- "Evil" Protagonists? -

[Spoonius]

I'm talking about protagonists who deviate from Hollywood's typical "good guys".

My brother and I were chatting about my book earlier tonight, and he was pretty cynical about the leading character that I've created (an unemotional and coldly logical man who doesn't place much value on human life).

He argued that the reason behind why the protagonists of most movies, books, games, etc are presented as being "morally just" (even if they do kill hundreds of bad guys) is that readers and viewers can relate more to an honest and goodwilled character. He believes that a "good guy" represents the epitome of humanity, and that we like them because we want to be them. I disagree (then again, who wouldn't want to be James Bond? ).

Personally though, I'm getting sick of the heroes who "save the world and get the girl" that keep popping up everywhere. They're predictable, they're boring, and most narratives created around these characters lack any aspect of originality at all. Furthermore, these characters are rarely believable as fellow human beings, and the conflicts that form around them throughout a story generally lack any emotional punch. We've seen it all before. We're desensitised.

So what do you guys think about immoral and flawed protagonists, characters who range from being merely insensitive to outright malicious? Do they provide narratives with new perspectives? Do they capture an audience's attention?

 

[Abedeus]

Well, I enjoy games that give you the option of being the bad guy, getting the bad guy ending. Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark might end without you even touching the final boss - if you'd learned his True Name, you can force him to submission and slavery, or you can command him to die. Which he will do.

Also, in both Shin Megami Tensei games on the NDS, you get to play as the Overlord or generally help the demons in fight against the God. Yeah, the Christian God.

Too bad that from playing SMT games too much, I began to suspect every single character of betraying me. Or at least that at some point, I will have to fight them...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Overly smug asshole protagonists that are supposed to be the direct opposite of the goodie stereotype are incredibly boring most of the time.

Specifically because they are often pretentious and smug assholes who the author is too busy jerking off to have them facing any real obstacles.

The character you describe as your own is just as unbelievable and boring as the goodie two-shoes guy.

Don't counter extremes with extremes. There are plenty of protagonists who find mid-points and become plausible characters. "Unemotional and coldly logical man" sounds like one of those annoying pricks you meet on youtube.

 

[Sun Flash]

The Doctor in Doctor Who is pretty much a flawed protagonist and that show's one of the longest running drama type shows in history.

I think they're good in moderation. If the balance flipped and suddenly we had lots of amoral jerk asses, it would get very boring very quickly and the "White Knight" protagonists would seem like a fresh idea.

 

[MarkTwain]

I love how Death Note played this. Really, Light was the "Bad Guy" protaginist while L and Near were good, but Antagonists. You could look at all of them from different angles and say how they all were good or bad, but when you get down to it there is no right answer. Much better than the standard faire "Knight in Shining Armor" vs. "Evil Wizard in a Dark Tower.

 

[Quid Plura]

The protaganist is usually someone you can relate to, or aspire to be, in a manner. Doesn't mean he has to be a good guy, he just has to have some traits you have or want. The protaganist also has to be shallow in a way. You (=majority of gamers) don't want the protaganist to have moral dilemma's and stuff. It's too hard, sounds like normal life.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I love flaws in characters it makes them more human. I'd like to have a lead "hero" in which the guy is a man who uses logic to either confuse people or just generally be an asshole.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Arucard

House/Dr. Lightman

Kratos

There's a reason why we like these characters. It's because they signify traits/behavior that we could never get away with in real life.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Your protagonist would be even more boring. If he is devoid of emotion and only goes by logic, he might as well be a robot. Why would I want to follow his story? He wouldn't be emotionally invested in it, so why should I? If the protagonist doesn't even care about what he is doing, you can't expect the audience to.

The typical heroic protagonist has been used dozens of times, but that doesn't mean you should replace it with something drastically different. You can vary from the standard formula without diving into extremes. Not all protagonists are perfect. Many of them have their own flaws, but ultimately end up being a character that audience can root for because they still have their heart in the right place. To see them overcome these flaws is even better. Your protagonist wouldn't have any of this. He would be dull and uninteresting. Why is he better?

 

[Spoonius]

The character you describe as your own is just as unbelievable and boring as the goodie two-shoes guy.

Don't counter extremes with extremes. There are plenty of protagonists who find mid-points and become plausible characters. "Unemotional and coldly logical man" sounds like one of those annoying pricks you meet on youtube.

Your protagonist would be even more boring. If he is devoid of emotion and only goes by logic, he might as well be a robot. Why would I want to follow his story? He wouldn't be emotionally invested in it, so why should I? If the protagonist doesn't even care about what he is doing, you can't expect the audience to.

I guess "emotionless" was the wrong word. He's not an amoral robot.

He's just seen a lot of human suffering and it's desensitised him. As a result, his choices are often driven more by logic than empathy or consideration, and he's a very objective person. There are good reasons behind his faults, but I don't want to share them, no offense. :|

But I understand what you're both saying.

He would be dull and uninteresting. Why is he better?

I haven't fully conceptualised him in my mind, so I can't really answer that yet. To be honest, I posted this thread in order to find some Escapist insight.

 

[Zenron]

There are some examples of writers who deviant from the hero protagonist. As other people have pointed out, God of War is a good example of this. Another example is Light Yagami from the anime Death Note. The guy pretty much massacres thousands of people. I just realised someone pointed out that example is. I guess there isn't many times that this has happened.

But while the heroic character detaches itself from the reader/viewer/player in terms of emotional value, so does an emotionless character. Two different ends of the spectrum, and something that I don't think many have gotten right outside of the book medium. I'm going to use an example that's on my book shelf of a good character. Rand al'Thor from the Wheel of Time series. While generally he wants to do the right thing, bouts of rage often subside him and he struggles with the burden or what he has been given to do by the rest of the world. He's human. I think it's difficult to get this right in things like movies and games because there isn't the neccessary time for character development that we would see in books. The writers go for all good characters or all bad.

Now that I've grown up a little bit, I've found myself hating the good vs evil concept which so many people use. It's kind of childish, and definitely unrealistic. We need the happy medium between the two.

 

[Blueruler182]

I don't know. Your main character sounds a lot like Dexter, and that show's pretty popular.

It's a rule of writing that the reading needs to be able to relate to the character. Human traits like emotion are a necessity in a protagonist simply because people need to be able to relate to them, understand their motives and all that. An emotionless good guy isn't believable simply because without emotions one has no mercy (there's a better word, I can't think of it right now). The antagonist, or a bad guy filling the protagonist role, is the one that can be emotionless and calculating, because the antagonist is supposed to be creepy.

Trying to mix these up usually ends up with some of the biggest screw ups ever made (See Sylar, badass first season, panzy third volume), so as a general rule Hollywood wont. But occasionally you'll have a character like Dexter, who people seem to like. Using the psychopathic (that is the actual disease, it just means emotionless, not always a killer) protagonist is a double-bladed sword, it can either make or break them.

And, for me personally, I'm just getting tired of these depressing characters. I'm starting to like the Dark Knight less because it's so damn common these days (not saying Dark Knight's a bad movie). A hero who's happy, and a story that's happy, tends to get my attention more, because I'm actually enjoying myself.

 

[Lullabye]

Hmm, personally, I prefer the Protagonist who is evil, but fails at it and does unintentional good. Or, simply fail at being evil. Though the basic do good super hero can always be counted on, you can never be sure with these other protagonists. It makes the story more interesting, mildly anyway.

 

[CoverYourHead]

As has been said: Light Yagami from Death Note. He's the protagonist yet has killed thousands (if not millions) of people.

It's fantastic!

 

[not_the_dm]

I'm going to sound all teenage girlish and say that Damon from the vampire diaries isn't your average protagonist, to quote one of the other characters "You're a psycopathic murderer with no redeeming features what so ever."

Also War in Darksiders is a little different too. Malleus Darkblade from one of the numerous Black Library series. And of course Riddick, best seen in Pitch Black as he begins to develop morals after that.