Favourite 'Morally-Ambiguous' Character

[NecroNinja]

We've had anti-heroes throughout media for a long time. Some are uncontrollable and careless (Watchmen's Comedian) whilst some are controlled and adhere to strict rules (TV's Dexter). Regardless of style, they are nearly always compelling characters and personally I feel they are more representative of the human condition than the archetypical hero found in countless works of fiction. I think this is because morality as not black and white. There is not just right and wrong, there is a balance, a balance that, with the best will in the world; people still get struggle to achieve.

I was wondering who your favourite morally-ambiguous characters are, and specifically why? This can include heroes, villians, and all those between. Characters from any form of media, and for some interesting debate, even real people, although preferably of some level of fame or infamy so people can discuss.

This came from my current viewing of the brilliant TV show Breaking Bad. I love Walter White. I feel I can empathise with him and even though he makes some very bad choices, can understand why most of the time. Of particular interest is during season 4, where most people I speak to claim to start despising him, whilst I found that I still love his character. I just can't seem to condemn his actions as in my opinion they seem necessary and just about acceptable enough to be justified. How far is too far?

So, have fun discussing, and please use spoiler warnings if you divulge any potential spoilers (I particularly have only seen up to the season 4 finale of Breaking Bad).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Television: Probably someone...anyone, really...from The Wire. Omar is the easiest go-to answer, but McNulty would serve just as well. It's tempting to say Tony Soprano but he's not remotely morally ambiguous really, he's just affably evil.

Film: The entire cast of Boogie Nights? Most particularly Burt Reynolds.

Books: Joe Abercrombie's Logan Ninefingers. I could pick almost anyone from any of his books as they are ALL morally ambiguous when they're not flat out evil, but Logan is the most consistently interesting, I think. Honorable mention for Caul Shivers.

 

[Roxas1359]

The Ice King from Adventure Time. Before he was just painted as a sociopath that didn't care for anyone. But then it was revealed that it wasn't his fault but his Ice Crown causing him to slowly go mad. Before he goes completely insane he makes a video begging for forgiveness if he does anything that harms people and asks for them to watch over him until he can regain his sanity. He is really such a tragic character whose alignment seems more like chaotic neutral since he does good sometime, but then he does bad.

 

[JDLY]

I'd have to say Walker from Spec Ops: The Line. Mainly because when it started out I connected with him. He wants to be the hero. Who doesn't want to be the hero?

Then starts the long trek down Insanity Road.

 

[iwinatlife]

Prism Guile From the Lightbringer series, and Durzo Blint from Night angel trilogy both are complex characters full of secrets that put up facades to hide how conflicted and torn they are over the decisions they make

 

[Johnny Impact]

Dexter, from the show of the same name. If you only kill bad guys are you a good guy or a bad guy?

Han Solo, because Han Fucking Solo, that's why. Checkered past, willing to shoot first (and DID goddammit), obeys no rules but his own. That's why it's meaningful when he goes legit, choosing Leia and the promise of the New Republic rather than remaining a loner and/or sliding into true villainy.

Rorschach and Ozymandias from Watchmen. It could be argued they both have iron cores of morality, but in both cases this means they are ready, willing and able to do any wrong thing for what they believe is the right reason. Despite OP I do not put the Comedian in the same category. He was a sadistic thug with no morals. The Comedian loved killing people, but only a few at a time. Veidt's plan shocked him not because it offended his morality but only because of its genocidal scope.

 

[Fappy]

Ninja'd me OP. I started watching Breaking Bad recently (though I am almost done with season 4 already) and agree that Walter is the antithesis of this concept. He's just so awesome.

 

[an annoyed writer]

I've got a few.

Captain Martin Walker from Spec Ops: The Line is a terrific example. Beginning as someone who wants to do good, be the hero as JDLY said, but devolving into a degrading shadow of his former self as the game progresses was an incredible tragedy from start to finish. You, as well as his teammates, grow slowly more suspicious of his sanity as the game goes on, until the final break at the end, where you must decide if and how he is to be punished for his actions.

Boba Fett from Star Wars: A classic badass if there ever was one, Boba Fett has lived an incredible, yet tragic experience. Orphaned at the age of ten, he followed in his father's footsteps to become the most infamous bounty hunter in the galaxy, spawning many rivals, imitators, and admirers throughout the underworld. He managed to survive many things that killed countless ordinary beings, and was a supremely competent fighter, combating the likes of many thugs, hunters, jedi, and even Vader himself. His moral compass was never geared toward some intangible ideal or belief, but rather the pursuit of currency to get by. He was a businessman, albeit one who worked in a particularly gruesome field, and simply stuck to the vocation because it was what he was good at. In essence he was the ultimate gray area character. He only worked for the highest bidder.

That's what I've got for now. I might have a few more later.

 

[DoPo]

Agent 47 from the Hitman games. Although, he's not evil, as much as much as just killing for money. Then he goes on a killing spree in Hitman 2, to save a priest.

Kain, from the Legacy of Kain series. In the beginning, he's sort of a decent-ish guy, he even hates the fact that he is turned into a vampire. Slowly he accepts the new condition, though, until he turns selfish, and then turns to good (relatively) again.

Last, but certainly not least

 

[hermes]

I don't really understand the fascination with Dexter. Probably, I haven't seen him enough (partially due to me not understanding him), but hasn't he killed people whose only "crime" was to discover he was a mass murderer? Or out of spite? He sounds a lot less like a morally ambiguous hero, than a villain with a good side the show tries too hard to sell. I wouldn't call him a hero the same way I wouldn't call Light Yagami a hero...

OT: Most of the morally ambiguous characters I can think of are not very effective; they are morally ambiguous, and many are fascinating to watch, but I don't think they are meant to make us identify with them. Plain good characters can be boring or simplistic, but "reluctant antiheros" can be just as cartoony. That is because most of the times, the author just hopes that we root for them because its the way the story is told; yet he doesn't want us to forgive the character is ambiguous, so he will go out of his way to do something bad and out of character to remind us.

For example, Kratos... in the beginning, he has a goal and a mission with some god, he is somewhat relatable. By the end, he is just a spoiled brat pissed at the world because of something; and every redeemable quality is laughable. Although I knew it wasn't going to end like that, I had rooted for the Olympians since God of War 2; and the whole Pandora subplot writing is borderline parody. Yet the game constantly tried to, unapologetically, talk about his righteous quest for revenge.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Lelouch Vi Britannia from Code Geass. Yeah, i'm firmly in the Lulu camp in the Lulu vs Suzu department. Sure Suzaku makes some good points (flawed, but still worth looking at) in season 1 then he goes fucking mental in R2, contradicts himself all over the place, loses the will to live then makes the most fucktarded plan to free Japan ever.

Basically he's going to ask the Emperor nicely if he can have Japan back. Nice one.

Not that Lelouch didn't have his breakdowns but overall he had a plan, a motivation, a reason and the will to do what must be done. Usually I don't believe in "ends justifies the means" stuff, I never believed that Kira was in the right in Death Note for example. The concept that some guy you've never met can end your life instantly from around the world based on second or even third hand information is just terrifying. He never even bothered to fact check even when he wasn't completely insane.

However, the fact that Britannia is so morally bankrupt and that Social Darwinism is just a broken philosophy means I have to agree with him.

 

[NecroNinja]

I'd have to say Walker from Spec Ops: The Line. Mainly because when it started out I connected with him. He wants to be the hero. Who doesn't want to be the hero?

Then starts the long trek down Insanity Road.

Definitely! Kudos to the makers of this game for the quality of writing, although they couldn't go far wrong with the source material.

Spoiler

Super tragic due to how pure his intentions are throughout the game, up until the revelation at the end. Although as I write this, I'm thinking the insanity takes away the moral aspect, as he knew not what he did.

Still, makes us think eh? When's the last time a game did that?

Rorschach and Ozymandias from Watchmen. It could be argued they both have iron cores of morality, but in both cases this means they are ready, willing and able to do any wrong thing for what they believe is the right reason.

So glad you said that, as I forgot to mention Rorschach in my original post. Rorschach edges it for me because,

Spoiler

unlike Ozymandias, he doesn't harm civilians (unless you count the insane 'villain' he dropped down an elevator shaft) At very least, when it came down to it, even Rorschach saw Ozy's 'final solution' as far too much.

To me, Rorschach embodies the unadulterated punishment we (well; I) would like to dish out on those that are truly bad.

And DoPo, great call with Death Note. I've only seen the first film, but am familiar with the anime series. Such an easy way to dispatch wrong-doers is a great idea, but is also very easy to abuse. Seems very relatable. I think I love these characters so much because of all the injustice around, it's always nice to see people do the things we sometimes wish we could but never do.

 

[AgentNein]

I'd go with Giles from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, mostly because he was so unassuming! When you first meet him he's this very father figure type, and for most of the shows run he stays in that role. But every once in a while you catch a glimpse of who he is, and that's the guy who's willing to make the morally grey choices that Buffy's not quite ready to make.

At the end of the fifth season we've got undoubtably the most striking example. The mad god Glory possesses a young doctor named Ben. After being defeated, Glory reverts to the human Ben, and Buffy proceeds to tell Ben that they both need to get he hell out of Dodge. She leaves to rescue her sister as Ben laughs at Glory's failure and laments the fact that they're stuck together for good. Just then Giles pops up, saying that Buffy let mercy endanger her and her friends and family by keeping Ben alive, because she's a hero... But Giles isn't. He then murders the (fairly) innocent Ben, ensuring that Glory would never come back for revenge.

It's pretty chilling stuff, and works better than 90% of the other antihero shtick on tv because everything Giles does, no matter how extreme, stays consistently within character. Maaaan, Joss Whedon writes great characters.

 

[AsurasEyes]

Lelouche Vi Britannia from Code Geass. Murders his brother in cold blood, mindrapes people on a daily basis, and seems to have no problem using meat shields and sending people he doesn't like to their deaths. He's got a dedicated social life with his friends, but he's still a bit of a sociopath.

Also, Martin Sheen's character in Apocalypse Now, and Alex from Clockwork Orange.

 

[Vault101]

I feel they are more representative of the human condition than the archetypical hero found in countless works of fiction.

can you name an archtypical hero? because I dont think Ive ever seen one

 

[Woodsey]

Richard Harrow and Jimmy Darmody and Nucky Thompson and pretty much the entire cast of Boardwalk Empire.

Dr Manhattan from Watchmen too - an oddly relatable character, given that he spends most of the time seemingly incapable of relating.

 

[NecroNinja]

Interesting mention of Giles, especially seeing how the same actor (Anthony Head, I think) plays another interesting (and [bold]very[/bold] morally ambiguous) character in a gem of a film called 'Repo: A Genetic Opera'. Please, if you haven't seen it (and don't mind musicals), see it. See it now! For those who have seen it, or don't care about spoilers, read on.

Spoiler

In the movie he plays a legalised assassin, who poisons and imprisons his daughter (Shilo). But he does all of these incredibly misguided things to protect the daughter that he loves so much. I couldn't help but love the character because he genuinely cares for Shilo, and loved her mother, who he was tricked into believing he killed. Just tragic, and he sees his error by the end.

The crazy things people do to protect those they love, eh?

 

[NecroNinja]

I feel they are more representative of the human condition than the archetypical hero found in countless works of fiction.

can you name an archtypical hero? because I dont think Ive ever seen one

I'm using the term very broadly, but to pluck a few from pop culture: Batman, Superman, John McClane (Die Hard), Nathan Drake (Uncharted), Luke Skywalker (Star Wars). Obviously what people take from these characters is subjective, but for the most part, they do nothing but good, and save the day without doing anything bad, or collateral damage. And before anyone jumps on it, I don't know the entirety of Batman or Superman's history, but I'm pretty sure as a rule they will not kill (well, Batman anyway).

Classical narrative structure generally requires a protagonist (who is good), and antagonist (evil), and there is quite often a love interest of some sort. But the protagonists are far too often too similar, adhering to conventions that many of the above share, such as an overall 'goodness'. That is not to say the characters are one-dimensional - they're far from it. It's just that characters that blur the line between good and bad are immediately more interesting (at least in my opinion) as they challenge the values that we are used to. And humanity is flawed. We all have impure thoughts and impulses, and sometimes good can come from bad, and vice versa. Because of this I thought they'd be interesting to discuss.

Not to say the archetypes are not relatable. I'd just argue that they're overly idealised. As much fiction is meant to offer some escapism - they are designed to highlight the good in man, to distract from the bad, or at least show that good can triumph over evil. So it's refreshing to see more down-to-earth, flawed characters every now and then. But alas, it is only my opinion.

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

I don't really understand the fascination with Dexter. Probably, I haven't seen him enough (partially due to me not understanding him), but hasn't he killed people whose only "crime" was to discover he was a mass murderer? Or out of spite? He sounds a lot less like a morally ambiguous hero, than a villain with a good side the show tries too hard to sell. I wouldn't call him a hero the same way I wouldn't call Light Yagami a hero...

OT: Most of the morally ambiguous characters I can think of are not very effective; they are morally ambiguous, and many are fascinating to watch, but I don't think they are meant to make us identify with them. Plain good characters can be boring or simplistic, but "reluctant antiheros" can be just as cartoony. That is because most of the times, the author just hopes that we root for them because its the way the story is told; yet he doesn't want us to forgive the character is ambiguous, so he will go out of his way to do something bad and out of character to remind us.

For example, Kratos... in the beginning, he has a goal and a mission with some god, he is somewhat relatable. By the end, he is just a spoiled brat pissed at the world because of something; and every redeemable quality is laughable. Although I knew it wasn't going to end like that, I had rooted for the Olympians since God of War 2; and the whole Pandora subplot writing is borderline parody. Yet the game constantly tried to, unapologetically, talk about his righteous quest for revenge.

I don't really remember Dexter ever killing anyone just because they found out about him. Although I do remember some kills, mostly from the later seasons where he provokes someone into attacking him and kill them into self-defense. I wouldn't really call him a hero or a villain, he seems like he wants to do good, but has a deep dark need that conflicts with that desire. Personally, I like seeing how someone like that balances the two sides of him. I do agree about Kratos, the further the series went on, the sillier it got. I think Parker from the Richard Stark novels is my favorite anti-hero. He's a professional thief that doesn't go out of his way to do anything evil, but won't hesitate for a second to put a bullet in whoever is in his way.

 

[Vault101]

Nathan Drake (Uncharted),

aside from nathan drake being an insufferable shithead, he's not "good" in that his causes are noble...he's onlyout for treasure...however he's not bad as he wont do bad things

[quote/]Not to say the archetypes are not relatable. I'd just argue that they're overly idealised. As much fiction is meant to offer some escapism - they are designed to highlight the good in man, to distract from the bad, or at least show that good can triumph over evil. So it's refreshing to see more down-to-earth, flawed characters every now and then. But alas, it is only my opinion.[/quote]
morally ambiguous charachters are fine but if they are over done then the whole thing turns into some dperessing "awful peopel doing awful things to each other" deal...that can be interesting but not enjoyable

like this comic I've been reading called Jennifer Blood, its about a housewife who creates a persona and kills her mob-boss family..intendeding to leave it at that.However due to some morally questionable actions on her part the thing comes back to bite her in the ass and snowballs, she crosses the line...its not enjoyable but its captivating in the same way an awful trainwreck is captivating...but I'm getting off topic there


but then morality is only one small part of a charahcter, motivations and actions are far more important