Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Unambiguously good characters in media
Let's use Commander Shepard as an example. Look at Paragon Shepard. He saves the universe, spares as many people as possible, always thinks before he acts, and emerges the better man for it. You know what that is?
Boooooring.
When Shepard (or Aragorn, or any similarly paragon-ish character) kills or hurts someone, it's probably because he has no other choice or because it's the objectively right thing to do. And that's boring. No-one cares when Aragorn kills a troupe of orcs, for example, because they're evil and killing them is the right thing to do. Aragorn certainly won't lose sleep over it.
And I don't want to read about that. I want to read about characters who aren't some lofty ideal, who are as human as I am and are thus susceptible to mistakes. I want to play as a Shepard who lets people who didn't need to die die because either a) he was being short-sighted, temperamental, ignorant or any other trait associated with Renegade Shepard or b) this is the real world (from his point of view) and sometimes soldiers like him have to do the ugly thing (Note: This does not have to be true in all cases)
Does that mean I want Shepard to sleep soundly at night, knowing that all those lives are on his head? No. I want the opposite. I want a Shepard who is constantly haunted by the effects of his mistakes and who feels the consequences of his actions even in the present. Shepard does not have to be a good man, but he certainly is a great man. And great men are prone to great mistakes which affect a whole bunch of innocent people. I think it's important, however, that Shepard understands that more than anyone.
Hell, let's use "the hero kills a bunch of guys" again. It could be Aragorn Bestest Hero Ever killing a bunch of utterly unsympathetic monster-men...or it could be the hero killing a bunch of sympathetic characters over a dispute that could have been resolved without violence easily, had it not been for one of the hero's negative character traits.
And that's just one possibility. The antagonists don't have to be evil orcs led by a demonic overlord. That's boring. Maybe the antagonists could even be people just as (if not more) sympathetic as the hero who happen to be on the opposing side. I'll take the Imperials and the Stormcloaks as an example. It's easy to paint people on the other side as imperialistic tyrants wishing to erase a vital part of Nordic culture or as racist barbarians deluded by a power-hungry Jarl. But the more interesting approach is to view them as they are: as people who are willing to stand up for what they believe is right (just like you) who just happen to be on the opposing side.
tl;dr I dislike goody-two shoes characters, prefer instead morally grey characters
Comments
Well that's your opinion and it's totally fine
But there really isn't more to discuss here unless you're saying people who kill for selfish reasons are objectively better than those who kill only when they have to, in which case nope
Also:
So you should feel for racist barbarians merely because they're aware of their decisions and do stuff?
Same logic, opposite sides.
No, you weren't. You started with "Unambiguously good guys" and then said:
Basically you want to kill people for even less than selfish reasons. No reasons. And then be haunted by his decisions because of that. To me, if somebody continues to kill people and regrets it and then continues to make that same mistake, they're a badly written character.
Not an excuse for projecting emotions that aren't there.
If they really have no reason and it's really just imperialistic backstabbers versus barbaric racists I wouldn't want to read that, because it's just dumb people killing each other and enough of that happens in real life (and it's not pretty then either). Anything you try to impose on that is merely your own projections.
The thing about good guys is that they're good because they try. They make mistakes but the next day they try not to.
Nonononono, you are misreading me.
Let's use an example. Let's say Shepard has to take down Criminal A by order of the Council. As a Spectre, Shepard can use any methods available to him to subdue the criminal and ensure that he can no longer pose a threat. The ideal situation is to capture the victim, then turn him over to the authorities and ensure his imprisonment.
However, during the mission itself Criminal A really pisses Shepard off. Maybe Shepard's got a soft spot for kids and Criminal A is pimping underage prostitutes. Maybe Criminal A engineers a set of circumstances which almost leads to Garrus' or Tali's death. Whatever the reason, Shepard is mad for wholly justifiable reasons. The Paragon thing to do would be to overlook petty revenge and subdue the criminal without killing him. But what if Shepard gets so pissed that he blows the criminal's brains out instead?
The repercussions don't have to be immediate, but all I want to ask is for them to be there. For whatever reason, Shepard learns to regret what he did. Maybe Criminal A has people relying on him, as vile as his profession is. Maybe Criminal A's wife/brother/mother wants revenge, and has friends in high places. Maybe Shepard simply regrets killing someone who did not need to die for the threat to be neutralized.
I don't want Shepard to embark on a Kratos-like bloodbath for no reason. I want him to do the same things we would do, given the situation. We frown upon him (and that is very right), but when it's late at night, we should be able to ask ourselves "Would I do any better if I was Shepard?"
Where did I imply that I wanted him to continue making the same mistake? Where did I imply that I did not want him to get away with his actions scot-free?
I was using that as an example of people projecting their personal views on the matter, and thus oversimplifying things. On that note:
That is exactly what I mean. Fiction reflects on us as a society and as human beings. Why shouldn't it reflect events in real life?
I think there was an error in communication somewhere. I wanted to say that this point of view, in itself, simplifies things too much. It's a perfect example of black-and-white thinking. Which I am against: I don't want to see black vs white, or black vs black: I'd rather see grey vs grey, or occasionally grey vs black.
So are you basically saying that good guys being good is boring and not as interesting as flawed characters?
I guess I can understand that. Yeah.
Though that assumes that good guys being good causes everything to work out fine in the end. Many times, in real life, that's not how stuff happens, though -- real-life people rarely identify themselves as evil, yet people still get into conflicts all the time.
So I think whether good guys being good is boring depends on how the setting works. If the setting carries the assumption that things work themselves out and order is kept/restored under normal conditions, then good guys being good would be cliche, and depending on how the story is written, that could end up boring.
I actually thought Paragon Shepard was an excellent example of playing an unambiguously good character in a setting that might not otherwise allow such a character to survive for long. It was how to be a good guy without being naive, and the nature of so many forced choices with no "best" answer still leaves plenty of room for angst and doubts.
Hell, right at the first game -- you choose a squadmate to die no matter what, either commit genocide or potentially doom the galaxy to Starship Troopers in the near future, kill a teammate's mother, get hunted down by your own side, and do all kinds of horrible shit.
When the stars allow it, you will not see another dawn.
Uh, dude, "unambiguously good" does not mean "never makes mistakes".
Actually, now that I think about it, isn't a battlefield medic saving everyone they can unambiguously good?
Yeah, until the soldiers he saves rape and pillage the village they were raiding.
Good actions can have bad consequences too.
The Rachni Queen was begging for her life at that point. Add that to the fact that she was lab-grown and thus had no relation to the aggressive rachni and you'll find that saving her was the morally right choice.
Who was an accomplice of a planetary terrorist and under irreversible mind control.
Jenkins' death is the only thing that can really be said to have been Paragon Shepard's fault.
I like seeing heroes who are unambiguously good because they give everyone else something to look up to and aspire to be. I don't want to see a hero that does nothing but make questionable choices and wangst about it later.
I get that a hero having actual moral dilemmas is supposedly more realistic and gives something a bit more relatable to the character, and I do like having that to some extent, but if the setting is so morally grey that I can't tell what's wrong or right, then there's no reason for me to give a shit about the so-called "hero's" actions.
This is why I hated Man of Steel. Superman is the one superhero left in the mainstream that's pretty much unambiguously good, while other superheroes regularly do un-heroic things and angst about their mistakes. Truth, Justice, the Insert-Nationality-Here Way, that sort of thing.
Neither of which really are an assurance that she was telling the truth. I mean, yes, it's morally right to give that benefit of the doubt and happens to pay off big time two games later. But from Shepard's immediate perspective she's a giant version of the bugs he just blasted through who's now saying "I'm totally not going to murder everyone like the others are once I get out". Her appearance in 3 could just as easily have been "lol thanks for the galaxy, loser" if the writers were feeling any more cruel.
Yes. Killing her is unquestionably the "best" answer and there's not really any recourse. It's also rather traumatizing to poor Liara. Even being the consummate good guy can end in horrible stuff.
I think these settings are wonderful.
I like settings like these precisely because they're so realistic. In the real world, "good" and "bad" aren't as clear-cut. Most of the time, people who think in terms of "good" and "bad" are basically using a flawed version of "us" vs "them" mentality. And I think representing conflicts as "us" and "them" makes for more believable conflicts than a standard story about good and evil.
Why not? People who do the morally grey thing normally do so for believable, relatable and human reasons. We can understand and sympathize with these people because we can see ourselves in their shoes, doing what they do!
Let me be clear. I don't want to turn every single piece of fiction into WH40K, where no-one is admirable or sympathetic. I believe that to make proper "morally ambiguous" characters, you also need to give them positive traits and have them strive for admirable ideals.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one. There are tons of superheroes who brood about who they are and what they want to do, but Superman has never been one of them. Superman likes being himself. But, you know, money and all that.
But I doubt that neither she nor the rest of the sane galaxy would condemn Shepard for that. It is true that no amount of training can prepare you for seeing your mother get shot in front of your eyes, but I think that Liara understands why she had to die more than anyone.
I do agree, however, that it presents an interesting moral conundrum. More than anything else, the organics you're fighting are people being forced into servitude by something they cannot understand or control. And I'm sure that Shepard is aware of that.
I see your point.
It's also noteworthy that the Council condemns you no matter which choice you make. I think that makes things more realistic. Sometimes, you can't win no matter how hard you try.
Because It's goddamn depressing, that's why. I know that the world is a very complex place where there is often no right or wrong answer, and I don't read or watch fiction to be reminded of that. Fiction, to me, is supposed to be something that allows you to enter a world where problems are morally straightforward and therefore much more satisfying to see the characters overcome.
I'm not one to condemn you for that, because in some cases I agree with you. I too enjoy fiction where it really is as simple as "there's a bad man, get rid of him". However, I do not hold these pieces of fiction to the same level as fiction where everything is morally grey. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.
Every character archetype serves its purposes, and there's no wrong and right kind of hero or anti hero. He just has to work well for his setting.