# What is Wrong With Completely Evil Villains, and Why is There a Trend of Violent Heroes Recently?



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 14, 2017)

In previous decades, most movies and other stories usually featured villains who were clearly evil and without any redeeming features and heroes who were unquestionably good and would fight the villains with minimal violence.

However, in recent years, there has been a trend of villains in media having sympathetic qualities rather than being evil for the sake of being evil, and heroes who are not completely heroic, often employing violent methods in their operations (with two prominent examples being Christian Bale's Batman and Liam Neeson's character in _Taken),_ which leads to "legitimate" (and I use that term lightly) authorities disliking or even opposing the operations of the superheroes.

Even more interesting (and frustrating) is that villains who are completely evil or heroes who are completely good are accused of lacking depth or being cartoonish, as if gray morality somehow is guaranteed to improve the quality a story. I understand that audiences wish for greater realism in the media, but there have been plenty of villains in actuality who were irredeemably evil (such as Hitler, Stalin, Vlad Tepes, and so forth) and heroes who were undisputably good (such as Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and so forth).

Why does this trend exist? What has caused it to happen? What is wrong with having villains who enjoy their own evilness and heroes who are perfectly good and are never excessive or extreme in their methods? What does everyone else say about this?


----------



## Stunna (Feb 14, 2017)

Not that morally ambiguous protagonists and antagonists is a new concept, but the popularization of postmodern schools of thought has resulted in more and more stories opting to side with cynicism. The world itself seems to be a more cynical place. Deconstructing and subverting mainstream tropes and audience expectations is what's been in style, to the point of becoming the new mainstream. 

There's still a place for classically heroic protagonists and self-assuredly villainous antagonists, but it's also easy to make these characters overly simplistic, familiar, and boring. We've seen so many before that it takes a certain touch.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 14, 2017)

After world war 2, post modernism subverted the idea of truisms. Even though in your personal belief, Hitler was pure evil, all sides are capable of atrocities during the war (and Hitler would never have been defeated without the help of another "pure evil" character in your mind, Stalin, adding to the feeling that there's always a gray zone and evil people can do good things). Pure good and evil are absolutely archaic relics of a bygone era, no one could stomach it anymore. A pure good character is a Mary Sue, someone no one can be immersed in. Those times are dead no one sees themself like that anymore. 

Now in the post post modern era, while certain people are indeed searching for truisms in a bit of an existential crisis, we are bombarded by facts and now coined "alternative facts" such that we all are looking to educate ourselves and in doing so only learn we know nothing. This means a single good guy makes very little sense in a viewers mind and why we perhaps see rising emphasis on teams of heroes.


----------



## Dayscanor (Feb 14, 2017)

I'll quote Nietzsche on this one:
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."
What this basically means is that when fighting monsters, there's a chance one  becomes one as well.

I think the tendency of truly heroic heroes who don't do harm is some form of continuation of the knight is shining armor trope. Of course real knights often didn't go by their own code of honor. And that is pretty much an outdated vision of what a hero should be like. People these days want heroes they can identify with, that feel more human, and sadly humans are capable of both the best and worst things possible. So a hero that doesn't hesitate to kill for example is seen as more realistic than someone who avoids killing at all costs.
As for villains   they tend to be morally gray characters, with often a dark and tragic past. I do not watch mainstream movies all that much, but a very good example of that is Dracula, in most of his recent movies. In Bram's Stocker's book he is truly evil, but in the Francis Ford Coppola movie he is made to be more human. Doesn't take away all the horrible stuff he did, but his relationship with Mina is very romanticized, and I found myself rooting for him.
The last Dracula movie took it up a notch and made him into a truly  good guy, who cursed himself so he won't give his son away to the Ottomans.

I think people are just tired of cliches in general, they don't want a hero that is very pure and heroic, and they don't want a villain that is purely evil, for the sake of being evil. Though I confess I kinda miss those (both archetypes).


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 14, 2017)

hmmm is this a KCC thread


----------



## Stunna (Feb 14, 2017)

Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> hmmm is this a KCC thread


Where would you put it? This question isn't restricted to film, television, literature, the stage, etc.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 14, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> heroes who were undisputably good (such as Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and so forth).


Also, let's not get crazy by labeling people as "indisputably" good or evil.

Except for Mr. Rogers ofc


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 14, 2017)

Stunna said:


> Where would you put it? This question isn't restricted to film, television, literature, the stage, etc.



philosophical forum

Reactions: Agree 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Drake (Feb 14, 2017)

Purely good characters and characters who are evil for no reason are incredibly boring and one-dimensional. Morally gray characters are much more interesting because at times you like them and at times you hate them, and this confusion is what makes them good characters. Any great work of fiction should always make you think once you finish it, but if a work of fiction only has purely good and purely evil characters, nobody will care about them when the movie/book/show ends because there is nothing more to think about... The good guy should win and the bad guy should lose, and that's it.

Also, just a side note, the people you mentioned in the OP aren't indisputably good or indisputably evil. Almost nobody in real life is like that.


----------



## Tiger (Feb 14, 2017)

Someone also mentioned one-dimensional characters are boring, so I'll just add that they're also very unrealistic.

They're not relatable, and they very rarely exist.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Stunna (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm a big fan of them when done right, personally. I'm a sucker for boy scout characters, and villains who are sadistically evil for evil's sake can be a lot of fun (like the Emperor in _Star Wars._)


----------



## Tiger (Feb 14, 2017)

But that's why Vader was always far more popular than Sidious. 

Conflicted evil always attracts better than pure evil.

I love a great bad guy, but even Johan Liebert had more layers than just 'pure evil'.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Stunna (Feb 14, 2017)

Eh, I'm not making a judgment whether Sidious > Vader, or Pure Evil > Conflicted Evil.

I'm just saying that Pure Evil isn't always bad, and can definitely work. Especially when there's multiple villains like in _Star Wars_, where you can have the best of both worlds. Or _Avatar: The Last Airbender _(Ozai and Azula.)


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 14, 2017)

~M~ said:


> Pure good and evil are absolutely archaic relics of a bygone era, no one could stomach it anymore. A pure good character is a Mary Sue, someone no one can be immersed in. Those times are dead no one sees themself like that anymore.





NoticemeEscanorsenpai said:


> I think the tendency of truly heroic heroes who don't do harm is some form of continuation of the knight is shining armor trope. Of course real knights often didn't go by their own code of honor. And that is pretty much an outdated vision of what a hero should be like. *People these days want heroes they can identify with, that feel more human, and sadly humans are capable of both the best and worst things possible.* So a hero that doesn't hesitate to kill for example is seen as more realistic than someone who avoids killing at all costs.
> 
> As for villains   they tend to be morally gray characters, with often a dark and tragic past. I do not watch mainstream movies all that much, but a very good example of that is Dracula, in most of his recent movies. In Bram's Stocker's book he is truly evil, but in the Francis Ford Coppola movie he is made to be more human. Doesn't take away all the horrible stuff he did, but his relationship with Mina is very romanticized, and I found myself rooting for him.
> The last Dracula movie took it up a notch and made him into a truly  good guy, who cursed himself so he won't give his son away to the Ottomans.
> ...





Drake said:


> Purely good characters and characters who are evil for no reason are incredibly boring and one-dimensional. Morally gray characters are much more interesting because at times you like them and at times you hate them, and this confusion is what makes them good characters. Any great work of fiction should always make you think once you finish it, but if a work of fiction only has purely good and purely evil characters, nobody will care about them when the movie/book/show ends because there is nothing more to think about... The good guy should win and the bad guy should lose, and that's it.
> 
> Also, just a side note, the people you mentioned in the OP aren't indisputably good or indisputably evil. Almost nobody in real life is like that.





Law said:


> Someone also mentioned one-dimensional characters are boring, so I'll just add that they're also very unrealistic.
> 
> They're not relatable, and they very rarely exist.



Purely good or evil characters are boring only if they are not well-written: for example, the Joker, in most DC comics stories, is pure evil, but is almost always an entertaining character; Batman is pure good nine times out of ten, and is an extremist only very rarely, but is still an interesting character. In _Star Wars,_ Luke, Obi-Wan, and Yoda are all unquestionably good, while Palpatine is unquestionably evil, but they are all interesting characters, at least they are, in my mind.

In my mind, having ambiguous morality makes it more difficult for the audience to decide whom they support. By having clear distinctions between good and evil, the audience knows whom to support, can like the hero and hate the villain without any doubt or regret, and can feel a sense of victory when the hero wins. However, with no clear distinction, the audience is never certain whom they should support, and may feel regret or guilt when the hero defeats the villain, which is not a good thing, in my mind.



Stunna said:


> I'm just saying that Pure Evil isn't always bad, and can definitely work. Especially when there's multiple villains like in _Star Wars_, where you can have the best of both worlds. Or _Avatar: The Last Airbender _(Ozai and Azula.)



In my mind Ozai is completely evil (which makes me wonder what out-of-universe reason there was to keep him around after his defeat), but Azula is not; she has the chance to redeem herself, and I hope that she does. I was expecting her to redeem herself in _The Search,_ and again in _Smoke and Shadow,_ but she still has not, so, hopefully, she shall redeem herself in the next comic in which she appears.



Lord Waddles - Vanguard of the Azure Feathers said:


> philosophical forum



Yes, this thread definitely belongs in the philosophical forum, but I simply did not think of that when I posted it; would someone please move it, there?


----------



## Mider T (Feb 14, 2017)

Because it sells.  Just look at the Captain America movies.



DemonDragonJ said:


> In my mind, having ambiguous morality makes it more difficult for the audience to decide whom they support. By having clear distinctions between good and evil, the audience knows whom to support, can like the hero and hate the villain without any doubt or regret, and can feel a sense of victory when the hero wins. However, with no clear distinction, the audience is never certain whom they should support, and may feel regret or guilt when the hero defeats the villain, which is not a good thing, in my mind.


Maybe the creator wants to challenge his audience to not see things as so black and white.


----------



## Dayscanor (Feb 14, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> In my mind, having ambiguous morality makes it more difficult for the audience to decide whom they support. By having clear distinctions between good and evil, the audience knows whom to support, can like the hero and hate the villain without any doubt or regret, and can feel a sense of victory when the hero wins. However, with no clear distinction, the audience is never certain whom they should support, and may feel regret or guilt when the hero defeats the villain, which is not a good thing, in my mind.



Isn't that like taking your audience by the hand, and basically force feeding some very cliche notions of good vs evil?And it honestly feels like the author or director is underestimating his audience by having to spell out for them who they should support .
And that's precisely the point, when you use morally grey characters. It becomes more challenging to figure out who is the most dastardly evil between the villain and the hero. And honestly I'd rather be given a choice, and in real life no one is purely good or evil, we're all shades of grey.
Hitler was  a monster sure, but he sure loved his dogs, and was considered an environmentalist, which oddly enough is a very contemporary concern.

My point is, you're bound to find some positive trait to even the worst of the monsters.That's the reality of this world, having purely good or evil people is found only in the Bible, or in Fairy tales.


----------



## Tiger (Feb 15, 2017)

Luke was kind of an asshole, actually. And if you remember, when his uncle was still alive he really wanted to join the academy so he could get off of Tattooine. That would have been an Imperial Academy.

He was imperfect, full of darkness, and still chose to align with good and save the day. That's why people love him. Obi-Wan and Yoda I'll give you. But Mace Windu was part light and part dark, and it made him even more of a badass.

Joker is not 'pure evil', either. He's a psychopath, undoubtedly. But he has more layers than you give him credit for.

Even those who look at things biblically would know Lucifer was God's most cherished and favorite Angel before he fell. Hell isn't feared because Lucifer is evil-- it's because God's presence will never touch you there, and that's the scariest motivation for religious folk.

When you strip away at the layers of history's and pop culture's most infamous 'evil antagonists', they almost all have more to their story than is originally seen...and in order to relate, people yearn for that complexity.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 15, 2017)

Law said:


> But Mace Windu was part light and part *dark*


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 15, 2017)

Mider T said:


> Maybe the creator wants to challenge his audience to not see things as so black and white.





NoticemeEscanorsenpai said:


> Isn't that like taking your audience by the hand, and basically force feeding some very cliche notions of good vs evil?And it honestly feels like the author or director is underestimating his audience by having to spell out for them who they should support .
> And that's precisely the point, when you use morally grey characters. it becomes more challenging to figure out who is the most dastardly evil between the villain and the hero. And honestly I'd rather be given a choice, and in real life no one is purely good or evil, we're all shades of grey.
> Hitler was  a monster sure, but he sure loved his dogs, and was considered an environmentalist, which oddly enough is a very contemporary concern.
> 
> My point is, you're bound to find some positive trait to even the worst of the monsters.That's the reality of this world, having purely good or evil people is found only in the Bible, or in Fairy tales.



I certainly do not wish for an author to need to clearly spell out everything for the audience, but I believe that the author should provide some information to help the audience decide who is good and who is evil, rather than hoping that they shall deduce everything on their own.



Law said:


> Even those who look at things biblically would know Lucifer was God's most cherished and favorite Angel before he fell. Hell isn't feared because Lucifer is evil-- it's because God's presence will never touch you there, and that's the scariest motivation for religious folk.



That is never mentioned in the Bible; the idea that Satan was once an angel named Lucifer originates from sources much later than the Bible. I do not know the exact origin of the character of Lucifer, but, given that his name is Latin, it likely originated from the Roman Empire.

As long as I am discussing that subject, Dante Aligheri's _Divine Comedy_ provided much of the basis of modern Christianity, including the idea that Hell has nine layers, Heaven has seven layers, and that Hell is hot and fiery. The Bible itself never gives a clear description of Heaven and Hell, but it never states that Hell is hot and fiery; the book of Revelation does mention a "lake of fire," but that lake is not Hell.

Also, in the Bible, Satan appears only rarely and kills far fewer people than does God; he (Satan) is more akin to a shady drug dealer on the street who says "try this; you'll like it;" the idea of him being the supreme overlord of evil originated much later, likely with Dante's _Inferno;_ later still, some people have reinterpreted Satan as a sympathetic character, a symbol of rebellion and inspiration for those who dare to oppose the totalitarian authority of the church, most especially the Roman Catholic church.


----------



## Dayscanor (Feb 15, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> I certainly do not wish for an author to need to clearly spell out everything for the audience, but I believe that the author should provide some information to help the audience decide who is good and who is evil, rather than hoping that they shall deduce everything on their own.


Not giving definite clues allows people to question how they perceive things, and just put themselves in place of said character, and whether they would truly make the same choices, or take a different path. It provides a more personal, and overall more enriching experience, than having things so clear cut from the start.

I guess some might not be fond of that because they're not comfortable with the idea that they might like the villain, or conversly they might find the hero to be too extreme, but I think that it is more rewarding to figure out things on our own, than have the author tells us basically who to support. Who knows, you might learn a few things about yourself that you didn't know?

I find myself liking villains more than heroes most of the time, granted when they're more in that morally grey area. I even like Hannibal of all people. Does that make me a bad person? Not sure, because I also felt sorry for Will Graham, for having been manipulated by the "bad guy".And I genuinely wanted him to not be used by him anymore. In the end I like both characters, and as it turns out they have quite a few similarities despite being opposed to each other.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 16, 2017)

Ideologically you seem in disagreement with the current cultural climate of beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that but you have to therefore recognize your values in ideology won't be reflected in said culture. 


What we as a society understand is different than what you believe or idealize. Such has been true for countless people in time immemorial. One can't just sit wondering "why?", though, if one thinks a change should be made, ask "how?"


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 16, 2017)

It seems that I now need to ask: "Why is moral ambiguity so popular in the media recently?" What, exactly, has changed in our culture and society so that most stories no longer have clear distinctions between good and evil?


----------



## Tiger (Feb 16, 2017)

We like things to be realistic. Those hard and strict distinctions between pure good and pure evil aren't realistic. People aren't so black and white.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 16, 2017)

Law said:


> We like things to be realistic. Those hard and strict distinctions between pure good and pure evil aren't realistic. People aren't so black and white.



Many movies are not realistic, including most superhero movies or any other movies with supernatural abilities that are not scientifically-feasible; if audiences can accept characters with super-strength, flight, or even more outrageous powers, why can they not accept characters who are completely good or completely evil?


----------



## Smoke (Feb 16, 2017)

For a long time, you could always spot the bad guys. There was something that gave them away. Maybe they were bald, or had an unevenly sized appendage, or were black, or were deformed. And they were very 1 dimensional. And the hero was the exact opposite. But he too was 1 dimensional. Eventually, people get bored of repetition. 

So they started adding depth to characters. To make them more relate-able. The good guy changed from being Mr. All American Cub Scout, who holds the door for ladies and only has sex in the missionary position, to having darker emotions, and sometimes liking to rim. 

And Villains were given reason. No one is just evil. They got there somehow. So they're given stories and traits, that a normal person can sympathize with.

As the world becomes more complex, so must everything else if it wishes to survive. That includes story protagonists/antagonists.


----------



## ~M~ (Feb 17, 2017)

Believe it or not, part of it is also that both the creators and consumers of today are more cerebral than we used to be. While it's an intertesting thought experiment to suspend one's disbelief of heroes having super powers, it's a decidedly boring and pointless experiment to suspend your disbelief that someone is perfect. The first is harmless is most applications but the second is dysphoric.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (Feb 17, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> It seems that I now need to ask: "Why is moral ambiguity so popular in the media recently?" What, exactly, has changed in our culture and society so that most stories no longer have clear distinctions between good and evil?



Mostly a combination between an evolution of storytelling, better understanding of psychology, and other sociological factors which include but are not limited to: the rise of Hollywood and mass-production of fictional multimedia storytelling, the inception of the Internet and the Information Age, and generally postmodernism surging after the second World War.


----------



## Houka02 (Feb 17, 2017)

Well there is nothing wrong with a bad guy just being a jerk, no real reason it's just how he is or a guy that fallow rules and regulations and seen as a hero whom does the right thing. They are realistic to an extend, I mean people like then do exists but the issues is it just they are too bland now days. While above types of good and bad guys still exist in media they mostly underplayed with more developed characters whom are just more engaging. 

It's fine to have for cartoon or stories that are mostly silly or fun but we live in age where most writer are more include (usually money or popularity) to do what is considered good story (actual depth) so they and up being the norm now. Only problem is that people are now super strict about what they read/see/Play now.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 17, 2017)

Smoke said:


> sometimes liking to rim.


 I have missed you.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 17, 2017)

I can understand, even if I do not like, villains who have sympathetic traits, but why have there been so many heroes recently who are violent and extreme? Heroes must hold themselves to higher moral standards than the villains (or be held to higher standards by other characters), or otherwise they are no better than and no different from the villains against whom they fight.

Actually, I do like some villains who have sympathetic traits, such as Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Azula from _Avatar: the Last Airbender,_ but, in my mind, there must always be at least one villain, preferably the main villain, who is unquestionably and unrelentingly evil, such as Thaons, Ozai, or Emperor Palpatine, as well as at least one hero who is incorrigibly good, to provide the audience with a moral compass against whom they can judge all other characters.


----------



## Shrike (Feb 19, 2017)

It depends which work of fiction and which type in general are you looking at. Archetypal characters are cool if the story is of the same level; as in, cartoonish or fairy tale-like. If you want depth, you go for realism, and if you go for realism you need believable characters. 

Experienced creators find this easy to distinguish, but today's works have many new and inexperienced and hyped up 'artists' and their works can much more easily be jumbled and inconsistent then before. Let me explain: in today's works, be it literature, comic boos, TV shows, movies, video games - creators all borrow ideas from one another, and simply because there are so many types of fiction - that's where you easily get a disconnect in a story. Suppose one writer is a huuuge fan of both Sponge Bob and Dracula - if he cannot control his tone of writing he will easily fall prey to the disconnect I talked about before. And for him to control the information that he himself is hyped about, he needs experience and careful crafting. Hell, manga creators also easily fall for this trap: they want the tension in their works and somebody loses a limb and there is blood and bla bla but they also want the kids to like it so the protagonist comes and saves the day in some bullshit fashion etc.

The point for the writers/artists: stick to the tone and the rules that you have set in your world. Be it fiction or realism, stick to the goddam rules of the world. Even if you established that people can jump like 50ft in the air, that is fine unless, episodes later, you see people flying, instantly breaking the rules you set in the start. Defining the setting, plot and the characters is a priority so you don't get random tone in your work.

The point for the consumer/viewer: respect those who respect you as a customer and keeps his writing/art on a satisfying level.



DemonDragonJ said:


> I can understand, even if I do not like, villains who have sympathetic traits, but why have there been so many heroes recently who are violent and extreme? Heroes must hold themselves to higher moral standards than the villains (or be held to higher standards by other characters), or otherwise they are no better than and no different from the villains against whom they fight.
> 
> Actually, I do like some villains who have sympathetic traits, such as Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Azula from _Avatar: the Last Airbender,_ but, in my mind, there must always be at least one villain, preferably the main villain, who is unquestionably and unrelentingly evil, such as Thaons, Ozai, or Emperor Palpatine, as well as at least one hero who is incorrigibly good, to provide the audience with a moral compass against whom they can judge all other characters.



What you want is an author's guidance. That's alright - a good many people want that today, and at least half of those that suggest that they aren't satisfied with the complexity of the said work, they still want their hand held because they are lazy customers. Sure, they know that the work is mildly shitty, but they want to eat it because it's really easy to do so. They shouldn't be judged either, because we live in an age where you cannot have the time for everything. 
The fact that you want guidance has several roots taking from your persona. 
You might be:
1)Lazy consumer - someone who has little spare time or someone watches/reads/plays too many things to have focus on a single work and think about the story and character arcs in great depth, and even if they do, they like to be hand-held by the author through the story so that they don't have to decide for themselves which deed in the said work of fiction is good/bad or has these or those consequences. Which leads us to...
2)You're insecure in general - there is a field in your life where you feel insecure, and would want nothing more but to be saved - to be given the one and only right answer. That transfers itself over to the works of fiction etc where you really want to be hand-held through the work. A place where it's easy to see right from wrong, black from white. You rather want comfort and you are subconsciously looking for that.
3)You are disinterested to a greater or a lesser extent - as in, you don't care too much about what's really going on in the said work, so you follow it for the hell of it. Maybe you find one character interesting, maybe you simply didn't find anything better to do that day.

Most people fall into at least one of these categories, but they will usually never admit it even to themselves any of this.



DemonDragonJ said:


> Also, in the Bible, Satan appears only rarely and kills far fewer people than does God; he (Satan) is more akin to a shady drug dealer on the street who says "try this; you'll like it;" the idea of him being the supreme overlord of evil originated much later, likely with Dante's _Inferno;_ later still, some people have reinterpreted Satan as a sympathetic character, a symbol of rebellion and inspiration for those who dare to oppose the totalitarian authority of the church, most especially the Roman Catholic church.



What are you talking about 

Dante's Inferno doesn't exist bar as a video game and a movie, Dante wrote the _Divine Comedy_ and the first part of it is called _Inferno_, so you probably got confused there. Also, the idea of Satan being the ruler of demons or lord of this world is from the New Testament, as in it's from the 1 century, and Dante is a poet from the late Middle Ages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 19, 2017)

Shrike said:


> Dante's Inferno doesn't exist bar as a video game and a movie, Dante wrote the _Divine Comedy_ and the first part of it is called _Inferno_, so you probably got confused there. Also, the idea of Satan being the ruler of demons or lord of this world is from the New Testament, as in it's from the 1 century, and Dante is a poet from the late Middle Ages.



First, I was not referring to the video game, I was referring to the original poem written by Dante Alighieri. Second, in what chapter of what book is it stated that Satan is the ruler of the demons?


----------



## Roman (Feb 21, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> and heroes who were undisputably good (such as Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and so forth)



Pisspoor examples tbh tbf fam. Especially Teresa.

But in all seriousness, pure good and pure evil characters have been done a million times, as others have said, so it's hard to make them interesting anymore. However, I feel like the people who're saying they lack depth because of their pure alignments is just an elaborate excuse to say "I've seen this type of character too many times, I wanna see something else" which is understandable. After hearing stories of the same type of character so many times, you start to want for something different. That's where MCs who fall in a moral gray area came in to spice things up a little.

Personally tho, I think it has less to do with the character archetype being boring in and of itself and more to do with the creative thought behind the creation of such a character. If a character is pure good and wants to do good for no real reason, of course he's gonna be boring. On the other hand, if a story successfully explains how the character came to be the way he is and what his motivations are, then depending on how well the story is told and how good the story is, that character becomes interesting.

A great example of this is Helck. He's a character who by D&D standards would be classed as Neutral Good. He's absolutely a good guy with excellent morals, but he finds himself in a world where he came to believe that in order to save the ones he loves, he has to kill them. Over the course of the story, tho, his motivations change as the other characters he meets eventually show him a different path. Through these events and interactions, he grows as a character but maintains his moral code. To me, that's a magnificent example of a purely good guy character archetype.

(do give the manga a read if you haven't yet)


----------



## baconbits (Feb 21, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Second, in what chapter of what book is it stated that Satan is the ruler of the demons?



Revelations 12: 7-9.  Specifically mentions the demons as angels belonging to "the Dragon" and "the Dragon" is later defined to be Satan himself in verse nine.


----------



## Gunners (Feb 22, 2017)

I don't have a problem with those that abide by a strict code but I don't like that it is the standard. For example, it annoyed me when WW received flack for killing ML when any idiot could see she did the fight thing. On the flip side, DD and his conflict with P didn't bother me; the conflict felt personal as opposed to the departure from some all imposing law.


----------



## The Gr8 Destroyer (Feb 22, 2017)

Because they haven't turned my life story into a movie yet.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 24, 2017)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Second, in what chapter of what book is it stated that Satan is the ruler of the demons?


----------

