Hero morality issues…

[Chessie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.