identify with the choices she made, even if I didn't agree with them at all.

[Ghost]

Something I've noticed throughout my written works is that I have a habit of making my MCs the "bad guys." They're not unusually cruel or manipulative. Their general personalities differ, but none of them are saints.

[...] my question is: if the MC wasn't really the good guy, would that be a major turnoff? They're not cliched villains who want to destroy the world because they can. I seem to be unable to make my MCs goody two-shoes. They're still human with obvious flaws. I'm just curious if bad guys for MCs is a turnoff or a good thing?

I do similar characters who make questionable or harmful choices, so I can relate. It seems easier to do in short fiction without it overwhelming the reader. When it comes to longer work, the MC needs to be intriguing or there should be something to relieve the reader of the weight of the MC's actions.

Your first example reminds me of a story by Patricia Highsmith called "The Terrapin." I don't remember many details, but the young protagonist is angry about something his mother does. Being able to make the reader see why the MC is upset enough to do what he does or why the MC reasoned his course of action was a good one helps.

I'm also considering a fairytale retelling, but mine's Snow White and it's pretty morbid. I think if you can establish what Cinderella hopes to gain, why trading sexual favors fits with her goals, and how she views herself vs. the people she manipulates, it could be engrossing even if she's not admirable. Showing her weaknesses and how she compensates is also good.

I think it's fine to have characters who aren't goody-two-shoes, but there should be something to make the reader turn the page.

[Lorna]

'my question is: if the MC wasn't really the good guy, would that be a major turnoff? They're not cliched villains who want to destroy the world because they can. I seem to be unable to make my MCs goody two-shoes. They're still human with obvious flaws. I'm just curious if bad guys for MCs is a turnoff or a good thing?'

Hmm... this has first got me thinking of how many books I have read who have got a 'goody two shoes' MC. Harry Potter perhaps. Gallahad. The only others are subcharacters, like Goldmoon from the Dragonlance books. Even Enid Blyton's heroine in the Famous Five series, George, was a rebel. I guess this is because 'goody two shoes' characters make for a pretty dull read.

I tend to like reading ambiguous complex characters that make mistakes like Robin Hobb's Fitz, Raistlin from Dragonlance.

The MC in my novel in progress has got the traits of a hero but is forced into the role of a villain. For example in the third chapter of the first book he is driven to burn a town. In the second book he murders somebody, as a sacrifice to the elementals, in return for the power to take down a greater evil. To most humans he's a villain but he's the elementals' champion.

When you ask whether a character is a villain you also need to consider 'from whose standpoint?'

[The Dark One]

Read the Flashman series. It's a brilliantly told 1st person narrative in which the MC constantly boasts about his evil - lying, cheating and womanising his way to fame and fortune. Flashman does some unspeakably caddish things but you can't help but love him and even identify with him because he is so intelligent and funny (and delights in pointing out the hypocracies in others).

[Amanita]

I'm just curious if bad guys for MCs is a turnoff or a good thing?

For me, and probably for quite a few others, this depends on the bad things they do and their personal opinion about it.
Your first one hits me the wrong way for various personal reasons but this doesn't mean it has to be that way for others. It also doesn't mean that you couldn't write an engaging story with this premise. Many famous works of literature actually follow people who are anything but morally perfect.
An important question is if you want to write a story that deal with psychiatric disorders/drug abuse/getting dragged into criminal circles, dangerous religious organisations etc. or one with a "hero" bent on something completely different who just happens to have these issues. In the first case, the story might require such a problematic background, in the second one, it could easily get into the way.

I guess this is because 'goody two shoes' characters make for a pretty dull read.

I agree with the assumption that morally perfect characters are boring but this doesn't mean that a character has to torture, rape and murder to be interesting. There are plenty of flaws human beings show when dealing with others which can cause quite a few problems but aren't as unforgivable as those. I generally like "heroic" characters who do have a set of moral principlces they adhere to if possible and don't act against without second though.

I'm not unfamiliar with this problem myself though. In one of my stories, I have a viewpoint character who brings death an destruction over a city full of refugees, spends most of his time working on the most efficient ways of killing people, isn't above beating his own wife and raping a female prisoner of war. In my opinion these actions make sense in context from his point of view but I'm still not sure if I should keep his parts in the story. There are other narrators including his wife and the prisoner who put things in perspective though which should make it obvious that I do not endorse this kind of behavior.
In general, their opponents are the "evil" side, but he's sort of a villain on the "good" side. Good and evil don't really apply to this story, but summing up all their actions, the others are worse.

[Ireth]

*now has to stop and think about whether any of her protagonists is a goody-two-shoes*

Vincent and Dom are both generally "lawful good", though each of them slips into neutral from time to time. Vincent is perfectly willing to break into a national monument in the dead of night to open a portal to Faerie and save his kidnapped daughter, and Dom comes close to killing a captive Fae in cold blood before she attacks him and forces a change to self-defence. Ariel herself I'm not sure about. Everything she does is in the interest of self-preservation, and until she accidentally maims the bad guy, it really isn't much more serious than having to lie to him about certain things, and breaking out of prison. The maiming itself was an act of self-defence, as he was seriously hurting her.

[writeshiek33]

brent weeks black prism book has role reversal has villian act like hero and hero act like a villian

[Jabrosky]

I once attempted a story with a female protagonist whom I intentionally made extremely unsympathetic. I deliberately wanted people to root against her. She had the hots for a certain guy at her college, but he turned out to already have a girlfriend whom the protagonist immediately disliked...to put it very mildly. To give you an idea of how despicable my anti-heroine was supposed to be, the n-word (yes, that n-word) was among the tamer insults she used to address her love interest's girlfriend. Ultimately my problem was that reviewers found her too irredeemably revolting.