# Hero morality issuesâ€¦



## Heliotrope (Oct 1, 2015)

I love the genre of fantasy/SF, but I have issues with traditional Hero morality issues… 

Like, for example, 

Bad guy is being bad and killing lots of people 

so 

Good guy comes in and kills lots of bad guy's people 

WTF? 

I get that this is war, and there needs to be justice, but is anyone else trying to find ways of solving issues or writing a good story _without_ it being about war between good guys and bad guys essentially doing the same things to each other? 

I just feel like a hero can be a hero in a lot of ways besides just being 'the chosen one' or having a bigger sword. Self sacrifice, perhaps. Using art to create revolution? 

My 'hero' is more of a literary revolutionary who writes illegal underground propaganda in order to create revolution. Obviously there is an element of danger in this position, and obviously he can be executed… I'm just wondering if there is other examples of this sort of thing in Lit? 

thoughts? Does anyone have examples of this in actual fantasy/sci-fi literature?


----------



## Zadocfish (Oct 1, 2015)

A literary revolutionary is no different.  Revolutions against governments aren't bloodless; if you encourage revolution, you encourage the same violence you are speaking against.  A hero is no different just because he doesn't personally get his hands dirty, if anything that makes it worse...

As for examples, a lot of children's fantasy stories can get by without violence.  Really, it's just the fact that many fantasy stories focus their conflict on wars and dark lords.  Or, in your case, revolution.  Either way, that kind of fantasy requires some form of violence to be the least bit realistic.


----------



## Russ (Oct 1, 2015)

There are obviously lots of intriguing ways to solve problems without direct war or violence, and the world can be changed without spilling blood if done right.  I would read a great book written about that.

But readers respond when the stakes are high and what is higher stakes than death?

Managing reader expectations can be tricky, but no reason not to have a shot at it.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 1, 2015)

There doesn't need to be violence, war, and battles in order to have conflict in a story. There doesn't need to be good vs evil all of the time. One of the most valuable things I've learned this past year has been that the antagonist is basically a photo negative version of the protagonist. They want the same story goal except the antagonist goes about the extreme way of achieving this desire. He shows the readers what the protagonist _could_ be like had she chosen a different path in life. If you're talking about a hero's moral flaw, that's the thing that will create tension in your story, a deep character arc, and keep readers turning pages.

I rarely have battle scenes in my stories. I'm awful at writing them plus I find them very boring. Conflict and tension are present in my stories through the butting of heads between protagonist and antagonist. My WIP has a protagonist pinned up against her adopted brother, the antagonist. They start off being best friends at the beginning of the book and somewhere along the way, he turns on her for gold. He puts his needs above hers...and that's the exact thing she does to other people. Her moral flaw, which is also HIS moral flaw, except he's further along that path. What ultimately makes her the hero of the story is that she surpasses that moral flaw which has been holding her back. She changes as a person. However, she gives up on her external goal (story goal), which the antagonist also shares, in order to choose the moral high ground. 

So no, you don't need battle, good vs evil, black and white in order to have conflict in your stories. Conflict=a protagonist and antagonist that want the same thing but they go about different ways of getting it, and the protagonist is able to correct the moral flaw which holds her back at the beginning of the book to live in a better way. 

Books I strongly recommend: "The Anatomy of Story" by John Truby, "Take Off Your Pants" by Libbie Hawker, "Rock Your Plot" by Cathy Yardley which all explain this story element.


----------



## valiant12 (Oct 1, 2015)

> My 'hero' is more of a literary revolutionary who writes illegal underground propaganda in order to create revolution. Obviously there is an element of danger in this position, and obviously he can be executed… I'm just wondering if there is other examples of this sort of thing in Lit?



So your 'hero'' is manipulating public opinion to further his goals. 




> I just feel like a hero can be a hero in a lot of ways besides just being 'the chosen one' or having a bigger sword



Yes, he can be a diplomat who tries to avoid a big war, a doctor trying to cure a plague, a firefighter saving people from a burning starship, a detective trying to find a dangerous murderer, a warrior protecting a village against the local bandits (yes this is violent but its also a more noble pursuit than starting a revolution), a person seeking redemption, etc.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 1, 2015)

Starting a revolution can be a moral pursuit. All that matters is that the protagonist has a goal which he plans to pursue all the way to the end, and there is someone trying to stop him from achieving that goal.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Oct 1, 2015)

I am curious about equating violence by the bad guy as the exact same as violence by the good guy. Perhaps I am up in the night on this but violence isn't necessarily bad. I think that depends on the state of mind, but that's off topic. However, I do think that your idea can work. There are many heroes in our own history (which I am sure you're aware of) that didn't commit violence who's stories are compelling and effectuated great change.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 1, 2015)

You guys are right about my character, and that is mostly why I posed the question. So he is creating revolution, which will end in blood… here I am happily plotting away and then I'm like… Oh, shit… how is he any different than the bad guy then? 

And then I realize I suck, and I want to start all over again because of hero morality issues. That's why I was hoping for some other examples. 

Valiant gave some good suggestions, thank you  

I agree that sometimes violence needs to happen, and sometimes it doesn't. Brian, you are right… I was basing my character on a Thomas Paine or William Blake type character (both who wrote important texts during the French Revolution, and who helped the peasants put into words what they were feeling in their hearts. Basically helped to unite them… however, we all know how that ended up… in a lot of blood…) but then are Thomas Paine and William Blake evil? I'm not so sure… Are they any different than the revolutionaries in the streets fighting with bare fists and kitchen knives? Again, not so sure… 

I have heard wonderful stories about people in Germany and Poland during WW2 doing underground radio channels etc to spread anti Nazi propaganda. Kids even, who were then captured and executed. I wanted to write about something heroic like that… 

But then my mind always wonders to the fact that even the Nazi's had wives and children and grandchildren… and then I get all emotional and have trouble writing anything at all, because I don't like either side of my story then… 

But, I think maybe I just have issues with writing about war in general. Maybe I just understand it too much that I know how many tiny little important details and layers there really are in war, and it's not so cut and dry as one might think from reading books about orcs, and so I'm feeling nervous about portraying it in a realistic light. Realism is very important to me, and I don't like to write anything shallow. 

Maybe I need to re-think my story to be about a doctor trying to heal a plague… or something like that. Something I'm more comfortable writing about…. 

Or maybe I should just suck it up and get over the fact that my character will essentially be a mass murderer with a pen. 

hmmmmmmmmmm

So, can anyone suggest a fantasy novel that is NOT about war? More about doctors finding cures to plagues, and firefighters putting out fires?


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 1, 2015)

I guess this is why fantasy authors use really bad guys, even non-human entities, like orcs and white walkers etc, so you don't feel so bad about slaughtering them. 

What do you guys do? Do you make super bad characters to justify having a big battle?


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 1, 2015)

lol, why can I play Assassins Creed and not feel guilty? But I can't write about a revolutionary who might end up killing some people. I need to suck it up. 

Sorry for the thinking aloud.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> What do you guys do? Do you make super bad characters to justify having a big battle?



I write humans, and humans on either side of a conflict don't need to be evil to justify a big battle or bashing each other's heads in. They just need to be human and have something they _think_ is worth fighting over.

As for books without the war, there are probably lots, but right now only one comes to mind for me. It's an older book called Nobody's Son by Sean Stewart. 

Here are some links to a goodreads blurb, a review, and an Amazon link.

Nobody's Son by Sean Stewart Ã¢€” Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists
Growing Up: Sean Stewart’s Nobody’s Son | Tor.com
Nobody's Son: Sean Stewart: 9780441001286: Books - Amazon.ca


Edit: Oh, just took a look at my bookshelf and if your looking stories with little to no swordplay, check out some of Neil Gaiman's books. Anansi Boys is one of my favorites.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Oct 1, 2015)

Many years ago the lovely lady I ended up marrying introduced me to the game Age of Empires.

From the little bit of time I spent playing that game, and from a couple of other similar games online, I noticed a pattern, the women playing the games really enjoyed building the forts, villages, etc and the boys enjoyed annihilating their opponents. 

If you want to sell a lot of books, you have to understand your fan base, give them what they expect to get.

Boys are pretty simple to please. They often want male characters that they can identify with and female characters that are not boring.  

Adventure, intrigue, action and reward.

If you are writing for a predominantly female fan base, it helps to be a woman.

I would guess for female, fantasy fans, possibly some more focus on world building, some kind of emotional connection to the hero, some kind of trophy that is close but somehow always out of reach, a lot of class and a little bit of humor. 

Write for your readers first, write for yourself second.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> You guys are right about my character, and that is mostly why I posed the question. So he is creating revolution, which will end in blood… here I am happily plotting away and then I'm like… Oh, shit… how is he any different than the bad guy then?


He's different from the bad guy because:

1. At some point during the story, preferably in the first half, he realizes that he has a strong moral flaw that's been holding him back from happiness/achieving his goals. This comes through a self-revelation prompted by an incident or ally character he has respect for, which shakes him and says, "your problem is X", placing it right in his face. Hero then decides to change and readjusts his goals in order to do that. Villain never goes through this change. His moral state degrades over time.

2. The protagonist will go about achieving his goals in a different way than the villain. They may both do shady things in order to achieve that goal, but Hero does it less severely.

3. Hero ends up deserving this title because his actions shift to reflect a change in morality.


----------



## X Equestris (Oct 1, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> I guess this is why fantasy authors use really bad guys, even non-human entities, like orcs and white walkers etc, so you don't feel so bad about slaughtering them.
> 
> What do you guys do? Do you make super bad characters to justify having a big battle?



Not really.  Some of my antagonists/villains only have an animalistic intelligence, and do what they do out of hunger.  They have to be killed because they're a threat to humans.  Others are supernatural beings that feed off of negative emotions.  I suppose those are the closest to being "super bad", though again their evilness is in large part related to being dangerous to people.  Some of my human villains are motivated by greed, whether for money or power or whatever.  Those vary up and down the scale of evil based on their methods.  And some of my human villains have good motivations and goals, but are willing to sacrifice anything in pursuit of those goals.


----------



## Scribe Lord (Oct 2, 2015)

I don't understand why you see this as a bad thing. If anything, it could be a golden opportunity for more realism, conflict and development (aka probably a better story). Show how your character justifies what he does. He doesn't even have to align perfectly with your definition of morality from the start. (Or ever for that matter) Maybe he pushes for revolution, then after witnessing the horrors that ensue, begins to have doubts. Or maybe he sees them as necessary for the greater good. Or maybe he thinks the horrors were avoidable and tries to get the revolution back on track. Have him constantly reevaluating his stance. Have him struggle to discern the 'right' path and take it. Life decisions aren't always easy. Personally, I also think it makes a better story when you can understand and even empathize with both sides of a conflict. Maybe that's just me though.

Regardless, I see so much potential for story, conflict and character development here. I'd say stick with it.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Oct 2, 2015)

A few thoughts-

1) You seem to have an issue with your main character doing morally questionable actions, whether it be killing people or agitating for revolution. Don't worry about this. Nothing is more boring than a hero without some... human flaw? The self-sacrifice to save the day is cliche as hell, especially if the "sacrificial death" ends up being nothing but a pit stop in the afterlife. Make your characters interesting and likable. Hannibal Lecter was a horrible person, but damn if you can't help but like they guy.

2) Antagonists can be your EVIL overlord of doom, but they don't need to be. Hell, they can be fairly good people. All an antagonist is is whoever has goals opposed to the protagonist. You talked about Nazis having families. All the millions in Germany in WWII weren't soulless abominations (though there certainly were several). The grey space is where it gets interesting.


----------



## valiant12 (Oct 2, 2015)

> From the little bit of time I spent playing that game, and from a couple of other similar games online, I noticed a pattern, the women playing the games really enjoyed building the forts, villages, etc and the boys enjoyed annihilating their opponents.



What I remember from that game is using cannons against the civilians.



> Boys are pretty simple to please. They often want male characters that they can identify with and female characters that are not boring.
> 
> Adventure, intrigue, action and reward.
> 
> ...



Women also like female characters that they can identify with and men like humor and winning something that is impossible to reach. In fact men generally like winning and bragging rights.


----------



## FifthView (Oct 2, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> I just feel like a hero can be a hero in a lot of ways besides just being 'the chosen one' or having a bigger sword. Self sacrifice, perhaps. Using art to create revolution?



You could always create a hero whose efforts involve some sort of unmasking.  Since you mentioned revolution, I'm assuming there is some kind of status quo that needs to be broken, a regime whose power needs to be overthrown.  I don't know the characteristics of that regime, but if it involves multiple people and multiple layers, your hero could be the sort that either exposes corruption or/and weakens the regime by causing internal dissent among the ruling forces.  So, for instance, a type of spy-slash-propagandist.  Perhaps she finds an ally among the ruling class, and together they work to turn other members of that ruling class against each other.  If the regime is a theocratic regime with multiple layers and there is some dissention between sects within the ranks of the rulers, the hero could expose the "truth" behind the religious foundations of the regime, which leads to intra-class conflict while at the same time destroying the populace's acquiescence to the ruling class's power.  And so forth.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 2, 2015)

Thanks everyone! 

So I'm hearing 'suck it up'… That's good. I like that. 

Yes, I did have him realizing what the end result would be of his efforts, and even seeing the negatives (like the killing of innocents, especially the interrogation process of the higher ups trying to find out who the writer is…) and him questioning his ideals and the cost… I guess I will just keep going, in the name of good conflict and realism. 

"nothing is either good nor bad but thinking makes it so" - Hamlet

I guess I just think too much.


----------



## Heliotrope (Oct 2, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Many years ago the lovely lady I ended up marrying introduced me to the game Age of Empires.
> 
> From the little bit of time I spent playing that game, and from a couple of other similar games online, I noticed a pattern, the women playing the games really enjoyed building the forts, villages, etc and the boys enjoyed annihilating their opponents.
> 
> .




lol. This is so true. I love Skyrim and Oblivion, but I mostly just play through the Thieves Guild because I don't have to kill anyone. I also love to challenge myself to raid caves and temples totally on sneak mode and try to get through with no casualties…. 

So lame.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 2, 2015)

DeathtoTrite said:


> All an antagonist is is whoever has goals opposed to the protagonist.


No. The antagonist wants the same story goal as the protagonist. It's why there's a competition to the death for it, in essence.


----------



## Zadocfish (Oct 2, 2015)

> No. The antagonist wants the same story goal as the protagonist. It's why there's a competition to the death for it, in essence.



... No.  No, it is not.  That is a _potential_ goal for an antagonist.  It is not the definition of an antagonist.  An antagonist is just someone who opposes the protagonist.  Saying that their goal being the same as the protagonist is necessary to make an antagonist is wildly untrue, unless you twist the definition of "the same story goal" beyond recognition.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 2, 2015)

I totally disagree. What creates conflict between the protagonist and antagonist is the fact that they want the same goal. Examples: 

-GOT where all of the characters are basically antagonists to one another. They all want the throne. They all want power. 
-Lolita: Humbert wants control over Lolita, physically, mentally, emotionally. She's his antagonist because she wants the same thing, which is control over herself.
-detective novels where a cop is trying to find a killer to put him away for a crime, but the killer is trying to get away. They both want control over the truth and the killer's freedom.

The opposition you're talking about is the paths both of them take; the protagonist takes one moral pathway while the antagonist takes another. Their story goals are exactly the same. Opposing the protagonist means he keeps getting in her way so she can't achieve her goal. If he wanted something completely unrelated to what she wanted, why else would he oppose her?


----------



## FifthView (Oct 2, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> GOT where all of the characters are basically antagonists to one another. They all want the throne. They all want power.



I wouldn't say Arya or Bran or Jon Snow want the throne.

I do however like the idea of thinking of all the characters as "basically antagonists to one another" — I had never thought to think of the characters of the series that way.  Of course, I don't think that's absolutely true for all of the characters.  I'd rather say that they are all _potentially_ antagonists to one another.  For instance, it's easy for me to envisage a future set of circumstances in which Arya and Jon Snow become opposed in some way even if they aren't yet.  Maybe that's one of the brilliant techniques of GRRM:  Leaving open such possibilities even if those possibilities never come to pass.

Edit:  Incidentally, GoT can show how antagonism may arise from mere self-interest and individual goals.  Brienne of Tarth most certainly doesn't aim for the Iron Throne, isn't plotting anyone's rise to the throne, but anyone trying to get that throne could be opposed by her if they target Arya or Sansa.  In fact, GRRM draws all the characters as being very obsessed with some personal, individual goal; and maybe this is what leaves open the potential antagonism between any two characters.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 2, 2015)

Zadocfish said:


> ... No.  No, it is not.  That is a _potential_ goal for an antagonist.  It is not the definition of an antagonist.  An antagonist is just someone who opposes the protagonist.  Saying that their goal being the same as the protagonist is necessary to make an antagonist is wildly untrue, unless you twist the definition of "the same story goal" beyond recognition.



I second that. Quite often the protagonist's goals are completely at odds with those of the antagonist. IE. the MC of one of my novels is a human girl kidnapped into Faerie, who wants nothing more than to be free of her kidnapper and go home to the mortal world. The villain is the evil prince who kidnapped the MC, and wants to claim her as his queen after usurping his father's throne to become king. The two are complete opposites.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 2, 2015)

They aren't opposite, though. The villain wants control of the girl, and the girl wants to be free. They both want control of _her_. That's the same goal/desire.


----------



## Zadocfish (Oct 3, 2015)

Maybe it works in that one case, but to apply it to the definition of "antagonist" as a whole is absurd.  It only needs one single example where the antagonist does not have the same goal as the protagonist to disprove as a "rule".

In the Little Mermaid, Ariel wants hot man-action.  Ursela is the antagonist, but she doesn't want anything relating to Ariel's freedom, the human world, or anything similar.  She just wants to rule the sea.

I guess it's hard to find examples; mostly because you, as predicted, stretched the definition of "goal/desire" well beyond its breaking point.  A goal is what a character wishes to accomplish, and a desire is much the same.  Often, the goal/desire of the antagonist is the opposite, but you suggest using very strange and vague terminology to force them to sound like what you want them to be.

Take the Rescuers; the lady wants to use the little girl to get her a diamond in a cave, and the eponymous rescuers want to protect the little girl.  In reality, their goals are related but dis-similar; the rescuers want to save the girl, the lady just wants her diamond.  But had I posted that example without giving this explanation, no doubt rests in my mind that you would have said that they "both want control of the girl," even though that's only a means to the antagonist's end, rather than their actual goal.

In Robin Hood, Robin wants to give money to the poor and the King wants the money all to himself.  You would say "they both want money", but that's not their GOALS, that's only the king's actual goal or desire.  The money is the means to achieve their goals, Robin Hood's to improve the lot of the common folk and the king's to be rich.  Again, the method used to achieve the goal IS NOT the goal or desire in and of itself.

In The Great Mouse Detective, Basil wants to stop Rattigan.  Rattigan doesn't just want freedom, he wants to rule the kingdom!  But Basil's main desire isn't so much to uphold the status quo for the kingdom, but to stop Rattigan from doing evil.  It wouldn't matter to Basil WHAT evil that Rattigan wanted to commit, he just wanted to stop it.

There are many examples where you are right, I'll admit, but it's far from a rule.  The only way you can make it a blanket statement about antagonists is by, just as you have done, twisting the meaning of the word "goal/desire", or even motivation, beyond what those words actually mean.  

So, no.  An antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist; adding additional "rules" to that can be interesting for exploring fiction, but making it a blanket statement is just flat-out incorrect.


----------



## Queshire (Oct 3, 2015)

Stepping in a bit here, though I think it's interesting to try to read the protagonist and the antagonist as having the same goal, I don't think it's good advice to give a writer.


----------



## glutton (Oct 3, 2015)

Zadocfish said:


> Maybe it works in that one case, but to apply it to the definition of "antagonist" as a whole is absurd.  It only needs one single example where the antagonist does not have the same goal as the protagonist to disprove as a "rule".
> 
> In the Little Mermaid, Ariel wants hot man-action.  Ursela is the antagonist, but she doesn't want anything relating to Ariel's freedom, the human world, or anything similar.  She just wants to rule the sea.
> 
> ...



Or any example where antagonist who wants to rule the world/kingdom/whatever kills the protagonist's family member/friend and MC doesn't care about ruling the world/kingdom/whatever, they just want to tear the antagonist limb from limb XD


----------



## Chessie (Oct 3, 2015)

Zadocfish, look at any craft book and it will tell you the same thing. The story goal is often something basic, not the elaborate description you're giving some of these. In all of your examples, I see protagonists and antagonists that want the same, simple thing. It's what makes them competitors. But you can see it however you want and I promise not to call you absurd for it.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 3, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> They aren't opposite, though. The villain wants control of the girl, and the girl wants to be free. They both want control of _her_. That's the same goal/desire.



Not really. To the villain, kidnapping the MC is just the means to an end. His ultimate goal is taking his father's throne by force. He wants it so badly that he ultimately tries to kill the MC when she tries to get away from him one too many times, and still has his eye on the throne. Though he's pretty mentally unstable by that point. The MC herself ends up compromising the villain's goal by maiming him (since someone who's physically unwhole is not allowed to assume the throne, because of Fae laws older than time), and still the villain tries to kill his father in the end, disregarding the MC entirely.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 3, 2015)

But does he oppose the main character's freedom by wanting to maintain control of her? I don't see how that's different.

Anyway, this thread has derailed from the OP so I'll leave this part of the discussion be. I'm fine with being in the minority here.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 3, 2015)

He does, that's true, but that's still secondary to his real goal.

Apologies for derailing the thread. I'm fine with dropping this discussion too.


----------



## psychotick (Oct 3, 2015)

Hi,

Late to the party. But no heroes and villains aren't necessarily pursuing the same goal. Consider LOTR.  Sauron wants to rule the world and he will do it by any means necessary - which includes wiping out the humans. Saurumon's simply as mad as a meataxe and wants to serve his master. Golem wants his ring. Aragorn and the other humans want to survive. The hobbits want to save the Shire. Samwise wants to save his friend. I mean you can twist this as much as you like but that's really their motivation. And some of them are obviously very noble and worthy goals, some aren't.

And in those books Samwise and Frodo stand out as heroes who really aren't dedicted to killing, unlike their enemies.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 3, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Late to the party. But no heroes and villains aren't necessarily pursuing the same goal. Consider LOTR.  Sauron wants to rule the world and he will do it by any means necessary...



To play a little devil's advocate. I think one could say both sides want the One Ring.



Chesterama, I think what you're defining as the same goal for protagonist and antagonist, isn't really their goal or goals. It's just the point of friction/conflict between the two, which to me isn't the same.

For example. After a day of sailing on his boat, Bob wants to get back to port. But a storm rolls and threatens to blow Bob out to sea. Bob is the protagonist and nature is the antagonist. Nature doesn't have goals or wants. I mean you can say the both want to control the boat, but to me, that's just the medium of their contact/confrontation.

It's a really interesting way to think about things, and I think it can be a really useful tool to make sure your protagonist and antagonist are actually in conflict with each other. But I wouldn't agree with how things are being defined.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 3, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> To play a little devil's advocate. I think one could say both sides want the One Ring.



Not exactly. The good guys have it, and they want to get rid of it. Sauron is the one who wants it intact so he can use it. And the Ring is a villain of its own in a way, trying to turn the heroes' minds to keeping it and becoming the new Dark Lord/Lady.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 3, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Chesterama, I think what you're defining as the same goal for protagonist and antagonist, isn't really their goal or goals. It's just the point of friction/conflict between the two, which to me isn't the same.


That's not what I'm saying, but it doesn't matter really. It took me some time to grasp this concept but it's opened up a whole new world for me. There truly is conflict in my stories now whereas before, I struggled with the protagonist/antagonist relationship. Anyway, I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 4, 2015)

Back to the original topic...

Many of my characters are veterans of a horrific, decades long war during which they witnessed and/or did very immoral things.  They spend time in their heads trying to cope with the things they saw and did, and are subject to flashbacks, nightmares, and some downright nasty prejudices, while grappling with problems in the here and now.  (two or three years later).


----------



## Zadocfish (Oct 4, 2015)

> Anyway, I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me.



That's good, because you're objectively wrong about this...

And you I'd imagine that writing veteran characters would be quite difficult... PTSD isn't an easy thing to capture in words, I think.  That takes skill.


----------



## glutton (Oct 4, 2015)

I imagine at a large enough stretch, an eldritch abomination in human form out to destroy the world and a girl who in charge of a mining operation could be said to have the same goal, control over the fate of the mine... even though mine girl would probably be less then a speck in world destruction guy's mind at least until she bashes his head in with a shovel lol.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 4, 2015)

Zadocfish said:


> That's good, because you're objectively wrong about this...


I don't appreciate your tone. It's possible to disagree with others and still be civil. I didn't agree with this concept at first either, but after some chewing on it, now I do. It's good to think about things a bit differently sometimes. 

I just wanted to let the OP know that protagonists don't have to be good and the antagonists bad in order to have conflict. Protagonists can be any type of character. I'll go back to my default example of Humbert Humbert in Lolita. Pedo, but still the protagonist. Not everything has to be black and white in fiction. And now I'm truly done responding to this thread.


----------



## pskelding (Oct 4, 2015)

The antagonist is the hero of their own story, that also means they can be moral and not cold blooded killers. Morals are flexible and not rigid. What is considered moral in China where I live is not considered moral in the USA where I'm from. 

The protagonist's and antagonist's goals don't have to be the same, in fact it's probably better if they aren't. But in striving to meet those goals is where the conflict and parts of the plot derive.


----------



## skip.knox (Oct 5, 2015)

Chesterama, what about when the antagonist is a force of nature? It could simply be trying to climb the Matterhorn, but in the fantasy realm there are any number of stories where the antagonist is more or less mindless. In fact, in zombie stories they really are mindless. 

I like the notion you put forward, and I'm not looking to convince anyone either, but I was wondering how the theory works with my goblin Horde (my goblins are more or less like a wolf pack).


----------

