# Should good always prevail over evil?



## Sigillimus

I asked myself this question when I was outlining for the novel I plan on writing in the June Novel Writing Month, and to be honest, I think it's a worthy topic of discussion for this forum. I only wondered about this subject because I'm intrigued by the idea of a darker ending to my novel and wanted to see the forum's opinion about it. I went and did some research to see some topics about the question itself, and I got this interesting little tidbit.



> The death of our heroes might not be what we crave but how many times have we had cliffhangers with the heroes in a perilous situation only to find them easily escape and defeat their nemesis in the next page or chapter? The fact that good does always win makes you wonder why any character bothers becoming a villain. They have their plans for fortune or revenge but at the end of the day, it's just not going to happen. They will be defeated and the hero moves on to the next problem that arises. If evil was allowed to win once in a while, it would shake up the stories we have.



If we know that in the end of a book good will always prevail over evil, it can become predictable even before we open to the first page. 

So, as the title states: do you think that good should always prevail over evil?


----------



## Ophiucha

I don't think there is anything wrong with good prevailing over evil, but some stories are better told with a downer or bittersweet ending. As with so, _so_ very many of these questions, I would say it depends on the story. Stephen King loves a good downer ending. So does China MiÃ©ville. And George Orwell. Lots of authors, actually.


----------



## Ravana

Nothing is "always." Ever. Not even the foregoing.


----------



## The Realm Wanderer

I actually prefer it when the good guys lose, or when their mission is completed but with many losses, maybe even including themselves. I was actually watching I Am Legend recently and thought of it when reading through this because as any know who have watched it, the guy dies in the end to save the cure from being lost. I hadn't read the book so I wasn't expecting him to die. I really liked it and thought it a much better ending than him escaping from a horde of Darkseekers in his basement which wouldn't have been very realistic.
But really, whether the good guys or bad wins in the end is really down to the story. But whatever the case, you should always leave the outcome shrouded, so the result can go either way. Like with the Harry Potter books, the whole world knew before the last book was released that Harry was going to win because that's what the books were. About love overcoming evil and so the ending was not in any way a surprise to me. however the author did kill off a lot of characters getting to that ending so that's something.


----------



## Dr.Dorkness

I believe good should prevail evil. but at great sacrifice. like the heroes own life. for that, how tragic it may seem is the greatest good one can do.

but I think that it is more important that the protagonist should prevail, may (s)he be good or evil.


----------



## Amanita

That really depends.
In a story, where an absolutely evil Dark Lord wants to conquer the world having him win wouldn't be a very satisfying ending. Especially if this means the destruction of the entire world. I don't know how others feel about it, but I tend to feel a bit cheated if I'm following a few characters trying to save the world for an entire story to seee them die and the world be destroyed in the end.
Stories closer to reality are a different matter. In a fight between "light grey" and "dark grey" it could be the right thing for the story to have "dark grey" win and maybe form a tyranny but not without any hope for someone else overthrowing it one day. 
Generally, I'm not fan of stories, that end with absolutely no hope for improvement of the situation somewhere in the future and would avoid them, but I know there are also plenty of people who like apocalyptic stories.


----------



## GameMasterNick

I think that the Dark Lord winning has a lot of merit.  He's the one with the army of troops, the one with the spies in every tavern and the one with the power to cover the lands in an age of darkness.  I'd like to see a few more novels in the tragic vein, where the reader learns from the start that the Dark Lord wins and then learns the events that lead to that rise in power... or even ones similar to Rin and Len Kagamine's song Daughter of Evil and its simultaneous sequel.

Epic fantasy needs to be turned on its ear more often.  A few less Drizzts, Fizbans or Elminsters and a few more Frodos, God Emperors, Elder Gods (Lovecraftian Horrors seldom lose!), or Doros.

Then there's the Hasbro rule.

When Hasbro bought out Wizards of the Coast in 1999 one of the first things they did was issue a directive that evil cannot win.  It can overcome good for a short time, but in the end good must prevail.  

A lot of writers who had previously written WotC novels, adventures or supplements were very upset with this.  While the mainstream novels usually involved the heroes winning, the facts of the 'censorship' made quite a few unhappy.  The furor has since died down.


----------



## Digital_Fey

If good always wins, it becomes boring and predictable (or, heaven forbid, cheesy). If evil wins, it gets pretty damn depressing. That's why I admire authors who can, as stated before, write a 'grey' or 'bittersweet' ending. A compromise between the hero's ideals and the harsh reality; a balance of loss and gain, sadness tempered by hope. That way, the story moves closer to reality and the reader will (hopefully) feel more connected to the character(s) suffering than if everything had turned out just fine.

(As a by-the-way rant, I get really tired of books in which the good characters always survive. What's the point in holding your breath during cliffhangers if you *know* the character will be saved at the last minute, simply because they are the Good and Noble Protagonists? *grumbles*)


----------



## ade625

I like the bittersweet endings myself. That's why I was a big fan of the ending of Joe Abercrombie's first trilogy.

Evil winning outright can make the entire events of the novel seem pointless. Generally I need at least some development, in character or world for me to get enjoyment out of the ending. A good twist similar to those suggested before might be to make the villain win, but be changed for the better by the events of the novel, to give some semblance of hope.

But hey, you could have evil triumph, only to tell the story of the new rebellion in the sequel! 

Just to go a tad on a SPOILERY tangent here, to me, the final fight of Harry Potter seemed to show that when it's good versus a much more powerful evil, good can always hope to triumph on a technicality. The whole wand thing made me double take, and search back through the book to get what was going on. (This is following on from The Realm Wanderer's assertion that the Harry Potter books were about love overcoming evil, which is what I'm sure Rowling meant to convey).


----------



## Waltershores

I plan on making an attempt in the future in which evil destroys good.  Ill let you know how bad it turns out!!


----------



## Ophiucha

I've had two stories where 'evil' triumphed, but in both cases, it was with the protagonist's aid. In one story, Moonglade, which was _already_ post-apocalyptic, the world was populated by nagas/naginis, and females were far, far more abundant than males (there are seven males and a few hundred women). They only knew of one city left, ruled by a bitter Queen. The story followed her daughter, a sort of basilisk!nagini, who could kill anything with a glance or touch. There is a group looking to kill the Tree of Life (... they are also Vikings; the cold led to only females being born, btw), but the only thing that could do it was the Princess' touch. In the end, after traveling out of her castle and seeing what the world was, she did it. In my current WIP, The Dust of Dead Desire, the protagonist is also a grossly unreliable narrator, and we are merely led to believe that he was working for the good of his people (he is King), but by the end, it is hard to really believe he is working for anyone's interest but his own.

I also have a bittersweet ending in a project I left behind years ago, where the Queen of the Elves and Vampires (she is an elf, married to the King of the Vampires) kills both herself and her husband, who she does love dearly, so that the elves and vampires become a single species - to keep civil war from breaking out. It is made pretty clear that this is the only thing that will save her people from destruction, but she has to die and kill her beloved to achieve it.


----------



## Donny Bruso

No, good should not always triumph over evil. See Eve Forward's _Villains by Necessity_ and you will see why. In short the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and ultimately I'm overly tired of reading fantasy where the vastly outnumbered hero and his plucky sidekick somehow manage to defeat the dark lord who no one else realized could be toppled by doing some rudimentary action. 
In my quest for more realistic fantasy, I find that it tends to get darker and darker, and the outcome should never be certain. Statistically the good guys (which is a farcical term if ever I heard one, since no person is wholly good) cannot always win. Now, would you feel cheated to follow a hero for three hundred pages only to see him lose? Possibly. It all depends on how the story is told. The skill of the author is everything in this situation. Personally I think I have a way to bring it off. It might work, it might not.

Just for fun, for those of you who appreciate villains with some common sense:
Peter's Evil Overlord List


----------



## At Dusk I Reign

I have no problem with unhappy endings or with the triumph of evil. They make an (un)pleasant change from the usual fare. It all depends on perception, of course, and what you imagine the author's role to be. Personally, I view fiction (regardless of genre) as a means by which we can scrutinise humanity, our lives, our political/economic structures, our morality. Many individuals end unhappily - sometimes deservedly so, sometimes not. Any reflection of this fact is, I believe, welcome.


----------



## sashamerideth

I plan on my protagonist falling from grace, finding redemption, and then perish while going against one of the antagonist's trained and competent guards.  Might have his companions severely injured and fleeing from defeat at the time.

I will play by the evil overlord's list of rules... completely.  Think it is too well known for my antagonist to employ a child to pick apart her plans?


----------



## Fnord

The novel I wrote in middle school had a "bad-guy-sort-of-wins" ending.  I don't think it goes over very well though.

Of course, there's always the option of making the Dark Lord the protagonist.


----------



## The Realm Wanderer

The novel I'm currently writing ends with tragedy for the protagonist, though he knows this full well and so tries to run from it. Too often is the main character in fantasy books exceptionally brave and heroic. Sure that's all good, and my main character is brave but when he discovers what he has to do, he doesn't accept it and carry on. He ditches and makes a break for the door. Because even heroes feel fear and it is often ignored or sidelined in books. They do usually show the characters are hesitant but then have them do it anyway, I want more where the evil is so overwhelming the protagonist chooses to run, of course backtracking later on  In the end of this novel I'm writing, both sides kind of win, both gaining something.


----------



## Kate

Good doesn't always come out on top in the "real" world, so neither should it in a story.  The overall story should influence the ending and who gets to triumph. I think it would be a bit off-putting if you had the good side always beaten but then win in the end, or vice versa.  
While it is sometimes a good feeling to read a happy ending, it can sometimes feel like cheating if it's unrealistic. But on the other side of the same coin, no one wants a downer ending just because the writer was trying to avoid a happy one for the sake of it.  

I'm working up to killing off one of my characters at the moment, but everyone's kind of morally ambiguous so the good/bad lines are a little fuzzy. I think in the end though, there'll be bitter sweetness because I'm a bit fond of some of the characters and I at least want to give them a fighting chance.


----------



## Neunzehn

It depends on what you mean by "wining". If the villain's victory is absolute, "evil forever", then It's pointless. But then how often is that really the case? I mean after all the triumph of good in stories rarely comes with the promise that evil will not threaten the world again, in fact it's often hinted that it will. Since that leaves most plots open to an evil ending, I would say there is nothing wrong (in most cases) with evil triumphing.


----------



## Hioni

I love seeing huge twists in the plots when you can scarcely tell which is evil and which isn't. JK Rowlings has one of my all time favorite characters, Snape. He was just one small portion of the story, but if you could imagine an entire plot that had his essence... 
I wanna write a story in which the line between good and evil rests on the thinest edge, the boundary between good and evil are barely visible, if even there. A story in which the reader can choose for themselves which is really good and which is evil, present to them both sides of the story. I love it when Good and Evil are one and the same, Sugar filled endings give readers mind-cavities. Throw them off balance with something where both sides loose, or win, or loose and win! Make them form their own opinions and thoughts. People get too used to seeing good guys winning and bad guys loosing without really hearing much of what goes on with the opposing side. Sure, you get glimpses and dry details, but any feeling? Rarely. 
To me, a good story creates Chaos in a readers mind...

-Hioni disproves of Mind-Cavities-


On a side note, why should either win? I sometimes wonder what would happen if a third party jumped them all and was all like, "SHUDDUP WE'RE TRYING TO LIVE QUIETLY OVER HERE!!" and just completely pwned everything....  It would suck as an Ending... but I think it'd be a fun thing to write as a gag....


----------



## sashamerideth

I like your side note.  A story involving feuding fifedoms is resolved by a conquering Mongol Horde.  A bit deus ex machina but if there were hints of that looming threat, it may just make an okay ending, or a new direction for the story.


----------



## Derin

I'm not a fan of black-and-white good vs. evil myself. I think it's nice for the "good side" to lose occasionally (foregone conclusions are boring), but it's harder to do well. 

One example of a very impressive protagonists-lose story I've seen is Simoun. (Uh... yeah, spoilers. Sorry.) 
The protagonists are a bunch of child warrior-priest(ess)es (the gender thing is complicated) protecting their homeland from invasion. After a lot of fighting, drama and sacrifice, they're trounced by an enemy who takes over their homeland, disbands their unit, and replaces their forces with similar forces from the invaders' homeland. Then you get this epilogue where, years later, a couple of them meet up and discuss the possibility of being drafted for another ongoing war, in which they'd be on opposing sides. It was touching and very well done.

Another example is Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, where the aforementioned regiment is all that stands between their nation and utter defeat in a war. They successfully break into an enemy stronghold to release all the senior war officials who have been captured... only to be captured themselves and have it gently explained that there's really no option but surrender unless they want their nation to starve.


----------



## gavintonks

It depends on the story, and how it is told but essentially everyone wants a happy ending even if it is not there, they should see it happening sometime in the future


----------



## sashamerideth

I think, more that an individual story can have a good ending, but life isn't always unicorn farts and fairy kisses. Fantasy is a bit of escapism and it is nice to see everything happy in the end of the book. I just really want completeness, loose ends tied up, a finished story.


----------



## Behelit

Does good always prevail over evil? Or does the story usually come to a resolution with the good defeating the evil? Is the villain unsuccessful in all battles/skirmishes? A few novels I've read with that particular plot the villain tends to make incremental successes in his "grand scheme" but is ultimately ousted and the curtains are then drawn. 

I hate to use Tolkein here, but in the Silmarillion there are obvious evils like the greats, Melkor/Morgoth and Sauron, lesser evils like orcs, goblins, balrogs, but to what may be less considered there are MANY misguided elves, men and dwarves that create strife amongst themselves. Many of them just want to be left alone. Many "good" inhabitants of Arda pass along with the evil. Neither good nor evil truly dies. The world is gray because both black and white will always be around.


----------



## Hans

Your question and most of the answers presume that there is a well defined "good" and "evil". Ant that the hero is, or at least ends up on the good side. Does it have to be that way?
I prefer stories where all parties are well and comprehensible motivated, but none of them is good from an universal viewpoint. So no good side can win, because there is none.
The goals of the hero (very few stories can do without any kind of a hero, although even this has been done) have to be acceptable from the viewers standpoint. And I think he should reach at least some of them. But that is different from "good wins over evil".


----------



## Sammy

*In story, should good conquer evil?*



Sigillimus said:


> I asked myself this question when I was outlining for the novel I plan on writing in the June Novel Writing Month, and to be honest, I think it's a worthy topic of discussion for this forum. I only wondered about this subject because I'm intrigued by the idea of a darker ending to my novel and wanted to see the forum's opinion about it. I went and did some research to see some topics about the question itself, and I got this interesting little tidbit.
> 
> 
> 
> If we know that in the end of a book good will always prevail over evil, it can become predictable even before we open to the first page.
> 
> So, as the title states: do you think that good should always prevail over evil?





Sigillimus said:


> I asked myself this question when I was outlining for the novel I plan on writing in the June Novel Writing Month, and to be honest, I think it's a worthy topic of discussion for this forum. I only wondered about this subject because I'm intrigued by the idea of a darker ending to my novel and wanted to see the forum's opinion about it. I went and did some research to see some topics about the question itself, and I got this interesting little tidbit.
> 
> If we know that in the end of a book good will always prevail over evil, it can become predictable even before we open to the first page.
> 
> So, as the title states: do you think that good should always prevail over evil?


 


Again, I refer you to the excellent videos at http://www.clickok.co.uk/index4.html ; according to this, the evil is contained at the end which leads to a form of state of perfection and gives you your many catharses - which seems to be the way that most stories end. In other words, the initial problem is resolved. 

The above applies when you end on a downer - but with a downbeat ending "the good" just doesn't always get what it wants. So good prevails over evil but it gets its pound of flesh.

I think you have to remember the audience, which has subconscious expectations and one of them is that the problem(s) are resolved.


----------



## Catherine

Hmmm tricky, tricky, tricky.
The trouble is in reality good does not always triumph over evil, unfortunately it seems to mostly be the other way around these days. I think when a person is reading a book, in particular the fantasy genre, they are wanting to lose themselves in another world to escape from our reality, even if it is only for a short period of time. To have an unhappy ending maybe realistic, even in an unrealistic setting, but it is probably not what the reader is hoping for. I know when I have read books that have ended _wrong _it has put me off wanting to read anything else by that author. Although this probably shouldn't be the case, it just is. It's like saying "don't judge a book by it's cover", but come on, we all do. You can't help the way you feel, even if it isn't logical. The same goes for the way you feel at the end of a book, if it doesn't feel right, then no matter how logical it may be, you will still be left with a negative impression.

So, should good always prevail over evil? No, it shouldn't. But you must be prepared with the resulting impression a reader will be left with. We all need hope in our lives, by letting evil prevail, you are taking away that hope


----------



## shangrila

No. In fact, looking through ancient history, mostly evil triumphs over good.

It's simple, really. Evil goes places good can't. With that they can usually gain the advantage. That said, there's no problem with having good win, but in reality evil usually does.


----------



## Helen

Lord of the Rings.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Harry Potter.
Wizard of Oz.
Avengers Assemble.

Good triumphs for valid reasons.

Good wins, but it's always done in an original way.

I think your best chance of success is to stick with that method.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Sigillimus said:


> If we know that in the end of a book good will always prevail over evil, it can become predictable even before we open to the first page.



Being able to "predict" that the good guys will win in the end does not ruin or even affect a good story. It's how they get there, and the conflict they face along the way, that make the story interesting. I'm sure I could point to hundreds of movies and books that you enjoyed where the good guys win at the end; do you find yourself complaining that they're "predictable"?


----------



## Christopher Wright

For my part, I want the magic sword to chop the head off the damn dragon.

If I want to be involved in a storyline where the bad guys win, I have a day job.


----------



## Ankari

The stories that I've taken a liking to recently are those that tell the story of conflict between two opposing forces that are neither good or evil.  They simply seek a goal that the other side also seeks, or would not want to see achieved as it sets them back.  

Good vs evil is predictable in that you know the main character will live.  There is no danger, no moral conflict (as s/he is good), and no surprises.  Level the playing field, give each character a fighting chance.  It allows more variety for your audience to root for rather than the cliche hero that cause eyes to glaze over when they enter the scene.


----------



## Devor

If there's a rule, it's that the Protagonist's conflict should always end on a hopeful or optimistic note.

Whether the Protagonist represents "Good" and whether hopeful or optimistic means "winning" is another thing.


----------



## Penpilot

Whether good triumphs or not really depends on the type of story that's being told. I mean if the story set up doesn't support the ending, whether it's good, bad or gray, then the reader will feel cheated. If the story does support the ending, what ever that is, then I see no problem with any sort of ending at all. The thing to keep in mind is some people just can't handle dark endings and no matter what will reject a story with one.


----------



## Christopher Wright

Ankari said:


> Good vs evil is predictable in that you know the main character will live.



Well, no, not necessarily. You can look at any number of tragedies for inspiration if you want to show the main character dying in order for good to win out.


----------



## Ankari

Christopher Wright said:


> Well, no, not necessarily. You can look at any number of tragedies for inspiration if you want to show the main character dying in order for good to win out.



I can't think of one book where the main good guy sacrifices his life for the cause.  It's always someone close to the hero, sure, but the hero himself?  I would appreciate some examples if you have them.  I would enjoy reading them.


----------



## Hans

Ankari said:


> I can't think of one book where the main good guy sacrifices his life for the cause.  It's always someone close to the hero, sure, but the hero himself?  I would appreciate some examples if you have them.  I would enjoy reading them.


It is not fantasy, but "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" by  John le CarrÃ© does exactly that: The hero dies.
(This spoiler was brought to you because you asked.)

Edit: Also look here: Doomed Protagonist - Television Tropes & Idioms


----------



## Mindfire

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Being able to "predict" that the good guys will win in the end does not ruin or even affect a good story. It's how they get there, and the conflict they face along the way, that make the story interesting. I'm sure I could point to hundreds of movies and books that you enjoyed where the good guys win at the end; do you find yourself complaining that they're "predictable"?



This guy gets it. Every time one of my favorite heroes in any medium gets into trouble, I know they're going to get out of it, but the story is still engaging because I'm trying to figure out how they can possibly escape this time. If you do it right, it's not boring.

And personally, I'm of the opinion that good will ultimately triumph. Key word: ultimately. The good guys can suffer inconvenience, setbacks, or even major losses (like the deaths of Gandalf and Aslan), but in the end with much perseverance, their suffering is vindicated. Those are the kinds of stories I find compelling. I'm not a big fan of grey vs grey (like A Song of Ice and Fire) because it bores me, it can get depressing, and it's too much like real life. The entire point of fantasy is escapism, to go to a world where good and evil are easily identifiable (at least they are to the reader; to the characters perhaps not). I disagree with this whole notion that good vs. evil  with good winning necessitates flat characters and a boring storyline. Stories like LOTR and the Narnia books would have faded into obscurity long ago were that the case. 

The drama doesn't necessarily come only from the good vs. evil conflict, but also the conflict between a person struggling to do what is right and their humanity getting in the way. That's something very relatable I think. Each of us has (or should have) a higher standard we strive to reach, but we stumble along the way because we're not perfect. Likewise a "good" character is not necessarily a perfect one. There is still room for slip-ups and mistakes and flaws. But we want to see our hero overcome those flaws and resolve the internal as well as external conflict. 

Also, even with two characters on the "good" side, there will be conflict, perhaps because of cultural or value differences, even between two characters of the same religion. Personal example: My hero comes across a moral dilemma and decides, on account of his cultural background, to solve it with the brute force approach. He mercilessly slaughters a group of engineers building new and powerful weapons for the enemy and then burns the compound to the ground. His actions horrify a close friend of his, causing them to part ways. The rift in their friendship has severe consequences and nearly costs them the entire war. And to add insult to injury, the weapons get built anyway.


----------



## Penpilot

Ankari said:


> I can't think of one book where the main good guy sacrifices his life for the cause.  It's always someone close to the hero, sure, but the hero himself?  I would appreciate some examples if you have them.  I would enjoy reading them.



I can't think of any books off hand, but I can name some movies. To avoid spoilers I turned the list text white. Highlight below to reveal text. 

Saving Private Ryan.
Children of Men
Gladiator
Road to Perdition
300
Braveheart
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Thelma and Louise
The Matrix trilogy 
Hero
V for Vendetta
Donnie Darko
The Book of Eli

Oh I did think of a book
Sherlock Holms... but he didn't stay dead for long but the author intended for him to stay dead.


----------



## Feo Takahari

As a general rule (with some exceptions), if one side loses, I want their loss to be at least partially their fault. If this means the heroes lose, I want them to lose because of their own cowardice, stupidity, greed, etc. It usually bugs me when the heroes lose despite doing everything right--or when the villain loses due to the sudden emergence of a flaw that had previously not been hinted at or been badly hinted at.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> I'm not a big fan of grey vs grey (like A Song of Ice and Fire) because it bores me, it can get depressing, and it's too much like real life. The entire point of fantasy is escapism, to go to a world where good and evil are easily identifiable (at least they are to the reader; to the characters perhaps not). I disagree with this whole notion that good vs. evil  with good winning necessitates flat characters and a boring storyline. Stories like LOTR and the Narnia books would have faded into obscurity long ago were that the case.



I agree with your whole post, but especially this part.

This may be diverging off topic slightly, but what if you had clearly defined good and evil sides, but the evil side considered themselves justified in their own way and simply had wrong opinions? My current antagonist is definitely the bad guy, but his evil stems largely from his political beliefs. This allows me to kill two birds with one stone by telling a story that's both good-and-bad-guys _and_ realistic.

It's true that the real world has shades of gray, but it's often the case that while one side doesn't consider themselves evil, their beliefs have evil effects. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Jefferson Davis may have all thought they were doing the right thing, but their positions were still evil.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> I agree with your whole post, but especially this part.
> 
> This may be diverging off topic slightly, but what if you had clearly defined good and evil sides, but the evil side considered themselves justified in their own way and simply had wrong opinions? My current antagonist is definitely the bad guy, but his evil stems largely from his political beliefs. This allows me to kill two birds with one stone by telling a story that's both good-and-bad-guys _and_ realistic.
> 
> It's true that the real world has shades of gray, but it's often the case that while one side doesn't consider themselves evil, their beliefs have evil effects. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Jefferson Davis may have all thought they were doing the right thing, but their positions were still evil.



I agree with your approach. Nobody consciously sets out to do evil. And that's true of well-developed villains as well. There are only two exceptions to that rule that I know of. Dr. Heinz Doofenshimirtz and The Joker. The former is played for laughs and the latter is... The Joker. So yeah. Generally a villain isn't one who sets out to do evil, but rather someone who has fixed themelves on a goal (usually an unjust one) and is determined to accomplish that goal regardless of who gets hurt along the way. A villain doesn't have to declare themselves evil. Just ignoring the standards of right and wrong tends to make one evil by default.

Even notoriously evil characters like the White Witch and Sauron had rationalizations for their actions if you look closely enough.


----------



## ThinkerX

Nothing is forever - not even a triumphant 'evil empire'.

Real world example - the old USSR and Warsaw Pact.  Under Stalin, this was a totalitarian nightmare, about as close to a real world 'evil empire' as ever there was.  Thirty some years after his death, I watched it all come crashing down live on television.  Yes, what replaced it isn't exactly great - but it is like light vs day compared to Stalins regime.

I also read a fair amount of cold war era science fiction and 'thriller' type works.  The...call it the 'cultural mentality' behind these works was very different from what we have today: quite a number of them ended with humanity either going extinct or becoming 'trapped' somehow.  This mentality actually surfaced a few times in the first series of 'Star Trek' with alien worlds acting as proxies for Cold War situations.  

My own worlds are muddier: there are 'good' and 'evil' people.  There are evil people with sympathetic characteristics, good people who are in service to not so good people, evil people who've convinced themselves they're actually good (usually for religious reasons, reinforced by a truly devastating war), good people who've had to make some horrible choices, and a whole bunch of people trying to get by.


----------



## Graylorne

In my world, the evil goddess wants to destroy the universe. She really wants that. 
But she has a very good reason for it. Both the evil goddess and the good god are part of the same creator: a very powerful race in the multiverse. This person creates universes as home decorations, like an amateur painter or photographer. While working, the male part of his personality gets into a conflict with the female part, because the latter finds a creation from antimatter 'matches her curtains better' (well, not exactly, but something like that). The creator splits up in two separate conciousnesses, one of which tries to sabotage and finally wipe out the material universe and replace it with an antimatter one. Ofc all present life will get killed. None of this is in the books; its just the background to the background. So you have an evil goddess, who doen't see humans as something worthwile; theyre just pixels to her. The priesthood she creates, is really evil. Or rather, mad, because she feeds them too much raw power and antimatter mana they aren't built to handle. That gives totally nihilistic black mages, necromancers etc, who only look after themselves, for only the best have a chance to survive. The rest of the world isn't aware of the real reasons. They only see the black mages and their lust for power and will only slowly realise the true danger.
Perhaps it sound rather complicated like this, but it does give an answer to why the 'dark power' wants to destroy the universe.

And to answer the original question: no it's not always necessary for good to prevail over bad, but I don't think readers will thank me for ending my final book with the end of the universe. With the death of my main character? That could be a nice touch; something to keep in mind (I'm not exactly a plotter, so the end is still extremely fluid). But even if he gives his life for the cause won't mean evil won, ofc. For the hero to die in vain in the finale would be too much of an anticlimax (and, for a fantasy series, very silly).

On the other hand, there's no reason for the hero to 'live happily ever after'. What will happen to them has to remain a matter of conjecture. Or else the way Raymond Feist did it with the deaths of Prince Arutha and Jimmy, dying in their old age, defending their city. That to me was very fitting.


----------



## Varamyrr

Actually, this is a rather good topic for my WiP.
I'm thinking about letting evil win, but with a slightly grey ending, or at least that what I think it is:

Evil conquered the vast majority of the main land. A last bastion of human civilsation still exists. The last battle will be held at this fortified city, which will be lost. However, instead of total annihilation, I letting people leave by boat, to an unknown destination. While the plebs tries to escape, several 'heroes' give up their life so other can hopefully live. If the escapees will survive remains a mystery.
Do you think this could work?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I actually had a downer ending in my NIP, then I realized that I shouldn't be starting off my first novel with a complex downer ending. So I completely rewrote it to a happier ending, because those are easier. Mastering the basics first... is something I keep forgetting to do.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Here are two memorable dark endings:


*(1)* I loved the ending to H.G. Wells' _The Time Machine_. It was dark. The Time Traveller goes back into the future to fix everything--his friends discover a letter saying so--but the MC never returns. But the ending was open-ended enough to imply that the Time Traveller did not fail or die, but he saved the girl and remained in the future as _traveling back to 1895 would undo the changes he made in the year 802701*.

*This_ is something that a 6th-grade student of mine came up with, and I thought it was brilliant and actually faithful to how time-travel would work in H.G. Wells' story.

Anyway, one thing I loved about this ending (as a teacher and as a reader) was that your imagination could play with the story, which is in some ways better than simply telling you "the good guys win (or lose)."



*(2)* There was an anime movie, _Akira,_ that had a dark ending where everyone died except the antagonists' friends. I hated that ending, and I mean _hated_ it. Akira killed his girlfriend horribly then pretty much ate Japan, and the protagonists were these useless emo dweebs who kicked pebbles around and whined about there being "no more Clowns (a rival gang)." I want those two hours of my life back.

What I hated most was, the more powerful Akira got the more I thought to myself, _wow! How do they stop this monster?_ Oh. They don't. Well no **** they don't. He's a demon and thousands of feet tall!



So there you go. A dark ending can be brilliant and make your reader think, or your reader feels cheated because you kill the only character worth caring about and let the unstoppable evil entity win.

One thing worth noting... in a dark ending, it's _probably_ better to have the MC die but accomplish something than live and prove to be no more than a useless witness to senseless destruction.


----------



## Ireth

My story has a bit of an odd (I think) premise, which ties into the concept of dark endings as well as good triumphing over evil. The whole plot is instigated by the antagonist, including the quest the heroes go on to bring a certain person to a certain place at a certain time for a certain purpose. If the heroes complete their quest, the bad guys win, so they have to figure out a way to get out of it before their time limit runs out. (More info here for those interested: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/4041-reluctant-questors.html)

I'm just not sure how dark I want the ending to be. I'm quite sure at least one person is going to die, or perhaps two; the latter would obviously make for a darker ending. I don't know what to do with the surviving heroes in that instance, though. I love them too much to not want at least a bittersweet ending for them, if I can't give them a happy one.


----------



## SeverinR

I think if we all knew good wins everytime, we would get bored.
But good doesn't have to:
Ride off in the sunset, living happily ever after.
Evil can have some wins, while good wins overall. Evil might win the battle but lose the war.


One ending I hate, is the doom and gloom, no way to win, they will just make the ultimate sacrifice against evil,
and something happens that makes the good win.  
It is one thing to have the characters believe it, but there still be a way to win versus there being no chance to win, and somehow the good always lucks out.
It seems that the script helped out reality, rather then the story working itself out.


----------



## Saigonnus

I think many people have a morbid side that secretly wants the bad guy to win. I am more of a realist and know that even in the real world the bad guy sometimes wins. In my WIP I have contemplated a bit of a dark ending, basically where the protagonist "wins", but it doesn't really make the difference he imagined it would. Sure, he'll accomplish his goals... but it won't make any lasting difference in the scheme of things.


----------



## ALB2012

shangrila said:


> No. In fact, looking through ancient history, mostly evil triumphs over good.
> 
> It's simple, really. Evil goes places good can't. With that they can usually gain the advantage. That said, there's no problem with having good win, but in reality evil usually does.



Indeed, history tends to repeat itself- first as tragedy then as farce.   Often "good" triumphs to become evil. The Russian revolution where the "evil" tyrant tzar was overthrown by the "people" and became Marxist, then psuedomarxist, then Stalinist. No one can surely think Stalin was better than the old Tzar.  Good and evil tend to be relative terms depending on whose side you happen to be on. 

In my novel the male MC is not especially nice, he is powerful and he knows how to use it, he does kill  and hurt against the "evil" protagonists- most of whom it could be argued are "following orders."  The world they inhabit is a dark, nasty world for many so he is at the least blurring the lines, he does however do it for a "good reason." Future books may well lead to a civil war and major upheaval with the potential to replace one tyranny for another.  Or freedom for some vs war for all.

I do think however many people like good triumphing in fantasy as it so often is the opposite in life. I have to agree it can be dull, suddenly the evil overlord falls for something silly or happens to have a really unlikely weakness. Killing off the heroes or at least seriously compromising them is fun but it is hard to do. 

Evil goes places good can't or in fact won't because evil doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks 

I did always wonder WHAT the evil overlord is going to do AFTER he or she has destroyed the world.


----------



## Mindfire

I'm don't agree that evil usually defeats good in our world. If you look at history, evil people come into power pretty easily given the right circumstances, but they tend not to stay in power for very long. Eventually they get murdered, imprisoned, commit suicide, etc. In terms of grand conflicts, evil will eventually lose simply because humans don't like being ruled over by people prone to slaughter them on a whim. Examples of good defeating evil would include the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War 1 and 2, the fall of the Soviet Union, and others. If we include a religious point of view, than the case for good is even stronger. 

I largely agree with Tolkien's view of evil. It can't win because of its very nature. Evil is parasitic. It needs something to corrupt and feed on, and for that reason alone it will always meet with resistance. Good on the other hand is self-sufficient, benevolent, and creative. Good is freedom, evil is tyranny. And what sane man would choose tyranny over freedom?

That said, of evil's victories are ultimately due to two things: human selfishness and human stupidity. As long as those two forces exist, so will evil.


----------



## Alex97

I like both books with good vs evil and books with a lot of grey area.  I'm not too fussed who wins so long as the story is good and the victory is justified.  I like stories in which there is a grey area or alternatively a good protagonist loses a lot in order to prevail.  In the novel I'm writing there is a lot of grey area.  For example my protagonist wants to do the right thing but he is also driven by revenge and ends up doing some pretty nasty things.  The antagonist on the other hand wants to unite the city states into a whole country to make them stronger.  In theory it's a good idea but in practice he kills a lot of people and the city states are in danger of losing there identity and freedom.

Couple of spoilers, so if you don't want to know the end of the Children of Hurin or Spartan don't read on:

I liked the Children of Hurin by Tolien because it wasn't just black and white like LOTR (witht he exception of Turin).  Even though Turin is fighting Melkor the dark lord, he himself ends up doing a lot of bad things.  Despite killing the dragon, Glaurung at the end he and his sister kill themselves so it's not exactly a happy ending despite his victory.

In Spartan, which is not fantasy but historical fiction there is a lot of grey area.  There aren't good or bad characters, just differing political views.  Basically each person does what they think is right but other people disagree with that.  The main characters also die.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Mindfire said:
			
		

> I'm don't agree that evil usually defeats good in our world. If you look at history, evil people come into power pretty easily given the right circumstances, but they tend not to stay in power for very long. Eventually they get murdered, imprisoned, commit suicide, etc. In terms of grand conflicts, evil will eventually lose simply because humans don't like being ruled over by people prone to slaughter them on a whim. Examples of good defeating evil would include the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War 1 and 2, the fall of the Soviet Union, and others. If we include a religious point of view, than the case for good is even stronger.
> 
> I largely agree with Tolkien's view of evil. It can't win because of its very nature. Evil is parasitic. It needs something to corrupt and feed on, and for that reason alone it will always meet with resistance. Good on the other hand is self-sufficient, benevolent, and creative. Good is freedom, evil is tyranny. And what sane man would choose tyranny over freedom?
> 
> That said, of evil's victories are ultimately due to two things: human selfishness and human stupidity. As long as those two forces exist, so will evil.



With the exception of Hitler during WW2 I'm not sure the other conflicts are a good account of good vs. evil. 

Were the British evil? No I hardly think so... Imperialistic yes but evil no.
Was the confederacy evil? I'd agree with the evils of slavery but the abolition of slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. It was states rights vs. federal power,

I will agree that on a large scale evil has a hard time surviving. On a smaller scale evil can not only succeed but thrive. However, that being said, the definition of evil (no I don't want to start that up again) is based largely on one's own point of view.


----------



## Mindfire

T.Allen.Smith said:


> With the exception of Hitler during WW2 I'm not sure the other conflicts are a good account of good vs. evil.
> 
> Were the British evil? No I hardly think so... Imperialistic yes but evil no.
> Was the confederacy evil? I'd agree with the evils of slavery but the abolition of slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. It was states rights vs. federal power,
> 
> I will agree that on a large scale evil has a hard time surviving. On a smaller scale evil can not only succeed but thrive. However, that being said, the definition of evil (no I don't want to start that up again) is based largely on one's own point of view.



I'll admit that the bit about the Revolution was reaching. xD And while slavery was not the cause of the  Civil War, the fact that the war ended with it being abolished does, I think, count as a victory for good over evil.


----------



## JonSnow

There is something to be said for both good or evil prevailing. I think that in a pure good vs. evil scenario (such as Lord of the Rings), the only fitting ending is for good to prevail at great cost (loss of life, and changes/experiences that will haunt and stay with them for the rest of their lives). Even in that, its not a complete defeat of evil, because some of the darkness lives on within the good characters afterwards. I think the pure "light vs. dark" battle is outdated. There have been some great classic works with that methodology, and it worked for them, obviously. Lord of the Rings is one of my top 5 favorite works of literature. But I don't think it works for modern literature.  

If you want a more realistic scenario, evil must prevail sometimes. I am a firm believer that real life (and the majority of human nature) consists of far more evil than good ( I'd say 70/30 if I had to put a number on it). And good people are just better at (or more willing to) conquering and suppressing the evil aspects of themselves. No believable human character is perfectly good or perfectly evil. And no mentally competent human is purely evil, either. Even they show redeeming qualities on occasion. 

The struggle between good and bad in their own minds leads to struggles and decisions that are going to affect what they do and how they interact with the world. I would even say that a likeable "good" protagonist must have some flaws, and some weaknesses, that might lead them to do bad things (an example would be an overall good man who has a weakness for brothels, had an affair on his wife, is an angry drunk, or is an unscrupulous gambler). These still allow this person to be an honorable, good person otherwise, but with weaknesses that make him/her human and believable. 

In this sense, "good" may not, and should not, always prevail. It makes for boring and predictable literature. Though, the ending must be satisfying if you want to please the reader. I think that is why a lot of authors lean to the "good" side, because they don't want their book to be called a "downer".


----------



## Targon

I had this exact same idea. I created a elf-like race called the Vari, who were created so that man would never be molested by evil. They failed sadly. They are now cursed with having a very grim afterlife. Their souls end up in an abyss essentially and will not end up with their creator,Varian.


----------



## Jabrosky

I don't want to breach our forum's moratorium on politics, but if you actually read the declarations of secession for the Confederate states, they explicitly cite their desire to protect the institution of slavery as their motivation. It is true however that Lincoln really cared more about preserving the Union than abolitionism by itself, so the American Civil War wasn't strictly a Good vs Evil conflict.

That said, unless the story I've viewing is intended to be tragic (e.g. _King Kong_), I would prefer that the more sympathetic side win in fiction.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

For me I do want good to win. I'm going to be damned well peeved if I get to the end of a book and all my heroes are dead and the universe has gone dark for eternity. That being said the art of the story is in making me believe that evil can win - even though they won't. That's where the suspence comes in.

As for the hero falling at the end, yeah I can live with that. Hell I wrote Dragon with that end (sort of). But if my hero dies I want him to die having achieved something. It'd be a p' off for him to lose and die. There was a book I read a long time ago, Shipwreck by Charles Logan and its stuck with me all these years because of its ending. Basically the hero crashlands on an alien world and then the entire book is devoted to his efforts to survive. But as you get to the end of the book and realise that things are getting worse and worse for him, you (or me) are constantly asking ourselves as we race through those final chapters, how the hell is he going to get out of this mess? Not to shatter your surpise, but the last line of the book is - "And there on that rock, by the edge of the seas, he died."

I cannot express to you how much that peeved me.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> I don't want to breach our forum's moratorium on politics, but if you actually read the declarations of secession for the Confederate states, they explicitly cite their desire to protect the institution of slavery as their motivation. It is true however that Lincoln really cared more about preserving the Union than abolitionism by itself, so the American Civil War wasn't strictly a Good vs Evil conflict.
> 
> That said, unless the story I've viewing is intended to be tragic (e.g. _King Kong_), I would prefer that the more sympathetic side win in fiction.



Only modern politics are banned. Historical politics are still allowed.


----------



## Steerpike

I think the sentiment that the struggle between well-defined good and evil is outdated is false, and in fact those types of stories continue to dominate, in terms of mass appeal, even though in terms of number, morally ambivalent stories are on the rise.

Look at the books and movies that have been the most popular in genre fiction over the past decade - the ones that have risen to the level of cultural phenomena. Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, Hunger Games, Star Wars, The Wheel of Time (not a phenomena, but hugely popular), and the Lord of the Rings all have very well-defined good and evil, and the struggle that takes place in the story is between the two opposing sides. Even though The Lord of the Rings was written long ago, it remains true that the last decade has seen the height of its popularity. The Narnia books remain popular as well. Further, even in the ranks of books that don't get to those same levels of popularity, there have been many, many books with the pure good v. evil theme over the past 25 years or so (which is well after the time the more morally ambivalent work starts showing up), and many are extremely well done (Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, for example). On the other side, Game of Thrones is probably the only one that comes close to being on the same level of popularity, and most of the works I mentioned above exceed it.

What's the biggest grossing moving of the current year? The Avengers. Again, well-defined good and evil.

Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> I think the sentiment that the struggle between well-defined good and evil is outdated is false, and in fact those types of stories continue to dominate, in terms of mass appeal, even though in terms of number, morally ambivalent stories are on the rise.
> 
> Look at the books and movies that have been the most popular in genre fiction over the past decade - the ones that have risen to the level of cultural phenomena. Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, Hunger Games, Star Wars, The Wheel of Time (not a phenomena, but hugely popular), and the Lord of the Rings all have very well-defined good and evil, and the struggle that takes place in the story is between the two opposing sides. Even though The Lord of the Rings was written long ago, it remains true that the last decade has seen the height of its popularity. The Narnia books remain popular as well. Further, even in the ranks of books that don't get to those same levels of popularity, there have been many, many books with the pure good v. evil theme over the past 25 years or so (which is well after the time the more morally ambivalent work starts showing up), and many are extremely well done (Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, for example). On the other side, Game of Thrones is probably the only one that comes close to being on the same level of popularity, and most of the works I mentioned above exceed it.
> 
> What's the biggest grossing moving of the current year? The Avengers. Again, well-defined good and evil.
> 
> Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.



Kinda goes to support the opinion that everything has been done.  A writer may think that he's being terribly original by having the bad guy win, but, in reality, it's been done.

My advice is to write what you want.  If the idea of evil winning is what inspires you, then that's going to be your best story.  

I'd have a hard time writing something that didn't end up relatively happy, and I'm not going to try too hard to break myself out of that vein.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

*"GvE" is how a lazy guy types "good vs. evil"*

Now that this discussion's been resurrected, I have to say that





Christopher Wright said:


> If I want to be involved in a storyline where the bad guys win, I have a day job.


is a damn funny line!


And I agree with what's said on this page. GvE is timeless, and let's face it, in a morally ambiguous crowd you can pick out heroes and villains. Don't deny that you see horns on the Lannisters, except Tyrion, who gets a halo. Same with a morally corrupt crowd--you side with the lesser evils. Anyone here watch _Boardwalk Empire?_ I'm rooting for Nucky Thompson and Al Capone simply because they're not (portrayed as being) as evil as fictional sociopath Gyp Rosetti.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Steerpike said:


> Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.



It would be instructive to look at works from 30+ years ago and see which ones from those era are still popular, and whether the balance between "black and white" (BW) and "shades of gray" (SG) has shifted at all. I'm too lazy to actually do that research, though.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

I think it's a silly question, honestly. The important thing is to _not disappoint your readers._

If your readers are so unable to suspend their disbelief that the hero winning seems unrealistic, you simply haven't written your story well enough. And if your readers actually _wants _the villains to win, something has gone very, very wrong.


----------



## ALB2012

Well I think one of the reasons people read is to escape reality... usually there evil does triumph over good, at least in the short term. The news is full of war, death, murder etc. It is nice to lose one's self in a world where the bad guy gets splatted.

I suppose it depends though... sometimes good and evil are relative- example Emperor Zog is lord over a large empire- there is not a great deal of freedom, rights are to some extent restricted and there are no elections. Some people are poor and some are rich- such is the way of things but no one is so poor they starve. But there is peace- even if it is enforced peace.

Freedom fighters appear- they want the right to vote, they want equality, they want all the things revolutionists want. They begin a campaign, war ensues, or at least conflict. People who are not directly involved die- there is civil war. Many people are now poor, starving and lots of people die. The empire is fragmented, old disagreements surface and small mini conflicts happen.
Several years later ( or generations) the war is over- the Empire either is victorious but now clamps right down on what freedoms there were, anyone who defies them dies etc etc. OR a new order appears, trying to govern a broken empire. The economy is broke- war is expensive. Half the population is dead or maimed the New Order cannot decide who is in charge etc etc.

Where is the good and evil here?
Freedomfighter- revolutionary-terrorist. That depends whose side you are on.

Sometimes it seems the bad guy must win- because in the grand scheme of things the good option is only good on the surface.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

ALB2012 said:


> Well I think one of the reasons people read is to escape reality... usually there evil does triumph over good, at least in the short term. The news is full of war, death, murder etc.



You know what _else _is full of war, death and murder? Fantasy novels.

So, yeah. I don't think we read fantasy to escape the evils of real life. I think we read fantasy to escape boredom.

To quote George Lucas: "Drama is conflict, conflict means violence of one kind or another." The reason we get a lot of bad news is because the _good _news isn't nearly as sensational. The problem with this is, of course, that we tend to get a pretty bleak outlook on life. 

However, there are a lot of good news out there. Happy endings happen in real life all the time, we just don't get to hear about them. And that's _exactly_ why it's dangerous to think that the triumph of evil is more realistic than the triumph of good - because it reinforces an illusion too many of us are already living in.


----------



## Chilari

I've been lurking in this thread but haven't yet posted, so now's the time to do that.

I'm rather on the fence over the actual question being asked. However, when we turn it to "should the protagonist always win?" I do have an answer: No.

The protagonist isn't necessarily "good", though they often do represent the whiter side of the spectrum compared to the antagonist. Certainly in shades of grey morality stories, it is perfectly acceptable for the protagonist to lose. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing more of these - handled well of course. In order for the protagonist to lose, though, the author needs to meet certain criteria. They should know from the start that this is going to happen; they should use the protagonist's flaws primarily in leading to the protagonist's loss, rather than outside forces (though outside forces, like the antagonist's abilities and resources, can be a contributing factor); and they should keep it ambiguous until a suitable climactic moment near the end of the book whether the protagonist is going to win or not: set up the protagonist's flaw early, so it's clear failure is possible, but make them both likeable enough and skilled/smart/determined enough that winning is possible and that the reader roots for them to win. Then bring that great big flaw back in at a crucial moment, have the character fail to overcome it at this crucial moment, and watch the show as hope spirals down into the abyss. That's what I'd like to see in a "protagonist loses" story.

Going back to the original question asked: should good always prevail over evil? Well, one could argue that in a certain light, such a protagonist as described above might be a prime example of evil triumphing: the character's vice (evil) overcomes their virtues (good), leading to the character's ultimate failure in their endeavour, which might well be an external example, if they were fighting for good against evil.

So I suppose no, good doesn't have to prevail.

But where it doesn't it needs to be well set up, clearly established as an option to the reader, because there's nothing worse in a story than something coming right out of the blue right at the end - it's like giving the reader the middle finger. I hate surprise twists. Well established twists, fine, but if you're writing a detective novel where, at the end, the murderer turns up at the detective's house, kills her then commits suicide, that's not a twist, it's the author trying to be smart and different and it's not a good story. (Note: this is an actual story my mum was telling me about; she told me that though the author is really good with all other aspects of the story, pacing, prose, characterisation etc, this ending, and a similarly out-of-the-blue one in a different book, has resulted in the author being on mum's "blacklist". That story is an example where evil does, sort of, prevail (the killer ended up dead himself, but the protagonist did too; she's dead. That's evil winning done wrong.)

Plus, I don't think good should always prevail because that sets up the expectation that any good guy will win, thus the reader doesn't need to worry that the good guy will fail. Sure, main characters can die, but generally it's dead by sacrifice, enabling them to win the cause or save someone else's life at the cost of their own life. Good still wins. And yes for many the journey is more important than the destination - how the good guy wins and what it costs, rather than whether they win. But still, the prospect of failure is only believable if occasionally, not often but sometimes, the good guy doesn't win. But having the good guy lose must be handled so carefully to stop the reader from being disappointed. It must be a believable loss, with the possibility clearly established. And it must feel like the "right ending", suitable for the story, inevitable in some ways. Like Of Mice and Men, it was never a cheery tale and by the end the events seemed to inevitably lead to only one conclusion, and it fit and it was right because it was there all along, but still you wanted George and Lennie to get their dream, but it just couldn't happen. Okay, so that's not a good vs evil story, it's about dreams vs the harsh reality of the Great Depression, but you get the picture.

I think really, what I'm trying to say is, whichever side wins, it's got to be a good story.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Where is the good and evil here?
> Freedomfighter- revolutionary-terrorist. That depends whose side you are on.



This is a good point.

In some fantasy stories, the protagonist struggles against the ultimate evil.  Defeat of the good guys means that the world is thrust into everlasting darkness.

Others represent ALB's point.  We see a set of circumstances where characters fight against other characters.  The viewpoint of which side is "good" is determined only by the way the author chooses to represent the characters.  Most of the time, the reader is going to root for the protagonist and decide that his viewpoint is the "good" one.  

This storyline, however, is not meant, imo, to show "good vs evil" but rather the story of particular characters.

So, in case 1, if evil wins, it's a pretty depressing end to the book.

In case 2, you have what Chilari discussed.  You certainly can choose to have the protagonist fail.  The world will not end.  That's not typically the kind of story I want to write or read, but it certainly can be done and done well.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Anders Ã„mting said:


> The important thing is to _not disappoint your readers..._ if your readers actually _wants _the villains to win, something has gone very, very wrong.



Totally agree.



Chilari said:


> In order for the protagonist to lose, though, the author needs to meet certain criteria. They should know from the start that this is going to happen; they should use the protagonist's flaws primarily in leading to the protagonist's loss, rather than outside forces (though outside forces, like the antagonist's abilities and resources, can be a contributing factor); and they should keep it ambiguous until a suitable climactic moment near the end of the book whether the protagonist is going to win or not: set up the protagonist's flaw early, so it's clear failure is possible, but make them both likeable enough and skilled/smart/determined enough that winning is possible and that the reader roots for them to win. Then bring that great big flaw back in at a crucial moment, have the character fail to overcome it at this crucial moment, and watch the show as hope spirals down into the abyss. That's what I'd like to see in a "protagonist loses" story.



Great points. Agreed.



I'll use Cowboy Bebop (anime) as an example of something that satisfies both of the above. And I'll use spoiler tags in case there's actually someone who is interested in Cowboy Bebop and hasn't already watched the whole thing years ago.



Spoiler: Cowboy Bebop's ending



Spike dies, but the ending does not disappoint.

Reasons why I loved it:

1) As Chilari said, a character flaw has to be the protagonist's undoing. Spike loves Julia. He finds her, but fails to protect her. He dies avenging her.

2) As Anders said, the reader (viewer in this case) doesn't WANT the villain to win. The villain doesn't. He dies, then Spike bleeds out from his fatal wound from the duel. The antagonist's goons were there to stop Spike but they lowered their guns and saw that he was no longer a threat.

3) As Chilari said, the ending fit the story. I wasn't given the middle finder when Spike pointed his finger like a gun at the syndicate gunmen and said "Bang!" before slumping over. Spike was so cool, he even died cool. It was a sad, but memorable ending. I honestly couldn't think of how a happy ending would have been more satisfying.


I think the key here is, however, that the protagonist died, but still accomplished something. I didn't even feel like Spike lost, in a way. He won in the sense that he did what he set out to do. He won enough that his story was worth telling.


----------



## Steerpike

I didn't read your spoiler, Sidekick. I forgot about Cowboy Bebop. I saw a few episodes long ago. I wonder if it is on Netflix.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> So, in case 1, if evil wins, it's a pretty depressing end to the book.



It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book *Villains by Necessity*, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains


----------



## Sparkie

Steerpike said:


> I didn't read your spoiler, Sidekick. I forgot about Cowboy Bebop. I saw a few episodes long ago. I wonder if it is on Netflix.



I picked up the boxed set at a retailer.  Less than 20$ (U.S.) for the whole series.  Can't get much better 'bang' for your buck (pun intended).

Back to topic now.  I think the 'Good bests Evil" concept has a lot of life left in it.  Long after we're all gone from this world, people will still be telling stories of heroes who defeat villany in its various forms.  It's an old and true method of telling an entertaining tale, and entertainment is what matters.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book *Villains by Necessity*, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains



That sounds interesting.

I think, however, I'm discovering that my point of view is greatly influenced in that I prefer characters to plot.  In the grand scheme of things, I find that I don't care all that much about whether the side I'm rooting for is "good" as much as I care if I have a good time following them through the story.  In the end, I can't imagine not feeling disappointed if they don't find some measure of success and/or happiness.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> I think, however, I'm discovering that my point of view is greatly influenced in that I prefer characters to plot.  In the grand scheme of things, I find that I don't care all that much about whether the side I'm rooting for is "good" as much as I care if I have a good time following them through the story.  In the end, I can't imagine not feeling disappointed if they don't find some measure of success and/or happiness.



Yes, I think characters and the connections to them are the most important. By the time you reach the end of the story, there should be something satisfying about the resolution to the character's struggles. Even if there are deaths for some characters, it is important that they mean something (for main characters, at least). The kind of 'success' I like to see may be a fulfillment of their goals or plans, or something more subtle like the realization that what they wanted isn't that important after all, and so on. There are many satisfying ways you can resolve the conflict. If I'm reading heroic-type fantasy, I want the characters to prevail overtly, through arms or whatever.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I think characters and the connections to them are the most important. By the time you reach the end of the story, there should be something satisfying about the resolution to the character's struggles. Even if there are deaths for some characters, it is important that they mean something (for main characters, at least). The kind of 'success' I like to see may be a fulfillment of their goals or plans, or something more subtle like the realization that what they wanted isn't that important after all, and so on. There are many satisfying ways you can resolve the conflict. If I'm reading heroic-type fantasy, I want the characters to prevail overtly, through arms or whatever.



Agreed.  Though I tend to enjoy the guy-winning-the-girl-as-the-bad-guy-limps-away kind of ending in most cases.  Character growth and change is really the important, overarching concept.

I think that's why I typically don't enjoy short stories as much as novels.  I read once that short stories tend to focus on ideas whereas novels focus on character change (pretty sure that was from Telling Lies for Fun and Profit).


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Legendary Sidekick said:


> I'll use Cowboy Bebop (anime) as an example of something that satisfies both of the above. And I'll use spoiler tags in case there's actually someone who is interested in Cowboy Bebop and hasn't already watched the whole thing years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Cowboy Bebop's ending
> 
> 
> 
> Spike dies, but the ending does not disappoint.
> 
> Reasons why I loved it:
> 
> 1) As Chilari said, a character flaw has to be the protagonist's undoing. Spike loves Julia. He finds her, but fails to protect her. He dies avenging her.
> 
> 2) As Anders said, the reader (viewer in this case) doesn't WANT the villain to win. The villain doesn't. He dies, then Spike bleeds out from his fatal wound from the duel. The antagonist's goons were there to stop Spike but they lowered their guns and saw that he was no longer a threat.
> 
> 3) As Chilari said, the ending fit the story. I wasn't given the middle finder when Spike pointed his finger like a gun at the syndicate gunmen and said "Bang!" before slumping over. Spike was so cool, he even died cool. It was a sad, but memorable ending. I honestly couldn't think of how a happy ending would have been more satisfying.
> 
> 
> I think the key here is, however, that the protagonist died, but still accomplished something. I didn't even feel like Spike lost, in a way. He won in the sense that he did what he set out to do. He won enough that his story was worth telling.



I'd like to contrast this with the ending for Samurai Champloo, from the same creator:



Spoiler: Samurai Champloo's ending



-Mugen and Jin are two badass swordsmen, and they start of trying to kill each other literally on sight. Then they are forced to cooperate but still try to kill each other a couple of times along the way. The main reason they both go on living is because they are so even as fighters than neither can get the upper hand.

-Throughout the story, they become companions who basically tolerate each other, but still have this grudge/rivalry going on. They both defeat powerful opponents, sometimes competing for the same kill. 

-Towards the end they seem to have developed a kind of grudging respect and basically cooperate pretty well. They even show a certain degree of concern for each other's lives, if only in a "he deserves a better death/I should be the one to kill him" kind of way. You still have the feeling their old rivalry has been left unresolved, though. 

-Final episode. Mugen and Jin have both defeated their respective final opponents, but at a high price. They have both fought harder than ever before and they are both seriously injured and exhausted. But they are still alive, the villains are dead, the girl is safe, and if they just stop now everthing will be fine. But they still want to finish their rivalry in one last showdown. Neither says a word, they just swing their swords together on last time... and both blades shatter simultaniously. Then they both go: "Screw this! Let's just call it a tie," and part ways.

That was one of the most satisfying conclusions to any rivalry I've seen.

See, this story could easily have ended like Cowboy Bebop, in fact I was momentarily worried it would end with them both killing each other. But that wouldn't really have suited the theme. For whereas Spike's story is about revenge, Mugen and Jin are all about the way they contrast and compliment each other - that they balance each other out in the end.


----------



## Penpilot

Steerpike said:


> It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book *Villains by Necessity*, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains



D'oh.... I have the same idea in my potential projects pile. Sigh... I got to check out this book and tweak my rough outline... hahaha.

Any way, back on target. It all depends on the type of story you intend to tell and the promises you make to the audience. Take a story like the Princess Bride. If the hero looses in that story, I'm going to be pissed, because for the type of story it its, the expectation is that good will triumph. 

But then take A Game of Thrones. I've only read the first book but, from the expectations that have been set up, evil could possibly win, and I could accept that as an ending because of the type of story and world it is.

The ending must follow from the story. If it doesn't then it's cheating.


----------



## Mindfire

I wonder how people would have reacted if Return of the Jedi ended with Vader beheading Luke, the Rebel Fleet being destroyed, and the Death Star blowing up Endor.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I wonder how people would have reacted if Return of the Jedi ended with Vader beheading Luke, the Rebel Fleet being destroyed, and the Death Star blowing up Endor.



Wouldn't have bothered me IF there was more to come. If that was the end of the whole thing, it would be rather disappointing.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Wouldn't have bothered me IF there was more to come. If that was the end of the whole thing, it would be rather disappointing.



I can picture the adults yelling obscenities and throwing popcorn at the screen while the kids simply sit open-mouthed in shock. lol


----------



## Ankari

I think that you have to handle the Good Vs Evil conflict like Robert Jordan begins his books.  When a book ends with the good guy losing/dying, the author has to convey that this is _an ending_ and not _the ending._

Joe Abercrombie does a good job with this in his trilogy.

Steven Erikson does this all the time.  In _Deadhouse Gates_, the story is far from a happy ending.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Mindfire said:


> I wonder how people would have reacted if Return of the Jedi ended with Vader beheading Luke, the Rebel Fleet being destroyed, and the Death Star blowing up Endor.


If 11-year-old me knew that this ending would kill the franchise, thus sparing 28-year-old me from Midi-Chlorians, Jar Jar Binks, and Teen Angst Vader...

...yeah, even then I'd hate the ending. And cry. But only because 11-year-old me wouldn't understand the long term benefit.


----------



## Penpilot

Mindfire said:


> I can picture the adults yelling obscenities and throwing popcorn at the screen while the kids simply sit open-mouthed in shock. lol



I think you just described my reaction to the end of the Matrix trilogy. There's a prime example of not meeting audience expectations.


----------



## Rullenzar

People crave a good story. It's not always who wins that matters, but the struggles, companionship, sacrifice, a character goes through to prevail that grip people. It gives people hope in their own lives subconciously or directly to face their own struggles.

If your character sacrifices his own life to defeat an evil at the end of a novel the reader is saddened and wishes it could have ended with said character still alive but they love the ending regardless. If the character dies and the evil power wins taking control of whatever he was after the reader is in most cases left feeling cheated unless your villain has been humanized and has a point of view incorporated into the story.

In my opinion this can only work if your main character is the villain. Which opens up a new set of problems for writers if not done right.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

I think Shakespeare's tragedies prove that you can end a story with an unhappy ending. That said, I don't encourage people to write more tragedies.


----------



## ALB2012

Anders Ã„mting said:


> You know what _else _is full of war, death and murder? Fantasy novels.
> 
> So, yeah. I don't think we read fantasy to escape the evils of real life. I think we read fantasy to escape boredom.
> 
> To quote George Lucas: "Drama is conflict, conflict means violence of one kind or another." The reason we get a lot of bad news is because the _good _news isn't nearly as sensational. The problem with this is, of course, that we tend to get a pretty bleak outlook on life.
> 
> However, there are a lot of good news out there. Happy endings happen in real life all the time, we just don't get to hear about them. And that's _exactly_ why it's dangerous to think that the triumph of evil is more realistic than the triumph of good - because it reinforces an illusion too many of us are already living in.



Good points:0


----------



## Addison

I read somewhere, I forget where....How To Write Fantasy Volume 1 I think. Anyway, in it there was a discussion about good versus evil, which prevails and what not. One of the scenarios was when both sides win. It all depends on what your hero is really after. Is he out to destroy the antagonist? Or just to get to a place to find a rare flower to save his ill wife? In their example it was a race between hero and villain, neither one really knowing the other, to get to this rare plant. The hero wanted it to save his ailing wife and the villain wanted it as a ransom. Like, he threatens to spread the disease (and he has the only cure) unless they bow under his rule. The hero gets a flower for his wife and the villain gets the rest for his plan. 
     So you really want to think about what type of story you're writing. Figure that out and it could open more doors.


----------



## wordwalker

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I think Shakespeare's tragedies prove that you can end a story with an unhappy ending. That said, I don't encourage people to write more tragedies.



I always think of tragedies as an extension of the idea that a story ends with some good people winning and some losing. In a classic tragedy, almost everyone loses, but the audience survives and sees it all happened because Macbeth was greedy, Hamlet was indecisive, etc, so there's still a winner. (In a more modern tragedy, everyone loses because Life Is Awful, and that's what the audience wants to hear anyway so they win.)


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

wordwalker said:


> I always think of tragedies as an extension of the idea that a story ends with some good people winning and some losing. In a classic tragedy, almost everyone loses, but the audience survives and sees it all happened because Macbeth was greedy, Hamlet was indecisive, etc, so there's still a winner. (In a more modern tragedy, everyone loses because Life Is Awful, and that's what the audience wants to hear anyway so they win.)



I don't really think that the audience getting something out of a story counts; they're not part of the story, they're the audience.

The real question is, what's your goal with the story? If your goal is to tell a morality tale, then you can quite certainly end with bad things happening to people. Aesop's fables and the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm commonly demonstrate this.

That said, modern audiences aren't usually looking for fables. I've noticed that works with unhappy endings, even if they're heralded by critics, tend to have a narrow appeal among the larger audience. Not that there's anything wrong with that; if that's what you want to do, fine. But if your goal is to write something that most readers will like, unhappy endings are a bad idea.


----------

