Should good always prevail over evil?

[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?

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Carré 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]

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]

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.