And, sometimes the exact same action can be perceived as heroic or villainous, just depending on who is engaging in it -
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
What is a hero, and what is a villain?
- Thread starter Anders Ämting
- Start date
Nagash
Sage
The notion of heroism is a tricky one, for the simple reason that it is essentially defined through subjectives point of views, conventions, traditions etc... This statement can be verified by a simple research of the definition of "heroism" throughout the ages. You'll end up realizing that the question "What is a hero ?" won't obtain the same answers in different backgrounds, historically, culturally and geographically speaking. Heroism in ancient Greece - for example - was all about being the incarnation of a "manly" virtue, most of the time in the context of war or martial prowess. Early definitions of heroism are effectively assimilated to skill in battle, in combat... These were the basis upon which the "cult" of heroism in occident was built : courage, strength, selflessness, devotion and the will the sacrifice one-self were the virtues one had to acquire, in order to be called a true hero. This can be assessed through almost every single medieval/renaissance tales of heroism and chivalry, across the european countries : "The song of Roland" (France) tells the story of Roland, Charlemagne's mightiest knight, defeating hundreds of saracens before biting the dust; the tale of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar "El Cid" is exceptionally similar, since it depicts the mighty spanish warrior killing tons of moorish invaders on his own... Beside, the cult of sacrifice is an occidental paragon of heroism : from Leonidas's three hundred spartans and the Homeric tales of Ajax, Achilles and Ulysses, to the mythification of the soldier and the warrior in ancient Rome, to the "sacrifice" of crusaders in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, in 10th century Norway and Sweden, people die on the battlefield convinced they are stepping into Valhalla.
Heroism is a concept; its an invention, albeit an old one, but an invention nonetheless. It was built through time, heroic tales, northern sagas, breath-taking legends, religious writings and centuries of warmongering, glorious slaughters and massacres. Along with other fabrications such as glory, honor, it was mostly created in order to get people in line, and give them something to believe in as they were thrown in endless bloodsheds. Eventually, these concepts were assimilated, and some men became bold, brave even, simply because they had an unbending faith in concepts. They had been transformed.
To the point : being concepts, good, evil, heroism and anti-heroism are subjective. It was said previously that "a hero is another one's villain". I will add "...and what is a villain, but a hero none can understand ?". Fantasy novels relish the ideas of moral absolutism, where evil is done for evil and good for good. These novels are built upon the centuries-old premise that "Good" is an incarnation of virtues commonly considered as such, and that evil is...well, all the opposite. Often, you'll remark that in these novels, there is no in between. It is a bi-color conception of the world, where black is struggling against white : good vs evil, hate vs love, treachery vs honor, left vs right. Almost biblical, isn't it ?
While I understrand and respect the need some have to build their worlds with moral absolutism, i prefer to suppress all notions of "absolute good/evil" and create a rather gray world, with brief and few spots of white and black. Great war heroes may be courageous, but they are butchers nonetheless. Politicians may have ideals, but they went too far while pursuing them, hurting more or less innocents people (no one is innocent). And crime-lords, mercenaries, slave-masters, heretics and warlocks are mainly characters either tortured by a past event, or people struggling to make their own way in a naturally tough world. The slave-master doesn't nearly despise his slaves as much as those who buy them... He just needs them to survive, etc...
Heroism, as I see it, is only worth something on an individual scale. One man is a hero, because he is convinced he is acting as one. When a power-hundry warlord begins a revolution, many will consider he is an avid opportunist sending his people to the slaughter with nice and galvanizing speeches. But if said warlord believes fiercely in what he is doing, if he believes he is acting for the best, isn't he a hero - albeit a blind one - in some ways ?
The way I see it, and write it, heroes are those who believe, and would do anything for their ideas. They can be murderers, world-wide nemesis, war veterans, religious fanatics or simple blacksmith boys... They can be acclaimed by all, or despised by many... It really doesn't matter. What matters, is their faith in ideas, their will to go on, to do what they believe must be done.
The true hero, is the one following his dreams, "no matter how hopeless, no matter how far"...
Heroism is a concept; its an invention, albeit an old one, but an invention nonetheless. It was built through time, heroic tales, northern sagas, breath-taking legends, religious writings and centuries of warmongering, glorious slaughters and massacres. Along with other fabrications such as glory, honor, it was mostly created in order to get people in line, and give them something to believe in as they were thrown in endless bloodsheds. Eventually, these concepts were assimilated, and some men became bold, brave even, simply because they had an unbending faith in concepts. They had been transformed.
To the point : being concepts, good, evil, heroism and anti-heroism are subjective. It was said previously that "a hero is another one's villain". I will add "...and what is a villain, but a hero none can understand ?". Fantasy novels relish the ideas of moral absolutism, where evil is done for evil and good for good. These novels are built upon the centuries-old premise that "Good" is an incarnation of virtues commonly considered as such, and that evil is...well, all the opposite. Often, you'll remark that in these novels, there is no in between. It is a bi-color conception of the world, where black is struggling against white : good vs evil, hate vs love, treachery vs honor, left vs right. Almost biblical, isn't it ?
While I understrand and respect the need some have to build their worlds with moral absolutism, i prefer to suppress all notions of "absolute good/evil" and create a rather gray world, with brief and few spots of white and black. Great war heroes may be courageous, but they are butchers nonetheless. Politicians may have ideals, but they went too far while pursuing them, hurting more or less innocents people (no one is innocent). And crime-lords, mercenaries, slave-masters, heretics and warlocks are mainly characters either tortured by a past event, or people struggling to make their own way in a naturally tough world. The slave-master doesn't nearly despise his slaves as much as those who buy them... He just needs them to survive, etc...
Heroism, as I see it, is only worth something on an individual scale. One man is a hero, because he is convinced he is acting as one. When a power-hundry warlord begins a revolution, many will consider he is an avid opportunist sending his people to the slaughter with nice and galvanizing speeches. But if said warlord believes fiercely in what he is doing, if he believes he is acting for the best, isn't he a hero - albeit a blind one - in some ways ?
The way I see it, and write it, heroes are those who believe, and would do anything for their ideas. They can be murderers, world-wide nemesis, war veterans, religious fanatics or simple blacksmith boys... They can be acclaimed by all, or despised by many... It really doesn't matter. What matters, is their faith in ideas, their will to go on, to do what they believe must be done.
The true hero, is the one following his dreams, "no matter how hopeless, no matter how far"...
Last edited:
Braveface
Scribe
But what is evil anyway?
Is there reason to the rhyme?
Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometiiiimes.
Is there reason to the rhyme?
Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometiiiimes.
Mythopoet
Auror
Heroes are the ones who do the right thing.
Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
And no, right and wrong are not subjective.
It's really that simple.
Villains are the ones who do the wrong thing.
And no, right and wrong are not subjective.
It's really that simple.
Nagash
Sage
Agree to disagree.
Ruby
Auror
It has been said that everyone's a hero in his own life...
Mythopoet
Auror
Obviously. I'm not here to argue. Just stating my own beliefs.
Mindfire
Istar
I very much agree with this. It's become fashionable to blur the distinction between right and wrong, but I'm not exactly cool with that. A world without defined right and wrong isn't complex or "morally ambiguous". It's just amoral. And I can't get behind amorality. And yes, Nagash, this view is very biblical. Another reason I stand by it. Mythopoet may not wish to argue, but I rather enjoy it on occasion.
Last edited:
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I don't buy this. If you do the right thing for the wrong reason, are you a hero?
Example: Guy sees puppy on the highway. Dodges cars at great personal risk and saves the puppy. Finds its owner and returns it anonymously. I'd say he's a hero.
2nd Example: Guy sees a puppy on the side of the road and recognizes as belonging to the hot girl living down the street. He stops and picks up the puppy. Uses the return as a foot in the door to seduce the girl. Is he a hero? In the end, the same right thing, rescuing the puppy, was accomplished.
Is a guy who does the wrong thing for the right reason a villian?
Example: Guy robs a bank in order to profit from the loot. He's a villain.
2nd Example: A guy is forced to rob a bank or have his kid killed. Is he a villain?
3rd Example: A guy feels the bank is ripping people off, but, in the made-up story world, he has no legal redress. He robs the bank and gives the money to the people being ripped off. Is he a villain or a hero?
Red soldier kills blue soldier about to slay the red general.
To the red army, red soldier is a hero. To the blue army, he's a villain.
I don't know. It doesn't seem all that simple to me...
I don't know if it's fashionable as much as it's interesting. Blurring the lines between right & wrong creates situations where readers can empathize with both protagonist and antagonist. That is much more in line with our personal reality, and therefore some readers find it inherently more interesting than the good guys wearing white hats, bad guys in black.
Nagash
Sage
I very much agree with this. It's become fashionable to blur the distinction between right and wrong, but I'm not exactly cool with that. A world without defined right and wrong isn't complex or "morally ambiguous". It's just amoral. And I can't get behind amorality. And yes, Nagash, this view is very biblical. Another reason I stand by it. Mythopoet may not wish to argue, but I rather enjoy it on occasion.
Well, I don't intend to argue fiercely over this, and I think i made my case pretty clear with my previous post, explaining how I saw heroism and anti-heroism. But well, I guess it could be clarified.
Heroism is pretty personal conception, as it changes from one character to another. Lets just take an example : I believe spartacist leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg were heroes for two reasons; one, I share their opinion, and respect and admire their action in post WWI; second, they fought for what they believed in, no matter the threats and dangers. They paid the price of blood and death for their actions and belief. And I respect their sacrifice, admire it and therefore see in them true heroes. Now, I pretty sure most people would strongly disagree with this point of view, stating that they were nothing more than stinking 1917 wannabe commie anarchist who pathetically failed in their profane duty. Its my voice against a thousand more... Does that makes me wrong in my conception of heroism ?
On the other hand, tons of people in today's Argentina would state that Diego Maradona, a soccer player, albeit a good one, is a national hero, for his role in the victory of Argentina during the world wide soccer cup of 1986. A national hero... Of course, I strongly disagree over worshipping a man like some have worshiped men like Gandhi, Luther King or any other true hero in the face of history, but its my voice against pretty much all the argentinian population.
My point is, we have different ideas over what heroism is, because we are not the same human beings : we weren't socially, ideologically, culturally, let alone nationally, built in the same way, and that's okay. But it explains how we have different perceptions of heroism. Thus, the victory of Maradona meant something to be proud of for the argentinian people after an history of pain, suffering and looking down. To me, it was a simple soccer game. Who is right, and who is wrong ? We do not have the same individual history, nor the same beliefs, and thus, we do not perceive in the same way.
You could pretty much apply this division of opinions on every single "great men/women" of history, and see that even today, some people will worship Joseph Staline, just like some still adore Mao Zedong, despite the blood they spilled. They have their reasons - I suppose - and while I don't believe I would respect them, I must acknowledge the fact that perceptions of these people are diverse. Its a simple fact, and thus it is impossible to state that heroism is a universal conception
Now I know morality is a touchy subject of religion, and I do not intend to walk in these grounds, for its the easiest way to an open polemic about two completely opposite perceptions of the world. I'll simply state the conception Friedrich Nietzsche had of morality : morality is a construct of the herd of inferior beings in order to hold back the few superior men roaming this world. Its worth mentioning that the notion of inferior/superior isn't political, economical, social or racial; its simply a way of determining which men are fully free from society's shackles, and which are not. Of course he did also state that religion was the worst lies of all, which had been elaborated in order to deprive men from the ability of self-rule. Since I believe in the right of faith, I won't get aboard that ship.
The general idea, however, is that morality is a product of our imagination, a mythical artifact of society, used in order to get everybody in line. Through time, it was assimilated through socialization. Institutions made their best in order to alienate dark elements of our inner-selves, such as violence and the will to kill, with mostly positive results. Most people today won't kill cold-bloodedly, while a few centuries back, well, killing was a part of life.
Now, this is exclusively my opinion : morality is a trick, an illusion. It was necessary to give to people the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and it did a great job in convincing people some things ought to be done, and some others not to. In one society, people have basically the same conceptions, since they were socialized under the same sort of morality. However, from one society to another, you can find some differences.
Ex : I come from a country where death penalty was abolished decades ago; many people here - I guess - were born and live in country/states where it is still frequently used. I believe capital punishment is amoral, since none should have the right to take a life for a life. Others, however, might think that death is the only just retribution for rebuffing crimes.
Which one is moral ? Which morality triumphs over the next ?
Shouldn't we consider that different morality exist ?
Thus, shouldn't we consider that a myriad of good and evil exist throughout this multitude of moralities ?
Mythopoet
Auror
No, an evil intention corrupts a good act.
No, a man who is coerced into an evil act is not a villain.
No, you may not do evil so that good may come of it. The ends do not justify the means.
It's a simplification of the issue to pretend that heroism and villainy let alone right and wrong depend on which side you are on rather than your own personal actions.
Obviously judging the morality of individual human acts is not simple. I didn't say it was.
My belief system recognizes that there are three criteria for judging the morality of human acts. (I say human, but since we are fantasy writers here this would apply to any sapient beings possessing Free Will.) First, there is the Object chosen, that is the end that the individual is directing his or her will toward. Second, there is the intent of the acting individual, their motivations for committing the act. Third, there are the circumstances surrounding the act which, as a secondary elements in the act, cannot change the morality of the act its self, but can increase or diminish the good or evil of the act and have a bearing on the responsibility of the individual for the act.
One cannot judge the true morality of an act unless one knows the details of all three elements involved in the act. A truly good act requires the goodness of the object, the intent and the circumstances.
Right and wrong, good and evil and the morality of human acts is already so complicated that there is no need to blur any lines. The problem is that our modern society has rejected the complexity that I talked about above and simplified things in a disordered way so as to diminish responsibility for any actions (right and wrong is all in your mind, man) and then rebelled against the simplification while blaming it on those of us who never believed in it in the first place. Modern man is floundering about and has convinced himself that so called "shades of grey" are more realistic and more interesting than the truth. All so modern man can do whatever he wants and blame others for his problems.
I agree with that in part, as it relates to our reality. However, there are situations that do not fit in your parameters, especially when considering characters & story, which we are.
Consider a case of good versus good. You could have two opposing forces square off against each other, not because one is good and the other evil, but because their competing interests create conflict. The perception of good or evil, may depend on point of view. That may of course be an errant judgment, yet is one that is made everyday, by billions of people.
Further, I never claimed the morally grey is justified or that there aren't delusions involved with its acceptance, only that many readers find the morally grey to be far more interesting than a simplistic portrayal of good versus evil. For myself, that is true precisely for the reasons you stated above. They make me consider points of view and whether or not actions are evil, good, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. The questioning that follows moral dilemma is what many find intriguing & engaging.
I also think it's interesting to consider why a person becomes corrupted, how the wrong choices are rationalized, & how moral ambiguity can make the descent to evil not only excusable to some people (and the self), but also almost imperceptible....until we are too far gone. I don't see that much potential in black vs. white.
Last edited:
Mindfire
Istar
This question seems predicated on the idea that judgement of what's right and wrong are based purely on the outcome or consequences of the action. I don't think that's necessarily true. In this case, I'd say the guy is not a hero, because while he performed a good deed, he was motivated purely by the desire for selfish gain. He's only a step away from a scam artist.
I'd say he's a victim. He's acting under coercion, not making a free choice. But the fact that he's acting under coercion or even that his son is being threatened does not make robbing the bank a morally good thing to do.
[/QUOTE]3rd Example: A guy feels the bank is ripping people off, but, in the made-up story world, he has no legal redress. He robs the bank and gives the money to the people being ripped off. Is he a villain or a hero?[/QUOTE]
Depends. Is the bank actually ripping people off and is this guy interested in helping those people? Or is this guy acting purely out of personal resentment or vendetta? Is the tyranny of this bank truly absolute, or are there other authorities to which this guy can appeal if he but looks and tries hard enough? Overthrowing tyranny is good, and can be good even if it is disruptive of society (see Jesus evicting the moneychangers from the temple with a whip). But petty vengefulness cannot be called "good" in any circumstance I think, even if it has good by-products.
I would ask, what causes are the red and blue armies fighting for? What personal reasons does the soldier have for killing the general?
All you've proven is that right and wrong are sometimes difficult to distinguish, a fact I do not contend. You have not proven that there is no such thing as right or wrong to begin with.
But this effect can be achieved without blurring the lines of morality altogether. For example: the hero who genuinely wants to do the right thing, but makes mistakes along the way. We see this in Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and pretty much every superhero movie that's come out in the last ten years. All of us can relate to the feeling of wanting to do what's right, but not quite knowing what that is. And we can all admire the courage it takes to pick yourself up and keep going after a mistake. As for villains, they do the opposite. Instead of keeping the distinction of right and wrong in mind, they give up and instead go with whatever feels right to them, motivated by their own personal passions and biases. Villains don't have to be mustache-twirling black hats. They can be people who were once good, but at some point lost their way. ("Nothing is evil in the beginning, even Sauron was not so.") This also leaves room for reader empathy, especially if the villain in question has regrets or occasional pangs of conscience. Even if they lack conscience altogether there is much to be made of the tragedy of the bad decisions that has led them to this path. And all of this can be accomplished without leaving behind the idea that there is absolute good and absolute evil.
Perhaps what you are really arguing against is that no one person is either perfectly good or completely irredeemable. With that I can agree. But again, it doesnt invalidate the idea of right and wrong, good and evil altogether.
Last edited:
I'm arguing for no point at all...only stating what I, and many readers like me, find interesting.
Good and evil is perfectly valid. Though, for me, I find it too simplistic...with the exception of scenarios where we know of a character's descent toward evil, like you described. Still, I find scenarios of good versus evil more easily resolved (at least mentally) than situations where the lines of right and wrong are blurred. I prefer fiction that represents those ambiguities. Situations like these challenge my thinking to a greater degree. That is interesting.
Last edited:
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Mythopoet,
Excuse my confusion. You wrote both this:
And this:
The statement of yours that I quoted was much less nuanced than the description you display here. I was simply pointing out that it isn't that simple.
Sometimes it is, though.
It's not like every situation is: Side A is for something really horrible that every person in creation would be morally opposed to. Side B is for truth and justice.
Most fiction situations are: Side A wants to rule the world. Side B wants to rule the world. Which is good and evil is pretty much dependent on your POV.
We are not, however, trying to determine a good act, but whether one is a hero. If a person believes the act to be good, has good intentions, and pursues achievement of the act under heroic circumstances, isn't he a hero even if it turns out tthat the act isn't really good, that he was mistaken?
Excuse my confusion. You wrote both this:
And this:
The statement of yours that I quoted was much less nuanced than the description you display here. I was simply pointing out that it isn't that simple.
Sometimes it is, though.
It's not like every situation is: Side A is for something really horrible that every person in creation would be morally opposed to. Side B is for truth and justice.
Most fiction situations are: Side A wants to rule the world. Side B wants to rule the world. Which is good and evil is pretty much dependent on your POV.
We are not, however, trying to determine a good act, but whether one is a hero. If a person believes the act to be good, has good intentions, and pursues achievement of the act under heroic circumstances, isn't he a hero even if it turns out tthat the act isn't really good, that he was mistaken?
Mindfire
Istar
It seems to me, T. Allen, that you are talking about a distinction which doesn't actually exist. What's at issue in this present phase of discussion is, I think, the idea of absolute good and evil versus a more muddy approach. The question is not whether the characters measure up to the standard, but whether or not the standard exists. Your characters don't need to be saints and demons for your story to have black and white morality. All that's needed is for there to be a moral standard that the characters are either trying to live up to or ignoring. You can still examine corruption, rationalization, excuses, and the imperceptible slide into darkness without having "grey morality". That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis examines precisely those questions, and the book is black and white as it gets. In fact, I'd say black and white is more suited to dramatic moral dilemmas, because it implies that there actually is a right answer to the question at hand! There is a solution! It's just hard to find. That seems, to me, to have more tension then a situation where anything goes. Likewise, a fall from grace is only interesting if there is grace to fall from... and evil to fall to.
Nagash
Sage
Exactly. People are heroes, because they are doing - no matter what - what they believe to be just, good, and worth to be done. Wether the action is actually good or not is irrelevant.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Mindfire,
I'm having a bit of a "What the crap!" moment. I responded directly to this:
Isn't that statement, with which you seemed to be in agreement, "predicated on the idea that judgement of what's right and wrong are based purely on the outcome or consequences of the action?"
If you are now withdrawing your support for the initial statement, fine. I hate it, however, when people completely ignore the original context.
Again, all I set out to prove was that it really isn't that simple, which both you an mythopoet now seem to agree with me about.
Let's get onto the "no such thing as right or wrong" thing and start with WoT. In that world, there is an entity who represents darkness. The goal of the Dark Lord is objectively evil. In that story, you have the side of good versus the side of evil. The choice is clear.
Not every story is about good versus evil.
Let's say that the red army believes in the religious principle, based on their interpretation of the religious text that I made up for the story, that one must perform all sacrifices with one's left hand. The blue army, based on their interpretations of the same text, believe rather strongly that one must use only the right hand.
The two armies are fighting for dominance of their religious POV.
Is one side Good? Is one side Evil?
Objectively, no.
The Good side will be the side that I choose to make the protagonists.
In fiction, especially speculative fiction, the only things that exist in your world, including Good and Evil, are the things you put in it. And you get to define it pretty much however you want to.
I'm having a bit of a "What the crap!" moment. I responded directly to this:
Isn't that statement, with which you seemed to be in agreement, "predicated on the idea that judgement of what's right and wrong are based purely on the outcome or consequences of the action?"
If you are now withdrawing your support for the initial statement, fine. I hate it, however, when people completely ignore the original context.
Again, all I set out to prove was that it really isn't that simple, which both you an mythopoet now seem to agree with me about.
Let's get onto the "no such thing as right or wrong" thing and start with WoT. In that world, there is an entity who represents darkness. The goal of the Dark Lord is objectively evil. In that story, you have the side of good versus the side of evil. The choice is clear.
Not every story is about good versus evil.
Let's say that the red army believes in the religious principle, based on their interpretation of the religious text that I made up for the story, that one must perform all sacrifices with one's left hand. The blue army, based on their interpretations of the same text, believe rather strongly that one must use only the right hand.
The two armies are fighting for dominance of their religious POV.
Is one side Good? Is one side Evil?
Objectively, no.
The Good side will be the side that I choose to make the protagonists.
In fiction, especially speculative fiction, the only things that exist in your world, including Good and Evil, are the things you put in it. And you get to define it pretty much however you want to.
Mindfire
Istar
I saved your post for last Nagash, since it was the longest and I thought it would be the most time and effort-consuming to respond to. I assumed that because your post was lengthy, it would be more difficult for me to dissect. I was wrong. The ways in which we differ could not be more blindingly obvious. They are, if you'll pardon my saying so, as different as night and day, black and white. In fact, our viewpoints are so antithetical that I find it difficult to engage in discussion with you in any really meaningful way because- and I say this without any personal animosity towards you- I completely and utterly despise your opinion. I have argued with many people in my life and disagreed with many more, but never have I felt such utter revulsion and distaste for an opinion as I have for yours.
To state my opinion succinctly, I do not believe that morality is "a trick" or "an illusion". I believe it is both real and absolute and that any culture at any point is either closer to or further from that standard at any given time, though they may excel or fail in different ways. For example: Aztec human sacrifices were immoral and barbaric, but no less immoral and barbaric than Europe's long and storied history of religious persecution. The existence of an absolute moral standard does not imply that one culture's morality is necessarily better than another's, but rather that they are all in various states of corruption and all equally under judgment. What one man says is good or evil versus what another man says is of no consequence. It is the absolute standard, greater than the word of any and all human beings that matters. In short, we differ on this point: is there anything greater than man? I believe there is. You, it seems, believe there is not.
Similar threads
