# What is a hero, and what is a villain?



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 22, 2013)

How do you define a hero or heroine? Literally, what does that word mean to you?

Likewise, how do you define what a villain is?

Debate!


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 22, 2013)

A hero is one who is ultimately striving towards doing good and thwarting evil. A villain is one who, through intent or simple neglect, furthers the cause of evil. But this is a very simple distinction and doesn't take into account things like antiheroes, antivillains, or even what the definitions of "good" and "evil" actually are. I'm sure you could debate all that, but I don't have the energy right now.


----------



## Saigonnus (Jan 22, 2013)

A hero is someone who attains his lofty, necessary and usually lawful goal, often at great personal expense to his soul, psyche or physical body. Violence is a tool of the hero, but often consider it as a last resort for solving problems, or in defense of his own life or the lives of his companions. 

A villain is someone who pursues a goal as well, but one that most people would consider to be wrong or unlawful according to the tenets of the region/culture etc... and often employs methods to accomplish his/her goal that likewise are considered wrong or unlawful. Violence is also the tool of villain, but unlike the hero, he/she often uses it as a first strike weapon or one to instill fear in people.


----------



## Phietadix (Jan 22, 2013)

Simple, The hero is the person your book portrays as right and the villian is the one your book portrays as wrong. Then their are books like mine that are a little more complicated . . .


----------



## Ireth (Jan 22, 2013)

Phietadix said:


> Simple, The hero is the person your book portrays as right and the villian is the one your book portrays as wrong. Then their are books like mine that are a little more complicated . . .



Not so simple, actually... There are plenty of stories with a Villain Protagonist working against heroic antagonists. _Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog_ is a great example, with the rivalry between the eponymous supervillain-in-training and his superhero nemesis, Captain Hammer, over the love interest, Penny. Dr. Horrible is proud of his villain status, having "a Ph.D in horribleness" and aspirations to enter the Evil League of Evil, headed by the dreaded Bad Horse, the Thoroughbred of Sin.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 23, 2013)

I think the hero is a focal character who acts to change the world around him. (For instance, Edward, not Bella, is the hero of _Twilight_, because he's the one who actually does things.) Conversely, the villain is whoever stands in the hero's way. In some cases, the only reason the villain isn't the hero is that he isn't the one the narrative focuses on. (I don't really factor good and evil into this, although I think heroes should be sympathetic on at least some level.)


----------



## Phietadix (Jan 23, 2013)

But there are stories from the point of view of the villains.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 23, 2013)

Phietadix said:


> But there are stories from the point of view of the villains.



I'm not so sure about that--to use Ireth's example, can we really say that Dr. Horrible, who acts for love and nebulous "social change", is more villainous than Captain Hammer, who acts for glory? (Sure, Dr. Horrible would say he's the villain, but plenty of heroes call themselves villains while still blatantly being heroes--check out _Disgaea_ for some particularly obvious examples of that.)


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 23, 2013)

That's a good question. If someone calls themselves the villain, does that make it so?


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 23, 2013)

Ok...

*Bold* To do something which may or may not be risky / dangerous.  Applies to both Heros and Villains.

*Brave* To do something which is very like risky /dangerous.  Applies to both Heroes and Villains.

*Hero / Heroic* To do something risky / dangerous for *others* benefit (at least mostly so).  Usually hero only.

*Villain / Villainous* To do something which benefits only that person (or possibly him/her and select associates) *at the expense of others*.  By 'expense', I mean taking from, inflicting pain / death, or forced behaviour (intimidation / enslavement).


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2013)

I've personally gone through various definitions of "hero", but I think my current one is something like: "An extraordinary person doing extraordinary things, while examplifying one or several virtues."

A villain is the exact same thing as a hero, only instead of examplifying virtues he examplifies _vices._

In other words, heroes and villains are both extraordinary people and may have the same basic qualities, but the hero is a "good example" while the villain is a "bad example."



Ireth said:


> Not so simple, actually... There are plenty of stories with a Villain Protagonist working against heroic antagonists. _Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog_ is a great example, with the rivalry between the eponymous supervillain-in-training and his superhero nemesis, Captain Hammer, over the love interest, Penny. Dr. Horrible is proud of his villain status, having "a Ph.D in horribleness" and aspirations to enter the Evil League of Evil, headed by the dreaded Bad Horse, the Thoroughbred of Sin.



Well, see, while Dr Horrible identifies himself as a super-villain and admits he's partially in it for fame and money, he still seems to mostly regard himself as more of a revolutionary. He's very bitter and misanthropic, basically thinking he should rule the world because mankind doesn't deserve to rule itself, but he still has good qualities - he displays friendship, capacity for love, and mercy or at least serious qualms about killing innocents. I'd say that makes him a pretty typical anti-hero - he is a protagonist with noble intentions but is very flawed as a person.

Captain Hammer, on the other hand, is considered a "hero" both by himself and the public, but he is really kind of a arrogant, self-centered jerk, essentially a bully, and not really that good at being a hero. He lacks a fair deal of empathy due to having never experienced pain himself, and he's very careless to the point of his "heroics" actually endangering people. When he tries to inspire others (which is basically what being a hero is really about) he ends up insulting them instead.

In that sense, he is _also _an anti-hero, although his role is the opposite of Dr Horrible: He acts like a hero but lacks the necessary heroic qualities to actually be one.



Mindfire said:


> That's a good question. If someone calls themselves the villain, does that make it so?



Of course not. A person is defined by his actions, not by what he thinks of himself.


----------



## The Tourist (Jan 23, 2013)

All my characters are both.

For example, in one chapter a female mercenary cannot pay her rent and loses her apartment.  One of her friends takes her in.  A mutual friend discusses this condition with her host, and states, "Don't worry about her, she can always find someone to kill."

The female character in question is depicted as a jovial train-wreck, who doesn't always clean her firearms and usually has butter and remnants of Texas toast oozing down her chin.  The people who have read my story like her, and the comedic lines she has.  But make no mistake, she's not from The Welcome Wagon.

So, is she hero or villain?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> All my characters are both.
> 
> For example, in one chapter a female mercenary cannot pay her rent and loses her apartment.  One of her friends takes her in.  A mutual friend discusses this condition with her host, and states, "Don't worry about her, she can always find someone to kill."
> 
> ...



Depends. Being an untidy or somewhat irresponsible person doesn't really have anything to do with being a hero _or _a villain. That's really just ordinary personality quirks. And being likable isn't really an issue either - plenty of villains are very likable.

The fact that she's a mercenary suggests anti-heroine, though. Killing people for money is traditionally considered an unheroic trait, but if the character isn't otherwise malevolent or despicable, it's not enough to make her a villainess.

Mostly it comes down to her motivations, values and standards. If she is still willing to risk her life for others because she believes it is "right" (say, taking a bullet for an innocent, a child, etc) she still has heroic qualities. On the other hand, if she has a personal goal that she won't hesitate to sacrifice anyone else for, she is closer to villain territory. If she just tries to look out for number one at all times, anti-hero sounds about right.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, see, while Dr Horrible identifies himself as a super-villain and admits he's partially in it for fame and money, he still seems to mostly regard himself as more of a revolutionary. He's very bitter and misanthropic, basically thinking he should rule the world because mankind doesn't deserve to rule itself, but he still has good qualities - he displays friendship, capacity for love, and mercy or at least serious qualms about killing innocents. I'd say that makes him a pretty typical anti-hero - he is a protagonist with noble intentions but is very flawed as a person.



Actually, upon thinking about it, I change my mind: He is a character who acts as a villain, but he does so out of good intentions. That should make him an anti-villain.

So, Dr Horrible is basically Anti-Villain Protagonist vs Anti-Hero Antagonist.


----------



## The Tourist (Jan 23, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Depends. Being an untidy or somewhat irresponsible person doesn't really have anything to do with being a hero _or _a villain. That's really just ordinary personality quirks.



You hit my point right on the head.

At my age you've already run into lots of topics and people in that "gray area."  For example, several of my classmates in my college dorm flunked out as freshmen.  In my junior year, I met up with one after his tour in Vietnam.  I think most of the problems with those suffering from PTSD is that they look at themselves as good people who had to do bad things.

That's the back-story for my female mercenary.  She's a clueless soul.  She has funny lines.  But when the clarion call goes out for guns-for-hire, she's usually first in line.  Rather than paint her as one of those "super secret black ops living weapons," I show her as just a guy, like most of us, caught up in the whims of a government and trying to put food on the table.

Cross her, she'll blow off your head.  Good friend, bad enemy.

My MC meets up with a mentor at an academy.  Like most people on a pedestal, the mentor has feet of clay and his own agenda.  My MC buys into that train of thought.

I look at myself as being a good guy.  I'm married, I never cheat, I pay my bills, I'm a baptized Christian and while having earned a retirement, I still work.  This resume' of human interaction derives from "the first half of my life."

So, hero or villain?  I'm not sure there is a real line.


----------



## SeverinR (Jan 23, 2013)

I think villian or hero is in the eye of the beholder, 
the hero can be the lesser of two evils, or the villian could be the lesser of two good.
As in war, also to the victor goes the valor.

The winner gets interviewed by the historians, the losers get buried, at least in the official version.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 23, 2013)

SeverinR said:


> I think villian or hero is in the eye of the beholder,
> the hero can be the lesser of two evils, or the villian could be the lesser of two good.
> As in war, also to the victor goes the valor.
> 
> The winner gets interviewed by the historians, the losers get buried, at least in the official version.



But in that context, words like "hero" and "villain" are altogether meaningless. This discussion presupposes the existence of "true"heroes and villains, and by extension the existence of absolute good and evil.


----------



## Telcontar (Jan 23, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> This discussion presupposes the existence of "true"heroes and villains, and by extension the existence of absolute good and evil.



Actually, the OP asked what these words mean to us, personally.

SeverinR does have a point - one person's hero WILL be another's villain. As the venerable Obi-wan put it, many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view. After all, in many ancient cultures the quest for glory was a perfectly acceptable source of inspiration for a hero; these days, not so much.

I rather like the definition given by Anders above: "An extraordinary person doing extraordinary things." Of course, this inevitably leads to a discussion of what makes a person or an action extraordinary...

Personally I don't dwell as much on the definition of villain. I'm likely to call any antagonist a "villain of the story" without really meaning I consider them a true villain - that is to say, an evil person. Furthermore, I suppose I might call any evil person a villain, as my personal definition of what constitutes evil requires some pretty bad stuff to go down before I'd stick that label on someone.


----------



## Hainted (Dec 29, 2013)

The difference between a hero, and a villain is which one you agree with, and which one you want to fail.


----------



## SineNomine (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't use either term very much simply because they aren't that useful.  You NEED to know who the protagonists and antagonists are in a story, and you need to know who the focus characters are, but it generally doesn't matter who is considered a hero and who is considered a villain.  The sheer fact that there is no perfect agreed upon definition speaks to this.  They perhaps had more use before modernism took root in fantasy, but even then they usually were just synonymous with pro and antagonist but more loaded.

For what it's worth, I do like Anders's definitions.  A hero is going to be someone who is objectively doing good, for the right reasons, in a notable way.  A villain isn't quite opposite a hero because I don't think reasons matter as much.  If you are objectively doing bad in a notable way, regardless of the reasons, you can be a villain.  Though...maybe that just makes you a bad person and to be "villainous", a step above, you have to have intentions?  Hmmm...

Anyway, stories don't need heros or villains and modern storytelling is full to the brim with stories that don't have either, it's not even notable any more if you don't have them.  "Shades of grey" morality is almost required to have a story be taken seriously nowadays.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 29, 2013)

And, sometimes the exact same action can be perceived as heroic or villainous, just depending on who is engaging in it -


----------



## Nagash (Dec 30, 2013)

The notion of heroism is a tricky one, for the simple reason that it is essentially defined through subjectives point of views, conventions, traditions etc... This statement can be verified by a simple research of the definition of "heroism" throughout the ages. You'll end up realizing that the question "What is a hero ?" won't obtain the same answers in different backgrounds, historically, culturally and geographically speaking. Heroism in ancient Greece - for example - was all about being the incarnation of a "manly" virtue, most of the time in the context of war or martial prowess. Early definitions of heroism are effectively assimilated to skill in battle, in combat... These were the basis upon which the "cult" of heroism in occident was built : courage, strength, selflessness, devotion and the will the sacrifice one-self were the virtues one had to acquire, in order to be called a true hero. This can be assessed through almost every single medieval/renaissance tales of heroism and chivalry, across the european countries : "The song of Roland" (France) tells the story of Roland, Charlemagne's mightiest knight, defeating hundreds of saracens before biting the dust; the tale of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar "El Cid" is exceptionally similar, since it depicts the mighty spanish warrior killing tons of moorish invaders on his own... Beside, the cult of sacrifice is an occidental paragon of heroism : from Leonidas's three hundred spartans and the Homeric tales of Ajax, Achilles and Ulysses, to the mythification of the soldier and the warrior in ancient Rome, to the "sacrifice" of crusaders in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, in 10th century Norway and Sweden, people die on the battlefield convinced they are stepping into Valhalla.

Heroism is a concept; its an invention, albeit an old one, but an invention nonetheless. It was built through time, heroic tales, northern sagas, breath-taking legends, religious writings and centuries of warmongering, glorious slaughters and massacres. Along with other fabrications such as glory, honor, it was mostly created in order to get people in line, and give them something to believe in as they were thrown in endless bloodsheds. Eventually, these concepts were assimilated, and some men became bold, brave even, simply because they had an unbending faith in concepts. They had been transformed.

To the point : being concepts, good, evil, heroism and anti-heroism are subjective. It was said previously that "a hero is another one's villain". I will add "...and what is a villain, but a hero none can understand ?". Fantasy novels relish the ideas of moral absolutism, where evil is done for evil and good for good. These novels are built upon the centuries-old premise that "Good" is an incarnation of virtues commonly considered as such, and that evil is...well, all the opposite. Often, you'll remark that in these novels, there is no in between. It is a bi-color conception of the world, where black is struggling against white : good vs evil, hate vs love, treachery vs honor, left vs right. Almost biblical, isn't it ?

While I understrand and respect the need some have to build their worlds with moral absolutism, i prefer to suppress all notions of "absolute good/evil" and create a rather gray world, with brief and few spots of white and black. Great war heroes may be courageous, but they are butchers nonetheless. Politicians may have ideals, but they went too far while pursuing them, hurting more or less innocents people (no one is innocent). And crime-lords, mercenaries, slave-masters, heretics and warlocks are mainly characters either tortured by a past event, or people struggling to make their own way in a naturally tough world. The slave-master doesn't nearly despise his slaves as much as those who buy them... He just needs them to survive, etc...

Heroism, as I see it, is only worth something on an individual scale. One man is a hero, because he is convinced he is acting as one. When a power-hundry warlord begins a revolution, many will consider he is an avid opportunist sending his people to the slaughter with nice and galvanizing speeches. But if said warlord believes fiercely in what he is doing, if he believes he is acting for the best, isn't he a hero - albeit a blind one - in some ways ? 

The way I see it, and write it, heroes are those who believe, and would do anything for their ideas. They can be murderers, world-wide nemesis, war veterans, religious fanatics or simple blacksmith boys... They can be acclaimed by all, or despised by many... It really doesn't matter. What matters, is their faith in ideas, their will to go on, to do what they believe must be done.

The true hero, is the one following his dreams,_ "no matter how hopeless, no matter how far"_...


----------



## Braveface (Dec 30, 2013)

_But what is evil anyway?

Is there reason to the rhyme?

Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometiiiimes.
_


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

Heroes are the ones who do the right thing. 

Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing. 

And no, right and wrong are not subjective.

It's really that simple.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 30, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Heroes are the ones who do the right thing.
> 
> Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



Agree to disagree.


----------



## Ruby (Dec 30, 2013)

It has been said that everyone's a hero in his own life...


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

Nagash said:


> Agree to disagree.



Obviously. I'm not here to argue. Just stating my own beliefs.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Heroes are the ones who do the right thing.
> 
> Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



I very much agree with this. It's become fashionable to blur the distinction between right and wrong, but I'm not exactly cool with that. A world without defined right and wrong isn't complex or "morally ambiguous". It's just amoral. And I can't get behind amorality. And yes, Nagash, this view is very biblical. Another reason I stand by it. Mythopoet may not wish to argue, but I rather enjoy it on occasion.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

> Heroes are the ones who do the right thing.
> 
> Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



I don't buy this.  If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, are you a hero?

Example: Guy sees puppy on the highway.  Dodges cars at great personal risk and saves the puppy.  Finds its owner and returns it anonymously.  I'd say he's a hero.

2nd Example: Guy sees a puppy on the side of the road and recognizes as belonging to the hot girl living down the street.  He stops and picks up the puppy.  Uses the return as a foot in the door to seduce the girl.  Is he a hero?  In the end, the same right thing, rescuing the puppy, was accomplished.

Is a guy who does the wrong thing for the right reason a villian?

Example: Guy robs a bank in order to profit from the loot.  He's a villain.

2nd Example: A guy is forced to rob a bank or have his kid killed.  Is he a villain?

3rd Example: A guy feels the bank is ripping people off, but, in the made-up story world, he has no legal redress.  He robs the bank and gives the money to the people being ripped off.  Is he a villain or a hero?

Red soldier kills blue soldier about to slay the red general.

To the red army, red soldier is a hero.  To the blue army, he's a villain.

I don't know.  It doesn't seem all that simple to me...


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I very much agree with this. It's become fashionable to blur the distinction between right and wrong, but I'm not exactly cool with that. A world without defined right and wrong isn't complex or "morally ambiguous". It's just amoral. And I can't get behind amorality. And yes, Nagash, this view is very biblical. Another reason I stand by it. Mythopoet may not wish to argue, but I rather enjoy it on occasion.



I don't know if it's fashionable as much as it's interesting. Blurring the lines between right & wrong creates situations where readers can empathize with both protagonist and antagonist. That is much more in line with our personal reality, and therefore some readers find it inherently more interesting than the good guys wearing white hats, bad guys in black.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I very much agree with this. It's become fashionable to blur the distinction between right and wrong, but I'm not exactly cool with that. A world without defined right and wrong isn't complex or "morally ambiguous". It's just amoral. And I can't get behind amorality. And yes, Nagash, this view is very biblical. Another reason I stand by it. Mythopoet may not wish to argue, but I rather enjoy it on occasion.



Well, I don't intend to argue fiercely over this, and I think i made my case pretty clear with my previous post, explaining how I saw heroism and anti-heroism. But well, I guess it could be clarified.

Heroism is pretty personal conception, as it changes from one character to another. Lets just take an example : I believe spartacist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg were heroes for two reasons; one, I share their opinion, and respect and admire their action in post WWI; second, they fought for what they believed in, no matter the threats and dangers. They paid the price of blood and death for their actions and belief. And I respect their sacrifice, admire it and therefore see in them true heroes. Now, I pretty sure most people would strongly disagree with this point of view, stating that they were nothing more than stinking 1917 wannabe commie anarchist who pathetically failed in their profane duty. Its my voice against a thousand more... Does that makes me wrong in my conception of heroism ?

On the other hand, tons of people in today's Argentina would state that Diego Maradona, a soccer player, albeit a good one, is a national hero, for his role in the victory of Argentina during the world wide soccer cup of 1986. A national hero... Of course, I strongly disagree over worshipping a man like some have worshiped men like Gandhi, Luther King or any other true hero in the face of history, but its my voice against pretty much all the argentinian population.

My point is, we have different ideas over what heroism is, because we are not the same human beings : we weren't socially, ideologically, culturally, let alone nationally, built in the same way, and that's okay. But it explains how we have different perceptions of heroism. Thus, the victory of Maradona meant something to be proud of for the argentinian people after an history of pain, suffering and looking down. To me, it was a simple soccer game. Who is right, and who is wrong ? We do not have the same individual history, nor the same beliefs, and thus, we do not perceive in the same way.

You could pretty much apply this division of opinions on every single "great men/women" of history, and see that even today, some people will worship Joseph Staline, just like some still adore Mao Zedong, despite the blood they spilled. They have their reasons - I suppose - and while I don't believe I would respect them, I must acknowledge the fact that perceptions of these people are diverse. Its a simple fact, and thus it is impossible to state that heroism is a universal conception

Now I know morality is a touchy subject of religion, and I do not intend to walk in these grounds, for its the easiest way to an open polemic about two completely opposite perceptions of the world. I'll simply state the conception Friedrich Nietzsche had of morality : morality is a construct of the herd of inferior beings in order to hold back the few superior men roaming this world. Its worth mentioning that the notion of inferior/superior isn't political, economical, social or racial; its simply a way of determining which men are fully free from society's shackles, and which are not. Of course he did also state that religion was the worst lies of all, which had been elaborated in order to deprive men from the ability of self-rule. Since I believe in the right of faith, I won't get aboard that ship.

The general idea, however, is that morality is a product of our imagination, a mythical artifact of society, used in order to get everybody in line. Through time, it was assimilated through socialization. Institutions made their best in order to alienate dark elements of our inner-selves, such as violence and the will to kill, with mostly positive results. Most people today won't kill cold-bloodedly, while a few centuries back, well, killing was a part of life.

Now, this is exclusively my opinion : morality is a trick, an illusion. It was necessary to give to people the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and it did a great job in convincing people some things ought to be done, and some others not to. In one society, people have basically the same conceptions, since they were socialized under the same sort of morality. However, from one society to another, you can find some differences.

Ex : I come from a country where death penalty was abolished decades ago; many people here - I guess - were born and live in country/states where it is still frequently used. I believe capital punishment is amoral, since none should have the right to take a life for a life. Others, however, might think that death is the only just retribution for rebuffing crimes. 

Which one is moral ? Which morality triumphs over the next ? 

Shouldn't we consider that different morality exist ? 

Thus, shouldn't we consider that a myriad of good and evil exist throughout this multitude of moralities ?


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't buy this.  If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, are you a hero?
> 
> Example: Guy sees puppy on the highway.  Dodges cars at great personal risk and saves the puppy.  Finds its owner and returns it anonymously.  I'd say he's a hero.
> 
> 2nd Example: Guy sees a puppy on the side of the road and recognizes as belonging to the hot girl living down the street.  He stops and picks up the puppy.  Uses the return as a foot in the door to seduce the girl.  Is he a hero?  In the end, the same right thing, rescuing the puppy, was accomplished.



No, an evil intention corrupts a good act. 



BWFoster78 said:


> Is a guy who does the wrong thing for the right reason a villian?
> 
> Example: Guy robs a bank in order to profit from the loot.  He's a villain.
> 
> ...



No, a man who is coerced into an evil act is not a villain. 

No, you may not do evil so that good may come of it. The ends do not justify the means. 



BWFoster78 said:


> Red soldier kills blue soldier about to slay the red general.
> 
> To the red army, red soldier is a hero. To the blue army, he's a villain.



It's a simplification of the issue to pretend that heroism and villainy let alone right and wrong depend on which side you are on rather than your own personal actions. 



BWFoster78 said:


> I don't know.  It doesn't seem all that simple to me...



Obviously judging the morality of individual human acts is not simple. I didn't say it was. 

My belief system recognizes that there are three criteria for judging the morality of human acts. (I say human, but since we are fantasy writers here this would apply to any sapient beings possessing Free Will.) First, there is the Object chosen, that is the end that the individual is directing his or her will toward. Second, there is the intent of the acting individual, their motivations for committing the act. Third, there are the circumstances surrounding the act which, as a secondary elements in the act, cannot change the morality of the act its self, but can increase or diminish the good or evil of the act and have a bearing on the responsibility of the individual for the act. 

One cannot judge the true morality of an act unless one knows the details of all three elements involved in the act. A truly good act requires the goodness of the object, the intent and the circumstances. 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't know if it's fashionable as much as it's interesting. Blurring the lines between right & wrong creates situations where readers can empathize with both protagonist and antagonist. That is much more in line with our personal reality, and therefore some readers find it inherently more interesting than the good guys wearing white hats, bad guys in black.



Right and wrong, good and evil and the morality of human acts is already so complicated that there is no need to blur any lines. The problem is that our modern society has rejected the complexity that I talked about above and simplified things in a disordered way so as to diminish responsibility for any actions (right and wrong is all in your mind, man) and then rebelled against the simplification while blaming it on those of us who never believed in it in the first place. Modern man is floundering about and has convinced himself that so called "shades of grey" are more realistic and more interesting than the truth. All so modern man can do whatever he wants and blame others for his problems.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

Mythopoet said:


> Right and wrong, good and evil and the morality of human acts is already so complicated that there is no need to blur any lines. The problem is that our modern society has rejected the complexity that I talked about above and simplified things in a disordered way so as to diminish responsibility for any actions (right and wrong is all in your mind, man) and then rebelled against the simplification while blaming it on those of us who never believed in it in the first place. Modern man is floundering about and has convinced himself that so called "shades of grey" are more realistic and more interesting than the truth. All so modern man can do whatever he wants and blame others for his problems.



I agree with that in part, as it relates to our reality. However, there are situations that do not fit in your parameters, especially when considering characters & story, which we are.           

Consider a case of good versus good. You could have two opposing forces square off against each other, not because one is good and the other evil, but because their competing interests create conflict. The perception of good or evil, may depend on point of view. That may of course be an errant judgment, yet is one that is made everyday, by billions of people.       

Further, I never claimed the morally grey is justified or that there aren't delusions involved with its acceptance, only that many readers find the morally grey to be far more interesting than a simplistic portrayal of good versus evil. For myself, that is true precisely for the reasons you stated above. They make me consider points of view and whether or not actions are evil, good, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. The questioning that follows moral dilemma is what many find intriguing & engaging.

I also think it's interesting to consider why a person becomes corrupted, how the wrong choices are rationalized, & how moral ambiguity can make the descent to evil not only excusable to some people (and the self), but also almost imperceptible....until we are too far gone. I don't see that much potential in black vs. white.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't buy this.  If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, are you a hero?
> 
> Example: Guy sees puppy on the highway.  Dodges cars at great personal risk and saves the puppy.  Finds its owner and returns it anonymously.  I'd say he's a hero.
> 
> 2nd Example: Guy sees a puppy on the side of the road and recognizes as belonging to the hot girl living down the street.  He stops and picks up the puppy.  Uses the return as a foot in the door to seduce the girl.  Is he a hero?  In the end, the same right thing, rescuing the puppy, was accomplished.



This question seems predicated on the idea that judgement of what's right and wrong are based purely on the outcome or consequences of the action. I don't think that's necessarily true. In this case, I'd say the guy is not a hero, because while he performed a good deed, he was motivated purely by the desire for selfish gain. He's only a step away from a scam artist.



BWFoster78 said:


> Is a guy who does the wrong thing for the right reason a villian?
> 
> Example: Guy robs a bank in order to profit from the loot.  He's a villain.
> 
> 2nd Example: A guy is forced to rob a bank or have his kid killed.  Is he a villain?



I'd say he's a victim. He's acting under coercion, not making a free choice. But the fact that he's acting under coercion or even that his son is being threatened does not make robbing the bank a morally good thing to do.

[/QUOTE]3rd Example: A guy feels the bank is ripping people off, but, in the made-up story world, he has no legal redress.  He robs the bank and gives the money to the people being ripped off.  Is he a villain or a hero?[/QUOTE]
Depends. Is the bank _actually_ ripping people off and is this guy interested in helping those people? Or is this guy acting purely out of personal resentment or vendetta? Is the tyranny of this bank truly absolute, or are there other authorities to which this guy can appeal if he but looks and tries hard enough? Overthrowing tyranny is good, and can be good even if it is disruptive of society (see Jesus evicting the moneychangers from the temple with a whip). But petty vengefulness cannot be called "good" in any circumstance I think, even if it has good by-products.



BWFoster78 said:


> Red soldier kills blue soldier about to slay the red general.
> 
> To the red army, red soldier is a hero.  To the blue army, he's a villain.


I would ask, what causes are the red and blue armies fighting for? What personal reasons does the soldier have for killing the general?

All you've proven is that right and wrong are sometimes difficult to distinguish, a fact I do not contend. You have _not_ proven that there is no such thing as right or wrong to begin with.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't know if it's fashionable as much as it's interesting. Blurring the lines between right & wrong creates situations where readers can empathize with both protagonist and antagonist. That is much more in line with our personal reality, and therefore some readers find it inherently more interesting than the good guys wearing white hats, bad guys in black.



But this effect can be achieved without blurring the lines of morality altogether. For example: the hero who genuinely wants to do the right thing, but makes mistakes along the way. We see this in Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and pretty much every superhero movie that's come out in the last ten years. All of us can relate to the feeling of wanting to do what's right, but not quite knowing what that is. And we can all admire the courage it takes to pick yourself up and keep going after a mistake. As for villains, they do the opposite. Instead of keeping the distinction of right and wrong in mind, they give up and instead go with whatever feels right to them, motivated by their own personal passions and biases. Villains don't have to be mustache-twirling black hats. They can be people who were once good, but at some point lost their way. ("Nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so.") This also leaves room for reader empathy, especially if the villain in question has regrets or occasional pangs of conscience. Even if they lack conscience altogether there is much to be made of the tragedy of the bad decisions that has led them to this path. And all of this can be accomplished _without_ leaving behind the idea that there is absolute good and absolute evil.

Perhaps what you are really arguing against is that no one _person_ is either perfectly good or completely irredeemable. With that I can agree. But again, it doesnt invalidate the idea of right and wrong, good and evil altogether.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Perhaps what you are really arguing against is that no one person is either perfectly good or completely irredeemable. With that I can agree. But again, it doesnt invalidate the idea of right and wrong, good and evil altogether.



I'm arguing for no point at all...only stating what I, and many readers like me, find interesting.    

Good and evil is perfectly valid. Though, for me, I find it too simplistic...with the exception of scenarios where we know of a character's descent toward evil, like you described. Still, I find scenarios of good versus evil more easily resolved (at least mentally) than situations where the lines of right and wrong are blurred. I prefer fiction that represents those ambiguities. Situations like these challenge my thinking to a greater degree. That is interesting.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mythopoet,

Excuse my confusion.  You wrote both this:



> It's really that simple.



And this:



> Obviously judging the morality of individual human acts is not simple. I didn't say it was.



The statement of yours that I quoted was much less nuanced than the description you display here.  I was simply pointing out that it isn't that simple.



> It's a simplification of the issue to pretend that heroism and villainy let alone right and wrong depend on which side you are on rather than your own personal actions.



Sometimes it is, though.

It's not like every situation is: Side A is for something really horrible that every person in creation would be morally opposed to.  Side B is for truth and justice.

Most fiction situations are: Side A wants to rule the world.  Side B wants to rule the world.  Which is good and evil is pretty much dependent on your POV.



> A truly good act requires the goodness of the object, the intent and the circumstances.



We are not, however, trying to determine a good act, but whether one is a hero.  If a person believes the act to be good, has good intentions, and pursues achievement of the act under heroic circumstances, isn't he a hero even if it turns out tthat the act isn't really good, that he was mistaken?


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I agree with that in part, as it relates to our reality. However, there are situations that do not fit in your parameters, especially when considering characters & story, which we are.
> 
> Consider a case of good versus good. You could have two opposing forces square off against each other, not because one is good and the other evil, but because their competing interests create conflict. The perception of good or evil, may depend on point of view. That may of course be an errant judgment, yet is one that is made everyday, by billions of people.
> 
> ...



It seems to me, T. Allen, that you are talking about a distinction which doesn't actually exist. What's at issue in this present phase of discussion is, I think, the idea of absolute good and evil versus a more muddy approach. The question is not whether the characters measure up to the standard, but whether or not the standard exists. Your characters don't need to be saints and demons for your story to have black and white morality. All that's needed is for there to _be_ a moral standard that the characters are either trying to live up to or ignoring. You can still examine corruption, rationalization, excuses, and the imperceptible slide into darkness without having "grey morality". _That Hideous Strength_ by C.S. Lewis examines precisely those questions, and the book is black and white as it gets. In fact, I'd say black and white is more suited to dramatic moral dilemmas, because it implies that there actually _is a right answer_ to the question at hand! There is a solution! It's just hard to find. That seems, to me, to have more tension then a situation where anything goes. Likewise, a fall from grace is only interesting if there _is_ grace to fall _from_... and evil to fall _to_.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> We are not, however, trying to determine a good act, but whether one is a hero.  If a person believes the act to be good, has good intentions, and pursues achievement of the act under heroic circumstances, isn't he a hero even if it turns out tthat the act isn't really good, that he was mistaken?



Exactly. People are heroes, because they are doing - no matter what - what they believe to be just, good, and worth to be done. Wether the action is actually good or not is irrelevant.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire,

I'm having a bit of a "What the crap!" moment.  I responded directly to this:



> Heroes are the ones who do the right thing.
> 
> Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
> 
> ...



Isn't that statement, with which you seemed to be in agreement, "predicated on the idea that judgement of what's right and wrong are based purely on the outcome or consequences of the action?"

If you are now withdrawing your support for the initial statement, fine.  I hate it, however, when people completely ignore the original context. 



> All you've proven is that right and wrong are sometimes difficult to distinguish, a fact I do not contend. You have not proven that there is no such thing as right or wrong to begin with.



Again, all I set out to prove was that it really isn't that simple, which both you an mythopoet now seem to agree with me about.

Let's get onto the "no such thing as right or wrong" thing and start with WoT.  In that world, there is an entity who represents darkness.  The goal of the Dark Lord is objectively evil.  In that story, you have the side of good versus the side of evil.  The choice is clear.

Not every story is about good versus evil.

Let's say that the red army believes in the religious principle, based on their interpretation of the religious text that I made up for the story, that one must perform all sacrifices with one's left hand.  The blue army, based on their interpretations of the same text, believe rather strongly that one must use only the right hand.

The two armies are fighting for dominance of their religious POV.

Is one side Good?  Is one side Evil?

Objectively, no.

The Good side will be the side that I choose to make the protagonists.

In fiction, especially speculative fiction, the only things that exist in your world, including Good and Evil, are the things you put in it.  And you get to define it pretty much however you want to.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

Nagash said:


> *snip*



I saved your post for last Nagash, since it was the longest and I thought it would be the most time and effort-consuming to respond to. I assumed that because your post was lengthy, it would be more difficult for me to dissect. I was wrong. The ways in which we differ could not be more blindingly obvious. They are, if you'll pardon my saying so, as different as night and day, black and white. In fact, our viewpoints are so antithetical that I find it difficult to engage in discussion with you in any really meaningful way because- and I say this without any personal animosity towards you- I completely and utterly _despise_ your opinion. I have argued with many people in my life and disagreed with many more, but never have I felt such utter revulsion and distaste for an opinion as I have for yours. 

To state my opinion succinctly, I do not believe that morality is "a trick" or "an illusion". I believe it is both real and absolute and that any culture at any point is either closer to or further from that standard at any given time, though they may excel or fail in different ways. For example: Aztec human sacrifices were immoral and barbaric, but no less immoral and barbaric than Europe's long and storied history of religious persecution. The existence of an absolute moral standard does not imply that one culture's morality is necessarily better than another's, but rather that they are all in various states of corruption and all equally under judgment. What one man says is good or evil versus what another man says is of no consequence. It is the absolute standard, greater than the word of any and all human beings that matters. In short, we differ on this point: is there anything greater than man? I believe there is. You, it seems, believe there is not.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 30, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Mythopoet,
> 
> Excuse my confusion.  You wrote both this:
> 
> ...



My "it really is that simple" statement was about the definition of what a hero and villain are. It had nothing to do with how complex it is to judge the morality of acts. Of course, in fiction it is far simpler to judge the morality of acts than it is in real life (there are far fewer factors involved in any action in fiction than in real life). I'm not actually sure which we're talking about anymore. 




T.Allen.Smith said:


> However, there are situations that do not fit in your parameters, especially when considering characters & story, which we are.



I disagree. I believe the parameters I described (and keep in mind it was only a brief summary, not a comprehensive explanation of said parameters) would cover any situation that can be presented. And I would maintain, as I said above, that judging the morality of the acts of characters in fiction is far easier than judging the same in real life. In fact, it is almost impossible to do so in real life unless you can be sure that you have intimate knowledge of all the factors involved. (That's why Christians believe in not judging others.) Whereas in fiction you can be reasonably certain to have all the information bearing on the act in front of you.

I don't have time to address any other posts right now. Maybe later.


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 30, 2013)

I would describe my personal morality as generally "live and let live", which is to say I believe people should enjoy the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others or impinge on their freedom. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who either don't care about hurting others or actually go out of their way to do so. Such people register as villains in my book.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> It seems to me, T. Allen, that you are talking about a distinction which doesn't actually exist. What's at issue in this present phase of discussion is, I think, the idea of absolute good and evil versus a more muddy approach. The question is not whether the characters measure up to the standard, but whether or not the standard exists. Your characters don't need to be saints and demons for your story to have black and white morality. All that's needed is for there to be a moral standard that the characters are either trying to live up to or ignoring.



No. The thread is "What is hero? What is a villain?"  

My comments have been directed solely at characters because that is the subject at hand as described by that title.  

I'm not sure I can state it any more clearly than I have. I'm not trying to argue morality or the existence & implications of good versus evil. That's a philosophy debate that I don't care to delve into. I see little point.  

What I have discussed is my preference for characters and how I like grey morality in my heroes and villains. I think it adds a level of depth to stories that cannot be reached with more clear depictions of right & wrong.     

I'm not trying to measure characters to some arbitrary standard. I think characters are far more real otherwise, not constantly checked against artificial standards imposed by an author, but rather behaving as they would naturally (unless of course it's within the characters nature to hold themselves to a standard).   



Mindfire said:


> You can still examine corruption, rationalization, excuses, and the imperceptible slide into darkness without having "grey morality".


Well of course you can. Have I stated that a writer can't examine those aspects without grey morality? I just don't find that approach as interesting.  



Mindfire said:


> That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis examines precisely those questions, and the book is black and white as it gets. In fact, I'd say black and white is more suited to dramatic moral dilemmas, because it implies that there actually is a right answer to the question at hand! There is a solution! It's just hard to find.


It's that exact thing that makes these types of stories less intriguing to me, and why I said the black & white dilemmas are easier to resolve. The simple fact there is a right & wrong, that there is a solution, that there is a right answer...well, that just bores me as a reader. I find that framework lacking in realism (or at least plausibility) and depth.  



Mindfire said:


> That seems, to me, to have more tension then a situation where anything goes.


I don't see how one inherently has more tension than the other. The uncertainty of the grey seems to offer more possibility of the unknown, which to me, seems to offer more tension. But, I wouldn't want to offer a blanket statement like that. It really just depends on the story. Tension isn't created only by good vs. evil.  



Mindfire said:


> Likewise, a fall from grace is only interesting if there is grace to fall from... and evil to fall to.


You can fall from grace in many ways. You don't have to be good to fall from grace. That assumption only holds true where a character has to align to either the good, or the bad. Seems rather limiting in scope.


----------



## Nagash (Dec 30, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I saved your post for last Nagash, since it was the longest and I thought it would be the most time and effort-consuming to respond to. I assumed that because your post was lengthy, it would be more difficult for me to dissect. I was wrong. The ways in which we differ could not be more blindingly obvious. They are, if you'll pardon my saying so, as different as night and day, black and white. In fact, our viewpoints are so antithetical that I find it difficult to engage in discussion with you in any really meaningful way because- and I say this without any personal animosity towards you- I completely and utterly _despise_ your opinion. I have argued with many people in my life and disagreed with many more, but never have I felt such utter revulsion and distaste for an opinion as I have for yours.
> 
> To state my opinion succinctly, I do not believe that morality is "a trick" or "an illusion". I believe it is both real and absolute and that any culture at any point is either closer to or further from that standard at any given time, though they may excel or fail in different ways. For example: Aztec human sacrifices were immoral and barbaric, but no less immoral and barbaric than Europe's long and storied history of religious persecution. The existence of an absolute moral standard does not imply that one culture's morality is necessarily better than another's, but rather that they are all in various states of corruption and all equally under judgment. What one man says is good or evil versus what another man says is of no consequence. It is the absolute standard, greater than the word of any and all human beings that matters. In short, we differ on this point: is there anything greater than man? I believe there is. You, it seems, believe there is not.



I get your point, and as I said repeatedly, I respect it. However, it seems I was unclear on one point... I, like any other human being walking this earth, have principles, beliefs, ideas about what is wrong, what is right, what is good and what is evil, what should be done and what shouldn't, what is true greatness and what isn't.

I believe that humans are mediocre - to correct the impression you had on my thoughts about men - but that they have a real capacity for greatness. And by greatness, i mean greatness through the sacrifice of oneself for the triumph of ideas. I was raised in a world where many taught me that ideas are greater than anything, and that we humans, should hold tight to them. I was raised in a world where you got results and the things you desired only if you dared fight and stand for them; and I have worshiped these human figures of History, who fought for ideas I respect, to death. And - and that will surprise you, i guess - i believe true greatness - along with true horror - can be found in faith. Faith in an idea, a god, principles, honor code, what have you... Faith, is what makes human so much more than what they are. 

I believe heroism is sacrifice, self-dedication, bleeding to death for your ideas and fighting till every single bone of your body is broken. I believe aztec sacrifices were barbaric, and that the crusades, the inquisition were times of insanity.

That is what i think, what i sincerely believe in. It determines what I think is moral and what is amoral, what is good and what is evil. I have an idea of what is darkness and what is light. That is my very own point of view. 

But seeing how people seem to have different ideas of what is good, and what is wrong, seeing how so many slaughters were made in the name of an idea everyone judged pure, seeing how men argued, fought and killed each other for conceptions they had of the world, i must be humble, and understand that my morality is only worth a damn to me.

Morality exists, but only on an individual point of view. I do believe that there are morally wrong and morally good things, actions, rituals... But my point is : what is amoral for me can be moral for another. MORAL ABSOLUTISM is what i do not believe in. We all have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be done. There is no such thing as something being utterly evil and something utterly good for the simple reason that there will always be someone standing in your way, wielding different opinions and beliefs. I do not believe that some sort of supreme morality exists, for we all drew are own accordingly to our situations, our history, our society, etc...

I believe in the "Hegelian" god, he who is a projection of what is good within man. He who is a combination of compassion, of kindness, of love and innocent dreams. I believe men have the potential to be great; and i believe faith can bring them to this point. But you must understand that the point I'm making, is that morality didn't came from the sky; its an ensemble of conceptions, approach to the world that humans built themselves in order to live in society; a conception which changed throughout history, adapting to our world and the creatures we became, progressively. 

I should add that I am a cynic, and rather than believing that there is nothing greater than man, I prefer saying there's nothing worst than him. And in my cold analysis of the world, hand-made morality is what made humans slightly better; it made us more scrupulous beings, able to live in rather decent societies, where one could feel protected from the dark entities sleeping deeply within our psychism. Sins, such as greed, lust, envy, wrath etc... were only qualified as such not because they are utterly wrong, but because they were destructive in a social habitat. Through time however, we assimilated the fact that those emotions are negative, learned to stay away from them, and thus became slightly less brutal, less savage...

I'm guessing you are religious, or at least believe in some deity, something I truly respect and admire, for I find people with a sincere belief, to be capable of true greatness and strength in tough times. I'm not much of a religion guy, but i sincerely believe in the power of ideas and their ability to grant us true greatness in a lightless world.

Our point of views are extremely different, since our beliefs in a moral standard, aren't the same. However, all these qualities we mentioned - courage, strength, a willing heart, modesty, - are superior ideas I believe were crafted by men to drive them towards a better path, to forge our shapeless minds into something a little less savage, while you are convinced they have some divine origins.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No. The thread is "What is hero? What is a villain?"



Notice that I qualified my comments with the words "present phase". I said this because I wished to address specifically what was being said at the present time, not necessarily the overall topic of the thread.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> It's that exact thing that makes these types of stories less intriguing to me, and why I said the black & white dilemmas are easier to resolve. The simple fact there is a right & wrong, that there is a solution, that there is a right answer...well, that just bores me as a reader. I find that framework lacking in realism (or at least plausibility) and depth.



Here I have to disagree. I'm more interested in solutions than problems. How the Sherlock will solve the mystery as opposed to the mystery for its own sake. When a question is presented as having no answer, I feel cheated because really, what's the point? So to me, the idea that there is no answer is a slap in the face. It's essentially a declaration that trying to be a good person is a waste of time.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> You can fall from grace in many ways. You don't have to be good to fall from grace. That assumption only holds true where a character has to align to either the good, or the bad. Seems rather limiting in scope.



But I think that whether a character, or a real person, consciously aligns themselves to a good or bad "side", they are still either a good or bad person. That distinction doesn't go away just because the author waves his hands and says that morality is ambiguous. In my view, morality is the one thing the author does not have license to change when constructing a fantasy because morality itself is beyond the scope of the author to alter. It is transcendent. But even were it not so, I see no evidence that a clear definition of right and wrong in any way makes a story less interesting. In fact, I'd say the opposite seems true. Much is made of the success of Game of Thrones, but what of the success of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, the Avengers, and others? These franchises all have clear, unambiguous heroes and clear, unambiguous villains. They don't seem to suffer for it in terms of popularity, revenue, or respect.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 30, 2013)

Nagash said:


> *snip*



Nagash, thank you for clarifying your stance on the matter. I can see some nobility in your views that was earlier obscured from me. I think I understand you better, even if we must disagree.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 30, 2013)

I'm not even sure who I agree with and disagree with at this point.

I believe that in theory, there should be such a thing as absolute good and evil. Broadly speaking, I define good as that which helps people, and bad as that which hurts people, and an omniscient being would be able to tell what helps and what hurts.

On the other hand: duh, we're not omniscient! People who intentionally do evil are pretty rare, and most of them are emotionally traumatized in some way--you could even make the argument that true evil is a form of mental illness. Most people who do awful things have some form of justification for them, and that's why most of the people in my stories have justifications for the awful things they do.

If I may make this personal: _I think like a villain._ To put it more precisely, I've only read a handful of authors who've given my moral code to unambiguous heroes, and I've read a great many authors who've given my moral code to their villains. Even when protagonists are written who have my moral code, they tend to be portrayed as relatively awful people. I don't feel like I, personally, am really that bad of a person, so I'm naturally going to be a bit subversive in terms of who I write as heroes and who I write as villains.

[email protected]: I'd also like to say that I don't see a contradiction between the stance "You can never be entirely certain you're doing the right thing" and the stance "You should try to do what seems like the right thing." I espouse both in my stories.

Edit 2: I should also say that I agree with the statement that you can't just wave your hands and make something magically right or wrong. That's why I tend not to say "this is right" or "this is wrong"--I'm really, really sick of books where the author portrays a character I agree with, then outright states that the character is wrong and evil.


----------



## Guy (Dec 30, 2013)

In my novel _Triad_ the hero and villain are quite similar. The primary difference is that the hero is willing to face her flaws while the villain is not willing to face his.


----------



## Ankari (Dec 31, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> How do you define a hero or heroine? Literally, what does that word mean to you?
> 
> Likewise, how do you define what a villain is?
> 
> Debate!



*Hero:* Someone willing to sacrifice for a greater purpose, or for another person.

Sacrifice can be anything that is considered a loss, or the chance of loss, of great(er) value to the hero. Wealth, suffering, time, and life are good examples.

Greater purpose can be ideals perpetuated by the community, or a community itself.

*Villian:* Someone who works to deny or take something from someone or a community and not in defense of a greater purpose as related to the community they identify with.

*Conflict:* When two people, groups, or communities want opposing outcomes, or hold two ideals in direct opposition to the other.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Dec 31, 2013)

Ankari said:


> *Hero:* Someone willing to sacrifice for a greater purpose, or for another person.
> 
> Sacrifice can be anything that is considered a loss, or the chance of loss, of great(er) value to the hero. Wealth, suffering, time, and life are good examples.
> 
> ...



I partly disagree. I've read a lot of stories where the villain wants to kill one person in order to benefit many people, and the heroes want to keep that person alive because they like her. The villain definitely wants to take someone, but the heroes' goal is to not sacrifice anyone.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 31, 2013)

I think it's a matter of perspective.  The Aztec practice of human sacrifice has been tossed around as a "clear" example of amoral, barbaric behavior - but by whose standards?  To the Aztecs the practice was extremely moral - it was required for the continued functioning of the universe.  Without human sacrifice the gods would be angry, and the sun would not win its daily battle to rise each day, plunging the world into darkness.  Sacrifices were guaranteed immediate entrance into heaven.

A great example of a highly moral "villain" is Javert from Victor Hugo's _Les Miserables_.  He embodies "law" and sees himself as "just" even as he pursues and persecutes the escaped "hero" Valjean.

The point is no one wakes up and says, "I'm going to be evil today."  The villain is always the hero of their own story, and sees themselves in the right.  They have reasons, justifications, and sometimes they're not wrong.  They're just on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 31, 2013)

What I find rather startling in this thread is how many people praised "blurred lines" and "shades of grey" in morality and yet completely fail to understand one of the fundamental tenants of human morality: you cannot judge the general "goodness" or "badness" of an individual. "Good" and "evil" are not qualities that people possess. You can only judge individual actions for whether they are "right" or "wrong" and also how culpable the actor is in the circumstances. Once again, each person's actions much each be judged on an individual basis. 

What many people, including people here, fail to realize is that it is _modern_ thought that has reduced the complexity of morality. Modern people go around calling people "good" and "bad", calling people "heroes" and "villains". A real comprehensive and nuanced understanding of morality would never allow this. Personally, I dislike the terms "hero" and "villain". (I will admit that my first post in this thread was more than a little flippant.) They are laden with too much cultural baggage and are nigh on meaningless now. They are just cliches.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 31, 2013)

We, too, dislike the terms "hero" and "villain," preferring to use "protagonist," "antagonist," and "monkey-in-the-middle."  The thing is, morality has always been complex - if it weren't, philosophers would have been forced to find real work centuries ago.  The idea that the modern era has brought with it some sort of sliding scale of good versus evil is a fallacy.  What the modern era *has* brought is a public acknowledgment that the winning side of the conflicts of the world isn't automatically the side of "good," the side of the "angels," leaving the defeated as "evil" to balm the conflicted consciences of the victors.  It is this more open, harder honesty that lets us look at childhood games like "Cowboys and Indians" which celebrates the "winning of the West" and see the pox blankets and dead children where we once saw only valiant pioneers carving out a life among ignorant savages.

I see the word "judge" being used a fair bit here.  As writers, we don't see it as our place to judge.  We don't want to pontificate on some sort of moral argument, but we do want to ask hard questions - what is good, and what is evil?  Our characters are people with goals and dreams, who are hurt and make mistakes out of fear or rage, and sometimes those mistakes are tragic.  But we won't slap a label of "hero" or "villain" on them because the lines really are blurred - that is the nature of humanity.  

Trying to draw artificial distinctions between good and evil is just that; artificial.  It is a social construction to help us to sleep at night, to help us to forget that everyone, anyone, is capable of tremendous horror if their lives just took one wrong turn.  And that even those who commit evil actions are still capable of loving.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 2, 2014)

Mythopoet,

You stated this:



> What I find rather startling in this thread is how many people praised "blurred lines" and "shades of grey" in morality and yet completely fail to understand one of the fundamental tenants of human morality: you cannot judge the general "goodness" or "badness" of an individual.



You are aware that this is a forum for fiction writers, correct?  I haven't seen anyone praise "blurred lines" except in the context that it makes a story more interesting.  No offense, but you sound like this:

Forum: I find "blurred lines" in a story interesting.
You: The forum is wrong.

It's kinda hard to tell someone that what they find interesting in a story isn't actually interesting in a story.  People like what they like, and there's not a lot you can do about it.

Again, most of the people on this thread are discussing this concept as it applies to fiction writing.  As such, I absolutely can judge the "goodness" or "badness" of my character because that character is playing the "good" or "bad" role in the story I created.  Even cooler, I can take my "bad" character and turn him "good," and vice versa with my "good" character.  I absolutely, if I want to, can have an "evil" character.  I can have my character literally be evil incarnate.  I can do this because I'm writing fiction, and I can do anything I want with my world.  

I do agree with you that the terms "hero" and "villain" aren't very good.  I, too, prefer "protagonist" and "antagonist."


----------



## Helen (Jan 3, 2014)

Telcontar said:


> point of view



I think that's it. Point of view in relation to theme.


----------

