Forums » Writing Workshop » Read Thread

  This definitely has been posted about before, but man, here it is.

  I have just finished reading that new "Shadow Hawk" Storygame that's on here, and I got all thinking about how everybody sorta likes a dark hero (I mean, not Shadow Hawk tho, he just got me thinking). Then I tried to think about "Good" heroes. You know, ones that I actually like.

  The problem with a hero that tries to do the right thing is that often times, there is not really a reason for them to be doing whatever they're doing. Like, "RAAAH, gotta kill the bad guy, because I'm good and stuff". Often times, a "Good" hero comes off as kind of a tool to me. I rather like "Good" child characters, but they're usually in children's books where everything is simplified (I am very fond of Astro Boy, I mean, he's always trying so hard for animals and stuff). 

  I can't think of any character that I like that is "Good" for the sake of being "Good". But then again, I don't know many people like that at all. They kind of sound like tools, really.

But seriously, most "good" (As in not anti-hero) heroes usually have the motive of protecting the lives of others, which I think is a pretty good reason for their actions.

Pretty much. If 'killing the bad guy' is the main motive, for its own sake,  then the hero isn't much of one to begin with.

 Of course anti heroes and villains as protagonists are pretty popular, especially here.

Nowadays, anti-heroes and villains are the hypes, as Mizal said. Just look at Batman, Deadpool, Deathstroke, Solid Snake... they're pretty interesting characters.

Still doesn't mean a good hero is always meh though. Ruby Rose from RWBY is a good example. Honorable warriors who fight for their country, respect their enemies, generous, and don't commit atrocities can also count as good heroes.

There is a reason that good and honorable characters are classic characters -- because people like others who are good and do things for others first.

Good characters are interesting when the story makes you get into their head. Bad characters are interesting when you want to get into their head.

I watched a movie today called 'Secretly, Greatly' about three North Korean sleeper agents placed in SK (spoilers) who at the end, eventually betray their country. One of the sleeper agents was super dedicated to his country in the style of NK, but throughout the film, he has to make a choice between his country or the person he admires most (main protag). This could have definitely been executed poorly, but his character has nuance, which makes him a realistic and engaging character because he doesn't lack depth, he doesn't feel two-dimensional. His last line to some SK official was "Betraying my country doesn't mean that I'll be your dog." or something like that. Probably didn't convey the movie well, but watch it (y) The transition to seriousness was a bit sudden for me, but it's actually funny (unlike the past 8 years of hollywood). Anyways, back to characterising good guys.

'Good' heroes don't become lame for me until they become unrealistic. Characters should be well-built and with a well-defined personality that doesn't break realism for the audience. You want to make your protagonist a sjw paragon? Go for it, but make sure there's room for development, or internal conflict, or something. If your sjw paragon charges through the gates labelled 'common sense', then I'm immediately turned off as the reader. It's the same reason I didn't enjoy Deadpool as much as I think I should have. The 'save the girlfriend, white saviour good guy' trope just felt forced in for me. If you're gonna make a character, make them believable, give them depth and complexity and make sure there aren't any inconsistencies.

Deadpool is a weird example to use in a discussion about 'good guys' and heroes.

Yeah, Deadpool isn’t a hero by any means.

Even saving his girlfriend wasn’t really heroic, since he wasn’t really giving much of a shit about anything else except doing that and killing the one that took her.

The “saving your girlfriend” trope isn’t really limited to heroes and it’s probably more of a motivation for anti-heroes since heroes go through the whole morality struggle of “Do I save a building full of people from being blown up, or do I save my girlfriend from being blown up?”

Then they usually go save the people instead for the greater good. (The saps)

And yes, I don't consider Batman to be a "good" hero unless someone is going for the campy 60s Adam West Superfriends version of him. Most of the time he's a dark hero at best that veers off into anti-hero territory at times.
 

The trope in Deadpool is supposed to feel forced, the entire movie is an eye-roll at superhero movie tropes, much like the comic. Except, as opposed to the comics, nothing new is created or proposed, they just put the tropes there and make fun of them, still doing nothing different.

Good Characters, for me personally, are just too boring. Life's not a black and white thing, and it's both unrealistic and just plainly boring to see the good fight the bad without any moral quandaries. Someone struggling with doing bad things for the greater good, or sacrificing things other than personal things, or just realizing that the enemy isn't all bad is far more interesting. Generally, characters just get more depth if they're not entirely good. Hell, I mainly prefer outright villains to a huge degree. They're just more interesting to read, or write, or whatever. 

^ Reasons why anti-heroes and 'not pure good' characters are more interesting and relatable overall. Lots of fictions nowadays are leaning toward anti-heroes.

The problem with creating "Good" heroes and heroines is it limits the choices the character has. Most good heroes are "knight in shining armor" type characters. This means they become predictable in the fact that they will always do the right thing. Instead of a "good" hero, write about a hero who strives to do good. Use a back story of some sort of trauma where they felt powerless or unable to help someone. That way they still strive to do good, but it leaves you the ability to pull a believable plot twist where they kill someone or do something else unethical. 

Reading over the thread again, I'm pretty sure it's more that simplistic characters are boring, whether they're good or evil or in between. A one note hero is dull, but a generic villain is equally so. A lot depends on how they're written.

And I mean, looking at a lot of mainstream stuff, you can apparently get away with a lack of depth with enough style, and that may be another reason why anti heroes and characters that are bad just because bad is 'cool' tend to be so popular.

In general though I don't find 'a decent human being' to be a character concept that's just absolutely impossible to believe or relate to like some of you seem to, so a lot of this is subjective or just in how you frame it I guess. 'Kill the bad guys, because they're bad' as a primary motivation is something I'd see as a failing on the writer's part to begin with, not as any kind of reflection on the whole idea of a heroic protagonist.

That tends to be the main problem with good characters is that it, in a way, forces the character to be simple. I wholeheartedly agree on the "Hype of Anti-heroes", however, I disagree that to kill the bad guys because they are bad is a horrible and dull motive. If anything that is the best way to write a character. If they seek justice for justice sake then you can take the character in many more directions than if you were to make vengeance or vendetta a motive. Also, it makes it easier to use the character in various stories.