Protagonist vs Antagonist: David vs Goliath or Goliath vs Goliath?

[Jabrosky]

I've had a theory bubbling for a while that character development in stories is fundamentally about how characters cope with challenges. I bet few people would find a protagonist who effortlessly wipes the floor with the antagonist during the climax dramatically interesting. However, what's less clear to me is exactly what level of power the protagonist should have relative to the antagonist by the time the two confront each other during the climax. Which of these two scenarios sounds more dramatically interesting to you?

Scenario A: The antagonist has a better chance of defeating the protagonist than the reverse when the climax arrives (David vs Goliath)

Scenario B: The protagonist and the antagonist have more or less equal chances of defeating each other (Goliath vs Goliath)

I'll add that the story in Scenario B doesn't necessarily have to start with the protagonist having equal power to the antagonist. If anything, it might be ideal if the protagonist started the story as the weaker party but over time accumulated power so that they became the antagonist's equal when the climax comes. In other words, the protagonist would start out David but then grow into Goliath until they were ready to confront the antagonizing Goliath.

I vote for Scenario B. Sure, it's tempting to root for the underdog, but I feel that if the antagonist never loses their advantage over the protagonist, the protagonist will have to depend either on luck or some ridiculous contrivance to beat the antagonist.

BTW, even in Scenario B, the protagonist and antagonist do not have to beat each other using the same tools. We could have an antagonist that is physically stronger, but the protagonist compensates for that by having greater intelligence, thus evening out their odds of beating each other.

[robertbevan]

i don't know. i feel like the antagonist should have the advantage right up til the end. and the climax should involve something more than the two of them smashing into one another. i like a story where the underdog does something clever and unexpected to win the day.

in other words, i don't want even odds at the climax of a story. i want things to be looking pretty grim for the protagonist.

[ThinkerX]

That might be an overly simplistic way of looking at things.

Who is to be feared more: the hulking armored giant soldier with a weapon few others can even lift? Or the frail king who with a single edict can send forth an army?

It is about *types* of power, not just direct comparisions.

There are also situational considerations. Take the hulking warrior mentioned earlier and put him up against an ordinary draftee. All else being equal, the draftee has a real short life expectency. But -

- give the draftee the advantage of say, a crossbow, or even a defensible position atop a castle wall, and that evens things out considerably.

[Penpilot]

They're both equal IMHO. It's all in what your story is about and who your protagonist and antagonist are. Each of the two scenarios is generated by a different type of story arc, so it's a bit of apples and oranges thing here.

[Feo Takahari]

I'm fond of David and David and David and David versus Goliath. Power of friendship FTW!

That said, I don't think there's necessarily anything contrived or unusual about a seemingly weak character winning by a method the seemingly stronger character didn't expect. Rock-paper-scissors represents the world better than strength versus strength.

[ShortHair]

What's important to the story is not so much the relative power levels of the combatants but the perceived weakness of the protagonist. Hamlet isn't a great story because he defeats Claudius and Laertes, it's because he has to subvert his poetic nature to take any action at all, which destroys him as well. You can read about victory in the sports pages.

[BWFoster78]

A couple of thoughts:

1) One of the ways to increase tension is to increase the power of the obstacle. An overpowered antagonist is an easy tension builder.
2) It's typical for the protagonist to finally realize his true power rising the challenge of the antagonist. It's a well worn device, but it works. (I use it in my novel.)
3) As others have said, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve. I think you can make anything work if you do it well enough. I'm a guy who likes absolute rules for writing, but I don't see how you can create one on this topic.

[Helen]

What usually happens in the climax is that the protag has grown/changed/become stronger immeasurably since we first met him or her, but so has the antag. They are actually, technically, different creatures (Amazing Spiderman). David has become another Goliath. Goliath has become even more impossibly intimidating.

The protag then has to overcome limitations to defeat the antag.

You can see that distinct method in lots of stories, from Gladiator to Godfather to Avengers.

[glutton]

Since my heroines are usually among the best warriors in their worlds and the main villains are as well, I tend to do Goliath vs Goliath.

[Ireth]

Lately I've turned toward many Davids versus one Goliath. Yay teamwork! ^^